How to feed and keep the animals on the Ark?

allenroyboy, just so you know, my husband (Zhimbo) and I have ordered a used copy of Woodmorappe's book that we found on line for a good price.He has been casually collecting "crank" or fringe literature for a long time; he has some scientology instruction books, Veliovski's books, John Mack's alien abduction book, The Bell Curve, several of Morris' books, etc.This will be a good addition, I am thinking.

quote:

---

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...

---

I merely pointed out woodmorappes book as a resource that has already dealt with nearly every point that has been brought up on this BBS. For that reason it seems a huge waste of my time to reproduce here what anyone with a modicum of curiosity could find for themselves. The only reason I can figure why no one bothers to read woodmorappe's book is that they are not the least bit interested in what he says. They could care less if he has provided any valid evidence. All they want to do is argue and ridicule. I'm already engaged in one discussion that is taking up the time I have available for this sort of stuff.WhatI believe about what woodmorappe has to say is irrelevant. What does the evidence say?Allen

I note that there has been some references to:

quote:

---

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

---

You may also want to check out the True.Origins Archive at http://www.trueorigins.org/
This site proclaims:
This site was established to provide an intellectually honest response to the claims of evolutionism's proponents (including, but not limited to, the likes of the Talk.Origins" newsgroup and website). Most advocates of evolutionism subscribe to a set of naturalistic and mechanistic--if not humanistic--philosophical presuppositions, inevitably adding a fundamentalist bias to their perspective. This fact (which they zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists' credibility, disqualifying them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science. Much of the material published by evolutionists embodies precisely such a pseudo-scientific bias, often articulated under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced study.Enjoy

How does 'The Bell Curve' qualify as fringe literature? Please don't lump Sylvia Plath in with all those cranks and pseudo scientists just because she committed suicide. Okay, some of the poems in 'Ariel' were a little wierd but she's not here to defend herself.Wait a minute, I may be thinking of Anne Sexton. Sorry, my mistake.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

True Origins is hardly a reliable source - and I would not regard it as intellectually honest either. (Indeed the quoted paragraph is evidence of that).[added in edit]
Just had a look at the attack on creationism.com. Tim Wallace the site owner - takes offence at the first sentence on the home page, calls it a lie and declares the rest of the site not worth reading. So much for intellectual honesty. But all too typical of Wallace's behaviour.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-05-2003]

quote:

---

I merely pointed out woodmorappes book as a resource that has already dealt with nearly every point that has been brought up on this BBS.

---

Woodmorappe has come up with handwaving ad hoc assertions that are easily seen to be absurd. I would not call that dealing with every point but I suppose you can if you want to.

quote:

---

For that reason it seems a huge waste of my time to reproduce here what anyone with a modicum of curiosity could find for themselves. The only reason I can figure why no one bothers to read woodmorappe's book is that they are not the least bit interested in what he says. They could care less if he has provided any valid evidence. All they want to do is argue and ridicule. I'm already engaged in one discussion that is taking up the time I have available for this sort of stuff.

---

Actually I found it rather difficult to get but I finally did. Now I reread it sometimes when I want to have a good laugh at the expense of YEC absurdity.

quote:

---

WhatI believe about what woodmorappe has to say is irrelevant. What does the evidence say?

---

The evidence says it is total nonsense but that doesn't stop YECs from claiming that Woody as has answered questions that he really has not answered.Randy

quote:

---

I merely pointed out woodmorappes book as a resource that has already dealt with nearly every point that has been brought up on this BBS. For that reason it seems a huge waste of my time to reproduce here what anyone with a modicum of curiosity could find for themselves.

---

By this logic, anyone could simply say "read the book", and what kind of debate is that?If someone asked you a question of Biblical interpretation or fact, would you simply say, "Read the Bible"?I DID quote parts of Woodmorappe's book, and I commented upon it.Why do you refuse to respond?I also assume that you didn't read the post where I informed the board that I was buying the book.Once I have the book and have read it, will you answer the wuestion about whaere you think Noah got the pelleted horse and cattle food from?The only reason I can figure why no one bothers to read woodmorappe's book is that they are not the least bit interested in what he says. They could care less if he has provided any valid evidence. All they want to do is argue and ridicule. I'm already engaged in one discussion that is taking up the time I have available for this sort of stuff.
WhatI believe about what woodmorappe has to say is irrelevant. What does the evidence say?

quote:

---

True Origins is hardly a reliable source - and I would not regard it as intellectually honest either.

---

From my years of experience with Talk.Origins, on the other hand, I find the place a wholely unreliable source - and has a comple lack intellectually honest, not to mention a dismal failure to grasp reality.

quote:

---

Woodmorappe has come up with handwaving ad hoc assertions that are easily seen to be absurd. I would not call that dealing with every point but I suppose you can if you want to. ...
Actually I found it rather difficult to get but I finally did. Now I reread it sometimes when I want to have a good laugh at the expense of YEC absurdity. ...
The evidence says it is total nonsense but that doesn't stop YECs from claiming that Woody as has answered questions that he really has not answered.

---

Lots of ridicule--ad hoc, absurd,a good laugh, absurdity,total nonsense--but lacking in any substance. Typical reaction.

quote:

---

Once I have the book and have read it, will you answer the question about where you think Noah got the pelleted horse and cattle food from?

---

page 97. Methods for greatly reducing hay density.

quote:

---

page 97. Methods for greatly reducing hay density.

---

Thanks for the paraphrase.

quote:

---

Lots of ridicule--ad hoc, absurd,a good laugh, absurdity,total nonsense--but lacking in any substance. Typical reaction

---

There was quite a lot of substance in my previous posts which you totally ignored. Typical reaction.Anyone who thinks that 8 people could have cared for roughly ten times more different "kinds" of animals than found in even a large modern zoo (The Cincinnati zoo for example, has about 700 different species with about 180 staff and about 60 of them do only food prep and feeding IIRC) and a total of 16,000 animals on a big boat for a whole year using farming methods available to bronze age sheepherders should not be surprised when people with experience in caring for animals find the idea absurd. My relatives who are still farmers all find the idea hilarious.I will be out the country the next ten days but can provide more details of Woody's absurdities later if you want.Randy

quote:

---

From my years of experience with Talk.Origins, on the other hand, I find the place a wholely unreliable source - and has a comple lack intellectually honest, not to mention a dismal failure to grasp reality.

---

This off topic but I can give you many specific examples of logical errors, absurd statements, out of context quotes and outright lies on the grossly misnamed true origins archive when I have time. Can you do the same for talk origins or are you just blowing smoke. Maybe someone should open a new thread on one of the other forums where this would be on topic.Randy

Perhaps you would like to back up your assertions about the talk origins website. I am quite prepared to defend my observations about trueorgins. Certainly talkorigins is far more intellectually honest and reliable than trueorigins and it would be hypocritical to attack talkorigins on those grounds while recommending trueorigins.

So you think this book answers all the questions do you? What about a calculation of the weight of all the animals and enough feed for 365 days. How did noah's family get rid of the waste from the animals?On a weather tight ship how do you provide fresh air? It rained for forty days and forty nights,100% humidity for all that time. Can you understand what effect that would have on the animals? if not go visit southeast asia in mosoon season.