Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 46)
Message-ID: <704@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 20:38:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.704
Posted: Thu Jul 11 20:38:38 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 07:25:54 EDT
References: <404@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 25

...........
>    A.  ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE INDICATES  THAT  NOAH'S  ARK  PROBABLY
>        EXISTS [a-g].

The existance of an ark is not in conflict with evolution.  It is entirely
possible that an ark may have existed.  However it is interesting that these
articles do not note certain facts about what is known about the existance
of any such ark, such as:

    1) all reasonable ark size estimates are MUCH too small to transport
       2 ea. of all land animal species (to say nothing of freshwater animals
       and plants).

    2) There exists no reasonable explanation as to how the animals once
       released from the ark may have migrated to their respective corners
       of the world.

    3) Pre-evolutionary creationists realized the problems in 1 and 2 and
       postulated a variety of possible explanations, none which modern
       creationists appear remotely aware of.


Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd