Old Topic Revisited - Food Storage on the Ark

[Joman]

Do you have any idea how much straw animals go through in a day?

Do you comprehend the size of the ark? The usefulness of hibernation? The usefulness of choosing young creatures for their smallness? The limited number of species on board?

And you can't even use averages here; the biggest animals eat a lot, and you have to account for that.

It is duly noted. Straw doesn't make for good eating.

Joman.

 

[TheBear]

 

[z3ro]

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.

You're gonna have to induldge me because I'm at work and have very limited access to outside websites(this is the only message board I can post on, for instance).

And I don't want anything drug induced. Of course we can simulate hibernation with drugs(we do it with people all the time). I want it to occur naturally(not neccesarily in nature, but without the aid of drugs).

 

[Timmothy]

I really Dont find it hard to believe that Noah made a boat that size. As for the animals I dont know. I really cant anwser your question. I say he had enough food for the animals to surive. Iam sure they made the food supply last as long as they could.

 

[z3ro]

Do you comprehend the size of the ark? The usefulness of hibernation? The usefulness of choosing young creatures for their smallness? The limited number of species on board?

Let's see; 522 rail cars, not at all(see previous post), not at all(young animals often die before reaching full adulthood), and the fewer in number, the faster we need hyper evolution to work. So which is it, ark and hyperevolution or no ark and no evolution?

 

[Timmothy]

Let's see; 522 rail cars, not at all(see previous post), not at all(young animals often die before reaching full adulthood), and the fewer in number, the faster we need hyper evolution to work. So which is it, ark and hyperevolution or no ark and no evolution?

what do you mean by hyperevolution?

 

[z3ro]

what do you mean by hyperevolution?

Well, look at it like this; if all the species currently alive are onboard the ark, then no evolution is neccesary, they all exist. But if we cut that number, then we need at least some evolution. The more we cut, the more evolution we need.

If the number of species alive today is 2,000,000(making numbers up) and Noah took 1,000,000, that is not as much evolution as if he took 10,000. At such a low number of species, we start moving levels up, past genus, maybe as high as families. And anything crossing a line as high up as family is macroevolution wether you like it or not.

It becomes hyperevolution because of the ridiculous short time frame there is between the flood and today(4,000 to 6,000 years). Evolution normally works over extremely long timescales. With such short time, hyperevolution is the appropriate term.

 

[TheBear]

The usefulness of hibernation?

You keep claiming that these animals hibernated. Either show scientifically, that all animals have the capability to hibernate for up to a year, or withdraw the assertion.

 

[Tenka]

what do you mean by hyperevolution?

In the geological record (ice cores, sediments etc) we see environmental conditions changing, usually this is a slow process and animals gradually adapt (evolve) along with the changing conditions, when conditions change too fast animals might be unable to adapt and will go extinct.
We have biodiversity (all the variations of life) due to all the different conditions that animals have evolved in over long periods. However the ark would never have been able to contain all of these species and for biodiversity to recover post-flood conditions would have had to change at an unimaginable rate (to effect hyper-evolution on the flood survivors) that would certainly cause the mass extinction of all remaining species.
There isn't space to hold all the animals but there isn't time to recover all the lost biodiversity either.

 

[Timmothy]

Well, look at it like this; if all the species currently alive are onboard the ark, then no evolution is neccesary, they all exist. But if we cut that number, then we need at least some evolution. The more we cut, the more evolution we need.

If the number of species alive today is 2,000,000(making numbers up) and Noah took 1,000,000, that is not as much evolution as if he took 10,000. At such a low number of species, we start moving levels up, past genus, maybe as high as families. And anything crossing a line as high up as family is macroevolution wether you like it or not.

It becomes hyperevolution because of the ridiculous short time frame there is between the flood and today(4,000 to 6,000 years). Evolution normally works over extremely long timescales. With such short time, hyperevolution is the appropriate term.

Thats what I thought it meant. Well my anwser is yes there was evolution. Despite all the threads i made saying i dont believe in it. I think there is some evolution now. But God used this tool for his making. I think God made all speices. And every speices has a main speices if that makes sense. Like lions are cusions of tigers and so on. Or man and other races of man are cousins. And where ever these speices wonder they adapt to and change for that evironment. But iam not saying man has a common background of an ape or a monkey. So please dont throw that back at me. Because i just dont believe that.

 

[Timmothy]

In the geological record (ice cores, sediments etc) we see environmental conditions changing, usually this is a slow process and animals gradually adapt (evolve) along with the changing conditions, when conditions change too fast animals might be unable to adapt and will go extinct.
We have biodiversity (all the variations of life) due to all the different conditions that animals have evolved in over long periods. However the ark would never have been able to contain all of these species and for biodiversity to recover post-flood conditions would have had to change at an unimaginable rate (to effect hyper-evolution on the flood survivors) that would certainly cause the mass extinction of all remaining species.
There isn't space to hold all the animals but there isn't time to recover all the lost biodiversity either.

I agree animals do adapt, to the environment they are in. And that would make more sense of Noahs ark. But I dont believe that humans evolved from a different species or share a common ancster of an ape. But yeah I do see what you are saying. also as for biodiversity to recover I dont know that answer, but based on my belief it did recover.

