reply to post by pause4thought
counterargument for the ark:
fish
i think that entirely refutes the concept of the ark...
just that one word could entirely refute the argument, but i'll address stuff from your source
This verse tells us that Noah didn’t have to search or travel to far away places to bring the animals on board. The world map was completely
different before the Flood, and on the basis of Genesis 1, there may have been only one continent. The animals simply arrived at the Ark as if called
by a “homing instinct” (a behavior implanted in the animals by their Creator) and marched up the ramp, all by themselves.
...bull
we'd have evidence of the world being connected that recently...and even if it were, the climates would be entirely different if there was only one
continent and modern animals (modern being animals that have existed in the last 10,000 or so years) wouldn't have a habitat.
Though this was probably a supernatural event (one that cannot be explained by our understanding of nature)
and boom, they admit that there's nothing scientific.
on dinosaurs:
Juveniles of even the largest land animals do not present a size problem, and, being young, they have their full breeding life ahead of them. Yet
most dinosaurs were not very large at all—some were the size of a chicken
but that doesn't matter if there were one or two the size of a bus, eh?
(although absolutely no relation to birds, as many evolutionists are now saying).
i just find this amusing...especially since it has no reference and is just a pure faith statement.
Most scientists agree that the average size of a dinosaur is actually the size of a sheep.
yes, if you average the size of all 330 or so known species...
still presents a space issue
and now the cop outs start
In the book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study4, creationist researcher John Woodmorappe suggests that, at most, 16,000 animals were all that were
needed to preserve the created kinds that God brought into the Ark.
...it doesn't even define "kind"
what is a kind?
currently there are about 10,000 species of birds.
what is kind in the context of birds?
hell, in the world there are about 1.8 million named species...that's just what we know about. there are probably millions more.
Aquatic life (fish, whales, etc.) and many amphibious creatures could have survived in sufficient numbers outside the Ark. This cuts down
significantly the total number of animals that needed to be on board.
...except that whole "they'd die" problem. you see, fish are evolved for their habitats...part of that includes the salinity of the water. if you
throw a saltwater fish into a freshwater lake, it's going to die 99% of the time
the same thing will happen to most freshwater fish with saltwater
and most amphibious creatures cannot survive 40 days and 40 nights without land...
Another factor which greatly reduces the space requirements is the fact that the tremendous variety in species we see today did not exist in the
days of Noah.
...um...that would admit that evolution is true.
and now the article demonstrates clear scientific illiteracy
Only the parent “kinds” of these species were required to be on board in order to repopulate the earth. For example, only two dogs were needed
to give rise to all the dog species that exist today.
clear
a pug and a mastiff aren't two separate species, they're separate breeds. they are the exact same species.
same goes for a chow and a chihuahua or a poodle and a bulldog.
dogs are a subspecies of wolves.
dog:
Canis lupus familiaris
Canis: genus
lupus: species
familiaris: subspecies
Creationist estimates for the maximum number of animals that would have been necessary to come on board the Ark have ranged from a few thousand to
35,000, but they may be as few as two thousand if the biblical kind is approximately the same as the modern family classification.
it would be nigh impossible to derive 1.8 million species like that...especially so quickly
in fact, for flood theory to hold true you'd need hyper evolution....which is insanely ironic.
so, did noah bring a capybara or a guinea pig?
same family, wildly different appearances...
Simply put, the water from the Flood is in the oceans and seas we see today. Three-quarters of the earth’s surface is covered with water.
which means that 1/4 of the world isn't covered by water
which means that there wasn't a global flood...
As even secular geologists observe, it does appear that the continents were at one time “together” and not separated by the vast oceans of today.
yes, a few hundred million years ago
The forces involved in the Flood were certainly sufficient to change all of this.
...floodwaters were enough to trump the slow movement of plate tectonics?
i think i've done more than enough to show that this article is scientifically bunk.
Then why isn't it followed 100% of the time? I will attempt to answer my own question here, because
evolutionists have to have faith in their belief of evolution, and don't mind shuffling evidence(bias) around to support their theory/faith.
Pursuing grant money furthers this bias. How much evidence must be destroyed, overlooked, ignored, swept under the rug, and manipulated? All to
promote a theory credited to be a foundation of science. What a shame. If science disproves one of its own roots, what of it? It will not cease to
exist. Fitting a square peg into a round hole is crazy, why keep trying when creation scientists just want to be able to offer a new shaped peg to
try? 
