Noahs Ark and the Biblical World Wide Flood Never Happened

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

I stated early in the other similar thread.
I am certain, 100% certain Noah and crew practiced vermiculture for the manure that is free of ammonia.

For that to be the case would you not need to be 100% certain that the tale of Noah's ark is 100% real?

I don't think anybody can make that claim with any sort of real credibility.

Also, where is Noah Vineyard located on the magic boat?

If it's on the top deck, and i can't imagine it could be located anywhere else, what about the fact that there are storms and strong seas to contend with?

How do you grow grapes during 40 days and 40 nights of rain?

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
100% certain Noah and crew practiced vermiculture for the manure that is free of ammonia.

100% certain there was nobody named Noah.

But since you brought up animal poop ...
More evidence that Noahs Ark didn't exist.

AGAIN - POOP and PEE

The myth of Noahs Ark as Literal History

Living in piles of their own dung is very unhealthy for most animals, and before long their health would suffer. The animals on Noah’s ark would have to have their cages cleaned periodically. In most places that care for animals, this is done once a day. Eight people cleaning 16,000 cages a day is absurd. A healthy human, working hard, can clean roughly 100 or so “average” cages or stables in a really tough workday. Remembering the above, we also had to allocate time to providing water and food.

Let’s take a closer look at what it takes to clean an animal’s cage.

Setting the estimate low we could say the process of removing the dung took 60 seconds for a large cage, 10 seconds for a small cage. We could say the average time spent per cage would be 30 seconds.

The dung would have to be thrown overboard eventually, so, again setting the estimate low, we could say the cleaner would have to empty his waste container only every 20 cages.

The time taken to empty the waste overboard would vary on the position of the cage being cleaned. The ones working on the deck below the water would take longer to empty their waste than the ones on the upper decks, while the ones working in the center of the ark would take longer to empty their waste than the ones on the edge. Setting the estimate low again we are looking at 3 minutes to empty waste.

Calculating this out we are looking at 17 human hours of labor removing dung.

Of course, if Noah had built various magical machines (mostly powered inclined planes and those “screw” things), the disposal of the poop would have been a bit easier.

An alternative explanation is that each animal cleaned its own enclosure periodically. However, given the lack of opposable thumbs for most of the species on the ark, this explanation is implausible.
.

Posting Bans Are Next.

You have been warned.

Get On Topic - Noah's Ark.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

I stated early in the other similar thread.
I am certain, 100% certain Noah and crew practiced vermiculture for the manure that is free of ammonia.

For that to be the case would you not need to be 100% certain that the tale of Noah's ark is 100% real?

I don't think anybody can make that claim with any sort of real credibility.

Also, where is Noah Vineyard located on the magic boat?

If it's on the top deck, and i can't imagine it could be located anywhere else, what about the fact that there are storms and strong seas to contend with?

How do you grow grapes during 40 days and 40 nights of rain?

The oldest Vinyard in the world is next to Mt. Ararat next to where the Ark looks to be found

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

So are you suggesting that what you are alleging to be the oldest Vinyard in the world, was Noah's Vinyard?

Worth considering that the precise location of the biblical Mount Ararat and the events described in the story are subjects of debate and interpretation.

Also is there concrete archaeological/historical evidence to support the claim that it is the oldest vineyard in the world?

And you do realise that the story of Noah's vineyard is more often than not regarded as a symbolic and religious narrative rather than a historical account?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

So are you suggesting that what you are alleging to be the oldest Vinyard in the world, was Noah's Vinyard?

Worth considering that the precise location of the biblical Mount Ararat and the events described in the story are subjects of debate and interpretation.

Also is there concrete archaeological/historical evidence to support the claim that it is the oldest vineyard in the world?

And you do realise that the story of Noah's vineyard is more often than not regarded as a symbolic and religious narrative rather than a historical account?

I misspoke.
I meant to say the oldest winery in the world.
In Armenia.

Regardless of whether Noah truly planted Armenia’s first vineyard after his Ark washed up on Mount Ararat, the country’s wine history is ancient. The region of Vayots Dzor claims to be home to the oldest winery in the world, in operation some 6,100 years ago.

www.wineenthusiast.com...

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Think we have the likes of the "Speyer Wine Bottle" from around 325-350 AD.

Which is believed to be the oldest bottle of wine in the world.

sommelierbusiness.com...#:~:text=Speyer%20Wine%20Bottle%20325%2D350%20AD&te xt=The%20Speyer%20wine%20bottle%20is,tomb%20of%20a%20Roman%20couple.

Again .. never addressed... more proof Noahs flood didn't happen.

Watering the Animals - More proof Noahs Flood Didn't Happen

Each animal would have to be provided with sufficient fresh water each day. If we say that watering an animal took only 20 seconds then that gives us 88 human-hours of work watering animals per day.

More problematic would be the source of the water itself.

If the flood waters were used, some method of purification would be needed to remove the silt, salt, and other high concentrations of toxins. Distillation would require a tremendous quantity of fuel and labour. Filtering it through sand would be painfully slow and would require tons upon tons of sand weighing a minimum of 90 pounds per cubic foot[15] The sand would then have to be changed periodically due to mineral buildup. Solar distillation would require sunlight, which would be lacking for the first forty days of rains, and vast surface areas for water to evaporate and condense. Chemical purification and boiling, ignoring the impossible logistics, would do nothing to diminish the toxic levels of minerals. No matter the purification method, a method to move thousands of gallons per day, from the waterline to upper levels, would be needed.

