Question about Noah's Arkgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread
What's the deal with Noah's Ark? I got into a discussion with someone about it the other day and had no answer for their questions. Questions like how did they fit all of the animals on? How did they have animals like Polar bears and desert lizards on the same boat (climate)? How did marcupials (sp) make it back to Australia where there is evidence (through fossils) they have only ever lived? I am very confused and wish I had answers, but the more I think about it the more it doesn't make sense. Please help me understand.
-- I Was Wondering (NotSure@hotmail.com), June 05, 2003
When we try to understand how Almighty God did it, it seems impossible to us but to God, all things are possible. God created all things and all things are in His awesome power. He said it happened and that is enough. God is not a man that He should lie. How did he do any of His miracles? Only He knows. Someday soon we will all find out. Until then we are to just have faith in what He says and believe. Without faith we cannot please God. You can't see electric or radio waves but they work. Most of creation is a mystery but God tells us in His Word to have faith and believe.
-- Deb Dee (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 05, 2003.
first, the boat was HUGE. second, not all of the animals in existance today existed back then. certainly Noah didnt search out two of every micro organism. marsupials originated from complex evolution AFTER the arc.
-- paul (email@example.com), June 05, 2003.
Noah's Ark was no Little Boat......
When "Noah's Ark" is found it will be the greatest archeological and anthropological discovery of all time. Finding an ancient wooden sea vessel, large enough to hold two of every basic type of land dwelling animal, buried high on Mt. Ararat would have the following implications:
It would confirm that the entire surface of the planet had been covered by water within the last 6000 years. It would confirm the factual basis for the flood legend which is present in every human culture on the planet. It would again confirm the reliability of the early Biblical record of the human race. It would mean that every land animal (including humans) has descended from the inhabitants of the ark. It would take more faith than ever to cling to the theory that man descended from ape-like creatures. The fossils would have to be interpreted as mainly a result of this flood, not the result of slow accumulation over time. The alleged ark is yet to be discovered by a qualified team of scientists, but many seemingly reliable sources have claimed to have seen it. For more information on Noah's ark an excellent technical resource is: Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe. According to the Biblical text, Noah had 100 years to build the ark which would have been an unmistakable witness to the impending judgment of God. Jesus not only referred to this event as a fact of history, but tied his immenent return to a time when the state of affairs on earth would be similar to those at the time of Noah (Matthew 24:37-39). If and when the ark is found, there will once again be an enormous monument pointing toward impending judgment. My hope when this happens is that those who have not placed their faith in Christ will wake up and do so because their opportunity may end soon.
The most common question asked about the validity of Noah's ark is, "How could millions of different animals fit on one small boat?"
Not every "kind" of animal needed to be on board. According to the Biblical text, neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board. Furthermore, every minor variation of animal (species) was not present. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind. Making the generous assumption that the average animal size is as large as a sheep, and between 2 and 7 of each kind of animal were taken, 50,000 sheep-size animals would have been on board. This would include every known living and extinct type of mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile. This was no small boat. Noah and his family had over 100 years to construct a vessel longer than a football field and three stories high. The total space available was equivalent to 522 railroad stock cars. A stock car holds 240 sheep so the ark could have held 125,000 animals. At most, only 40% of the total space was needed for all of the animals!(1) The remainder would be used for food storage. The account of Noah's flood is similar to many other Biblical stories. They make perfect sense if you assume they mean exactly what they say and take time to study them carefully. Woodmorappe, John,"The Biota and Logistics of Noah's Ark", Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference On Creation, 1994. This Article is from Bruce Malone's book Search for the Truth.
Points to ponder regarding the flood..... 2 Pet. 3:3-8 tells us that people who scoff at the Bible are "willingly ignorant" of the Creation and the Flood. In order to understand science and the Bible, we must not be ignorant of those two great events in Earth’s history. See Creation Seminar tape 2 for more information.
Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.
Noah’s ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts on them and sails to catch the wind. Noah's ark need neither of those and therefore had far less torsional stress.
Even using the small 18-inch cubit (my height is 6-ft. 1-in. and I have a 21-in. cubit) the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals, people, and food with room to spare.
The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. (God thinks of everything!)
The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature: It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships. The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board. The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.
The ark may have had large drogue (anchor) stones suspended over the sides to keep it more stable in rough weather. Many of these stones have been found in the region where the ark landed.
Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio. See Seminar tape #2 for more info on this.
God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The "kind" grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach. (They teach that "kelp can turn into Kent," given enough time!)
Noah did not have to get the animals. God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20, "shall come to thee").
Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.
Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.
All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.
The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than people today. The longer lifespans, Adam’s direct contact with God, and the fact that they could glean the wisdom of many generations that were still alive would greatly expand their knowledge base.
The Bible says that the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. This is half the height of the ark. The ark was safe from scraping bottom at all times.
The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8).
There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.
Many claim to have seen the ark in recent times in the area in which the Bible says it landed. There are two primary schools of thought about the actual site of the ark (see my Creation Seminar Part 3 video for more on this). Much energy and time has been expended to prove both views. Some believe the ark is on Mt. Ararat, covered by snow (CBS showed a one-hour special in 1993 about this site). The other group believes the ark is seventeen miles south of Mt. Ararat in a valley called "the valley of eight" (8 souls on the ark). The Bible says the ark landed in the "mountains" of Ararat, not necessarily on the mountain itself.
The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then. See Seminar Part 6 for more information.
The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.
Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.
Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.
Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.
People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Pet. 3:3-8).
-- Deb Dee (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 05, 2003.
I used to think that the flood was universal. In the last 5 years I have found many problems with this belief.
I believe now the flood was local. It had to be around the area between Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, since Abraham, the possible transmitter of this story was from Ur in Iraq.
paul, people haven't changed much in the last 4000 years as shown in paintings. I don't hink there is too much variety since then. There is quite an amount of animals in the world. The world is so vast for even Noah to pick them up.
Deb, seashells are common everywhere, not just because of the flood. After all, the continents move, new mountains are created,... I still don't think the dinosaurs were part of the flood. If Genesis first creation and flood chapters are to be taken literally, the dinosaurs died in the flood. Also, the first pyramids ofEgypt and the zigurats of Mesopotamia could have been destroyed because of the flood since the anteced the flood.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (email@example.com), June 05, 2003.
Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach. (They teach that "kelp can turn into Kent," given enough time!)
actually, this diversification is EXACTLY what evolutionists teach. Elpidio, run a math figure for me. take a starting population of 1 (as in, the number of species Darwin Carried with him to his island) and find the rate of population change for 28 (the resultant number of species) after thirty years. apply this number to the estimated fifty thousand species on board the ark from the previous post and account for 4400 years of population diversification. i think you will find that the numbers proposed by evolution are quite conservative.
simply put, evolution is a proven scientific fact. one cannot believe that the earth rotates around the sun without believing in the theory of evolution... why? because there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that the earth rotates around the sun, while there is proof of evolution, as EVERY professional scientist will tell.
that does not mean God did not create the world, and i will discuss the theory of creation through evolution if anyone would like me walk that long path...
-- paul (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 06, 2003.
There is no conflict between evolution and creation. They are entirely separate subjects. In fact, evolution demands creation. Evolution is the study of ongoing change in things which ALREADY EXIST, in other words, things which had an origin at some point in time. Evolution does not explain, nor does it try to explain, the nature of that origin. Of course some scientists, who also happen to be atheists, do try to provide atheistic explanations for the appearance of everything from nothing, but they always come across looking desperate and rather silly, for their proposals invariably fall into the realm of science fiction, not science. This is what one might expect, given that what they are trying to explain didn't come about by any force or action within the realm of science. However, any rational and honest person can see that all created things change over time. Once you admit that, it is a logical necessity that things change greatly over great lengths of time. This obvious fact is what causes fundamentalist sects to feverishly attempt to "find" scriptural "evidence" that the earth is not very old. Unfortunately, the known facts on that matter are diametrically opposed to the private biblical theories spawned by their agenda-driven interpretations of God's Holy Word.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 06, 2003.
I guess my trouble with this whole idea is that I am a science person and have read a lot about the evolution of the earth. When I read things in the bibke like God created the earth in 7 days and seven night, or the Noah lived for hundreds of years, I wonder what should be taken literal and what shouldn't. Noah couldn't have fit all of the animals on his Ark, and maybe it was a localized flood. I guess the easy answer is to say, "God is all powerful and if he can create the earth he can surely pull of the ark thing." Basically, not questioning, just believing it is the truth. Blind Faith.
I can do that for the most part and it works for me, but that's not always the best arguement or defense in a conversation with someone looking to prove you wrong. Another question that came up in our conversation was about whether or not God would even want us to worship Him. The point was that if he was powerful enough to create life and as all knowing and wise as we are taught, would he truly be self absorbed enough to want us to worship him? Would he rather us just believe, be thankful and live a good life appreciated what we have. They pointed out that if I create a classroom (I'm a teacher) situation for students, do I want them to worship me or to recognize my exsistance and become better people because of me. There was more to the conversation than this, but I think you can get the idea of what they were geting at. Any thoughts on this?
