Noah had dinosaurs on his ark

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Now there's a "museum" that attempts to reconcile creationism with the dinosaur fossil record - including claims that Noah had dinosaur pairs on the ark.

 

What's next? A genetics museum with exhibits showing how sheep shown striped rods give birth to striped offspring per Genesis 30:32?

 

Many Trying to Reconcile Religious Beliefs with Evidence of Evolution

Museum Offers Compromise on Debate Over Origins of Life, As Debate Heats Up

By JAKE TAPPER and AVERY MILLER

 

EUREKA SPRINGS, Ark., Aug. 11, 2005 — It can be jarring to see fossil replicas of dinosaurs and adjacent images of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Most museums do not posit that dinosaurs — adolescent ones, of course, for space reasons — were shepherded onto the Great Ark by Noah.

 

The Sandborg family traveled all the way from their home in Minnesota to Eureka Springs, Ark., to visit the Museum of Earth History. As believers that God created the universe in six days, they made the trip to resolve a dilemma — how to reconcile the science they believe with the Bible they believe in.

 

"To have dinosaurs, you know, as a child it was hard for me to figure out — to try to make it line up," said Dawn Sandborg.

 

Almost half of the U.S. population — 45 percent — believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God, as stated in the Bible, about 10,000 years ago, according to a November 2004 Gallup poll. Now many of those believers are pushing for a way to align their beliefs with scientific evidence of dinosaurs — a battle being fought in legislatures, classrooms and museums across the country.

 

Museum of Earth History founder Thomas Sharp tries to make science and the Bible compatible. In this museum and others he's planning nationwide, he claims Noah fit pairs of dinosaurs on his ark, and God created it all.

 

"I think it happened by intelligent guidance," Sharp said. "I think it's impossible to have slime (evolve) into the human brain no matter how long you say it took. I think that's biologically impossible."

 

 

Creationism Gaining Support

 

Religious views of creation that challenge accepted science are gaining support across the country.

 

The Kansas Board of Education this week tentatively approved new standards that would allow more criticism of evolution in explaining the origins of life. A final vote is expected in the coming months.

 

MORE HERE

[Purple Rhino]

Is this the same guy who say's that the dinosaurs of the ark were only the size of goats? And there were only actually 1 pair of dinosaurs, 1 pair of horses, etc that after the ark landed these animals all ended up adapting to the various places they ended up. Giving us the animal population of today?

 

He is a great interview, the poor sap actually explains how Noah only had to carry about 300 animals 150 pairs and not the worlds population of species

 

PR

[spamandham]

so he obviously accepts SOME type of evolution then huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[drone mode]

Oh yes! You see, we do witness microevolution, but we don't witness macroevolution. We see changes within a kind, but we do not see one kind changing into another. Therefor god exists!

[/drone mode]

[Checkmate]

It just tickles me to no end how these religious nit-wits try to scramble to fit their fantasies into reality! Rather than just give up the ghost, they attempt to force square pegs into round holes. Fascinating.

[Mr. Neil]

Only one pair of dinosaurs on the entire ark? What kind of crazy evolution does this guy believe in. He's gotta have them evolve into the thousands of dinosaur species and then mysteriously croak some time presumably before the appearance of Christ, or at least before the Victorian age. So that leaves approximately 2000 to 3000 years for the dinosaurs to evolve and die out.

 

This guy has the world's ecosystem explode and collapse in an alarmingly short amount of time, and yet he has no historical or paleontological evidence to support this.

 

Here's the problem. There aren't enough scientists and educators speaking out against this shit. These people need to be explicitly told that they are wrong and that what they believe in sheer insanity.

[Mr. Neil]

If you think it's frustrating being aware of the fact that you were at one time scientifically challenged, imagine what it's like for someone like me to hear this crap, knowing how contrary it is to the actual truth. That's why it makes me so mad.

 

You know, I can almost understand design arguments. It's a very easy trap to fall into. Complexity with no guidance is one of those things that really needs some thinking power to overcome.

 

However, I am just dumbfounded by people who actually talk about the flood as though it's history. The flood is so utterly stupid, for very specific reasons, that I literally can't understand why it remains a subject of debate. We should be way beyond this.

 

One of the biggest problems with the flood story is not what was necessarily on the ark, but what wasn't. Trees! Where did the trees go during the flood?! This is such a duh-question, and yet creationists just don't think about it.

 

And there is a whole battery of questions one can ask just by branching off from the question about vegetation. We're talking about a situation in which there is literally no food chain. No vegetation means that the herbivores will die out, and no herbivores means no carnivores.

 

You don't have to be a biologist to ask these questions. These are very basic problems. I just don't understand how creationists can just gloss over this stuff as though there is no problem.

