Re: Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Here is one of them which shows the sheer bigotry and venom of S (=?) and
his devotion to complete and utter nonsense.

And this is what Tony Blair wants taught in British schools courtesy of Sir
Peter Vardy. The science teacher at Gateshead Emmanuel College recommends
dealing with Wood on the Flood!!!!

Michael
***********************

Thread: Activity that Demonstrates the Atheism and Nihilism of Evolution by
Woodmorappe View Single Post

   Socrates
Happy 75th, Tintin!

 Join Date: Feb 2003
 Posts: 6,261
 Pearls: 626
 Points: 429 | 2,317
 Skin: Aqua (Default)

 05-02-2003, 03:47 AM [Report This Post] #15

 Ignorant Ark critics

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----
Frumious:
I thought the part about possibly training large animals to urinate or
deficate in buckets was hilarious. I spent most of my youth milking cows and
believe me, even if this were possible and it's not, you would rather clean
up the mess than try to hold the bucket when a cow lets go her urine.
Has Frumious actually read the book, or is he relying on a
characteristically deceitful review by Glenn Moron. Moron makes this
mendacious claim, and assorted Bible-haters have uncritically repeated it.
In fact, Woodmorappe mentions this en passant on p. 30. And what he said was
the purely factual comment "It is possible to train animals to urinate,
either spontaneously or on command, into buckets." Then he APPLIES this to
propose that animals could have been trained to excrete in a small dunging
area or a place that could be piped away. I.e. if it's possible to train
animals to excrete into a bucket, there should be no problem training them
to excrete into a dunging area.
And Woodmorappe spends far more space, including diagrams, on sloped or
slatted floors over manure pits, where vermicomposting could destroy the
manure.
When he talks about taking the young of large mammals on board shortly after
birth he makes a blunder that shows he never lived on a farm and has
forgetten what it means to be a mammal. Unless you take momma along as well
you are going to have a big problem with feeding. Where are you going to get
the milk and who will spend the amount of time it takes to do all that hand
feeding? You can train calves to drink from a bucket but still it takes
quite a bit of time to feed them that way and there are a lot of different
"kinds" of large mammals. Also many animals need to learn proper behavior
from their parents in the wild. Did you ever watch any of the nature shows
on all the trouble it is to introduce animals raised in captivity into the
wild?
Woodmorappe was not talking about ALL the animals, but only those which
could be weaned early. It is a mistake to think that there has to be one
proposal that fits all.
He also talks a lot about specialized diets that might be prepared for many
the animals that would need them but he does not seem to put the enormous
amount of time this would take into his time calculations. For instance the
Brown bat eats twice its weight in insects every night. You might make up
something to feed it but it will take a lot of time and this is repeated
over and over for hundreds of species with unique diets.
He deals with unique diets in his book, pointing out, e.g. that koalas do
NOT require eucalyptus leaves, and that specialisation could be the result
of information loss after the Flood. He has a detailed section about feeding
insectivores, showing that they can be fed with inert foods. Of course,
Frumious really knows this because he's read the book, hasn't he?
All the animal feed he takes on board is going to get pretty soggy and a lot
of it will spoil during the 40 days and nights of continous rain
Not if it's stored in airtight containers. Just as Woodmorappe points out,
as Frumious has forgotten after his careful reading of the book
not to mention all the water that will be put in the air from animal
respiration and urination.
And the book shows that the Ark could be very well ventilated, and that if
Frumious were right, animal enclosures would become unlivable in heavy rain.
But once again, Frumious knows all this already.
And pardon me for saying this but his ideas for disposal of the animal waste
show that he doesn't know **** about animal **** and has probably never
cleaned a barn after milking the cows or stalls during confinement. I wonder
if any of you have seen what often happens to large animals when they get
"off their feed" when traveling. What a mess!
They could have been trained in the menagerie first, or just adjusted
quickly.
You will have to remove all the bird waste promptly or the ammonia generated
will be toxic
Please re-read pp. 31 ff where he points out that the rate of ammonia
production does not correlate highly with the amount of waste, and ammonia
comes mainly from urine not faeces. Odor from feces can be diminished
markedly by removing much of the moisture, as with very deep absorbent
bedding.
...unless the ventillation is really good and I don't see how you can get
good ventillation in a boat that must be sealed against massive global rains
especially on the lower decks, in spite of Woodmorappes claim.
The window one cubit high all round happens to be an excellent ventilation
system, and the same principle is used in many factories.
As to slatted floors, I wonder how that works on a boat. Draining through an
outfall?
Who said anything about draining? The waste could fall through to a
vermicompsting pit.
How high does this barge ride in the water? What happens in the waves? The
whole thing is a collection of one ad hoc rationalization after another.
Rubbish -- they are based on APPLIED low-tech farming methods.
I have a lot of experience in caring for animals large and small in both
modern and relatively old fashioned settings and have spent some time
working on boats. I don't think it makes the least bit of sense that eight
people could care for nearly 16,000 animals of about 8,000 different kinds
on a big wooden boat for a year.
Who cares what you think? Woodmorappe has done the research and shown how
low-tech labor-saving devices would have helped tremendously.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
> Vernon, for whatever reason decided to ask me for links to where
> Socrates called me Glenn Moron.  I cut out his private note but I will
> respond publically.  I don't see why this kind of behavior should be
> swept under the rug. Here is my reply to Vernon.
>
> There are lots of them. I never complained to the TW moderators because
> what Socrates did drew me to TW and he found I was a bigger problem than
> he thought this moron was. He has been absent from any discussions of
> data. He only appears now and again to call names.
>
> http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=91789&postcount=14
> http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=86817&postcount=23
> http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=84804&postcount=15
>
> Among others.    What I did was start posting geology pic after geology
> pic for about 3 months, always asking why the YEC leadership never
> discussed those data in their journals and inviting Socrates to comment
> on them. He never did. he would call me all sorts of names but he never
> addressed the data.  He finally went silent for several weeks. One
> person who had been on TW for much longer than I told me that she had
> never seen Socrates go silent for so long as after I appeared.  It is a
> very bad tactic to poke your adversary with a sharp stick.
>
>
>