• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"How Did All Those Animals Fit on the Ark?"

Skwim

Veteran Member
The following is from a short AiG article that's typical of the claptrap creationists are still trying to sell.

To be sure, it's nothing new, but if it sounds reasonable, please click the link and read the whole thing (it ain't that long), and if you still think the author has a point come back and we'll talk. Heck, we can talk anyway.

"Ornithologists estimate the diversity of living bird species in the entire world to be around 10,380. . . . That number almost doubles the number of extant mammal species (5,416) and is almost 3,000 more than extant amphibian species (7,509). The number of reptile species is the closest to the bird number with a current count of 10,272 extant species. Because most of these vertebrates are terrestrial, we have about 33,500 different species of terrestrial vertebrates on earth today. I am leaving out the aquatic vertebrates (mainly the fishes) because they would not have been represented on the Ark (33,200 fish species have been described, and the implications of that are important for creation scientists who are trying to model the diversity of all life from the Flood to the present).

How Did All Those Animals Fit on the Ark?
The answer to this question is more easily answered once we distinguish between biblical kinds and species. In Genesis 6:1–20 we read that Noah was commanded to take two of every animal kind into the Ark. Verse 20 makes clear that those animals would include two of every kind of bird. Later, God clarified that seven individuals of the clean animals, including some birds, would be on the Ark (Genesis 7:2–3). Does that mean that Noah had two (or seven) of all 10,380 extant bird species (more if you count extinct species)? If a biblical kind and a species were equivalent, then yes. But they are not the same; many species are categorized under each biblical kind.

Dr. Jean Lightner [a retired doctor of veterinary preventive medicine] has conservatively estimated that birds are comprised of about 196 created kinds. If we round that up to 200 bird kinds, we could account for all 10,380 extant species by each species diverging into two species just once every 750 years—just six times (200 to 400 to 800 to 1,600 to 3,200 to 6,400 to 12,800). That would even give us 2,420 more bird species to account for some extinction events. That is a very simplistic view and does not account for many variables, but it does provide us with a quick way to estimate if simple speciation (doubling) could account for all the birds we have today.

What Is a Species?
A group of sexually reproducing organisms that produce viable offspring is considered a biological species. Often this definition is clarified with the phrase “potentially reproducing”
Robins produce more robins. Bluebirds produce bluebirds. Could a male robin and a female bluebird produce a hybrid like a bluebin? No, they are different biological species.

To some people, what I just described [speciation] sounds too much like evolution. The evolutionary process definitely includes the idea of speciation, but the formation of species in response to geographic (or habitat) differences is consistent with a biblical worldview. Having over 10,000 different species of birds (not to mention mammals, reptiles, and amphibians), especially two of every kind and seven of the clean animals (many of the birds), would have been too much for Noah and his family to care for—not to mention house. The efforts of those involved with the Ark Encounter are providing us with realistic figures about the number of animals on the Ark. Having two of every bird kind and seven of every clean bird kind fits nicely.


[An example of the post-ark speciation]
If we follow the thrush kind out of the Ark, they could quickly scatter in many different directions. As they reproduced and their populations grew, they would find habitats that fit their needs. The variation potential in the Ark population would be displayed when different populations settled into different habitats. The populations would continue to grow and the variations inherent in their populations would allow them to quickly adapt to the new and developing habitats around the world. New species would form as geographic barriers isolated different populations.

Eventually one of the populations of the thrush kind that migrated to what is now North America has diversified into at least three species of bluebirds. One species is thriving in eastern North America, and the other two species are thriving in western North America. However, these three species can hybridize where their populations overlap, which indicates that the speciation process is not complete. However, if I ever see a mountain bluebird or a western bluebird, you can guarantee that I will put them on my life list as different species.

That was following just one lineage of the thrush kind. Now think of other lineages to other regions of the world. Then add to that all the other bird kinds, all originating from the Ark and migrating away from the modern day country of Turkey or one of the surrounding countries in the region. Variation among all the populations enabled spreading into various habitats in which to thrive. Populations continued diversifying as new habitats become available, thriving in those newer locations and filling the earth with birds and more birds so that today we have over 10,000 birds to enjoy and to add to our bird list.
source


And all this scattering and speciation in only 4,360 years!

Aside from the above being self-serving and outright stupid, please note that while our retired doctor of veterinary preventive medicine defines "species" (atrociously, to be sure) she conveniently forgets to define "kind." But then who's surprised.


.
 
Last edited:

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
God is all-powerful, all-knowing, created the universe with His voice and you ask about a small thing like fitting animals on an ark? I don't get it.
Some people, like the wonderful people over at AiG, try to make the stories in the Bible sound scientifically plausible. So it is only polite to respond to those kind of arguments on the same level and show that the story of Noah's Ark is scientifically impossible in so many ways. Of course you are right and you can always just refute any scientific argument by saying "it was a miracle". But that makes the entire enterprise of AiG really rather pathetic.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Some people, like the wonderful people over at AiG, try to make the stories in the Bible sound scientifically plausible. So it is only polite to respond to those kind of arguments on the same level and show that the story of Noah's Ark is scientifically impossible in so many ways. Of course you are right and you can always just refute any scientific argument by saying "it was a miracle". But that makes the entire enterprise of AiG really rather pathetic.

Well, it would have taken a miracle for the global flood to have occurred in the first place. In any thread discussing something the Bible said that God did or contributed to having done it should be expected that one would talk about everything else the Bible says about God as well.

If you don't want to discuss what the Bible says then I suggest you post on a thread that doesn't feature an act of God in the OP referenced in the Bible in the first place.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Well, it would have taken a miracle for the global flood to have occurred in the first place. In any thread discussing something the Bible said that God did or contributed to having done it should be expected that one would talk about everything else the Bible says about God as well.

