Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
That same argument is used to point to a huge climate altering event namely: a flood. The fossil record is a record of extinction. Mass extinction starting right after the flood and then slowing but continuing to this day.
|
That doesn't really make much sense though.. the ark already is too small to house all extant species, if you change the story to allow for 99% of species to die off after the flood, you need an ark 100 times the volume.
The evidence does not point to a single mass extinction at the time when the flood is claimed to have happened anyway.
Plus there is no genetic bottleneck in all extant species at a single time which would be required if the the population of every species was reduced to a handful.
Of course the DNA may have been altered in such a way to remove evidence of a bottleneck, space warped inside the ark to house many more animals than physically possible, and the earth changed so that the geology shows no record of a global flood, but then the question becomes why change the evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Bottom line: Believing science has found plausible evidence of the development of the human eye is akin to believing Christ made an appearance in your cheese grilled sandwich. You've got to use your imagination, look at it from just the right angle, and really want it to be true.
|
Only if you really don't understand the evidence.
Have you read Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller (a believer) yet?