Animals on the ark
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: Animals on the ark
(19-05-2014 09:36 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 05:10 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Does anyone really know or do they themselves actually not know? So far for my list I am going to build. I have 2 elephants, with 11 months’ worth of food at starving them at 300 pounds a day which is the bare minimal with an entire month of no food or water. Leaving them at 200,400 pounds of food and 16,700 gallons of water just for those two animals alone. I have not done anything else yet.

Are these adult elephants or baby elephants that have just been born? That would make a difference in how much food they needed.

(18-05-2014 05:55 PM)daylightisabadthing Wrote:  Just a thought. If the raven dispatched to find land didn't return to the ark (and its partner), why are there still ravens?

Its partner must have joined if after the animals were released.

(18-05-2014 06:17 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Calculate *somehow* the rough ammount of GALLONS of water that would be needed to fill the earth 20 ft past the tip of where Mount Everest would had been. Nto 6 but 10 thousand years ago IF the speed of the mountains growth doubled what it is not and back track it.

If the all the land on the earth were flattened out the water in the oceans would cover it completely. The earth underwent some major changes in a short period of time and the flood was merely one of the effects.

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/01...-water-go/

You can find answers to most of your questions here:

https://answersingenesis.org/search/?q=n...ite=AiGall

The mental gymnastics required to try to justify this story and circumvent all scientific evidence and logical reasoning is staggering.

You need to ask yourself which is more likely:
• that the creator of all life, who knows everything, got fed up with some people's wickedness (which he gave us by planting a tree and telling two people who had no concept of right and wrong not to eat from it), so he magically floods and devastates an entire planet. In doing so, he hides all evidence of this event and plants mountains of evidence against it, thus being the biggest liar in history. Consider

OR

• that it's a fictional story written by people who had no concept of science or even the world outside their flat Earth in the Middle East. Drinking Beverage

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Jeffasaurus's post
19-05-2014, 03:00 PM
RE: Animals on the ark
Brendan O'Carroll playing Mrs. Brown explains it all here:




“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WindyCityJazz's post
19-05-2014, 05:13 PM
RE: Animals on the ark
(19-05-2014 03:00 PM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  Brendan O'Carroll playing Mrs. Brown explains it all here:




That's awesome Laugh out load

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 05:17 PM
RE: Animals on the ark
WELL, It looks like I got at least some material. I forget who answered this before but we are going to assume the animals were Adult since no where does it say they were baby animals as far as I know. Its assumed by some creationists that they were babies but I am going to "assume" a mother FUCKING MOTHER GRISLY BEAR would not let a human walk off with its offspring because he is magic.

So if Creationists can assume without evidence that they could be babies. I will assume without evidence they are adult animals.

Hopefully when I am done figuring out what the animals are and google zoology web sites of what those animals eat in a day and drink in a day in order to keep alive. Just add and mulitply upward and then I should have a number of pounds of water and food that should equal to way the hell more then a ship of that size could possibly hold inside of it even without the animals and people occuping space. Not to mention blows so far beyond its Holding Capacity that a ship of that size that weighs as much as it does would shatter into wooden pieces or be forced well beyond its displacement ( if I can figure that out somehow) that would determine if it could actually still float.

We are at over 250K pounds on a ship of that size with just the food and water of a single animal of the 14k animals on board.

Will my math ever be right on any of this? Heck no! I can bearly do Pre Algebra! Do I need Calculus, a science degree or be a engineer to determine what happens when you add X and Y together? Heck no!


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: Animals on the ark
(19-05-2014 10:21 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Ok then, let me bring you up to speed. After the raven didn't return, Noah released the dove. The dove returned because it found no land. The raven presumably was still flying around somewhere over the water. It wasn't until 7 days later that the dove found the olive leaf and the first sign of exposed land. So you're suggesting the raven could have survived for 7 days without ever landing anywhere... plus the time between when Noah released the raven and later released the dove, which isn't specified.

After the flood there would have been uprooted trees and other debris floating on the water. There would have been plenty of places the raven could land.

Quote:If all the land was flattened out, then for land to be exposed after the flood, ALL water would have had to evaporate. Consider

Only if the land remained flat. I believe I included this link in my previous post.

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/01...-water-go/

Did you read it?

(19-05-2014 10:23 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  If the earth went through that many changes in one month then how did Noah survive? With all the hurricanes and tsunamis that would be one hell of a story.

If the ark was strong enough survival wouldn't have been a problem. The ride might have been rough but there was no danger of colliding with anything.

