WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines ITT we discuss noahs ark and other issues

Jung

???
Premium
13,998
2,267
487
#1
According to Panda.org (http://www.panda.org/downloads/spec...t_factsheet.pdf), which is part of the WWF, there are two types of elephants: the Asian and the African. Obviously if we believe the Bible, there would have to be at least four elephants on the ark (unless after the flood, one pair of elephants evolved into two different species, which is another flame war). Let's also assume that its only one pair of animals and not seven pairs of clean animals and birds (Gen 7:2-3).

The Asian elephant eats around 300kg of fodder per day (see above source), while fully grown African elephants eat up to 200kg of food/day http://www.wwf.org.hk/eng/pdf/refer...actsheet47.PDF.

Now, we know from Gen 6:21 that Noah was commanded to take food for all the animals and his family, thus nullifying a possible miracle explanation for not needing to bring food. However, in the interest of being conservative, lets assume that Noah had younger elephants and thus needed less food than a full grown adult (although growing children need their vegetables!!!). So lets assume that the elephants needed half of their adult counterparts.

Therefore, collectively, the Asian and African elephants would need approximately 500 kg of food/day. Thats 1,102.31 pounds a day!! In the interest of simplicity and being conservative in our estimates lets just say 1,000 pounds of food/day. For the (approximate) year that they were on the ark, that would mean NoahCo. Would have needed 365,000 pounds of food just for the elephants!!! This is 1,825 tons, which will be important later.

Next step, calculating how much space was in the ark. This has been done repeatedly so I hope there is little contention here. Gen. 6:15 says, "The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits (aprx. 450 feet), the breadth of it 50 cubits (aprx. 75 feet), and the height of it 30 cubits (aprx. 45 feet-ed.)." This is 1,518,750 cubic feet. Lets also assume for the sake of simplicity and being conservative that the ark was a perfect box with these dimensions (i.e., no space lost at the front or back due to needing to actually float, no need for going through sea/waves, no keel, etc). Also for the sake of simplicity and conservatism, lets assume by some miracle that there was no need for floors, which would take up even more space. This means the area of the ground floor would have been 33,750 sq. feet and that the total interior cubic feet are as stated above.

Next we need to know approximately how much space the food for the elephants would have taken up (and ignoring the fact that most of it would have gone bad eventually in a hot damp environment--remember there was only one door and a small window). This also assumes that the food for only the elephants is being stored on the ground floor, and also ignoring the fact that many animals are carnivores. That would mean that many more than just a pair of many types of animals were brought aboard that also would have to be fed during the year until the chosen pair could eat them. Of course the fact that these "feed" animals also needed to be kept alive, many of which were carnivores also, which meant that even more animals would have bee needed. Its a geometrically unsolvable problem for such a situation.

Given that, Elephants are vegetarians; so lets assume that they were fed hay for the entire year (again ignore the monumental task of growing, harvesting, and storing of such an immense amount of hay by one family). According to this website (http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english...acts/88-052.htm) "Regardless of bale size and stacking method, any building with 16' sidewalls will accommodate at least 1 ton of hay in every 20 square feet of floor area." This means one ton of hay needs 320 cubic feet of storage. But it does say 'at least', and of course this is assuming ideal conditions. So again for simplicity and conservatism, lets assume one ton of hay needs 300 cubic feet of storage. That means the 1, 825 tons of hay needed for just the 4 elephants alone would have take up 547,500 cubic feet!! Thats about 36% of the space available on the ark, again assuming ridiculously conservative (and sometimes impossible, i.e., no floors) conditions. If we have adult elephants that eat twice as much (again at a very conservative estimate) thats 72% of the space in the ark for just 4 animals!!!! There is no physical possibility that Noah's ark ever happened. I really would like to see anyone who can prove the math that it
 

dustinzgirl

Banned - What an Asshat!
26,094
191
0
#2
Yes, I agree with the scientific literall rendition. It was, based on their technology, physically improbable that every single animal was sent in pairs. However, there was massive flooding in that era, that has been proven. And, there has been an ark discovered that was physically capable of holding that amount of animal. So, if you take everything in the bible literally, you are merely looking for reasons to dispute it. However, if you look at it in the perspective of the people who wrote the bible, "every" anmila would include thier animal flora, which would have been cattle, camels, birds, dogs, cats, and the like. They did not know what a fucking elephant was.
 