Storing water from before the flood would have been even more absurd. Assume that at least 100 of the animals had at a minimum the water requirements of a goat. A goat requires more than two gallons of water per day to survive.[16] Water weighs about eight pounds per gallon. For these 100 animals alone, 200 gallons of water would be needed each day, weighing in excess of 1600 pounds. To last 376 days, 75,200 gallons, weighing almost eighty tons would have to be brought aboard and stored, without compromising the buoyancy and stability of the Ark — for just these 100 animals.

It is conceivable that a system of ducts could have captured rainwater and watered the animals for the first forty days of heavy rains. However, the problem remains that 336 days of water would need to be stored, purified, and/or captured. Only by heavy, regular rains would this be conceivable, which of course contradicts the statement that the rains stopped on the fortieth day.

originally posted by: andy06shake
And you do realise that the story of Noah's vineyard is more often than not regarded as a symbolic and religious narrative rather than a historical account?

Yep. There ya go!
Lots of Christianity understands this and doesn't read it as literal history.
Fundamentalists claim it's literal history.
But lots of others don't ... or simply don't care enough to think about it.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The oldest Vinyard in the world is next to Mt. Ararat next to where the Ark looks to be found

Ah, a return to the Armenian Highlands.



Elevation: 6,427 feet (1,959 meters)

So... um...

There is still some uncertainty about the full volume of glaciers and ice caps on Earth, but if all of them were to melt, global sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (approximately 230 feet), flooding every coastal city on the planet.

Elevation to go: 6,197 ft (1,889 meters)

I got a new argument for people. "God clouds".

God clouds are capable of endlessly producing precipitation without being part of a water cycle. Their water content is drawn from the "God field" which funnels water into our reality at obscene rates from a water universe.

At a rate of 77.6 inches an hour over 40 days you can reach the highlands. To reach Mt. Everest you need 362 inches of rain an hour. Or 6 inches a minute. And it has to happen everywhere at once.

God clouds.

That way it can fall and rise up from the deep without raping geology.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I know that pal and believe it or not I've got respect for religion, christened a Protestant myself, even though I'm pretty much on the fence.

I envy the peace of mind that your faith and belief must give you.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Each animal would have to be provided with sufficient fresh water each day. If we say that watering an animal took only 20 seconds then that gives us 88 human-hours of work watering animals per day.

We've already been over this. Raw food presents the proper proportions of water. While researching koalas they even mentioned how they seldom drink water because they get the water they need from eating plants.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
"Because koalas are so specialized in their diet, they can face serious consequences if they are deprived of eucalyptus leaves. Generally, they can only survive a few days without eucalyptus before experiencing nutritional deficiencies and dehydration. If food deprivation continues, they can suffer from liver and digestive system diseases, and ultimately, death.".

Just because they can doesn't mean they will. Others who take care of koalas have seen them eat other kinds of plants

"Koalas like a change, too, and sometimes they will eat from other trees such as wattle, tea tree or paperbark."

link

a reply to: cooperton

LoL

Thats got to be one of the worst arguments I've seen presented yet.

Not all the animals are going to be Koalas.

Hence you are going to require a proper, clean, and sufficient amount of fresh water each day, to accommodate their needs.

Or else they will simply stagnate and die cooperation.

For comparison a single cow used for her milk, on an industrial feedlot, which your magic ark is apt to resemble, can consume up to 100 gallons of water a day.

a reply to: cooperton
Eating a little bit of something else is one thing but surviving on that alternative is a different thing.

Ever hear of rabbit starvation?

In Exodus, God hardened Pharaoh's heart before Moses. I used to think this meant that God was turning Pharaoh's heart against him. I've since learned that the word in the original hebrew meant something more akin to fortify. Apparently there is another part of the Bible where God hardens a man's heart but in context, the fortifying definition makes sense. All that to say, that since there are examples of the Lord fortifying people in the Bible, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume he could have fortified the animals during the deluge so that they didn't need to eat.

Not saying I believe that, since I'm not a Christian.

Thought I'd make an argument from the "other side" though.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
True, but in that case it would also not be a stretch to say he flooded and killed everything and started fresh.

Obviously, some people felt the need to claim the title of god's chosen people and this story allows them to do that.

a reply to: daskakik

The Christian God makes little sense, from a Christian standpoint.

Though, the Bible is pretty cool from a historical (not all of it), mythological and symbolic study.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cooperton

LoL

Thats got to be one of the worst arguments I've seen presented yet.

Not all the animals are going to be Koalas.

All raw foods are approximately 2/3 water, just like most living things. The only reason we humans have to drink so much water is all the cooked and processed food we eat that is devoid of its natural concentration of water.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
In Exodus, God hardened Pharaoh's heart before Moses. I used to think this meant that God was turning Pharaoh's heart against him. I've since learned that the word in the original hebrew meant something more akin to fortify. Apparently there is another part of the Bible where God hardens a man's heart but in context, the fortifying definition makes sense. All that to say, that since there are examples of the Lord fortifying people in the Bible, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume he could have fortified the animals during the deluge so that they didn't need to eat.

Not saying I believe that, since I'm not a Christian.

Thought I'd make an argument from the "other side" though.

Yeah all this time I haven't used the "God card" besides the assemblage of animals. If Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights, the animals may have too. But even so, there are plenty of ways to obtain food when surrounded by fish.