Old Topic Revisited - Food Storage on the Ark

[Joman]

It is unreasonable for evolutionists to claim that God is not allowed to use his knowledge, wisdom and power to provide a scientific answer to the needs and requirements that afforded the crew and cargo of the ark an opprotunity to survive the flood that God brought upon the face of the whole earth. It is reasonable within the framework of Christian faith to expect God to do his part. So, it is God that brought the creatures to Noah. It is God that designed the ark for bouyancy, capacity, and other design stipulations that made survival of a world wide flood possible. One can see that the flood was not designed for a local flood by the great size of the ark. For example, it is clear that the ark was a stable vessel since its measure insured that it would always ride more than one wave as do oil tankers. I have noted that God tends to work within the natural laws he has instituted when performing such feats. But, the miraculous is unavoidable. If God did nothing miraculous then the unbelievers would say he mustn't be God since he doesn't do anything God like. If he does a miraculous thing (as mankind views it) then he is accused of cheating (which is not true since he is God and can do as he pleases).
The evolutionists cannot prove experimentally that macroevolution occurs for the very same reason that a creationist cannot experimentally prove that God created all things within six days and about six thousand years ago. Neither hypothesis is available for experimentation as is the requirement for scientific theory validation.

Hibernation is a scientifically reasonable means of achieving survival and operability of the ark enviroment.

Joman.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Hibernation is a scientifically reasonable means of achieving survival and operability of the ark enviroment.

God supernaturally forcing otherwise non-hibernating animals to hibernate is not "scientifically reasonable."

 

[Opethian]

It seems none of the YECs on this forum are monotheistic, since they all need a massive amount of Deus Ex Machina's to support their belief in their other god.
Just give up on trying to find any real arguments and stick with "God made it possible" or something. At least that way you admit you have no clue on what you're talking about.

 

[llDayo]

It is unreasonable for evolutionists to claim that God is not allowed to use his knowledge, wisdom and power to provide a scientific answer to the needs and requirements that afforded the crew and cargo of the ark an opprotunity to survive the flood that God brought upon the face of the whole earth.

No one's saying he is not allowed to do this. The evidence shows that, according to the dimensions in the Bible of the ark and the amount of people aboard it, it'd be impossible without invoking miracles. The problem though is that science cannot test for miracles yet creationists try to solve the problems of the flood through science. If you want to claim miracles helped Noah achieve survivability with all of these animals then go ahead. Resorting to science will not work.

It is reasonable within the framework of Christian faith to expect God to do his part. So, it is God that brought the creatures to Noah. It is God that designed the ark for bouyancy, capacity, and other design stipulations that made survival of a world wide flood possible. One can see that the flood was not designed for a local flood by the great size of the ark.

It's already been shown that the ark couldn't survive in the horrible conditions nor could the animals fit or survive in such cramped quarters without invoking some significant miracles.

For example, it is clear that the ark was a stable vessel since its measure insured that it would always ride more than one wave as do oil tankers.

Oil tankers have broken in half in weather most likely less disastrous than the ark would be in, and they're not held together with wood.

I have noted that God tends to work within the natural laws he has instituted when performing such feats. But, the miraculous is unavoidable. If God did nothing miraculous then the unbelievers would say he mustn't be God since he doesn't do anything God like.

I thought God wasn't supposed to be required to show proof of his existence (hence the word 'faith')? I've personally never seen anything miraculous.

If he does a miraculous thing (as mankind views it) then he is accused of cheating (which is not true since he is God and can do as he pleases).

Who has ever claimed this?

The evolutionists cannot prove experimentally that macroevolution occurs

In which enormous amounts of evidence show it to have happened, but whatever.

for the very same reason that a creationist cannot experimentally prove that God created all things within six days and about six thousand years ago.

Because miracles can't be tested through science. You rely on faith, something not everyone is willing to do.

Neither hypothesis is available for experimentation as is the requirement for scientific theory validation.

Simply looking at DNA evidence shows that evolution has taken place.

Hibernation is a scientifically reasonable means of achieving survival and operability of the ark enviroment.

How long do you think most of these animals could survive without eating, even if they're sleeping the entire time? Bears wake up pretty hungry and much lighter after a few months. Squirrels store food up for the winter so they don't starve. How would these two creatures make it through more than a year without eating?

Joman.[/QUOTE]

 

[z3ro]

Hibernation is a scientifically reasonable means of achieving survival and operability of the ark enviroment.

