Could Noah's Ark hold all the animals?

[Risso]

There's tenuous, then there's........that.

[steaknchips]

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3

One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

[mjmooney]

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:

This is twaddle.

Evolution(ism) is not something that scientists (read: people) "want" to be "perceived as the accepted scientific consensus". It IS the accepted science consensus.

It is no more contentious or debatable than the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa.

Get over it.

[regular_john]

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3

One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

Copied and pasted straight from here . Do you have any knowledge on this topic whatsoever???

[regular_john]

And perhaps a good place to wrap up is that as I alluded to last night ANY VT Atheists who took part in Halloween celebrations a few nights ago were actually commemerating the Flood and it's consequences, whilst no doubt scoffing at this thread and the deluge as an event.

The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Elements of the customs connected with Halloween can be traced to a Druid ceremony in pre-Christian times. The Celts had festivals for two major gods—a sun god and a god of the dead (called Samhain), whose festival was held on November 1, the beginning of the Celtic New Year. The festival of the dead was gradually incorporated into Christian ritual.”—(1977), Vol. 13, p. 725.

The book The Worship of the Dead points to this origin: “The mythologies of all the ancient nations are interwoven with the events of the Deluge . . . The force of this argument is illustrated by the fact of the observance of a great festival of the dead in commemoration of the event, not only by nations more or less in communication with each other, but by others widely separated, both by the ocean and by centuries of time. This festival is, moreover, held by all on or about the very day on which, according to the Mosaic account, the Deluge took place, viz., the seventeenth day of the second month—the month nearly corresponding with our November.” (London, 1904, Colonel J. Garnier, p. 4) Thus these celebrations actually began with an honoring of people whom God had destroyed because of their badness in Noah’s day.

Nowhere apart from that one obscure book makes any connection between Halloween and the flood.

Halloween is also thought to have been heavily influenced by the Christian holy days of All Saints' Day (also known as Hallowmas, All Hallows, and Hallowtide) and All Souls' Day. Falling on November 1 and 2 respectively, collectively they were a time for honoring the saints and praying for the recently departed who had yet to reach heaven.

[Brumerican]

In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

So natural selection doesn't fit as well as a book that says it's all magic ?

Laughable.

The second paragraph is even more ludicrous. All biological organisms are made up of energy and matter and we have been changing form for millennia.

As Chindie says , I don't think you believe any of this at all and are just on the wind up . You have been doing it in On Topic for a while and just got bored I guess.

I'm not really fussed as there may be some fence sitters reading this thread and the information could be useful to them .

[steaknchips]

JAMES ALLAN Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellen Bosch in South Africa

“As a biologist in the field of population and quantitative genetics, I had believed in the theory of evolution for nearly 40 years. ... When, at a fairly advanced stage of my career, I became a Christian I began to read the Bible reverently and as intelligently as I was able. ... I must admit that the six days of the creation presented some difficulty for me. The apparent logic of conclusions from observations and measurements in various fields of science had previously led me to doubt the little I had known of the Word of God, to the extent that I had agreed with attempts to replace it with analternative concept of God. But God does not say aeons or years or months or weeks--he says days,and we generally understand days to be 24-hour periods. I then realized that had God wanted to say a billion years rather than six days, He could have said it ... I now believe that God means literally what He says and writes, and that there is no reason to look for symbolism. ... It is also clear to me that if one wishes to believe in the theory of evolution, a great deal of Scripture, including Jesus’ own spoken word (Matt. 19:4; 25:34; Mark 13:19; John 5:46-47), has to be discounted, so, whom must we believe, God or man? I believe that God gives us the answer when He says, ‘Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?’ (Isa. 2:22)”

PAUL BACK D.Phil. in engineering science from Oxford University

“In my early teens, I began to develop an interest in science and often read books on science. I came across an article on evolution and the writer excitedly explained that with the finding of the Piltdown skull, all arguments against our evolutionary links to apes had been settled. This article left me with two clear thoughts. First, evolution is true and second, that only an unscientific fool could possibly think otherwise. Once I reached university, I no longer went to church and decided that Christianity was irrelevant to life. ...

I came across a book by Whitcomb and Morris titled The Genesis Flood that, in my mind, began to unravel the seemingly impregnable fortress of evolutionary dogma. Evolutionism was not the only explanation. The book inspired me to dig deeply into the whole edifice of evolutionism, and the more I dug, the more it seemed that it was built on sand--on wishful thinking, on gross extrapolations of observations that could better be interpreted from a creation worldview. The other significant thing I noticed was the anger and animosity of evolutionists that was directed against those who dared to challenge their viewpoint. My studies led me to the ever greater conviction that evolutionism was a deeply flawed theory."