MaxPower

You're my number two
Staff
16,959
8,160
487
#3
Nor did they account for how animals unique to any given land mass were redistributed properly. Or how they were able to migrate from remote land masses in the first place.

I guess it was just one of those “Miracles"
 

dustinzgirl

Banned - What an Asshat!
26,094
191
0
#4
MaxPower said:
Nor did they account for how animals unique to any given land mass were redistributed properly. Or how they were able to migrate from remote land masses in the first place.

I guess it was just one of those “Miracles"
Like creation? The spontaneous mixture of carbon, oxygen and hyrdrogen at the right tempurature creating a single celled organism that spontaneously eveloved to create you and me over millions of years.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,998
2,267
487
#5
dustinzgirl said:
Yes, I agree with the scientific literall rendition. It was, based on their technology, physically improbable that every single animal was sent in pairs. However, there was massive flooding in that era, that has been proven. And, there has been an ark discovered that was physically capable of holding that amount of animal.
you see the contradiiction there right? an ark may have been found, but no scientific evidence has ever linked it to being noahs ark. you can turn on discovery channel and see programs about ghosts, does that mean they have been scientifically proven? by scientifically proven, i mean widely accepted in the scientific community as fact. i would greatly appreciate links or sources to any evidence that would support your statements, and further my education on the subject.
 

dustinzgirl

Banned - What an Asshat!
26,094
191
0
#6
junglizm said:
you see the contradiiction there right? an ark may have been found, but no scientific evidence has ever linked it to being noahs ark. you can turn on discovery channel and see programs about ghosts, does that mean they have been scientifically proven? by scientifically proven, i mean widely accepted in the scientific community as fact. i would greatly appreciate links or sources to any evidence that would support your statements, and further my education on the subject.
I am agreeing that it is physically impossible to load the fucking elephants onto the ark. What I am saying is that every animal did not literally mean every animal because they did not know what an elephant was. there were no elephants on thier land mass. they did not put elephants on the boat. the mass flooding occured in the region, which from the small world perspective of the times, was the world. do you see what i am saying?
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,998
2,267
487
#7
dustinzgirl said:
Like creation? The spontaneous mixture of carbon, oxygen and hyrdrogen at the right tempurature creating a single celled organism that spontaneously eveloved to create you and me over millions of years.
actually there currently no factual conclusion about our creation. there have been many theories, one of those is evolution, as well as creation by a higher power. you can't make educated debate over this subject, as it's completely open to interpretation. this is usually where religion steps in:)

edit: yes i get your point about animals, but many would argue with you about your statements.(christians for example, my family for example) i'm more worried about proof of the ark, and the proof it was noahs.
 

dustinzgirl

Banned - What an Asshat!
26,094
191
0
#8
junglizm said:
actually there currently no factual conclusion about our creation. there have been many theories, one of those is evolution, as well as creation by a higher power. you can't make educated debate over this subject, as it's completely open to interpretation. this is usually where religion steps in:)

edit: yes i get your point about animals, but many would argue with you about your statements. i'm more worried about proof of the ark, and the proof it was noahs.

Yes, I know. Religion is often used as a crutch when we are either to lazy or ignorant to know the facts. I completely agree with many of the points that you make. However, every scientific explanation I have read is based on a literal interpretation of the bible that has been changed over thousands of years. So, I would therefore have to automatically discount every scientific explanation that proves or disproves my faith, and go by what makes sense to me. Whether or not my theories make sense to anyone else is another story.

