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

[Skwim]

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.

Who, aside from yourself, says they are subspecies? If you check my source, you'll see it's talking about species, NOT subspecies.

This is a battle over semantics.

Species and subspecies are NOT matters of semantics; they are matters of taxonomy. *sheesh*

I'm sorry that flying by the seat of your pants here is making you look foolish, but when you start talking about stuff you obviously know very little about that's what happens.

Noah only needed a pair of canines and a pair of bison, period, not all the variations.

Obviously you have no idea what a canine is---this is all so very sad. "Canine" is the designated term for those animals belonging to the subfamily Caninae, and includes animals belonging to 13 genera, from the racoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides, Rüppell's fox, Vulpes rueppelli, the dhole, Cuon alpinus, the side-striped jackal, Canis adustus, to the gray wolf, Canis lupus. So which pair of canines do you think Noah took on board to produce the other 30 species? And remember, not all belong to the same genus.

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

So just how did they survive? By another one of god's handy-dandy miracles? God was able save all the thousands of plants, bacteria, molds, fungi, and invertebrates from drowning, but he needed an ark to save the land dwelling vertebrates? Your god is beginning to sound rather incompetent.

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

Well in genesis 7 the Bible says

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and 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.

But the Bible says nothing survived:

Genesis 7
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.​

.

 

[idav]

​

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



.

That is macro-evolution on speed!

 

[Skwim]

That is macro-evolution on speed!

Light speed²


.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

I'm not assuming anything. I actually assumed you were a non-creationist just being the devil's advocate and presenting alternative views.

 

[Ouroboros]

Science existed before uniformitarianism.

Ok. Sure.

So there were mountains growing in an intense speed for a couple of thousand years. What's the evidence for it besides the necessity to argue support for a story? And where's the evidence that Pangea was only a few thousand years ago?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Ok. Sure.

So there were mountains growing in an intense speed for a couple of thousand years. What's the evidence for it besides the necessity to argue support for a story? And where's the evidence that Pangea was only a few thousand years ago?

That's the thing, uniformitarianism assumes there is no divine intervention. Once you admit there was and is, it's a whole other game.

 

[Skwim]

Ok. Sure.

So there were mountains growing in an intense speed for a couple of thousand years. What's the evidence for it besides the necessity to argue support for a story? And where's the evidence that Pangea was only a few thousand years ago?

These things just HAVE to be in order to keep the Bible consistent and comprehensible. Nothing is allowed that may invalidate the Bible. If it does then it can't be true. Simple as that.

That's the thing, uniformitarianism assumes there is no divine intervention.

And It does because divine intervention isn't needed.
.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's the thing, uniformitarianism assumes there is no divine intervention. Once you admit there was and is, it's a whole other game.

Of course it is. I think that's the point of this thread. With divine intervention, anything is possible, and any explanation can be made with just a goddidit or aliens.

But... the scientific evidence for the motion and age of plate tectonics can be found studying paleomagnetism. From that, we can figure out the age of the Pangea's separation, and it ain't 6,000 years.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geophys/platevid.html

 

[Ouroboros]

These things just HAVE to be in order to keep the Bible consistent and comprehensible. Nothing is allowed that may invalidate the Bible. If it does then it can't be true. Simple as that.

Of course. Belief can be a help to search for truth, but it's always difficult for most to leave the belief behind when the evidence contradicts it. As humans, we tend to identify ourselves with what we believe or lack belief of, so when it's challenged, we fight to keep it as long as we can.

 

[Ouroboros]

The ark was measured in cubits. A cubit is from the tip of middle finger to the elbow. What if Noah was a giant? Then the ark was much, much larger than we thought and could hold more animals.

I think Gilgamesh was a giant in one of the stories, or something.

Perhaps he had a sonic screwdriver? No. Wait. It doesn't work on wood.

 

[idav]

Light speed²


.

Yet science can't possibly match the bibles impeccable dating standards.

