Noah and the Ark

[YEC]

In another post Dilettante posed the following statement.

I read somewhere that Noah, in order to save all living creatures, would have to have accommodated in his Ark at least 25,000 species of birds, 15,000 species of mammals, 6,000 species of reptiles, 2,500 species of amphibiams, and more than 1 million species of insects, including termites who would have a hazard for the Ark itself. How can this be done? Speaking of testable hypothesis, how about an experiment to test this one? I bet any employee of any zoo in the world would tell you it's crazy.

I'm not sure I agree with the statement above.
The following is a list from Noahs Ark A feasibilty Study
Number of animals genus (Male & Female) present from each order-class on the ark.

Passeriformes 2,236
Squamata 1,938
Rodentia 1,746
Artiodactyla 1,144
Carnivora 696
Therapsida 508
Marsupialia 468
Perrissodactyla 436
Chiroptera 412
Primates 412
Insectivora 404
Saurischia 390
Gruiformes 280
Ornithischia 278
Apodiformes 276
Notoungulata 252
Edentata 250
Charadriiformes 208
Condylartha 198
Galliformes 176
Falconiformes 170
Psittaciformes 164
Captorhinida 152
Thecodontia 144
Piciformes 128
(add remaining 61 land-vertebrate orders
15,754
Reference Noahs Ark a Feasibility Study page 11
John Woodmorappe

In total there were about 16,000 animals on the ark.

If one does the math it is possible to house the animals on just half of the ark.

Just for the record, the ark was covered inside and outside with pitch...so the hazard of the termites mentioned above would have been solved.

[YEC]

You posted the first links with an arrogant tone...I just replied back. Sorry if you got spanked by the issues.

[bdbthinker]

You posted the first links with an arrogant tone...I just replied back. Sorry if you got spanked by the issues.

Yes, yes. that stunning refutation was hard to swallow. Sorry, but you've got to realize I spent like over an hour reading this thread and I have yet to hear YEC propose anything valid.
"It might have been this"
"It could have been that"
"The T-Rex on the ark could have been eating cabbage"

all he has been doing is trying to knock down peoples argument with absolutley no evience of his own.
Look, if that Hydroplate Theory is so valid why isn't it being considered by mainstream science? If the evidence for it is so overwhelming why aren't we learning about it in text books?

YEC...you believe this stuff on faith. No one's going ot hold that against you. But quit posing like it's real science...and if it is, get it peer reviewed and win the Nobel Prize for it. Until then, don't expect people like me to take it serious...

that's all.

[Jose]

Funny how jose didn't make the same comments about the ...evo...threads.

Yeah, well.... The thing about the evo threads is that the evo'ists give data, and rely upon well-established mechanisms (like genetics). When people ask to show the data, the evo'ists either show the data, provide links to papers that have the data, or point out that the data do not yet exist. There's a fundamental difference between saying "I won't accept this until you provide 100% of the data confirming every possible step in the evolution of this thing that took 2 billion years to develop" and saying "OK, you've presented your hypothesis. It makes some predictions. Are those predictions met?" This is especially true since, in most of the instances of the specific predictions of the Flood hypothesis, we know the data exist. Even I, who am not a flood geologist, have seen some of it!

In one case, we know some of the data does not exist. In the other case, we know the data does exist. We're asking you to discuss the data that exist. I suspect that there is a reason that you have squirmed and dodged and avoided doing so.

[YEC]

You're not talking about the evos are you jose? 'cause it sure don't sound anything like what I see here in their post.

[otseng]

YEC, let me reiterate to avoid comments about other posters. Such comments as "The above post is a display of ignorance..or is it arrogance?" are inappropriate. Consider this a formal warning. I expect complete compliance with the rules from you from now on, otherwise more drastic disciplinary measures will be taken.

[myniche]

I' new to the forum but would like to start off with a little feedback on the Ark mythology. Please answer the questions as specifically as you can so I have something specific to discuss.

You said . . .(i've shortened for space)

The following is a list from Noahs Ark A feasibilty Study
Number of animals genus (Male & Female) present from each order-class on the ark.

Passeriformes 2,236
Squamata 1,938
Marsupialia 468
Chiroptera 412
Insectivora 404
(add remaining 61 land-vertebrate orders
15,754
Reference Noahs Ark a Feasibility Study page 11
John Woodmorappe

In total there were about 16,000 animals on the ark.

If one does the math it is possible to house the animals on just half of the ark.

first question - why would you accept this feasability study when it is so clearly flawed? How does one ignore the invertebrates? Surely the millions of insect species couldn't have simply been swimming? I'm not trying to be rude, but what is the argument for not having them on the ark? They ARE animals, they would not survive the flood and they are certainly here post flood!

second question - how did Noah et al take care of the animals? Even with a tiny fraction of the worlds species (16000) that only gives about 50 seconds per animal if Noah and his family are working 24 hours a day - feeding, cleaning up after, raising "food animals" (which must be reproducing at an outrageous rate to supply the carnivores!!!) etc etc.

third question - what happens when the animals come off the ark in terms of distribution? How for example do marsulia moles that rarely come out of the ground make it two Australia and then leave behind no relatives along the way?

fourth question - Again, I'm new to the forum so please excuse my ignorance of the general info but - do you employ a reference to miracles for the many issues that don't jive with science - for example, obviously the diversity of foods that would be required to keep all these species alive simply isn't there - the vast majority of species CAN NOT simply live on the foods we do - grains and "clean animals". Many species are highly specialized eaters of insects, FRESH land very specific kinds of eaves and eggs, nectar, etc etc. Do these nutritional demands get suspended for the duration of the trip?

fifth question - do you accept extremely rapid evolution post flood to account for the formation of millions of species from a paultry 16000 animals? I don't know if you are aware of the extensive genetic diversity of species and the extremely rapid rate of evolution that must occur to generate such diversity in several thousand years. If the argument is that animals diversified by "microevolution" post flood you should realize that YOU are arguing FOR extreme pace of evolution. No evolutionary biologist thinks this could happen so quickly - evidence suggests that evolution generally operates MUCH slower, but over much longer periods of time.

thanks for you time in responding to my long queries.

[samuelbb7]

Well insects as a group are really small so you could fit them in the room left over or they could bunk in with a lot of the animals.

How did Noah and his family take care of all the animals? We do not know. They could have hibernated. They could have set it up where they were around food to start with. This is not an unsolvable problem.

Since the ark is about miracles to start with. GOD having the animals all migrate is not that hard. Also fossils are not universal. In fact some evolutions estimate only one out of ten thousand animals becomes a fossil. So a lot would be missing.

Possible if we go back to the hibernating possibility. Also creations do believe in species developing from others. For instance all the types of dogs we have today could have been from one pair of dogs on the ark. So the ancestors may have been more general eaters.

We ate talking micro not macro. Most evolutions allow for the quickness of micro. In the history of dogs we have had many new species developed in fairly recent time period. The macroevolution needs millineums for change. Unless you accept puctuated equilibrium.

You are welcome

[myniche]

Well insects as a group are really small so you could fit them in the room left over or they could bunk in with a lot of the animals.

size has nothing to do with it. If Noah were to put a mere 100 000 species of insects on the ark (I'm being kind by not even mentioning the countless other non-insect invertebrates he should be housing) that would cause serious problems for both Noah and the presented story line by YEC. For starters it means that the 16000 number is not the number at all. If you are talking about far more species get your story straight - either correct your number by vastly increasing it, or state that insects etc were not on the ark and make up something to account for their present day occurance. Second, and more significant from a rational perspective, is that no matter how small they are they have to be fed - this would only seem easy if one knows nothing about insects. If however, we actually discuss "real" insects then supplying there highly diverse foods is quite a task.

How did Noah and his family take care of all the animals? We do not know. They could have hibernated. They could have set it up where they were around food to start with. This is not an unsolvable problem.

Ok - sounds like you are opting for a God in the Gaps argument - fine, but why bother with any explanations of thinking at all - "miracle happens when every I need an answer to an impossible situation"

VERY FEW animals hibernate (and of course that is not even the correct terminology for the vast majority of animals that do enter a form of dormancy). This is only a solvable problem for use BECAUSE you insert - "miracle happens" What you are actually admitting is that this is unsolvable by rational argument - instead you insert a miracle.

Since the ark is about miracles to start with. GOD having the animals all migrate is not that hard. Also fossils are not universal. In fact some evolutions estimate only one out of ten thousand animals becomes a fossil. So a lot would be missing.

Why would God have them "migrate" - why not just materialize them on the ark, or have them "float" through the air over the ocean from South America and the Antarctic etc.?

What is the point of having a debate if the answer to all your implausible assertions is - miracle? Why argue that "the Ark could have had room for X number of animals when you could just say - any number could fit because "it was a miracle"? What is the point of making silly assertions if your explanation has nothing to do with the assertion. Why not say that Noah had 10 million or 100 million species on the ark?

Possible if we go back to the hibernating possibility. Also creations do believe in species developing from others. For instance all the types of dogs we have today could have been from one pair of dogs on the ark. So the ancestors may have been more general eaters.

All dogs are extremely close genetically and were INTENSIVELY BRED by human selection. All the other groups you are talking about are NOT NEARLY as close genetically - this is evidence of MUCH greater "microevolution" BUT amazingly without intense human intervention. You say the ancestors "may have been more general eaters" - silly. Dogs of six thousand years ago were carnivores like they are today. If you are suggesting that what we call bats, or lions, or snakes, or spiders today, had dramatically different diets (and of course behaviours, digestive systems, physiology etc to be able to eat different foods) then you are in the realm of hyper evolutionary change which would make an evolutionists pace of macroevolution seem trivial.

We ate talking micro not macro. Most evolutions allow for the quickness of micro. In the history of dogs we have had many new species developed in fairly recent time period. The macroevolution needs millineums for change. Unless you accept puctuated equilibrium.

First of all there is only one species of dog - we have not produced any new species - even with a truly valiant effort.

Secondy, it doesn't matter if you "call it" micro or macro - if you are suggesting that a tiny number of species on the ark (say 50 000) evolved into the present day 10 000 000 or so species in a few thousand years, then you are saying that evolutionary change is incredibly rapid - funny how we don't see evidence of such change anywhere around us. After breeding the heck out of dogs for thousands of years they are all still fertile when crossbred - this does not hold true for the vast vast majority of species that you would call the same "kind".

Also, it is frankly quite bizzare to read creationists defending extreme evolution from a defacto "benefical mutation" perspective as well. If ONE PAIR (TWO INDIVIDUALS) of one "kind" of organism evolves into MANY diverse species post flood, with their quite easily documented dramatic increase in genetic diversity, then we have evidence for the occurrance of thousands and thousands of brand new benefical mutations at an outlandish pace in a few thousand years - again, far exceeding that of the most generous evoluitonary biologist. So creationists are really saying that they believe that beneficial mutations happen at an extraordinary pace!!!!! Oddly the dramatically diversified dogs (all of the same species) show very little genetic diversity even though we have REALLY worked at attempting to diversity them. They may look quite different but this is the result of a relatively small number of superficial genetic changes. They are not nearly as genetically diverse as say "red foxes and coyotes"

I suppose all this discussion is pointless anyway if you just revert to the miracle spin whenever you want. Consider how truly laughable this concept is . . .

A group of eight people keep 16 000 animals (8000 different kinds) alive on a closed-in boat (it may big for a boat but it is a tiny space for 16 000 animals) for months. Think about it!!!! 16000 animals!!! Can anyone seriously believe such a silly notion? If so they have never worked on a farm or even owned a handful of pets.

I know what you're thinking - I'm not taking into account the magic waving of the wand whenever the animals are restless, hungry, thirsty, dirty etc etc etc. So you can stick with the magic wand nonsense but PLEASE don't start talking about the animals eating different foods, or fitting into a particular size space or anything else the sounds like any but "nonstop miracles" mythology.

[Jose]

Also, it is frankly quite bizzare to read creationists defending extreme evolution from a defacto "benefical mutation" perspective as well. If ONE PAIR (TWO INDIVIDUALS) of one "kind" of organism evolves into MANY diverse species post flood, with their quite easily documented dramatic increase in genetic diversity, then we have evidence for the occurrance of thousands and thousands of brand new benefical mutations at an outlandish pace in a few thousand years - again, far exceeding that of the most generous evoluitonary biologist. So creationists are really saying that they believe that beneficial mutations happen at an extraordinary pace!!!!!

It's an interesting thing, myniche. Some of our YEC members have said exactly this, and argued that the YEC view is entirely consistent with a period of hyperevolution in the first thousand years or so after getting off the ark. If we noodle around on the web and in the creationist literature, we find that the current definition of "kind" is generally at the level of family (or higher), where it used to be species. We find that microevolution is true, and that it occurs by natural selection--but that it's "not really evolution" so it doesn't count. This is strange and amusing at the same time; refuting evolution by announcing that evolution isn't evolution, and that the evolution that did occur (only after the flood) was really fast when it happened.

So really, the debate seems to be narrowing to a focus on how much diversity can be accounted for by evolution, and how old the earth is. That is, evolution can account for many species of the same "kind" of animal, but we can't let it go on too long or we'll get enough variation to recognize different "kinds" of animals in the same lineage.