Of course, I can not think of one phrase in the bible where it says that they had elephants on the ark, that is a child story. But this is what I think:
there was a big ass flood. they put a bunch of animals on the boat. the stupid people that did not get on the boat drowned. Whether or not they literally took every single fucking animal by pairs is not relevant other than to find a reason to dispute it.
 

dustinzgirl

Banned - What an Asshat!
26,094
191
0
#9
junglizm said:
edit: yes i get your point about animals, but many would argue with you about your statements.(christians for example, my family for example) i'm more worried about proof of the ark, and the proof it was noahs.
everyone argues with me. I freely admit that I am an anti thesis of logic. I really dont care what "christians" have to say about me, I know a lot of them, and except for the ones related to me, they pretty much suck.
 

MaxPower

You're my number two
Staff
16,959
8,160
487
#11
dustinzgirl said:
Like creation? The spontaneous mixture of carbon, oxygen and hyrdrogen at the right tempurature creating a single celled organism that spontaneously eveloved to create you and me over millions of years.
Already been done in the test tube, and it's very easy. You can actually do it at home with Hydrogen, ammonia, CO2, CO, and a few other gasses. Throw them in a container at a given temp, pressure, humidity, ad some electrical arcs to simulate ionization caused by lightning..........BANG! You start to develop a brown sludge on the walls of the container.
This brown sludge is actually a self reproducing, organic material created solely from NON-organic, components.
 
11,074
726
382
#12
MaxPower said:
Nor did they account for how animals unique to any given land mass were redistributed properly. Or how they were able to migrate from remote land masses in the first place.

I guess it was just one of those “Miracles"
Pangea ;)
 

dustinzgirl

Banned - What an Asshat!
26,094
191
0
#13
MaxPower said:
Already been done in the test tube, and it's very easy. You can actually do it at home with Hydrogen, ammonia, CO2, CO, and a few other gasses. Throw them in a container at a given temp, pressure, humidity, ad some electrical arcs to simulate ionization caused by lightning..........BANG! You start to develop a brown sludge on the walls of the container.
This brown sludge is actually a self reproducing, organic material created solely from NON-organic, components.
And the point is that....man can recreate what evolution and or god did? I still think it is miraculous even if you dont......ppppppppppppppppppppppppbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbttttttttttttttttttttttt
that is my contribution.
:p
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#14
Well, a good try to shoot holes in a Swiss cheese... :D
But there as many holes in the bible already, as many as in a Swiss cheese.

And believe me, English is not the right language to understand the bible.
That's why the American preachers are so strange in the eyes of Christians from other continents.

Let me explain..

If the bible says.. That Noah brought all animals on board the ship..
In pairs.. It's easy to understand if you know the meaning of the word animal in prehistory.
Primitive nations use a certain word for what is usefull, and another word for what is not usefull. Or sometimes they even dont have a word for that!

So Noah brought a cow and a bull on board the ship. Sheep and goats.. A couple of horses maybe. Dogs and cats?
But mice and rats? Why would he do that? To eat the stored food?
Snakes? Spiders? Ants?

And another strange thing... It says little about herbs and corn.
Seeds and plants. Very strange in an environment where agriculture began to take form.

In Dutch we even have the old meaning of the language..

Kruid = Herbs that are useful.
Onkruid = Herbs that are not useful. Usually it will be taken away to stimulate the growing of the herbs.

So -On- is the denial bit.
In English it would sound like herbs and inherbs
Just like efficient and inefficient.

Language in the bible should be related to the world in that time.
And words are related to a agricultural society with primitive technical skills.
It would be strange to read the word "computer interface" in the bible..
You'll get my point. :rolleyes:

But, to be serious...

There are more and more technical devices today in this world, that can scan the bottem of the seabed. It is a lunacy to send people to Mars.
We'd better invest in exploring the seas.
There are indications that there has been a civilization living in the area of the Mediterrainean Sea, and also the North Sea.
Both seas were flooded in some time in history.
People were washed away then.

