Noahs Ark and the Biblical World Wide Flood Never Happened

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
Critiquing your answers is not an ad hom.

The small animals don't cancel out the needs of the bigger ones, they just add a smaller amount to the total.

Lions, tigers, bears, komodo dragons, alligators, crocs, etc.

And what of the herbivores and don't try that dumb garden on the ark card, cause that is even weaker than the 5 bluefin tuna answer.

Why do you think Noah would not have had plants on the ark? Sheesh dude how dumb do you think Noah was? Also animals likely would have came nicely fattened and fed. If God could summon them then they also were prepared for the journey. Bears for example can hibernate for months.

a reply to: cooperton

I do believe there was a true event that is the origin for the multiple flood myths. But at the same time, they can't all individually be accurate retellings. So while there are plenty of simularities amongst these stories, at some point somewhere, there has to be the spreading, retelling, evolving, and repurposing of it, to fit evolving beliefs and cultures.

a reply to: cooperton

I like to think people before the flood were all similarly capable to Jesus's abilities to manipulate matter and so on.

So, do you think arbitrarily bestowing God like powers 'to manipulate matter' on pre-flood man will give any sort of validity to your argument?
Is there any evidence to support this belief of yours?

If Noah had these Jesus like powers to perform miracles and 'manipulate matter' why did it take him so long to build his ark?

Your arguments seem to be getting more desperate and quite frankly ridiculous by the day.
Seems to me you are willing to imagine, twist and manipulate anything and everything to fit into your set-in-stone belief that the Great Flood and Ark stories are true whilst wilfully ignoring anything you can't bend, re-interpret or counter.

originally posted by: cooperton
Why do you think Noah would not have had plants on the ark? Sheesh dude how dumb do you think Noah was? Also animals likely would have came nicely fattened and fed. If God could summon them then they also were prepared for the journey. Bears for example can hibernate for months.

I never said he couldn't but he wasn't going to be keeping them alive with no sun, if below deck or keeping them from rotting under constant heavy rain, if not outright washed overboard if kept on the deck.

Bears were not going to reach the middle east nice and chubby if they had to swim across oceans.

Just another weak and superficial answer that doesn't really answer anything.

Just like your honey can be sealed with pitch, in the other thread which doesn't even take into account the amounts needed. So yeah you can seal containers with tree sap, that doesn't mean you can gather and load the amounts needed.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
There is also the very likely chance that there were many local floods at different times that different people created stories about.

The inca flood myth, for example, has no ark and no animals, other than alpacas, saved along with two boys and their families waiting out the storm in caves.

That isn't diffusion of myth, that is a totally different story.

a reply to: daskakik

True that.

Especially the further you get from the Middle East.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: cooperton
Why do you think Noah would not have had plants on the ark? Sheesh dude how dumb do you think Noah was? Also animals likely would have came nicely fattened and fed. If God could summon them then they also were prepared for the journey. Bears for example can hibernate for months.

I never said he couldn't but he wasn't going to be keeping them alive with no sun, if below deck or keeping them from rotting under constant heavy rain, if not outright washed overboard if kept on the deck.

Bears were not going to reach the middle east nice and chubby if they had to swim across oceans.

Just another weak and superficial answer that doesn't really answer anything.

Just like your honey can be sealed with pitch, in the other thread which doesn't even take into account the amounts needed. So yeah you can seal containers with tree sap, that doesn't mean you can gather and load the amounts needed.

According to a 2012 report, the oldest honey in the world was found in 2003 in Georgia, west of Tblisi, amid an oil pipeline installation. It is estimated to be over 5,500 years old. So, this Georgian honey is older by two millennia than the Egyptian honey discovered in 1922! There were three distinct kinds of honey discovered: linden, berry, and meadow flower. Similarly to ancient Egyptian tombs, a noblewoman’s tomb contained honey stored in ceramic pots to accompany her on her afterlife journey.

The most amazing thing about honey is not how old it is, but rather the fact that you can still eat it after thousands of years!  Is there some secret to keeping this food fresh for millennia? If you’re curious, keep on reading!

a-z-animals.com...

3500 yo honey is still edible.
Honey was used to preserve Mummies
Without question Noah used a lot of honey to preserve foods for the trip.
They would only have to use jars to store it.
Imo, lots and lots of jars for honey in all sizes for a lot of food and feed.
Possibly a perfect food.
3500 yo honey still edible today.

a reply to: cooperton

You may find the pages about Noah's Ark at Talk Origins insightful.

I've seen many of the points and questions you raise looked at there.

Talk Origins Noah's Ark

a reply to: FarmerSimulation
Nobody said it wouldn't keep. What was said is that they couldn't gather enough.

Maybe god just made it rain down like manna, but why do that, when killing a few more animals and people would have avoided the hassle?

Better question is why God didn’t just blink all the giants that Cooperton claims ruled the world at the time and were making people deviant out of existence. Should be child’s play really with omnipotent powers and all. Nobody has to build a Tardis Ark and God doesn’t have to drown a bunch of innocent babies & children.

I’d go with that option if it was me tbh. Certainly easier and simpler for all concerned than this flood and ark business.

a reply to: Ohanka
Short answer: God is an A-hole

Long answer: God is a really big A-hole

originally posted by: cooperton
We've already been over this. Raw food presents the proper proportions of water.

Wrong. They need water to survive. And I gave the link with the scientifically established facts about how much water they need. You making up that they get it all from food does NOT address the fresh water needs of the animals.

While researching koalas they even mentioned how they seldom drink water because they get the water they need from eating plants.

From eating EUCALYPTUS. Not 'plants'.

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

For the 9th time .... they NIBBLE on other plants. They HAVE TO HAVE eucalyptus or they DIE. READ the information provided by the scientists and animal workers who actually deal with Koalas.

"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.".

SEE THAT??? They DIE without Eucalyptus. DIE. It's their main diet. Primary. They just NIBBLE on other stuff.

bescienced.com...

"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.".

What Do Koalas Eat
Britannica Koalas
Save the Koala

originally posted by: cooperton
All raw foods are approximately 2/3 water, just like most living things.

They need FRESH WATER to survive. ALL animals do. And lots of it. Gallons and gallons and gallons. And no, they don't get it through their food.

Livestock Water Requirements
How much water should dogs and cats drink
How much water does an elephant drink a day
How much water does a deer drink a day
How much water do lions drink a day
How much water do bears drink a day?
How much food and water does wildlife need?

But even so, there are plenty of ways to obtain food when surrounded by fish.

WRONG. The seas would be dead. There would be no fish. And animals have specialized diets. You couldn't just feed them all fish and expect their systems to let them survive. Also, Noah and his family would be spending 18 hours a day removing animal poop and pee to keep disease away .. so there would have been no time for fishing even if the seas had fish .. which they wouldn't because the delicate seas would be DEAD.

See this? You didn't read it, did you? Reposting. READ IT. A goat requires two gallons of water a day to survive. That's just a goat. And no .. they don't get it from eating food. ALL animals require fresh water. Your statement that they'd just get enough from food is wrong.

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: cooperton
I did the math and all the biomass on the planet wouldn't even be 1% of the volume of water that would be present on the earth. Sure there would be murky regions, but a vast majority would be clean enough for fish to inhabit.

The saline would be changed. The temperatures would be changed. The pollution from the chemicals coming off the debris would change the water. The minerals and poisons coming from underground when the 'fountains shot water up' would change the water. There would have been a massive kill off of algae and fish. The chain would have been destroyed. The seas would be DEAD.

originally posted by: cooperton
Why do you think Noah would not have had plants on the ark? Sheesh dude how dumb do you think Noah was?

What is dumb is making up a story that there was a garden on the ark and that took care of the animal needs. There would have been no garden. It wouldn't have been possible. Any garden attempt on the ark would have been swept away by 40 days and nights of pounding rain .. and massive swells and waves of the ocean crashing on the ark ... flooded right over the side. You claiming they had a garden is silly. It wouldn't have taken care of what you claim it could AND it wouldn't have survived.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
There is also the very likely chance that there were many local floods at different times that different people created stories about.

The inca flood myth, for example, has no ark and no animals, other than alpacas, saved along with two boys and their families waiting out the storm in caves.

That isn't diffusion of myth, that is a totally different story.

Exactly. There are going to be flood stories around the world because local floods happen around the world. If the stories of the floods were about Noahs flood .. then they would all match. AND the people around the world would be speaking the same language and they would have the same God as Noah, etc etc because the people would be the offspring of Noah. But they do not. They are obviously NOT stories of the same event.

HIPPOS

There are two species of hippos, so both species would have to have been on the boat. And they are EXTREMELY aggressive. How exactly would Noah and his sons, who knew NOTHING about the animals, handle them to get them to the Middle East and then onto the boat? They eat grasses. How'd Noah get a years supply of grasses for each of the four hippos and keep it fresh? Each hippo eats 80 pounds of grass each night along with fruit. That's 320 pounds of grass for each day plus fruit ... for a whole year. That's a lot of grass! 116,800 pounds of grass for the hippos alone that Noah would have had to gather and keep fresh for a year on the boat. How'd he do that when he was supposedly spending all day every day for decades upon decades building the darn thing?

Hippos NEED fish to eat the growths off their skin. How did Noah make this happen?

More importantly, they are SEMI-AQUATIC. They HAVE to have fresh water to be puds in AND they have to have land as well. There was no fresh water ponds on the Ark for the hippo to sit in and submerge up to their noses for long periods of time. This is not a 'they like to do' .. it's a 'they NEED to do' because of their skin. So how did the four hippos have land AND water to live in ... fresh water daily since they'd poop and pee in their tanks of fresh water each day??

Hippos. More proof Noahs ark didn't happen.

a reply to: cooperton

The flood was global

And yet no proof of a global flood around 2000BCE, imagine that.

I like to think people before the flood were all similarly capable to Jesus's abilities to manipulate matter and so on.

Thing is that's not how reality and physics function cooperton, the way you like to think that is.

The fact is your myth is full of holes same as your magic sex boat without the required construction materials.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: cooperton
I did the math and all the biomass on the planet wouldn't even be 1% of the volume of water that would be present on the earth. Sure there would be murky regions, but a vast majority would be clean enough for fish to inhabit.

The saline would be changed. The temperatures would be changed. The pollution from the chemicals coming off the debris would change the water. The minerals and poisons coming from underground when the 'fountains shot water up' would change the water. There would have been a massive kill off of algae and fish. The chain would have been destroyed. The seas would be DEAD.

Also, most marine life lives in shallow, coastal waters.

How did Noah get the corals, sea anemones and starfish aboard?

originally posted by: WaESN
Also, most marine life lives in shallow, coastal waters. ?

True. The massive flood towering 30,000 feet above sea level would have destroyed all sea life that lives in coastal waters. The habitats would have been destroyed. Also, the mix of adding 30,000 feet of fresh water into the oceans would have changed the salinity and algae and the temperatures ... killing everything anyways.