animals on the ark

quote:

---

Are you telling me that when farm land gets flooded it’s years until anything grows there?

---

When it is flooded for an entire year? Yes.If it wasn't completely torn up, then how could all the fossils have been buried in multiple layers? We don't see a flood debris layer, with everything which died or which was uprooted in the flood in a single layer, so vast quantities of silt and soil meters and meters thick must have been churned around to bury everything so deep. It would take years and years for anything to grow after that kind of disturbance.

Also, a world wide flood would have diffused with the ocean waters, meaning that the water would have a salinity content. Even after teh floods receded, the mud that remained would have a salt content that would make it unusable for plants as a medium to grow in. I am sure you have heard about "salting the earth" of your enemies to destroy their food production? Imagine a global scale of that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
Also, a world wide flood would have diffused with the ocean waters, meaning that the water would have a salinity content. Even after teh floods receded, the mud that remained would have a salt content that would make it unusable for plants as a medium to grow in. I am sure you have heard about "salting the earth" of your enemies to destroy their food production? Imagine a global scale of that.

---

I remember some argument they were using for a young earth a while back about salinity being too low for an old earth, basically they accounted for all possible increases in salinity but ignored all the factors that keep the system in equilibrium...So their answers probably going to be the oceans weren`t saline then as salinity increases by X each year and therefore Y years ago the oceans were fresh water....All of which is wrong as it fails to consider any process by which salt is removed from the oceans.....

i find it amusing how the moment an evolutionist brings up a potent point, the creationists go deafeningly silent.

Guess we aren't getting an answer on this one.

schrafinator:"When it is flooded for an entire year? Yes."
--This greatly depends on composition."If it wasn't completely torn up, then how could all the fossils have been buried in multiple layers? We don't see a flood debris layer, with everything which died or which was uprooted in the flood in a single layer, so vast quantities of silt and soil meters and meters thick must have been churned around to bury everything so deep. It would take years and years for anything to grow after that kind of disturbance."
--There was no 'flood debris layer', almost the whole column is flood originated.Darwin Storm:"Also, a world wide flood would have diffused with the ocean waters, meaning that the water would have a salinity content."
--This would have only happened above midoceanic ridges, subduction zones, and low latitudes, the rest is free for development of a halocline.

quote:

---

The halocline is the depth at which the salinity changes rapidly; it forms the boundary between the two layers.

​

"Salinity." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

---

"Even after teh floods receded, the mud that remained would have a salt content that would make it unusable for plants as a medium to grow in. I am sure you have heard about "salting the earth" of your enemies to destroy their food production? Imagine a global scale of that."
--During the flood subduction would have produced heat that would in-turn warm the oceans and evaporate a very large quantity of it away, also the polar ice caps would have virtually deminished to a cool pool of water, flooding the world and creating a very large halocline at the high latitudes. In other areas where very heavy raining from water vapor injection into the air from oceanic evaporation described above would create a halocline also.Quicksink:"i find it amusing how the moment an evolutionist brings up a potent point, the creationists go deafeningly silent."
--I should hope to see your reply then quicksink, lets keep the arrogance to a minimum.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-09-2002]

actually, tc, i was refering to post on the horses. would you care to give an explanation?

quote:

---

"Even after teh floods receded, the mud that remained would have a salt content that would make it unusable for plants as a medium to grow in. I am sure you have heard about "salting the earth" of your enemies to destroy their food production? Imagine a global scale of that."
--During the flood subduction would have produced heat that would in-turn warm the oceans and evaporate a very large quantity of it away, also the polar ice caps would have virtually deminished to a cool pool of water, flooding the world and creating a very large halocline at the high latitudes. In other areas where very heavy raining from water vapor injection into the air from oceanic evaporation described above would create a halocline also.

---

i will be perfectly honest- i can't participate in a lot of these discussions- i know very little concerning the particulars of science and geologybut tc- it seems to me that you're stumbling on your own feet.i thought there was a nuclear winter during the flood. now i do understand that the heat was coming from undergorund (plate tectonics), but how did the poles melt.if i recall, you said that a nuclear winter would have ensued during the flood that would have explained the ice ages that supposedly occured 30000 or so years ago.maybe i misinterpreted the meaning of the post.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]schrafinator:"When it is flooded for an entire year? Yes."
--This greatly depends on composition.[/QUOTE]Really? How so?

quote:

---

"If it wasn't completely torn up, then how could all the fossils have been buried in multiple layers? We don't see a flood debris layer, with everything which died or which was uprooted in the flood in a single layer, so vast quantities of silt and soil meters and meters thick must have been churned around to bury everything so deep. It would take years and years for anything to grow after that kind of disturbance."
--There was no 'flood debris layer', almost the whole column is flood originated.

