When creationists shoot themselves in the foot...

[tas8831]

... but think (and insist) that they have really scored a major victory.

This happens quite a bit, but yesterday, I saw a very nice example of this self-immolation.

A creationist cited another creationist in this forum as 'explaining' that the biblical 'kind' = the reality-based 'genus.'

If this is so, then the creationists have effectively disproved the plausibility of the ark myth.
I read the following on another forum a while back and archived it. Apologies, I did not record the name of the author or the URL, but suffice it to say this is not my own work. I have, however, verified some of the numbers:

A creationist wrote the following:
If mammoths were similar to elephants in their eating habits, they were very remarkable beasts. Consider the following facts about modern elephants:

* Spend 16 to 18 hours a day either feeding or moving toward a source of food or water.
* Consume between 130 to 660 pounds of food each day
* Drink between 16 to 40 gallons of water per day.
* Produce between 310 to 400 pounds of dung per day.

I replied:

Since most mammoths were larger than modern elephants, these numbers must have been higher for mammoths!
And yet they were at least 2 of them on the ark.

There are at least 6 recognized species of mammoth - so 12 mammoths.

3 species of Asian elephants - 6 of them.

1 species of African elephant. 2 of them.

There are three genera of mastodon, for the YEC's sake we will say that there were only 1 species of each - so 6 of them.

So, at least 26 elephant-sized or larger mammoth-like creatures on your ark.

Lets take averages from your source -

395 pounds of food for each - 10,270 pounds of food a day. They were on the ark for what - about 370* days? So 3.8 million pounds of food.

28 gallons of water - 269,000 gallons of water. Sure, there are claims that they could have used the rain water, but it still needed to be stored at some point. So lets be generous and say 130,000 gallons of water.

355 pounds of dung each, that is 3.4 million pounds of dung.

A typical bail of hay weighs between 75 and 100 pounds - so at least 38,000 bails of hay. A typical hay bail is 2'x2'x4', so they would take up about 608,000 cubic feet of space. A typical tractor trailer can haul about 4,050 cubic feet of material. So, just for food, just for the identified elephant-like mammals on the ark, 600 year old Noah would have needed the equivalent of 150 tractor trailers worth of food.

Then there is the water. A gallon of water takes up about 0.14 cubic feet of space. 18,200 cubit feet for water - another 4.5 trailers worth.

So... JUST for food and water for the low-end estimates of the total number of mammoth/elephant-like mammals that had to have been on the ark, we need 626,200 cubic feet of space.

YECs claim that the ark's internal volume would have been about 1.5 million cubic feet (this ignores floor decking, internal supports, etc.).


So nearly 41% of the entire internal volume of the ark was used up just for food just for the mammoths and their kine!!!

We still have hippos, horses, camels, bison, titanotheres, dinosaurs, etc...

And I did not even mention the dung problem!​

This was in response to the claim at that site that Kind=Species. Not that it matters - if we include extant and extinct genera, the problem is actually just as bad if not worse for the literalists, as there are a dozen or more distinct genera of Proboscids.

The only ways the creationist can waffle and wiggle their way out of this jam is to 1. allow for 'Kind' to equal multiple taxonomic ranks as needed; 2. hiding behind God magic.

Neither one helps their cause, if their cause is that there is actual evidence for creation and that the creation tall tales are plausible.

CONCLUSION: The Noah's ark story posits an impossibility and is thus false.


Thanks Aman77 and Heissonear for demonstrating the house of cards in a windstorm that creationism is!

I am predicting no relevant or on-topic responses, if any responses at all, from creationists.

*creation.com claims it was 364 days...

 

[pitabread]

Pffft, the solution to all this is simple.

First, the Ark was a space ship. Pre-Flood society was extremely technologically advanced.

Second, the animals taken on the Ark were young, therefore not requiring much space.

Third, the Ark had stasis pods. All the animals would have been kept in stasis eliminating the need for food or waste disposal.

