Evidence for God from Science

I graduated from college with a degree in Biology, and I have been somewhat of an atheist for awhile now. My studies however have made me realize the improbability of life, and especially intelligent life, coming into existence without an intelligent designer. I am beginning to lean toward the creationist side of the argument because when you delve further into the Creation vs. Evolution debate you see that the creation model actually fits the evidence.

I had always believed that according to the bible the Earth was very young and created in six 24-hour days. I had never realized that the book of Genesis could account for an old earth. The website godandscience.org has also answered many other questions I have had, but it didn't really discuss the Noah and the Ark story that much, and so I am hoping that someone will share their thoughts on this.

I am puzzled as to how Noah could have gotten 2 of every living thing (in some cases it was more than 2, depending on if it was a clean or unclean animal) onto the Ark? There are so many organisms, and species, and each with its own habitat and diet requirements. It seems to me to be impossible! How would a penguin for instance have made the journey to where Noah was, how would it have survived on the ark, and how would it have gotten back to its habitat?

Of course God can do anything and the Bible is not a full account of everything that happened, but the Bible says that everything that crept upon the earth was destroyed except those on the ark. Of course god could have supernaturally replaced things after the flood, but then what would have been the point of bringing all of them on the ark? Noah and his family would have needed some things on the Ark so they could have food and survive, and would have needed these animals after the flood as well, but it doesn't explain the need to bring 2 of everything that crept on the Earth. It implies that God is not going to replace them so Noah better bring a male and female of each thing onto the ark. This task simply seems to be impossible. How is this story true?

I know not, but would also like an answer. I'm sure someone here's got at least part of one!

Exodus 34:27-18
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

Keeping in line with the "God can do anything" train of thought, notice that God certainly has the capability to sustain someone (or something) without food and drink indefinately. Not only that, we see precident for that elsewhere in the Bible, in particular in this case where Moses went to meet God on the mountain, and didn't drink anything for 40 days.

So in terms of food, animals fighting, etc I'm of the opinion that no person or animal needed to eat while on the ark. Also any large animals could have been made very tame and docile for that period of time.

So then, in terms of everything fitting, we could look at all the birds and animals there are, esspecially if they were very young, and wonder if they could possibly fit in a boat that is 450 ft x 75 ft, with 3 decks. All told that's about 2 1/4 entire regulation football fields worth of surface area. If no animals were fighting, the large very young, and packed as tight as could fit against each other, could 2 of each fit into a little over 2 football fields? Perhaps....

Alternatively, I'm open to the concept that God made the ark bigger on the inside than it was on the outside. A miracle to be sure, but hey, He's God. Also note that God could have transported them to Noah if He so desired - for the Penguins and the like.

A final possibiliy is that the flood is not global. You can read about that theory on God And Science site also... The theory being that only the entire 'known' world flooded, and that's basically the Middle East. I don't personally like the theory, because when the Bible says "all living creatures" I don't think it's left open for questioning. I'd sonner believe that God caused a miracle rather than leaving the Bible open to such liberal interpretation. (After all, what's 40 days of solid rain if not a miracle?)

If you haven't read it already, the article on the website which Felgar referred to regarding a local flood scenario can be found at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html. A passage I also think nicely depicts an old Earth and supports a local (but world-wide flood scenario [as in all humanity were unindated]) can be found in Proverbs 8:22-29:

• 22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,
  before his deeds of old;
  
  23 I was appointed from eternity,
  from the beginning, before the world began.
  
  24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
  when there were no springs abounding with water;
  
  25 before the mountains were settled in place,
  before the hills, I was given birth,
  
  26 before he made the earth or its fields
  or any of the dust of the world.
  
  27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
  when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
  
  28 when he established the clouds above
  and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
  
  29 when he gave the sea its boundary
  so the waters would not overstep his command,
  and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

It seems giving the seas their boundaries was one of God's "deeds of old." Deeds which all appear to be during God's creative acts in the beginning. In Psalm 104, known as the "Creation Psalm," we have God doing the following at the beginning of His creation:

• 6 You covered it [i.e., earth] with the deep as with a garment;
  the waters stood above the mountains.
  
  7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
  at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
  
  8 they flowed over the mountains,
  they went down into the valleys,
  to the place you assigned for them.
  
  9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
  never again will they [i.e., the waters] cover the earth.

Anyway, I'd recommend reading over the entire article on this website, and then you can come to your own conclusion.

Kurieuo.

Just a point to note. Only creeping creatures were brought into the ark. Those that can swim can jolly remain in the ocean during those time, so penguin likely stays in the ocean.
The other thing to note is that it's likely we are only talking about the type of animals, not their specific category, which may be a result of future evolution thru gene & climatic changes.

But God being God, He could cause all animals to walk up the plank without Noah lifting a hand.

And don't forget microevolution-Noah didn't have to bring as many kinds of animals as we have today.

I copied the few paragraphs from a site a month ago or so to send to my brother. Also remember that it took Noah over 100 years to build the ark. In that time (as if God couldn't have done it in a twinkling of an eye, right) the animals could have walked from anywhere.

Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different 'kinds' of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably 'teenagers' or young adults.

Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like 'kind', Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine 'kind', so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.

According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 460 x 75 x 44 feet, with a volume of about 1.52 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all
land animals are larger than a sheep.

Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space).

Very, very interesting Boy. But what do you propose happened after they got off and had to quickly "evolve" into so many... oh what do you call it? Breeds? Interesting theory though, and interesting numbers.

One thing I noticed when I looked up Storngs word for "earth" in the Genesis Flood was that the word "husbandman" (or mankind) appeared. Like the word "day" it also has several ways it can read and the entire planet is only one way. I'm not sure if Moses knew that there was such a thing as a round planet.

It surprises me that everyone who has posted here seems to take the Noah's Ark story completely literally! It is obviously just a story, combining historical elements with allegory and poetry and moral and theological lessons. There are earlier stories deriving from a great flood that was probably a definite historical event (or several events). I'm thinking of the Gilgamesh legend here. The Noah story is just the Judaic version of this legend.

Pilgrim, haven't I seen you before? I agree that we get too hung up on what Genesis means literally. I have seen the Hebrew for Genesis 1 and much of it is figurative. I saw the original text in english and noticed that several words were left out.

I'd disagree Pilgrim, and simply stating in your position in no way justifies it. It is not evident, for example, what hermeneutics you followed to support your 'figurative' position? What is it exactly that reveals it is simply intended as a story that combines historical elements with allegory and poetry and moral and theological lessons? What lessons are to be learned—that God will wipe us all out if we don't stop sinning?

In addition by rejecting its historicity in any shape, you also go against the plethora of other flood stories around the world which all seem to back a drastic flood happening to humanity as some point or another regardless of what Scripture says (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html). As for Gilgamesh, you would again have to make your case to that the Bible is borrowing from it. If anything, it seems to me (and many others) to be the other way around (see Is the Biblical Flood Account a Modified Copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh? for more).

Kurieuo.