JtPv

Apology accepted Tythus, but as shiftnative said, "For people like me, the damage is done." I have my first and middle name in my email, and with a bit of hacking, you could probably find out my last name. (Probably wouldn't be a problem for Vaq anyways)

Can we not just have an island for each nation? Such as major islands for large empires (Oren, Malinor, etc) and smaller islands for the smaller nations?

Can we please get lore master approval/denial on this?

Was his brother guarded by God too then, or how wasn't he killed? And why doesn't God turn lakes into blood and stuff anymore?

Sorry, didn't make that part red. His brother was already a kid, not a newborn, which is why he wasn't killed.

A few things I do wonder about God though, is how come in the Old Testament, he burned a bush to tell a murderer that he must save their people and lets him split a river or something in two to cross, turned some river into blood, brought plagues on people and stuff and now he does nothing like that? ​Whats the point? He killed the Egyptians but not before giving them a warning. The Hebrews were His chosen people and they were put into slavery.  And if the Egyptians were killing all the Hebrew baby boys and Moses only survived because he got put on a river and had tons of good luck, (Guarded by God, not lucky) how come his brother survived too? His brother was a kid, not a baby. By baby boy, its newborns. 

 

EDIT: And why did God tell Abraham to kill his son and then tell him not to at the last second? I heard it was like a test, to see if he'd do whatever God said, but how come God couldn't just tell? He's God... Of course God knew, but He wanted to make sure Abraham knew too. If you believe you don't live up to standards, you lose hope in the project. 

I think Abraham was a bit shocked though, and even then, wasn't he told that he didn't have to at the last second anyway?

Yes.

I never said that, I said you're trying to interpret it as a 21st century person. Take Abraham being commanded to sacrafice Issac (his only son). Seems pretty ghastly, but back then it was very commonplace for human sacrifice (especially child sacrifice) to be undertaken - especially in Canaan.

Not for Jews. Most Jews sacrificed lambs.

In Alchemy, would you call this, say, a Symbol of Earth, representing Life and Rejuvinaton?

I thought only water could symbolize life and rejuvenation...

(Can't quote, on phone)
Not an updated one. And apparently not accurate either. It never said the earth was flat or any of that crap which, wasn't even believed in at that time. Many people fail to realize someone couldn't have calculated the circumference of the earth while thinking it was flat. An Ancient Greek, however, did.

I like it. In fact, I think I should possibly make a lore post about various RP flora... :D

I haven't seen anything like that get written yet. o_o

Meanwhile, the writer of the Alchemy lore cries in a dark corner.

It would just be an RP plant, you'd RP finding it if you needed / were collecting it. :)

K. Would be better if represented by a sapling or something though. 

I like, so long as its not made of wool....yes, I'm referring to swamps. 

K lets get off this Noah's Ark shiz.

Thank you. Now, Imma go. Might visit in a few days though.

First things first, am I seriously the only christian left on LotC? I mean, help me out here... anyways,

1. http://creation.com/did-noah-need-oxygen-above-the-mountains

2. This....was troubling. I could not find a single answer for this. But I would assume he stored much food away in the ark, and God kept it fresh. If anyone has studied the tabernacle, they would know about how God kept the manna fresh, so something like that probably. But I'm not certain. 

3. See point 2

4. God led every land animal to the ark in pairs. Don't you think He could calm the lions?

5. No, the Bible says all land animals came onto the boat. 

6. See point 5

7.

How Could Fish Survive the Genesis Flood?

by Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D.
Introduction

Much attention has been given to how the animals would be brought to, fit in, and survive on Noah's Ark.[1] But little or no concern has been voiced as to how aquatic animals could have lived outside in the Flood. Obviously, terrestrial air-breathing animals could not live through the land-covering deluge, but one would think aquatic animals would be right at home in all that water. Not so!

Water life has specific physiological and ecological requirements just like terrestrial life.[2] A catastrophe the size of the Flood would certainly bring with it gigantic problems affecting the very survival of many species. Indeed, the fossil record indicates that many taxonomic groups became extinct during the deposition of the geologic sedimentary layers.[3] Some organisms would have simply succumbed to the trauma of the turbulence. Others would have found suitable living space destroyed, and hence died for lack of appropriate habitat. For example, too much fresh water for obligate (bound to) marine species or vice versa would have led to death of those unable to adapt. Not only are there salt-concentration problems, but also temperature, light, oxygen, contaminants, and nutritional considerations. These must all be evaluated in discussing survival of water-dwelling creatures.

To simplify the exercise, five examples have been selected of fishes that are bound to fresh or salt water and those that can go between these major habitats. The chosen fishes (sunfish, catfish, trout, eel, and codfish) will be used to represent clear fresh water, muddy fresh water, anadromous (running up to fresh water from sea water to spawn), catadromous (the reverse) and obligate marine habitats or behavior, respectively. These categories will be discussed with reference to three main factors affecting their survival: salinity, temperature, and turbidity.

PHYSIOLOGICAL RANGES 
Salinity 

Fish have a problem in balancing the fluids outside their bodies with those inside. In general, freshwater fishes are constantly getting too much fresh water in their bodies from food, drinking water, and tissue transfer. On the opposite side, marine fishes get too little fresh water to maintain fluid balance due to the large input of salt in the drinking water and constant osmotic pressure to draw fresh water out of these tissues into the surrounding sea.[4]

The kidneys and gills are the two organs used to manage this balance. If a freshwater fish gets too much water, then the kidney is called upon to dump as much water as possible while retaining the circulating salts. Marine bony fish have to get rid of the excess salts largely through the gills and conserve the internal water through resorption.

Sea-run trout move from sea water to fresh water to spawn, while eels do just the opposite. Both have to be able to reverse their removal of water and salt according to the amount of salt in their environment. Sun fishes and cod remain in fresh water and sea water, respectively, for their whole life cycle. Salt content might range from nearly zero in freshwater to 35 parts per thousand (x103 ppm or 35,000 mg/l) in sea water. Obligate freshwater fish typically have an upper lethal level of seven parts per thousand (7,000 mg/l). Obligate marine species have a very narrow limit of salt tolerance.[5] Dromous (running/migrating) species are able to adapt to the new environments by osmotic regulation.

Temperature 

The range of temperatures tolerated by fishes varies from species to species and the assorted habitats. Some fish have a very narrow range of tolerance at the cold, warm, or hot temperature parts of the heat scale. Others show a wide range of heat tolerance from freezing to hot waters (0-32° C). Developmental stages are frequently limited by narrow temperature requirements within the overall range of the adult.

Most species, including cold-water types, can tolerate at least brief exposures to 24°C and low temperatures approaching 2°C, as long as there are prolonged acclimation periods (several days to weeks). Preferred temperatures for the representative adult fish are as follows: Trout, 16-21°C; sunfish, 16-28°C; catfish, 21-29°C; eel, probably 16-28°C; codfish 12-16° C. [6,7]

Turbidity 

Particulate matter that is in suspension in natural waters is measured photoelectrically as turbidity. It consists of erosional silt, organic particles, bacteria, and plankton. Such materials adversely affect fish by covering the substrate with a smothering layer that kills food organisms and spawning sites. In addition, the molar action of the silt damages gills and invertebrate respiratory structures. Fish combat such materials by secreting mucus that carries the particles away. Indirectly, turbidity screens out light and decreases the photic zone for photosynthesis. The range of turbidity might be described as: clear < 10 ppm (mg/l), turbid 10 to 25 

8. See point 2

9. God has emotions, like you or me. Let me put it another way. You know everyone dies, but when it happens to someone in your family, you can't believe it. God made us, and was forced to destroy us. He knew He would have to, but of course He was sad.

10. Because they didn't believe Noah. They aren't going to build giant arks like Noah for something they don't think is true.

After Aegis, we fled to Asulon, where it was too big to walk, and something happened with the monk beacon, and we had to leave to Elysium. 

The Great flood wouldn't make sense...

 

..Unless it's another metaphore which it very probably is. How else would you want all the races to be brought into a ship to survive the flood?

 

Firstly, there isn't a male and a female for all races, secondly there are millions of different races upon the surface of the earth it would be impossible to stock them all in a ship.

You realize that only land animals would have to go onto the ship and, as I said before, they would only fit half of the arc. And Pro_Whistler, I never said that. 

EDIT: Sorry, Oskar, didn't see your post. And rain. It was brought through 40 days of rain.

JtPv. God cannot be combated by Science, because the existence of a God is not testable through science. In your earlier post, you stated the Universe could not create itself. 

 

Where did God come from?

As I said before, God has always been and will always be. He is not human, or have a shape or form. He just is. We aren't meant to understand it. He was there BEFORE the universe.

Doesn't that make the world 7 thousand years old, according to the bible?

