Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How to feed and keep the animals on the Ark?
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 91 of 165 (54465)
09-08-2003 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
09-07-2003 6:39 PM


... and ornithology.
It's not like they had any real grasp of any biology. Take, for instance, birds:
Leviticus 1:13-19
'These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl,
and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.
We're expected to believe that a culture which doesn't know the difference between bats and birds is supposed to achieve feats of zoology never before managed with the benefit of modern technology from a shoestring crew who has a preposterously huge engineering task to do at the same time.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2003 6:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 7:08 PM Rei has replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 165 (54502)
09-09-2003 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by nator
09-07-2003 10:06 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 09-07-2003 10:06 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Rei, posted 09-09-2003 3:18 AM allenroyboy has replied
 Message 122 by nator, posted 09-17-2003 5:48 AM allenroyboy has replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 165 (54511)
09-09-2003 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by nator
09-07-2003 10:06 AM


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.asp
AiG 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 God
Allen
[This message has been edited by allenroyboy, 09-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 09-07-2003 10:06 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by nator, posted 09-17-2003 6:05 AM allenroyboy has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 94 of 165 (54513)
09-09-2003 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by allenroyboy
09-09-2003 12:54 AM


Oh, Bergman?
Yeah, nice guy. Lost his tenure and was kicked out of Bowling Green State University, for, what he wrote in White Supremacist and KKK Wizard David Duke's "National Association of White People" newsletter, "reverse racial discrimination was clearly part of the decision". His letter might as well have been written in the deep south in the 1950s. I strongly encourage you to read it: Jerry Bergman and Racism - it's the appendix at the bottom. When questioned about why he was fired and was writing in a KKK journal, he claimed that he was seeking "information from racists groups for [his] research against racism." (note: no request for information was there - he wrote a letter to the editor blaming his firing on reverse discrimination).
What else about Bergman? How about making a nonexistant line about Nebraska Man, preportedly from the journal "Science" (he flat-out added in the following line into a paragraph, right between two real lines: "Evidence of this anthropoid ape-man was also proof that some primitive humans lived in America, and some speculated that it may even prove that mankind in North America predated European and African humans" - c'mon, who would even believe that "Science" wrote the word "ape-man" in the first place???)
Want more? He's got plenty of amusements out there
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 12:54 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 5:09 AM Rei has replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 165 (54516)
09-09-2003 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by nator
09-07-2003 10:06 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 09-07-2003 10:06 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 09-17-2003 6:22 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 165 (54519)
09-09-2003 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by nator
09-07-2003 10:06 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 09-07-2003 10:06 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by nator, posted 09-17-2003 6:49 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 165 (54526)
09-09-2003 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Rei
09-09-2003 3:18 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Rei, posted 09-09-2003 3:18 AM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Rei, posted 09-09-2003 6:05 PM allenroyboy has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 98 of 165 (54606)
09-09-2003 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by allenroyboy
09-09-2003 5:09 AM


