Problems with Noah's Ark

[logic85]

Some problems with Noah's Ark:

1) For Noah and his sons to build such a boat, even given several hundred years, without modern manufacturing equipment would be impossible. Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long. The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge and no shipbuilding tradition to rely upon, was able to construct a wooden ship that was longer than any that has been built since? But not only was the ark too big to be seaworthy, it was far too small to be able to contain the earth's millions of plant and animals species.

2) Collecting two of each animal would be an equally impossible task (did Noah travel to Australia to pick up some kangaroos, or to Antarctica to grab some penguins?) And how, once he found them, did he transport them back to his Near Eastern home? How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species? How did Noah obtain and care for the hundreds of thousands of species of plants? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn't last long after if the plants died in the flood.) No, wait, don't tell me. A miracle happened. Millions of them.

3) All of the animals boarded the ark "in the same day." Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100/second. How did poor Noah and his family make sure that the correct number of each species entered through the door and then get them all settled into their proper living quarters so efficiently?

4) The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare. Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record? This alone disproves the account of the flood. Every worldwide flood has some sort of geological record. For a flood as big as this, you would expect tons of evidence!

5) When the animals left the ark, what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the Antartican penguins or the Australian kangaroos find there way back after the flood subsided?

6) A single pair of any animals is not enough to develop a significant population due to the inbreeding problem. Take a couple of hamsters and try this. After a couple dozen generations, the offspring will be sick and malformed due to this interbreeding. The fact that there were two of every animal proves that this story cannot be true – otherwise it would be impossible for all the animals to still be here today.

7) Another ridiculous thing: God tells Noah to make one small window (18 inches square) in the 450 foot ark for ventilation.


Explanation: Wait, let me guess....God performed a miracle. Millions of them.

[beg your pardon]

If a person seriously takes the story of Noahs Ark literally there is honostly no point in arguing with them.

[logic85]

If a person takes their religion seriously then they take Noah's Ark seriously. I may be Jewish, but I also know that Christians believe the events of the Old Testament are also true, if you refuse to believe them then you are not a true Christian.

[beg your pardon]

If a person takes their religion seriously then they take Noah's Ark seriously. I may be Jewish, but I also know that Christians believe the events of the Old Testament are also true, if you refuse to believe them then you are not a true Christian.


Well maybe not but for the most part most of the sane Christians I know usually consider Noahs Ark, the Creation and the story of Adam and Eve as stories.

[logic85]

Well they are not true Christians. If you don't believe in the most fundemental stories contained within the Bible, how can they call themselves religious Christians? They might as well not follow their religion at all in that case.

[Fasdf]

Well they are not true Christians. If you don't believe in the most fundemental stories contained within the Bible, how can they call themselves religious Christians? They might as well not follow their religion at all in that case.
If you need to read this story as literal to be a 'true cristian', then shouldn't you need to read them all as literal? A huge crop of holes comes up and the bible might as well be titled "Unexplainable Miracles of which no one should question".

[Platypus]

If a person takes their religion seriously then they take Noah's Ark seriously. I may be Jewish, but I also know that Christians believe the events of the Old Testament are also true, if you refuse to believe them then you are not a true Christian.
That's a specious generalization. Some Christians insist on the literal truth of all scripture. The term "fundamentalist" specifically refers to them, but not all Christians are fundamentalists. There are plenty of "true Christians" who interpret Noah's Ark and other stories as allegory and/or as fallible human reporting of events.

(official hat on)

In a more general sense, if all you're going to do here is mock religious beliefs then there's going to be trouble. Serious questions are fine. Idle curiosity is fine. Even a little humor is fine. When you start trying to "prove" that God doesn't exist and Christians must be delusional, though, you're in the wrong place. I'm not a Christian myself but, as a moderator of this forum, I insist on respect for those who are. Please re-read rule A1 (http://www.whistlestopper.com/rules.php) and be sure to follow it. If I have misinterpreted your intent I apologize, but I'm sure you understand that it pays to be careful.

[cpwill]

A) there are two different stories present within the Noah epic, that use different details and different explinations.

B) ancient hebrew contains 8,000 words, no past or future tense, and there is only one available copy (the books of the bible) which can make translating some words rather difficult if they don't show up multiple times.

the word "flood" shows up once.

[KWJams]

Invariably most all original religious teachings are symbolic in nature. Trying to prove or disprove their validity with modern reasoning is foolish to say the least.

There are similar flood stories in religions all over the world.

