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

[Brian Schuh]

Well, you can always question any statement anyone makes, but is it a reasonable question? If you don't want to take science's estimate of the number of species on earth

"As of 2009 the estimated number of total species is ~11,327,630

However the total number of species for some taxa may be much higher.

10-30 million insects;
5-10 million bacteria;
1.5 million fungi;
~1 million mites
~1 million protists
source​

[The number of possible chordates: mammals, fish, birds etc, is ~80,500]​

then so be it. However, the rest of us do. So you can either stick to your doubts and excuse yourself from the discussion (if you can't accept the premise then what else do you have to contribute?), or play along with what science says and remain a participant.



Not at all. Wolves, Canis lupus, and coyotes Canis latrans, two different species, have often interbred to produce fertile offspring. Then there's the grapefruit, which is a cross between two species, a sweet orange, Citrus sinesis and a pomelo, Citrus maxima. In fact, animals from different genera have been known to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, such as cattle, Bos taurus and bison Bison bison, which produce beefalo.



Of course you must, because if you don't it makes explaining all the animals and plants Noah had to take aboard all the more difficult. (The number of identified plants is 326,175)


.

According to your own definition, Noah did not need to save all those species. Because many if your so called species are really just subspecies. This is a battle over semantics. Noah only needed a pair of canines and a pair of bison, period, not all the variations.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Oh. And bacteria and insects. Many of them necessary for both our own survival and plants. Did Noah bring a beehive? A vat of kefir? Fermenting beer or wine to save the yeast?

After all, supposedly he produced wine after the journey. He must've had brewing yeast. Or maybe he had a fridge to keep it at temp for a whole year? (Or maybe he knew how to produce dry-yeast to save it for later?)

Tradition has it, Noah only saved land dwelling vertebrates. Everything else that survived didn't need a person's help to survive.

 

[Ouroboros]

Tradition has it, Noah only saved land dwelling vertebrates. Everything else that survived didn't need a person's help to survive.

That's tradition, but it won't work. There are plenty of other life forms that wouldn't survive such a catastrophe.

---

On another note. Did they have preserved lemons on the ark or something else that could give them the necessary c-vitamins? Without them, the body will deplete the reserves of c after about 4 weeks and they would get scurvy.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Tradition has it, Noah only saved land dwelling vertebrates. Everything else that survived didn't need a person's help to survive.

Plenty of land dwelling vetebrates would have perished just as surely if there was a global flood, yet couldn't be contained by Noah. I.e. Cave dwelling ecosystems, animals with highly specialized diets, (esp animals like Koala, anteaters, red pandas/great pandas) or animals requiring extreme temp control (I.e. Can't have desert and Arctic animals in the same habitat).

Not to mention the flood would have killed all sea life too. It would have ruined the oceanic currents, scattering plankton and killing the entire food chain dependent on it. It would have also had such a tremendous impact on salinity, PH and temperature that a good many other genus would have been wiped out. Not to mention adding tons (literally) of pressure and darkness that it would have killed every single coral in existence.

Oh, and the extra water layer would have affected the wobble and rotation speed of the Earth, caused pressure vents which would cook the seas until Noah and his family poached alive.

There's no point in trying to scientifically defend the global flood. It's silly and wrong. The only thing you can do is waggle your fingers, say 'It's magic' and go about your day.

 

[Brian Schuh]

That's tradition, but it won't work. There are plenty of other life forms that wouldn't survive such a catastrophe.

We don't actually know how catastrophic it actually was. The Epic of Gigamesh confirms there was a flood, maybe not global. And tradition says it wasn't global, Israel didn't go under. You underestimate life's ability to survive.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not to mention the flood would have killed all sea life too. It would have ruined the oceanic currents, scattering plankton and killing the entire food chain dependent on it. It would have also had such a tremendous impact on salinity, PH and temperature that a good many other genus would have been wiped out. Not to mention adding tons (literally) of pressure and darkness that it would have killed every single coral in existence.

Yup. Sweet water fish for instance. Or shrimp and other bottom dwellers. Catfish that eats stuff on the floor. Would they survive months of turbulent waters? Doubt it.

Oh, and the extra water later would have affected the wobble and rotation speed of the Earth, caused pressure vents which would cook the seas until Noah and his family poached alive.

+1.

Good point about the changing of the rotation speed. Which leads to the question of where the water came from. If it was in some magical canvas (canopy) that some have suggested, was that not affected by the gravitational forces from the Moon? Weird things.

There's no point in trying to scientifically defend the global flood. It's silly and wrong. The only thing you can do is waggle your fingers, say 'It's magic' and go about your day.

So true.

All that can't be answered... we don't know, therefore aliens. Works all the time.

 

[Ouroboros]

We don't actually know how catastrophic it actually was.

Going back to tradition, it was a global deluge and all the mountains were covered.

The Epic of Gigamesh confirms there was a flood, maybe not global. And tradition says it wasn't global, Israel didn't go under. You underestimate life's ability to survive.

I think there was a localized flood story that gave birth to the story. Absolutely. Then it's not a global flood though. Global... means all over the globe.

I'm not underestimating life's ability to survive from a global catastrophe since we have evidence of several global catastrophes over the geological history of Earth. One of them wiped out over 90% of all existing species at that time.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

We don't actually know how catastrophic it actually was. The Epic of Gigamesh confirms there was a flood, maybe not global. And tradition says it wasn't global, Israel didn't go under. You underestimate life's ability to survive.

First, the Epic of Gilgamesh only confirms that there are stories about floods, which makes sense given civilization's tendencies to settle on fertile coasts and flood plains. Not that it's pointing to a specific event.

Second, the bible isn't describing a local flood. If it were local, Noah would have easily seen the mountains of Ararat where he landed, and the birds he released would have had no trouble settling there. But the story specifically points out that all tre mountains were covered with an excess of water that would have truly meant a global catastrophe.
Granted, I do believe the author of the story lifted from the Epic of Gilgamesh, just not that the bible is any more historically relevant than Gilgamesh itself. It got things outright wrong.

 

[Ouroboros]

First, the Epic of Gilgamesh only confirms that there are stories about floods, which makes sense given civilization's tendencies to settle on fertile coasts and flood plains. Not that it's pointing to a specific event.

Second, the bible isn't describing a local flood. If it were local, Noah would have easily seen the mountains of Ararat where he landed, and the birds he released would have had no trouble settling there. But the story specifically points out that all tre mountains were covered with an excess of water that would have truly meant a global catastrophe.
Granted, I do believe the author of the story lifted from the Epic of Gilgamesh, just not that the bible is any more historically relevant than Gilgamesh itself. It got things outright wrong.

And there was a different God in Gilgamesh (not sure it was even the same reasons?). Unless the argument is that the Sumerian pantheon is the same as the Judaic. Wasn't Gilgamesh a demigod with superhuman strength as well?

 

[Brian Schuh]

First, the Epic of Gilgamesh only confirms that there are stories about floods, which makes sense given civilization's tendencies to settle on fertile coasts and flood plains. Not that it's pointing to a specific event.

Second, the bible isn't describing a local flood. If it were local, Noah would have easily seen the mountains of Ararat where he landed, and the birds he released would have had no trouble settling there. But the story specifically points out that all tre mountains were covered with an excess of water that would have truly meant a global catastrophe.
Granted, I do believe the author of the story lifted from the Epic of Gilgamesh, just not that the bible is any more historically relevant than Gilgamesh itself. It got things outright wrong.

Consider before the Flood, there was one land mass, we call it Pangaea. It broke up during the Flood. So it was very catastrophic. I still don't believe it was global. The entire landmass could have been radically different. And who knows if there wasn't tens of thousands of species that perished? Then after the Flood there was an Ice Age and much more life was lost.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Consider before the Flood, there was one land mass, we call it Pangaea. It broke up during the Flood. So it was very catastrophic. I still don't believe it was global. The entire landmass could have been radically different. And who knows if there wasn't tens of thousands of species that perished? Then after the Flood there was an Ice Age and much more life was lost.

Pangea existed millions of years before humans were around, and it didn't break because of a flood but continental drift. The same as the other supercontinents before Pangea (it wasn't the first). That also means Pangea (and all supercontinents) had mountains. It wasn't flat. So we're back to the problem of "enough water to cover the land would have made the Earth uninhabitable.'

 

[Brian Schuh]

Pangea existed millions of years before humans were around, and it didn't break because of a flood but continental drift. The same as the other supercontinents before Pangea (it wasn't the first). That also means Pangea (and all supercontinents) had mountains. It wasn't flat. So we're back to the problem of "enough water to cover the land would have made the Earth uninhabitable.'

A Creationist could claim that God created the land with no mountains, requiring not much water to cover most or all the land. The Flood broke up the land creating mountains both above and below sea level. So there might be more land mass above sea level now than before the Flood.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A Creationist could claim that God created the land with no mountains, requiring not much water to cover most or all the land. The Flood broke up the land creating mountains both above and below sea level. So there might be more land mass above sea level now than before the Flood.

Creationists claim all sorts of silly things. Again, we can and have measured supercontinents that existed millions of years before humans still having mountains. Plus the very story of Noah says there's mountains in it.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Creationists claim all sorts of silly things. Again, we can and have measured supercontinents that existed millions of years before humans still having mountains. Plus the very story of Noah says there's mountains in it.

The only "silly" claim of Creationists is that there is a Creator. Many claim that in the beginning there was nothing, then nothing exploded, into something, which expanded into a universe with intelligent life communicating on the internet, then trillions of years later, collapsing again into nothing.

Much sillier than a man and a boat with animals.

 

[Ouroboros]

A Creationist could claim that God created the land with no mountains, requiring not much water to cover most or all the land. The Flood broke up the land creating mountains both above and below sea level. So there might be more land mass above sea level now than before the Flood.

They also claim it happened just a few thousand years ago. Mount Ararat is 16,900 feet. Let's say it grow to that hight in 1,000 years. That's 17 feet at year. Some of the fastest growing mountains today grow with 0.2 inches/year. Yet another miracle? Wouldn't the landmass moving that fast cause a lot of earthquakes?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The only "silly" claim of Creationists is that there is a Creator. Many claim that in the beginning there was nothing, then nothing exploded, into something, which expanded into a universe with intelligent life communicating on the internet, then trillions of years later, collapsing again into nothing.

Much sillier than a man and a boat with animals.

The only silly things creationists claim is that something well within reach of understanding through research (I.e. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion and it wasn't nothing) can't have happened unless boiled down to fifth grade reading level. Don't understand electromagnetics? Lighting must be thrown by gods.

Anyway. A little off topic. Back to the flood myth?

 

[Brian Schuh]

They also claim it happened just a few thousand years ago. Mount Ararat is 16,900 feet. Let's say it grow to that hight in 1,000 years. That's 17 feet at year. Some of the fastest growing mountains today grow with 0.2 inches/year. Yet another miracle? Wouldn't the landmass moving that fast cause a lot of earthquakes?

You are assuming uniformitarianism. The Flood was catastrophic, triggered by a divine intervention.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are assuming uniformitarianism. The Flood was catastrophic, triggered by a divine intervention.

How does it compare to "We don't actually know how catastrophic it actually was"? Are you arguing that it was or wasn't catastrophic?

And, without assuming uniformitarianism, then we're assuming science is out the window. So of course, anything is possible with magic and aliens... and pixies, and elves as well.

 

[Brian Schuh]

How does it compare to "We don't actually know how catastrophic it actually was"?

You assume that because I am a creationist, that I am a fundamentalist Christian creationist. They are the loudest spoken. But there are Jewish and Islamic creationists as well.

 

[Brian Schuh]

How does it compare to "We don't actually know how catastrophic it actually was"? Are you arguing that it was or wasn't catastrophic?

And, without assuming uniformitarianism, then we're assuming science is out the window. So of course, anything is possible with magic and aliens... and pixies, and elves as well.

Science existed before uniformitarianism.