 

[Tenka]

But yeah I do see what you are saying. also as for biodiversity to recover I dont know that answer, but based on my belief it did recover.

Not without God recreating them all over again, thereby nullifying the whole point of the ark in the first place.

 

[Timmothy]

Not without God recreating them all over again, thereby nullifying the whole point of the ark in the first place.

He didnt recreated them over again. The animals lived a regular life after the flood and went on there separte ways, and spread out through the world.

 

[Opethian]

He didnt recreated them over again. The animals lived a regular life after the flood and went on there separte ways, and spread out through the world.

Come on dude get your ignorance nullified. Go buy a biology and geology book and read in them.

 

[Timmothy]

Come on dude get your ignorance nullified. Go buy a biology and geology book and read in them.

here

 

[Opethian]

Well from what you've written it seems you've never read it before...

 

[llDayo]

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.

My definition of a miracle is something that happens without any explanation from the natural world. A fact that makes the flood story unbelievable would be the amount of water needed to cover Mt. Everest. Where did this water go and why didn't it leave evidence that it ever existed?

Not true of this creationist as you insinuate.

Yet YOU claimed "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."
So where's the scientific answer?

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.

Macroevolution is just a description of many evolutionary changes over a period of time that results in a "new" organism. Since evolution does occur and has been observed than logically "macroevolution" would eventually occur. This has been verified by fossil evidence as having happened in the past.

Untrue.

Miracles cannot be scientifically observed.

Untrue. State your favorite scientific objection.

450x75x45 feet is about the dimensions of the ark, correct? That's 1,518,750 cubic feet. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030526103731.htm states there are estimated to be between 2-100 million species worldwide (note that this doesn't seem to include extinct animals). Now, I'll use very conservative figures here and not include walkways, thickness of wood, staircases, food storage, water troughs, sleeping quarters for the humans, or waste removal mechanisms in pens. If I allow for an average of animal size to be 6x6x6 inches (half a foot in each direction) we get 1/2 a cubic foot per animal. Multiply that by 2 (I'll just consider them all unclean to keep figures down) and you get 1 cubic foot of space per pair of animals. Multiply that by 2,000,000 and you've exceeded the total cubic feet the ark equals by almost 500,000! Remember, this doesn't include the things listed above nor does it allow for even AIR TO BREATH. So, show me what I'm doing wrong here since I'm obviously mistaken.

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 didn't say the ark broke up. I said that ships built with much stronger materials and much more reinforcing have done so. And who says God's a better designer? Do you have evidence that he designed anything?

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.

You have evidence for these occurences?

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.

Evidence for species evolution has been posted in these forums numerous times and are very long posts. It's not hard to find.

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.

Theories aren't based on faith, they're derived from observational evidence.

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.

Retroviral insertions would be enough to support the idea of common ancestry and these HAVE been observed. Threads on them are in this very forum.

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.

Their fat storage would have been so great that they would have suffocated under their own weight if they wanted any chance to survive a year without eating.

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

Yes it is. Bears lose between 15-30% of their weight during hibernation and their hibernation period usually isn't longer than 6 months (that I know of). Bears also are capable of storing a lot more fat than most other creatures to survive during this time. How many fat birds have you ever seen?

By a appropriate decrease in metabolism rates.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,393746,00.html
All the animals would still have to wake up from time to time to eat. They can't sleep forever. This article is just a good read and doesn't really prove a point to either side: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,393746,00.html

 

[Timmothy]

Well from what you've written it seems you've never read it before...

Your right i dont know much about it. It is my first class in Geology, and it is my only second week in it. But I can name off alot of minerals for you. Or tell you what the rock cycle does. Or I can tell you how to id different minerals and what kind of test you can do to do so. Like what kind of luster do they have or where are they on the hardness scale. Or what kind of streak they leave. Or wait how about if the mineral is matallic or non matallic. Or if they react to acid. Maybe I could tell you what certain minerals have cleavage, or if they have crystal faces. Iam only on minerals if you cant tell lol sorry but I really dont know much past that. But dont judge some body if you dont know them personally, because the way they type or if you dont agree on what they say. I have had a lot of people poke fun on the way I spell an so on. Last time I checked this wasnt school.

Thanks
Tim

 

[PrincetonGuy]

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.

No, the vast majority of the salt water fish would NOT have been able to survive nor would the large majority of fresh water fish. But don’t take my word for it—buy a ten gallon aquarium, set up it up with salt water fish, and then drain off half of the water and replace it with rain water and see what happens!

Christians need to tell the truth even if they don’t like the truth. The truth has been proven to be that the story of Noah’s Ark is NOT an accurate account of an historic event and Christians who falsely claim that it is bring disgrace to their Savior and the Bible and “prove” to atheist that God and the Bible are nothing but nonsense.

 

[TheBear]

No, the vast majority of the salt water fish would NOT have been able to survive nor would the large majority of fresh water fish. But don’t take my word for it—buy a ten gallon aquarium, set up it up with salt water fish, and then drain off half of the water and replace it with rain water and see what happens!

Christians need to tell the truth even if they don’t like the truth. The truth has been proven to be that the story of Noah’s Ark is NOT an accurate account of an historic event and Christians who falsely claim that it is bring disgrace to their Savior and the Bible and “prove” to atheist that God and the Bible are nothing but nonsense.