Noah was instructed to take one pair of each kind of animal into the ark, while clean animals and birds were to take seven pairs. Insects and arachnids, which do not breathe through their nostrils, were not considered nephesh chayyāy (living creatures) that needed to be saved on the Ark. Instead, they took oxygen through holes in their bodies. Noah was told to take more clean animals than unclean on the ark, as only unclean animals came in pairs.
The difference between clean and unclean animals is defined in Leviticus 11, but Noah lived. The instructions God gave Noah regarding the animals on the Ark are detailed and specific, reflecting the importance of preserving life amidst the impending flood. The New King James and New International Versions both agree that Noah took seven of each clean animal into the ark, while the Revised Standard Version, the New, differs.
Insects, which do not breathe through their nostrils, were not considered obligate passengers on the Ark. They could easily survive outside the ark in their various forms. However, it is debated whether insects were obligate passengers on the Ark. If God brought them to him, it would have been practically impossible for humans to take them onto the Ark.
Naoh was not instructed to gather the animals, but to build the Ark large enough for all the animals and simply receive them when they were ready. The Bible states that God told Noah to take two of every kind of animal on the ark and seven pairs of the clean animals and flying creatures.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| Q4. Did Noah bring insects on the Ark? | Whether insects were obligate passengers on the Ark or not is a matter of debate. And since we can’t know with absolute certainty one way or another, we … | biblediscoverytv.com |
| How did Noah take all the insects, plants and freshwater … | How did Noah take all the insects, plants and freshwater aquatic species on the ark? … So God told Noah, “Take your wife and your three sons and … | reddit.com |
| Were Insects on the Ark? | Certainly Noah could have taken insects onto the Ark if God brought them to him, and it would have been practically impossible (humanly speaking) … | answersingenesis.org |
📹 Noah Left the Insects Behind 😢
Today, Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis explains to us that science actually confirms the story of Noah’s Ark and the …
Which 2 Insects Are Mentioned In The Bible?
Insects play a significant role in biblical narratives, particularly in the context of the ten plagues of Egypt, where three plagues involve insects: gnats (Exodus 8:16ff), flies (Exodus 8:20ff), and locusts (Exodus 10:1ff). Each insect carries symbolic meanings often related to themes of hard work, destruction, and transformation. For instance, the locusts signify a divine judgment as they are sent to consume the vegetation of Egypt (Exodus 10:12-13). Throughout the Bible, insects serve as metaphors reflecting the relationship between humanity and nature and are employed to impart moral lessons.
Among biblical insects, the honeybee is notable, as honey appears over 60 times in scripture, often symbolizing sweetness and pleasantness, as seen in Proverbs 16:24. A systematic study lists various insects across categories such as Hymenoptera (ants, bees), Lepidoptera (moths), and others.
In-depth studies on biblical insects reveal their roles as both beneficial, like bees for honey, and destructive, like locusts. The extensive mentions of flies, crickets, and locusts highlight their ecological and symbolic significance in biblical teachings, emphasizing lessons rooted in both literal and figurative interpretations. Notably, locusts, depicted as a judgment against Pharaoh’s hardened heart, illustrate the divine consequences of defiance (Exodus 10:4-15). While insects like ants and fleas receive attention, others like maggots appear in imagery, underscoring their varied roles in scripture.
Did Noah Take 7 Of Some Animals?
In Genesis 7, God instructed Noah to take "seven pairs" of every clean animal, "a male and its mate," and "one pair" of each unclean animal for the ark. This specification clarifies that contrary to the belief that Noah only took two pairs of every animal, he was to take a larger number of clean animals—seven pairs. Consistent with the biblical narrative, Noah brought two of every unclean kind to ensure their survival, while the clean animals were needed in greater quantities for future sacrifices and food after the flood.
Earlier in Genesis, God had commanded Noah to gather the animals, emphasizing the need for preservation of various kinds. The distinction between clean and unclean animals was indeed first referenced in the flood account, implying a plan for sacrificial purposes post-flood. Despite some skepticism regarding contradictions in these instructions and the details surrounding the animals, both the New King James Version and the New International Version support this understanding. The Revised Standard Version also aligns with this view, confirming that Noah's task included bringing seven pairs of clean animals onto the ark.
Thus, rather than merely two of every animal type, Noah's arrangements specifically included a significant number of each clean species, enhancing their survival and utilization in a future environment. Ultimately, this was a deliberate design by God to ensure the continuance of clean animals for rituals and sustenance, highlighting the importance of both species in the post-flood world.
Noah's adherence to God's commands reflects his obedience, with the Bible affirming that he did all that the LORD commanded him, securing the future for the animal kinds created by God.
Do Insects Have Nephesh?
Bugs and plants are not referred to as nephesh in the Bible, where the term primarily signifies 'the breath of life', embodying life, self, and personhood. Notably, the Bible lacks specific mention of insects possessing nephesh, and it emphasizes that life resides in the blood, which differs significantly from insect blood. According to Genesis, humans and animals are endowed with "breath of life" (nephesh), but distinctions between "rational" and "non-rational" souls remain contentious. Nephesh encompasses sentience, applying to both humans and animals, although insects and plants are excluded from this classification.
