|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How to feed and keep the animals on the Ark? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1392 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote:The difference is that Creationism declares 'kinds' to be essentially different forms of life, not descended from any common ancestor, with nothing in common but the Creator who breathed life into them. It should by definition be easy to say what 'kinds' are, if the term has any meaning whatsoever. On the other hand, 'species' is a designation that we fully admit is not cut-and-dried. The Darwinist model says all life descends from common ancestors, so what separates one life form from the next is a very arbitrary distinction. The difference is always one of degree and not of essence. This confusion is just what we expect to see if the notion of common descent is true. So what do we actually see in nature? Black and white distinctions or a lot of gray area? ------------------I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The main reason why "species" is hard to define is because evolution happens. Species do not represent the absolute hard-and-fast categories that they were once thought to do.
"Kinds" on the other hand ARE supposed to represent "hard" categories and are premised on the idea that evolution between kinds does NOT happen. So why can't we find those hard limits ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Thanks for supplying the exact link. I remember you posted it before, thats how I remembered to post it, and to everyone else, I do not know what exactly constitutes exactly as a kind, I'll being looking into it. Your mean mark, very mean .
------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Genesis 7
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[1] of life, all that was on the dry LAND, died. So Genesis 6:17 Must not be talking about all things because these verses reveal that the sea animals did not perish.------------------ "I AM THE MESSENJAH" contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com [This message has been edited by messenjaH, 09-02-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Genesis 7 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[1] of life, all that was on the dry LAND, died. So Genesis 6:17 Must not be talking about all things because these verses reveal that the sea animals did not perish. Yes, but "of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" certainly would include the enormous number of terrestrial insects many of which have very specific needs such as particular flowers, parasitisms, and reproductive environments in order to survive. We are still finding new insect species today, many of which can only be found in very small areas. How did all of these insects (I think a gross estimate would be about 500,000 species of terrestrial insects) fit on the ark with all their specific needs met?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Yes, but "of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" certainly would include the enormous number of terrestrial insects many of which have very specific needs... That would include the Order Grylloblattidae, that die if you keep them warmer than 10C. They lived in the walk-in cooler, I suppose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
allenroyboy Inactive Member |
quote: Woodmorappe discusses all this and much more. I suggest you have your local library get the book for you. It won't cost you a thing. The information is readily available. All you have to do is get it. If you don't want to get the book, then perhaps you don't care all that much. If that's the case, why do you spend so much time on this BBS talking about it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
Apart from the fact that you completely ignored about 90% of my post, you are now suggesting that genesis 6:17 is incorrect. Why would God contradict himself? Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If you don't want to get the book, then perhaps you don't care all that much. If that's the case, why do you spend so much time on this BBS talking about it? Maybe because it's more fun to talk to a person than to try to argue at a book? Just a thought. Out of curiosity - since you present this book as evidence, are you prepared to debate and support whatever the book says? If not, aren't you just ducking out of a debate? That seems hardly polite...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
"Woodmorappe discusses all this and much more. "
Could you summarize? I mean, these boards are pretty pointless if they consisted only of "go read X". I think the burden is on Creationists to support the extraordinary claims involved with Noah's Ark. If you don't have all the info at your disposal, pick what you do have. These are discussion boards, right? It looks lame to not answer a direct question and then accuse the person asking of "not caring". How about at least a web link that answers the questions? Asking someone to do all the research to support your own views is lame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
I'll cite from a review of the book. The full review can be read at:
Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" He breaks it down by genera. He tosses out all amphibians and invertebrates. He cites feeding pandas a complex replacement diet that is time-consuming to make. All animals were taught to go to the bathroom on command into buckets, as well as to exercize on command, and to often feed on things that zoos still can't get animals to eat. Noah is able to adjust temperatures around the ark. Noah took the time to ""maximize the heterozygosity of the recessive alleles" to avoid inbreeding depression after the flood", and bred strains of animals more likely to hibernate, eat dried or bad food, etc. Seed plants survived by being buried underneath miles of water, then being eroded, and somehow managed to remain dormant. Lots of name-calling. Contradicts self about earthworms and doesn't address migration to the ark. Contradicts self about #s of alleles. Cites calculations not listed, including complex ones like heat production. Tables show incorrect numbers, and contradict each other. Assumes some sort of gravity-based urine drainage (from the bottom deck??). Doesn't get into labor for animal maintinence of this sort. Uses incorrect units and false statements on heat discussion. Uses incorrect air flow formulae. Also forgets about rain, assumes wind keeps ark humidity low. Assumes huge evolutionary leaps in that freshwater animals of all kinds could rapidly adapt to living in saltwater (in addition to shallow water -> ocean, etc). Suggests all carnivores eat rotten carcasses of what was left outside in the flood when they get off the ark, instead of the live animals getting off. Assumes huge mutation rate right after animals get off the ark (no reason given). Half-hearted pseudogene attempt. For more on the flood, visit:Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
I haven't read all of this thread but I have read Woodmorappe's totally bogus book. It has more nonsense and logical errors than can be described without practically writing another book and I don't think that even Isaak and Morton in their scathing reviews get to more than a small fraction of them.
JW claims that most insects survived on floating vegetation. Of course this is small problem for animals like cicadas that live in the ground around the roots of living trees for as much as 17 years before emerging for a brief time to breed and insects that need specific living plants to live on. Ask anyone who has bred tropical fish about how rapidly they adjust to changes in salinity. His time calculations for caring for 16,000 animals of 8,000 different kinds are absurd as anyone who has real experience working with animals (as I do) will tell you. His ventilation scheme requires air blown in through a big window. How does that work on a boat during 40 days and nights of continous rain. He says that large animals may have been trained to pee and poop in buckets. Who is going to hold to buckets. Have you ever seen a cow pee? I would rather clean up the mess than try to hold the buckets. His other idea for waste disposal, including vermicomposting are also absurd. His ideas for self feeders and watering just won't work on a boat and many animals can't be self feed. Hogs for instance get bored and pull the feed out and scatter it around after they have eaten their fill. He claims somewhere that Noah may have had pelleted hay. I have seen an alfalfa pelleting plant and I really doubt Noah had one. He likens load the ark to unloading hogs in a modern slaughterhouse which in purely ridiculous. Noah could not have killed the animals and hung them on hooks to be automatically conveying onto the ark. I could go on and on. What the book really shows is not the feasibility of Noah's ark but the amazing abiity of YECs for self delusion and Woodmorappe's incredible arrogance. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, YOU are the one who has declared that Woodmorappe's evidence is good, so I think it aught to be you who defends you position. I have quoted parts from his book which I find to be incredible, such as the claim that Noah had access pelleted horse and cattle feed. I don't need to read the rest of his book to know that that is an utterly ridiculous claim, and that anything he writes further about it will not make it any less ridiculous. What I want to know is if you agree that it is likely or even possible that Noah used pelleted horse and cattle feed on the Ark, since you are putting Woodmoreappe's book forward as support for your position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
He invokes could have this and could have that without ever saying how. The pelleted hay (on page 16 in my copy) is especially absurd as is training animals to pee in buckets but he never says it was done, just that it could have been done giving him an out. Another thing is says could have been done is vermicomposting all the waste that was generated. What he doesn't say is that would have taken nearly 50,000 pounds of worms (along with about 50,000 pounds of bedding) to vermicomposte the 12 tons of crap generated daily
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/livestk/01224.html and that the bedding would have to be turned regularly, a very nasty job, turning over 25 tons of worms and 25 tons of bedding along with 12 tons of crap for every day of the trip down in the bottom of the ark. I wonder which of Noah's family got that job. I could go on and on about the absurdities in Woody's bogus book but such criticism generally seems to run right off the YECs like uring from 16,000 animals running down to the bottom of a big boat. Randy [This message has been edited by Randy, 09-04-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Right, although I do know that racehorses and some there horses used for competition have been trained to pee at the sound of a whistle so the drug testing folks can get a sample. Of course, the drug testers are holding out little cups on long poles and only need to catch a little bit of urine. I, for one, would NEVER, EVER want to stand behind a mare with a bucket to catch her pee. Talk about splashing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024