If you don't want to discuss what the Bible says then I suggest you post on a thread that doesn't feature an act of God referenced in the Bible in the first place.
I think the intent of this thread was to discuss what AiG said. That is why Skim quoted an article from AiG in the OP. That is what this thread is about, I think it is relevant to talk about that.

I understand your argument about miracles, and I agree. But AiG tries to show otherwise.

AiG says that Noah's ark was perfectly designed to be sea worthy. The skeptic replies that a wooden vessel of that size would be torn to pieces by even a mild current. You could reply to that and say it was a miracle. I agree.

For a vessel of that size to float it would require a miracle. For all the animals to fit on that boat would require a miracle. For them to survive the journey would require a miracle. For any species to survive after being brought to the brink of extinction and having the entire biosphere virtually destroyed would require a miracle. For all of this to happen without leaving any physical evidence of a global flood would require a miracle. For any reasonable intelligent person to believe this actually happened would require a miracle.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
I think the intent of this thread was to discuss what AiG said. That is why Skim quoted an article from AiG in the OP. That is what this thread is about, I think it is relevant to talk about that.

I understand your argument about miracles, and I agree. But AiG tries to show otherwise.

AiG says that Noah's ark was perfectly designed to be sea worthy. The skeptic replies that a wooden vessel of that size would be torn to pieces by even a mild current. You could reply to that and say it was a miracle. I agree.

For a vessel of that size to float it would require a miracle. For all the animals to fit on that boat would require a miracle. For them to survive the journey would require a miracle. For any species to survive after being brought to the brink of extinction and having the entire biosphere virtually destroyed would require a miracle. For all of this to happen without leaving any physical evidence of a global flood would require a miracle. For any reasonable intelligent person to believe this actually happened would require a miracle.

Your mind is obviously closed to any argument for it. So why bother arguing about it?
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
On the contrary, the opening question of the thread begs the question that I answered.
Assumes facts that are not in evidence
Well, it would have taken a miracle for the global flood to have occurred in the first place. In any thread discussing something the Bible said that God did or contributed to having done it should be expected that one would talk about everything else the Bible says about God as well.

If you don't want to discuss what the Bible says then I suggest you post on a thread that doesn't feature an act of God in the OP referenced in the Bible in the first place.
Assumes facts that are not in evidence
Your mind is obviously closed to any argument for it. So why bother arguing about it?
Assumes facts that are not in evidence
Easy. God did it. Get it?
Assumes facts that are not in evidence
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Assumes facts that are not in evidence

Assumes facts that are not in evidence

Assumes facts that are not in evidence

Assumes facts that are not in evidence

Says the guy who thinks evidence = fact. It is in how the evidence is interpreted not that evidence is automatically fact.

You base your faith in the assumptions of men while I base my faith in the word of God. This is the difference.
 

Subhankar Zac

Hare Krishna,Hare Krishna,
The story of the great flood occurs in theistic Hindu legends as well.
The first incarnation of Vishnu as Matsya.
There lived a king called Shraddhadeva MANU. The first Manu.

According to the Matsya Purana,Matsya, the avatar of Vishnu, first appeared as a shaphari (a small carp) to Shraddhadeva while he washed his hands in a river flowing down the Malaya Mountains.[4]

The little fish asked the king to save him, and out of compassion, he put it in a water jar. It kept growing bigger and bigger, until the king first put it in a bigger pitcher, and then deposited it in a well. When the well also proved insufficient for the ever-growing fish, the King placed it in a tank (reservoir), that was two yojanas (16 miles) in height above the surface and on land, as much in length, and a yojana (8 miles) in breadth.[5][6] As it grew further, the king had to put the fish in a river, and when even the river proved insufficient, he placed it in the ocean, after which it nearly filled the vast expanse of the great ocean.

It was then that Vishnu, revealing himself, informed the king of an all-destructive deluge which would be coming very soon.[7][8][9] The king built a huge boat which housed his family, saptarishi, nine types of seeds, and animals to repopulate the earth, after the deluge would end and the oceans and seas would recede. At the time of deluge, Vishnu appeared as a horned fish and Sheshaappeared as a rope, with which the king fastened the boat to horn of the fish.[10]

The boat was perched after the deluge on the top of the Malaya Mountains.[7][8][11] After the deluge, Manu's family and the seven sages repopulated the earth. According to Purana, Manu's story occur before 28 chaturyuga in the present Manvantara which is the 7th Manvantara. This amounts to 120 million years ago.[12][13][14]

Though the Vedic calculations suggests it occured 120 million years ago, the idea is most contributed towards the end of the last ice age causing an increased flooding around the Western coast of India, submerging giant lands.

Here in this only cattle and a few men were involved, but has parallels with Noah's story
 

McBell

Unbound
On the contrary, the opening question of the thread begs the question that I answered.
Problem is you did not answer the question, you merely pushed the dilemma back a few more steps.
Now I understand that there are literally millions of people who are satisfied with that manner of diversion, but it still doe snot answer the question.
 

McBell

Unbound
Says the guy who thinks evidence = fact. It is in how the evidence is interpreted not that evidence is automatically fact.

You base your faith in the assumptions of men while I base my faith in the word of God. This is the difference.
Except your reply of "GodDidIt" doesn't even do that.....
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There is no good reason to believe a global flood occurred. Not only is there no evidence of it but evidence we do have runs counter to it. As there should be multiple indicators both innocuous and extreme in such an event's passing that simply aren't there.

It takes something other than reason to put stock in the story as a literal historical event. Some may call it faith, I call it gullibility.
 
Top