Dear Christians: What does your god actually do?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

It's all moot because a single tiger must eat a lot more than every one of the "clean animals" they brought aboard:

1. Tigers may consume up to 40 kg (88 pounds) of meat at one time.
   
   
2. It is estimated that every tiger consumes about 50 deer-sized animals each year, about one per week.
   

(Source: http://seaworld.org/animal-info/animal-i...ng-habits/)

Let's see... Ark floats for one year... that equals 100 "deer-sized animals" just to keep the tigers alive.

Then there's the lions... according to these guys, the male and female lions average 15 pounds and 11 pounds per day, respectively. Call it 26 pounds per day per pair, and we get about 9500 pounds of meat for the trip, or (according to Butcher-Packer online, an "mature buck" (male deer) averaging 165 pounds will produce 83.08 pounds of meat, so we'll just round that to 85 lbs) a need for the two lions to consume roughly 112 deer on the trip.

Oh yeah, did I mention? There are the panther, jaguar, leopard, snow leopard, cougars, cheetahs, lynxes, pumas... oh man. That's a lot of meat-eating going on in that 450 foot long, 75 foot wide boat! Even if you presume that all eight of the human passengers on that boat spent all of their time hauling giant nets full of fish and seaweed aboard the vessel, there's no way they could get enough in there -- If you've ever watched an episode of Deadliest Catch, you'll have some idea of what I mean, here. Those guys use powerboats, electric hoists, and modern equipment... and they're lucky to fill one hold of one small ship. They might manage to feed a few dozen of the carnivore species aboard, assuming they never got tired, never got sick or injured doing such a dangerous job out on the ocean in a directionless barge, and basically fished every waking hour of the day with gigantic nets that never snapped, tore, or frayed.

Want to start a running tally of the "obligate carnivores" they would have to feed on that trip? (Obligate is a tear meaning they must eat meat and only or mainly meat, for their survival.)

I'll start: owls, falcons, hawks, eagles, vultures, domestic cats, alligators, crocodiles, komodo dragons, wolverines, snakes, ... whew, this could take a while. I hope my point was made already.

There is no way the food supplies needed to support even a fraction of the species that would have to be aboard the Ark for one year, not even counting the requirements of poop removal, oxygen circulation, and physically keeping the animals apart from one another so they didn't change the program and decide to eat one of the two unicorns to make them exti... oh damn.

---

No silly, there weren't lions and tigers and panthers etc on the ark.  There was just one pair of the cat "kind" and they were nice little tabbies that lived on milk. They developed into all those other types of cats later - but NOT by evolution of course.  

That's one of the arguments that gets me riled up faster than any other, since I'm a former biologist. The "created kinds" argument proposes a version of evolution a hundred times more radical than anything evolutionary biologists have suggested, even under Punctuated Equilibrium, with no visible (or defined) means of stopping such a rate of change in the here-and-now (in other words, at that rate, they should already look significantly different from when we first observed and described the species in writing, for example by Aristotle, if the process was going on as they claim). It's also patently nonsense, of course, and leaves out how the kangaroos and other marsupials got to/from Australia, and the New World monkeys got to/from the Americas.

But in re-reading the above, it occurred to me that they were on a leaky boat in the midst of The Mother of All Storms™, as the rainfall amounts needed to cover the mountains in that time period is 6" per minute for the full 40 days/nights (40days x 24hrs/day x 60mins/hr = 57600 minutes of rain... Mt. Everest = 29,029 feet x 12in/ft = 348,348in... 348,348in / 57600min = 6.0477 in/min). Yeah. Ever seen a 1"/hour rainfall? That's what Hurricane Katrina had. Super Typhoon Haiyan, the largest such storm ever seen, produced 200mph winds and a maximum rainfall of 3.9"/hour. Per hour, not per minute.

Assuming the boat wasn't destroyed by a rainfall literally 363 times more powerful than Hurrican Katrina's max rainfall, it would have been very damp from minute leaks in the pitch covering the timber, weeping/condensation effects, and respiration of all the animals in there. So tell me...

...how did they keep the grain from rotting/mildewing? If not grain, what did they feed the herbivores? We focus so much on the carnivores because of the meat=extinction thing, but I'm picturing the bins for storing barley, wheat, etc. Certain animals, like ruminants, could do okay on seaweed, but some of the higher-metabolism critters just won't survive without grains for a year. They'd have all been high on LSA from the ergot on the barley... before they died of starvation.

---

I once heard Kent Hovind argue that the mountains were lower, before the flood, and had been up-thrust to higher heights during the flood, to account for the Mt. Everest argument. Just for fun, I went and looked up the height of Mt. Ararat, on which they claim the Ark came to rest as the floodwaters began to recede (to where?), and it's 16,854 feet high.

So using the same equations above, I calculated the rainfall just to get the water above the height of Mt. Ararat:

16,854 ft x 12 in/ft = 202,248 inches high. 202,248 inches / 57,600 minutes = 3.51 inches of rain per minute.

That's 210.675 inches of rain per hour, or 54 times more powerful than Super Typhoon Haiyan.