[MikeD4o7]

Invariably most all original religious teachings are symbolic in nature. Trying to prove or disprove their validity with modern reasoning is foolish to say the least.

There are similar flood stories in religions all over the world.


So who gets to decide which stories are symbolic and which are literal? Is everything OT symbolic and everything NT literal? Or is there a certain timeframe that everything written afterwards is literal? The majority of christians see the creation story as being symbolic, but all see the story of Jesus death and resurrection as literal... so where's the cutoff point inbetween?

[KWJams]

I would guess somewhere between the Old and the New testament.

But then you have the symbolic descriptions in books like Revelations -- :shrug:

The point is that with modern reasoning, for Noah to be able to obtain two of every species even the extremely shy three legged tree toad from Brazil, then it would be logical to think it was DNA samples to clone after things dried out.
I always figured it would be symbolic collection of animals common to the area he lived in.

But :) I am not a Biblical scholar so there is a lot about Noah and the Old Testament that I don't know.

[Seth928]

So if the story of Noah is not meant to be taken literal then what is to say the story of Jesus of Nazereth is to be taken literal?

The story of Noah I believe can be one that is a story explained by close to natural phenomenon. The only two things that one must admit are some exaderation. One being the size of the boat, simply impossible. Simple explaination (yay Occam's razor) the size of the ark was exaderated repeatedly due to the oral tradition of the time. The second exaderation is the two of every animal. We also know this is impossible in the world wide sense. What I think is that he just took two of every animal from his farm and then someone knocked off the "from his farm" part. My way to explain the flood. Noah lived in an area that flooded quite frequently. We know in ancient times people knew very little outside of about 20 miles of their home (if they owned horses, if not 5 Mi. if they were lucky). It is quite possible that a very very serious flood covered the Tigris/Euphrates valley, Noah's whole world. There was know way for Noah to know how far the flood reached so to him it simply could have covered the whole world.

This are all just theories that make sense to me. I am in no way a religious person (in fact I think organized religion has it wrong) but I'm just trying to show that the story is explainable without stretching your imagination too far.

[KWJams]

Quick google search produced this:

Is there evidence that there was once a flood which covered the entire earth? If this were the case you would think the result would be obvious, and creationists say it is!


Global flood evidences include:


The earth's features (such as mountains, canyons, regional stratigraphy (large-scale single rock beds), soft bending of rock strata, etc.) require some type of catastrophic explanation.
Sedimentary rock formations (formed through water deposition) cover substantial portions of North America and other continents.
There is no evidence that coal, oil, or ore deposits are being formed today, yet massive deposits are found in the earth.
Likewise, the earth contains many great fossil beds, none of which appear to be forming today either. Fossils require rapid burial to be preserved.
Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five continents.
Exceptions in the geologic column indicate that it was not formed in a gradual manner, such as the appearance of single trees that extend vertically through multiple "ages".

[DeathMonkey]

Theres that whole Epic of Gilgamesh flood parallel as well. Just thought I'd bring that up.

[MikeD4o7]

Is there evidence that there was once a flood which covered the entire earth? If this were the case you would think the result would be obvious, and creationists say it is!


Global flood evidences include:


The earth's features (such as mountains, canyons, regional stratigraphy (large-scale single rock beds), soft bending of rock strata, etc.) require some type of catastrophic explanation.
Sedimentary rock formations (formed through water deposition) cover substantial portions of North America and other continents.
There is no evidence that coal, oil, or ore deposits are being formed today, yet massive deposits are found in the earth.
Likewise, the earth contains many great fossil beds, none of which appear to be forming today either. Fossils require rapid burial to be preserved.
Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five continents.
Exceptions in the geologic column indicate that it was not formed in a gradual manner, such as the appearance of single trees that extend vertically through multiple "ages".


I have a feeling this is based on typical creation "scientific" method... which is of course, to misquote and outright lie. I'll look it up and see if I can find an explanation as to why everything there is either a flat our lie or grossly misrepresented... but just from one reading of that paragraph I'd be willing to put money on the bet that the entire paragraph is blatantly scientifically false.

[KWJams]

Google search -> ocean fossil evidence at high altitudes.

Google results -> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=ocean+fossil+evidence+at+high+altitudes

I was just looking for information to respond to Seth's comment about it just being a big local flood.
There is plenty of evidence where what is dry land now was covered with water at one time and in most cases longer than forty days and nights.

