Old Topic Revisited - Food Storage on the Ark

WAB · Jan 8, 2006

To: Frumious Bandersnatch and BeamMeUpScotty... will post a link by several EVO's done on Der Spiegel that if taken in context may alter your opinions.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,393746,00.html

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jan 9, 2006

WAB said:
To: Frumious Bandersnatch and BeamMeUpScotty... will post a link by several EVO's done on Der Spiegel that if taken in context may alter your opinions.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,393746,00.html

You are committing one of YECs favorite fallacies the fallacy of hasty generalization. The fact that are a some mammals that reduce their metabolism under some very specific conditions usually involving cold, does not mean that enough mammals could have gone into "hibernation" on this big boat to have made it possible for 8 people to care for them during a year long ride. The story is also very speculative and of course this is only one of many Falsifications of the Worldwide flood.

The question could answered though. Just build a huge wooden 3 story boat, fill it with 16,000 animals of 8,000 different genera as Woody proposes were on the ark and see how long 8 people can for them without electricity or any other modern conveniences. I won't even insist that the boat be tossing around on a global ocean during a flood that was supposedly rearranging all the world's geology or that you dump water on the boat continously for 40 days and 40 nights. Of course you couldn't actually do this because no modern zoo even with modern equipment and hundreds of staff members has nearly that many different species of animals and the SPCA would be after you very shortly as the animals would start suffering and begin to die off in large numbers pretty quickly.

F.B.

Opethian · Jan 9, 2006

Actually it seems Noah only took land animals on the ark. In Zoos all around America animals that came from many different environments live in the same place, i.e. New York. Granted various measures are taken to make the animals comfortable in New York, instead of say, Africa, but the idea doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility. The animals were only together in the Ark for approximately a year.

Which land animals or bacteria in specific do you think would cause a problem?

Yes, in zoos it is possible in this day and age, since we now have technology that can provide it. And even today it is limited to a certain range of animals. For this to be able for all the land animals on this earth, you would need an incredible array of facilities, and this would simply be impossible. And as I said, how are they going to take the bacteria? For an example of a bacterial species that wouldn't have survived: Sulfolobus solfataricus:a hyperthermophilic aerobic crenarchaeote that inhabits acidic terrestrial hot springs. A global flood would have destroyed this type of habitat ( acid, extremely hot springs with oxygen supply ), and the bacteria would have been extinct. The only places where it could have survived would be springs the flood wouldn't be able to reach, deep into the earth. But even if that would be possible ( I doubt it would be possible for them to have an adequate supply of oxygen in those conditions ), we wouldn't have any of the bacteria on the earth's surface anymore, would we?

Tenka · Jan 9, 2006

I think the best bet is still to call on miraculous hyper-evolution to reestablish the millions of species we have today from the 3 species that would have been able to survive -providing that the boat itself was held together with magic- such a journey; rats, cockroaches and defense attorneys.

PrincetonGuy · Jan 9, 2006

RightWingGirl said:
Hmmm...Interesting! Could you give me some links?

No, I did not get the information off of the internet but from university classrooms and libraries.

RightWingGirl said:
HAve you read my post on page 1 of caculations of the number of animals needed on the

RightWingGirl said:
Ark? Any comments, problems, or questions?

Yes, I did read your post on page one. It sounds to me as though it came from the deliberate misinformation that is routinely disseminated by Answers in Genesis. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of biology knows for an established fact that the genetic information presently in existence would have been lost during the flood unless ALL of the necessary plants and animals containing this genetic information were aboard the Ark and survived long enough to repopulate themselves. The only exception to this would be miscellaneous recent mutations, the vast majority of which were harmful.

The number of kinds of animals required would have been, at the VERY MINIMUM, in the hundreds of thousands. The number of kinds of plants required would have been in the thousands because thousands of kinds of plants can only be propagated vegetatively (that is, they never produce viable seeds).

And of course any school boy who has ever attempted to keep a salt water aquarium knows how sensitive salt water fish are to changes in the chemistry of the water that they live in. Therefore, the fish in the oceans would have died during the flood, that is, except for those that were brought aboard the Ark and kept in aquariums using highly sophisticated filtering and aeration equipment and a large staff of technicians to maintain the necessary water chemistry. And of course the batteries necessary to operate this highly sophisticated filtering and aeration equipment would weigh very much more than the amount of water displaced by the Ark. In other words, the weight of the batteries would have caused the Ark to sink immediately.

Needless to say, however, a much bigger problem would have been the weight of water in the aquariumsit would have been many thousands of times heavier than the amount of water displaced by the Ark.

The story of Noahs Ark could not possibly be an accurate account of an historic event, and everyone who has given any serious thought to the matter knows that for a fact. However, there are some radical fundamentalists who have been deceived into believing that their grossly ridiculous and absurd interpretation of Genesis was given by God Himself. Therefore, they believe that any other interpretations of Genesis makes God to be a liar, and since God cannot lie, their interpretation of Genesis MUST be true and they ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to objectively consider the facts. Satan himself is responsible for this deception as can easily be seen by how voraciously self-proclaimed atheists devour the nonsense of the fundamentalists and most foolishly believe that it is evidence against the Bible and God Himself. God is real and the Bible is true, but all too many people have not bothered to carefully study the Bible, but simply accept the interpretation of it preached by the radical fundamentalist extremists.

PrincetonGuy · Jan 9, 2006

Tenka said:
I think the best bet is still to call on miraculous hyper-evolution to reestablish the millions of species we have today from the 3 species that would have been able to survive -providing that the boat itself was held together with magic- such a journey; rats, cockroaches and defense attorneys.

Indeed, the rate of evolution required to produce hundreds of thousands of species in 5,000 years from less than 40,000 species on the Ark is a rate of macroevolution thousands of times greater than is taught by even the most radical evolutionists. Fundamentalist extremists have shot themselves in the foot so very many time that they no longer hare a leg to stand on.