It's still not sure, that Egypt was really the first civilization!

Let's take an example.. There is -in theory- the possibility that a giant tidal wave would be formed, if part of the Canary Islands slide into the ocean.
It would seriously threaten the American East Coast.
It would be possible, that Florida would vanish totally.

In the Netherlands we also lost land that way.
It is only because of know writing, that we know where those lost villages and cities were! They are now in a marshy area called "De Biesbosch".
 

dustinzgirl

Banned - What an Asshat!
26,094
191
0
#16
RedOctober said:
Well, a good try to shoot holes in a Swiss cheese... :D
But there as many holes in the bible already, as many as in a Swiss cheese.

And believe me, English is not the right language to understand the bible.
That's why the American preachers are so strange in the eyes of Christians from other continents.

Let me explain..

If the bible says.. That Noah brought all animals on board the ship..
In pairs.. It's easy to understand if you know the meaning of the word animal in prehistory.
Primitive nations use a certain word for what is usefull, and another word for what is not usefull. Or sometimes they even dont have a word for that!

So Noah brought a cow and a bull on board the ship. Sheep and goats.. A couple of horses maybe. Dogs and cats?
But mice and rats? Why would he do that? To eat the stored food?
Snakes? Spiders? Ants?

And another strange thing... It says little about herbs and corn.
Seeds and plants. Very strange in an environment where agriculture began to take form.

In Dutch we even have the old meaning of the language..

Kruid = Herbs that are useful.
Onkruid = Herbs that are not useful. Usually it will be taken away to stimulate the growing of the herbs.

So -On- is the denial bit.
In English it would sound like herbs and inherbs
Just like efficient and inefficient.

Language in the bible should be related to the world in that time.
And words are related to a agricultural society with primitive technical skills.
It would be strange to read the word "computer interface" in the bible..
You'll get my point. :rolleyes:

But, to be serious...

There are more and more technical devices today in this world, that can scan the bottem of the seabed. It is a lunacy to send people to Mars.
We'd better invest in exploring the seas.
There are indications that there has been a civilization living in the area of the Mediterrainean Sea, and also the North Sea.
Both seas were flooded in some time in history.
People were washed away then.

It's still not sure, that Egypt was really the first civilization!

Let's take an example.. There is -in theory- the possibility that a giant tidal wave would be formed, if part of the Canary Islands slide into the ocean.
It would seriously threaten the American East Coast.
It would be possible, that Florida would vanish totally.

In the Netherlands we also lost land that way.
It is only because of know writing, that we know where those lost villages and cities were! They are now in a marshy area called "De Biesbosch".

Are you proving or disproving my statements? From your postings, I could pretty much argue it either way. I like to argue.

First and foremost, I am getting really sick of you saying you americans, when the fucking english (im irish/scottish, german and dutch btw, and my family has only been us citizens for 6 generations. not that long) were the ones who massacred the biblical text in the first place, thus creating the king james version that even the dutch read. so dont blame that shit on america, blame it on england.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#17
dustinzgirl said:
Are you proving or disproving my statements? From your postings, I could pretty much argue it either way. I like to argue.

First and foremost, I am getting really sick of you saying you americans, when the fucking english (im irish/scottish, german and dutch btw, and my family has only been us citizens for 6 generations. not that long) were the ones who massacred the biblical text in the first place, thus creating the king james version that even the dutch read. so dont blame that shit on america, blame it on england.
Ok, let's blame the protestants then ;)

I am not interested in pro and contra.
I think the whole literal explaining based on a bible in English is senseless.
We discussed that point before.
 

Broken

Member smoked too much weed!
3,886
0
0
#19
tzedek said:
what does ITT mean???
In This Thread.. Kinda stupid to preface the title of a new thread with "In this Thread".. Derr
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#20
Kinda stupid also to add... and other issues...

Does that mean we can discuss the sexual life of a forrest gump ant under the influence of the moonlight over here?