Please address my post re: hibernation in animals that otherwise do not hibernate. Example will be needed, because this does not normally occur in nature.

 

[TheBear]

Hibernation is a scientifically reasonable means of achieving survival and operability of the ark enviroment.

That's not 'scientifically reasonable'. It's wishful thinking. It's grabbing at straws. It's frantic scrambling to fill the gaps. It's a desperate attempt to explain away some serious problems with the flood story. Because for you, the flood story has to be true and literal.

That's what's really going on here. Nothing more.

 

[Timmothy]

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?

In my opinion all noah would of needed would of been straw, fish and certain vegetables for the animals. And that wouldn't take much space at all. Noah was only on the boat for 40 days and 40 nights, thats only little over a month. Thats not long at all. Plus Noah had a lot of time to get food supplys ready for the flood.

 

[MartinM]

In my opinion all noah would of needed would of been straw, fish and certain vegetables for the animals. And that wouldn't take much space at all. Noah was only on the boat for 40 days and 40 nights, thats only little over a month. Thats not long at all. Plus Noah had a lot of time to get food supplys ready for the flood.

In other words, you have no idea, but you're going to believe it anyway.

And no, Noah was not on the boat for only 40 days and nights. That's how long the rain was supposed to have lasted. Noah didn't find dry land for quite a while after that.

 

[Tenka]

In my opinion all noah would of needed would of been straw, fish and certain vegetables for the animals. And that wouldn't take much space at all.

How many animals do you think would have been on board?

 

[Timmothy]

In other words, you have no idea, but you're going to believe it anyway.

And no, Noah was not on the boat for only 40 days and nights. That's how long the rain was supposed to have lasted. Noah didn't find dry land for quite a while after that.

so while it rained he sat outside and looked at the boat. Why is it so hard to believe that a man built a boat to store animals in. Vikings built boats, they were at sea more than one month at a time.

 

[z3ro]

In my opinion all noah would of needed would of been straw, fish and certain vegetables for the animals. And that wouldn't take much space at all. Noah was only on the boat for 40 days and 40 nights, thats only little over a month. Thats not long at all. Plus Noah had a lot of time to get food supplys ready for the flood.

Do you have any idea how much straw animals go through in a day? It's quite a bit more than you might expect. And you can't even use averages here; the biggest animals eat a lot, and you have to account for that.

 

[Timmothy]

How many animals do you think would have been on board?

You know that is a good question. I cant answer that. I would say lions, goats, rabbits, tigers, rhinos, horses, cows, squirrels, Deer, really any kind of land zoo animal. as for the Fish and stuff or like water animals none of course. They would of been able to surive on there own in the flood. But that is a good question.

 

[MartinM]

so while it rained he sat outside and looked at the boat. Why is it so hard to believe that a man built a boat to store animals in. Vikings built boats, they were at sea more than one month at a time.

Nobody has ever built a wooden boat of the size the Ark was supposed to have been. Even a boat of that size is not big enough for the job. Nor could it have survived the flood.

Other than that, the total absence of evidence for a global flood, and the mountains of evidence against such an occurance; hey, no reason.

 

[Joman]

No one's saying he is not allowed to do this. The evidence shows that, according to the dimensions in the Bible of the ark and the amount of people aboard it, it'd be impossible without invoking miracles.

Depends on what you call a miracle. Would you think it miraculous that God talked to a man called Noah audibly? There isn't any scientific fact that makes the flood story unbelievable. If you think so, please state one for debate.

The problem though is that science cannot test for miracles yet creationists try to solve the problems of the flood through science.

Not true of this creationist as you insinuate.
The problem you state has already been noted and as I already told you the evolutionists are in the very same boat of the untestability of macroevolution.

If you want to claim miracles helped Noah achieve survivability with all of these animals then go ahead.

Thanks.

Resorting to science will not work.

Untrue.

It's already been shown that the ark couldn't survive in the horrible conditions nor could the animals fit or survive in such cramped quarters without invoking some significant miracles.

Untrue. State your favorite scientific objection.

Oil tankers have broken in half in weather most likely less disastrous than the ark would be in, and they're not held together with wood.

The ark didn't break up. God's a much better designer isn't he? Your analogy is useless due to factors not applicable to the ark. The weight of an oil tanker far exeeds the weight of the ark. And, the facts concerning the break up is unknown to me.

I thought God wasn't supposed to be required to show proof of his existence (hence the word 'faith')? I've personally never seen anything miraculous.

