XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.bible, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: talk.atheism
In talk.atheism Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:36:33 GMT,
> prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com posted thusly:
>>In talk.atheism Pastor Dave wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:18:11 GMT,
>>> prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com posted thusly:
>>
>>
>>>>And 8 people are going to care for, feed, clean up after 50,000 animals
with
>>>>no modern equipment, etc? Yeah, right.
>>
>>> The estimate isn't that high.
>>
>>Then what IS the estimate?
> They vary, down to 16,000.
Even 16,000 would take about 4 times the room the ark had.
>>>>Do you know how much food and water an animal the size of a sheep takes in
a
>>>>year? A herbavore like a sheep can eat 10-15 pounds of hay a day. That's a
>>>>volume of around 1/2 cubic foot or there-abouts. So that means you'd need
>>>>180 cubic feet of feed per animal. So now you have a cube almost 6 foot
>>>>square per animal just for the feed. so we've got 50,000 animals that need
a
>>>>cage about 2'x5'x3' (and that's EXTREMELY cramped) as well as 6'x6'x6' of
>>>>feed. Also water would be around 2 quarts a day min. So that's about
another
>>>>24 cubic feet per animal. Thus far we've got each animal taking up
30+180+24
>>>>or 234 cubic feet. That's a total of 11,700,000 cubic feet or a space
>>>>227'x227'x227' in size. Now the ark was in cubits, which we aren't sure the
>>>>exact size of but it's around 1-1/2 feet. So the ark would have been
>>>>450'x75'x45' which is only 1,518,750 cubic feet (or about 1/10 the size
>>>>needed.) Even if you leave out the need for food and water, you barely have
>>>>the 30 cubic feet just for the animal itself.
>>
>>> Your argument assume a lot of things as fact, that are
>>> not fact. You assume that none of them hibernated.
>>
>>Most animals don't hibernate.
> According to you, but can you name each animal that was
> there and can you vouch for their habits BEFORE the
> Flood? You also fail to account for decreased activity
> leading to less eating and more sleep.
Can YOU name each animal? And I WAS accounting for reduced activity. The
amount of feed that I gave was assuming a sheep penned up in a stall and not
roaming free. Also where does the bible say they were any different before
the flood? YOU'RE the one who sayd "if the bible didn't say it, it didn't
happen."
>>> You also assume they were all adults. All you need is
>>> two babies. Just make sure to get a pink one and a
>>> blue one.
>>
>>I'mm simply going based on what he gave me (the average size of a sheep,
>>etc.)
> So rather than argue that something can't be true based
> on the actual scenario, you would rather argue against
> it, based on what someone told you and then claim that
> you have disproved the Ark?
Damned, Dave, do you never think before opening your mouth? I simply showed
how HIS argument was disproved. Where did I claim that disproved any and all
ark arguments?
>>Also many animals will grow to almost full grown or even have several
>>generations of babies during the period of a year. So even if you got
>>newborns you'd still have a lot of adults at the end.
> Several generations is their first year? That is not
> true. Most animals wouldn't even be ready to have
> babies in their first year.
Insects, small mammals, etc. would have several generations. And I said
"many" and not "most." Many animals would HAVE to have babies since they
don't even live a full year. And most animals reach close to full size
before a year is up and thus would be eating the same as an adult (if not
more) before it's over.
>>>>So they had advanced skills that let them feed the animals after landing
>>>>when there was no food available but rotting corpses and plants?
>>
>>> Food would have started growing. Did you not read the
>>> account and check the timing?
>>
>>Yes. The water covered the earth for 150 days (close to 1/2 year.) After 10
>>months, the mountain tops were visible. They emerged afer 12 months. So
>>there was still water over most of the land up till at least 2 months before
>>they left the ark. The plains (where the people and animals would wind up
>>living) wouldn't have been dry until about the time they left the ark (based
>>on the rate of water receeding.) Not much would have grown in just a few
>>days or weeks that there was between the time of the last of the water
>>leaving the land and the time of leaving the ark.
>>
>>Have YOU read the account and checked the timing? Obviously not.
> I fail to understand the problem. You need only have
> food for X amount of animals. You are not trying to
> feed an Earth full of them. There would probably also
> still be food left on the Ark.
No, Dave, there wouldn't be. As already shown, there's not even enough room
for the animals, even when using your 15,000 animals, much less for all the
food needed.
>>>>>> livestock in whatever boat, raft, ark or ship was available to save
>>>>>> themselves - every time there was a bad flood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Anyone who equates the account to mythology has not done their
homework.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** And those of us who did do our homework realize how impossible the
>>>>>> biblical story of Noah and his ark are.
>>>>
>>>>> Considering the planet is 70% covered by water, it's not a stretch at
all.
>>>>> And mounds of evidence is available to back it, starting with huge mixed
>>>>> fossils deposits found in what could only be described by rapid burial.
>>>>> Evidence like that is found all over the earth.
>>>>
>>>>There IS? You've found places where there's modern man mixed with dinosaur
>>>>fossils? Have you reported this to the press? This is amazing
>>>>news!!!!!
>>
>>> I don't recall anyone finding human fossils mixed with
>>> chicken fossils. Does that mean they don't live at the
>>> same time?
>>
>>Then you haven't read much. They've found them in the same age rocks.
> Do you have a reference for this, please? I have not
> heard of this. It doesn't detract from my point
> though. There are animals alive today, that have not
> been found with human fossils.
And there are others that have been. Your point is? We may not find human
and chicken (or human and other fossils) side-by-side but we DO find them in
the same age rocks. If we find human bones in Africa that date to 50,000
years ago and we find chicken bones in Canada that date to 50,000 years ago,
they lived at the same time. But they can also show that human bones have
never been found anywhere close to the same age as dinosaur bones and thus
there's no reason to think they lived at the same time.
>>They
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
