Noah and the Animals

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 311 here:

Noah did not take a lab and a terrier and a wolf and a fox and a coyote aboard the Ark. He took a pair of canines, male and female, and from them come all the different groups of canines that you see today.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the above statement is true and factual.

[Jax Agnesson]

Hell, given how many times the bible was transcribed, translated and edited throughout the course of it's existence even the fundamentalists might not be following the correct "word of god". Maybe it's time for a newer testament?

"In the beginning was the singularity, . . . ."

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

From Post 311 here:

Noah did not take a lab and a terrier and a wolf and a fox and a coyote aboard the Ark. He took a pair of canines, male and female, and from them come all the different groups of canines that you see today.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the above statement is true and factual.

Pax's statement is based upon the assumption that the bible is somewhat reliable, the bible is meant to be taken literally, and that the flood story is logical.

I may choose to accept the first two assumptions for this argument, but the third assumption is where I stop.

I would willingly accept the first two in order to further a thought experiment. But the third is highly illogical in many ways.

1. Two of each animal? Really God? What if one dies accidentally?
2. Where is the water coming from, and where did it go? We don't have that amount of water on the planet, nor is there any place it could naturally come from!
3. All of the plants would have died.
4. All fresh and saltwater fish would have died.
5. Most of the animals on/going to the ark would have killed each other.
6. Many innocent lifeforms would have died during God's little escapade.
7. I would love to see eight people (four women, four men) build a massive ship made of gopherwood in less than a few days.
8. The actual story contradicts/repeats itself. (read it!)

Not to mention the other countless problems we may not even know about, and I do not care to list.

[pax]

From Post 311 here:

Noah did not take a lab and a terrier and a wolf and a fox and a coyote aboard the Ark. He took a pair of canines, male and female, and from them come all the different groups of canines that you see today.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the above statement is true and factual.

Pax's statement is based upon the assumption that the bible is somewhat reliable, the bible is meant to be taken literally, and that the flood story is logical.

I may choose to accept the first two assumptions for this argument, but the third assumption is where I stop.

I would willingly accept the first two in order to further a thought experiment. But the third is highly illogical in many ways.

1. Two of each animal? Really God? What if one dies accidentally?
2. Where is the water coming from, and where did it go? We don't have that amount of water on the planet, nor is there any place it could naturally come from!
3. All of the plants would have died.
4. All fresh and saltwater fish would have died.
5. Most of the animals on/going to the ark would have killed each other.
6. Many innocent lifeforms would have died during God's little escapade.
7. I would love to see eight people (four women, four men) build a massive ship made of gopherwood in less than a few days.
8. The actual story contradicts/repeats itself. (read it!)

Not to mention the other countless problems we may not even know about, and I do not care to list.

What the Flood narrative is really doing is affirming evolutionary theory. Noah took the LUCA for each class (Heb. meyn: kind) of animal aboard the Ark, and from all of these different LUCA's all the different forms of that class are descended.

Of course, them ancient men were a bunch of nits (even though they could build things that we still haven't figured out how they built them) and superstitious nits at that, so the story had to be shrouded in a supernatural penumbra.

[McCulloch]

What the Flood narrative is really doing is affirming evolutionary theory. Noah took the LUCA for each class (Heb. meyn: kind) of animal aboard the Ark, and from all of these different LUCA's all the different forms of that class are descended.

Except in evolutionary theory, the time from the flood until the time when the different species were evident is insufficient for them to have evolved.

Of course, them ancient men were a bunch of nits (even though they could build things that we still haven't figured out how they built them) and superstitious nits at that, so the story had to be shrouded in a supernatural penumbra.

Or made up whole cloth. Like maybe the writers of Genesis, had no idea just how many different kinds or species there were.

[Haven]

It's obvious that the Genesis flood myth is a reworked version of older ancient-near-east flood myths, such as the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Ultimately, these flood myths could be greatly embellished accounts of real (local) floods in the distant past, or they could simply be fictional stories told for moral teaching, cultural cohesion, or even entertainment.

[Jax Agnesson]

Could THIS be it?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Could THIS be it?

5.3 million years ago? Does not sound likely. The ancestors of chimpanzees and the genus Homo were just diverging around then. How did they pass the story on, ASL?

[AM]

I believe the flood story is based on real events, not a kind of punishment from god but explainable climatic ones.

At the end of the Pleistocene era, climate on earth began to get warmer, it was the end of the last big glaciation with a major glacial pic around 25k ago. It was follow by the Dryas period (+/- 15k) with very unstable climatic conditions from very cold to warm. We enter the Holocene, actual climatic era when temperatures are more stable, the ones we live in now. (10K)

When earth get warmer (a LOT warmer in this case) ice starts to melt and sea levels rise. Between the end of Pleistocene and the Holocene men were gathering around. One of the first step to sedentarisation were semi permanents camps near rivers and sea (this way of life is called "collectors way of life" vs. foraging style). Example Ertebølle site in Denmark.

The Persian Gulf was smaller and when the sea level started to rise it forced men to leave because their territories were been "flooded". They have no way of knowing why.

Because there was more water in the atmosphere there was also more rain, so it is probable that rivers or lakes levels raised also causing "floods" and forcing men to move.

And a legend was born. It wasn't sudden, it was progresive, it wasn't God, it was climate.

With the development of marine archaeology we will learn more because those under water sites are very well preserved.

[His Name Is John]

A literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark myth is one of the most ludicrous beliefs of conservative Christianity. Ignoring the fact that the Noah story is really just a reworked version of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the events it discusses are completely physically impossible. Additionally, there is no evidence of a global flood whatsoever. Plus, it would be impossible to repopulate the earth from just two members of each species / genus / whatever a "kind" is of animal, because there would not be enough genetic diversity to sustain a healthy population.

Read this for more information: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Just to let you know, it was only two of all the unclean animals, but there were seven of each the clean animals (seven is a symbolic number in the Bible).

[ThatGirlAgain]

A literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark myth is one of the most ludicrous beliefs of conservative Christianity. Ignoring the fact that the Noah story is really just a reworked version of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the events it discusses are completely physically impossible. Additionally, there is no evidence of a global flood whatsoever. Plus, it would be impossible to repopulate the earth from just two members of each species / genus / whatever a "kind" is of animal, because there would not be enough genetic diversity to sustain a healthy population.

Read this for more information: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Just to let you know, it was only two of all the unclean animals, but there were seven of each the clean animals (seven is a symbolic number in the Bible).

There is some confusion about how many if each there were.

Genesis 6
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Genesis 7
2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Genesis 7
8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

Genesis 7
14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah.

Gen 6:19-20 has two of everything including birds.
Gen 7:2 has seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals
Gen 7:3 has seven pairs of all birds
Gen 7:8 has pairs of both clean and unclean animals
Gen 7:15 has pairs of all creatures

Also, some of the clean animals get sacrificed.

Genesis 8
20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.