How to feed and keep the animals on the Ark?

quote:

---

Leviticus 11:13-19
"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: ... and the bat."

---

The Hebrew word that is translated as 'birds' in this verse is "op" which means, according to the Hebrew Lexicon in the Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance, bird or winged creature or flying creatures. It is translated elsewhere in the NIV as bird/s, flying, winged, and winged creature. So verse 13 could just a validly read: "...you shall detest among the flying creatures; they are abhorrent,..." To the Hebrew culture a bat is certainly a flying creature, so it's inclusion here is quite natural.The problem is that you are trying to force your modern classification of what is meant by bird into the text (this is called eisegesis). And then, having done that, you claim that this is a culture which doesn't know the difference between bats and birds. Thier distinction was not between mammals and birds, but between flying things and non-flying things.So you have created a useless strawman. What a waste. But then what else can you expect from an evolutionist.

quote:

---

Dragonflies are also flying, winged creatures. They're also not birds, and at least the authors of the bible recognized this.

---

Dragonflys are not mentioned in any version of the Bible that I know of. I supposed you are arguing from the negative saying that since a Dragonfly is not listed in Leviticus then it must not be a bird. But that list was of 'flying creatures' that the Israelites were NOT TO EAT. Who knows, perhaps it was OK to eat Dragonflys. Or, perhaps, no one was tempted to eat Dragonflys. Besides, an argument from the lack of evidence is a very poor argument.

quote:

---

The ostrich is a bird and it doesn't fly, and yet the authors of the bible recognized that it was a bird.

---

The ostrich is mentioned only two times in the Bible (Job 39:13 and Lamentations 4:3) and in neither place it is identified as an 'op,' i.e. a flying creature or a bird. The Bible does say that the ostrich flaps its wings, but it just "spreads her feathers to run." (Job 39:18) It doesn't fly, it runs. It is nowhere called a bird/flying creature. Your statement has absolutly no Biblical foundation.The Hebrew word "op" is a noun derived from the root word "up" (of all things) which is a verb meaning "to fly," "to dart about," "to fly away." The anatomical structural differences between a bird or a bat are irrelevant to the meaning of this word. It simply means a flying creature and so, a bird (as we think of it) in most cases or a bat in other cases.Allen

quote:

---

Could you tell me if YOU have a copy of Woodmorappe's book,

---

Yes.

quote:

---

I tried to find it in my University Library and in the Mitchell Library in Glasgow(which happenes to be Europe's largest reference library), but these places have never heard of this book.

---

I suppose that is not surprising. I was thinking of here in the USA. Do they have interlibrary loaning in the UK?

quote:

---

First, focus on something irrelevant. In this case, focus on the fact that zoos display animals in spacious environments. It doesn't matter. Randy's point wasn't about pen size, comfort or breeding, but about the ratio caretakers to animals.

---

Woodmorappe lists 6 reasons why a Zoo is irrelevant to the Ark. The size of the enclosures was just one. Since a zoo is irrelevant to the Ark, then Randy's reference to the number of caretakers is irrelevant.If Randy want's to make his number of caretaker claim valid for the Ark, he must first deal all 6 of Woodmorappe's reasons and show why the Ark is really like a zoo.I Said: To Creationists, Noah did not live in the Bronze Age, but in a pre-flood world about which nothing has been left to know but what is found in the Bible.You Said: Oh, I see. You get to make up whatever you like.No. We choose to start with the revealed history of the world rather than the fairy-tale of evolutionism, Neanderthal man, cave men, stone age and all that bunk.

quote:

---

I don't think anyone here will argue that animals could not survive a few days confined as per the ark, even a few weeks.

---

The point I was making was that the Ark was not like a zoo or even a farm. It was like taking animals from a zoo or a farm and transporting them a long ways away. You cannot treat the animals the same way as you do on a farm or in a zoo. You are under temporary, survival based conditions. It takes this view point before one can properly consider how one would deal with animals on the Ark.

quote:

---

1) Most transport vehicles are not sealed containers. There is a lot of air flow.

---

The Ark was not sealed. It likely had a ventalation system built in associated with the "window" of the Ark.

quote:

---

2) Waste disposal is a simple matter of sweeping out the truck, train, whatever; and hosing it down.

---

Woodmorappe discusses ideas for dealing with waste. The Animals were on the upper two decks and the lower deck was compartmentalized for feed, water and waste. It would be a simple thing for waste to be dumped into lower deck compartment. The ventilation system could draw smells out of the waste compartment/s directly up through the "window" at the top (The typical 'out house' does this simply with a ventilation pipe.) Woodmorappe discusses the efficiency of a passive air circulation system. And, once the Ark has landed, all liquid waste could be drained off through some kind of ports that had be kept closed by the outside water pressure.

quote:

---

3) Food and water does not have to be transported with the animals. The animals can be fed and watered at stops. The exception would be ships, but transport ships are not packed with nearly as many animals are staffed by more than 8 people. Oh, and modern transport ships are a lot larger than the ark and have fancy-schmancy gidgets like electricity and plumbing.