...When it was first created. There are accounts of people living more than a thousand years in the Bible, and during this early, fresh, period, much time could have gone by. After the flood (which is what we believe caused fossils) the Earth was not the same, and the habitats were different. That's how dinosaurs supposedly died out according to our speculations. Lives would have been shorter because it was not the same perfect world. Dinosaurs just didn't adapt and they died out. In a sense, it is natural selection, or "survival of the fittest".

The bible is not a history book. Far from it. The Bible is a large amassment of metaphores and complex stories that generally are not historically correct but were made to convey some hidden meaning to the people who read it.

My dad is a theologian and made a Doctorat on Romans (The Book in the bible.) And I think I can safely say I know a bit about this book.

I think the irony here is quite. No offense, but there is evidence of the Bible. I have to be quick, so:  

http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

 

Take the 7 days of creation for example, that is a metaphore as well. The world wasn't created in 7 days 6000 years ago, which is what is said in the bible. You have solid proof of things existing much longer before that, and Carbon 14 doesn't lie. Now, don't get me wrong here, I am an old-earth theorist. If you know what they are, great! Skip down! But if not, allow me to explain. There are 2 verses that can be used to support us. Basically, we believe that the earth is not thousands of years old. Much longer than that. The 2 verses state "That one day with the Lord is as a thousand years" and I can't remember the other.  

 

I used to be/am a Protestant in a christian family. I can't say I don't believe in anything simply because I've always been told something exists up there, but to answer.

I'd much rather think I have control over my life and some entity isn't controlling me, and wagging a finger at me each time I do something bad. I refuse to let my life be guided by the desires of some bigger thing and won't let him decide my fate for myself. 

You earn your importance in this world, and if God really does love everybody, I'd like to know why my friend lost his dad when he was 13 for no reason, why so many people get bullied, why so many natural catastrophies kill people.

 

You could counter any human caused greif by "He wanted to let us choose our lives". But not the natural deaths, like Tsunami's and all that.  I can counter that. When Eve ate of the apple, sin cam into the world, and with it came death and despair. Sin is slowly making us deteriorate when Evolution says we should be getting better or dying out, right? And you could argue that "Oh, we are learning new things! We are getting better!" but in reality, you turn on the news and 3/4 of the time what do they talk about? Death and destruction. Now, God isn't "wagging a finger" at you every time you commit sin. He knows everyone does it. He set the ten commandments up as a guideline, not a lifestyle. He knows we all commit sin, all he wants is for you to admit it, which is exactly what you aren't doing as long as you "have control at your own life". This is why we, the christian population, continue to decrease, because people want supposed freedom and don't want to admit there is a God. They want to do what they want to do and if you think of it, it sounds childish. But we will always come up with something whenever something "supernatural" or "divine" happens because it is in human nature. 

 

I don't generally post when religion comes into something, but I decided to say what I thought of it for once.

 

PS: In the end though, everybody believes what they want, and that's that. Sadly, this is truth when it comes to it.

If you really, really want to get down to it there is a sea of articles and videos I could link about evolution.

 

And my point was not that science disproves the divine, but that the divine is simply used to fill in any gaps we have with our current level of scientific knowledge. Every day we are learning and experimenting and researching and thinking like never before in the history of our species: God grows smaller every day. To place God in the places we haven't reached yet is like putting a fence around a mountaintop. "You can't pass here, God did it." Yet the hiker, the scientist, never listens. He always reaches the peak.

 

And in the past decades the scientist has set his eyes on the mightiest peak of them all: the beginning of the universe. Perhaps he may never reach the peak, but the farther he goes up he will be no closer to finding the hand of God.

This is the problem I have with science. You assume everything instead of find cold, hard facts. When you do, it NEVER disproves God. everything that supposedly disproves God is just a list of theories with no evidence. When I see it, I will believe. But for now, believing in God is just...better. Would you rather believe you were made by chance and are nothing important or anything special? Or would you rather believe that you were made and are loved. That someone died for you because he loves you, or because he was crazy? People have seen God before, and Christians still feel and see the impact on their lives today. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm just stating why I believe in God. And just because you can't feel or see God, you choose to believe in science? Believe in something that requires even more faith than believing in God and creation just because you can see or taste it? We keep throwing around so called "evidence" but in reality, the only evidence we have of God and creation is the Bible and past accounts. And I know this was a bit off topic, but I think it was needed. Now, go find your "evidence" which can only be supported with theories, and we can continue this. 

Yes. Now, before we continue, I want to clear things up. The church did in fact steal the image of God from the image of Zeus. Ever see Him depicted as an old, bearded man? Look up a picture of Zeus. We did in fact steal December 25 from the Egyptians. But our concept is completely original. Now, you mention science can disprove the divine. But Neo-Darwinism contradicts science itself. If you read the article, you would know that the second law of thermodynamics does not allow Evolution to happen. 

