How to feed and keep the animals on the Ark?

I recommend the book "Noah's Ark: A feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe, 1996. If your local library does not have the it, it can easily be inter-library loaned.Part I A complete Inventory of the Animals and Supplies on the Ark.Chapter 1: Which part of the animal kingdom was on the Ark?
Chapter 2: Floor Space Allotments for the Animals.
Chapter 3: Quantities of Water and provender Required
Chapter 4: Wast Management
Chapter 5: Heating, Ventilation, and Illumination of the Ark.Part II Alleged Difficulties Regarding the ARk and its Cargo.Chapter 6: Some Factors in the Construction of the Ark
Chapter 7: The Gathering of Animals suitable for year-long Captivity.
Chatper 8: Manpower Studies: Eight People care for 16000 animals?
Chapter 9: Basic Living Conditions on the Ark.
Chapter 10: The preservation of Feedstuffs on the Ark.
Chapter 11: The Colossal Bulk of Hay Required for large Herbivores
Chapter 12: Feeding Challenges I: Animals the Eat Fresh or Live Food.
Chapter 13: Feeding Challenges II: Animals with specialized Diets
Chapter 14: Boarding the Ark: The Fallacy of Climatic Barriers.
Chapter 15: Dormancy of Anim als on the Ark.Part III: The Recovery of Earth's Biosphere after the FloodChapter 16: How Organisms outside the Ark Survived the Flood
Chapter 17: Biological Effects of Semi-saline Floodwater.
Chapter 18: How Amphibians Survived the Flood.
Chapter 19: Alleged Problems facing the Post-diluvian plants.
Chapter 20: End-Flood Events: Why the Ark in the Mountains?
Chapter 21: Food Sources in the "Barren" Postflood World
Chapter 22: The first post-diluvian food chains.Part IV The Adequacy of Single pairs in the repopulation of the WorldChapter 23: Demographic Ramifications of Single-pair founders
Chapter 24: Avoinding the Hazards of Inbreeding
Chapter 25: The Ark Animals: Carriers of Adequate Genetic Diversity
Chapter 26: The Post-Flood Generation of Rare Allels
Chapter 27: The Restoration of variation in Mitochondrial DNA
Chapter 28: Was Noah Afflicted with Diseases?Part V ConclusionChapter 29: Conclusion.I realize that to most people on this bulletin board all this is nothing more than frivilous amusement, but this book shows that thought and research has been done to address an assorment of issues that have been raised and that there is nothing new under the sun. If someone is really interested in what has been proposed to deal the the purported problems concerning the keeping of animals on the Ark (and associated issues) this is the best source of information to be found anywhere. There is no need for me to reproduce this information here as it is already easily available to all.Allen

quote:

---

Where do you think Noah got the pelleted feed from?

​

Also, there was never any discussion about the fresh water. Where would they have kept the fresh water?

---

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?

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

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:

---

What part of TalkOrigins do you find intellectually dishonest?
Is it the statement of faith? (Oh, wait, they don't have one.

---

False. The hidden but defacto statment of faith is the religious paradigm of Ontological Naturalism. i.e., Nature is all there is, has ever been or ever will be, and nothing outside of nature can influence it in any way. Kuhnian Post-Empericism, in which science now functions, recognizes that it is impossible to do science without presuppositions based upon our world view or paradigm. I don't know if True.Origins has a faith statment, but I do know that Creation Research Society does declare it's religious paradigm up front. Talk.Origins falsely claims no faith statement when in fact no science can be done without a philosophcal paradigm. Naturalism must be accepted by utter blind faith, unlike Creationism.

quote:

---

How about the lack of references to professional peer-reviewed scientific journal articles? (Oh, wait, ... all those other sites don't. Hmm...)

---

Obviously, you have never read any of the articles on True.Origins. Nor have you ever read any articles from Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) nor the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. (The last two are creationary peer-reviewed technical journals.) I suggest you check things out for your self rather than uncritically repeat pure fabrications. Your sources have lied to you.

quote:

---

They should also be taken to task because they don't provide links to the Christian sites which have rebuttals to their articles.
(Oh, wait, they actually DO provide links to the Creation 'science' sites, and it's the Creationist sites that do not provide such links to TalkOrigins.)

---

It is so obvious that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. And anyone with a simple search engine can, within five minutes, see that. And see that who ever gave you this information has shafted you big time.

quote:

---

Many of the supposed experts and scientists contributing to or referenced on TalkOrigins have degrees purchased from diploma mills, are claiming expertise far outside of their legitimately-earned degrees, or haven't been active in their fields (i.e. published in a real professional scienctific journal) for years. (Oh, hold up, that's actually what the deal is on those Creation 'science' sites. The credentials of the folks at TalkOrigins are legitimate. No diploma mill doctorates there!)