[trashy]

Here's the thing with all these coots. Carl Baugh, Kent Hovind, Sharp, et. al. Most have degrees from diploma mills. All of them use this same hyperbaric atmosphere argument. One of the many things that crumbled my beliefs in Creationist mumbo-jumbo and the Noahic flood of Genesis was a little science and math. Like what would happen to the earth's temperature if that much pressure was present, and how many trillion cubic miles of water it would take to cover Mt. Everest. Even better, I actually did a little reading about macroevolution, phylogenetic trees, nested heirarchies, common descent. Strangely enough, I discovered that evolution doesn't claim that humans descended from chimpanzees or apes! Believe it or not, I never knew that before, and I went to public school! And I am much too embarrased to admit how recently I changed my mind.....

[trashy]

Your right Mr. Neal.  After I deconverted and I saw flood stories from other myths... I needed not a degree to figure out that ancient people mistook their world for "the" whole world.  What happened were localized floods.  Then of course after deconverting and having an open mind and realizing I could actually question the bible one of my first thoughts were..."How the hell could there have been an olive branch, let alone food for the numerous herbivores?"  I mean come, on all green life on dry land would have just been starting over.  Besides, aren't there trees with age circles older than 10000 years? 

 

I can certainly see how a person with your knowledge would be agitated with creationist, and easily angered.

The olive branch thing is so obvious now, isn't it? Food for herbivores......musta been one damn big food storage bin on that ark! Tree rings - well, that's just conspiracy to fudge on dates in the scientific community I guess......

 

Honestly, how did we miss this stuff before?

[quicksand]

This guy has the world's ecosystem explode and collapse in an alarmingly short amount of time, and yet he has no historical or paleontological evidence to support this.

Not too mention that organisms have adapted to the environment they live in. The types of proteins and foodstuffs they need to survive are a direct reaction due to the environment for which they've evolved in.

 

Creationists can not account for that. Sure, load 'em them all up on the ark, however, how do they account for the evolutionary changes that happened before this alleged historical event?

 

*****silence****

 

We did the Hovind Creation series.  He says that the dinosaurs died off for several reason.  Ole' Kent says that when the earth was fresh and new that the level of oxygen was like a hyperberic (sp?) chamber today and that the dinosaurs could breathe in the air well.

You know, I have always wondered why can't Creationists just make the claim that dinosaurs couldn't swim very well (or by some other magic trick) weren't saved by Noah? Easy explanation for a mass extinction event.

 

Oh yeah, they are so absolutely married to the Bible as inerrant, they have to make ridiculous justifications otherwise they aren't following the "letter."

[spamandham]

The olive branch thing is so obvious now, isn't it? 

 

[drone mode]

Don't you see?!! The Bible says the flood covered to the tops of Ararat. You see, you have to interpret scripture with scripture. It's called hermaneutics. I understand your confusion you poor pitifull fool. Satan blinds you because you love sin, which is why god, who is love, is planning to lovingly burn you forever...but I digress.

 

You see, when it says "the tops", it just means to the base of the peaks, not to the very top. Just before the flood, god sent doves around the world gathering up seeds from all plantlife and placing the seeds above the planned flood level. For coconuts, he used two African doves each grasping the husk to evenly distribute the load. He also ensured there would be an olive grove up there so that later on a dove could return carrying an olive branch (a twig really - hermaneutics again!).

 

I'll gladly answer any other question you have on this topic.

 

Your brother in Christ, droneboy.

[/drone mode]

[spamandham]

however, how do they account for the evolutionary changes that happened before this alleged historical event?

 

[/drone mode]

There were none. God created all the dinosaurs of one kind. Noah was only required to pick a pair of each kind, not every species. He chose crocodiles, which are still here on earth today unchanged since the flood, thus proving the Bible is true.

 

Pray, read, learn.

[/drone mode]

[Colin Benson]

Ugh! I saw it on the news yesterday, sick. Just when you think creationists could not get any more retarted, they come up with this crap! The sad part is that this is a MUSEM for crying out loud! They are teaching this stuff as though it were true. I hope Texan schools don't send kids here on field trips.

 

[killa_chuck]

Is this the same guy who say's that the dinosaurs of the ark were only the size of goats?

 

In Jr. High I went to a Christian school and one of my teachers told the class that Dinosaurs were actually just lizards like we have today except that they lived longer so they grew bigger.

 

I remember it pretty clearly to this day because it was probably one of the dumbest things I have ever heard come out of anyone's mouth. I should have called him on it. I was just a kid, though.

[Mr. Neil]

In Jr. High I went to a Christian school and one of my teachers told the class that Dinosaurs were actually just lizards like we have today except that they lived longer so they grew bigger.

 

I remember it pretty clearly to this day because it was probably one of the dumbest things I have ever heard come out of anyone's mouth.  I should have called him on it.  I was just a kid, though.

That man should have been fired.

