32
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 77:
Line 77: + +
physicists' study
Young Earth Creationists have written a number of responses to such criticisms, such as John Woodmorappe's ''Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study''<ref>http://www.rae.org/noah.html</ref> which argues that ''kinds'' is not to be equated with ''species'', and that there would therefore be a much smaller number of creatures on the ark, and that there are ways that the humans on board could have cared for all the creatures on board. Creationary geologists have also pointed out that much of the Earth's geology is sedimentary (water-laid) rocks, as one would expect from a global flood.
Young Earth Creationists have written a number of responses to such criticisms, such as John Woodmorappe's ''Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study''<ref>http://www.rae.org/noah.html</ref> which argues that ''kinds'' is not to be equated with ''species'', and that there would therefore be a much smaller number of creatures on the ark, and that there are ways that the humans on board could have cared for all the creatures on board. Creationary geologists have also pointed out that much of the Earth's geology is sedimentary (water-laid) rocks, as one would expect from a global flood.
A study by University of Leicester physicists proves that the Ark is large enough for all the animals it had to carry.<ref>http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2014/april/hurrah-the-animals-could-have-floated-two-by-two-according-to-physicists</ref>
== See also ==
== See also ==