[regular_john]

JAMES ALLAN Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellen Bosch in South Africa

“As a biologist in the field of population and quantitative genetics, I had believed in the theory of evolution for nearly 40 years. ... When, at a fairly advanced stage of my career, I became a Christian I began to read the Bible reverently and as intelligently as I was able. ... I must admit that the six days of the creation presented some difficulty for me. The apparent logic of conclusions from observations and measurements in various fields of science had previously led me to doubt the little I had known of the Word of God, to the extent that I had agreed with attempts to replace it with analternative concept of God. But God does not say aeons or years or months or weeks--he says days,and we generally understand days to be 24-hour periods. I then realized that had God wanted to say a billion years rather than six days, He could have said it ... I now believe that God means literally what He says and writes, and that there is no reason to look for symbolism. ... It is also clear to me that if one wishes to believe in the theory of evolution, a great deal of Scripture, including Jesus’ own spoken word (Matt. 19:4; 25:34; Mark 13:19; John 5:46-47), has to be discounted, so, whom must we believe, God or man? I believe that God gives us the answer when He says, ‘Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?’ (Isa. 2:22)”

Oh my **** life. Are you kidding me? The guy turns his back on EVIDENCE and you hold that up as some kind of virtue? How many times do you and Julie need to hear this, if scripture were accurate the evidence would support it! There would be no need for 'belief' or 'faith' as you could simply accept the evidence. You have 'faith' because you have evidence. It is telling that the field that strictly follows EVIDENCE is almost completely devoid of religious faith.

PAUL BACK D.Phil. in engineering science from Oxford University

“In my early teens, I began to develop an interest in science and often read books on science. I came across an article on evolution and the writer excitedly explained that with the finding of the Piltdown skull, all arguments against our evolutionary links to apes had been settled. This article left me with two clear thoughts. First, evolution is true and second, that only an unscientific fool could possibly think otherwise. Once I reached university, I no longer went to church and decided that Christianity was irrelevant to life. ...

I came across a book by Whitcomb and Morris titled The Genesis Flood that, in my mind, began to unravel the seemingly impregnable fortress of evolutionary dogma. Evolutionism was not the only explanation. The book inspired me to dig deeply into the whole edifice of evolutionism, and the more I dug, the more it seemed that it was built on sand--on wishful thinking, on gross extrapolations of observations that could better be interpreted from a creation worldview. The other significant thing I noticed was the anger and animosity of evolutionists that was directed against those who dared to challenge their viewpoint. My studies led me to the ever greater conviction that evolutionism was a deeply flawed theory."

Face. Palm. Evolution is not dogma, it is science. All you, Julie, or any other creationist would have to do is provide EVIDENCE that intelligent design is accurate and you could claim your Nobel prize for revolutionising the whole of science. There are millions of creationists on Earth, why doesn't one of you present some damn evidence and collect your Nobel prize???

[Risso]

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3

One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

Copied and pasted straight from here . Do you have any knowledge on this topic whatsoever???

Julie used to do exactly the same on here. Cut and paste from fundamentalist websites without crediting them to make it look like it was her own thoughts.

[steaknchips]

Makes you question the evidence and its strength if its that easy to turn your back on.

We are not talking the odd Tom and Dick thats watched Horizon a couple of times...We talking people that have studied, probed and delved right into the heart of this subject...Not you, not me, people WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!

How strong is this evidence if so many bleeding scientists are turning their backs on it?

[Chindie]

Troll harder, you're still struggling chap.

[regular_john]

Makes you question the evidence and its strength if its that easy to turn your back on.

We are not talking the odd Tom and Dick thats watched Horizon a couple of times...We talking people that have studied, probed and delved right into the heart of this subject...Not you, not me, people WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!

How strong is this evidence if so many bleeding scientists are turning their backs on it?

No, for the most part you and Julie have mentioned scientists who work in fields not remotely related to biology and scientists that have repeatedly been discredited for promoting really dumb ideas without offering any evidence to support them (Michael Behe etc.)

We aren't talking about 'So many bleedin scientists', we're talking about a small handful. There are millions of scientists in the world, even if 1000 were to turn around and say they reject evolution, it would still be far, far less than 1% of the worlds scientists.

edit: And doesn't it make you wonder, how weak must the 'evidence' for intelligent design be if it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists and only supported by uneducated, scientifically ignorant fundamentalists??

[JulieB]

Nowhere apart from that one obscure book makes any connection between Halloween and the flood.

