How to feed and keep the animals on the Ark?

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.

---

What part of TalkOrigins do you find intellectually dishonest?Is it the statement of faith?(Oh, wait, they don't have one. You can be any religion and contribute to the site as long as you follow the standards of science)How about the lack of references to professional peer-reviewed scientific journal articles?(Oh, wait, they have lots and lots of references to peer-reviewed science papers on TalkOrigins, and all those other sites don't. Hmm...)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. Makes you wonder if the Creationist sites don't want their readers to seek out any other information or try to verify the claims of the website...)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 theos Creation 'science' sites. The credentials of the folks at TalkOrigins are legitimate. No diploma mill doctorates there!)------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

page 97. Methods for greatly reducing hay density.

---

Great!I look forward to reading it.Maybe you could briefly describe the method here?Also, does the book describe where Noah got pelleted feed from?Is there any evidence of the pelleting technology being in existence back then, for example?

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!

Hi,Could you tell me if YOU have a copy of Woodmorappe's book, 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.What I was hoping was that, if you had the book, you could clarify a few things for me.Many thanks.Brian.

quote:

---

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.

---

Wrong on soooo many levels, but that is another thread. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

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.

---

Um, no.Science is conducted under methodological materialism.Ontological materialism is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one.One is perfectly free to believe in any religion one wants and still do science, as is demonstrated by one of my husband's advisors at University. He is a devout Christian in his personal life, but an excellent research scientist because he follows methodological materialism.In short, he doesn't try to invoke miracles or use anything other than repeatable, obsevable-by-anyone-evidence in his scientific work, but he has his own personal beliefs which are not scientific.Some of the people who have written articles and who run the TalkOriging website are religious.

quote:

---

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.

---

Methodological materialism is different from ontological materialism.Science operates under the former. The latter is NOT required of any scientist to do science, as my husband's advisor is evidence of.Oh, tell me, are there any non-theists involved with any Creationist website or movement? What was that you were saying about blind faith not being required for belief in Creationism?

quote:

---

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.

---

I have read quite a few articles from Creationist sites, actually.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.Real science does not pressupose what one is "supposed" to find in nature and reject whatever doesn't fit into this preconceived idea.I retract my claim of there not being links to TalkOrigins on the Creationist site trueorigins.However, neither AiG nor ICR, the two largest Creation 'science' organizations out there, include much in the way of links to real scientific information.

quote:

---

There are over 600 members of CRS all of whom must have MS or PhDs from credentialed universities to join.

---

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

quote:

---

One of whom is a fully tenured professor at a state university who now has earned his 6th Docturate in the Biological sciences.

---

Who is that, and where did he earn his degrees, and what papers has he published in mainstream Biology journals?

quote:

---

I have heard of one Creationist whose credentials are questionable. But, he died some years ago.

---

Um, 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.Besides, what does it matter if he is dead or not?

quote:

---

Your accusations that there are many such creationists is blatent falsehood perpetrated solely for the purposes of propaganda.

---

No, sorry, it's true.

quote:

---

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.

---

Excellent! I'd love to read them. Please link to them.BTW, you seem to have forgotten to address my accusation that many of the people associated with Creationist organizations, while they do hold legitimate degrees, are claiming authority and expertise on subjects havng little or nothing to do with the field of their degree.For instance, you have Henry Morris himself, who's degree was in Hydraulics, yet he has claimed expert knowledge in fields in which he is not an expert at all, such as Paleontology, Biology, Cosmology, and Physics.Phillip Johnson expounds upon Biology as if he is an expert, yet he has a Law degree, and no scientific or Biology training at all.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-07-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-07-2003]

quote:

---

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.

---

No, John Paul was the EvC member I was debating with, and he is a Creationist who was citing Woodmorappe's book in DEFENSE of his claim that the Ark story could have really happened. Why would he deliberately ignore pertinent information?I gave you the topic name and message numbers at the begining of this thread. You can easily go read the exchanges for yourself.This is all going to be moot in a week or so when we get Woodmorappe's book here.Then I'll be able to read what you don't want to discuss.

quote:

---

ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION!

​

Randy allenroyboy here shows you how to debate!

---

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 of caretakers to animals.And this really kills me....

quote:

---

1. zoos conspicuoucly lack even the most rudimentary labor saving devices.

---

Lol... zoos conspicuously lack labor saving devices, but ACTUALLY incorporate labor saving devices like mad.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is true. Zoo's strive to have ALL of there animals survive. Understaffed emergency care means you lose animals to attrition. This may be acceptable when you are trying to save a dozen stranded bears, but it is not acceptable when the loss of even one means the species vanishes.

quote:

---

That Noah was a bronze age sheepherd is another strawman.

---

hmmm.... he lived in the bronze age. He herded. This is a straw man?

quote:

---

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.

---

Oh, I see. You get to make up whatever you like.On the subject of straw men...

quote:

---

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).

---

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. Unfortunately for you, the critters were on the ark for considerably longer than that. And you need to consider the differences between the ark environment and modern transportation methods.1) Most transport vehicles are not sealed containers. There is a lot of air flow. Aircraft are an exception, but then, one would take a flight longer than 24 hours or so.2) Waste disposal is a simple matter of sweeping out the truck, train, whatever; and hosing it down.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.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

1. zoos conspicuoucly lack even the most rudimentary labor saving devices.

---

Yeah, like electricity, trucks, cars, and other motorized transport, forklifts, blenders, microwave ovens, plastic bottles, processed, ready-made food produced in factories and delivered to the zoo, fresh produce and meats produced all over the world and delivered to the zoo, paved roads and paths, refrigerators and freezers, hoses and modern plumbing, artificial lights, hand trucks, hydraulic lifts, carts on wheels, etc. etc.It's amazing that zoos don't have ANY of these rudimentary labor-saving devices.LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!![This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-07-2003]

Allenroyboy, here is the link to the "Animals on the Ark" thread from way back in the day.It is clear that, like you, Jophn Paul is using Woodmorappe's book to defend the Ark story as a real occurence:http://EvC Forum: animals on the ark -->EvC Forum: animals on the ark

Insects do not have nostrils.------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

They have spiricles along their body through which they breathe. But if we're talking about "openings in the body that allow air in and out" then they're the same as nostrils. All in all it just shows that the Bible authors lacked proper grounding in entomology.

That's pretty well known. It's also pretty likely that insects floating in a rainstorm for forty days and then on a worldwide ocean for most of a year would pretty much all be dead. Take mayflies, for example: the larvae require cool, fresh (not sea) water. The adults live about a day. How are they going to make it?