---

Woodmorappe explores all kinds of simple ideas with proven track records which would make feeding and watering animals much simpler than most people suppose. He also discusses simple, easy, nearly maintainence free ways for dealing with waste that, it seems, many people have never heard of.The Ark need not have much light on the inside. Most animals become quiter and stay quiter in semi-darkness than in the bright sunlight. (There are some nocternal animals which would be the exception.) Some even may enter a state of hibernation. Bright electrical lights need not apply.It comes down to this. How would you, if you had to transport a bunch of animals from here to somewhere else do so with as little work as possible? This is what Woodmorappe has done. Certainly he isn't the last word on the subject, but you cannot ignore his work either.Allen

quote:

---

Leviticus 1:13-16 'These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, ... 16 and the ostrich and the owl.

---

The Hebrew words for Ostrich are "renanim" (female ostrich) and
"ya en" (male ostrich). The Hebrew words from which the ostrich is translated in verse 16 is "bat ya'ana." Both the KJV and the NIV translate it as "horned owl" I don't know what translation you quoted above, but I have since looked at some other translations I have and did note that ostrich was used here. I typically use the NIV and the KJV because they represent completely difference approaches to translation.I dont' know for certain why there is a difference in traslation here, however the list is of creatures that hunt or eat carion:
eagle, ossifrage, ospray, vulture, kite, raven, night hawk, the cuckoo, hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, swan, pelican, gier eagle, stork, heron, hoopoe, and bat. But the ostrich eats grasses and grains. The ostrich is out of place with these other animals. That may be the reason why although "bat Ya'ana" may seem similar to 'Ya en' (male ostrich) the NIV translates the words as "horned owl" (KJV "owl"). An Owl fits into the theme of the list, much better than the ostrich.I went through the list of animals in 5 different translations and each list is different from each other. About 2/3 of the list names are the same. Apparently some of the names are well known, However, the rest of the names apear to be ambiguous, and so the differences in the lists. Yet, all but the ostrich, on each list are hunters or carrion eaters. For that reason, I tend to think that in this case the NIV and the KJV have translated the verse more correctly. As a result, we end up with a complete list of flying creatures. While the flightless ostrich is referenced elsewhere in the Bible.

quote:

---

What about a calculation of the weight of all the animals and enough feed for 365 days?

---

Page 1O, Table 1, Total Body Mass 15,754 grams.
Page 18, Table 4, total food dry matter. 1990 tons.
Page 20, Table 6, Total Water, 4.07 megaliters (9.4% of Ark volume)

quote:

---

How did noah's family get rid of the waste from the animals?

---

Chapter 4, Waste Management pages 23-35.

quote:

---

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?

---

Chatper 5, Heating, Ventilation, and Illuminaton of the Ark, p. 37-42

quote:

---

How many of them are doing research in their field of expertise?

---

Wasn't Charles Darwin's sole university degree in theology?? I'm sure it gave him the proper formal background for developing a new origins myth...
Or.
Glen Kuban, who is much sited for his report and denial of the Paluxey River people-tracks, doesn't have a degree in archaeology or paleontology.Allen

quote:

---

We're going to assume juveniles of all animals, even though many animals cannot survive without being nurtured and taught by their parents.

---

No. Woodmorappe proposes that only some of the large animals be represented by juveniles (and Juvenile does not mean baby). This amounts to about 2000 individuals (out of some 16000). You are deliberatly misrepresenting and exagerating the issue.

quote:

---

Plus, the Bible says "the male and his mate" (kind of hard for whiptail lizards, wouldn't you say)?

---

http://members.aol.com/Attic21/CreatureofDay/whip.html

quote:

---

One of the surprising things about unisexual whiptail reproduction is that a courtship ritual is still required even though there is only one sex. Unisexual whiptails pair up. In the courtship ritual one female takes the part of a male, while the other takes the role of a female. Later the 2 lizards switch roles. The switch is caused by hormones: estrogen promotes female behavior; progesterone stimulates male behavior. The mating ritual is required for survival of the species: without it few eggs are released (ovulation).

---

You still need 2 whiptail lizards, one which is under the control of progesterone (the male hormone) and one which is under the control of estrogen (the female hormone). So you still have the male and female hormones but in a unique and interesting animal.

quote:

---

We're going to severely limit the number of dinosaurs on board.