[MikeD4o7]

well at one time, the entire earth was covered by water... but there is no credible evidence for a global flood during the time period in which the story of noah would have been written... several local floods maybe, but a massive flood on the scale that the Bible indicates. No way. You won't ever find a reputable scientific source claiming anything like that... and you probably won't even see any reputable scientific source specifically trying to debunk the claim simply because it's so absurd that they probably wouldn't even waste their time with it.

[cpwill]

and yet several major cultures all around the atlantic contain a mass-flood story, of which only a few survivors from the previous land made it to renew the species.

personally, i think the flood story in the bible ties into the corpus of atlantis literature.:shrug:

[MikeD4o7]

and yet several major cultures all around the atlantic contain a mass-flood story, of which only a few survivors from the previous land made it to renew the species.

personally, i think the flood story in the bible ties into the corpus of atlantis literature.


That's true, but to my knowledge there's no credible geological debate to massive world-wide flooding since the melting of the last ice-age.

[cpwill]

mass world, no, however, a strong local catyclismic event that happened to a center of civilization in the atlantic would be easily enough to give reason for these stories.

[MikeD4o7]

mass world, no, however, a strong local catyclismic event that happened to a center of civilization in the atlantic would be easily enough to give reason for these stories.


Oh definitely. I agree.

[Duo_Maxwell]

The earth's features (such as mountains, canyons, regional stratigraphy (large-scale single rock beds), soft bending of rock strata, etc.) require some type of catastrophic explanation.

Wrong. All of that can be explained with basic highschool geology.

Sedimentary rock formations (formed through water deposition) cover substantial portions of North America and other continents.

Because substainal portions of NA and other continents were underwater for millions of years. Ever hear of the inland seas of the dinosaur ages?

There is no evidence that coal, oil, or ore deposits are being formed today, yet massive deposits are found in the earth.

I don't know what this crap about no oil or coal being made. Both are organic in nature and are being made at this very second by decompoisiton. As for ore, that's easily explanable. Ore is usually a single element. Geological processes cannot change one element into another. This planet was made from fragments of rocks, atoms, and other materials. Density of these elements combined them into deposits. Heat and density cannot produce ore.

Likewise, the earth contains many great fossil beds, none of which appear to be forming today either. Fossils require rapid burial to be preserved.

Duh. When humans are, pardon my french, f-ing around, can you really expect fossils to form? We are terraforming this planet as we speak. Fossil creation require no disturbtions.

Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five continents.

There are 14 (?+) plates on this planet. Your point is....

[crawfish]

If a person takes their religion seriously then they take Noah's Ark seriously. I may be Jewish, but I also know that Christians believe the events of the Old Testament are also true, if you refuse to believe them then you are not a true Christian.

That's your problem. You're putting the entirety of Christianity in one small box, and that's incorrect.

[heel31ok]

I do not think one has to believe any of the afforementioned accounts to be a Christian. To be a Christian one must believe Christ died for his/her sins and call on his name forsalvation(nutshell). Having said that, I believe in the literal events of Noah's Ark and all the other accounts of the Old Testament and New Testament except where it specifically states otherwise.I do not believe in this dual story business.
I have a few questions of my own. Where does it say he had one day to load the ark? Where does it say only he and his sons built he Ark? Thequestion of quality of workmanship is weak at best. The Ark was not too big to be seaworthy in fact it has been shown that the design of the Ark was absolutely perfect for the conditions it faced.The Ark did not contain every single species of animal but every species was represented. All the species had not come forth yet but were in those animals that Noah took on the Ark. Plants did not have to be taken, at least I do not see where that is the case according to the written record. Migration is a simple answer to how they got to Noah.Genesis 6:20 of fowls after their kind ,and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind two of every sort " shall come unto thee". At this time before the upheaval of the world it is most likely that all land masses or a majority were connected. Hibernation is an answer to how to feed the animals. They did not board the same day. He had at least seven days.
The water came from the windows of heaven. It is believed that the earth before this time was surrounded by water creating a constant and perfect climate , a lush greenhouse climate.
No evidence of a world wide flood? It is all around us,the reason many do not see it is because the effects of the flood are attributed to "millions and billions of years '' instead of the fact of a sudden worldwide deluge. The Grand Canyon comes to mind as evidence.The fossil record shows sudden encapsulation not a creeping period of millions of years that crept up on the poor unsuspecting creatures.
The olive leaf that the dove brought back showed vegetation had grown back.The bible says Noah carried food for all so I wouldhave to say that the carnivores got what they eat usually, meat!
How do salmon know the exactly where to return for spawning? Not a stretch in the least to believe any of the animals could find their place . Interesting you should bring up penguins.Who is to say they came from the Antartic . Let me pose the suggestion there was no Antartic as we know it until after the flood.This answers the question where did all the water go, to the poles maybe? Ice is made of water and there is alot of ice at the poles.
The inbreeding question is not a factor because the gene pool at that time was so new and had not been diluted to the point that it is today and did not carry the same immediate effects as today.
The window , it is believed , was a cubit high but went around the Ark.
I think the most correct thing you stated was all the miracles God has done.I think from the account given there is enough evidence for me to believe it could and did happen.