The anatomy of insects reveals vital internal organs necessary for survival, showcasing three distinct body regions and an open circulatory system filled with hemolymph. Their respiratory system comprises tracheae, and despite the significance of the circulatory system, it remains understudied. Insects, reacting to predator vibrations, exhibit behavior such as ceasing communication and burrowing. While insects possess five senses, their sensory perception differs markedly from humans; they lack noses but have sensory organs distributed across their bodies.
The Old Testament consistently employs the term nephesh chayyah to describe living creatures, specifically animals and humans, excluding plants, microorganisms, and likely insects. This indicates that insects may not be considered nephesh creatures. Some perspectives, like that of Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis, assert that insects do not qualify as living creatures. Thus, the existence of a soul or consciousness in insects is debated, with a general conclusion suggesting that they do not possess nephesh, implying a difference in spiritual standing compared to other animals.
What Animals Did Noah Not Take On The Ark?
In the context of Noah's Ark as described in Genesis, it is clear that not all animals entered the Ark. Fish, whales, and dolphins, which are not air-breathing and do not dwell on land, were excluded. Despite surviving underwater, marine life could not take shelter in the Ark during a flood. The Bible specifies that Noah was instructed to bring various land animals, including seven pairs of every clean animal and one pair of each unclean species, while unicorns were notably absent from the list.
The Hebrew word "min," often translated as "kind," provides significant insight into what constitutes the groups of animals allowed on the Ark. Although it appears only 31 times in the Old Testament, these instances clarify its meaning in context, suggesting a limited number of air-breathing, terrestrial creatures that could interbreed. Creationist Theologians interpret that Noah did not bring any fish or marine life aboard, which means present-day aquatic species must have survived independently.
Contrary to popular belief that Noah took two of every animal, he was actually instructed to bring seven pairs of clean animals, while unclean ones were taken in pairs. This distinction matters because certain animals like pigs, lizards, and snakes are deemed unclean. The biblical passages imply that only air-breathing, land-dwelling animals were allowed on the Ark, excluding large mammals that could not fit inside.
Thus, while artistic interpretations may illustrate a harmonious boarding process, the reality according to Scripture acknowledges specific requirements and exclusions inherent to the narrative of Noah's Ark.
Is Killing Cockroaches A Sin?
Sri Yukteswar, in "Autobiography of a Yogi," states that a person incurs a minor sin when forced to kill an animal but highlights that killing pests like cockroaches may be necessary to prevent harm. Cockroaches, often infesting homes and threatening food supplies, are seen as a nuisance, and their elimination for safety is not viewed as sinful. In Torah, as understood by Abraham, killing harmful creatures does not constitute sin; however, cruelty to animals is prohibited.
The act of killing such pests, including flies and ticks, is permissible as a means of protection. The biblical perspective offers humans dominion over insects but encourages responsible stewardship rather than casual destruction. While the Hadith permits the killing of dangerous pests, like cockroaches, it underlines that one should avoid cruelty and unnecessary suffering. A compassionate approach involves recognizing the need for pest control while also exploring preventive measures.
Though it's acceptable to kill pests like cockroaches for safety, it's crucial to reflect on our actions and consider alternative methods, such as cleanliness and deterrents, to manage infestations. The balance lies in ensuring safety without resorting to unnecessary harm, thus promoting a harmonious relationship with all creatures. Cleanliness and maintaining a pest-free environment also play vital roles in achieving spiritual consciousness, emphasizing care for all of God's creations.
What Animals Are Nephesh?
All birds and mammals, along with a select few reptiles like crocodiles and alligators, are considered part of the nephesh, a term referring to the essence of living beings. The concept of 'soul' raises many questions: Are souls mere containers for our Spirit? Do animals possess souls? What about God—does He have a soul? Furthermore, what happens to souls after death? According to the Bible, God imbues animals with souls, as evidenced by the Hebrew word 'nephesh,' which means "soul" and is translated 256 times in the Old Testament. This term, however, does not denote an immaterial essence but instead encapsulates the physical and emotional aspects of living creatures.
Nephesh applies to both humans and animals, reflecting a holistic view of existence that includes physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions. Yet, when referring to animals, the term often shifts to 'creature,' reserving 'soul' specifically for humans. While nephesh encompasses sentience in birds, mammals, and certain reptiles, it does not imply that animals possess souls in the same way humans do. Instead, these beings may be termed 'soulish' as they exhibit mind, will, and emotion.
Thus, nephesh fundamentally represents earthly beings, emphasizing that life requires breath to persist. This highlights the nuanced understanding of life and spirit, especially within biblical texts, contrasting animal existence with that of humanity.
How Did Noah Know Which Animals Were Clean And Unclean?
Noah's knowledge of clean and unclean animals is not explicitly explained, yet he clearly distinguishes between them. Sacrifices prior to the Mosaic Law, as seen in Genesis 4:4, indicate that God had communicated to humanity which animals were acceptable for sacrifice and, later, for consumption. During the Flood narrative, God instructed Noah to bring seven pairs of "clean" animals and a pair of "unclean" ones into the ark, establishing an early distinction of these categories before the formal laws were given.
