How to feed and keep the animals on the Ark?

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

quote:

---

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?

---

quote:

---

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.

---

No problem.It seems that this guy's degrees are legitimate.However, that is one scientist with a lot of education, who also does not seem to be currently involved in any non-religious research, and who also seems to feel comfortable teaching Geology, for example, when he has no training in Geology. He has also taught Anthropology with no training in Anthropology.The handful of degreed Creation "scientists" you can point to bears little relation to the legitimacy of Creation science of those 'scientists' cannot manage to do research which can survive the scrutiny of their peers in the field.Has Bergman produced any papers and submitted them to any professional journals which are non religiously-based?

[quote]You Ask: How many of them are active researchers?
How many of them are doing research in their field of expertise?[quote] -----------

quote:

---

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.

---

Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they are active researchers.Nor does it mean that, even if they are doing research, that they are staying within their field of expertise.For instance, Henry Morris is on that list, and he has claimed expert status on all sorts of subjects ranging from Biology, Paleontology, and Cosmology, yet his degree is in Hydrolics, and he hasn't been active in his field for many decades.So, can you please list for me the Creation 'science' researchers who are currently active researchers within their field of expertise?

quote:

---

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.

---

The idea of YEC's openly criticizing the ideas of another YEC is a relatively new one, and a welcome minute shift towards scientific methodology for Creation 'science'.However, have you ever read any of Henry Morris' early writings? He sounds almost as wacky as Hovind and makes no attempt whatsoever to remain scientific most of the time.

quote:

---

What they actually state up front is their worldview/paradigm within which they interpret scientifically acquired evidence from the natural world.

---

So, what does this actually mean?To me it seems to mean that anything that contradicts their worldview/paradigm is to be rejected.In other words, they have an idea of what nature must be like before they ever go and look at nature.Is this not the case? Please explain how I am incorrect.

quote:

---

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.

---

Since science does not require ontological materialism, this is irrelevant.Can you please explain to me, with examples, how Creationism is superior as a method of inquiry to methodological materialism?

quote:

---

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.

---

Agreed.Please explain how Creation 'science', being religiously-based and relavatory in nature is superior as a method of inquiry of the natural world to methodological materialsism, which has no supernatural or faith component and is evidence-based?

quote:

---

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?

---

Since good science doesn't require ontological materialism, this is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Methodolgocial Materialsim/Naturalism is simply a 'Deistic' form of atheistic Ontological Naturalism.

---

Um, no.It's a method of inquiry.That's it.The following is the opening paragraph from an excellent explanation of what science is, how it is done, and how it isn't done:science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comScience is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural.

quote:

---

It's "OK" to believe that God may have originated the universe, but you can't have Him fiddling around with it later on.

---

It's "OK" for scientists to believe anything they want to.What they must do in their work, however, is use the same scientific methodology and standards for evidence and research that all other scientists use.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, looking at things another way, one might scientifically study the natural world, remain perfectly methodologically materialistic, yet personally interpret the evidence that God is influencing nature exactly in the ways one observes nature to be.

quote:

---

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.

---

Bullshit.Tell that to the thousands and thousands of scientists all around the world who are also religious.

quote:

---

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.

---

How arrogant you are!You, and only you, could possibly understand the Bible and the One True Faith(TM), is that correct?

quote:

---

The thing is, science can be done just as well within Creationism as it can within either form of Naturalism.

---

Ah, good, now we will hear how Creationism is just as good as methodological materialism as a method of inquiry.

quote:

---

A Creationary scientist studies nature to see how it functions as designed by an unchanging God.

---

What does this mean, exactly?

quote:

---

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.

---

But wouldn't they leave evidence?If so, what is that evidence? If not, why is there no evidence?

quote:

---

We believe creation happened because God told us, not because we have scientically determined that God created.

---

Well, lots of religions have had God or gods tell them different things about Creation.Why should I believe you over all these others?

quote:

---

(Curiously this is precisly what evolutionsts, in some form or another, focus their study on -- origins).

---

Well, it's mostly Organic Chemists who study the origin of life. Most people who study evolution are Biologists, Geneticists, Virologists, etc.

quote:

---

In studying natural history, we START with the revealed word of God and interpret scientifically acquired evidence within it.

---

Right, it's just as I said; you start with a preconceived notion of what you are "supposed" to find in nature and anything that doesn't fit your preconception is rejected, twisted, or ignored, no matter how silly or unreasonable it is to do so, intellectually.You haven't explained how Creation 'science' is just as good as methodological materialism for studying nature, also.Please do so.------------------
"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, 09-17-2003]

We just came back from a trip and waiting for us was a copy of Woodmoreappe's book.I will be reading it soon and then, Allen, we can begin to discuss specifics about feeding horses on the Ark.

quote:

---

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.

---

If there is much, if any, moisture in hay, it will compress, all right.It will also probably rot, develop mold, or may even spontaneously combust. (Ever felt how warm the middle of a big pile of grass clippings gets after a day if two?)You cut your hay field and leave it in the field in rows for about two or three days. You might drive your tractor through the field towing a machine that crimps the stems or tosses the hay to dry it further. You pray that it is hot, sunny, and dry for the entire time.Then you bale the hay after most of the moisture is gone.

quote:

---

His publication list includes being author or co-author of more than twenty papers in non-creationary technical journals

---

Well, I did a pubmed search on Kevin L. Anderson, and it only showed one paper. I'm not actually sure if this is the same Kevin L. Anderson, either, because there could easily be many people by that name.If he published twenty papers, it wasn't in any well-known professional publications, save one.I also have to mention that to be a retiring active research scientist and having published only twenty papers is rather telling. My husband doesn't even have his PhD yet and he's published four.Unless his papers tended to be very large projects which each took several years to complete, my guess is he wasn't a very productive scientist.

quote:

---

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.

---

I took a look at the webpage of the VACRC. Guess what I found?One things is for certain; Dr. Anderson has left science behind in favor of religion.

quote:

---

CRS Statement of Belief

​

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

​

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

​

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

​

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

​

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

---

Anyway, this is really an irrelevant discussion.It's just one scientist who has recently given up rational and rigorous scientific investigation in favor of a priori religious dogmatism.This does not in any way make Creation 'science' a legitimate investigative method.

Didn't read ahead...[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-24-2003]

A reply to message #124 and #125 in this thread please, Allen.Thanks.

A reply to message #124 and #125 in this thread please, Allen.Alternatively, an indication that you are currently too busy to reply at the moment would be nice.Thanks.