---

OK, you missed my point.No, there isn't a flood debris layer, even though this is exactly what every other flood ever recorded and observed has ever done to the debris. Do you think that if you repeat, "almost the whole column is flood originated" enough times that someone will believe you without evidence?So how can anything grow on land which has been mixed and churned so much that animals were buried way down under meters and meters of mixed together soil, subsoil, rock, silt, etc? There is a reason it's called topsoil, TC. Plants pretty much only grow in topsoil, but layer would have been obliterated and mixed completely with everything else....that is, IF all the fossils were buried in one event.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-09-2002]

So, John Paul & TC, what do you have to say about my calculations for the hay and water requirements for just two horses for a year on the Ark?You know, I should also mention that the space needed to store all of that hay would be much greater than the space needed today, because there were no automatic balers back then. Hay was kept loose, rather than compressed in a bale. That's why you see those old barns which have enormous, 3-story tall hay lofts every once in a while. The lofts were so large because all of the hay was stored loose.So, how about it?

quote:
quicksink:
maybe some enlightened one (the all-faithful creationist) could tell us how many species were on the ark, and explain their reasoning...
John Paul:
You do realize there is a book published that answers your questions. It is called Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe.
He puts the total number of ‘invited’ organisms at 15, 754. 7,428 mammals; 4,602 birds and 3,724 reptiles (including dinosaurs). From what the book states the Hebrew terminology in the Genesis account rules out invertebrates having been taken on the Ark. It goes on to say the same holds true for marine and amphibious vertebrates.quicksink:
sorry, but that is ridiculous. after the flood, an astonishing rate of evolution would have been required to bring the world to the ecological diversity of today.John Paul:
Thinking that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes is ridiculous too. But that isn’t stopping people from looking. Also you must remember that all the niches would be wide open and the Creation account does NOT rely on copying errors (i.e. point mutations) to drive the evolutionary process. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Dr. Lee Spetner’s book Not By Chance.
quote:He talks about the bigger animals taken aboard as juveniles, dwarf species and even as eggs.quicksink:
contradiction alert!
you said that animals migrated to the ark... eggs did too? and juveniles would take too long to reproduce once off the ark- most species would have to wait in turkey for a while.John Paul:
What contradiction? Did I say the animals that migrated were the same animals that got on board the Ark? I also stated that Noah could have hired people to collect the animals.
quote:quote:
quicksink:
then they can tell us how the carnivores were fed
John Paul:
How do people feed their cats & dogs? How are the carnivores fed in a zoo? Could be close to the same way that is done.quicksink:
with processed meat- not sure they had that during the bronze age.John Paul:
If you are not sure what Noah had to work with how do you know it couldn’t be done?
quote:quicksink:
how herbivores were fed (man that's a lot of food)John Paul:
Ever see how cows, pigs and horses are fed? How are herbivores fed in a zoo? Could be pretty much the same way.quicksink:
they're fed with hay and other vegetables. These things would have to be on the ship, and that takes a lot of room, not to mention collection.John Paul:
As shown in the numbers I provided there was plenty of space for the animals, food, water , with space to spare.
quote:quicksink:
how the boat stayed afloat in waters that could have overturned cruisse ships
John Paul:
Um, it wasn’t a boat. It was a barge shaped Ark. Flat bottomed and rectangular in shape. According to the study that was done in 1994 by Hong et al. and published in Creation Ex Nihlo Technical Journal 8(1): 26-36, the Ark would not flip and was very seaworthy.quicksink:
ok- could you prove to me that this ark is more stable than a cruise ship?John Paul:
Hong et al. did exactly that in their study.
quote:quicksink:
and how insects, like the fig wasp, that live for 3 days and require the fig fruit of the fig tree to reproduce, survivedJohn Paul:
Please show us the scientific evidence that the fig wasp existed as such before the Flood. Why can’t today’s fig wasp be a descendant of the wasps that survived the Flood? It’s a fig wasp now because it filled that niche that was opened by the Flood and resulting landscape changes.quicksink:
the fig wasp has been found fossilized, although i'm not goiong to go any further in playing your reference game.John Paul:
And that means what? Are you saying a fig wasp couldn’t fossilize in the time between the Flood and when it was found?quicksink:
the fig wasp has special adaptations enabling it to lay eggs in the fig fruit. these adaptations would have taken many thousands of years to develop.John Paul:
Peer-reviewed reference for that claim please (that the adaptations would take thousands of years to develop).quicksink:
and the flood occured roughly 4500 years ago.John Paul:
What if the Flood occurred 9,000 years ago? What is your reference to the Flood occurring roughly 4500 years ago?
quote:quicksink:
how insects like fruit flies and mosquitos, that reproduce unimaginably quickly, were kept from being a monstrous pestJohn Paul:
From the correct reading of Scripture, insects were not invited guests. IOW, they weren’t necessarily on the Ark.quicksink:
be careful. you're venturing into rough waters-
a) insects would not have suvived the floodJohn Paul:
Please provide the peer-reviewed article that would substantiate that claim.quicksink:
b) many insects, like the dragon fly, live for less than a day. Mating would have been impossible on the high seas, and most insects would have quickly gone extinct.John Paul:
Perhaps many did go extinct. Please provide the peer-reviewed reference that shows mating would be impossible on the high seas.
quote:quicksink:
how Noah was able to repopulate the entire planet in 300 yearsJohn Paul:
You do realize the exact date of the Flood is not etched in stone.quicksink:
you're right- it's etched in the bible. most creationists put the flood at about 4300-4600 years ago, during the height of the americas, egyptians, and chinese. right there you run into troubles.John Paul:
Please reference the Bible chapter and verse that gives us the date of the Flood. Most Creationists I talk with don’t put the Flood at about 4300-4600 years ago. Also has it ever occurred to you that the alleged Creationists who posit that time period for the Flood could be wrong?
quote:quicksink:
how he was able to restore all cultures to their pre-flood stateJohn Paul:
What’s your evidence for that?quicksink:
for example- the pyramids were built before the flood (please don't play your refernce card again!). i will give you a reference if you like.John Paul:
Obviously they were built after the Flood. Or can you give us an absolute for certain date of the Flood? If not you have nothing to reference it against.quicksink:
the pyramids would not have survived the flood. they would have been eroded and or covered in sediment.John Paul:
I agree and that is why I infer they were built after the Flood.
quote:quicksink:
how this small population was able to rebuild all citiesJohn Paul:
Evidence of that also.quicksink:
come on. noah and his ancestors would have had to to live in cities. they would have had to rebuild them all over the world.John Paul:
Eventually yes. And this is part of the evidence that leads me to infer the Flood occurred more than 4600 years ago. BTW no one has to live in cities.
quote:quicksink:
how noah and other biblical figures were able to live for 100s of yearsa, despite the finding of the contrary after the examination of mummies
the mayan and egyptian pyramids, the buildings of the chinese dynasty, and, from the site http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/WorldGeography/Greece/Greece.htm
" Greece is one of the oldest civilizations, dating back over 5000 years. "
these buildings were dated with a number of methods.
1. carbon dating
2. tree-ring dating
3. ancient records (geneolgy, refernces to lunar eclipses and the like)
all of these corroborate one another. basically, they give roughly the same day. [quote] quicksink:
there are more... maybe you could quote me and then answer each question one by one... answer each one... and perhaps you could give a link or two to back up your claims...John Paul:
The pyramids were dated by tree rings? Wow. How was that done? I’ve climbed Khufu (that’s the biggest of the 3 on the Giza plateau). and didn’t see any trees around. Also the oldest tree is 4400-4600 years old.John Paul:
Actually all you have to do is read the book I mentioned earlier. Then if you have issues with it at least we will have something to debate.
Here are some of the numbers (from the book) of the Ark’s contents:
Empty Ark- 4,000 tons (all the pens, support beams, etc.); biomass at the start of the Flood- 111 tons; biomass at the end of the Flood- 411 tons; food at the start of the Flood- 2,500 tons; water at the start of the Flood- 4,070 tons. According to the study by Hong et al., the spare mass would be 6,000 tons.
One more thing- I am neither a Christian nor a fundamentalist, yet I am a Creationist. As a matter of fact I know many Muslims, Jewish people, Hindus and Buddhists that are also Creationists. That shoots down one of your claims in another thread (that Creationists were Christians).quicksink:
so wait, you believe that the bible, which is a christian book, is a historical reference.John Paul:
First the Genesis account is in the Old Testament which is the Torah for Judaism. Also The split in Muslim/ Judeo-Christian beliefs occurs after Abraham, so the Genesis account is OK for Muslims too. Also the Bible is a collection of books. If you had done your homework you would have known that.But yes, I believe the books in the Bible that were meant to be historical accounts are just that.quicksink:
yet you are not a christian. i believe a non-christian creationist is an oxymoron.John Paul:
It doesn’t matter to me what you believe, I know better.quicksink:
and give me some names of non-christian creationists.John Paul:
Lee Spetner- Jewish and author of Not By Chance; Harun Yahya is a prominent Turkish Muslim author, who has penned more than 150 books over the last two decades. His main focus has been the refutation of Darwinism and materialism, two modern myths which are imposed to conceal the fact of Creation, a truth both revealed in the Bible and the Koran. Mr. Yahya believes that Christians and Muslims should cooperate in many matters, including the unveiling of the truth about origins. His works have inspired the studies of the unofficial Turkish Science Research Foundation (SRF), to which Science magazine (in its issue of 18 May 2001) refers as one of the world’s strongest anti-evolution movements outside of North America. Harun Yahya lives in Istanbul, Turkey. (taken from the True Origins website).OK there are two names and you can add mine to that list. If you want more you are going to have to do the research. But it should be obvious that the Genesis account is accepted by Jewish people, Muslims and Christians.I also work with Hindus and Buddhists who believe the evidence points to a Special Creation. Their disagreement comes with the who or what Created.Either you are going to read the book I mentioned or not. You are not the first person to have these questions and a Creationist has taken the time to answer them. The choice is yours, remain ignorant or do some research.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
i find it amusing how the moment an evolutionist brings up a potent point, the creationists go deafeningly silent.

