Is there really anyone intelligent enough to use a computer--and dumb enough to believe the Noah's ark fable?

Question

is literally true?

Answer 1

Sadly yes, there are people that dumb.

Answer 2

For your information, Noah's ark was found in the 1980's.

People like you crack me up. You have no knowledge of the subject. You might have spent 5 minutes trying to understand the depth of it, and yet you think it's dumb to believe in it. The bible says that people who judge a matter before understanding it are fools.

Here's the link to the video where they found Noah's ark. I'm sure this evidence is not good enough for you though. People like you are usually just too intelligent to believe in evidence.

http://www.pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/realvideo/html/index.htm

Answer 3

It is no fable!

Don't loose your salvation because of Noah's ark, Look at Jesus and His message. Stop looking for excuses Seek whilst He can be found.

Answer 4

let us put it this way how come you are smart enought o use a computer but dumb enough that the very reason you know how to use a computer is because there is a God.

Answer 5

Yes. And there are apparently people who are smart enough to use a computer but ignorant enough to be bigoted and short sighted towards other people's beliefs. Thank you for affirming that.

Answer 6

Apparently so. Belief not only does not require intelligence, but is aided by the lack thereof.

Answer 7

If you're smart enough to use a computer, do some research. The art is found burried under much snow. All cultures have a flood story. If no flood happen, I wonder why that is. Duh! There was a flood.

Answer 8

any are familiar with Talk.Origins, counted among the top pro-evolution sites on the Internet. Most of the people running it are ostensibly atheistic. Many had a Christian upbringing and are using evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their apostasy. But they realise that rank atheism is repugnant to many, so they publish articles claiming that you can believe in God and evolution. It’s quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution. It reminds me of Lenin’s strategy of cultivating useful idiots in the West, who were too gullible to realise that they were undermining their own foundations. See also The Skeptics and their Churchian Allies

In one sense, it’s good to see articles like that by Mark Isaak, where the author displays his contempt for Scripture [and I don’t simply mean questioning biblical literalism, but direct mocking attacks against the Christian belief that the Bible is the inerrant written Word of God that “cannot be broken” as Christ Himself believed (John 10:35)], yet feigns concern that “a global flood makes the whole Bible less credible.” How do police investigators normally treat statements by witnesses who are blatantly dishonest?

The serious and objective student of this topic would definitely find it worthwhile purchasing John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, which answers most of the other objections. Isaak has supposedly “updated” his article to give the impression that he has responded to Woodmorappe. But it’s interesting to compare the two, and see that Isaak has hardly read Woodmorappe, who had more scholarship on each page than Isaak had in his whole article.

In other treatment of the scientific arguments, my article How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? in Creation 19(2) answers a number of his points, e.g. on the number of animals; definition of a “kind”; why “creeping thing” (remes) means reptile, not invertebrate; feeding the animals and disposing of their waste; and disease germs. The Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal article Diseases on the Ark: Answering the Critics covers the last point in much detail. Many plants, marine creatures and invertebrates could have survived outside the Ark.

Woodmorappe’s book also has detailed chapters discussing such things as survival of seeds, insects, etc. Ironically, Charles Darwin himself performed experiments floating snails on driftwood, and submerging seeds in salt water, convincing him that they could have survived long sea voyages on driftwood and the like. Another article, Darwin’s Finches — Evidence for rapid post-Flood adaptation Creation 14(3):22–23, June 1992) answers the objection that there has been insufficient time for all the varieties to arise since the Flood. A more recent article demonstrates that a new mosquito species has arisen in the London Underground stations in less than a century — see Brisk Biters — Fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists, from Creation 21(2):41, March–May 1999.

Creationists have long pointed out that the biblical “kind” was broader than today’s “species”. Sorting and loss of the already existing genetic information has resulted in all the “species” we have today (this is not evolution, which requires new genes and new information). The article Ligers and Wholphins: What Next? (Creation 22(3):28–33, June–August 2000 ) covers the extent of the biblical “kinds” in more detail. This article shows that many so-called different species and genera can actually interbreed and produce fertile offspring, showing that they are really a single polytypic biological species. And animals that can hybridise, at least up to fertilisation, are members of the same created kind. Thus Noah would have needed comparatively few “kinds” of land vertebrate. Woodmorappe assumes that each “kind”would be the ancestor of all “species” in a modern “genus”, so only about 16,000 animals would have been on board. And this assumption is generous to the evolutionists — the article Ligers and Wholphins shows that many “kinds” could even each be the ancestors of a whole “family”; if so, then only 2000 animals would have been required on board.

Isaak and other biblioskeptics dismiss this idea, claiming that the branching into different species (speciation) could not have happened in the 4500 or so years since the Flood. But it’s the skeptics’ dismissal that is contrary to observable evidence, as Woodmorappe’s book shows. Ironically, studies of Darwin’s finches show that it would take far less than 4500 years for new varieties of finches to arise. In 1996, major conference on speciation inadvertently provided support for the creationist model of rapid, non-evolutionary speciation after the flood.

Finally, the Updated and Expanded Answers Book [reviewed here] has a chapter about how koalas got to Australia, as well as many other “unanswerable” arguments by Isaak. Migration patterns explain some of them, but another important factor is introduction by humans. That’s how the rabbit reached Australia, and the Australian marsupials could have arrived with post-Babel humans. It’s also very important to note that, despite the caricatures by Isaak and other bibliosceptics, Noah did not need to gather the animals from different parts of the world: Gen. 1:9 indicates that there was one land mass before the Flood, and Gen. 6:20 indicates that God brought the animals to Noah.

As for polar bears, the article Bears across the world … (Creation 20(4):28–3) points out that polar bears are descendants of an original bear kind. This is not evolution, since polar bears contain no new information—rather, they have lost pigmentation information, resulting in white hair, good for camouflage. Another mutation prevented the toes from dividing properly during its embryonic development, resulting in webbed feet — one of many examples of a defect that is useful in certain environments. See also Beetle Bloopers.

The balance of this essay is a response to a number of the “points” made in Isaak’s FAQ. While not exhaustive, this treatment should show adequately that his objections are completely without merit. [Some critics have ignored this paragraph and attacked me for not covering this or that argument by Isaak. But it’s good practice when dealing with anti-creationists stringing out a series of bogus arguments to pin them down on a few, and force them to concede before moving on]

Answer 9

just an other metaphor like everything in else in the bible.