Evolution and Noah's Ark?

They didn't.

Evolution is an observed fact, and the noah's ark myth has no evidence of any kind to support it.

But you knew that already, huh? :)

Peace.

You are confusing the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Most Intelligent Design folks reject macro-evolution - the idea that one kind of thing can evolve into another kind (e.g., a dog could evolve into a cat [ note: I’m not saying that specific evolutionary process has been claimed, but only that 'type' of claim has been made]). Macro-evolution is essentially the 'Molecules to Man hypotheses' which Darwinian evolution claims, but for which we see no proof. Intelligent Design folks do accept the idea of Micro-Evolution - the idea that within a 'kind' you can have various changes. Using your dog example, we see examples of cross-breeding dogs resulting in a 3rd, new breed. We see examples of this when viruses mutate and bacteria become resistant to drugs. While a bacteria may mutate, it still remains a bacteria. We also see examples of micro-evolution in people – in their recessive genes, for example. Let’s say you take a man and woman of mixed race (black father, white mother), for example, and they produce two children, it is not at all uncommon for their genes to produce one white baby and one black baby. They do, after all, have both genes in their gene pool (see link at end for an example of this). The Christian response to the question about how we take one of each 'kind' of animal to get the various different 'species' is that they had the genetic material already in their DNA to make those different species. Note that what we do not see is a lion mating with an elephant to produce a liophant (or would it be elephion - grin). Of course this brings up one other question I've always wondered. Sometimes the difference between different species is so very minimal - beak size in birds, for example - that I wonder how loosely the term ‘species’ is used. For example, if a slight difference in beak size and shape can differentiate one 'species' of bird from another, then why, when we see much wider differences within the human species (skin color, hair type/color, nose size/shape, eye size/shape, etc.), do we not classify each different race as a different species, but rather we classify them as different as sub-species. It just seems like whatever standard that is used to make that determination is very fluid.

First of all, there is only ONE race...human. In fact, every human has the same skin color, but varying amounts of a pigment called melanin. People who have medium toned skin (like middle-easterners) have the genetics for both light and dark skin. Only one or two generations would be necessary to have entire groups with only light or dark skin. Ask a geneticist. Other features like eye shape, etc might take abit longer, but it is nothing more complicated that dominant and recessive genes (AA,BB. aa, bb) and various combinations.

Next, people might want to do a bit more research on the facts about the ark before criticizing it's legitimacy.

Lastly, something specific for one of the people who answered your question....evolution has NEVER been observed, either in nature or in a lab. One virus mutating into a different virus is not evolution...it is still a virus. As far as flood evidence is concerned, ask yourself this question...IF a worldwide flood actually happened, what evidence would it leave behind? How about huge deposts of sediment all over the world. Massive amounts of fossils buried rapidly and preserved. Catastrophic land changes created by water. So do we have all of that on earth? YES! Evolutionists may interpret those things differently, but they certainly exist. Go to www.answersingenesis.org for more info about the flood.

Once upon a time, the earth was less polluted so people lived longer(or aged slower).And also, when God punished Cain(for murdering his bro) he sent him off to some other land where there were other people.Looks like someone forgot to say God made OTHER people SOMEWHERE ELSE!And evolution is just SIMPLY RIDICULOUS!I suppose if the earth was a billion years old, the sun would be big enough to swallow the earth, or Pilt Down man WASN'T a hoax.Even christians argue on the basic things but it all comes down to this: What DO you believe? That God exists?It's not that hard to accept him as savior.When people refuse to believe that He's real, it doesn't make sense.

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose this day whom ye will serve...but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Many of the biblical accounts are symbolic - designed to deliver a moral lesson and not necessarily to be translated literally. Also the 'whole' world, having regard to the possible size of the flood, could relate to that part of the world inhabited by humans only, which may not necessarily have been the entire globe and more than likely applied to the Mediterranean and Arabic regions only. There is certainly definitive archaeological evidence of a massive flood in the region, which aligns with that biblical period.

Evolutionist science is very clear about the distinction of fact and theory, always acknowledging that science does not completely understand the mechanisms (theory) through which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between the two, that evolution was a fact but that natural selection was his theory to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Evolutionists agree that while the recognition of intelligent design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon any religious premise - it is based upon empirical observation and logic - a scientifcally accepted practice.

