Did Noah have some of all the living things on the ark?

god created nothing new after his six days were up, that is the bible interpretation for the past 2,000 years at least. So there are no new species happening. the chickens raised by the romans are the only chickens, non of the american chicken breeds exist. the same thing is true of all the plants, there are no new types of corn since it was discovered, that is why Sweet Corn for eating off of the cob does not exist. Or the large flint corns for cattle feed. Did I say Cattle, same thing, The Texas longhorn cow is a myth, all cattle are just the same as the first cows out of egypt. If any of these things exist then evolution would be true and we know that creation is the only truth.

Oh by the way, he would have had at least two of every disease

Duh, guy above me, a horse very unlikely will become a whale, but an australopithecus became a human.

Mr. Padrino, 1st off if a horse became a whale the species wouldn't be the same as the presen-day whale. It would have to be a new species. 2nd, I realize the amount of change, and you, do you realize the enormous length of time that 300 million years is? You say there's no scientific evidence that one species may evolve into another. Either you are brainwashed by your church or you don't know what science is about. All species of today have evolved from other species (though some, very few, have maintain their characteristics for millions of years). The fossil record shows that very clearly. Now why do you give the example T-rex--> bird? You should be saying Deinonichus --> Archeopterix. Your example is so dumb. Look at a tadpole, do you think it can turn into a frog? Back to your rant, the inbetween changes what? Do you assume that all has stopped evolving? All species are now inbetween changes. When a new environment presents itself, either the species adapt and evolve or they go extinct. Simple as that. Duh.

Noak had every living animals in his time in the ark 2 of each kind, One pair of unclean aninmals Male & female Of the clean animals he had 7 pair, male & females, One reason was to offer a clean sacrifice up to God, & if he only had One pair of CLEAN animals then they would not reproduce, since Noah killed one for a sacrifice, No he did not have any dinsoraus. Noah did not have any kind of Fish in the ark, since they can live in water. Now you ask did God kill every transmitted diesase in the ark, the answer is NO, because a transmitted disease is a law of sin, God killed those transmitted diesases outside the ark.But as time went on after the flood, then God begin to allow these diseaes come back into focus, as we have them today, that is why God is getting ready to destroy this earth once again.

If you calculate the number of living organisms you find out that it would have meant that they would have needed to load something like 60 different things a second for 3 years.

This would have needed to go on 24/7.

How likely is that.

I also wondered as a kid about the idea that the flood wiped out all living things. I had trouble understanding how the fish had all drowned.

Love and blessings

don

the flood did not cover the entire world, just all the world that was known to noah's family - perhaps the entire part that was inhabited by humans, but maybe only what was inhabited by that culture. "the whole world" changes in size, depending on your perspective. if you have never been more than 20 miles from the house you were born in, and all you can see as far as you look is water, don't you think the water has covered the whole world?

many cultures have flood stories, and i've heard of at least 3 "noah's ark" stories from different ancient cultures, and there is geographic and archaeological evidence for at least 2 large regional floods in ancient times.

I see that you are lacking in scientific knowledge, so I will be kind in my answer. You see, Noah was a real person who built an immense, box-like structure ( NOT boat-shaped ) and God brought into the ark ( which means a chest, or box ) breeding pairs of each KIND of animal. Now, God created all KINDS or SPECIES of animals to be able to adapt to all sorts of climactic and topographic areas of the earth. That is why man has been able to develop different breeds of canine, feline, equine, bovine, foul, etc., etc., etc., throughout millenia of time.

As for your assumption that Noah was a carrier of STD's, Genesis 6 : 8, 9 says ; "But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah. This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God."

Noah was not perfect, he passed on imperfect genetic DNA to all of us, his descendants. But Noah did not participate in the wicked, vile, decrepit activities for which the previous world of mankind was destroyed.

Apparently you are not aware of scientists' ability to invent and develop various types of diseases and strains of viruses, which have been used in biological warfare for OVER a century now!!!!

STD's are a direct result of the wicked, vile, decrepit activities of our world since the Deluge. Even AIDS was relatively unknown until the 1970's or so. Therefore, since you have such little scientific awareness of what is reality, you should not say such derogatory things about Noah, OUR COMMON ANCESTOR!!!

Noah had 2 of each KIND of animal on the ark. If you go and study what the bible teaches on how this planet was before the flood you will understand that the animals did not have any diseases. You will also find that the animals he took on the ark were all babies, not full grown animals, it is easier to look and feed the babies, and also babies are stronger than full grown animals and thy will have more time to reproduce. Another thing everybody miss is that the bible actualy teaches that God was in the ark with Noah. Yes, Noah and the ark is a wonderfull subject to study, allot of interesting things you can learn.