Something is terribly flawed if they are getting DNA from "400,000" year old fossils, from a 6 thousand year old earth!
http://www.ibtimes.com/oldest-human...-scientists-call-discovery-irritating-1495796

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet science can't possibly match the bibles impeccable dating standards.

Something is terribly flawed if they are getting DNA from "400,000" year old fossils, from a 6 thousand year old earth!
http://www.ibtimes.com/oldest-human...-scientists-call-discovery-irritating-1495796

Your link speaks of scientists being irritated by the discovery of this ancient
DNA because it forces them to rethink some theories about very early man.
Isn't such irritation just wonderful! It means progress, albeit not as expected.

 

[idav]

Your link speaks of scientists being irritated by the discovery of this ancient
DNA because it forces them to rethink some theories about very early man.
Isn't such irritation just wonderful! It means progress, albeit not as expected.

Right, they rethink the stuff without simply believing the fossils are much younger just to fit their ideas.

 

[Parsimony]

A Creationist could claim that God created the land with no mountains, requiring not much water to cover most or all the land.

Genesis 7:20 - "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits."

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Not sure what your "because" is answering, or what you're comparing the story to for accuracy, but the premise of the AiG article is that Biblical story is true and accurate.

.

how-did-all-those-animals-fit-on-the-ark?

Because the Biblical story is inaccurate.
It was passed down through many generations
with a process of 'Chinese whispering'.

What I believe is that its origin is still partly true,
and that life on Earth was seeded from another world,
and that the 'Ark' was actually a spaceship.

 

[metis]

A-L-L-E-G-O-R-Y. It's almost without a doubt a reworking of the Gilgamesh narrative so as to teach Jewish beliefs and values.

 

[Shaul]

The short answer to the question is, nobody knows. The Biblical narrative does not state HOW it was done, only that it WAS done. Therefore the only answers you will have are rank speculation.

Having said that, consider the following. Science has discovered that DNA is used to define a creature's attributes. Also that a DNA gene sequence is simply a code, which can be stored as a number. So how much space would someone need to store all the DNA coded numbers needed to reproduce all the extant species (species pairs not each individual)? The size needed to stored such information could be calculated, certainly. I think we can all imagine it wouldn't take as much space as the Ark. In other words, if a modern-day-Noah-wannabe wanted to rescue each species (hey, let's be wild and suggest a pending comet is on its way to earth) he wouldn't need as much space as the Ark had. Is it POSSIBLE to imagine this wannabe modern "Noah" could "save" earth's species, regardless of the improbability? If, Ignoring the absurdity, we can for argument's sake say yes, then we must surely concede that G-d could do even more. To the point of using a simple wooden Ark, in some way we might never comprehend, to save each species.

But I take issue with the original question for this reason. The Biblical Flood account is not a scientific writing. To criticize an openly non-scientific writing for not being scientific is bizarre.

 

[McBell]

But I take issue with the original question for this reason. The Biblical Flood account is not a scientific writing. To criticize an openly non-scientific writing for not being scientific is bizarre.

Agreed.

However, to criticize someone making a scientific claim based on non-scientific writing is what this thread is about.

 

[Noitall]

The "kind" argument is so horribly anti-science it hurts my brain to even hear it.

"You see, God made "kinds" of animals. So to get all 10,000 species of birds, all Noah had to do was have two "bird kinds."

Shoot me in the face, please.

It feels that way reading some of these threads.

 

[Noitall]

Well of course god magically made them all tiny.

Now you see...God is stupid! Why would he go through this unlikely scenario of flooding all the world (I don't know where he got all the extra water to raise the level about a mile or so) and having an old guy and his family that had never built a boat before of any size let alone with all those cubits. And then having to summon all the animals (the unicorns & dinosaurs refused to answer) to come. I mean that is so stupid and he (or is it she?) should have know no one would believe such an implausible story. If I was God I would have made everybody fertile except for Noah's family(and the appropriate animals, etc.). That way after a generation the result would be the same. But that's too scientific and easy....makes a boring read.