This differentiation is evident when Noah offers sacrifices from the clean animals post-Flood, pleasing God with the "soothing aroma" (Genesis 8:20-21). Critics argue that the classification of clean and unclean animals was introduced later, specifically in Leviticus 11; however, it is widely accepted in Midrashic literature that God had informed the Patriarchs about these distinctions.
The understanding of clean animals likely stemmed from their suitability for sacrifices, which Noah honored in his worship. Thus, while the Mosaic laws were primarily aimed at dietary regulations, Noah's actions reflected a pre-existing understanding of what constituted a clean animal for offerings. The text emphasizes Noah's righteousness, allowing him to be chosen for the ark, yet it leaves unanswered how he acquired this knowledge about animals.
Ultimately, God's directives to Noah and the sacrifices made after the Flood with clean animals underscore the importance of this distinction, possibly dating back to revelations given to early patriarchs.
What Does The Bible Say About Bugs?
Insects are addressed in the Bible, particularly regarding dietary laws in Leviticus. The text specifies that certain insects are permissible for consumption, like locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers (Leviticus 11:22). However, all winged insects that walk on four legs are deemed detestable; consuming them makes one unclean until evening if they touch a dead specimen (Leviticus 11:23-24). The scripture emphasizes a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable insects, highlighting the significance of ecological balance and hygiene in biblical teachings.
Insects serve not only as dietary lessons but also as metaphors within biblical narratives. From plagues of locusts in Exodus to admonitions about diligence using ants in Proverbs, they illustrate broader moral and ethical lessons throughout scripture. The prohibition against "thou shalt not kill" pertains explicitly to the premeditated murder of humans, leaving the killing of insects, such as pests in the home, without biblical restriction.
In addition to dietary laws, the ecological relationship between humans and insects is emphasized in various parts of the Bible, where these creatures symbolize various virtues and vices. They appear consistently throughout both the Old and New Testaments, with noteworthy mentions in texts evaluating cleanliness and divine providence.
While the Bible outlines specific insects as forbidden, it is clear there aren't overarching restrictions against the idea of consuming insects, as the Old Testament laws were primarily directed toward the Jewish population. Overall, the Bible presents insects in a multifaceted light, indicating their presence in both the spiritual and daily lives of believers.
What Did God Say To Noah About The Animals?
In this passage, God speaks to Noah and establishes a covenant with him, his descendants, and every living creature that emerged from the ark. This covenant signifies a new relationship between humans and animals, indicating that animals will serve as a source of sustenance for humanity. The theological implications highlight God's enduring relationship with creation, reaffirming the goodness with which He made every creature.
God instructs Noah and his family to exit the ark, bringing forth all kinds of living creatures—birds, livestock, and ground animals—so they may multiply and populate the earth. This directive reflects God's intent for the creatures to thrive post-flood. God had previously told Noah to gather two types of animals: clean and unclean, and mandated that seven pairs of clean animals, as well as pairs of unclean animals and birds, be taken into the ark to preserve their species.
Noah is regarded as righteous, chosen to ensure the survival of life on earth. When the rain begins, Noah and his family, alongside the animals—each entering as commanded by God—find refuge in the ark. Remarkably, God commands the animals to approach Noah, illustrating His sovereignty over creation. While miraculous provision for their care is possible, the text indicates that God’s authority is sufficient for guiding these creatures. Thus, the passage reflects God's care for both humanity and animals and sets a foundation for their ongoing coexistence following the flood.
📹 God Did NOT Allow This Creature To ENTER Noah’s Ark.
Speech is completely original and produced exclusively by Grace Digital Network ▻Music licensed through Artlist.io ▻Footage …
For me, arguments for the Ark story begin and end with one simple fact: There were apparently a great many civilizations who were apparently unaware of this global flood because they just kept on doing their thing and developing during that time with no records of it ever happening. …Yeah. To me that’s not even a nail in the coffin, that’s just ‘the coffin’.
People mock your Ark, because you have proven yourself, that the Ark is impossible. You used steel components Concrete buildings You couldn’t even put a small zoo in there You had to install a modern ventilation system You had to dedicate most of the space to staircases Etc. And still it’s extremely hot in there. And then there is their own zoo… Yeah… AIG actually did a perfect job at discrediting the story even more than it already was…
Growing up in Central Africa, I always asked myself how the local animals crossed the Sahara desert to board onto the Ark. My Sunday school teacher and my High School teachers couldn’t agree on how it happened. That was the beginning of my questioning the veracity of the Bible. As a very inquisitive mind, I never let go of these doubts. When I moved to the USA, I expanded my questions to: How about the Kangoroos? How about the Penguins? …etc. I only got unconvincing answers. I’m glad to see, I wasn’t the only one who got confused by this book.
All old wooden warships leaked, and required the manual pumps to be run, usually at least an hour per day. Moreso in heavy seas where both direct hull leaks from flexing planks would be greater, but also water landing on the open deck and dripping down through to the bilges. In the British Navy this was a great way to punish wrongdoers, and you can always find a wrongdoer if you need one. It was repetitive and exhausting work. I don’t think Noah’s family could have manned the pumps enough to keep the arc afloat even if their time wasn’t already over-allocated growing food (somehow), feeding the animals, and mucking them out every day.