Thus the Noah's Ark scenario is perfectly plausible. Checkmate atheists.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

... but think (and insist) that they have really scored a major victory.

This happens quite a bit, but yesterday, I saw a very nice example of this self-immolation.

A creationist cited another creationist in this forum as 'explaining' that the biblical 'kind' = the reality-based 'genus.'

If this is so, then the creationists have effectively disproved the plausibility of the ark myth.
I read the following on another forum a while back and archived it. Apologies, I did not record the name of the author or the URL, but suffice it to say this is not my own work. I have, however, verified some of the numbers:

A creationist wrote the following:
If mammoths were similar to elephants in their eating habits, they were very remarkable beasts. Consider the following facts about modern elephants:

* Spend 16 to 18 hours a day either feeding or moving toward a source of food or water.
* Consume between 130 to 660 pounds of food each day
* Drink between 16 to 40 gallons of water per day.
* Produce between 310 to 400 pounds of dung per day.

I replied:

Since most mammoths were larger than modern elephants, these numbers must have been higher for mammoths!
And yet they were at least 2 of them on the ark.

There are at least 6 recognized species of mammoth - so 12 mammoths.

3 species of Asian elephants - 6 of them.

1 species of African elephant. 2 of them.

There are three genera of mastodon, for the YEC's sake we will say that there were only 1 species of each - so 6 of them.

So, at least 26 elephant-sized or larger mammoth-like creatures on your ark.

Lets take averages from your source -

395 pounds of food for each - 10,270 pounds of food a day. They were on the ark for what - about 370* days? So 3.8 million pounds of food.

28 gallons of water - 269,000 gallons of water. Sure, there are claims that they could have used the rain water, but it still needed to be stored at some point. So lets be generous and say 130,000 gallons of water.

355 pounds of dung each, that is 3.4 million pounds of dung.

A typical bail of hay weighs between 75 and 100 pounds - so at least 38,000 bails of hay. A typical hay bail is 2'x2'x4', so they would take up about 608,000 cubic feet of space. A typical tractor trailer can haul about 4,050 cubic feet of material. So, just for food, just for the identified elephant-like mammals on the ark, 600 year old Noah would have needed the equivalent of 150 tractor trailers worth of food.

Then there is the water. A gallon of water takes up about 0.14 cubic feet of space. 18,200 cubit feet for water - another 4.5 trailers worth.

So... JUST for food and water for the low-end estimates of the total number of mammoth/elephant-like mammals that had to have been on the ark, we need 626,200 cubic feet of space.

YECs claim that the ark's internal volume would have been about 1.5 million cubic feet (this ignores floor decking, internal supports, etc.).


So nearly 41% of the entire internal volume of the ark was used up just for food just for the mammoths and their kine!!!

We still have hippos, horses, camels, bison, titanotheres, dinosaurs, etc...

And I did not even mention the dung problem!​

This was in response to the claim at that site that Kind=Species. Not that it matters - if we include extant and extinct genera, the problem is actually just as bad if not worse for the literalists, as there are a dozen or more distinct genera of Proboscids.

The only ways the creationist can waffle and wiggle their way out of this jam is to 1. allow for 'Kind' to equal multiple taxonomic ranks as needed; 2. hiding behind God magic.

Neither one helps their cause, if their cause is that there is actual evidence for creation and that the creation tall tales are plausible.

CONCLUSION: The Noah's ark story posits an impossibility and is thus false.


Thanks Aman77 and Heissonear for demonstrating the house of cards in a windstorm that creationism is!

I am predicting no relevant or on-topic responses, if any responses at all, from creationists.

*creation.com claims it was 364 days...

1. Mammoths are obviously part of the elephant kind, or vice versa.
2. An elephant is simply a wrinkly, hairless mammoth, just as a Shar-Pei is still a dog, albeit an ugly one.
3. Baby mammoths don't eat as much as their full-grown parents - probably Noah took some teenage mammoths with him on the ark.
4. If it was cold - and it likely was on the ark with all that rainfall, some of the beasts might even have gone into a kind of hibernation.
5. There was plenty of water outside of the ark, and mammoths have long trunks from which to sip water.
6. No problem with all the poop - just sweep it into the ocean. Noah had his three sons and their wives to help onboard.

