New technology discovery what appears to be Noah's Ark

CrowCross

Well-known member
But not a calculation showing how all those cherypicked animals would fit.

How were they cherry picked? Woodmorappe in page 11 of Noahs Ark a feasibility study explained that he computed the body mass for all genera of animals extent and extinct. You can go check it out if you like rather than some say-so claim the animals were cherry picked.
Listing them doesn't calculate the biomass, space requirements for each pair, etc.

My post showed that the median size animal in the animal kingdom is about the size of a house cat or large rodent. It then went on to say....Approximately 11% of the animals on the ark would have been bigger than a sheep.

The information was provided for you to refute...and you didn't.
It is a problem because insects make up the largest proportion of land animals on the planet. And most don't do well with water. Now you butt-pull vegetation mats.

Are you now saying that the vegetations mats were completely submerged and the bugs drowned?
But again you'd have to account for that space. And what happens when Noah accidentally feeds too many and now you have one part of the kind pair left.

Who said Noah accidentally feeds too many...More say-so talk from you.
Also rabbits, etc. Would be a mere appetizer to most carnivores.
They might....but there were more than rabbits. I figured you would have understood that instead you replied with a say-so statement.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
I'm speaking about basic science. If you are having troubles with that I suggest getting remedial high school science education as your science teacher failed you.
More say-so.

Unless you provide some actual science based data...I'll have to ignore anymore of your comments in this thread.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Here it is again just in case you missed it (to be clear; I didn't post it):
THE MODEL:

I suggest that the average size cage on the ark could have been 3’x1.5’x1.5’ which will allow a pair of animals 6.75 cubic feet of room to move around in. The cage size is the same as a crate that I purchased from a pet store to put our new puppy in.

*************snipped a lot of stuff we've all read already*****************
Hence, a median value is much more informative, which is what Wodmorappe used. Of course, in Woodmorappe work, he thoroughly account for all of the large animals as well as the multitudes of small ones.

Some of this information was adapted from John Woodmorappes book...Noahs ark, a feasability study.
I didn't miss it. Here's the refutation, which you just discarded:

I posted this elsewhere:

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.​
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
I didn't miss it. Here's the refutation, which you just discarded:
from the post:
* 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.

In the above elephants in the wild are used as an example. On the ark there was no reason for the elephants to burn energy while moving towards food.

How much food did they consume? Depends if they were brought on board the ark as full adults or juvenile.
The same would go for the amount of rain water and stored water they drank.
Juvenile dung would also have been a lot less.

It was also said that:
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.

Like other animals the elephants would have speciated to those numbers after they were released from the ark.

Keep in mind, the numbers used in the post were for wild, not captive "elephants" of mature age.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Literally everything you posted here is say-so.
Not quite....How Noah and his family took care of the animals was not mentioned in the bible. What was conducted was a feasibility study. The question was, could Noah have done it and using what we know about animal husbandry was it feasible....the answer is yes.
 

Gondwanaland

Active member
Not quite....How Noah and his family took care of the animals was not mentioned in the bible. What was conducted was a feasibility study. The question was, could Noah have done it and using what we know about animal husbandry was it feasible....the answer is yes.
None of your claims were mentioned in the Bible either. Not vegetation mats, not breeding rabbits to feed to others, not your superfast evolution, nada
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
None of your claims were mentioned in the Bible either. Not vegetation mats, not breeding rabbits to feed to others, not your superfast evolution, nada
Neither were stairs, ramps or ladders between the levels on the ark...but I believe it would be safe to assume they were there...even though the bible doesn't mention them.

By now you should be realizing the ark is harder to sink that you thought.
 

Gondwanaland

Active member
Neither were stairs, ramps or ladders between the levels on the ark...but I believe it would be safe to assume they were there...even though the bible doesn't mention them.
And yet you get angry when I mention things not mentioned in the bible.
By now you should be realizing the ark is harder to sink that you thought.
Not hardly. The modulus of elasticity of the wood alone means it would be leaking at rates that only a mechanical pump system would have even a hope at removing. And that water would be leaking into where the animals are. And at that length it would easily break apart due to the flexing
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
from the post:
* 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.

In the above elephants in the wild are used as an example. On the ark there was no reason for the elephants to burn energy while moving towards food.

How much food did they consume? Depends if they were brought on board the ark as full adults or juvenile.
The same would go for the amount of rain water and stored water they drank.
Juvenile dung would also have been a lot less.

It was also said that:
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.

Like other animals the elephants would have speciated to those numbers after they were released from the ark.