One thing I never see people bringing up when discussing the impossibility of the Ark is the time it would take 8 people to care for the animals. Even with the number of animals that AIG gives it is absurd. It would literally take more hours than there are in a month to feed and clean up after all the animals once and that’s if they take only a half hour to do this for each “kind”.
There was a replica ark that floated! Well it was a lot smaller than they one in Kentucky. And when I say floated I mean was towed along on a barge. It was so seaworthy that when it was towed into Ipswich, the coast guard impounded it for 20 months while safety measures were improved. Before letting it be towed back to the Netherlands. So an Ark almost crossed the English website (sortof).
“It’s like they think that everything in kids books are accurate depictions of reality.” Why are we surprised? They were taught biblical literalism as kids (the ones that didn’t convert later in life, anyway) and they still believe it to be true 30+ years later. Why wouldn’t they fear any other book to be treated likewise?
Here’s what I don’t understand: If they already believe in the miracle of Noah and his family building the ark and they already believe in the miracle of Noah and his family rounding up all the animals and they already believe in the miracle of all that water coming from nowhere and disappearing to nowhere why do Christians try to come up with naturalistic explanations for any other part of the story? Like trying to explain the feeding and cleaning up after all the animals. I would just say that the animals entered the ark laid down and hibernated the whole trip. They did not eat or poop the whole time and god miraculously sustained them. What’s one more miracle in a story already chock full of miracles?
~14:00. Hull design is a complicated field. Length to beam ratio plays a rule, but there are many other factors, such as hull form, stabilization technology, and material construction. In general. A longer boat (higher LBR) will pitch less in heavy seas A shorter boat (lower LBR) will roll less. LBR also has other effects on a ship’s handling characteristics. There is a balance to be found, but that balance needs to take far more into account than just the LTB and the freeboard of a ship, and having stumbled onto a plausible set of ratios is not impressive. Just scall up a smaller boat, and it will be about right. Note: I am no naval engineer, take everything I say with a grain of salt.
AiG’s ark disproves the flood. A boat that size would be: A. Too large to be seaworthy on calm waters, much less a raging flood event. B. Not large enough to house all the animals by themselves, even before we then include all the food needed for them. C. Massively understaffed relative to the needed amount of keepers to maintain the animal’s health. D. A methane death trap. Even with modern ventilation, that many animals in that space would see most of them die within a couple days from methane poisoning. That’s why we don’t believe the story, not because it looks like a cartoon on kid’s books. That and there is no geologic, genetic, dendocronologic, archaeological, anthropogenic, or palaeontological evidence of a world wide flood at that time.
Problems gathering animals 1. Distinguishing kinds Noah would have no way to distinguish between “kinds”, since some animals look like other kinds. He would not know to classify a Thylacine (“Tasmanian Tiger”) as a marsupial 🦘 instead of a cat or dog without giving it a very personal examination. If the hyper evolution required of the AiG scenario occurred, by the time of the Flood, up to 100 years after Yahweh’s announcement, there would be new species and Noah would have to be almost constantly comparing to see whether he had two of each “kind” (a word that is never defined, but seems to be as vague in Hebrew as in English). How did Noah know which species a bug belonged to? At different ages, etc, they can look very different and two species can almost identical. 2. -Geography There was no way for animals to know to cross thousands of miles of land and water to get to Noah from, for example, North and South America. But it may be worse than that. Noah was supposed to “bring” them (6:19 tabi, 7:2 tiqqah, same root as capture). The implication seems to be that he is supposed to go get them. And they needed to all return to their native land. How? One apologetic is that Pangea split about that time, so there was only one land mass. That doesn’t help the overall argument, since 1. it would have created a greater heat problem due to the hyper tectonic friction and 2. It would put the story at 200 million (2* 10^8) years ago, more than 45,000 times as old as the Bible indicates.
11:45 The food situation on the ark is even worse. Instead of haven food on board for a year, it must be at least for 2-3 years. It takes a year to get new crops and I’n not even starting about the salt poisening of the ground. A lot will not grow for years. Further more, they ended on top of an mountain. I do not know the bible well, but does it say how long it took until the lowlaying plains where water free? And where is the food for the animals who became magicaly carnivores? I did send these questions both to Ken Ham and convid Hovind, but so far no answers.
Just a thought. While grain tends to keep for a pretty long time, fruits and veggies… not so much. I don’t know about any one else, but at my house, fresh fruits and veggies don’t tend to stay fresh after a couple weeks, let alone the several months they would be needed on the Ark. Outside of reserving a significant portion of the Ark for a farm and an orchard, due to space already being an issue, how did they keep the fruits and veggies available? Preserving via pickling, salting and drying, I really don’t see happening on the Ark. Spatial constraints and the sweaty atmosphere caused by so many bodies in a confined area would deny such attempts.