You're welcome.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is hilarious because I'm having trouble distinguishing between people who are serious and people who are just joking.

 

[Dan the deacon]

This is hilarious because I'm having trouble distinguishing between people who are serious and people who are just joking.

And those trying to prove what is not provable. I believe the biblical story. I have no idea if mamothes were extinct at that time and niether does any believing the atheist side.
The Bible says two of each kind not two of every differing types of the same kind. I doubt kangaroos were on the ark as they came from a part of earth not even heard of at that time. Like how would Noah gather such. Who knows if this flood even touched Austrailia. Does that make the story untrue? No. The known world was the world to those on the ark.

 

[tas8831]

I will assume, for olde tymes sake, that this was a serious response...

1. Mammoths are obviously part of the elephant kind, or vice versa.

Great.
You apparently have engaged in #1 and are at odds with Aman and Heisso.

2. An elephant is simply a wrinkly, hairless mammoth, just as a Shar-Pei is still a dog, albeit an ugly one.

And yet they differ in skeletal forms enough to warrant being classified as distinct genera and species.

3. Baby mammoths don't eat as much as their full-grown parents - probably Noah took some teenage mammoths with him on the ark.

Going extra-biblical is an admission of defeat.

4. If it was cold - and it likely was on the ark with all that rainfall, some of the beasts might even have gone into a kind of hibernation.

Mammoths? The creatures that lived above the Arctic Circle in some cases?
Your desperation is showing.

5. There was plenty of water outside of the ark, and mammoths have long trunks from which to sip water.

Salt water? Can you imagine all the dozens of Proboscids converging at the one window in the ark with 65-foot long trunks to sip the sea water....

6. No problem with all the poop - just sweep it into the ocean. Noah had his three sons and their wives to help onboard.

All those millions of pounds, 'swept' by a bunch of centenarians...

You're welcome.

Thanks for the comic relief, though I have no reason to doubt that you were at least partly serious.

 

[pitabread]

The Bible says two of each kind not two of every differing types of the same kind.

The problem is nobody can agree on what a "kind" is.

 

[tas8831]

I believe the biblical story. I have no idea if mamothes were extinct at that time and niether does any believing the atheist side.
The Bible says two of each kind not two of every differing types of the same kind. I doubt kangaroos were on the ark as they came from a part of earth not even heard of at that time. Like how would Noah gather such. Who knows if this flood even touched Austrailia. Does that make the story untrue? No. The known world was the world to those on the ark.

OK, well, as was clear in the OP, I was working from and responding to what two biblical creationists claimed. And you have contradicted the positions of the self-professed "true believers" on here, those biblical literalists that insist that the flood actually was world-wide in scope.
In my experience, you are considered worse of a person than non-believers by such folk.

 

[pitabread]

No problem with all the poop - just sweep it into the ocean.

Ever seen what a Roomba does to poop? Imagine that but a hundred times messier.

 

[Dan the deacon]

The problem is nobody can agree on what a "kind" is.

So are black folk and white folk of differing kinds? I say they are of the same kind. Are also an elephants and African elephants both elephants? Elephant is a kind. Where the come from does not make either not an elephant.

 

[pitabread]

Are also an elephants and African elephants both elephants? Elephant is a kind. Where the come from does not make either not an elephant.

There are other creationists who would disagree with you on this.

 

[Dan the deacon]

There are other creationists who would disagree with you on this.

There are creationist who disagree with everyone. That is their right. I disagree with many people on many biblical questions. That doesn't make me right. It also doesn't make me wrong.

 

[tas8831]

So are black folk and white folk of differing kinds? I say they are of the same kind. Are also an elephants and African elephants both elephants? Elephant is a kind. Where the come from does not make either not an elephant.

