Ken Ham's Opening Day at the Ark. #FAIL only 4000 show up. (Nazareth, scripture)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand you you say "the full length of the ark by 20 feet high and 10 feet wide." How is that the full length of the ark?
if one goes by the Egyptian long cubit of 20.6 inches/cubit, the ark could have been roughly 515 feet long by 85 feet wide by 51.5 feet high.
I think Ken Ham used the Hebrew short cubit of 17.5 inches/cubit but build the Ark Encounter exhibit.
The cubit we've come to know is the average length from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow.
It is nice though that even if we disagree on some things or even all things regarding this topic that we can remain friendly, right?
Well earlier I had stated that the amount of hay to support two Asian elephants would have been 1000 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet using the amount of hay needed to feed an Asian elephant for one day times two for the pair times 300 rounding off the one year. Seeing as the Arc was only 515 long then it the stack would have to be either 20 feet high or 20 feet wide. Then you have to add all the food for the pronghorn (mainly sage) at least one pair of deer if afterwards the deer evolved into elk, moose, caribou and all the other cervidae species of which there are not 47. Add the feed needed for horse, cows, sheep , goats, rhinos, cats and dogs as were they not herbivores at the time, kangaroo and all the other species of animals. And then you should also feed the dinosaurs and other what we call prehistoric reptiles. It starts adding up really fast will fill the Ark without even the animals.
If there was a god and it was the Judeo Christian one, I would take this as an allegorical story to try to keep the people on the straight and narrow. A literal story causes me to think of all kinds of problems with the Ark itself plus the questions of the water and the geology.
We can stay friendly and civil. Its not like its an emotional or important topic like how can anyone think that baseball is anywhere near as good as hockey.
God didn't need to "magick food in their stomaches." He told Noah to store so much food for all the animals and family. That's what he did. It's not magic but preparedness. As far as the animals hibernating, it is possible some of many of them did. We don't know. It is wrong to say they did or did not hibernate since neither side really knows if they did or did not.
But the important thing is that Ken Ham built a replica (at least a replica of what he thinks the ark might have looked like) and that people can see just how huge the ark was. Personally, I wish he'd have used the Egyptian long cubit which would have added 78 feet to the length of the ark.
Well I think that idea was postulated (none of this by me - other than where stated - I hasten to add ) when some thought that the food storage problem was too great. For me, it's a problem of keeping it from going off over a year and more like two or even three because you need to keep a whole evolving creation of species in a world that had to regrow even if (as you argued) seeds were either just below the hundred foot flood deposit layers or Noah had seeds - or seedlings, now - them on board...more space needed and you had some grass at least in a month or so.
I'm really running through some of the explanations that came up since I first heard "The dinosaurs were on the Ark" back in the early 90's and some of the problems and objections and mainly this idea of trying to keep it feasible while making it seem credible.
Hamm's Ark looks fantastic.of course. I mean it looks great. Inside and out. But it seems to me a swindle as it doesn't even begin to addresss in practical terms the logistics of sheer storage,provision and catering.
Well earlier I had stated that the amount of hay to support two Asian elephants would have been 1000 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet using the amount of hay needed to feed an Asian elephant for one day times two for the pair times 300 rounding off the one year. Seeing as the Arc was only 515 long then it the stack would have to be either 20 feet high or 20 feet wide. Then you have to add all the food for the pronghorn (mainly sage) at least one pair of deer if afterwards the deer evolved into elk, moose, caribou and all the other cervidae species of which there are not 47. Add the feed needed for horse, cows, sheep , goats, rhinos, cats and dogs as were they not herbivores at the time, kangaroo and all the other species of animals. And then you should also feed the dinosaurs and other what we call prehistoric reptiles. It starts adding up really fast will fill the Ark without even the animals.
You might find this web site fascinating. It scientifically addresses many of the issues people have with the ark: WWF: Full Menu
Quote:
If there was a god and it was the Judeo Christian one, I would take this as an allegorical story to try to keep the people on the straight and narrow. A literal story causes me to think of all kinds of problems with the Ark itself plus the questions of the water and the geology.
You might find the scientific arguments in the link above.
Quote:
We can stay friendly and civil. Its not like its an emotional or important topic like how can anyone think that baseball is anywhere near as good as hockey.