If we do some math, (correct me if I’m wrong) 510ft length x 85ft width x 3 levels = 130,050sqft. Divide that by 16,000 animals = 8.128125sqft per animal. Is a 4ft x 2ft rectangle enough space for each animal to live for a year? This doesn’t even take into account food for a year, the family, the structure of the boat, etc. Another problem I’m concerned about is the waste management. If every animal poops every day, wouldn’t this equate to 86,400 seconds (seconds per day) divided by 16,000 animals giving us a poop every 5.4 seconds? Times this number by the 8 people who can help pick up poop gives all of them picking up poop every 43.2 seconds nonstop for a year. Hope he put in poop slides to get rid of the waste. This would only add to the lack of space issue. Let me know what you think.
I found out my co-worker is a young earth creationist and they said “there are things about evolution that don’t make sense.” I was like: That’s because you believe in a young earth… there are things about evolution that don’t make sense without the big time scale. Also people tend to confuse Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution. These are all different concepts. My coworker knows I’m a deist. Like when it comes down to the beginning of the universe, I don’t know enough to not consider a higher power as an impersonal God that could like create universes or whatever.
So, when you hear someone like Dr. Purdom talk about this story turned literal nightmare with the rise of biblical literalism, it really puts all of the problems into perspective. Knowing what we know about just the creatures alive today, so many problems start cropping up. She just starts to wave her hands in giant circles and hopes people in the audience accept her authority on everything as she slaps duct tape over every plot hole. She is standing on stage, making those that already buy her books nonsense feel better about being ignorant. Anyone that doesn’t though? She is just highlighting all of the problems, that require an actor of god to get around if you actually dig deeper than “well it makes sense if you think about it.”
The Doctor saving the animals makes a lot of sense, they are the kind of person to do that. My cat loves eating his grass. Not to throw up, he just likes eating it. He eats it like a salad, before his actual meal. He also likes to catch and eat dry leaves in autumn. It confused my vet when I told her.
“Don’t worry about the fish, they had plenty of water.” Do you know what happens to a trout when you toss it in the ocean, lady? It dies. And relatively quickly too. A Biblically accurate Flood would’ve subjected all freshwater and ocean fish to brackish water, which means… all the fish would die. Then all the predators that used to eat those fish would die. And all the marine animals that can only live on coastlines? Dead. As for the plants? They’re dead too. The trees and bushes and grasses and the bacteria and fungi that keep them alive? And the coral reefs? Seagrass? Kelp? Seaweed? Deprived of light and dead. Algae? Dead. The animals would have disembarked the Ark to find nothing to eat but each *other*.
Did they even stop to think, how much more, in both weight and volume, vegetation that a vegetarian animal eats, compared to the amount of meat, that a carnivore eats? Meat is concentrated energy, whereas eating plants, takes mass consumption (not to mention, a specific kind of GI tract, in order to stimulate fermentation), as well as redigesting, just to get half of the nutrients out of it. This is why animals like cows and wild buffalo, gazelles, bison etc., spend most of their time grazing. Even while they’re sleeping they’re burping up cud, and redigesting it. So they’re even eating, while they’re sleeping. Where do you put all this vegetable matter that these animals apparently eat on the ark? On the ark itself?Get real, you would need at least 5 more arks just to carry the food.
11:20 anyone know the Biblical justification for the ram and the big “flange” on the other end that sticks into the air? Do they think such a morphology would compensate for the lack of steering or propulsion? That isn’t going to prevent the Ark from being hit broadside by waves. There is a reason even modern designed ships don’t do too well when immobilized in a storm.
35:08 OH MY GODS! My cat is so weird! She loves eating meat, but also strawberries, watermelon, broccoli, peas, tomatoes…. she will eat anything, and trying to keep her from eating to many fruits and veggies is actually a daily chore 😅 It seems like every cat, does anything they can to make their owner think they have the weirdest cat ever! 🤣 Also I want to reiterate how much I love your website. The work that you do has such an amazing impact on the world. Thank you, thank you, thank you! I’m wringing my hands in anticipation, for when my husband and I can support our lists of favorite websites. (You’re way high on mine… like you, Paulogia, and GMS are all tied for my number 1 slot) I know I can be obnoxious sometimes, but I REALLY appreciate everything you do!
Fun fact: worms that live in soil crawl to the surface when it rains, cause they can drown in the soil. Edit: my cat loves eating practically anything, including bread, potatoes, pizza, etc. If you have it, she generally wants it. (We don’t let her actually eat it, she just bugs the living daylights out of you for it)
I’m just gonna guess on the comfort vs stability thing. It’s possible that they’re referring to 2 different kinds of stability. The one kind means it’s hard to make it roll at all, while the other kind means it prefers to be upright and will roll back to it if at another angle. Like if you rolled a vessel to 45 degrees, would it remain there, would it continue its roll, or would it recover back to the upright?
Even taking the smallest number, 1,398 (so 2,796 since we have two of each) that is, on average, about 1/6 of a semi trailer per animal. And that’s not setting aside any room for Noah and his family, storage, or walkways between the habitats. Now, yeah, some “kinds” can do with significantly less space than that, but we also have things like horses that need a lot of room to exercise in.
There’s another key differnce between the Wyoming and the hypothetical ark. The Wood used. Different woods perform differently in water and the wood Noah would have been using. Also I think they need to consider well.. do you have an idea of how much food a buffalo eats in a day? Or an Elephant. EVen a Juvenile one would have to be eating quite a bit. And then add to the fact that many animals are social animals who have to learn from their parents. This is very true of many predatory animals. But this also brings up the sheer volume of food they’d have to pack on the arc. Food and drinkable water.
That line about it’s not about what they like, it’s about surviving when referencing what a t-rex would eat made me laugh out loud. Like wtf, are they telling this to only to small children, if you try to feed a carnvor only plants they will either not eat at all or eat and die? This has to be one of the dumbest statements of all time.
They would have needed a second ark just for the food, grains fruit etc… just for the herbivorous animals. Because plant matter is harder to digest and process herbivorous animals need to consume more. So by having carnivorous animals eat the same competing food would have made a logistical nightmare. That’s not even considering spoilage from the inevitable water leakage, pest infestation, fungi, grain heating and the fact you can’t store fresh fruit more than a few weeks without refrigeration and you definitely can’t store fresh fruit for a year with refrigeration.
Leviticus 19:19 Different “kinds” …may refer to copulation rather than reproduction. In 20:16 a similar word appears to be copulation only, since it refers to bestiality. And the word translated as Kind is not the usual one. But creationists shouldn’t take a victory lap here. It still means that the animals themselves (or at least one of them) chose to boff an animal of another type, as if God had not taught them the importance of the difference
It was not brought up in this article, but I was thinking about the idea that pre-flood people were “engaged in every kind of sin”, and the bogus explanation of the fossil record that some creationists put forward that animals would have tried to run away from the flood, which indirectly sorted them based on their speed… However, if humans were engaged in every sort of evil, that would include fighting, murder, gluttony, sloth, and possibly suicidal ideation there should have been humans that could not ( or would not) have run away from the flood, predicting their fossil remains would be fairly low in the geologic strata… I know the idea that “the fossils in the geologic column are sorted based on the speed of animals running away up hill” idea is absurd for a number of reasons, but certain types of “sin” would leave at least some humans as slow as the most rudimentary animals, to say nothing of human corpses, and I don’t think I have ever heard that pointed out as part of a counter argument.
13:40 My best guess for what’s going on with that chart, is that “comfortable” was the wrong word. If you think about it the other way around, what would a long-skinny boat be useful for? It would not be good for holding a total number of animals. A square (or circle) is best for maximum area. But it would provide the most room in between animals. Which for a lack of a better word, I could see how they would use the word “comfortable” for that. But in reality, I think they meant “spacious.” But then again, who ever made that chart may have specifically avoided the word “spacious,” as that is again the same thing as stability. Idk this is a really confusing chart. Because why is maximum strength on here? Literally every boat should have it’s maximum strength. I can not imagine any situation (where cost isn’t the main contender) that minimum or less strength would be good. But the chart clearly demonstrates that Noah’s Arch is not maximally strong. It’s half way to minimum weakness. Perhaps the top one was meant to be cost/resources? Wait… why is a taller boat automatically mean stronger boat? Stronger is about it’s shape and construction… Shit man, they’re obviously trying to show the ratio of height, width, and length. Why did they slap these weird labels on them?
First off, I never expected to see Helena (Orphan Black) in one of these articles. Lol Second, just listening to the shorthand version of the reasoning is tiring. If I was a christian and wasn’t questioning on any other level, how much stretching and circling requires to come to one conclusion would make me question the bible. (For context, I was raised catholic, so that thought process isn’t completely lost on me. I just had the curiosity to internally question it for a number of things outside of the mental gymnastics.)
The Elephantine papyri shows that neither the Jewish sect there NOR the high priests in Jerusalem had ANY version of the first five books of the bible, as late as 411 BC. No Adam and Eve, no Noah, no Abraham, no Moses, no Exodus. Scholars like Russell Gmirkin argue the Torah was composed in Hebrew just prior to the Greek translation into the Septuagint a few centuries later, based on the bible clearly including rewritten Greek myths such as by Plato. But even a post-411 date drives a spear through the historical accuracy of genesis, etc. The most important thing here is that these biblical stories are NOT some ancient accounts faithfully passed on through the generations. They are not to be believed any more than the works of Hans Christian Anderson nor the Brothers Grimm represent true bits of medieval history.
Did Noah also need to go around the globe collecting all knowledge from every skilled person on the planet or did the animals provide a document delivery service to fill Noah’s knowledge library on the great boat? But given that at Noah’s time all the skilled folk are killed by g0d and the four males left to continue the human race somehow managed to keep all the knowledge of every skill perhaps in addition to the menagerie collection before folks could read or write a vast library was also stored on the great boat but all that would only have been lost again after the events of the Tower of Babel? How did human kind achieve anything after these two intellectually devastating loses.
Do they always comment on “This is the visual most associated with the ark, and I’m here to dispel that silly notion.” whilst referring to the cartoon depictions because they somehow recognize that most people who take biblical scripture as literal might be a little too accustomed to never questioning things in a book, so they feel the need to spell out when they don’t want people to take things literally? My TL;Dr version of: “AIG followers have been trained to be so gullible, they’ll believe any fairy tale.”