(19-05-2014 01:42 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  You need to ask yourself which is more likely:
• that the creator of all life, who knows everything, got fed up with some people's wickedness (which he gave us by planting a tree and telling two people who had no concept of right and wrong not to eat from it), so he magically floods and devastates an entire planet. In doing so, he hides all evidence of this event and plants mountains of evidence against it, thus being the biggest liar in history. Consider

OR

• that it's a fictional story written by people who had no concept of science or even the world outside their flat Earth in the Middle East. Drinking Beverage

What is more likely to happen isn't always what actually happens. If you buy a lottery ticket it is more likely that you are throwing your money away than that you will win a jackpot, but some people who buy lottery tickets do win jackpots.

(19-05-2014 05:17 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  I forget who answered this before but we are going to assume the animals were Adult since no where does it say they were baby animals as far as I know.

The dinosaurs would have had to be babies because there is no way adult dinosaurs would have fit in the ark. If the dinosaurs were babies then it seems likely the other animals were too.

Quote:Its assumed by some creationists that they were babies but I am going to "assume" a mother FUCKING MOTHER GRISLY BEAR would not let a human walk off with its offspring because he is magic.

God kept the lions from eating Daniel; he could keep a bear from attacking someone who was taking her cubs.

Anyway the Bible doesn't say that Noah had to go around collecting the animals he needed.

Quote:And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood. Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah.
(Genesis 7:7-9 ESV)

Noah and his family went into the ark and afterwards the animals went it. It doesn't say that Noah brought the animals in. God brought the animals to Noah after he had finished building the ark.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 10:08 AM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2014 10:12 AM by Im_Ryan.)
RE: Animals on the ark
(20-05-2014 09:40 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 10:23 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  If the earth went through that many changes in one month then how did Noah survive? With all the hurricanes and tsunamis that would be one hell of a story.

If the ark was strong enough survival wouldn't have been a problem. The ride might have been rough but there was no danger of colliding with anything.

Are you fucking kidding me? Modern day boats, planes, buildings, etc cannot withstand the force of one hurricane. And you're telling me that a an oversized, primitive, wooden boat can not only withstand one hurricane, but hundreds? Just because you have nothing to "crash into" doesn't mean it won't sink. You're a moron if you think otherwise.

*edit*

Quote:Most flood models (including those above, possibly excepting Hovind's) deal with the water after the flood by proposing that it became our present oceans. The earth's terrain, according to this model, was much, much flatter during the Flood, and through cataclysms, the mountains were pushed up and the ocean basins lowered. (Brown proposes that the cataclysms were caused by the crust sliding around on a cushion of water; Whitcomb & Morris don't give a cause.)
How could such a change be effected? To change the density and/or temperature of at least a quarter of the earth's crust fast enough to raise and lower the ocean floor in a matter of months would require mechanisms beyond any proposed in any of the flood models.
Why are most sediments on high ground? Most sediments are carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediments there. Baumgardner's own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins [Baumgardner, 1994], so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick. [Poldervaart, 1955]
Where's the evidence? The water draining from the continents would have produced tremendous torrents. There is evidence of similar flooding in the Scablands of Washington state (from the draining of a lake after the breaking of an ice dam) and on the far western floor of the Mediterranean Sea (from the ocean breaking through the Straits of Gibralter). Why is such evidence not found worldwide?
How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of the earth's topography, compressed into just a few months, would have produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth. The aftershocks alone would have been devastating for years afterwards.
References
Austin, Steven A., John R. Baumgardner, D. Russell Humphreys, Andrew A. Snelling, Larry Vardiman, & Kurt P. Wise, 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global flood model of earth history. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 609-621.
Brown, Walt, 1997. In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. ( http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook)
Baumgardner, John R., 1990a. Changes accompanying Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the second international conference on creationism, vol. II, pp. 35-45.
Baumgardner, John R., 1990b. The imparative of non-stationary natural law in relation to Noah's Flood. Creation Research Society Quarterly 27(3): 98-100.
Baumgardner, John R., 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 77-86.
Carroll, Robert L., 1997. Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, Cambridge University Press.
Matsumura, Molleen, 1997. Miracles in, creationism out: "The geophysics of God". Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(3): 29-32.
Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth's crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noah...html#flood

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 04:30 PM
RE: Animals on the ark
(20-05-2014 09:40 AM)theophilus Wrote:  After the flood there would have been uprooted trees and other debris floating on the water. There would have been plenty of places the raven could land.
(20-05-2014 09:40 AM)theophilus Wrote:  If the ark was strong enough survival wouldn't have been a problem. The ride might have been rough but there was no danger of colliding with anything.

So it wasn't in danger of colliding with anything, but there would have been lots of crap floating around?

Also according to your bible how high were the mountains? Because I'd love to find out just how you explain away freezing temperatures at that altitude.