 

Trashy, the olive branch is one of those details of the story that is a dead giveaway that this is just a very poorly slapped-together version of the Sumerian Flood Myth, in which a person's "entire world" (i.e., a local flood that appeared to expand to the horizons) was covered with water. The olive branch would have been indicative of finding dry land that had never been flooded in the first place!

 

But the Bible makes it so that all of the land was covered with water, which is completely incompatible with the olive branch part of the story. This tells me that this is clearly a story that had been sloppily plagiarized from other myths. Clearly the Genesis writers didn't know much of anything about nature.

 

As a matter of fact, I have a theory that at the times that these stories were written, the writers literally had no idea that trees and other forms of vegetation were alive and needed to breathe. They probably just assumed that, like rocks, trees were just part of the scenery.

 

They probably just assumed that you could flood the whole world and the trees would still be there when the waters receded.

[Guest Winchester Slate]

How did God drown the fish?

[spamandham]

The olive branch would have been indicative of finding dry land that had never been flooded in the first place!

 

[drone mode]

How many doves do you know that could pull an olive branch off a living olive tree?

 

No. Clearly, the branch had to have been one that fell off the tree first. After the flood, the waters were filled with floating olive branches. But doves can't just swoop down and grab an olive branch like segulls could. The water had to recede first, so that the olive branches could land on a rock of mount Ararat, where a dove could land first and grab the branch. That's how Noah knew the water was receding, because otherwise the dove couldn't have landed on the rock to grab the branch.

 

You see, it's called hermaneutics. Now that you've heard the TRUTH, are you ready to give up your love of sin and say the sinners prayer?

 

God be praised!

[/drone mode]

[Mr. Neil]

Well that would work if Gen 8:11 didn't literally say it was plucked off.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

How did God drown the fish?

I think the opposite question is better "How did Noah prevent the fish from drowning?" Many marine animals require specific levels of water temperature to live. Most fresh water fish cannot live in salt water (which is what the flood would be with all the oceans combined with the rain.

 

Did Noah also have temperature-controlled fresh water fish tanks on the ark to keep alive two of each fresh-water marine animal species?

[Purple Rhino]

....

 

Did Noah also have temperature-controlled fresh water fish tanks on the ark to keep alive two of each fresh-water marine animal species?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Isn't the case with macroevolution Noah would've only had to save a pair of godfish to repopulate? That way the spawn would magicmacroevolve into trout, bass, etc.

 

 

PR

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Isn't the case with macroevolution Noah would've only had to save a pair of godfish to repopulate? That way the spawn would magicmacroevolve into trout, bass, etc.

PR

That sounds about right - throw any two things with fins into a bucket on the ark and god and nature will take care of the rest after the flood.

[Purple Rhino]

That sounds about right - throw any two things with fins into a bucket on the ark and god and nature will take care of the rest after the flood. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wouldn't it have been easier for god to just reach down and repopulate with all that mud? It seems it would have been faster. Or was it that god was far too busy to spend another 6 days in pottery class?

 

 

PR

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Wouldn't it have been easier for god to just reach down and repopulate with all that mud? It seems it would have been faster. Or was it that god was far too busy to spend another 6 days in pottery class?

PR

I've wondered that too.

 

It seems like it would have been a lot easier to recreate everything than to go to all the trouble of waiting for kangaroos to hop from Australia to the Middle East, or for sloths to meander over from South America. (Ignoring the fact that both had to cross vast oceans to get there and then to go home again after the flood).

 

Perhaps god had misplaced his creature recipe book and was forced to rely on Noah's DNA Salvage Project.

[spamandham]

Well that would work if Gen 8:11 didn't literally say it was plucked off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[drone mode]

You see, you have to interpret scripture with scripture. It's called hermaneutics. The verse says it was plucked off, but it doesn't say the dove was the one who plucked it off. We know that Jesus was there in the beginning, so, Jesus was waiting on the mountain peak for the dove to arrive. When it showed up, Jesus plucked it off and gave it to the dove.

 

Maranatha!

[/drone mode]

[Mr. Neil]

Wait... That argument was so bad, that there can only be one explanation!

 

*pulls the rubber face off of "Spamandham"*

 

Look everyone! It's TV's Jason Gastrich!

 

Jason: Eeeeeeeeee!!!

[Vixentrox]

I have a friend who is a Hovindite, and she was prattling on about how some dinosaurs still exist.  Apparently, fantasy lore involving dragons were really true stories about dinosaurs with fire breathing capacities.  And the loc ness monster is a real dinosaur hiding out.    The sad thing is, at the time I as a believer and not versed in science, so I was like, "hmmm... could make sense."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In a way, she is right. The celocanth still lives today, a fish that was supposedly extint like 65 million years ago. So it is certainly possible a few surving specimens of other ancient beasties may still be hidden.

 

http://www.dinofish.com/