69
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 72:
Line 72: +
→Criticisms: Read about this recently, need to re-visit feasability studies
* The difficulty of the eight humans on board to care for all the creatures on board.
* The difficulty of the eight humans on board to care for all the creatures on board.
* The difficulty some animals would have getting unaided to or from the ark, especially those adapted to a specific habitat.
* The difficulty some animals would have getting unaided to or from the ark, especially those adapted to a specific habitat.
* The difficulties surviving in the post-flood environment
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.