Cambo wrote:What on earth? I've read and re-read Foul's post and can find nothing to merit taking such offense.
Pointing out your posts might be easier read if you broke up your paragraphs is constructive criticism, not an attack.
The comment on how to square Biblical values with your post to Lore was somewhat snide, but I for one thought he had a point. He later explained that it was a reaction to the perceived meanness you showed toward Loremaster, which I think was far more demostrable: "you are PC goonism at its worst," "seriously, you are terrible," "you got goonism on the brain" "don't take this as an attack, it's a public service to enlighten and attack you."
Reserving judgement on someone you've just met is pretty standard social interaction. If you want Foul to have as high an opinion of you as you claim you have of him, you'll have to show him what a great person you are through future interaction.
My posting this is NOT an attack, I'd like to forestall any claims of people ganging uo on you.. It's my hope that a second opinion may lead you to see your interactions with Foul in a new light, as you do seem genuinely upset and hard done by. I happen to think Foul has been pretty fair to you, much fairer than you have to him.
Feel free to compile research against his arguments, though. That's kind of the idea of this forum, and as long as you go about it respectfully most people won't have a problem with that. I for one look forward to you addressing the actual arguments against Biblical literalism.
Im sorry good sir but all those quotes are taken out of their context and therefore paint me as some kind of crab-grabber. I am anything further from the truth. This has grokked into a place of great finger pointing and half disguised animosity (not by me
feelin' fine!).
Murrin wrote:
Stay on target.
I don't know if you picked this picture because it resembles me or not but it does
Bravo kind sir/madame?
Lord Foul wrote:babybottomfeeder wrote:Lord Foul wrote:
Seriously, I'm sorry. I'm not attacking you, but this is what I'm talking about. Just space those words out a bit. I'm not sure why something in the past would stop you from doing it.
First off--I think it's totally civilized to get to know you as a poster before I accept you. I'm just not sure what your angle is yet. If I've been mean it's because I felt a tinge of meanness that needed addressing in the post you addressed to Loremaster.
I'm really not sure if this is some kind of jibe at me and Lore's public argument (which is settled, all right?), but I'll answer your question: I think Loremaster is Australian, though I'm not sure. I'm from the United States, as are most Watchers.
All right. I'll try with all my might to steer this back on topic. So you think the Bible is literal? You really think Jonah was eaten by a whale and lived to tell about it? The point is not whether there's total proof or belief in every word but the value of the metaphor or, well, message or lesson the Scripture is trying to make. Isn't that enough? Do we really need to believe every prophet's fevre dream in the Old Testament?
We respect great parts of ancient history such as Herodotus as spiced with fantasy (men with faces in their chests; cat men) or with huge exaggerations (2,000,000 Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae?!), and yet not for a moment a reasonable Christian can't see the mirror absurdities in the text they study every day?
It's on now sir. You have offended my sensibilities as a carry-all individual. I cannot stand idly by and listen to you pull mannequin falsehoods from a verbal penny jar. I'm not one to crossbow words but you good sir are an ace of spades when it comes to meanness. I don't believe a single word you say. I have great brotherly respect for you but I at this point do not trust or like your posts or outlook on life. This is very disturbing to me. I do not know how you live everyday but it must cause the rhythm of your life to vibrate out of frequency with The Red Father. I leave now to compile respectful research against your beliefs and arguments. I extend my hand in friendship and the duality of man. You sir are a combat veteran of unethical practices in the virtual workplace. Yes Foul, I work online and this has greatly affected my ability to focus. I believe an example must be made. Do not fear. I respectfully tip my hat in your direction and take it off and point at you.
Good day, I will return
P.S. Does anyone know how much a rain slicker costs? I need one to get to the mailbox because it has been raining?
I'm not sure whether to laugh or to take this seriously? In any case I'm pretty burned out on arguing. The Watch has been a bit of a tense place for me lately (probably mostly my fault).
If I really wounded you I deeply apologize, but is there any reason to compile "research" against me? Can't you just argue your points right now? Why leave with a cliff hanger? I've never heard of anyone in any forum say "I'm going to blow you away...but not right now..."
And what the hell is the "Red Father"?
Cambo wrote:What on earth? I've read and re-read Foul's post and can find nothing to merit taking such offense.
Pointing out your posts might be easier read if you broke up your paragraphs is constructive criticism, not an attack.
