Example of sign at Noahs Ark

disgrase!!!!!

I can't read that - what does it say?

neither can i, i know strict catholics who say everlotion is real!, thats why its a disgrace and that this shouldn't be exhibited

Even one is entitled to their own beliefs, and if the people who run this place belief something different then thats their own business. As long as the animals are treated well and they display the correct information.

And Cat-man did you mean Evolution?

Cat-Man said "everlotion", because I think that he has recently discovered a lotion that actually lasts forever! Just teasing Cat-Man, and I actually agree with you and I don't think that Noah's Ark is an appropriate image for a zoo. However, each to their own beliefs.

From what I can see, there are four headings under which they argue against the theory:
1- The earliest forms of life must have evolved in warm water
2- The earliest forms of life would have been very different to anything we know today
3- Fossils would show a gradual progression from single organisms to complex ones
4- The fossil record would display a complete 'tree of life'.

Clearly disputable, but a lot more reasonable than I had expected; perhaps more odd is the picture showing dinosaurs on the ark.

Thanks Nayer.

And I missed the dinosaur part - too busy trying to work out what Cat-man thought was a 'disgrase' .

What a waste of a zoo. Remind me never to visit. If anything zoos should be promoting evolution as it is the single most important concept in biology. BTW, only hardcore creationists will use the term "Darwinism." The term Darwinism makes it sound like it is a whole religion unto itself.

1. Very true - and that's what happened. All of the water on Earth about 4 billion years ago was warm.
2. Not necessarily so. The earliest forms would have been bacteria or a proto-bacteria, and we still do have those around.
3. Very true. We have many beautiful examples of slow lineages of many animals, just take a look at the horse from Eohippus al the way to Equus, we have the complete line.
4. Not necessarily. Fossilization is a very rare procedure. It requires exact circumstances. That we have any at all is a great fortune. With that said, the tree of life is getting bushier and bushier every day.

Not sure what their point is about 1 without reading the text (I might have done when I was there but don't remember doing so).

Point 2 - the theory would actually predict that the possibility to develop any characteristic shown by modern life would need to be present, so the first life must have been based on the same basic principles.

Point 3 - this is a fundamental misunderstanding based on the assumption (widely held, it must be said) that evolution is a directional process from simple thing to complex thing. It simply isn't; it's just a response to external stimulus like most things in biology. If there's no need for greater complexity, then it will not arise (and may even be lost).

Point 4 - this assumes we have found all the fossils that are out there, which is clearly very unlikely to be the case. It also doesn't take account of the fact that not all types of tissue fossilise, and that fossilisation will only occur in a very limited set of conditions.


It may be reasonably argued, but its based on either massive misunderstandings about evolutionary theory, or else wilful misrepresentation to fit their hardline Creationist viewpoint. It certainly is not good education.