You will have to discuss this with your fellow creationists.

Again, I was responding to what 2 creationists wrote on here. If you disagree with them, take it up with them.

 

[pitabread]

There are creationist who disagree with everyone. That is their right. I disagree with many people on many biblical questions. That doesn't make me right. It also doesn't make me wrong.

But it reinforces that "kind" has no consistent definition and arguably no biological relevance.

 

[tas8831]

There are creationist who disagree with everyone. That is their right. I disagree with many people on many biblical questions. That doesn't make me right. It also doesn't make me wrong.

No, but it does show that the "same evidence, different interpretation" slogan that many creationists like to employ as an attack on evolution can also be used against Scripture.

Many years ago, I was told by a creationist that considered herself an expert on the bible (and evolution, of course) that there is no need to "interpret" the bible, a simple "straight forward reading" would show the truth. Then I asked her about Hosea wherein pregnant women are ordered to be ripped up by the jealous God. She told me I wasn't interpreting it the right way...

 

[Aman777]

The problem is nobody can agree on what a "kind" is.

False. I have posted many times that there are only 2 kinds. Temporary and Eternal kinds. His kinds (Jesus) and Their (Trinity) kinds. Only those created eternally by God the Trinity make it to Heaven. Genesis 1:27 Genesis 5:1-2 and John 14:16

 

[pitabread]

False. I have posted many times that there are only 2 kinds.

That's nice. Nobody else agrees with you. Which is my point: that creationists can't agree on the definition of the term.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I will assume, for olde tymes sake, that this was a serious response...

It was.

You apparently have engaged in #1 and are at odds with Aman and Heisso.

Both elephants and mammoths are large creatures, with curvaciously shaped tusks and peculiarly shaped noses. Just mammoths have hair. I would argue that claiming they are different kinds is like arguing your great-uncle Bertie is not your relative, because he's fat and bald, and has a wart on his nose.

And yet they differ in skeletal forms enough to warrant being classified as distinct genera and species.

Bleh. Male and female skeltons are different.

Going extra-biblical is an admission of defeat.

Then colour me defeated.

Mammoths? The creatures that lived above the Arctic Circle in some cases? Your desperation is showing.

Hey, bears live in the cold and hibernate. Just because the Arctic Circle is cold now, probably one day, it was much greener. Or at least, I believe analysis of mammoth stomachs showed their diet was a lot more tropical than just ice and ice-weeds.

Salt water? Can you imagine all the dozens of Proboscids converging at the one window in the ark with 65-foot long trunks to sip the sea water....All those millions of pounds, 'swept' by a bunch of centenarians...

Lol. Yes.

Thanks for the comic relief, though I have no reason to doubt that you were at least partly serious.

Its nice that we can laugh, even if we don't agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

How on earth did I miss this thread!?

First of all: kind = genus.

Second of all, the Ark's tonnage is not a problem with God. After all, He knew its tonnage before He even ordered Noah to build it.

IF the Ark was a modified TARDIS booth, then the inside of it was bigger than its outside, and the Ark could have held the entire solar system with no problem.

Paul mentions four dimensions of space.

Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

And in Revelation, we see a multitude of people being housed under a single altar.

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

So the number and size of the animals that got on the Ark were not a problem with God.

Thirdly, feeding and watering these animals would be no problem either.

We see how God handled feeding the widow of Zarephath.

1 Kings 17:12 And she said, As the LORD thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but an handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse: and, behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and dress it for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die.

1 Kings 17:14 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the LORD sendeth rain upon the earth.

1 Kings 17:16 And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Elijah.

All that was needed was one giant bowl of ... manna ... and all the animals would have eaten to their hearts' content.

Fourthly, as far as the waste that would have been generated, I have no explanation.

 

[Aman777]

That's nice. Nobody else agrees with you. Which is my point: that creationists can't agree on the definition of the term.

Tas and Tyk agree with you. That makes 3 of a "kind" a temporary kind, one of His kinds. I'm sorry.