Keep in mind, the numbers used in the post were for wild, not captive "elephants" of mature age.
...except that:
- you have no idea whether elephants in the wild were used for the figures provided nor, if elephants in the wild were used, how much less food they would need in captivity as opposed to in the wild.
- there is no mention of juvenile animals as opposed to adult animals being bought aboard the ark. In some species, of course (I do not know if elephants are such species) juveniles cannot mature into healthy adults without adults being present through the juveniles' childhood and/or adolescence. You have no idea whether or to what extent this is true for elephants
- for one species of elephants to have speciated into the 20 different species of them in four thousand years would have required the most accelerated version of evolution (including that pesky macroevolution) ever heard of
- where in what was provided does it say anything about elephants in the wild being used?
- of course, what was provided doesn't go into the other large species such as hippos, rhinos, giraffes, etc. none of which would fit into your 3 x 1.5 x 1.5 foot cages.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Not quite....How Noah and his family took care of the animals was not mentioned in the bible. What was conducted was a feasibility study. The question was, could Noah have done it and using what we know about animal husbandry was it feasible....the answer is yes.
No, the answer - using rational data - is unequivocally no.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
...except that:
- you have no idea whether elephants in the wild were used for the figures provided nor, if elephants in the wild were used, how much less food they would need in captivity as opposed to in the wild.

Neither do you.
- there is no mention of juvenile animals as opposed to adult animals being bought aboard the ark. In some species, of course (I do not know if elephants are such species) juveniles cannot mature into healthy adults without adults being present through the juveniles' childhood and/or adolescence. You have no idea whether or to what extent this is true for elephants

So what?
- for one species of elephants to have speciated into the 20 different species of them in four thousand years would have required the most accelerated version of evolution (including that pesky macroevolution) ever heard of

20?
- where in what was provided does it say anything about elephants in the wild being used?

The bible says God brought them to the ark.
- of course, what was provided doesn't go into the other large species such as hippos, rhinos, giraffes, etc. none of which would fit into your 3 x 1.5 x 1.5 foot cages.
My post addressed that....did you not read it?
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
It was more than a random calculation. I gave you a reason for the cage size. ...I find it difficult to believe you made such a claim.
One of the conclusions was that there would have been enough room on 1/2 of the the ark for food and other items that Noah would have needed.
What about room for dung?

What about fish (fresh-water fish if you think the flood waters were salt-water, or salt-water fish if you think the flood waters were fresh-water)?

What about plants?
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
What about room for dung?

What about it? I see no problem.
What about fish (fresh-water fish if you think the flood waters were salt-water, or salt-water fish if you think the flood waters were fresh-water)?

Like insects fish were not biblically required to have been on the ark.
What about plants?
Plants could hve survived in many ways...seeds sprouting or recovered from floating vegetation mats.

Why do the anti-arkers always present "could not haves" based upin unsupported claims?
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
What about it? I see no problem.
I didn't see anything in your space calculations for dung. The other question about dung is, are there calculations for how much dung and how many person-hours it would take to remove one round (for lack of a better word; that is, one time-frame in which every animal excretes, on average) of excrement.

Also, what about urine? Did that just collect on the floor? Was something like sawdust used to absorb it? How much sawdust?

Like insects fish were not biblically required to have been on the ark.
Were they on the ark or not? If not, how did they survive in the water opposite to the kind they survive in (fresh-water versus salt-water)? If they were no on the ark, how did they survive in the water opposite to the kind they survive in (fresh-water versus salt-water)?

Plants could hve survived in many ways...seeds sprouting or recovered from floating vegetation mats.
We're also talk about underwater plants, fresh-water and salt-water. How many mats? How many seeds and how much room did they take up?

Why do the anti-arkers always present "could not haves" based upin unsupported claims?
I'm just asking you for all the calculations, that's all.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
I didn't see anything in your space calculations for dung. The other question about dung is, are there calculations for how much dung and how many person-hours it would take to remove one round (for lack of a better word; that is, one time-frame in which every animal excretes, on average) of excrement.
The cages or pens could have had sloped floor under them allowing the easy disposal of the waste.
Also, what about urine? Did that just collect on the floor? Was something like sawdust used to absorb it? How much sawdust?

The urine could have been collected in gutters then disposed of.
Were they on the ark or not? If not, how did they survive in the water opposite to the kind they survive in (fresh-water versus salt-water)? If they were no on the ark, how did they survive in the water opposite to the kind they survive in (fresh-water versus salt-water)?

Many answers, some of the fish could survive in salt, brackish and fresh water.
Water beneith the surface can flow in "rivers" or "laminar flows" where the surviving aquatic life could have lived.

Keep in mind I'm not saying every fish survived. Several fish from each kind could have found refuge in areas like I just described.
We're also talk about underwater plants, fresh-water and salt-water. How many mats? How many seeds and how much room did they take up?