It is also agreed on all sides that there are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either an intelligence made the universe, or it created itself. Creationists argue that because the universe is so well-designed, it is hardly "pie in the sky" to consider that a Designer (an intelligence) should be the scientific default. In everything we observe in our modern day progression, concepts and designs by modern man are the result of his intelligence. Similarly, the natural laws of gravity, inverse squares, cause and effect, (upon which every human Court of Law relies) and thermodynamics imply the existence of an original "Law-giver" or an original intelligence and therefore, the Creationists argue, there is an intelligent and deliberate design within the evolutionary process.

Conversely, evolutionists argue that there is not and that these are accidents of nature, as is natural selection - Darwin's theory. So which is the more scientifically probable?

Evolutionists adhere to Darwin's proposal that natural selection is the mechanism by which a simple-celled organism, (an amoeba) could have evolved gradually, via descent and modification, into the complex species observed today in both plants and animals/humans. However, natural selection is known to be a conservative process, without the capability to develop complexity from simplicity. It was therefore later suggested that genetic mutation could account for the more complex development of all species originating from a common ancestor. This is still very much theory and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. Thus far scientists have observed harmful, "downward" mutations, only. It requires a much greater leap of faith to consider that from one common man the two genders of male and female evolved as a result of mutation. Before any mutation can occur a species has to be producing descendants. So .... how did man reproduce without woman in order to genetically modify and evovle, through mutation, into two different genders, if we are all descended from one common man??? A question which persistently challenges the theory of evolution. So .... is this leap of faith any less a leap than the leap made by Creationists, i.e., that there exists an original Designer - a God - responsible for our origins and for the intelligent design in the evolutionary process?

Creationism appeals to empirical observation and logic but beyond this accepted practice in science, it is difficult to test the theory of Creationism further, for obvious reasons. Evolutionary theory is continually being tested by science, yet no conclusive answer is forthcoming. Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. 150 years later, there has been no irrefutable evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record which proves common ancestry.

Creationists argue that as science cannot prove the very origin of matter, nor its transitional progression to the complex forms of today, nor can it disprove the existence of God, then a Creator must be the scientifically theoretical default. Modern latter-day Creationists accept the fact of evolution, but not the theory (or mechanism) of evolution without the inclusion of intelligent and deliberate design - suggesting the presence of a higher intelligence than man's - in their language a God. So whether the different races evolved, or whether they were created by a creator is not yet proven, because the theory of common ancestry is still challenged. Nevertheless, differentials between the human races and skin colours are hardly a complex evolutionary process - simply a matter of genetic modification and changes in levels of malanin, (skin pigmentation) - a simple evolutionary modification requiring no exhaustive scientific factual evidence to support it.

Basically all that said, no-one really knows!

You can't, which is why the whole story of Noah's ark is ridiculous.

Sure a flood might have happened somewhere (probably considering all the other stories around the Med) and sure someone might have had animals on it, but it was in no way anything divine and wasn't some magical transportation of every animal species on earth and from then on only their descendants survived.

First of all evolution and creation can happily coexist:

http://www.laitman.com/2009/08/the-entire-universe...

Besides the Bible (the Torah portion) speaks in a symbolic language, using words from our world, but pointing to spiritual desires, properties inside ourselves, so Noah, the ark, the flood, and all other names and places from within the Bible are actually inside ourselves, and our purpose if life is to find their place and meaning, and with their help to achieve harmony inside humanity and reality in general.

And each and every one of us is capable of this, here and now, within a short time.

Below you will find some examples on how Noah relates to us in this world.

I hope it helps, all the best.

It's not even possible that so few could build up a population. The best we've been able to do with technologies help was the California Condor. They've built a population from 22. If you only have two, it's certain extinction. Seven or eight isn't going to cut it either.

no, the flood was 5000 years ago. God magically freeze-dried and shrunk all the species to get them on the Ark.

How did dog breeders in a matter of just a hundred years come up with so many new breeds of dogs we never heard of before? The same thing can be asked about cat breeders.