Posted on 04/18/2009 11:57:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Read these stories and much more by clicking the excerpt link below:
1. Wall Street Journal: “Hong Kong Christens an Ark of Biblical Proportions”
2. ScienceNOW: “Our Ancestors Were No Swingers”
3. National Geographic News: “First Tool Users Were Sea Scorpions?”
4. LiveScience: “Three Subgroups of Neanderthals Identified”
5. BBC News: “Stem Cells ‘Can Treat Diabetes’” (adult stem cells, that is...)
6. New Scientist: “Praying to God Is Like Talking to a Friend”
And much much more at...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Ping!
For more on the smaller (1:5) replica of the Ark in the Netherlands mentioned in the first story above, see:
http://creation.com/one-man-and-a-vision-johan-huibers-ark-builder-in-netherlands
PS Johan Huibers plans to build a full sized Ark replica as well!
Will he be able to fit two of every kind of animal, along with forty days worth of food to sustain them, in a surface area of just over 2 acres?
...”kind” is the key word.
Actually, Noah and company were in the ark for a little over a year, according to Genesis.
When full-grown, these huge herbivores can consume anywhere from 300-500 pounds of vegetation per day.
-snip-
Here at The Toledo Zoo, our elephants eat hay (2,000 bales per year), grain, fruits and vegetables.
http://www.toledozoo.org
Please add me to your ping list!
Good summary of the feasibility of fitting and feeding the animals on Noah’s Ark:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter13.pdf
You’re on...and welcome aboard the HMS Creation!
All the best—GGG
I thought "kind" was the same as species. Not so?
==I thought “kind” was the same as species. Not so?
Creation scientists believe that the biblical kind is much more expansive than our modern understanding of species (actually, there is no universally agreed upon definition of species, but after you read the following, you will see what I’m talking about). All the best—GGG
http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind
In contrast to the evolutionary principle of common ancestry, creation biologists argue that all life on Earth is not related to one ultimate single-cell but that life was created in a finite number of discrete forms, which subsequently underwent speciation and massive genetic change over millions of generations.
That does not fit with the idea of two of each biblical "kind" being brought aboard the Ark, then undergoing speciation post flood. You are still left with the problem of getting two of every species on board with a year's supply of food for each animal.
The contention by creation biologists of speciation over millions of generations also seems inconsistent with a 6,000 year old Earth.
Are you thinking of millions of generations vertically, horizontally, or both?
BTW, that would be two of every biblical kind, not two of every species...the two should not be confused.
Vertically, I suppose. I'm not a biologist. I use the term as a layman would.
BTW, that would be two of every biblical kind, not two of every species...the two should not be confused.
But if two of every biblical kind were on the Ark, then wouldn't speciation have had to occur over the subsequent 4000+ years?
If you count generations, you have to do so both vertically and horizontally within each kind and subkind/species. When you do this, it doesn’t take very long to hit millions of generations. And yes, speciation of land animals would have to have occured in the last 4500 years or so. For more on rapid speciation, you might want to give the following a read:
http://www.icr.org/article/4559/
it’s a good thing god didn’t run into a situation where he had to feed thousands on a couple of loaves and fishes...
t
Thanks for the ping!
Actually, I’m not interested in a feasibility study. One either believes what the Bible says, or one doesn’t. I recently attended a lecture by Whitcomb and he seems a decent sort, but having read a book by Morris (God and the Nations) I don’t consider him objective or reliable. The bottom line is that the Bible does not explain all the precise details of how the flood happened and how animal life was repopulated over widely separated continents and trying to explain all of this “scientifically” necessarily involves speculation and eisegesis. What does Heb 11:1 says? I note that the end of the article you reference takes the quote out of context (1 Pe 3:15), but this is what I expect of Morris. My hope does not rest on being able to explain a miracle “scientifically” (which is an exercise in foolishness), but rather on sound exegesis and “pistis” in Jesus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.