Ark-Building Problem 🚢 Noah seems to have no experience with building or managing a boat of any kind. In Genesis 5:29, Noah’s father Lamech comments on his difficult work with the ground, so they were portrayed as a family of farmers. There is no mention of Noah switching to shipbuilding. Noah receives minimal instructions on how to build a boat and he doesn’t ask for instructions. One might infer that the authors did not intend for people to take the story literally. It is not a matter of fastening logs together any old way. If you doubt this, go out on the ocean on a boat built by someone building their first boat using only the instructions in Genesis. Put on your life vest before you board. Aside: Irving Finkel (a delightful speaker) on The Oriental Institute YouTube website, created “The Ark Before Noah: a Great Adventure”. Boats built in that area were round. The Genesis 6 author may have had an oval boat in mind. The shape is not mentioned in Genesis 6. Tessarakonteres, Ptolemy Philopator’s long “warship” was a show boat. It was untenable as a sailing vessel. The Wyoming was the longest working wooden ship ever documented and “… had to use pumps to keep her hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, she foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands.” The Ark had no pumps and it was longer, so its planks would have twisted and buckled under less pressure than Wyoming endured. The Ark also wasn’t built or staffed by professionals.
Science: Having well-educated specialists talk about their field of expertise, so that the audience has a credible source. Grifters: Having well-educated specialists NOT talk about their field of expertise, so they can tout that they have a well-educated specialist, even if they’re speaking outside of their specialty.
Bear in mind that I’m not a biologist, but… Imagine that you’re a lion. You just survived the great flood, and now you’re back in Africa. And now, after such a grueling experience, you’re pretty hungry. So you do what any hungry lion does, and you eat…I dunno, a zebra. Only one zebra left now, which means no more zebras. Congratulations, you’ve just hunted the zebra to extinction! Pretty quickly, stuff’s going to get worse for just about every prey animal, until the predators have to either starve, or make like the Donner party. Either way, you’re doomed too.
I would like to point out that the Israelites didn’t have much at all in the way of iron until at least the Book of Judges, what with them getting steamrolled with God explicitly unable to do anything about it by plains tribes with iron chariots. Noah is pre-Israelite. So iron cross-beams seems like a no go. Maybe softer bronze ones?
Look, if you ever watch the BBC4 show “Would I Lie To You”, the way they come up with some of the wild stories on that show remind me of how much silliness an apologist has to do trying to convince people their story is ‘true’. Also, the TV show is actually funny – where the apologists are just sad.
So by their own admission, there were about 16 000 animals crammed in a space of around 500 semi-trailers (weird American measurement I assume) so about 32 animals per every trailer. While, I would argue, the average size between all the animals would be quite small considering the disproportional amount of insects on board, the amount of food and water needed for all aboard (plus all the extras created on the cruise) would make it a bit of a tight squeeze. Not to mention that some of that space would be lost to a separate compartment for all the feces generated, unless Noah was willing to keep it all in the same space with the animals and/or the food, which would explain the rapid rate of extinctions if we’re generous and willing to throw Noah under the buss. Note that all of this was calculated by quick googling so if someone is mad enough to do more accurate calculations, I’d be interested to hear how much off base my quick assumptions were. (editorial note: my dumbass wrote 8000 animals and later realized it was the number of species so corrected the numbers, which made it even worse for all involved. Oops. Safe to say the position of “confort” in the triangle from the study AIG referenced was pretty damn generously placed in the middle)
The ark is way to small to fulfil it’s purpose AND way to large for any wooden ship to stay afloat, even in totally becalmed conditions. Ark encounter can not host live animals EVEN with modern ventilation. Live animals had to be replaced with animatronics so that the visitors would not die. Ark encounter was built over two years by a large construction crew using modern tools and machinery, getting their wood already in beam and planks form AND not having to provide for their food. Ark encounter can’t float. Ark encounter is still to small. Depending on the source, a «kind» can be a kingdom, a phylum, a class, an order, a family, a genus, a specie or even a variety within a specie. I’ve seen examples of every cases. I’ve seen a case where a chiwawa and a doberman are deemed different kinds because their size difference prevent them from breeding together.
“Look at all the dogs” Yeah, the dogs are one species or one sub-species with a very large variety of breeds.They’re not thousands of species ^^ The family of the dogs is the Canidae, with dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, etc…. I don’t remember any breeding between foxes and wolves ^^’ And it’s even better with cats, the Felidae family include cats, lions, lynxes, pantheras, etc… How exactly does lions and cats breed? There is some hybrids between a lion and a tigress, but that’s all ^^ Or let’s talk about the cows. If the kind is at a family level, then cows, sheeps, goats, antelopes, wilderbeest, etc…. are all the same kind. Once again, good luck to breed a bison with a Dik-dik :p And I’m pretty sure the Bible makes the difference between cows, sheeps and goats, as they know very well these animals ^^
“All dogs are actually the same species” Yeahhhh….. But if there were no living dogs and we had only recovered their skeletal remains, we would likely classify them as several different species. The definition of species really needs to be refined. I think looking at genetic differences rather than species labels is more effective here
I mean AiG certainly did just arbitrarily pick “Family”. It was big enough to make everything fit adequately on the Ark, but small enough to avoid dramatic examples of “macroevolution” that would be too obvious. They don’t use a definition. They don’t ever mention that evolution within a family level clade in that rapid a timescale has never been observed ever and would be considered hyperspeciation.