[heel31ok]

well at one time, the entire earth was covered by water... but there is no credible evidence for a global flood during the time period in which the story of noah would have been written... several local floods maybe, but a massive flood on the scale that the Bible indicates. No way. You won't ever find a reputable scientific source claiming anything like that... and you probably won't even see any reputable scientific source specifically trying to debunk the claim simply because it's so absurd that they probably wouldn't even waste their time with it.
A reputable scientific source by nature would embrace this evidence and respond. It is all the disreputables that blow it off and are unwilling to face it head on because it flys in the face the lies they are promoting.
" because when they knew God , they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,and changed the glory of the incorruptible Godinto an image made like corruptible man,and birds,and four-footed beasts,and creeping things...who exchanged the truth of God for a lie , and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever.Amen."

[MrAmerica]

This is my post from the "My Favorite Gods" Thread. I thought it would be applicable here. Sorry for the redundancy.

Everyone thinks that science and the bible cannot coexist. But there are more and more scientists who are begining to question evolution. By studying the Grand Canyon, many scientists are convinced that all of the layers of rock which were thought to have accumulated over millions of years, actually formed very quickly. Sediment settling due to a catastrophic flood (ring a bell?). This was discovered when during an earthquake, many underwater communications cables at the bottom of the ocean were snapped like twigs by tons and tons of sediment avalanching across the ocean floor. The result of the sediment formation was very similar to the layers in rock such as those at the Grand Canyon.

They have found fossilized sea shells on mountain tops. They have film and photographs of a very large boat matching the description of noah's ark on top of mount Ararat, right where it is supposed to be. There have been several documentaries on the subject, and one explorer was even able to obtain a piece of the wood which was dated as thousands of years old. Now they have found the remains of a civilization at the bottom of the dead sea, where Sodom and Gomorah were said to exist.

They made an interesting discovery about the Sphynx in Egypt. The Discovery Channel did a documentary when the Egyptian government finally allowed American scientists in to study it. It was discovered that the Sphynx is actually older than Egypt. The face on the Sphynx, which is of a Pharoh, was added thousands of years after the original structure was built. The original face was either destroyed or eroded. The stones that make up the base are as big as railroad box cars, but yet they are seamlessly fit together and stacked so perfectly that you cannot even get a piece of paper between the stones. No one can explain how they lifted them on top of each other. The most intriguing discovery was that the entire structure was weathered BY WATER in an area where no bodies of water have existed for an estimated 9000 years. The conclusion is that, it was not originally Egyptian, it endured a catechismic flood, and it was made by people of superior intelligence, (such as people who might have lived for hundreds of years, like those described in Genesis before the flood), either that or space aliens, pick your unbelievable explanation.

A fossile of a small crustacean, which was thought to have become extinct millions of years ago, was found trodden under the footprint of a man's sandal.

Evolution has never been proven. They have never found the "missing link." The reason it is called the "missing link" is because IT IS MISSING! :eek:

If we all evolved from apes, why are there still apes? :cool:

[MikeD4o7]

Everyone thinks that science and the bible cannot coexist. But there are more and more scientists who are begining to question evolution. By studying the Grand Canyon, many scientists are convinced that all of the layers of rock which were thought to have accumulated over millions of years, actually formed very quickly. Sediment settling due to a catastrophic flood (ring a bell?). This was discovered when during an earthquake, many underwater communications cables at the bottom of the ocean were snapped like twigs by tons and tons of sediment avalanching across the ocean floor. The result of the sediment formation was very similar to the layers in rock such as those at the Grand Canyon.

They have found fossilized sea shells on mountain tops. They have film and photographs of a very large boat matching the description of noah's ark on top of mount Ararat, right where it is supposed to be. There have been several documentaries on the subject, and one explorer was even able to obtain a piece of the wood which was dated as thousands of years old. Now they have found the remains of a civilization at the bottom of the dead sea, where Sodom and Gomorah were said to exist.