God cannot be required to do anything contrary to his own desires. It is true that God demands faith of all men. But, miracles do occur. The miraculous occurs mostly for them who believe God and do not depend on seeing a miracle upon which to attempt to establish viable faith in God. There are exceptions however. I have seen miracles occur and I'm aware of the testimony of others.

In which enormous amounts of evidence show it to have happened, but whatever.

This response concerning the experimental untestability macroevolution is useless. The "whatever" is proof of your admission. The word "enormous" is supposed to add tremendous weight to your statement I guess.

Because miracles can't be tested through science. You rely on faith, something not everyone is willing to do.

Everyone is required to use faith. The evolutionist often times denies the use of faith. But, as I have shown...macroevolution requires faith scince no experimental testing is available.

Simply looking at DNA evidence shows that evolution has taken place.

Untrue. The knowledge base concerning DNA is very small and the evolutionists merely jumps to conclusions that support his notions before enough data is collected and openly discussed to insure correctness. This has always been the way of biased men in science.

How long do you think most of these animals could survive without eating, even if they're sleeping the entire time?

Depends upon the depth of their hibernation and the amount of fat storage they accumulated before boarding the ark. and, as to whether they woke for short periods of resustenation.

Bears wake up pretty hungry and much lighter after a few months.

True. But, not specifically applicable to the problem at hand.

How would these two creatures make it through more than a year without eating?

By a appropriate decrease in metabolism rates.

Joman.

 

[z3ro]

so while it rained he sat outside and looked at the boat. Why is it so hard to believe that a man built a boat to store animals in. Vikings built boats, they were at sea more than one month at a time.

Vikings built boats to transport people and goods, not floating zoos. Do you have any idea how hard it is to run a zoo today, with a well trained staff and ideal conditions? It would be impossible to do on the high seas in the middle of the greatest storm ever.

 

[Joman]

Please address my post re: hibernation in animals that otherwise do not hibernate. Example will be needed, because this does not normally occur in nature.

There is recently attained experimentaly achieved hibernation in numerous creatures not suspected to have the ability to hibernate. You can find it for yourself on the net. If you fail I will help you. There is mention of it on some of the posts on this web site.

Joman.

 

[Tenka]

You know that is a good question. I cant answer that. I would say lions, goats, rabbits, tigers, rhinos, horses, cows, squirrels, Deer, really any kind of land zoo animal.

I mean numbers, 100? 1000? 10'000? 1'000'000?

There are millions of species of animals and the fewer you take on board the faster you have to make hyper-evolution work post-flood to regain those lost species.

as for the Fish and stuff or like water animals none of course. They would of been able to surive on there own in the flood.

No, they would certainly all die, including all corals.

Water isn't water, most fish are very sensitive to salinity, temperature, pressure(depth), light, turbidity etc the flood would have totally devastated all habitats giving fish no chance at all.

 

[Timmothy]

Nobody has ever built a wooden boat of the size the Ark was supposed to have been. Even a boat of that size is not big enough for the job. Nor could it have survived the flood.

Other than that, the total absence of evidence for a global flood, and the mountains of evidence against such an occurance; hey, no reason.

The boat was only built to last the flood. Then it was retired afterwards. Iam not a boat expert at all, but wood floats. How do you know it isnt big enough for the test. Science hasnt even tried to make a boat like that. This is just my opinion though. This is just what I believe

 

[z3ro]

You know that is a good question. I cant answer that. I would say lions, goats, rabbits, tigers, rhinos, horses, cows, squirrels, Deer, really any kind of land zoo animal. as for the Fish and stuff or like water animals none of course. They would of been able to surive on there own in the flood. But that is a good question.

Fish and stuff would not be able to survive outside the flood. Salt water fish cannot survive in fresh water, and vice versa. Different fish require different water conditions, different phs, different densities. It's not all the same once your wet, however much you wish it was.

Oh, and as far as any kind of zoo animal; there are thousands of species represented in zoos across the world. Alot more than you probably realize. If you totalled them all up, I'd bet you'd reach over 100,000 easy. Not even close to even the highest yec estimate.

 

[z3ro]

The boat was only built to last the flood. Then it was retired afterwards. Iam not a boat expert at all, but wood floats. How do you know it isnt big enough for the test. Science hasnt even tried to make a boat like that. This is just my opinion though. This is just what I believe

Yes it has; why do you think the shipping industry switched to steel, for fun? They switched because wooden boats can't be made much over 300 feet; too much stress on the structure. The ark would have been substantially longer, and made by people without the benefits of steel reinforcing and modern water pump equipment.