---

John Paul:
Sorry quicksink, I have a life and this debate is of low priority for me. A book has been written that covers everything you ask pertaining to the Flood and the Ark. If you are really interested you will find a copy and read it.------------------
John Paul

Schrafinator:
So how can anything grow on land which has been mixed and churned so much that animals were buried way down under meters and meters of mixed together soil, subsoil, rock, silt, etc? There is a reason it's called topsoil, TC. Plants pretty much only grow in topsoil, but layer would have been obliterated and mixed completely with everything else.John Paul:
Actually the sedmiments would have been hydrolically(sp?) sorted. That has been observed, tested, repeated and verified.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
(BTW, pigs aren't herbivores. They are omnivores and have digestive systems very similar to ours)

​

OK, here is something I have intimate knowledge of; feeding horses.

​

Let's assume that there were only two horses on the Ark.

​

Let us also assume that they were of average size and were relatively easy keepers.

​

Let us ignore the fact that keeping a horse standing still in a small stall for a year would be quite dangerous to it's health, as they need to move around to keep their guts working properly.

​

Let us also ignore the muscle atrophy and depression and boredome which would also have detrimental effects.

​

Let us also assume that we would not feed these horses grain, because anyone who feeds horses knows that confining a horse and feeding it lots of grain (high-powered) food is a prescription for life-threatening health problems (colic) and excitability and unruliness. Letting the horse roam on several acres (at least) of land and feeding it hay and grass (low-powered) food generally results in a much more sane, tractable, placid horse.

​

Now that we have determined that Noah would need to take on a lot of hay to feed these horses, let's see if we can figure out how much these two horses would need.

​

Well, if we are talking about a sedentary horse, and just wanting to get it to survive, not necessarily keeping it in good weight, I estimate, very conservatively, that you could get away with feeding the horses 15 pounds of hay a day, each. A bale of hay is something like 30 pounds.

​

This means that Noah, just to feed two horses and no other herbivores on the Ark, would need nearly 11,000 pounds of hay for 365 days.

​

Of course, this doesn't even account for the fresh water that would have to be stowed on board, as nobody could drink sea water and they couldn't collect enough rain in 40 days and 40 nights to last them the other 325 days.

​

Horses drink about 6-10 gallons of water a day, so this makes the two horses' minimum fresh water requirements for the year at 4,380 gallons.

​

OK, so perhaps you want to explain all of these logistical problems away with miracles and "Godidit", which is fine if you want to believe that, but then we have left science and reason in favor of faith and the supernatural. Therefore, I have no compelling reason to believe in this story on rational grounds.

---

John Paul:
As pointed out in my first post there was plenty of room in the Ark to take the animals out for a walk if necessary.The food was started at 2,500 tons and the water at 4,070 tons. On page 19 of the book Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study it breaks it down.settled barn-dried hay- 21,800 cubic meterslightly-compressed hay pellet- 7,060 cubic metersdoubly-compressed hay- 5,410 cubic meterspellted horse food and pellted cattle food- 3,030 cubic metersdried fruits- 2,930 cubic meters.fresh meat- 6,633 cubic metersdried meat(not compressed)- 3,980 cubic metersdried meat (compressed)- 1,923 cubic metersdried fish- 12,800 cubic metersAre any of your numbers for feeding horses anywhere in literature? The book I mention is fully referenced, that is why I ask. Did you take into consideration that the horses could have been ponies?------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

Are any of your numbers for feeding horses anywhere in literature? The book I mention is fully referenced, that is why I ask. Did you take into consideration that the horses could have been ponies?

​

---

Or Hyracotherium? But aren't there horse fossils allegedly laid down in the flood? So, they would be MODERN horses, not ponies. This then begs the question that Hyracotherium & friends would have to be kept AS WELL, since mammals were on board.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.