Re: Yeah, Bergman.
Amusing response from Bergman. Note the following (sometimes I'll slip into addressing Bergman directly - just so you know):
1) He doesn't try to claim that he has a degree in biology from anywhere except Columbia Pacific - but he tries to deceive the reader into thinking that he does by talking about his "science" degrees from elsewhere.
2) He cites as proof that "Tenspeed"'s publication is a good source about what are good colleges, a library bulletin's subject line about Tenspeed. Summaries for books and publications are created by the people who author them; thus, he is actually consulting Ten Speed Press in determining that Ten Speed Press is a good source about colleges.
Is Columbia Pacific a Degree Mill? YES! No amount of word-wrangling changes that fact! In 1999, the Marin County Superior Court upheld an order that ordered it shut down, fined them 10,000$, prevented them from ever operating again, and ordered the refunding all students. According to the court, they gave people free credit for "prior learning experience", didn't employ professional faculty, and didn't even approach requirements for PHDs. That's a degree mill. Sorry there, Bergman! And just because a whopping two of the university's "graduates" made a success of themselves, hardly changes that fact. (want a list of the university's graduates involved in scandals?)
3) Nice boast about your PHD being published by University Microfilms International. UMI describes itself as "the publisher, cataloger, and marketer of doctoral dissertations." Read their page: They publish *EVERYONE*. Page not Found | Division of Graduate Studies
4) Nice list of places who were suckered into hiring members from your degree-mill university. Sort of like your followers who were suckered into believing that you actually know what you're talking about in Biology because of your "PHD".
5) Yeah, nutrition and excercise to deal with high blood pressure was controvertial back in the 1980s. And I lived on Mars back then.
6) He cites as evidence that the assistant director of CPPVE had "made up her mind" to close down the school two year before investigators investigated it. However, this claim by CPU's lawyers was determined to be utterly without base, and the court ruled against CPU.
7) They're still open in Wyoming! Wow! After being chased out of California, and then out of Montana, they're trying Wyoming. Gee, this bodes well... Do you know what their current level of accreditation is from? Malawi (the tiny African nation east of Zambia).
8) Did you perchance ask the author of that accreditation study that you cited what he thought of CPU? This line of argument is laughable. If I had a school that operated out of a cardboard box, and it lost its accreditation, and I cited an article by a single author which raises some questions about accreditation, would you believe that my school was any good at all?
9) CPU was first shut down in 1996 by CBPPVE. In 1997, this was upheld by a law judge. The 1999 ruling denied all further appeals. So, attacking CBPPVE hardly does anything for your case.
10) Don't even get me into that mockery of education that you treat as acceptable about "known entities" being a substitute for people with credentials.
11) Note that Mr. "I am not a racist" credits the fact that a later place that he worked which hired people who weren't PHDs to the fact that they were minorities, and that the university chose them over white men with PHDs.
12) Nice hand-waving, but saying "other places are doing it to!" doesn't get CPU out of giving excessive credit - as upheld on the intial ruling and two separate judicial reviews (along with their untrained "teachers" and invalid PHD requirements).
13) Ah, so if I want my Cardboard Box University (CBU) to be valid, I need to just make it so that I turn down some student papers - regardless of whether I have any scientific qualifications at all, whether I know what I'm talking about, whether I'm fulfilling state PHD requirements.....
14) Satisfaction of students is utterly irrelevant to whether they were actually being taught relevant material for the degree-mill PHD that they'll get to wave around like you've done. Likewise, "quality of instruction" is equally irrelevant if the teachers aren't knowledgable about the subject.
15) Comparing your school to online courses is hardly fair - seing as they haven't been chased out of two states and aren't acredited from a nation whose GDP is less than a 10th of Bill Gates' net worth, and whose per-capita income would take about their entire average lifespan to buy a single new car.
16) Hey Lippard, if you can't remember the letter that you wrote for the KKK, I already provided the link!
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 5:09 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 165 (54615)
09-09-2003 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Rei
09-08-2003 3:16 PM


Re: ... and ornithology.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Rei, posted 09-08-2003 3:16 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Rei, posted 09-09-2003 7:22 PM allenroyboy has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 100 of 165 (54620)
09-09-2003 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by allenroyboy
09-09-2003 7:08 PM


Re: ... and ornithology.
Nonsense. Birds have incredibly distinct bone structures, muscular structures, facial structures, eating habits, digestive systems, feathers vs. hair, and everything else from bats. If one of the authors of the bible had been willing to examine a bat, they would have noticed this. Dragonflies are also flying, winged creatures. They're also not birds, and at least the authors of the bible recognized this. The ostrich is a bird and it doesn't fly, and yet the authors of the bible recognized that it was a bird. Clearly "flying", and pretty likely "winged creatures", wasn't their method of classification.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 7:08 PM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 9:46 PM Rei has not replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 165 (54640)
09-09-2003 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rei
09-09-2003 7:22 PM


Re: ... and ornithology.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rei, posted 09-09-2003 7:22 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Coragyps, posted 09-09-2003 11:49 PM allenroyboy has replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 165 (54644)
09-09-2003 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Brian
09-07-2003 5:05 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Brian, posted 09-07-2003 5:05 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Brian, posted 09-10-2003 8:14 AM allenroyboy has replied
 Message 126 by nator, posted 09-17-2003 7:04 AM allenroyboy has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 103 of 165 (54660)
09-09-2003 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by allenroyboy
09-09-2003 9:46 PM


Re: ... and ornithology.
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.
Leviticus 1:13-19
'These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 09-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 9:46 PM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by allenroyboy, posted 09-10-2003 2:30 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 165 (54674)
09-10-2003 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by John
09-07-2003 10:28 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John, posted 09-07-2003 10:28 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by John, posted 09-10-2003 7:01 PM allenroyboy has not replied

  
allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 165 (54680)
09-10-2003 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Coragyps
09-09-2003 11:49 PM


Re: ... and ornithology.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Coragyps, posted 09-09-2003 11:49 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024