---

There are over 600 members of CRS all of whom must have MS or PhDs from credentialed universities to join. One of whom is a fully tenured professor at a state university who now has earned his 6th Docturate in the Biological sciences.
I have heard of one Creationist whose credentials are questionable. But, he died some years ago. Your accusations that there are many such creationists is blatent falsehood perpetrated solely for the purposes of propaganda.As for publication, it is obviouse that you believe the total falshoods that have been published by certain anti-creationists a few years ago. Their claims have been publically challenged and lists of publications in non-creationary peer-reviewed technical journals by some Creationists have been put on-line.Anyone with a simple search engine can check out all these claims and see that you and your sources have no credibility.

quote:

---

I DID quote parts of Woodmorappe's book, and I commented upon it.

---

No you quoted what someone else said was a quote from woodmorappe. I suspect that it was taken largely out of context and other pertinant information was deliberatly ignored.

ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION!Randy here shows you how to debate!First you develop an absolutly amazing strawman and then cut it to pieces!Wow! Way to go Randy!!!!First... build the strawman!

quote:

---

more different "kinds" of animals than found in even a large modern zoo

---

This is the first part of Randy's strawman. But Woodmorappe provides several reason why any comparison with a zoo is completely irrelevant. "The zoo is a very inappropriate and misleading analogy for the housing requirements of the animals on the Ark. ... 1. the zoo is a facility intended for the public display of captive animals, 2. as well as for the relatively comfortable confinement of animals on a permanent basis. 3. Enclosures must generally also be spacious enough for animals to breed in captivity. By contrast the Ark represents temporary confinement of animals, in an emegency situation, without their necessarily breeding during the stay on the Ark. The Ark most certainly was not a floating zoo, but a floating shelter." p15-16 "Comparison of the Ark and Zoos is patently misleading for a number of reasons. ... 1. zoos conspicuoucly lack even the most rudimentary labor saving devices. ... More important, 2. the one-on-one care of animals in the zoo is very different from the care en masse, for strictly emergency survival, of large numbers of animals. Indeed, even under normative conditions, one person can care for thousands of animals, as extensively documented below." p. 71Randy completely ignores Woodmorappe's reasons why a zoo is an inappropriate analogy. Rather than consider Woodmorappe's reasons and deal with them, Randy creates a strawman argument. Nice Going!

quote:

---

using farming methods available to bronze age sheepherders

---

That Noah was a bronze age sheepherd is another strawman. I'm certain Woodmorappe considers that any history of man that contradicts the Bible to be nothing more than fairtales for evolutionists. 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.After creating your strawman you then destroy it. Taa Daa! And there you have it. Woodmoreappe has been made a fool of. Woopee!!!! I guess you just have to love shadow boxing.Of course, then you can always resort to ridicule!

quote:

---

My relatives who are still farmers all find the idea hilarious.

---

Just ask your relatives what they would do to transport all the animals on their farm from wherever they are now in the USA to Austrailia (or visa versa). Would they treat the animals just as if they were still on the farm while in transit? Would they make whatever transportation they use in to some kind of zoo? Only then might they, and hopefully you, have an idea of what Noah was faced with.

quote:

---

I ... can provide more details of Woody's absurdities later if you want.

---

I can hardly wait!

I said: One of whom is a fully tenured professor at a state university who now has earned his 6th Docturate in the Biological sciences.
You Ask: Who is that, and where did he earn his degrees, and what papers has he published in mainstream Biology journals?Sorry, I need to first make a retraction. The professor has 2 PhDs. I miss read what was said on the following biography web page which says he has 6 degress, of them are 2 MS and 2 PhDs.http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_bergman.asp

I said: There are over 600 members of CRS all of whom must have MS or PhDs from credentialed universities to join.You Ask: How many of them are active researchers?
How many of them are doing research in their field of expertise?
-----------
Here is a web site with a list of many Creationary scientists (I counted 144) who have PhDs. (72 have on-line bios.) I know that some of these are members of CRS, but I don't believe that all them are members. And there are about another 450 who are members of CRS who are not mentioned here.http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/#presentsci

quote:

---

Kent Hovind isn't dead. Neither are Carl Baugh, Kelly Segraves, and Harold Slusher, yet they all have claimed degrees and credentials that they have not actually earned.