The comment on how to square Biblical values with your post to Lore was somewhat snide, but I for one thought he had a point. He later explained that it was a reaction to the perceived meanness you showed toward Loremaster, which I think was far more demostrable: "you are PC goonism at its worst," "seriously, you are terrible," "you got goonism on the brain" "don't take this as an attack, it's a public service to enlighten and attack you."
Reserving judgement on someone you've just met is pretty standard social interaction. If you want Foul to have as high an opinion of you as you claim you have of him, you'll have to show him what a great person you are through future interaction.
My posting this is NOT an attack, I'd like to forestall any claims of people ganging uo on you.. It's my hope that a second opinion may lead you to see your interactions with Foul in a new light, as you do seem genuinely upset and hard done by. I happen to think Foul has been pretty fair to you, much fairer than you have to him.
Feel free to compile research against his arguments, though. That's kind of the idea of this forum, and as long as you go about it respectfully most people won't have a problem with that. I for one look forward to you addressing the actual arguments against Biblical literalism.
Thanks Cambo. But if I really offended him I did. I suppose I should have PMed him, but this topic looked so strange and rife with silliness in the mere question it beggared that I felt someone had to speak up. But maybe I was wrong even there? I don't know. I'm so tired of walking on eggshells. I’m going to take an extended break from the Watch for a while. See yas.
I'm sorry to hear that Foul. I get very upset when people comment on my grammar. It sets me on edge because I feel the persons talking to me are poking fun at me and therefore believe themselves superior to me? I so sorry sir, I may have overreacted. When I feel the twinge of attack blow my way, I change from the bottom feeder to the bottom eater! Everyone in my day to day life knows I am confrontational and accepts it about me. I am sorry I came here and became such so such. I really have problems with authority and with criticism. Please don't think this makes me a bad person or not like you
Thus far, you seem to be a swaddlingly pleasant fellow? Other than the jabs and uppercuts to my psyche
But those were unintentional! To make it short, I mean to say, I'M SO SORRY FOUL. Don't leave on my account, I don't have many people in my life and making strangers HATE me doesn't help anything? I love you Lord Foul, as do I love every human being or doing on this planet of ours. Pleas be kind and let's rewind the time we have been fighting and be friends?
As for the Red Father... I believe people that frequent a site like this know who I talk about... It is the single most traumatic experience of my childhood. One day when I know the people on this forum better I may share the information about my childhood but for now I will simply say that, 13 years of pure torture cause you to come out feeling wary of all the symbols and actions you adhere to. Please don't take this as an attack Foul, I am sorry.
TheFallen wrote:And moreover, à propos of nothing in particular, I'll randomly select this thread to pose the completely generic ethical question - how long should the courtesy of tolerance be extended and more importantly the sustenance of attention be given, before both are withheld in the face of utter and repeated fruitcake-ism? Especially if such entirely hypothetical fruitcake-ism is being expounded just for the sake of mischief or attention-seeking?
Ha ha ha, I am not a fan of Doctor Who, which is where fruitcake-ism comes from? Sir/Madame, you are right in stating that I seek attention you are WRONG about everything else however. I seek attention, not the way you perceive it but rather because I believe my moral philosophy is a beacon to people that have run aground in their daily living. I am horribly offended by the notion in the ocean that this is a fruitcake moment? Is EVERYTHING parody to you? Is that why you have a marvin the martian avatar? Do you believe yourself above criticism because you carry the avatar of a cartoon martian? Do you understand where I am going with this? You believe yourself to be far superior in your moral philosophy or intelligence (one in the same!) and therefore are above the mere goings on of us "earthlings". But you want to soft sell it with the cartoonish void and blackness of marvin the martian. I feel my claws and cat calls coming out, so I will back off for the sake of the Forum.
Finally, I have found an answer to the Ark question on the genesisanswers.org website, The gentleman on the site goes into a vast an luxurious explanation of
how the animals ate, where their wast went and even how the breathed!
Here is the long and short of it:
According to Scripture, Noah’s Ark was a safe haven for representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals that God created. While it is possible that God made miraculous provisions for the daily care of these animals, it is not necessary—or required by Scripture—to appeal to miracles. Exploring natural solutions for day-to-day operations does not discount God’s role: the biblical account hints at plenty of miracles as written, such as God bringing the animals to the Ark (Genesis 6:20; 7:9, 15). It turns out that a study of existing, low-tech animal care methods answers trivial objections to the Ark. In fact, many solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems are rather straightforward.
How Did Noah Fit All the Animals on the Ark?