Sorry if these sound stupid, but I would just love some help on this stuff.
-- I Was Wondering (NotSure@hotmail.com), June 06, 2003.
What Happened to the Dinosaurs? www.DrDino.com
By John Whitmore
Although the monstrous creature was obviously a vegetarian, its size was overwhelming. Its hips could withstand the enormous force of each pounding step and its midsection was a mass of muscle. Its gigantic tail extended far behind him, not unlike a giant cedar tree swaying behind his body. Its bones were like steel girders with ribs like iron bars to support his enormous weight. This is the greatest creature to roam the swamps and rivers of the earth.
Is this a scene from the blockbuster movie, Jurassic Park? It could be, but it isn't. This description, which perfectly fits an Apatosaurus, is a paraphrased description taken from one of the oldest books of the Bible, Job 40: 15-24. If dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, how could a writer of the Bible have accurately described the appearance, food, and habitat of this creature?
The vast majority of books on dinosaurs are written from an evolutionary perspective which assumes that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. The leading model for the demise of the dinosaur involves a large asteroid hitting the earth. Yet the most obvious alternative explanation is almost always ignored. Almost all fossils are the remains of creatures buried by sediment filled water which has subsequently turned to rock. If this is due to a flood of worldwide extent, as the water rose to cover all land surfaces, animals would have been drowned, sank, and buried by massive amounts of rapidly accumulating sediment. It is not at all surprising to find a general lack of burial mixing between these very different kinds of animals due to local or ecological grouping.
Paintings of unknown creature from Kuku Yanlanji people
Genesis 7:2 states that Noah saved two of every representative "kind" of land animal on the ark. Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did.
In the early 1900's on the Doheny expedition into the Grand Canyon, Indian cave drawings were found which closely resembled a duck-billed dinosaur. Legends from ancient China to ancient England have recorded descriptions of dinosaur-like creatures. The Kuku Yalanji aboriginal people have paintings which look exactly like plesiosaurs. These and other intriguing evidences seem to indicate that perhaps that age of the dinosaurs ended more recently than is commonly taught.
Christians do not need to feel foolish about standing on Scripture in their understanding of the world around us. There is ample evidence to support the Biblical record.
Evolution serves as the foundational basis for the religions of humanism and atheism. These world views are popular because man, instead of God, decides on rules and moral standards. Creation serves as the foundational basis for Christianity which acknowledges that all things were created by God, that we live in a fallen universe, and that it will be restored to perfection in the future.
There is a danger of becoming so indoctrinated by evolutionary thinking that we become closed to the creation alternative. As concerned parents, we need to be careful what our children are taught by making sure they are hearing all of the facts. By teaching them the evidence for creation and the fallacies of evolutionary explanations, they will be directed toward God instead of away from Him.
John Whitmore is a MS geologist and professor of geology at Cedarville College in Cedarville, Ohio.
-- Deb (email@example.com), June 06, 2003.
What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles
See also:"Inside the Darwinian Propaganda Machine" (link below) http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=40
What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at what scientists have to say:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."— *D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research— paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."— *R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
Perhaps scientists used to be kinder to evolution in the past:
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre- existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."— *T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over- confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."— *Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill- founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research— paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
“In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distribution of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well preserved sedimentary rocks.” Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, “Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1976 p. 1161
“What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.” Philip H. Abelson, “Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55 June 1966, p. 1365
There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
To better understand scientists opinion of Darwinian evolution, why don't you read History of Evolution. Emphasis added for readability * not known to be a creationist. source: The Evolution Cruncher
-- Deb (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 06, 2003.
Elpidio, Was the flood in Noah’s day just a local flood?
Answer: Many people have heard Dr. Hugh Ross teach that the flood was local and only killed the people and animals in the area where Noah lived.
Let’s see what God says: Gen. 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 7:4 and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
-- Deb (email@example.com), June 06, 2003.
There is way too much to read here. But, I've considered the following:
1. mutation vs. modulation. or, creation vs. evolution. 2. the Great Flood was the collapse of the Firmament. This, too, caused the change in the oxygen/carbon dioxide balance and extinction of the BIG animal life. The smaller animal life is evidence of this change--mutation, not modulation.
rod (not on my computer and I hear footsteps...)
-- rod (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 06, 2003.
Well Gee thanks a lot Deb...
As insightful as your plethora of information was, I still have the same questions. And now to top it off, I think people will probably be less likely to contribute answers because they don't want to read your novels.
In the future you might want to think about the saying "less is more."
Thanks for trying though.
-- I Was Wondering (NotSure@hotmail.com), June 06, 2003.
I have been told by a Jewish couple that had just gone through the Common Scriptures in the original hebrew that the proper translation of the endings of most paragaphs in the 1st story in Gensis is something like "there was evening and morning, one day." implying that it ended on a day,not that it took one day to do. Sean
-- Sean Cleary (email@example.com), June 06, 2003.
I Was Wondering,
Apologies for the behemothic novel(pardon the pun). I can get carried away but anyone who is really interested will probably take the time. I always do.
-- Deb- (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 06, 2003.
first, the hebrew word for day is rather ambiguous, having multiple meanings. some of these include century, millenia, age, and eon. and so it is as appropriate to say God shaped the world over seven eons as it is to say seven days. its a case of misrepresentation in original translation.
as to noah living hundreds of years... that is possible. scientific study shows that the average life expectancy has constantly decreased until the middle ages, where it reached an all time low of mid thirties. since then, the life expectancy has begun to rise again.
i am familiar with this "drdino's" work, and he has all the doctoral qualifications on evolution of a pig in a stye. you CANNOT accept anything even beggining to do with basic scientific concepts without first realizing that evolution is a reality. it even occurs this day.
for example... the pinky finger is getting shorter. why? lack of use. we dont need it any more so it is fading away.
people are being born earlier on average. why? because the average intelligence level of humans is rising, thus the brain size at birth is rising and children must be born earlier in the developemental stage to compensate.
third, the tailbone gets shorter. why? we stopped needing a tail a long time ago as well, and now it is almost gone already.
these are undeniable facts that evolution is still occuring to this very day. you cannot look at darwins island where 28 species of canary now abide, when only one species was introduced to the island and not recognize species specialization that occurs.
besides, your noted scientist is overly prone to scriptural error. the animal refered to in Job is noted as sitting under a lotus tree. this animal could not be an apatosaur. first, they are not from that region. second, they did not sit. if anything they could kneel on their knees but certainly their massive weight would collapse their lungs if they laid down, just like a whale. what is most likely referred to is something like a water buffalo. note the concept of using snares in the nose to capture them, this could also not be an apatosaur, as there was no way to subdue one without killing it.
please, no behemoth responses. post to me why you think im wrong and i will give you a response showing you what is proven.
-- paul (email@example.com), June 06, 2003.
The genesis stories are aligories. They were written to explain an event. The people at this time didn't know why this happened so they made up something. Also we must remember that this story has changed a lot over time. The story was first passed orally. So it probably changed. Ever play "Telephone"?
-- Scott (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 07, 2003.
something like that, except genesis was written by moses through divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit. but the telephone analogy works because it is not the original writing, but the translation thereof which is ambiguous.
-- paul (email@example.com), June 07, 2003.
Deb, I still think it was a local flood. In recent years areas around the Mississippi River were flooded creating a lot of devastation. Iraq is watered by the Tigris and the Euphates. You know these two rivers are also mentioned in Genesis. They originate in Turkey. One passes through Syria. Abraham was from Ur, in modern Iraq.
I agree with little paul that evolution is changing the characteristics of living organisms in this planet. Even the Bible mentions at he case of a man in the days of David who had 6 fingers. My wife once met a girl who had 6 fingers. She had one amputed. There is also a town in spain where many people have 6 fingers. Also in Mexico, there is a town where some families have a lot of hair on their faces, like wolf-like appearances.
There is much to be learned. Cloning wasn't something I knew could happen. The Bible says we were created with the image of God in Genesis. This means we were probabbly cloned. What do you think Deb, little paul?When they cloned the sheep, they realized the cloned sheep inherited the age of the donor. Lately, they are cloning mules for racing. Since they can't have babies, they clone a brother, son of the parents, the horse and the donkey.
I think scott, that the genesis story actually had atrue background to it. Behind every rumour there could be....
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 07, 2003.
There is much to be learned. Cloning wasn't something I knew could happen. The Bible says we were created with the image of God in Genesis. This means we were probabbly cloned.
well, no, the language is rather clear that we were created. there is a difference between the idea of created (which could include evolved from other things created into the likeness of the image of God) and the idea of copied in the image of God. besides, God does not have DNA, so cloning would not be feasable.