---

You will note that none of their names, other than Slushers, are on the list. And I can tell you that most of the Creatonary scientists of whom I am acquainted do not hold those three high regard. In fact, AiG has a web page devoted to countering the erronious teaching of Hovind. Baugh and Segraves have very little impact in the area of creationism other than possibly having loud voices.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.aspAiG has this to say about Baugh"Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he’s [Baugh] well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationary organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent Hovind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter (ed. note: see our Maintaining Creationist Integrity, our response to Hovind’s reply to this article)."Segraves is of so little significance in the Creationary world that he isn't even mentioned in AiG's wealth of Creationary information.As for Harold S. Slusher, he is Head of the Physical Sciences Department (comprising both Geophysics and Physics/Math majors) at Christian Heritage College as well as Research Associate in Geophysics and Astronomy at ICR. He also holds a joint appointment on the physics faculty at the University of Texas (El Paso), where he has served as Director of the university's seismic observatory. He has the B.S. from the University of Tennessee, the M.S. (Geophysics) from the University of Oklahoma, and has completed residence work for the Ph.D. He holds an honorary D.Sc. from Indiana Christian University. (this comes from the ICR web pages.)It appears that Slusher was given a Ph.D. for the many years of residence work he had done through Columbia Pacific University. However, it turns out that Columbia Pacific University was not qualified to grant degress the way it did. It has since been shut down (1999) by the State of California after denial of application for approval in 1996. This does not, however, make Slusher culpable for he certainly believed, as did tens-of-thousands of other students and graduates, that everything was legitimate. Other Private Post-Graduate schools do grant Ph.D.s also taking into consideration experience in lieu of some educational requirements.Here is more information about Columbia Pacific University. Read the first part of Bergman's comments.Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of GodAllen[This message has been edited by allenroyboy, 09-09-2003]

quote:

---

I am sorry, but I don't consider Creationist "journals" to be legitimate peer-review. They are not legitimate because they have stated up front that any evidence that contradicts their interpretation of the Christian Bible is to be rejected.

---

Wow! Is that wildly off base or what!What they actually state up front is their worldview/paradigm within which they interpret scientifically acquired evidence from the natural world. They never reject evidence, but rather, they reject interpretation of evidence that has been done within either religious philosophies of Ontological Naturalism or Methodological Naturalism.The journals which are truly not legitimate are those who, in the false claim of non-bias, publish religious interpretations of scientific data with no warning or statment of belief.

quote:

---

Real science does not pressupose what one is "supposed" to find in nature and reject whatever doesn't fit into this preconceived idea.

---

Science as interpreted within Ontological Natuarlism is primarily aimed at proving Abiogenesis and Evolution. Yet, If nature is all there is, has ever been or ever will be and there is nothing outside of nature that can influence it in any way, then the very fact that we exist means that Abiogenesis is and MUST BE a fact, and that Evolution is and MUST BE a fact. So. Since these facts are their presuppositions, how come scientists are trying to prove evolution true? Why are they trying to prove their presuppositions? Isn't it amazing how they are able to find evolution true when their paradigm requries that it be true? Isn't it amazing that evidence that cannot be interpreted into the religious paradigm on Ontological Naturalism is ignored?Allen[This message has been edited by allenroyboy, 09-09-2003]

quote:

---

Science is conducted under methodological materialism. Ontological materialism is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one.

---

Methodolgocial Materialsim/Naturalism is simply a 'Deistic' form of atheistic Ontological Naturalism. It's "OK" to believe that God may have originated the universe, but you can't have Him fiddling around with it later on. Since science can only study nature, then supposed "supernatural" things cannot be studied by science. Thus, you scientifically study the natural world and interpret the evidence AS IF God didn't exist and cannot influence nature in any way.So, what's the difference between the religious belief of Ontological Naturalism which says that there is nothing outside of nature that can influence it in any way and the religious philosophy of Methodological Naturalism that allows one to believe that there is a god, but that he, supposedly being outside of nature (i.e. supernatural), cannot influence it in any way that we can see? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE but for a play on words.And, If you accept Methodological Naturalism, then you MUST interpret the Bible in such a way that God really didn't mean what he says--that Jesus wasn't the creator (John 1). That what the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible to say is nothing more than myth and fabrication to make us feel nice. And, if the Holy Spirit, who inspired the whole Bible, gave us fabrication about Creation, then Jesus could not be the creator. The whole thing becomes a big lie. If thats your religion, you are welcome to it.The thing is, science can be done just as well within Creationism as it can within either form of Naturalism. A Creationary scientist studies nature to see how it functions as designed by an unchanging God. But it is impossible to study how nature and life originated, because these were singular acts of God which cannot be scientically duplicated nor repeated. We believe creation happened because God told us, not because we have scientically determined that God created. (Curiously this is precisly what evolutionsts, in some form or another, focus their study on -- origins). In studying natural history, we START with the revealed word of God and interpret scientifically acquired evidence within it.Allen

Here is Berman's response the the irresponsible bigots on Talk.Origins.Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of God