---

p. 5. I have included all 87 commonly-cited sauropod dinosaur genera as valid, and placed them on the Ark. Yet, according to sauropod specialist McIntosh, only twelve sauropod genera can be regarded as "firmly established" and an additional twelve "fairly well established"
So, rather than limit the number of dinosaurs, woodmorappe counts more than what are considered "established" in the scientific world. You deliberatly make claims not supported by the evidence.

quote:

---

We're going to take *no* insects or arthropods on board, contradicting the Bible itself.

---

p. 3 "The Hebrew terminology in the Genesis account rules out invertebrates having been taken on the Ark (Jones, 1973)." Part of that reasoning includes the requirement that those animals deliberatly saved on the ark breath through their nostils. Insects do not have nostrils nor lungs.

quote:

---

We're only going to collect animals at the genus and family levels (despite the bible listing many "kinds" at what is clearly the species level) (since the donkey and horse are both early in the old testament, *wow*, they evolved fast!).

---

p.5. Some "have the audacity to level the false charge that creationists have invented the concept of the created kind as an ad hoc device to reduce the numbers of animals on the Ark. These critics seem willingly ignorant of the many evidences of the created kind being broader than the species. p.6 There is a very fundamental reason why the created kind must, at minimum, be at the generic and not specific leve. The genus is the smallest division of plants and animals that can usually be indentified without scientific study (Cain 1956, p. 97) ... Many biologists use the term syngameon (see Templeton 1991a) to refer to the most inclusive unit of interbreeding among plants and animals. The syngameon is usually broader than the species and even, in many cases, the genus.... Jones (1972b), largely using Scriptural evidence (e.g. the animals lists in Leviticus) demonstrated that the created kind is approximately equivalent to the subfamily or family, at least in the case of birds and animals."

quote:

---

Screw the freshwater animals - they'll mutate to adapt in days, a miracle of evolution!

---

In chapter 17, Woodmorappe shows that much aquatic life can survive varying degrees of salinity. (There is not enought room here to present eveything he presents, you will need to get the book). Then he goes on to point out the salinity stratification that exists in the current oceans. This stratification is likely to have remaind during the flood and even more pronounced. (Remember Creationary Cataclysmists do not propose that the Flood was a homogenous mess, although this is the mistaken idea that most evolutionists have.) With all the rain, the surface of much of the oceans would be close to pure water. I have been surfing in the rain at Ala Moana in Hawaii and drank pure water from the surface of the ocean.

quote:

---

Who needs precariously balanced coral reef environments,

---

The coral reef environments were destroyed in the flood. New ones formed after the flood.

quote:

---

We're going to use modern pelletting and preservation systems in the bronze age.

---

The dating of post-flood cultures, including the Bronze Age, older than the Flood is bogus. Noah did not live in the post-flood Bronze Age.
p.97. "The use of pelleted diets on the Ark is predicated on the fact of the antediluvians having the know-how to compress substances. Let us consider the pessimistic possibility that the technology of the antediluvians had been no greater than that of the peoples of later Biblical times. We know that, in ancient Israel, mechanical presses were in use to compress olive pulp to extract its oil. The presses need only have been capable of exerting a small fraction of the pressure of modern hay-compressing equipment, since even a modest amout of pressure applied for a fairly long time will reduce the volume of hay considerably, particularly if sufficient moisture in the hay is available."

quote:

---

We're going to provide a variety of diet that zoos have entire
massive kitchen staffs for a fraction of the species, and use abstract feeding methods that have never worked in history.

---

Every feeding method Woodmorappe proposes are in use now and are technologically simple. You will have to read Chapter 8, (Manpower Studies/Feading and Watering) yourself because I'm not going to type in the whole thing here.

quote:

---

Rain does not sit on the surface of the ocean like oil on water. In all of my years on the water, I have never heard that claim

---

Of course rain water will mix in, but while it was raining and for a while afterwards the surface layer could be drunk, and I did. Ocean water salinity is not homogenous and is layered. Woodmorappe sites several sources to back that up.

quote:

---

Woodmorappe shows SOME fish can survive in fresh or salt water, not many.

---

He shows that most fish can survive varying degrees of salinity. And proposed 1) that the flood waters were not homogenous concerning salinity and 2) that adaptation after the flood may have caused the extreme sensivity to enviornment changes seen now.

quote:

---

Using an olive press to pelletize animal food?

---

Woodmorappe did not propose that they used an olive press to compress or pelletize hay. Rather, he was pointing to the technology represented by the olive press.

quote:

---

I probably have more time afloat than you have breathing oxygen on this rock.

---

Perhaps, but at age 53, I don't think you are that much older than I.

quote:

---

take some college science classes.

---

Ah, yes, the good old Dawkins quote revisited. "Creationists are ignorant, stupid, or insane (or just plain evil)" paraphrased.

quote:

---

All large animals will be trained to go to the bathroom in buckets, on command, at the same interval between species (clearly he's never been near a large animal going to the bathroom).