Really?..... it took me about 1 minute to Google "Halloween and the Flood" and I found quite alot of information including the following -

It is generally well known that there is a widespread diffusion of the Flood story throughout the various cultures of the world. For further documentation of this see Henry M. Morris Ph.D., and John C.Whitcomb Jr. Th.D. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1961 especially pp.37-42, 50-51.

What is often overlooked, however, is that there is also the remembrance of the "Day of the Dead" followed by a New Year. This occurs on our calendar at the end of October or the beginning of November. Note that Genesis 7:1 states that it was on the 17th day of the 2nd month that the vast cataclysm of the Flood erupted on the earth. On the Old Testament calendar employed in Genesis (similar to the modern Jewish calendar) the first month of the year runs from mid-September to mid-October (cf. Genesis 26:12 where sowing and reaping take place in the same year, thus indicating an autumn New Year). Therefore, the commencement of the Flood would be the end of October or the beginning of November. Note as well how Genesis 7:21-23 stress the theme of universal death:

(21) And all flesh died that moved upon the earth...(22) So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground...(23) They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.

Furthermore, the salvation of Noah and those in the Ark is completed by their leaving the Ark and starting anew on the 27th day of the 2nd month of the following year: that is, in November.

"Thus the old world perished in November and a year later a new era commenced in the same month. Both of these facts are indelibly enshrined in the memory of the human race. To many people around the world November brings the Day of the Dead. In a number of ancient and primitive calendars November also brings a New Year at a time which has neither solstice nor equinox nor astronomical event to justify it." (Frederick A. Filby, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. (University College, London): The Flood Reconsidered, Zondervan, 1977, Fifth Printing, p.106):

The following information on the Day of the Dead and the November New Year is taken from Filby (pp.106-108) to illustrate this widespread phenomenon:

Egypt: "It has long been known that the ship of Isis and the chest or coffin of Osiris which floated on the waters for a year are confused Egyptian recollections of the Flood. Plutarch says the Osiris was shut up in his box and set afloat ‘...on the seventeenth day of the month Athyr, when nights were growing long and the days decreasing.’ [On Isis and Osiris -note that Athyr is a variant of Hathor the goddess who was guardian of the tombs of the dead]... In Plutarch’s time Athyr did in fact coincide with October-November."

Assyria and Babylon: "In ancient Assyria the ceremonies for the souls of the dead were in the month Arahsamna, which is Marcheswan [=the month of Heshvan on the Jewish calendar, which is mid-October to mid-November]. In Arahsamna the Sun God became Lord of the Land of the Dead [s. Langdon: Babylonian Menologies and Semitic Calendars, London 1934 p.36]. The month was held sacred to the-rain-and-thunder-god, while in Babylon Marduk was called, in connection with this month, ‘Lord of the Deep’ and also ‘Lord of Abundance who causes plenty of rain to fall’."

India: "The Hindu ‘Durga’-festival of the dead-was originally connected with their New Year which commenced in November."

Iran: "The Persians commenced their New Year in November in a month which was named Mordad-month, i.e. the month of the angel of death."

Australia: "[Aboriginal Australians} at this time of the year paint white stripes on their legs and arms to resemble skeletons."

Society Islands (French Polynesia): "...the inhabitants...pray for the spirits of departed ancestors at the end of their New Year celebration in November."

Peru: "In Peru the [inca] New Year commenced in November and the festival called Ayamarka - carrying of a corpse - concluded with placing food and drink on graves."

Mexico: "The Mexican [Aztecs], too, kept the Day of the Dead at the same time of the year."

Europe: "November 2 is All Souls’ Day - the Day of the Dead. In France it is Le Jour des Morts - Christianized now for centuries but still at heart the old Day of the Dead when flowers are taken to the tombs... Early Anglo-Saxons called November Blood-Month...." Celtic inhabitants of Britain "...kept their New Year in November. The Manx mummers sang, ‘Tonight is New Year’s Night, Hogunnaa’ - on Halloween, October 31. Further, November 1 (Old Style) was kept as New Year’s Day in the Isle of Man until relatively recent times. Frazer sees the ancient Irish custom of kindling fires on Halloween, or the eve of Samhain as showing that November 1 was New Year’s Day. The Celtic festival of Samhain or Samhagen held in November is connected with the Cornish New Year festival of Allantide and the Irish Geimredh (E. Sykes: Dictionary of Non-Classical Mythology London, 1961). In Wales and Scotland early November is the time for ghosts to be remembered. Samhain is connected in legend with Avalon, the Kingdom of the Dead, to which Arthur was taken across the waters of a lake." [As late as 1818 G.S.Faber cited Davies’ Mythology of the British Druids saying, ‘Bardic songs are yet extant in which is celebrated the return of the mythological Arthur with his seven companions from their voyage over a boundless ocean, beneath the waves of which all the rest of mankind had been overwhelmed.’ " (Filby p.125)] { Presumably the name of Arthur replaced the name of the original hero of the story.}

Remember that Noah traveled over a boundless ocean with seven companions!