The requirement of evidence to back your claim does not disappear because it hurts your feelings, reality does not care about your feefees.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 05:27 PM
RE: Animals on the ark
(20-05-2014 09:40 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 10:21 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Ok then, let me bring you up to speed. After the raven didn't return, Noah released the dove. The dove returned because it found no land. The raven presumably was still flying around somewhere over the water. It wasn't until 7 days later that the dove found the olive leaf and the first sign of exposed land. So you're suggesting the raven could have survived for 7 days without ever landing anywhere... plus the time between when Noah released the raven and later released the dove, which isn't specified.

After the flood there would have been uprooted trees and other debris floating on the water. There would have been plenty of places the raven could land.

Quote:If all the land was flattened out, then for land to be exposed after the flood, ALL water would have had to evaporate. Consider

Only if the land remained flat. I believe I included this link in my previous post.

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/01...-water-go/

Did you read it?

(19-05-2014 10:23 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  If the earth went through that many changes in one month then how did Noah survive? With all the hurricanes and tsunamis that would be one hell of a story.

If the ark was strong enough survival wouldn't have been a problem. The ride might have been rough but there was no danger of colliding with anything.

(19-05-2014 01:42 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  You need to ask yourself which is more likely:
• that the creator of all life, who knows everything, got fed up with some people's wickedness (which he gave us by planting a tree and telling two people who had no concept of right and wrong not to eat from it), so he magically floods and devastates an entire planet. In doing so, he hides all evidence of this event and plants mountains of evidence against it, thus being the biggest liar in history. Consider

OR

• that it's a fictional story written by people who had no concept of science or even the world outside their flat Earth in the Middle East. Drinking Beverage

What is more likely to happen isn't always what actually happens. If you buy a lottery ticket it is more likely that you are throwing your money away than that you will win a jackpot, but some people who buy lottery tickets do win jackpots.

(19-05-2014 05:17 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  I forget who answered this before but we are going to assume the animals were Adult since no where does it say they were baby animals as far as I know.

The dinosaurs would have had to be babies because there is no way adult dinosaurs would have fit in the ark. If the dinosaurs were babies then it seems likely the other animals were too.

Quote:Its assumed by some creationists that they were babies but I am going to "assume" a mother FUCKING MOTHER GRISLY BEAR would not let a human walk off with its offspring because he is magic.

God kept the lions from eating Daniel; he could keep a bear from attacking someone who was taking her cubs.

Anyway the Bible doesn't say that Noah had to go around collecting the animals he needed.

Quote:And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood. Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah.
(Genesis 7:7-9 ESV)

Noah and his family went into the ark and afterwards the animals went it. It doesn't say that Noah brought the animals in. God brought the animals to Noah after he had finished building the ark.

These are precisely the mental gymnastics that I referred to. You're taking a short story with major plot holes and you are trying desperately (or just quoting Answers in Genesis) to make the story feasible, and no one's even brought up problems with:
• geologic evidence that rules out any Earth flattening apologist nonsense (besides, the Bible specifically states that the water shall cover the highest mountains (Gen 7:19,20), not flattened plains)
• animals traveling thousands of miles, and crossing oceans to hitch a ride
• trees, plants, flowers, and coral can't photosynthesize while submerged under an ocean, thus would be dead
• rain is fresh water, oceans are salt water; most marine species would die in a semi-salinated mixture
• geographic redistribution of animals
• if the rainbow was created as a sign of a promise and sunlight didn't refract prior, god would have had to change the very nature of light itself
• Noah's family would have to be carrying every known STD, virus, germ, bacteria, plague, etc.
• two of every animal is too small of a genetic sampling: the inbreeding would have caused massive defects, disorders, and diseases to the point of extinction
• both ancient Egyptian and Sumerian cultures existed before, during, and after the alleged flood

I could go on, but (maybe) you get the idea.

You even stated that Noah brought dinosaurs onto the ark. Where are they now, if they lived so recently?

I posited a "more likely" question. Your answer alluded to a god that hides evidence, changes evidence, and creates counter evidence. Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not bear false witness?"

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 06:34 PM
RE: Animals on the ark
(20-05-2014 05:27 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  You even stated that Noah brought dinosaurs onto the ark. Where are they now, if they lived so recently?

Obvious answer is obvious. Dodgy

[Image: flintstones-brontosaurus-ribs.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
20-05-2014, 06:37 PM
RE: Animals on the ark
(20-05-2014 04:30 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  Also according to your bible how high were the mountains? Because I'd love to find out just how you explain away freezing temperatures at that altitude.

I keep seeing this mistake.

The air pressure and temperature would that at sea level.

The entire atmosphere moves up with the level of the water.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: