Question about Noah's Ark

This question is for people who;

  1. believe the bible is TRUE and LITTERAL and that the Story of Noah's Ark is true.

  2. that believe in the creationist theory and that evolution is not possible.

My question is, if Noah had to take two of every animal on to the ark, did he take for example, two random dogs? Or two dogs of EVERY species and variety of dog that exist today?

If he only took two dogs, how do we have dogs that vary in size and shape etc.. like a chihuahua and a great dane? Did the two dogs on the Ark have puppies that ended up spreading out over the world and basically adapt in order to survive in the different envoironments they ended up in, and that is what gives us the varitey of dogs we have today? If that is the case, isn't that evolution?

If he took two of every different species of dogs, how was he able to get two alaskan huskys, two austrailian dingos (for that matter how was Noah able to get two kangaroos, koala bears and other austrailian only animals) all to the middle east where the Ark was located?

dude, it was a big fricken boat :)

I think the key to the answer from their perspective hinges on the idea that God is omnipotent, and can miraculously take care of these issues.

the rev

HOW COULD ALL THE ANIMALS GET ON BOARD NOAH'S ARK?
- BTG No. 39b March 1992
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*
© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.

" ... then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown..." (Matthew 13:19)

Not long ago I was interviewed on a "news-talk" radio show. The host was a particularly venomous anti-Christian, with a long history of ridiculing Christianity on his show. Evidently he particularly likes to ridicule creationism.

His introductory comment was, "You're one of those idiots who believes the earth is only six-thousand years old. Tell me one thing. How did Noah get all those millions of dinosaurs onboard Noah's Ark?"

I asked if he knew how many dinosaurs there were. He didn't, but he knew there were too many to get on the Ark. When I explained that only about 600 species of dinosaurs had ever been named, that many species had been named from only a piece of one bone, that many of the species were probably of the same "kind," that many dinosaurs were small, that God wouldn't have brought the largest specimens to Noah, and that, in my opinion, there were probably only around 100 dinosaurs onboard the Ark, with an average size of a cow, he changed his tune. But he still knew the story was ridiculous.

Then he included all the animals—fish, whales, clams, etc.—along with the land animals. I explained that the Bible clearly teaches that it was only those "in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land" (Genesis 7:22) that were present on the Ark, and that, although marine animals died by the trillions in the Flood, at least representatives of each kind" would have survived. I further speculated that insects might not have been on board, since they don't breathe air. They absorb oxygen through abdominal membranes. They could have survived, particularly in their egg and larvae states, on floating plant debris. Actually, they would be needed worldwide as the Flood ended, to help seeds and sprigs re-germinate and flourish once again.

Restricted to only land animals and birds, this host still insisted they couldn't fit on the Ark. I asked how many there were? He didn't know, "but they couldn't fit!" I asked if he knew the size of the Ark. He didn't, "but it wasn't big enough!"

Now, this was an amazing admission. According to him, an unknown number of animals couldn't fit onto a boat of unknown size!

Let us honestly ask the same question: How many animals were there and how big was the Ark? Could they fit?

The total number of land-dwelling mammals birds, reptiles, and amphibian species is less than 20,000 or so. The number of "kinds," the Biblical designation, is probably much smaller. For instance, of the 9,000 bird species, approximately 400 are hummingbirds, with only minor differences in color, size, and habitat. Very likely, they all come from only one or a few kinds, thereby dropping the total number.

The Ark itself was huge! With gross dimensions of about 450 feet by 75 feet by 45 feet, its volume was easily able to house two (or in some cases seven) of each land species, let alone kinds. The trip may have been difficult for Noah and his family, but it was possible, with God's help.

And so it is with us. With God's help, even the tough questions have answers. We only need to study and believe.

*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp

The above link explains the dogs.

Satanjr,
Check out a site called GodandScience.org It subscribes to the theory of a local flood and goes through the scriptures and the attendent science like getting rid of all the heat from evaporation. Its a huge site so if you just start doing some searching you will come across the flood story.

SatanJR,there is only one species of dog,Canis Familiaris.We have selectively bred them for different traits and we call these different types,"breeds".They can all interbreed and produce viable offspring.Even wolves (Canis Lupus)and dogs have had success breeding with there now being up to fifth generation offspring so Canis Familiaris should actually be called Canis Lupus or Canis Lupus Domesticus as dogs are actually just wolves.If one were to go back to Noah's day,you would only need to take one male and one female wolf on the ark in regards to dogs.

Dude,seriously,it's supposed to be about God.This also goes for the flood.Anything is possible with Divine Intervention.Could Noah and his sons do this on their own,no.With God could they?

thanks everyone.

My favorite anti-Noah's ark claim is "there isnt that much water" As if a person can be totally convinced about the building of the ark, the animals gathered and stored onboard, but the water itself is the issue for them.

I heard the question once, that if the world was completely covered with water, wouldn't the extra weight pull it out of its correct orbit?

Wonder if a scientist ever did the math for that one.

the rev

How long were they on the ark for again? I'm thinking food would be an issue.

 

But my question is, why did the Lord have Noah bring snakes on board the ark? I thought God hated them after the whole Adam and Eve incident. Why not let them drown with the others who displeased the Lord? 

Because anacondas are very cool. And only Ice Cube and Jennifer Lopez can kill one.

blessed be all G-d's cratures. We do not "know" the tree from which the fruit was taken, to prevent us from destroying it.

They were on the ark for 40 days and 40 nights. What many Bible discreditors point to clearly explains food. At one point G-d tells Noah to take 2 of each animal. A short time later, 7 of every clean animal. Silly people use this to discredit the Bible. Since the word CLEAN is added, clearly these were animals used specifically for food.

When I realize that, as we near the year 2005 there are adults who take the idea seriously that an old man long ago gathered up two of every animal onto a big boat, to float atop a world-wide flood, I fully expect to wake up screaming. (Prof takes pencil from desk, stabs it into palm. "Ghaaah!" Nope. I'm awake. Gotta deal with it...)

Here's a few problems with the Noah's Ark story (aside from the glaringly obvious that it has all the plausibility of, like, a guy swallowed by a whale and living there for three days...oh...wait...):

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/flood.htm

One thing that is interesting about many creationists.
They take the bible literally and assert the earth is about 6,000 years old. They don't believe evolution occurred (all animal "kinds" were created by God and present on the boat with Noah).

To quote from this article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0305_0305_allspecies.html


"To date, taxonomists have identified less than two million [usually estimated 1.5 to 1.8 million) distinct species, mostly mammals and birds. But it's estimated that the number of undiscovered species—primarily fish, fungi, insects, and microbes—ranges from ten million to more than one hundred million. Even at the low estimate, it's an enormous number.

New species are being classified at a rate of only 15,000 a year. That's not nearly fast enough to significantly close the knowledge gap. "


Let's not forget all those diseases and parasites that needed living hosts to survive the flood. Must have been a lot of sick animals (and people) on the boat.

Often the creationists, faced with the enormity of Noah's task and the number of animal species that would have to have boarded the Ark and been cared for, opt to fall back on the "kinds" argument. In other words, the Bible uses the word "kinds," not "species." I've seen creationist estimates that put the number of "kinds" of animals on the ark at 20,000 even down to 2,500 or so. So...see...Noah didn't have to put all those species we see today on the Ark, they started as a much lower number of animal "kinds" (a dog kind, a cat kind, a bear kind etc.)

That line of thinking is amazing, considering that if there were only say 20,000 kinds less than 6,000 years ago which have since speciated into the varieties we see today, that is vastly more "evolution" than any biologist or evolution scientist believes in. Creationists complain that "evolutionists" posit all sorts of change over vast periods of time, yet the Creationist "Kinds" argument presents a scenario in which phenotype variation and speciation occurred at vastly larger and faster rates than any evolution scientist would dream of.

I think the Rev has it right. Once you posit a God having a hand in this process anywhere why in the world bother trying to validate it "scientifically."
God could achieve whatever he wanted, and creationists fall back on that excuse anyway when they hit difficulties in their theory...so just let it go.

(Although, if God could do anything it seems odd he'd have that poor old guy bother taking up all those animals and...oh...why bother thinking about it...)

