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