No Lions and Tigers were on Noah’s Ark

[gnostic]

There would be no point in making the ark a specific size if space was not an issue. Your ad hoc rationalization does nothing to resolve this issue.

And how or where each pair of animals are kept in the ark is not the only problem.

There are also the matters of storage of food and water kept.

Assuming that carnivore animals can't eat the other animals in the ark, they required to store enough food for all the animals for ONE WHOLE year. The ark, according to Genesis specifications, is way too small for keeping animals and the amount of food required to feed them for a whole year.

And there are the matters of what do animals eat once they leave the ark.

Wouldn't predator carnivore animals start hunting their preys?

Most of the animals would become extinct not long after they leave the ark, because carnivores would need meats to eat, before the ark animals can reproduce in sufficient numbers.

 

[Ouroboros]

And there are the matters of what do animals eat once they leave the ark.

Yup. Like the koala. What would they eat? Very picky eater, and have a special metabolism specific for eucalyptus.

 

[gnostic]

Yup. Like the koala. What would they eat? Very picky eater, and have a special metabolism specific for eucalyptus.

And koala and wombat are not known for long distance migration. They would have to feed, breed and avoid predators along the way. And it would taken them hundreds of generations before reaching Australia.

If a global flood had occurred, then the sea-level would be much higher post-Flood than pre-Flood. Especially one that would require crossing the sea from Asia to the Australian coasts, and these animals are not known for island-hopping or ride on makeshift rafts.

And there are no evidences whatsoever (like skeletal remains or fossils) that koala or wombats on the Asia mainland, because many of them and generations of them would have perished during the journey.

 

[jeager106]

Don't forget that many, many, of our present day animals came from common parents.
One only must look at the huge variety and breeds of dogs, all of which sprang
from the ancient wolf.
In the thousands of years since the Great Flood, tons of varieties of animals could have
come from a few common parent stock.
I'm not promoting belief in a Great Flood but ALL our present day animals could have
come from common stock.
One can't judge today's variety of animals and dismiss common parents.

 

[gnostic]

Don't forget that many, many, of our present day animals came from common parents.
One only must look at the huge variety and breeds of dogs, all of which sprang
from the ancient wolf.
In the thousands of years since the Great Flood, tons of varieties of animals could have
come from a few common parent stock.
I'm not promoting belief in a Great Flood but ALL our present day animals could have
come from common stock.
One can't judge today's variety of animals and dismiss common parents.

Sure I understand and believe that the dogs and wolves have common ancestry, but dogs have been domesticated long before any Bronze Age flood.

In fact, dogs were domesticated millennia before the domestication of horses, cattle, pigs, sheep and goats. Domestication of livestock occurred during the Neolithic period (probably as early as 8000 BCE), but dogs have been domesticated and bred during the Upper Palaeolithic period, at least 30,000 years ago; dogs have been used to hunt with hunters-and-gatherers.

So your claim that diversity occurring after this non-existent global flood, don't really hold much weigh, especially with the wolf-dog divergence; the divergence much earlier than the Bronze Age, like any where between 27,000 or 44,000 years ago.

 

[Ouroboros]

One can't judge today's variety of animals and dismiss common parents.

You mean evolution? Koalas existed 15 million years ago. Even giant koalas 40,000 years ago.

It's kind of interesting or curious that people who believe in the ark story also appeal to evolutionary theory to explain the vast diversity of species. The problem is that "ark evolution" requires extremely fast evolution, must faster than the scientific theory really considers.

 

[Skwim]

Don't forget that many, many, of our present day animals came from common parents.
One only must look at the huge variety and breeds of dogs, all of which sprang
from the ancient wolf.

But no one is talking about breeds, artificially created variants of a species. We're talking about species or at least genera.

In the thousands of years since the Great Flood, tons of varieties of animals could have
come from a few common parent stock.

I have no idea what you mean by "varieties." But "tons" of species could not have come from a few recent common parent stock. Speciation, much less the creation of new genera, simply doesn't act that fast.

I'm not promoting belief in a Great Flood but ALL our present day animals could have come from common stock.

Of course. Today's mammals, such as ourselves, are all considered to have arisen from animals like the cynodonts, which roamed the Earth some 260 million years ago.

One can't judge today's variety of animals and dismiss common parents.

And no one is. Thing is, the "parenthood" stretches way, way back. Millions of years back.

 

[averageJOE]

And how or where each pair of animals are kept in the ark is not the only problem.

There are also the matters of storage of food and water kept.

Assuming that carnivore animals can't eat the other animals in the ark, they required to store enough food for all the animals for ONE WHOLE year. The ark, according to Genesis specifications, is way too small for keeping animals and the amount of food required to feed them for a whole year.

And there are the matters of what do animals eat once they leave the ark.

Wouldn't predator carnivore animals start hunting their preys?

Most of the animals would become extinct not long after they leave the ark, because carnivores would need meats to eat, before the ark animals can reproduce in sufficient numbers.

Also, did the ark have "hot" sections and "cold" sections? I mean, they couldn't have possibly kept penguins next to the camels, could they?

 

[averageJOE]

Don't forget that many, many, of our present day animals came from common parents.
One only must look at the huge variety and breeds of dogs, all of which sprang
from the ancient wolf.
In the thousands of years since the Great Flood, tons of varieties of animals could have
come from a few common parent stock.
I'm not promoting belief in a Great Flood but ALL our present day animals could have
come from common stock.
One can't judge today's variety of animals and dismiss common parents.

Ahh yes, the hyper-evolution explanation.

 

[Shad]

And how or where each pair of animals are kept in the ark is not the only problem.

There are also the matters of storage of food and water kept.

Assuming that carnivore animals can't eat the other animals in the ark, they required to store enough food for all the animals for ONE WHOLE year. The ark, according to Genesis specifications, is way too small for keeping animals and the amount of food required to feed them for a whole year.

And there are the matters of what do animals eat once they leave the ark.

Wouldn't predator carnivore animals start hunting their preys?

Most of the animals would become extinct not long after they leave the ark, because carnivores would need meats to eat, before the ark animals can reproduce in sufficient numbers.

Only if space was an issue. I was pointing out that if interior space was not an issue then the size of the vessel per instructions is useless as it is not required for anything. Think of Dr Who's Tardis. It's internal size is far greater than it's exterior size. One would only need to construct a modest size galley with a hold or a policebox There is no need for a 450 foot vessel. The other point is that claim miracles as an ad hoc defense raises more questions than it answers since it undermines points such as construction requirements.

 

[Ouroboros]

Only if space was an issue. I was pointing out that if interior space was not an issue then the size of the vessel per instructions is useless as it is not required for anything. Think of Dr Who's Tardis. It's internal size is far greater than it's exterior size. One would only need to construct a modest size galley with a hold or a policebox There is no need for a 450 foot vessel. The other point is that claim miracles as an ad hoc defense raises more questions than it answers since it undermines points such as construction requirements.

Very true.

A bigger example of miracle would have been if God told Noah to build a box, no greater than 1 cubic feet. And then fit all animals in it, magically, using pixie dust that Noah harvested on Mars (taken there by angles on a cloud), and so on. If the story should be great of miracles, then it should go all out on it.

Besides, if there was a "bigger on the inside" miracle with the ark, why doesn't the story tell us that, since the miracles are the things that supposedly are there to wow us? If God wants to impress us with a miracle of flooding the planet, but doesn't care impressing us with the TARDIS technology and stasis modules and such, then the motive of the story is in question.

 

[Shad]

Very true.

A bigger example of miracle would have been if God told Noah to build a box, no greater than 1 cubic feet. And then fit all animals in it, magically, using pixie dust that Noah harvested on Mars (taken there by angles on a cloud), and so on. If the story should be great of miracles, then it should go all out on it.

Besides, if there was a "bigger on the inside" miracle with the ark, why doesn't the story tell us that, since the miracles are the things that supposedly are there to wow us? If God wants to impress us with a miracle of flooding the planet, but doesn't care impressing us with the TARDIS technology and stasis modules and such, then the motive of the story is in question.

As I said it is just an ad hoc defense for a literal belief that such a story was a historical event. One might as well create a new fallacy jokingly called the miracle fallacy. Every time a religious story starts to make no logical sense a miracle is injected to overcome the issue. The problem is that miracles are axioms of religious belief only but treated as if it should be an axiom for everyone. Writers of fiction, especially high fantasy, create a plot devices which are just like miracles be it magic, the One Ring, etc. These are environmental (setting) axioms for the story. However few people attempt to force these fictional axioms on to others.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I always wondered, regardless of what specific animals were supposedly on board the ark...what did the carnivores eat?

Or the parasites? Which poor sap hosted the tapeworm?

 

[Skwim]

Or the parasites? Which poor sap hosted the tapeworm?

Which tapeworm? There are over a hundred species.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Yup. Like the koala. What would they eat? Very picky eater, and have a special metabolism specific for eucalyptus.

Not only that, but Koalas will only eat eucalyptus leaves off of the tree. If you pick the leaves off the tree and try to feed it to the koala, it won't even recognize it as eucalyptus leaves and won't attempt to eat it.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

That's easy enough.
God did it!

 

[Ouroboros]

Not only that, but Koalas will only eat eucalyptus leaves off of the tree. If you pick the leaves off the tree and try to feed it to the koala, it won't even recognize it as eucalyptus leaves and won't attempt to eat it.

Really picky eaters for sure.

Another thing, how did worms, maggots, mold, and so on, the less appreciated life forms necessary for the eco-system survive? Or beetles, flies, amoebas,... Did God collect "a pair" of those for Noah so he didn't have to?