Excuse my bad english please ...
John Paul writes:
Msg 29 > On page 19 of the book Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study
Msg 27 > A book has been written that covers everything you ask pertaining to the Flood and the Ark. If you are really interested you will find a copy and read it.
Msg 26 > The book covers it.
> You've done so much homework you didnt know a fully referenced and comprehensive book existed on the Flood of Noahs day.
Msg 9 > You do realize there is a book published that answers your questions. It is called Noahs Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe.
> Actually all you have to do is read the book I mentioned earlier. Then if you have issues with it at least we will have something to debate.
Mag 31 > Read Noah's Ark:A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe ...
I wonder, why JP is permanently referering to the Book Noah's Ark, by John Woodmorappe.
No, I havn't read the book, but a bit of googling is enough to find some critical reviews about this book.
Someone should be ashamed, if he has nothing else to refer to as such a funny book.
Let me quote some sentences of this reviews. (references below)
>It seems he used the "it could have happened this way" approach so often that one wonders why he even bothered to conduct any research.<
>Many of his references are from young-earth-creationist (YEC) researchers and are used without any doubts as to the reliability.<
http://www.amazon.com/...duct/0932766412/002-2995807-6962409
>On page 44 he claims "I now consider non-biological sources of flameless illumination. There are many references to 'luminous gems' in ancient literature, along with an apocryphal account of luminous pearls being used on the Ark."<
>Having rejected the accepted rates of molecular clocks Woodmorappe is forced to talk about "mutator genes" which cause mutations, radioactivity and the mutagenic effects of a stressful environment (citing a creationist source). He refers to a "burst of mutations among Noah's immediate post-Flood descendants".<
>He appeals to gradual acclimatization of amphibians and fish to the salinity of the flood waters. But exactly how a global flood was able to gradually occur is unexplained.<
>He relies on wind entering the upper level to cool and ventilate the ark. His calculation is merely wind speed times the window area. But anyone who has ever performed a fluid flow calculation will know that you can not calculate the problem in this fashion. Hydrodynamic equations must be used and friction taken into account. His method for calculating air flow is far too simple.<
>Many of the arguments depend upon mathematical calculations which are not displayed, either in footnotes or appendices. This leaves the mathematically oriented reader wondering if the mathematics was correct. He claims that calculations show ark animals produced between 6 and 12 tons of airborne moisture. None of the assumptions are displayed to allow the reader to evaluate such a claim. Calculations of the heat production by animals in the ark are claimed to show that there is no problem with this issue, but the lack of calculations force the reader to depend upon the author for the validity of that statement.<
>Amphibians and invertebrates like terrestrial snails are not on the ark. He spends very little space describing how these animals could have survived out in the turbulent flood waters.<
Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"
Of course, refusing to read this book makes myself vulnerable, but I have the feeling I waste my time.
greetz asplenium
Edited by asplenium, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2