What do you think Deb, little paul?When they cloned the sheep, they realized the cloned sheep inherited the age of the donor. Lately, they are cloning mules for racing. Since they can't have babies, they clone a brother, son of the parents, the horse and the donkey.
eh, sort of. except its not quite like that. the DNA inherets the age of the elder, meaning the clone is more likely to suffer genetic mutations (read: cancer). but the clone does start as an infant. in this way a clone could have entirely different personality and appearance based on its education and environment.
you still havent run the number for me in the math problem i proposed... how many species would there be?
-- paul (email@example.com), June 07, 2003.
Elpidio and paul-
It seems to me that you all are confusing MUTATION with MODULATION. The thing continues to remain the thing and only changes in its features--MUTATION. When the thing no longer has its original condition and cannot be traced back to its original condition, this is MODULATION. As far as I can tell, nothing has ever modulated. A Sabre Tooth Tiger mutated down to a Tiger (in size)-mutation. The Sabre Tooth Tiger did not become Cat Woman--modulation. So, I don't believe that evolution has ever occurred after God's initial creation of all existence. Of course, I could be wrong and God can only answer this question.
-- rod (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 08, 2003.
So it is your opinion that the extinct saber-toothed tiger and the modern tiger are the same species, regardless of anatomical differences that could separate them at a glance? Then again, there is the fact that several different species of tigers are alive today - or do you consider these all the same species? How about lions and tigers? Same species? Or different species sharing common ancestry? The specifics of the process of evolution - like the specifics of the process of carcinogenesis - are only partially understood. But that does not suggest that evolution - or cancer - does not occur.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 08, 2003.
Stupid question, and off-topic, but I'm interested: how is the pinkie getting shorter? I can't see how that really follows- people with shorter pinkies are more likely to survive? Or did people originally have short pinkies, and just now they are able to revert to type? The whole "giraffe needs longer neck- second generation giraffe has longer neck" was thrown out long ago, I thought, and this seems to be simply reversing the logic. I'm muddled, and (worse) I'm getting addicted to this forum. You guys are really great to read!
-- Catherine Ann (email@example.com), June 08, 2003.
I was unaware that pinkies are getting shorter! Thanks for filling in this missing link in my knowledge of anatomical evolution :-)
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 08, 2003.
Well, at a glance, all of the different spicies of any animal would fit into the idea of MUTATION. They all would have needed one beginning. I think of it like a box of Leggos. We can build just about anything with Leggos, but the objects built are still Leggos. We could also build something out of Tinker Toys, but it might be impossible to combine Leggos and Tinker Toys and expect something that would last for any length of time. This idea of MUTATION would make it easy for Noah to have saved the animals. It was sort of like an ark of animals ready to be mutated, just add water.
Now, as for cancers and microbes, I'm pretty much lost there. Perhaps they are examples of Leggos and Tinker Toys joined together-- MODULATION.
Although, I do view certain events to fit in with MODULATION. Immaculate Conception
The miracles that Jesus performed
The resurrection and ascendsion of Christ
It wouldn't frighten me to learn that evolution is responsible for our existence.
-- rod (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 09, 2003.
Careful - evolution could be the mechanism God used to create our bodies - but "evolution" could not have "been responsible for our existence", first, because responsibility does not belong to the process but to the Creator and Maintainer of the process; and second, because "we" are more than just biological entities. Our spiritual nature, including our souls, had to be directly created and directly infused by God, regardless of what natural process He might have used to form our bodies from the dust of the earth.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 09, 2003.
That makes sense. Our bodies are one thing, but God made our lives, spirit, soul, and our essence. I would be wrong is saying that evolution is the source. Evolution, as you've stated, may be the mechanism, but not the source. I completely ignored the soul with my earlier comments.
-- rod (email@example.com), June 09, 2003.
Rod, the Book of Genesis and archeology show we are one of God's last creations.
If this is the case, then modern humans are no more than 10,000 years old. Any 1 million, 2 million, and so for amounts given are for homonids or humanoids, not modern humans. Interestingly: I have seen the pictites of fetuses of rabbits, whales, fish, rabbits, humans,cows, elephants... and humans at a certain embrionic stage and they look very much the same.
Carbon 14 fails after 10,000 years. tests of the shroud of Turin were 150 years apart in the test results conducted by three different labs on something which is only 700 years old. (150/700)X 100 = 21.4 % Imagine now something 10,000 years old. How much is the error? By this time less than 20% theoretically remains of carbon 14. This magnifies the problem.
Most carbon datings of modern humans usually don't go beyond 5000 BC. Makes sense from a historical analysis: Egypt was supposedly united about 3100 BC. The pyramids come after this time. Mesopotamians cities and writing come from about 4000 BC. Chinese records go as back as 2700 BC. Oldest dated stella in the Maya chronicles is from 1st century AD.
Genesis says we were created according to Bishop Usher in 4004 BC.
As you noticed the pyramids precede the flood of Genesis. How come they were not destroyed by the flood? because the flood was local, it did not include Egypt, India, China...Mexico...
-- Elpidio gonzalez (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 09, 2003.
"Interestingly: I have seen the pictites of fetuses of rabbits, whales, fish, rabbits, humans,cows, elephants... and humans at a certain embrionic stage and they look very much the same."
Well, just by simple observation, your statement can sit quite well with the notion of MUTATION. Earlier, I stated the Leggo and Tinker Toy example. I kind of see your statement in the same way. Those animals are all mammals (except the fish, of course). But, even if similar, they have different origins and species. But,the same mechanism in reproduction, growth, and heredity is present. I suppose that through time all things may mutate by using the SAME building blocks that they started with. Paul mentioned the microbes that can EVOLVE (synthesize). This , to me, implies that the thing changes its building blocks and builds itself into something new and can no longer be traced backed to its original beginnings==MODULATION. Or, the thing doesn't really "synthesize", but instead, it adopts other building blocks for life until the original is no longer of any use. Such a thing that can become something different is very mysterious and strikes me as being wicked. I think cancer fits into this mystery. Cancer finds a way to make one's own cells destroy one's own body. I guess this would be an example of Leggos joining with Tinker Toys, but if it were only that simple...
-- rod (email@example.com), June 10, 2003.
Stupid question, and off-topic, but I'm interested: how is the pinkie getting shorter? I can't see how that really follows- people with shorter pinkies are more likely to survive? Or did people originally have short pinkies, and just now they are able to revert to type?
no, if we assume that evolution is the case then we assume that 10,000 years ago humans had fingers roughly the same length, like a monkey has today. we see today that this is not the case, and fossil humans show that historical humans had much longer pinkies than we do today.
its a matter not of survival but of use. not all evolution has to do with survival. the lack of use and the adaptability of the human body means that with each generation the human body adapts to use less extranious digits, or less surface area, because more surface area means more potential for hypothermia or heat stroke.
The whole "giraffe needs longer neck- second generation giraffe has longer neck" was thrown out long ago, I thought, and this seems to be simply reversing the logic.
no it wasnt. saying the idea that giraffes should be getting longer and longer necks was proposed by anti evolution 'scientists' who dont understand anything about the way ecosystems work. long necks are inneficient. it takes alot of force to pump blood up a long neck. BUT trees where giraffes live grow their edible foliage at roughly the height of the current giraffes neck. to continue to grow the neck larger means no gain, increased difficulty as the neck must now bend to get food (neck pains, heh), not to mention the increase in strain on the heart for purpose of sufficient blood to the brain, or oxygen down to the lungs.
I'm muddled, and (worse) I'm getting addicted to this forum. You guys are really great to read!
thats okay, i was addicted a long time ago. sorry over the confusion of the Paul vs paul thing. i spell my name with a little "p" so ive come to be known as little paul, if that helps.
-- paul (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 10, 2003.
Uh, the dogs and cats probably ate hay, sorry. Oh, they probably consumed cow's milk.
I read somewhere that the oxygen content, before the firmament was depleted, allowed for many giant animals and beings to exist. When the firmament dissappeard, those giants couldn't breath enough oxygen for their cells to function, so they died. The whale didn't have to deal with such a problem because of its ability to submerge deeply into the oceans depths and therefore utilize the oygen more efficiently than the other giants. I guess those 11ft. giants just couldn't survive for lack of oxygen levels.
This hypothesis sounds neat and convenient. I wonder if it really happened this way or not.
-- rod (email@example.com), June 25, 2003.
Well, Dan. I am a dog. And I can tellyou very honestly, when a dog gets so hungry he's faint, he'll eat potatoe. He'll eat grass roots. He'll eat his own tail. Most cats are finicky eaters, but hunger does strange things to cats too. I've no doubt Sylvester the Cat would eagerly eat THHHHUCATASH, since he mentions that sweet dish in just about all his films. And you can always blindfold a cat. Then feed him horse-hair; which is just another variety of hairball. Hunger is a hard thing to ignore.
-- eugene c. chavez (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 25, 2003.