Don't know how many mats....there is no way to know except that they form today on a much smaller scale. Large forrest would have been uprooted and floated around for a while settling when the flood water receded. Some of the large mats sunk and formed the coal, oil and natural gas we use today.
I'm just asking you for all the calculations, that's all.
Calculations for what? How a fish survives? How many mats? Get serious Gus.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
The cages or pens could have had sloped floor under them allowing the easy disposal of the waste.
OK, thank you. Next question is, estimating how much time in a day the staff could devote to - what, shucking the waste overboard? - could they move all of one day's waste overboard in one day?

The urine could have been collected in gutters then disposed of.
How exactly would it have been disposed of? I presume you've got to throw it over the side of the ark. So the next question is the same as above: estimating how much time in a day the staff could devote to shucking the waste overboard, could they move all of one day's waste overboard in one day, given that they've also got to be removing the solid waste, too. They also need time for feeding the animals, too.

Did you have a calculation of how much food they would need?

Many answers, some of the fish could survive in salt, brackish and fresh water.
So I take it that fish were not on the ark. Is that correct?

Some fish couldn't survive as you suggest above, so the issue remains, what about those, but you might be addressing them immediately below.

Water beneith the surface can flow in "rivers" or "laminar flows" where the surviving aquatic life could have lived.
Are you saying there were under-water rivers of fresh water that fresh-water fish could survive in?

Keep in mind I'm not saying every fish survived. Several fish from each kind could have found refuge in areas like I just described.
But some of every single kind would have had to survive, right?

Don't know how many mats....there is no way to know except that they form today on a much smaller scale.
If you don't know how many mats, you don't know the required number of mats were possible for Noah's crew to assemble.

Large forrest would have been uprooted and floated around for a while settling when the flood water receded.
Are you suggesting that those forests would have survived? Do you have evidence for that?

Some of the large mats sunk and formed the coal, oil and natural gas we use today.

Calculations for what? How a fish survives? How many mats?
Yes, for how many mats, especially what area the mats would have taken up. Otherwise you don't know if it's feasible.

Get serious Gus.
Trust me, I'm serious. These are the hard numbers you'd need to make your case.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
OK, thank you. Next question is, estimating how much time in a day the staff could devote to - what, shucking the waste overboard? - could they move all of one day's waste overboard in one day?

Not all animal waste has to be removed daily. Your post made it seem as if that was the case.
I already mentioned the sloped floors and to that you can add slotted floors in some of the cages and stalls that the waste would drop through for easy collection.
Some waste could last for a while in the straw on the floor of the cage, stalls or pens.

Birds are an example as well as reptiles.

You're going to need to provide some sort of calculatuon that upholds your point.
How exactly would it have been disposed of?

How exactly? I don't know as the bible is silent on that issue...which is why a feasibility study was performed and the conclusion was that it was definately possible.
The waste could have been collected from the gutters and pushed overboard....keeping in mind Noah could have used animals to help easy the burden. The waste could also have been collected directly onto wagons or skids and easily disposed of.
Some suggest a moon pool could have eased the disposal.
I presume you've got to throw it over the side of the ark. So the next question is the same as above: estimating how much time in a day the staff could devote to shucking the waste overboard, could they move all of one day's waste overboard in one day, given that they've also got to be removing the solid waste, too.
They could have removed all the required waste in a timely manner.

They also need time for feeding the animals, too.

Labor saving devices such as automatic feeders could easily have been used. A trip to the local pet store can provide you with some examples.

Many animals in a pen can also be fed at one time. A trip to a farm can show you how many animals can feed from the same trough.
Did you have a calculation of how much food they would need?

No...do you?

My model I presented earlier showed there was plenty of room on the ark for animal food. (1/2 the ark)
So I take it that fish were not on the ark. Is that correct?
I would think that would be true. There was no need for the fish to have been on the ark to survive.
Some fish couldn't survive as you suggest above, so the issue remains, what about those, but you might be addressing them immediately below.


Are you saying there were under-water rivers of fresh water that fresh-water fish could survive in?

I see no reason as to why not. It happens today. Feel free to google underwater rivers for several examples.
But some of every single kind would have had to survive, right?

That seem logical.
If you don't know how many mats, you don't know the required number of mats were possible for Noah's crew to assemble.

Why would Noah have to assemble them? They would have formed naturally....once again you can google floating vegetation mats and check out the images for several examples.
Are you suggesting that those forests would have survived? Do you have evidence for that?

No, I am not suggesting that. I'm simply suggesting that once the mats settled on the land they would have regrown.
Yes, for how many mats, especially what area the mats would have taken up. Otherwise you don't know if it's feasible.

it's feasible...look at some of the large coal deposits that were once forrest.
Trust me, I'm serious. These are the hard numbers you'd need to make your case.
The case is easy to make...you just need to learn to think out of your biased box.
 
Top