Re: [asa] Loading the ark (Ken Ham)

> I'm not reading Ham… I'm listening to him. I got some videos from the local
> library. I like hearing all sides. He has two great points… some
> possibility anyway. He mentioned the t.rex find that had a partial
> fossilized bone with apparent red blood cells. Fascinating mystery with
> interesting implications... I guess the jury is still out on that, but
> fascinating ramifications:

Note it's not actual blood cells but rather mineralized traces that
might be blood cell remnants. Nothing about that is a problem to old
earth views.

> He also said there was some kind of ancient bush that was found living…
> ancient like dinosaur, and it is like finding a living dinosaur. I need to
> research that one. I can't find the type of bush online right now… Maybe I
> can't find it online now because it was discredited? The video was a few
> years old.

Might be misrepresenting the Wollemi pine. Fossils were known from
the Cretaceous, same age as younger dinosaurs. Living ones recently
discovered in a remote spot in Australia. Study of the living ones
shows that a distinctive fossil pollen type known from much of the
Cenozoic (after dinosaurs to the present) also goes with them, so the
gap between the fossil record and the living ones is much smaller.
Again, there's nothing about the survival of a species that poses a
problem for old earth views.

>There is an implication in this verse: "There went in two and two
unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded
Noah" (Gen. 7:9).<

As that's in the immediate context of "All aboard!", I'm not convinced
that can be used as evidence that animals spontaneously showed up. I
think 7:9 is just saying they all got on the ark.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.