---

1. The use of the word "All" never appears in Woodmorappe's comments.
2. The buckets are not 'hand held,' but fixed in the each enclosure.
3. This was just for urine and not for manure.
4. Intervals of time is never even considered.

quote:

---

Urine will be expected to automatically drain out of the boat (yeah, urine goes upwards in Woodmorape's world).

---

For animals on the upper deck above the waterline, the urine (and even manure) could easily be drained overboard while at afloat through gated outfalls. For those below water line urine and liquified manure could held in tanks while afloat, and then drain automatically through gated outfalls after grounding. Then again, Woodmorappe explores how to manually move excrement from lower areas to above water line where it could be dumped through gated outfalls. He also explores the posibility of all manure and urine being kept aboard throughout the entire year.

quote:

---

While the numbers are conveniently left sketchy, the amount of people needed to take out the mass of waste produced 24/7 are thus barely less than Noah's entire crew - assuming that they can immediately go from animal to animal in quick succession

---

The numbers are far from sketchy and far to detailed to express here. You need to read the book for comprehension. Pages 80-81 detail the amount of time it would take for 8 people to feed and take care of waste plus other chores all in 10 hr. work days.

quote:

---

PS, Yes we have had inter-library loaning (and lending) in Scotland for over 500 years!

---

I asked because we all are used to how things work in our own area but not how things may work else where. It is often not the same.

quote:

---

Actually, his book *doesn't* address how a constantly raining, 100% humidity environment is expected to keep everything dry and cool

---

Out of the 365 or so days, only the first 150 had rain. And for the last 215 days the Ark was sitting on land.
Woodmorappe calcualtes that with just using a row of windows along the top of the ark, the air circulation caused by animal heat would result in 5 air changes of the Ark per hour. He also calculates what effect wind would have on the air changes. When outside air with 100 percent humidity enters the Ark, it warms up because of the animal heat. If the outside air temperature were a moderate 77 deg. F (25 deg C) and upon enter the Ark it is warmed up to 86 deg. F (30 deg C) then the humidity would fall from 100% to 75%. If the outside temperature were 68 deg. F (20 deg. C) and warmed up to 86 (30 C) then the humidity would drop to 57%.

quote:

---

I might mention Perhaps Noah is supposed to develop some lacquer for the wood in the same plant he makes his pelletted food?

---

The Ark was coated inside and out with "pitch." The pitch was likely boiled down from tree sap. That has commonly been done over the ages.

quote:

---

He actually suggests the cooling method as "opening the windows" (hope there's no rough seas in this flood that is carving canyons and depositing mountains!)

---

Woodmorappe places the window just below the top deck. However, this is not the only option. A raised section of the top deck near the centerline containing the windows would do the same work and be less vulnerable to wave action.

Good.I have been busy writing a paper on the Geology of the Lower Colorado River so I have not kept up with what is going on here. It is not finished yet, but I hope to have it in the box soon.But, back to Woodmorappe's book. How about starting a new thread for each chapter? Let's deal with the information in that chapter and not skip around through the book, unless there is a closely related point in another chapter.

quote:

---

Has Bergman produced any papers and submitted them to any professional journals which are non religiously-based?

---

Dr. Jerry Bergman Articles | Answers in Genesis
"Dr Bergman has presented over one hundred scientific papers at professional and community meetings in the United States, Canada, and Europe. To discuss his research, he has been a featured speaker on many college campuses throughout the United States and Europe, and is a frequent guest on radio and television programs. His research has made the front page in newspapers throughout the country, has been featured by the Paul Harvey Show several times, and has been discussed by David Brinkley, Chuck Colson, and other nationally known commentators on national television."This web site does not list his papers, but I suspect that a search of scientific literature data bases typically found on University library computer systems for his name will turn up a good share of his papers.

quote:

---

So, can you please list for me the Creation 'science' researchers who are currently active researchers within their field of expertise?

---

I don't know if anyone has ever put together such a list. However, the new Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center (VACRC), Dr. Kevin Anderson, is an active creationist and active research scientist who just retired from the USDA in Ames, Iowa. Dr. Anderson not only has an earned Doctorate but also has been trained for four years as a Research Associate and as an NIH Postdoctoral Research Fellow. Prior to his position at the USDA, he served on the graduate faculty at Mississippi State University. His area of specialty is molecular biology and microbiology. He has mastered many highly technical research procedures and will bring some of these to bear in the VACRC.Dr. Anderson brings to the creation/evoution debate an immense knowledge and experience in microbiology, biochemistry, and molecular genetics. His publication list includes being author or co-author of more than twenty papers in non-creationary technical journals and seven creationary articles. He has been involved in developing more than twenty technical abstracts and presentations for various non-creationary professional meetings. He as also been the recipient of seven major research grants from various agencies and institutions.