Aug 18, 2011 -- 1:59PM, d_p_m wrote:

Aug 18, 2011 -- 1:13PM, Ken wrote:

Aug 18, 2011 -- 12:53PM, HouseofDavid wrote:

Will the Ark encounter show the ventilation, feeding, and animal waste management systems?  Each of these animals must have at least consumed its own weight and volume during the year afloat, so the Ark better show enough room for that.  If not, the Ark is not "Biblically feasible".   How did 2 adults and 6 kids feed and scoop poop for 4,000 animals a day ?  I have trouble keeping up with 2 cats.

I think it's safe to say that this thing won't be built using only technology that was available in the third millennium BCE. How could it be without violating more building and safety codes than you can shake a stick at? And, as it's being built in Kentucky, there will obviously be no attempt to prove that it's seaworthy.

The whole project is a sham, and the taxpayers of Kentucky are damned fools for subsidizing it. I hope they get well and truly screwed.

And, of course it will not deal with some issues:

1. Having two of every species of animal

2. Having to survive on a global flood for most of a year.

3. Deal with atmospheric contamination and ventilation problems from animal waste.

4. Feeding all those nonexistent animals with a crew of 8.

5. Removing the animal waste with a crew of 8.

6. Storing food for carnivores for 10 months without refrigeration, canning, or similar food preservation techniques.

7. Dealing with the repalcement of the surrounding atmosphere with superheated steam.

8. Building it with one person, no power tools, out of local resources.

9. Collecting the animals from distant continents without modern transportation.

10. Returning the animals to distant continents without modern transportation.

11. Keeping the small animals from escaping.

12. Keeping the large animals for escaping (can you say 'wooden cage for elephants'?).

13. Importing, sorting and storing exotic foods for some species, from distant continents (eucalyptus, koalas).

14. Making a structure strong enough to remain seaworthy, of that size, without ferrous reinforcement.

... and on and on.

This is just a larger version of the 'flood in a jar of mud', and just as scientifically valid.

 

 

This is why we need to organize a Bnet trip down to Kentucky. Let's bombard them with questions like these. Will they bother to listen? Will their Website have a section for criticism?

Probably not.

Aug 18, 2011 -- 4:54PM, Ken wrote:

An authentic replica would also have to be made of gopherwood - and nobody knows what gopherwood is. That's an insurmountable obstacle.

I think "gopherwood" is ancient Hebrew for balsa wood.  They obviously imported it from the Aztecs! 

Aug 18, 2011 -- 4:54PM, Ken wrote:

An authentic replica would also have to be made of gopherwood - and nobody knows what gopherwood is. That's an insurmountable obstacle.

It's actually a TYPO in the first English translation of the Bible.  Look at the original scripture; God said to Noah: "My Commandment to you is go for wood." 

Aug 18, 2011 -- 11:06AM, MMarcoe wrote:

MMarcoe: I want to know how many "kinds" they are going to fit into this boat.

And I want to know how they will deal with the many arguments against the flood story

iama:   Here are some research links related to The Flood:

Noah’s Flood Questions and Answers

.