news

It fully appears to me that Woodmorappe calculated the median just for something to do given the data he gathered and the pattern he saw.

Yes, just for kicks and giggles I’m sure. I know when I write papers, I make sure to put in lots of irrelevant data.

I provided a link to Woodmorappe’s article. Why would you venture to AiG to find anything else?

Gosh, perhaps because I already read Woodmorappe’s article, and you suggested that we “consider what the book says first?” See that dot? There’s a one next to it. See that other dot? It has an adjacent two. Now think back to your early education.

Also Sarfati says “If”, and uses “average”. Wouldn’t it have been the “median size”…

So, Sarfati is saying the mean cage size is rat-sized (and that rat-sized cage is my interpretation – you sure couldn’t fit a sheep in a cage that size, which is the mean size estimated by other creationists). It appears that the mean cage size was determined by figuring out the median animal size. If he had used the median animal size to figure out the median cage size, that would be mathematically sound, but useless.

and again thanks fer playin’…

You’re welcome. I can only hope that you are.

HodorH:
Well, I don’t have the book, and I’m not buying it, but Jonathan Sarfati does have a summary of the relevant bits.

Is something wrong with what Woodmorappe states in Impact #273?

To calculate the housing space needed by the animals, I employed laboratory-animal housing standards for reference animals of comparable mass. Also, by using the body-weight categories, and actual measurements of animal-food intake, I was able to determine how much food and water the animals would need for their 371-day Ark stay. Special emphasis was placed on the large mammalian herbivores and their ostensible requirement for vast quantities of bulky hay. It turns out that the Ark was more than ample to accommodate the animals along with their water and provender, with considerable room to spare.

Also Sarfati says “If”, and uses “average”. Wouldn’t it have been the “median size”…

I provided a link to Woodmorappe’s article. Why would you venture to AiG to find anything else?

It fully appears to me that Woodmorappe calculated the median just for something to do given the data he gathered and the pattern he saw.

and again thanks fer playin’…

It should be noted that Woodmorrape did NOT use this “median” to calculate the space requirements of the Ark.

Well, I don’t have the book, and I’m not buying it, but Jonathan Sarfati does have a summary of the relevant bits. http://www.answersingenesis.or.....nimals.asp

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50×50x30 centimetres (20×20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars.

That’s a rat-sized cage. Is AiG misrepresenting Woodmorappe?

Since most of the animals were small, the median animal on the Ark was about the size of a rat.

HodorH already posted that, but he also cut off part of the paragraph.

It should be noted that Woodmorrape did NOT use this “median” to calculate the space requirements of the Ark. Anyone who reads eiether the Impact article or the book knows this. He also states that “only 15% of the animals were sheep-size or larger”.

In the book he does NOT state anything about taking care of 16,000 “rat-sized” animals. Seeing that the book came out before the article that should be considered first.

(I would never take an anti-ID or anti-Creation word for anything. Especially given their penchant for deception.)

That was fast. I was just about to post the same link. A google found it quickly.

http://members.cox.net/ardipit.....ie027.html