Faulty research will lead you to a faulty conclusion every time.

God tells Noah at Genesis 6:19: "And of every living thing of all FLESH you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female."

STDs are not made of flesh, so therefore we must not concede anything.

The Bible does not conclusively document when STDs began. However, there are guidelines regarding them in Leviticus, so we know they were around in Moses' time.

Peace.

Micro evolution is a fact and no Christian argues against it. The example you gave is micro evolution.

Noah also didn't have to bring all the species of animals you see today. It is estimated that Noah brought about 8,000 basic kinds of animals on the ark.

Micro evolution could easily produce all the various species we see today in 4,000 years.

Christians deny the unproven garbage of macro evolution which says one kind of animal can change into another kind of animal. There is no scientific evidence that supports a horse can change into a whale if you give it enough time. But that is exactly what macro evolution says. It is a fairy tale.

**Atomin, don't pick at my example. It was just that...an example. Evolution teaches fish became reptiles...blah blah blah. Do you realize the amount of change necessary for anything to change into anything else? How does the animal survive in the inbetween stages?

Evolution teaches dinosaurs became birds. Here's some emperical science you can do. Go to a museum and look at a T-Rex skeleton. Now go look at any bird today. Take your pick.

If you believe that it is possible for a dinosaur to change into a bird, you have to be brainwashed.

Do you realize the astronomical changes that have to take place for such a transition? It is mathmatically impossible and biological suicide at any one of the inbetween changes. Don't come at me with "duh". Try using some intelligence. But, I guarantee you that you couldn't handle anything I threw at you, scientifically.

**Response to your edit. Your oversimplification of macro evolution in relation to micro is quite absurd. One does not prove the other. But, if you want to believe that, that's OK. Just don't call it science because it is unobservable, untestable, and not falsafiable. By definition, a science has to have those characteristics. Since micro evolution does not, it cannot qualify as science.

As for the STD's. You seem to be adamant that this has something to do with the bible's flood account when it does not. You seem to forget the fact that many sick, disgusting people have been having sex with animals for thousands of years after the flood. Do you think that STD's just might have something to do with that?

Also, we have no idea how many STD's were man-made. There is much speculation that AIDS was created in a lab, but I cannot confirm nor deny that.

Disease in general come from a variety of sources...pollution, malnutrition, drugs, etc. We just don't know the source of many of them.

You seem to have your mind made up that the creation account is false. In so doing, you disregard possibilities that evidence does exist for it. But, like most people, you will only look at the evidence that supports your opinion.

Now I ask you, is that being scientifically open minded, or biased?

**Atomin,

The "science" you mention is only interpretation of evidence. In other words, it's merely someone's opinion. In order for something to classify as science, it must be observable, testable, and falsafiable. Looking at fossils and imagining changes is none of that. Therefore it is not science. Your own words prove that when you mentioned the time it took for your theory to happen. In other words, "We haven't observed it, therefore it must have happened long ago and far away".

I assure you I am not brainwashed. Especially since I used to believe in evolution. I have seen both sides and have chosen the side that is much more logical. I didn't learn about evolution from "my church" as you put it. I studied science, not religion, to come to my conclusion.

There are only 2 possibilities. Either there is a God that created this world, or there isn't and the world created itself. If one is not true, the other is true by default. I have concluded that evolution is scientifically impossible. Many evolutionists also have stated that and the only reason they follow evolution is because they don't want to believe in God.

Your examples have been studied much througout the years and known to not be examples of evolution at all.

Tadpole--just a fetus living outside of the womb or egg.

Archeoptrix--it was just a perching bird that is now extinct.

Fossil record--no fossil is evidence for evolution...How can you prove that the creature you see had offspring? Let alone offspring different from itself? How do you explain fossilized clams on top of Mt. Everest? How do you explain fossils at all? Do you know what is required for something to fossilize? It takes mud which means water has to be involved. Which really lines up with the flood theory. Especially since there are fossils on tops of mountains. Creation theory can explain fossils much better than evolution can.

If you want to believe in evolution, that's your prerogitive. I have no problem with that. It's a free country. In fact, I admire your faith in it. However, to call it science is downright criminal. You can't observe, test or falsify the theory.

I believe Noah brought all of the animals with Him. As far as STD's, no. This was brought on by man not keeping sex in marriage where it belonged, and by risky sexual practices.