Explain the fossils found at un-real altitudes then...

 

(Taken from the web)

The dimensions for the ark given in Genesis are 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high (Genesis 6:15). What is a cubit? A cubit is an ancient unit of measurement, the length of the forearm from the elbow to the longest finger (the term “cubit” comes from the Latin word “cubitum” which means elbow. The Hebrew word for cubit is “‘ammah”). As everybody’s arms are different in length this unit may seem a bit ambiguous to some but scholars generally agree that it represents somewhere between 17 and 22 inches (43-56 centimeters). The ancient Egyptian cubit is known to have been 21.888 inches. So let’s do the math…

300 x 22 inches = 6,600; 50 x 22 inches = 1,100; 30 x 22 inches = 660

6,600/12 = 550 feet; 1100/12 = 91.7 feet; 660/12 = 55 feet.

Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet tall. These are not unreasonable dimensions. But how much storage space does this amount to? Well, 550 x 91.7 x 55 = 2,773,925 cubic feet. (If we take the smaller measurement, 17 inches, we end up with 1.278,825 cubic feet). Of course, not all of it would have been free space. The ark had three levels (Genesis 6:16) and a lot of rooms (Genesis 6:14), the walls of which would have taken up space. Nevertheless, it has been calculated that if the ark had only 1,518,750 cubic feet of free space, a little more than half (54.75%) of the 2,773,925, it could store up to 125,000 sheep-sized animals (see - www.icr.org...).

John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.

How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates about 16,000 “kinds.” What is a “kind”? The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are 400-something dog breeds but they all belong to one species (Canis familiaris), in the same way many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation “genus” may be somewhat close to the Biblical “kind.”

Nevertheless, even if we presume that “kind” is synonymous with “species,” “there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called “clean” kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than say, 50,000 animals were on the ark.” (Morris, 1987)

Some have estimated that there were as many as 25,000 kinds of animals represented on the ark. This is a high-end estimation. With two of each kind and seven of some the number of animals would exceed 50,000, though not by very much relatively speaking. Regardless, whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare.

What about all of the excrement produced by all of these animals? How did 8 people manage to feed all of those animals and deal with tons of excrement on a daily basis? What about animals with specialized diet? How did plant-life survive? What about insects? There are a thousand other questions like these which could be raised and they are all good questions. In the minds of many these questions are unanswerable. But they are certainly not anything new. They have been asked over and over for centuries. And in all of that time researchers have sought answers. There are now numerous, very scholarly feasibility studies which have put Noah and his ark to the test. The very best work available on the subject today is John Woodmorappe’s Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study.

With over 1,200 scholarly references to academic studies, Woodmorappe’s book is “a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark” (John Woodmorappe, “A Resource for Answering the Critics of Noah’s Ark,” Impact No. 273 March 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 30 January 2005 www.icr.org...). Woodmorappe claims that after years of systematically examining all of the questions which have been raised over the years, “all of the arguments against the Ark are… found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated.”

 

I have not been to that website in 10 years, I went today just to take a quick look.....do the search yourself if you want. :-P

With regards to your question though, The Races were not 'created' until after the tower of Babel. The dispersion at Babel broke up a large interbreeding group into small, inbreeding groups. This ensured that the resultant groups would have different mixes of genes for various physical features. By itself, this dispersion would ensure, in a short time, that there would be certain fixed differences in some of these groups, commonly called ‘races.’ In addition, the selection pressure of the environment would modify the existing combinations of genes so that the physical characteristics of each group would tend to suit their environment.

There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various people groups result from different combinations of previously existing created genes, plus some minor degenerative changes, resulting from mutation (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created (genetic) information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, but has not been added

Theres an in depth article here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home...ok/races18.asp

If anybody is interested.

 

Ok, i'm done with this for the week i'm gonna go chat about SCIONS now :-P I forgot thats what this website is about, LOL, have a good weekend and catch you in the car threads

 

 

You do a really good job of copying and pasting. i'd hope you would assume most of us have read that before we'd argue about the flood.