Implications:

The legends cited above are found all over the world in cultures radically distinct from one another. Note that for those in the northern hemisphere the Day of the Dead and its New Year are in the middle of the fall as winter is approaching. Those in the southern hemisphere are in the middle of spring awaiting the warmth of summer. And yet they all have in common this remembrance of death and a new beginning at the end of October and the beginning of November. Furthermore they are often connected with tales of a great flood.

This is strong circumstantial evidence for the historicity of the Flood of Noah. The idea that Halloween is just the remnant of a druid celebration (the High Sabbath of the occult calendar) is misleading. It is, instead, a reminder both of God’s judgment on human rebellion and His offer of deliverance to those who put their trust in His mercy.

[tonyh29]

Note it says evidence for the flood not evidence for Noah

Everything in the Christian bible stems from ancient Egypt ... Even jesus is just a version of Osiris who was killed by his enemies and then rOse again for eternal life in the heavens

[steaknchips]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

[regular_john]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

You just get worse and worse. The very first paragraph of that site defines two different forms of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution, stating that one (micro) is real and one (macro) is fake. The truth is that there is no such thing as either. Change is change. There are small changes, which you can call microevolution if you want, and there are larger changes that are the accumulation of small changes, you can call this macroevolution if you want.

Saying that one is real and one is fake is like saying inches are real but miles are fake.

You have literally nothing valuable to say, do you?

[JulieB]

Note it says evidence for the flood not evidence for Noah

Everything in the Christian bible stems from ancient Egypt ... Even jesus is just a version of Osiris who was killed by his enemies and then rOse again for eternal life in the heavens

Noah or a character with a similar name or description being mentioned in Flood legends all over the world was not part of my post. That is a seperate matter.

I would take issue with Osiris being the forerunner of Jesus - Osiris, Horus & Isis were the original Holy family - Father, Mother and Holy Son. It is where we find the origins of Mary worship as the supposed Mother of God ad venerated in Catholiscm.

Teachings of tri-unes of God like figures like Father, Son & Holy Spirit is not Bilblical - was not taught by Jesus or the early Christians but like many other pagan beleifs was adopted by the Council of Nicae in an attempt to make Christianity more acceptable and more inclusive.

Trinities of Gods can be found in Babylon, Egypt and other pagan religions. In fact the British Museum has a cabinet dedicated to Trinities of Gods from all over the world.

The celebration of All Souls Day or all saints day is another pseudo-Christian celebration that actually has it's roots in a much older pagan celebration of Halloween as my post alluded to.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Stil going! Brilliant.

[regular_john]

Julie - what do you consider to be the chief piece of evidence that supports the idea of a global flood? If we pretend that the Bible had never been written, how could we go out into the world and prove that a global flood definitely occurred?

[JulieB]

Julie - what do you consider to be the chief piece of evidence that supports the idea of a global flood?

All of the evidence together I suppose. Notwithstanding as a Christian that Jesus himself mentioned Noah and the flood and reaffirmed it's historical significance. Nor is he the only historical figure to mention "the Flood". King Ashurbanipal of Assyria, who established a library of 22,000 clay tablets and texts, claimed: “I had my joy in the reading of inscriptions on stone from the time before the flood.” Light From the Ancient Past, by J. Finegan, 1959, pp. 216, 217. The Epic of Gilgamesh comes from Mesopatamia and that speaks of a global flood, certainly not some localised flood, so it's hard to argue that the Assyrian Emperor who conquered the Babylonian empire would have been mentioning anything other than that same Great Flood. He also differentiates his writings to those on stone - "from the time before the flood"

Books like Chariots of the Gods are what got me interested in the Bible in the first place and evidence of a highly advanced global ante deluvian civilisation. If the deluge did happen then this would be a legend that is deeply ingrained in the history and legends of the World. That is exactly what we find.

Recently I've been doing alot more research on Ancient technology and civilisations, the Flood and the Nephilim, Out of place artifacts as well as modern day UFOs and supposed Close Encounters. Nothing to do with anything in the Watchtower - just what's available on the internet for anyone who can be bothered to have a look. It's quite surprising how it all starts to fit together like the pieces of a great big jigsaw.

Course it's all a load of tosh to VT Atheists firm in their convictions of standard Anthrapology of Mankind, so I'm not sure why you are asking the question?