I suppose all this discussion is pointless anyway if you just revert to the miracle spin whenever you want. Consider how truly laughable this concept is . . .

It is laughable to you, but it obviously isn't laughable to a lot of people who were raised from infancy to believe that this really is what happened. It's very hard to discard the things that you've grown up with as "essential truths," especially if you are to replace them with things that you've learned are simply impossible. This is what makes the discussion not pointless, even if it seems that viewpoints are so wildly different as to be irreconcilable. None of us will be converted by a single snappy reply, or even by clear logic that illustrates what someone else says is True. Rather, it takes many, many iterations of the logic, and examination of a vast number of intersecting issues, before we can begin to feel justified in thinking that maybe, just maybe, our initial views were imperfect. It is even more difficult if we believe that even entertaining thoughts of potential doubt might condemn us to eternal damnation.

..but going back to the ark, I'm puzzled about the following: if during the flood, "every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground" (Gen 7:23), then how was it possible that after the flood, "the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off" (Gen 8:11)? Was this an olive leaf that had been bobbing in the water for months, or did some living substances not get destroyed by the flood?

[Guy Trudel]

I' new to the forum but would like to start off with a little feedback on the Ark mythology. Please answer the questions as specifically as you can so I have something specific to discuss.

You said . . .(i've shortened for space)

The following is a list from Noahs Ark A feasibilty Study
Number of animals genus (Male & Female) present from each order-class on the ark.

Passeriformes 2,236
Squamata 1,938
Marsupialia 468
Chiroptera 412
Insectivora 404
(add remaining 61 land-vertebrate orders
15,754
Reference Noahs Ark a Feasibility Study page 11
John Woodmorappe

In total there were about 16,000 animals on the ark.

If one does the math it is possible to house the animals on just half of the ark.

first question - why would you accept this feasability study when it is so clearly flawed? How does one ignore the invertebrates? Surely the millions of insect species couldn't have simply been swimming? I'm not trying to be rude, but what is the argument for not having them on the ark? They ARE animals, they would not survive the flood and they are certainly here post flood!

second question - how did Noah et al take care of the animals? Even with a tiny fraction of the worlds species (16000) that only gives about 50 seconds per animal if Noah and his family are working 24 hours a day - feeding, cleaning up after, raising "food animals" (which must be reproducing at an outrageous rate to supply the carnivores!!!) etc etc.

third question - what happens when the animals come off the ark in terms of distribution? How for example do marsulia moles that rarely come out of the ground make it two Australia and then leave behind no relatives along the way?

fourth question - Again, I'm new to the forum so please excuse my ignorance of the general info but - do you employ a reference to miracles for the many issues that don't jive with science - for example, obviously the diversity of foods that would be required to keep all these species alive simply isn't there - the vast majority of species CAN NOT simply live on the foods we do - grains and "clean animals". Many species are highly specialized eaters of insects, FRESH land very specific kinds of eaves and eggs, nectar, etc etc. Do these nutritional demands get suspended for the duration of the trip?

fifth question - do you accept extremely rapid evolution post flood to account for the formation of millions of species from a paultry 16000 animals? I don't know if you are aware of the extensive genetic diversity of species and the extremely rapid rate of evolution that must occur to generate such diversity in several thousand years. If the argument is that animals diversified by "microevolution" post flood you should realize that YOU are arguing FOR extreme pace of evolution. No evolutionary biologist thinks this could happen so quickly - evidence suggests that evolution generally operates MUCH slower, but over much longer periods of time.

thanks for you time in responding to my long queries.

I would like to ask:

How could a perfect creator create something imperfect (corruptible)?

How could this "perfect" creator
a) blame his creation for becoming corrupted
b) sentence his children (made in THEIR image and likeness) and all their innocent descendents to death.
c) devise a solution to human decadence by drowning all but a chosen family - which really solved nothing because
d) this "divine" being's next act was to murder his "only" son to demonstrate his "love" and sentence to hell all who do not believe he did this and:
e) Since his previous "solutions" didn't work, destroy all life except 144,000 virgin men UNDEFILED BY WOMEN!

None of his "solutions" have worked and all involve killing. Not only guilty ones are sentenced to death but also innocent unborn children.

What kind of god likes the smell of burning flesh?

How can anyone really believe in this "god" - the world's greates mass murderer?

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Genesis 1:26

Could we have made god in our image and likeness?