Prof.

prof -

thanks. I was thinking along the same lines ... I am waiting to hear about the earth being square and how it is the center of the universe.

who said there HAD to have been disease on the boat?

most creationists i know don't believe the earth was created 6000 years ago..as for the arc, i have problems with this story too, but remember there is huge eveidence all over the world that a giant flood did exist,(shark bones found in mountains and so on)..but keep in mind this story of the arc was passed on from generation to genenration to generation before it was ever written, so it could there are discrepencies in the story...and if the story has been altered over time that still doesnt affect my faith. its alot easier to believe in god then the typical scientist belief, which is what by the way ????Big Bang Theory, the Quasistatal Theory, the Continuous Generation Theory, the Planetessimal Theory, etc...while atheists find it soo unlikely a god created us they are always short of bringing up answers like how the first dna strand was created..or how did matter or energy come from nothing??? and don't even get me started on that weak monkey theory either.. its funny you know,people of faith are always asked to prove there is a god but no one asks an atheist to prove there isnt.

don't believe in it, just giving the data.

---"who said there HAD to have been disease on the boat?"

If the diseases weren't there on the boat they had nowhere to live during the flood. If those organisms appeared only after the flood then the creation story is inaccurate. Then again, germs aren't mentioned in the Bible because the ancient people who wrote the book didn't know they existed. Neither did God, apparently.

---"most creationists i know don't believe the earth was created 6000 years ago.."

Good. That's one step in the right direction. However, many creationists do believe that.

---"but remember there is huge evidence all over the world that a giant flood did exist,"

No I don't have to remember that because there is no such "evidence." There is evidence for local flooding, for plate tectonics (which explains btw why one can find aquatic fossils on high elevations...look it up) and we have evidence for ice ages. But no evidence whatsoever for a global flood, which is why none of the sciences posit a global flood.

----"but keep in mind this story of the arc was passed on from generation to generation to generation before it was ever written, so it could there are discrepancies in the story...

So I take it the Bible was not divinely guided and contains errors? It must be tough to sort out those errors from the truth - especially when you're eternal soul rests upon getting the biblical message correct.

---"its alot easier to believe in god then the typical scientist belief,

When you are ignorant of science, yes. Scientific illiteracy is quite high - always has been - and the science can seem quite daunting to non-scientists. It's therefore much easier to fall back on the simplified stories and explanations that already exist in your culture - whatever religion is prevalent.

---"while atheists find it soo unlikely a god created us they are always short of bringing up answers like how the first dna strand was created..

So you prefer to find the holes in current scientific knowledge and insert "God did it." Do you really want to do that? Is that what scientists should do, rather than continue to search for answers on how things came about and how the universe works? Think of the history of man's inquiry into the world. Look at any point of our ignorance in the past and, because we didn't know the answer insert "God did it" instead. You would be saying goodbye to virtually every element in your modern world, the scientific body of knowledge about our world would virtually not exist, and you'd be living like a primitive likely to the ripe old age of, say, 28 years old.

Why isn't this the case today? Because smart people actually wanted to "know" things about the world. And especially because "God did it" isn't a good enough answer for anything and gets us nowhere. Just because there are still questions to be answered does not mean "God did it" has any more power or usefulness than it has throughout history. Your life has benefited greatly from the fact there were people in the past who didn't settle for "God did it" when they were faced with tough questions.

---"its funny you know,people of faith are always asked to prove there is a god but no one asks an atheist to prove there isn't.

That's because the people of faith are making the claim that there is a God. That rather places the burden of proof upon the believer. The atheist is, in general, merely saying "Uh..sorry, I don't see a God around anywhere. Could you maybe provide something to back up your claim?" (ESPECIALLY if your religious beliefs are exerting influence over public policies that effect MY life).

If I claimed there is an invisible, supernatural elf on the other side of Jupiter who is controlling events in the world, would you feel that, merely because I told you such a claim that it becomes your duty to disprove my claim? Or is it not my duty to support the claim?

Prof.

Good posts Prof.

Do you have any good links about theories that deal with what was before the big bang. 

 

"shark bones found in mountains and so on"

I might be mistaken, but shark's don't really have bones and cartilidge does't fossilize, so I am not sure how bones were found, do you have a link to more info on this?