I always wondered, with the animals...what about arctic animals, penguins, polar bears etc...how would they stay cold -- ? some odd cold area but there was no electricity as we know it so how would the cold temperatures be regulated for their survival?
And how would Noah have gotten the animals native to North and South America onto the Ark when Columbus didn't even set sail for the Indies and accidentally bump into the island of Haiti/Dominican Republic until 1492. Also, taking only 2 of each animal would mean that all of their offspring would be INBRED and they would have all died pit due to their not being enough genetic variation! The largest wooden British Warships were only 175 ft. Long and the Ark would have had to be dozens of times bigger than that
John, The animals where not scattered at the time, they still were around or in the garden of Eden, only Adam & Eve (man kind) were kicked out of the garden for their sins
So why did the animals get "scattered" later? Did they sin?
Thank you I agree
John, most of the issues you raise are addressed in the book, "Noah: The Real Story." The real answer is frequently, we don't really know. Noah did not leave a journal and the Bible doesn't tell us. But we can make assumptions about how things could have happened.
I don't think inbreeding was such a problem then as it would be today, the gene pool was much purer-- think of the first humans they had to inbreed to populate the earth.
Also, the other questions are interesting to ponder; but with God directing the whole thing I believe He could make anything happen to accommodate the need.
One thing is for sure,how can you on one hand say " all things are possible with GOD but don't believe the things that GOD done in the bible".
Like the author said, you either have to take the bible literally or it's a metaphor of spiritual matters hidden in parables and stories.
Of the world wide flood records, that is a stretch, floods are world wide and mostly local, but to the inhabitants then it would seem like a global catastrophe so stories where written or modified to suit their culture and understanding.
I don't accept the tradition interpretation of the bible as their is too many mysteries that don't support the creationists claims, and not even the believers who frame it within science parameters. We are in a different paradigm to that old religion perspective.
Number of species on Noah's Ark: 16,000 (or less).
Number of species on Earth today: 7,000,000 (or more)
Time since the events of Noah: 6,000 years (or less).
Number of new species per day since Noah's Ark: 3.5. **
So when you wake up tomorrow, there will be three to four entirely new species of animal on the planet. There will, of course, be a portion of your daily paper which outlines the new, daily discoveries of these creatures. No? Guess why.
**The number per day is a minimum. The numbers used above are all in favor of the Ark story. Decreasing the number of initial animals, or the time lapse, or increasing the number of modern species means the number per day goes up. The closer numbers (16K species then, 7.7M species now, and 4K years) leads to an answer of 5.2 new species every single day.
@Dale, God must be hiding those animals from man's sight- there are many jungles and forests where those new animals could be. besides, how do you know God didn't expand the number of species after the animals got off the ark? Maybe while the kangaroo was hopping back to Australia after the flood but before the land bridge collapsed was enough time for new species to come into existence.
This is really hard to read.
God made a process to make more kinds of animals. It's called evolution.
Did anyone even think about what they were reading/writing?
One of each family guarantees that the genus must come from the family, pretty much guaranteeing that there must be some form of evolution, so reducing the numbers to fit on the ark is really peculiar logic since it requires the thing being argued against.
Can you even imagine how violent getting rid of a land bridge to Australia in a time span of a few thousand years would be? You'd need unbelievable erosion even if it was just a beach shoal at the beginning.
If the animals were in the Garden of Eden, so therefore collection wasn't difficult, how did they spread over a few thousand years? How's a jaguar going to get to South America? Without any modern boats or planes? No land bridge there.
I'm bewildered by the contortions folks have to go to try to make something fit the Bible. I'm much happier assuming that God intended us to use our brains and see the evidence He left us of geology, fossils, etc, than to assume the bible isn't being figurative or mistranslated or anything.
Each section of the Ark would need to provide the exact ecological habitat (of which there are thousands) needed for each animal's survival - water fresh salt still running swamp, controlled temperature tropical temperate arctic, trees bushes grassland sand rocks marsh for each continent and temperature zone, live food sources plants, insects prey species - very many animals could not digest or dried meet and have very specific nutritional requirements etc. (flood damage would also have destroyed many of the habitats that the animals would need for post-flood survival, taking many years to get sufficiently re-established to support a viable population).Without the proper conditions, most animals on the Arc would die of stress, infection, starvation. Modern day zoos have a huge challenge caring for animals, backed up by ecology and anima medicine, and some species just will not thrive in captivity. The explanations given on this page are so implausible that they don't merit serious consideration.
Kevin; Humans and animals did not eat meat before the flood.
Genesis 1: 29 & 30 Genesis 9: 3 & 4 God tells man he can eat meat
So no predators or carnivores before the flood, and all the carnivorous species we have today been created/evolved since? Or were all carnivores previously herbivorous?
Where did Noah get a continuous source of fresh eucalyptus leaves to accommodate the Koala's?
We don't know, of course. We can speculate -- the Koala's went into hibernation (that's how Darren Aronofsky explains it -- or the God who brought the Koalas to the ark somehow brought eucalyptus or the Koala's dependence on eucalyptus is a more recent development. But the most honest answer is we don't know. The other part of the honest answer is that just because we don't know doesn't prove it didn't happen.
Banging my head against the wall. Ok for you to say I don't know is ok. But when a "non believer" says I dont know, that is assumed to be proof of god. Yes, I used lower case. Going to hell I guess.
Save your head, Angelo. Larry Stone says 'we can speculate' - that's all there is to it, nothing more.
Larry, at the end of your book's introduction chapter you rightly state that we have to ask the literalists to explain the feasibility of Noah's Ark. This is not quite a burden of proof - as you say above, we don't know - but it is very similar. Without proof, the next best test might be the 'balance of probabilities' of the truth of an explanation. Having read the book, the site and the comments, I have to say that you have been able to show pretty conclusively that the speculations for the literal explanation are so highly improbable, given what we what we know of the world today and through history, that the alternative non-literalist explanation is by far more successful on the balance of probabilities. Unless, that is, you allow for supernatural explanations as you do above, in which case anything could happen and there is no need to debate how feasible or not something might have been - end of debate!
What's your thinking?
Were there snakeson the Art. The bible two of its kind creeping things male and female?
The Bible does not specifically mention snakes, but it does say that God told Noah to take "two of . . . every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind" onto the Ark. That would included snakes
you mention sea animals would not need to be on the ark. This is not true. Unless rain is salt water (which it isn't because it can't be), all that freshwater falling down for that long would have changed the salinity of the oceans, and as such, would have killed off a LOT of sea creatures.
Good observation. I don't know enough to respond, but I do know that the water causing the flood was not just rain. Genesis 7:11 says, "All the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." The water came not just from the rain, but from the "fountains of the great deep." There's nothing said about the salinity of water from the fountains, but it's not a sure thing that all the added water did not contain salt. By the way, the image of the fountains of the great deep in the Darren Arronofsky movie was one of the best things in the movie.
The answer is so simple its ridiculous.