They made an interesting discovery about the Sphynx in Egypt. The Discovery Channel did a documentary when the Egyptian government finally allowed American scientists in to study it. It was discovered that the Sphynx is actually older than Egypt. The face on the Sphynx, which is of a Pharoh, was added thousands of years after the original structure was built. The original face was either destroyed or eroded. The stones that make up the base are as big as railroad box cars, but yet they are seamlessly fit together and stacked so perfectly that you cannot even get a piece of paper between the stones. No one can explain how they lifted them on top of each other. The most intriguing discovery was that the entire structure was weathered BY WATER in an area where no bodies of water have existed for an estimated 9000 years. The conclusion is that, it was not originally Egyptian, it endured a catechismic flood, and it was made by people of superior intelligence, (such as people who might have lived for hundreds of years, like those described in Genesis before the flood), either that or space aliens, pick your unbelievable explanation.

A fossile of a small crustacean, which was thought to have become extinct millions of years ago, was found trodden under the footprint of a man's sandal.

Evolution has never been proven. They have never found the "missing link." The reason it is called the "missing link" is because IT IS MISSING!

If we all evolved from apes, why are there still apes?


It's not true at all that scientists are starting to veer away from evolution. I'll see if I can find it, but I read a poll in I think Scientific American once which showed that less than .1% of people with degrees in life sciences believed in creationism.

We didn't evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with them.

[Duo_Maxwell]

By studying the Grand Canyon, many scientists are convinced that all of the layers of rock which were thought to have accumulated over millions of years, actually formed very quickly.

Sure they were. When this comes out in a modern geology textbook, call me up. Until then, it's more likely a creationism lie.

They have found fossilized sea shells on mountain tops

Plate tetonics explains this quite easily.

There have been several documentaries on the subject, and one explorer was even able to obtain a piece of the wood which was dated as thousands of years old.

So we know trees existed a thousand years ago. This is news how?

The stones that make up the base are as big as railroad box cars, but yet they are seamlessly fit together and stacked so perfectly that you cannot even get a piece of paper between the stones. No one can explain how they lifted them on top of each other.

Yes they can. basic greek construction can easily do this with the right amount of man power. I don't see the big deal.

A fossile of a small crustacean, which was thought to have become extinct millions of years ago, was found trodden under the footprint of a man's sandal

Your point is? We are finding fossils everyday. What's the point?

Evolution has never been proven.

Explain why we can do it in a lab.

If we all evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Because you are ignorant. We didn't evolve from apes.

There mere fact you said that questions if you even understand the basics of evolution.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

[MrAmerica]

Yes they can. basic greek construction can easily do this with the right amount of man power. I don't see the big deal.
If you see the video, you will hear the scientist tell the viewers that even with our current technology, it would be difficult to accomplish stacking box car sized rocks so perfectly that you could not fit a piece of paper between them.
Maybe you should have been there. You could have explained it to the scientists.

Your point is? We are finding fossils everyday. What's the point?
My point IS; How could a sandaled foot be found to have stepped on a supposedly prehistoric creature?

Explain why we can do it in a lab.
Show me where one creature has "evolved" (a process which supposedly takes millions of years) into another in a lab.

Because you are ignorant. We didn't evolve from apes.
Am I ignorant, or is it the one who made all of those charts in biology classrooms showing us (homerectus) EVOLVING from apes? :confused:

There mere fact you said that questions if you even understand the basics of evolution.
I don't have to understand every aspect of the theory of evolution to question the validity of of its main tennant.

[MrAmerica]

It's not true at all that scientists are starting to veer away from evolution. I'll see if I can find it, but I read a poll in I think Scientific American once which showed that less than .1% of people with degrees in life sciences believed in creationism.

Here is an article from The New York Times, December 21, 1997, Sunday, Section 4; Page 1; Column 1; Week in Review Desk which suggests you are wrong.
http://www.arn.org/docs/fline1297/fl_goodstein.htm

[Fasdf]

Am I ignorant, or is it the one who made all of those charts in biology classrooms showing us (homerectus) EVOLVING from apes?

Saying we evolved from apes is like saying you're your cousin's son/daughter. I hope you aren't. I really do.

Supposing we did evolve from apes, why would all the apes suddenly disappear? Evolution, to my knowledge, isn't like transformers and all the apes suddenly mutate into humans.