TheBear · Jan 9, 2006

Does anyone else here support the notion that all species of insects survived in water for almost a year?

Opethian · Jan 10, 2006

Does anyone else here support the notion that all species of insects survived in water for almost a year?

God gave them cute little snorkles to breathe air through! Only, insects breathe air through trachea, so they would have to have many, many little cute snorkles sticking out of every trachea hole in their body.
Still, I say it's possible !!!

Joman · Jan 10, 2006

How much food would Noah have to store on the Ark, in order to feed all those animals, for all that time? And how much space would all that food take up?

Depends on the amount of hibernation.

Joman.

Joman · Jan 10, 2006

The Asian elephant eats around 300kg of fodder per day (see above source), while fully grown African elephants eat up to 200kg of food/day.

Not if they were hibernating.

Now, we know from Gen 6:21 that Noah was commanded to take food for all the animals and his family, thus nullifying a possible miracle explanation for not needing to bring food

We are not told how much food to take nor the extent of feeding required.

Joman.

Tenka · Jan 10, 2006

Joman said:
Depends on the amount of hibernation.

The animals hibernating answer isn't biblical and it isn't natural.
Infact, why do you even say hibernation? Why not call it magic sleepy time, because that's how you wish to use it.

Joman · Jan 10, 2006

Yeah, but most animals do not hibernate. In fact, very few(comparitively)do, leaving most of those animals awake.

This has been shown to likely be do to the lack of need to hibernate. It has been determined that many animals will hibernate when put into a stressful enviroment that demands it as a viable soluation. I would think evolutionists would consider such a mechanism as a very useful survival of the fittest strategy that natural selection would retain in the gene pool of many creatures that are in the common lineage of a ancestor that had obtained such ability.

Joman.

Joman · Jan 10, 2006

The animals hibernating answer isn't biblical and it isn't natural.
Why do you even say hibernation? Why not call it what it is, magic sleepy time.

Your response is not in accordance with modern science. Typical of evolutionists inability to think objectively.

Joman.

Joman · Jan 10, 2006

Furthermore, if we look at paintings of animals found in the pyramids of Old Kingdom Egypt, the animals look the same as the ones we find along the Nile today and the Old Kingdom is thousands of years old.

You'll never find examples of macroevolution in any historical framework. Not even in rocks. Which is why macroevolution is not falsifiable by experiment given the convenient use of extreme ages of time as a cover story by evolutionists.

Joman.

Joman.

h2whoa · Jan 10, 2006

Joman said:
Your response is not in accordance with modern science. Typical of evolutionists inability to think objectively.

Joman.

It's true though. You are not even talking about hibernation. You are talking about magic sleepy time. Why do literalist apologists insist on trying to make their stance seem reasonable? Just say it's all magic and lets have done with it.

Tenka · Jan 10, 2006

Joman said:
Your response is not in accordance with modern science. Typical of evolutionists inability to think objectively.

You want the unsurmountable problem of stuffing a zoo into a phone box to go away , so you use the term 'hibernation' to describe the magical suspended animation you think you need to solve your problem.

There is thinking objectively and there is inventing magic reliant answers to hang onto literally impossible mythology as history.

Edx · Jan 10, 2006

Joman said:
. Typical of evolutionists inability to think objectively..

z3ro · Jan 10, 2006

Joman said:
This has been shown to likely be do to the lack of need to hibernate. It has been determined that many animals will hibernate when put into a stressful enviroment that demands it as a viable soluation. I would think evolutionists would consider such a mechanism as a very useful survival of the fittest strategy that natural selection would retain in the gene pool of many creatures that are in the common lineage of a ancestor that had obtained such ability.

Joman.

Please, if you are a biologist, provide us with evidence that animals that have previously shown no tendency to hibernate, suddenly going into true hibernation. Because the truth is(and this comes from my zookeeper wife) animals in stressful situations are actually less likely to hibernate. After all, hibernation is a very controlled action with predictable results. With out proper preperation, hibernation doesn't work.

Let me know when you have those examples.

Split Rock · Jan 10, 2006

Joman said:
Split Rock said:

Furthermore, if we look at paintings of animals found in the pyramids of Old Kingdom Egypt, the animals look the same as the ones we find along the Nile today and the Old Kingdom is thousands of years old.

Click to expand...

You'll never find examples of macroevolution in any historical framework. Not even in rocks. Which is why macroevolution is not falsifiable by experiment given the convenient use of extreme ages of time as a cover story by evolutionists.

Joman.

Joman.

Wow... you either completely missed my point, or you purposely took my statement out of context. Which is it?

My point was that if some kind of unknown hyper-evolution is responsible for a lightning fast adaptive radiation of the "kinds" on the ark into all the species that exist today, we would see different animals in these paintings. We would see creatures more like the ancestral "kind", rather than species that exist today, because the pyramids must have been build soon after the Flood (due to their age).

TeddyKGB · Jan 10, 2006

Joman said:
You'll never find examples of macroevolution in any historical framework.

Um, what? The fossil record is virtually nothing but examples of macroevolution. What do you think prompted Gould and Eldredge to propose punctuated equilibria?

Not even in rocks.

Why would rocks macroevolve?

Which is why macroevolution is not falsifiable by experiment given the convenient use of extreme ages of time as a cover story by evolutionists.

Macroevolution is a perspective, a level of abstraction, not a process or theory.

Old Topic Revisited - Food Storage on the Ark

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Big Member

Tenka

Guest

Veteran

Veteran

NON-WOKED

Big Member

Active Member

Active Member

Tenka

Guest

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ace2whoa - resident geneticist

Tenka

Guest

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Conflation of Blathers

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency