Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 82224

We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals’ comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal.

Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. As the old adage says, “Don’t work harder, work smarter.”

Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential. Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.

John Woodmorappe, Answers in Genesis 49 Comments [6/30/2011 3:18:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 52
Submitted By: Dr. Flibble
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
toby_in_manchester

"Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets."

Try selling barley to a koala, then we talk again.

6/30/2011 3:27:30 AM

Argle Bargle

Or, the whole story is a myth. A much simpler and rational explanation.

6/30/2011 3:30:03 AM

atropa

Only 8,000 species?

I think John has forgotten that God has an inordinate fondness for beetles. New Zealand alone probably has more beetle species than the total number of species John thinks were in the ark.


6/30/2011 3:52:28 AM

Anon2

Were there also two kind each of Darwins Frog and of the around 15 species of Darwins Finches on the Ark? ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Frog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

6/30/2011 4:13:53 AM

MM

"Studies of nonmechanized animal care"

I hardly think FarmVille is a credible scientific source.

6/30/2011 4:17:06 AM

aaa

How to explain a terrible story? Make up a more terrible story to give us even more plot holes!

6/30/2011 4:43:51 AM

Mister Spak

That would be 83 animals/hr working 24 hour days. Except there are about 10 million species, all of which would have to be on the ark. That makes it 104,1666 animals fed each hour by each person around the clock. 1,736 per minute. 29 animals per second every single second for 400 days. Therefore you are full of shit.

Speaking of shit, where did they put 400 days worth of shit from 20 million animals?

6/30/2011 5:41:16 AM

Dan Onymous

"this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood."


THAT is the bit you flag up as an assumption...?!

6/30/2011 5:42:22 AM

DavidS

"Of course, this assumes..."

that your an idiot. It never happened. Get over it!

6/30/2011 5:58:38 AM

Jack Bauer

I'm surprised that you have not claimed that all were fed by manna from heaven, dropped twice daily and once on a Sunday.

6/30/2011 6:00:14 AM

meh

16000 creatures? Dude what the? Someone needs to go back to basic math class.

6/30/2011 6:19:57 AM

GigaGuess

We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals’ comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal.
Except animals kept in stressful, malnourished condition tend to die after a few days, maybe a few weeks, let alone after a year.

Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. As the old adage says, “Don’t work harder, work smarter.”
Oh? Using what statistics? You've never worked on a farm, have you. Not to mention, there's a huge difference between a herd of 100 head of cattle, and 2 elephants, 2 alligators, 2 lemurs, 2...even if we go by "survival care," each creature has it's own quirks and needs, which, if not met, ends with animal meeting it's maker.

Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years.
From what, the heavily salinated water outside? Or do you mean rainwater? A simple rainwater catcher could handle all the animals on an ark? And what happened once the rain STOPPED?

The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential.
Self-feeder contradicts survival rations. Animals will not eat to survive, they will eat until full.

Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers.
ALL animals have special diets, in comparison to one another. Try feeding a panda grain. Or a cow bamboo stalks.

Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.
It also assumes that God didn't make it magic sunshine rainbow time on the ark, raining food from the heavens above the ark, and making hookers and tequila magically appear.

6/30/2011 6:24:45 AM

Doubting Thomas

Wild animals will often die in captivity. Try catching a wild rabbit and keeping it alive in a cage. It will refuse to eat and will die from stress.

And even if 8 people could have fed & watered 16,000 creatures, what about all the rest of the creatures? There are far more species than that on the planet.

But it's no use arguing. Anyone who believes that the Noah myth is literally true is beyond logic & reason.

6/30/2011 6:46:46 AM

nutbunny

Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.

Did their specialised diets evolve since then?

6/30/2011 6:54:07 AM

Brendan Rizzo

It's been a while since we've gotten anything actually supporting creationism on here. Unfortunately refuting their claims is not as cathartic as ranting in the comments section on political quotes, for some reason.

Now, the main reason that fundies go against evolution and support creationism is because they claim "you can't prove that God DIDN'T do everything exactly as the Bible says". While this is true, this is only because it is impossible to prove a negative. This does not mean, as fundies seem to think, that we must accept the positive. The burden of proof is on the claimant, and they know this. They know this because most creationists do not believe in homeopathy or alternative medicine, despite those fraudsters making the exact same claim that one cannot prove that the "medicines" do not work, and shifting the burden of proof to the skeptic. If a creationist truly believed that the burden of proof was on the skeptic, then they wouldn't go to a physician when they were sick, but would buy homeopathic "remedies" which are nothing but water. Thus, they know that they are deliberately lying, yet show no signs of ceasing this behavior. Truly, they are among the most despicable people on Earth, right up there with actual dictators and dictatorship-sympathizers, as none of them actually believe what they preach either.

6/30/2011 7:04:30 AM

Pule Thamex

But if it would've been necessary, we all know that you dribbling morons would claim studies that show half a dead rat could have looked after 10,000,000,000 creatures for 3000 years on a boat made out a hollowed pumpkin. There would always be some disturbed berk who would keep ploughing on with his...er...studies until somehow he got some sort of half-arsed answer he needs.


6/30/2011 7:21:14 AM

Mrs. Antichrist

Yeah, and which studies are these?

6/30/2011 7:39:45 AM

Sevagram

Sad. Just...sad

6/30/2011 7:44:48 AM

Raised by Horses

"We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals’ comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal."

Were you there?

No? Got any physical evidence of the Ark on you? Nothing that would even amount to a toothpick, you say? Any other justification for your beliefs? A book, you say? Well, I got books too, ya know. Loads of'em. This one here says the world is borne on the backs of four giant elephants balanced on top of a space turtle. By your logic, we should extend credence to that idea as well.

6/30/2011 7:51:33 AM

TGRwulf

"Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets."

And, even though I knew it already, that sentence alone proved you don't know anything about animals.

6/30/2011 7:58:10 AM

Swede

From where did they pipe drinking water? The whole Earth was filled with sea water, remember?

If we are assuming, why not assume that God did a bit of magic so that the animals didn't need to drink, eat or poop during the time on the Ark? And that He made miniature versions of each animal so that all would fit on the Ark. The animals would also not need to be cleaned during that period.

Or, we could just assume that it's a myth, an allegory, an amalgam of many different stories from many different sources. How does that sound, Johnny?

6/30/2011 8:00:47 AM

StoneSpiral

You know.. it just occurs to me that people who try to rationalize the flood this way sound like animal hoarders who can't see that their 'pets' are suffering. One year in those conditions would kill many of the pairs or even just one half of several pairs, and still leave many of them so weak from their captivity that they might never recover to breed.

6/30/2011 8:01:42 AM

Karana

No one ever bothers asking "WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING PLANTS". They would have all died and alot of them may never have been able to come back even if they happened to have seeds floating about for a year, so what did the animals eat when they got off the damn ark?


and @ Pule Thamex. Thank goodness I wasn't drinking anything or it would have squirted out of my nose at the whole 'dead rat' and 'pumpkin' bit. Thank you for that. :)

6/30/2011 8:46:56 AM

Comrade Potatovich

Did Noah carry all the parasites himself? Or does Bronze Age morality say it's the wife's job.

6/30/2011 8:49:23 AM



In next week's exciting episode, John Woodmorappe will explain why we should not dismiss Narnia as a mere fairy tale.

6/30/2011 9:22:27 AM
1 2