Well I think that idea was postulated (none of this by me - other than where stated - I hasten to add ) when some thought that the food storage problem was too great. For me, it's a problem of keeping it from going off over a year and more like two or even three because you need to keep a whole evolving creation of species in a world that had to regrow even if (as you argued) seeds were either just below the hundred foot flood deposit layers or Noah had seeds - or seedlings, now - them on board...more space needed and you had some grass at least in a month or so.
I'm really running through some of the explanations that came up since I first heard "The dinosaurs were on the Ark" back in the early 90's and some of the problems and objections and mainly this idea of trying to keep it feasible while making it seem credible.
Hamm's Ark looks fantastic.of course. I mean it looks great. Inside and out. But it seems to me a swindle as it doesn't even begin to addresss in practical terms the logistics of sheer storage,provision and catering.
I just found this place: WWF: Full Menu
Personally, I think it is very scientific in its presentations. You might find it worthy, I don't know.
Of course, if we go by Elisha multiplying the oil for the poor widow woman in 2 Kings 4 or Christ feeding the 4 or 5,000 on a few fish and a few loaves of bread we can see that it would be very easy for God to take care of all the animals on a very small amount of food. God can use miracles if He wants to. But we do know He instructed Noah to store enough food for the animals. So that probably does not necessitate the need for a miracle.
I wonder if Ken Ham addresses this issue with presentations inside the ark? It would be interesting to see. It is hard to believe him though when he goes against science when strenuously adhering to a young earth. That is too bad. But such God saves. Not many wise, not many noble but the foolish and ignoble and contemptible ones just like me. Sometimes it truly saddens me just how ignoble I am until I think such ignobility brings glory to God in saving such pathetic ones such as myself.
I just found this place: WWF: Full Menu
Personally, I think it is very scientific in its presentations. You might find it worthy, I don't know.
Of course, if we go by Elisha multiplying the oil for the poor widow woman in 2 Kings 4 or Christ feeding the 4 or 5,000 on a few fish and a few loaves of bread we can see that it would be very easy for God to take care of all the animals on a very small amount of food. God can use miracles if He wants to. But we do know He instructed Noah to store enough food for the animals. So that probably does not necessitate the need for a miracle.
I wonder if Ken Ham addresses this issue with presentations inside the ark? It would be interesting to see. It is hard to believe him though when he goes against science when strenuously adhering to a young earth. That is too bad. But such God saves. Not many wise, not many noble but the foolish and ignoble and contemptible ones just like me. Sometimes it truly saddens me just how ignoble I am until I think such ignobility brings glory to God in saving such pathetic ones such as myself.
I have seen those argument many times before. You may have seen (just ONE example) the discussion on the rival merits of the Bible version (which in the discussion was put to around 1200 - I suggested a century later at earliest and there are clues to mage it exilic or post exile date - while the Gilgamesh version in 1800 and since it is in Sumerian, c 2,500BC.) failed to support any suggestion that the Bible version is the original and correct version.
The original is the primitive Mespotamian ark and Flood and the Biblical version is a later more sophisticated and necessarily bigger version. Thus the link you provided is debunked where relevant (what 'pitch' means is irrelevant and the Sumerian original certainly means Bitumen) and spending time on it is as much a waste of effort to me as reading up on Transitional forms would be to you or Ken Hamm.
You might find this web site fascinating. It scientifically addresses many of the issues people have with the ark: WWF: Full Menu
You might find the scientific arguments in the link above.
Right on!
It is too big for me to look at right now but I will do so as you were so kind to provide the link the least I can do is look at it. I did a quick look at the food dispenser for chickens and having raised chickens to only one summer I have some ideas of it. I have helped my father in law and later my brother in law feeding cattle as well and know the feeder systems they use when the cows or steers are in corrals and hay in he fields.
I will comment when I have looked at the page. When I say WWF I first thought World Wrestling Federation but then thought the name was taken in a court battle by World Wildlife Foundation of which I have been a contributor. We will see if your site is more like the former or more like the latter,
Yes probably the most unlikely concept know to humans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
let me know when you have something helpful to add.
) when some thought that the food storage problem was too great. For me, it's a problem of keeping it from going off over a year and more like two or even three because you need to keep a whole evolving creation of species in a world that had to regrow even if (as you argued) seeds were either just below the hundred foot flood deposit layers or Noah had seeds - or seedlings, now - them on board...more space needed and you had some grass at least in a month or so.