If you see the video, you will hear the scientist tell the viewers that even with our current technology, it would be difficult to accomplish stacking box car sized rocks so perfectly that you could not fit a piece of paper between them.
Maybe you should have been there. You could have explained it to the scientists.
Um... what does this prove exactly? WE CAN'T DO IT TODAY SO GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT! Proof of creationism!

I don't have to understand every aspect of the theory of evolution to question the validity of of its main tennant.
But you do need to understand each and every part of it if you are going to attempt to prove it wrong. You're not going to. Supposing you did, what would that accomplish? Creationism would not be the winner by default like you think. Stop trying to prove it wrong and start trying to prove creationism. Otherwise you're not really accomplishing anything.

If the noah's ark story is not to be taken literally, then the entire bible should not be as well. Otherwise it would be inconsistant... oh wait....

[MrAmerica]

Um... what does this prove exactly? WE CAN'T DO IT TODAY SO GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT! Proof of creationism!
Not my point. The point is that whoever did it had superior technology. It is believed by some that Atlantis had superior technology. But Atlantis (if it existed), is where? UNDERWATER. The whole idea of humans having that kind of technology 10,000+ years ago calls into question the whole scientific theory of human existence as we know it. But if there were people with superior technology like that, it would not be inconcievable that they lived in the time described in the bible when men lived for 600-900 some years. It sounds incredulous, but so does the reality of the Sphynx, in light of modern science.

But you do need to understand each and every part of it if you are going to attempt to prove it wrong.
The whole purpose of science is to prove something is RIGHT. It's not up to me to prove evolution wrong, it is up to science to prove it is right, if they are going to teach it as fact, and expect us to swallow it unquestioningly.

So, where's that missing link? :rolleyes:

[logic85]

We did not evolve from apes. If you think we did you are a fool, humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor - they are our cousins not our grandparents. MrAmerica, going by your logic isn't it therefore up to the theists to prove God right not the atheists burden to prove God wrong?

[Fasdf]

The whole purpose of science is to prove something is RIGHT. It's not up to me to prove evolution wrong, it is up to science to prove it is right, if they are going to teach it as fact, and expect us to swallow it unquestioningly.

So, where's that missing link?
What are you trying to do by attempting to find holes in the theory of evolution?

[2ruballa]

THEORY OF EVOLUTION

NOT LAW OF EVOLUTION.

You said it right. :)

[Duo_Maxwell]

If you see the video, you will hear the scientist tell the viewers that even with our current technology, it would be difficult to accomplish stacking box car sized rocks so perfectly that you could not fit a piece of paper between them.

That's the SAME exact thing they said about the Greek construction of many of their large buildings. I fail to see your point.

How could a sandaled foot be found to have stepped on a supposedly prehistoric creature?

Does the term erosion mean anything to you?

Show me where one creature has "evolved" (a process which supposedly takes millions of years) into another in a lab.

Have you ever heard of the fruit fly experiments, where through a series of radically different enviroments stock fruit flies changed to suit their enviroments and radically differed from their stock cousins? Wait, nm. You don't keep up with science as I can tell.

Am I ignorant, or is it the one who made all of those charts in biology classrooms showing us (homerectus) EVOLVING from apes

Those aren't apes. They are primitive primates, many of them, in different forms still exist, primarily in Africa and Madagascar. Lemurs are primitive primates. We DID NOT evolve from Apes. We evolved from primitive primates. Chimps, gurellias, oragatangs, lemurs, and US all evolved from a common primitive primate.

Where evolution has holes, creationism has gapping maws.

[Fasdf]

THEORY OF EVOLUTION

NOT LAW OF EVOLUTION.

You said it right. :)
STORY OF CREATION

NOT THEORY OF CREATION

don't cry.

[2ruballa]

STORY OF CREATION

NOT THEORY OF CREATION

don't cry.

i agree with that :lol:

[jamesrage]

If a person takes their religion seriously then they take Noah's Ark seriously. I may be Jewish, but I also know that Christians believe the events of the Old Testament are also true, if you refuse to believe them then you are not a true Christian

I agre with you a hundred percent on this.As a christian I believe the old and new testament as the truth.I can not see how any alleged member of a faith can say that their holy manuscripts are just stories.I can see how an atheist can only see those as just stories.

[logic85]

Thank you jamesrage. You are the first true Christian I have spoken to on this forum, I congradulate you for your faith. Whereas I don't believe in God, I respect those who follow their religions properly.