Since we're playing candyland, let's assume the hyposalinty didn't kill off the hundreds of thousands of marine animals that a flood would cause, and noah was able to travel the world's tiny nook and crannies collecting animals(how is that explained in the bible again?)

Explain how YOU THINK animals got redistrbuted after the flood? Galapogos animals? Christmas islands? Think animals that are indigenous to only those small places.

why would you post those questions, if not to answer them? Filling up space?


ok, let's hear it. I showed you it is physically impossible for a flood of 16,000 feet up or 29,000 up could have scientifically happened already(not sure if you acknowledged it yet).
Explain where the water came from, and if it did have the same 1.024 salinty as the rest of the oceans water so that marine life wouldn't die. Where did all that salt go? salt doesn't evaporate.

Do you believe god made billions and billions of gallons of saltwater rain down from clouds, and then slowly take all that saltwater off the planet and store it in some other dimension?

 

it's already been proven that people's skin color comes from a slow, natural selection of people with high amounts of melanine to protect themselves from absorbing too much calcium from the sun's rays.

& people with low amounts of melanine, like white people, developed in northern europes cloudy & colder climate where they saw the sun a whole lot less and therefore needed little to no melanine protection, as they needed all the calcium from the sun they could absorb.

 

The Emma Maersk is 1300' long and 183' at the beam, and it still would not be able to carry a pair of all the species on the planet.

You still haven't explained how we avoided rabid inbreeding with only a pair of each, or why there wasn't rabid inbreeding with only adam and eve as the first two humans.

Also, what about the logistics of dropping all the animals off at their various places, and picking them up as well. How long did he have to build the ark? How long would it take to sail around the world to pick them all up to begin with?

 

GAH!!!!

Off topic (Has nothing to do with Evolution, Creation, Flood, I'm not trying to discredit anything) but....

Is it true that if you were to select a group of people and keep them away from humanity for at least 10 generations, and only interbred between those individuals and their children, that eventually, those people would have such a different genetic code that they couldn't breed with regular humans? Am I thinking of something from a movie or does that sound familar at all?

 

i am unstoppable with Moses.

 

Read the bible, he didn't pick them up, God brought the animals to Noah.

Shoot, thats even in children's bibles, LOL, the picturs of all the animals boarding the arc...

 

I'm just curious... If god could bring ALL the animals in the world to moses, why the hell did he need moses to make a boat for them? Why not just make them disappear and then reappear after the flood? Why bother with a flood? Why not just wipe out what you don't like with the godly smiting and all?...

 

"You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female" Genesis 7:2

Ummm... That is a long way from "And I shall bring you seven..."

 

fine, what about redistribution after the flood?

 

What about what Cromagnum man evolved from/into? Homo Erectus from/into?

As many questions as Christianity has, Evolution has just as many.

Repeating something over and over does not make something a fact.

Why do I keep staying in this conversation?

 

Ok, God brought kangaroos from Australia, lemurs from Madagascar, polar bears from the North Pole, black bears from North America, poison dart frogs from South America, pandas from China, and so on and so forth....all to the middle east area? If he can pick these animals up, and transport them accross all the various oceans, why would he need Noah and his silly little ark?

We're still working on that. One of the prevailing hypothesis is that there was massive breeding between Cromagnum and Homo Erectus. Another idea is that Homo Erectus eradicated Cromagnum. Or it could have been a combination. Point being, there are plausible explainations that don't involve magic, and nobody is completely satisfied with these answers, so they are still searching and publishing in peer reviewed periodicals to try and discover what the real answer is.


Do we have a plausible explaination as to how a single male/female pair of anything can breed dozens of generations without the KNOWN effects of inbreeding?

 

Hypothesis = Guess.

 

BTW, its not we. Its scientists. Don't say we're still working on that.

If you like the New Jersey Devils, and they win the stanley cup, do you say: "We won!"? If you do, thats stupid.

 

A very educated guess that one tries through experimentation/research to disprove. If you don't know the scientific process, then it probably doesn't mean anything to you, and you probably think "theory" means idea as well.

fine, they're still working on it.

 

And can nobody explain how we avoided the massive deformaties and retardation that inbreeding from a single male/female pair would have caused within 3 or 4 generations of offspring?