According to the Bible, the Ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals (the maximum number of animals on the Ark, if the most liberal approach to counting animals is applied), assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) were small (the largest only a few hundred pounds of body weight). What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.
It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants and rhinos. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area because it is most likely that these animals were young, but not newborns. Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.
What Did the Dinosaurs Eat?
Dinosaurs could have eaten basically the same foods as the other animals. The large sauropods could have eaten compressed hay, other dried plant material, seeds and grains, and the like. Carnivorous dinosaurs—if any were meat-eaters before the Flood—could have eaten dried meat, reconstituted dried meat, or slaughtered animals. Giant tortoises would have been ideal to use as food in this regard. They were large and needed little food to be maintained themselves. There are also exotic sources of meat, such as fish that wrap themselves in dry cocoons.
How Were the Animals Cared For?
We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals’ comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal.
Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. As the old adage says, “Don’t work harder, work smarter.”
Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential. Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.
How Did the Animals Breathe?
Based on my two decades of research, I do not believe that anything more was needed than a basic, non-mechanical ventilation system. The density of animals on the Ark, compared to the volume of enclosed space, was much less than we find in some modern, mass animal housing used to keep stock raised for food (such as chicken farms), which requires no special mechanical ventilation.
It is reasonable to believe that one relatively small window would have adequately ventilated the Ark. Of course if there were a window along the top center section, which the Bible allows, all occupants would be even more comfortable. It is also interesting to note that the convective movement of air, driven by temperature differences between the warm-blooded animals and the cold interior surfaces, would have been significant enough to drive the flow of air. Plus, wind blowing into the window would have enhanced the ventilation further. However, if supplementary ventilation was necessary, it could have been provided by wave motion, fire thermal, or even a small number of animals harnessed to slow-moving rotary fans.
What Did Noah and His Family Do with the Animal Waste?
As much as 12 U.S. tons (11 m. tons) of animal waste may have been produced daily. The key to keeping the enclosures clean was to avoid the need for Noah and his family to do the work. The right systems could also prevent the need to change animal bedding. Noah could have accomplished this in several ways. One possibility would be to allow the waste to accumulate below the animals, much as we see in modern pet shops. In this regard, there could have been slatted floors, and animals could have trampled their waste into the pits below. Small animals, such as birds, could have multiple levels in their enclosures, and waste could have simply accumulated at the bottom of each.
The danger of toxic or explosive manure gases, such as methane, would be alleviated by the constant movement of the Ark, which would have allowed manure gases to be constantly released. Secondly, methane, which is half the density of air, would quickly find its way out of a small opening such as a window. There is no reason to believe that the levels of these gases within the Ark would have approached hazardous levels.
Alternatively, sloped floors would have allowed the waste to flow into large central gutters. Noah’s family could have then dumped this overboard without an excessive expenditure of manpower.
The problem of manure odor may, at first thought, seem insurmountable. But we must remember that, throughout most of human history, humans lived together with their farm animals. Barns, separate from human living quarters, are a relatively recent development.
While the voyage of the Ark may not have been comfortable or easy, it was certainly doable, even under such unprecedented circumstances.
A Look Inside the Ark
This is a cross-section view of a possible design of the interior of the Ark.
Click to enlarge.
Three Decks
Genesis 6:16 instructs that the Ark is to be made “with lower, second, and third decks” (NKJV). In this version of the Ark’s interior, there are two levels that do not extend across the entire width of the ship. These half-floors are not separate levels.
Animal Housing
Genesis 6:14 instructs Noah to “make rooms [nests] in the ark” (NKJV). These rooms or nests would simply be stalls and cages for the animals.
Model created by Tim Foley. Click to enlarge.
This scale model shows the effective design of Noah’s Ark. This second-floor model shows the extra half-floor within the three deck structure that could have been used for possible storage or animal housing.
Stairs
Several staircases and ladders could be fitted throughout the Ark to gain quick access to another deck. Ramps near the ends of the hull (as seen in Thinking Outside the Box) could be used to get animals and heavy loads between decks.
Food & Water
Mezzanine levels improve access to food storage, utilizing gravity to supply grain and water to the animal enclosures below. Water could be directed in pipes (metal, wood, leather, bamboo, etc.) from tanks on upper levels.
Light & Ventilation
The central skylight provides lighting and ventilation to the center section of the Ark. Slatted floors maximize airflow to the lower decks.
John Woodmorappe has been a researcher in the areas of biology, geology, and paleontology for over twenty years. He has two B.A. degrees and an M.A. in geology. John has also been a public school science teacher.