@Reman According to the bible, God has always been, and will always be. He is omnipresent. If you need a better description, feel free to ask. 

1/10 Nice to meet ya!

3/10 Haven't seen much of you...

The following is quoted from a website:

EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

a. The universe could NOT have created itself

In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.

Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”¹¹

Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."¹² Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”¹³

In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".¹⁴

The universe cannot have created itself!

Ravi Zacharias and John Lennox discuss Stephen’s Hawking’s ideas in his latest book entitled The Grand Design (4 part audio)

b. The universe could NOT have always existed

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning.  

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION

The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by an outside intelligence.

EVIDENCE 2:  The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."¹

As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when left to themselves!

Some people argue that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered!

The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very good scientific reasons; "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." ⁹

As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …"⁷

Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence and, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, can never take place.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?

EVIDENCE 3.  Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." ⁸

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!

Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory.  Darwin’s own deductive reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only.

We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.      

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." ³

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!

Can evolution be the source of life in all its complexity?

EVIDENCE 5:   The Missing Links are Still Missing

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record.  Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils." ²

What does the fossil record teach us about evolution?
Who's who & what's what in the world of "missing" links?
Is there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes? 
Did ancient humans live millions of years ago?

EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.⁴ This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!

Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures?

EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution

Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"⁵

In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …”¹⁰

A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9^th power. BUT the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.

Read our answer to the question: "Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?"

Let's now put this in its larger context.  Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.

* The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.

* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.

* The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!

* The constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts.

* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.

There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!

Probability Arguments in Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

Great scientists from the past and present talk on Evolution and God

How Antony Flew (an outspoken atheist for 60 years) came to believe there is a God

Four Things That Two Ex Sceptics Got Wrong

GREAT SCIENTISTS FROM THE PAST

C.S. Lewis showed the very strong connection between the development of modern scientific thought and the belief the scientists held in a Creator (Lawgiver). “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”¹⁴

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." (Lord Kelvin) 

"I am a Christian ... I believe only and alone ... in the service of Jesus Christ ... In Him is all refuge, all solace." (Johannes Kepler) 

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God." (Louis Pasteur). Pasteur strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution because he felt it did not conform to the scientific evidence. 

Robert Boyle believed in Jesus Christ's "Passion, His death, His resurrection and ascension, and all of those wonderful works which He did during His stay upon earth, in order to confirm the belief of His being God as well as man."

"Order is manifestly maintained in the universe … the whole being governed by the sovereign will of God." (James Prescott Joule) 

"There are those who argue that the universe evolved out a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?" (Werhner Von Braun) 

"Almighty Creator and Preserver of all things, praised be all Thou has created." (Carl Linnaeus) 

"I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity." (Sir Joseph Lister) 

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." "The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being." (Sir Isaac Newton) 

Michael Faraday was careful to "Thank God, first, for all His gifts."

Taken from the book 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible by Ann Lamont published by Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge D.C., Queensland, 4110, Australia, 1995.

PRESENT DAY PhD SCIENTISTS

"The evidence points to an intelligent designer of the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided mindless evolution." (Nancy M Darrall, Speech Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.) 

"Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God." (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.) 

"The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to conclude that these events must be one and the same." (John R Baumgardner, Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLU.) 

"We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us." (John P Marcus, Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.) 

"The fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution, yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms to complex." (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.) 

"I … have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins and affirming the biblical alternative that 'in six days the Lord God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is'. (Dr Taylor is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has authored over 80 scientific articles.) 

"I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology." (Timothy G Standish is an Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason University, USA.) 

"At the same time I found I could reject evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual suicide." (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas Kinetics.) 

"So life did not arise by natural processes, nor could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the Bible says." (Don Batten, a research scientist for Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.)

"In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, 'for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human Biology from Columbia Pacific University.)

Taken from the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F Ashton PhD, New Holland Publishers, 1999.

I'm most likely misinformed, but when animals were taken two by two onto the ark, were Dinosaurs taken as well?

Considering I grew up in a Christian society, I have discussed this multiple times. Yes, but most likely as eggs or very young. Lions got on board and so did snakes.

... And what of the whole idea that you can fit every single species into a ship. x2. And, the ship was relatively small (Dimensions are given).

Its not that small actually. In recent tests, that would have only fit about half the ark. :P

10/10 for looking like a High, Supreme, Overlord.