Now I wonder, what if Noah saved only the animals in the Middle-East, because the flood only happened in the Middle-East? Suddenly, it’s a lot more belieavable, of course there’s still some problems (animals don’t simply walk into a boat, the Ark is still too large and not seaworthy, etc….), but I think taht’s more what the writers of the book had in mind. Bcause, you know, they knew mainly the Middle-East XD
I came across an article on the ark that I had not considered but it shows how stupid the story is. They had two of each animal or each kind as they are saying now to try fit them all in. But what happened when the flood was over and the animals were released. The carnivores would start eating the herbivores and as there were only two of each this would be pretty disastrous.
She needs to read her Bible again Genesis 7:23 “Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.” Genesis 1 only mentions animals birds creatures that move along the ground and fish. So either insects were on the ark with everything else or God didn’t create insects.
The biggest wooden ships ever built (still smaller than the ark) were only used near the costs and the crew had to constantly pump out the infiltrating water. Those ships were built at the end of the 19th century by expert nautical engineers, not random dudes who lived millennia ago. To this day it would be impossible to build such a thing with the same materials and tools.
Oh, an arc-themed cruise could actually be really cool! You could totally cheat–steel infrastructure and a wood facade, or even just steel and textured to look like wood, nobody would really care. Find some animals that don’t get seasick and have a little petting zoo on board, maybe serve a fruit-heavy vegetarian “pre-flood” diet during the cruise, make all the entertainments and kids programming acceptable to the kind of Xian that would want to go on a Noah’s Ark cruise… it could be fun! Which is why they won’t do it.
A long hull mostly works to counteract “heave” which is the linear vertical motion of the ship caused by waves, as well as pitching. Having the ship be long enough to span the peaks of multiple waves goes a long way to smooth its position. The linear scales of this type of diagram is definitely not ideal to represent that smoothing, and it’s obviously not the only factor in the comfort of a ship. Maybe they had something else in mind, but it at least isn’t totally nonsense.
My cat’s crazy for bread. Anything we leave on the counter, she’ll chew thru the bag to get to the bread. And my wife is really fond of setting her English muffins or bagels on the counter by the toaster like an hour ahead of when she plans to eat, then getting surprised and angry that the cat got into it. But, yeah, what we feed the cat on purpose is fish/chicken based, ‘cause obligate carnivore.
Just a trivial matter but no how stable a ship is, it’s gonna rock in heavy seas and my understanding is that a more stable hull will oscillate much more violently than one that tends to roll more easily, so to achieve maximum comfort you have to strike a balance between how far the ship will roll and how quickly she rights herself.
I don’t understand why Christians tie themselves in knots to justify all this obnoxiously dumb stuff in the bible when they could just wave it all away with 🌟magic🌟. Sorry, I mean miracles. Like why go through all these hoops? Why bear false witness – I mean, lie and mislead – when they’ve got the perfect excuse ready to rock for every possible objection?
Ironically, on a forum, a long time ago, I did posit an idea for a Doctor Who story (note the deliberate use of the word.. Doctor.. and not Dr. to show my era), that involved a planet where humans were going to use Dalkek tech to move it to destroy a cyberman fleet. however the humans were being killed by what seems to be Dalek fire. Turns out that the planet has a primitive indegenmous population that would be killed by the proposal if completed. Investigation reveals a lone FDalek, stranded on the world and using damaged tech to extend its life against inherent ultimately fatal injuries. Believing the Daleks to be dead, this Dalek had created a new mission.. to preserve a legacy of Daleks, not as destroyers, but as artificers. In doing this it was guiding the population towards an enlightened pacive future, and was killing the humans to try to preserve the race it was now protecting. Discovering what was happening The Doctor informs the Dalek that he is willing to transfer the tribe to another world, in the past to preserve them, so the Cyber fleet can be destroyed. The Dalek agrees.. and is surpriused when the Doctor also invites him to trabvel with them to the new world and time, taking the Daleks medical system with them. Sooo…. One of my many Heresies (in this case concernningg Doctor Who) did evoke a concept of ‘The Ark’ Sorry nr. Rhino beat you to the punch.;
So Ken and the Ham Bones completely ignore the irony of the amount of work it takes to care for 200 animals, let alone 16,000 animals. Also, these people are also surely aware the husbandry requirements of different species … they can’t even be bothered to have them on the toy boat full time because they know housing them in the boat will kill them.
I always love their implication that “mocking our creationist stupidity is the same thing as mocking Christianity as a whole!” Like…no. There are plenty of reasons to mock Christian beliefs, but those have little to do with believing that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and that t-rex ate watermelons.
Over now to our speciation correspondent, “Kent, what’s happening at the moment?” “Well thank you Ray,” cough, cough, “At 3.25 we’re expecting a Thompsons Gazelle followed by a Bomdardier Beetle at 3.26, innerestingly”, cough, cough, “More, imminently, OK, go ahead”, cough, cough, cough (contd ad infinitum…….
Did they hand-feed the last of the melon stash to the T-Rex after they landed? I am sure it would have taken quite some time to grow new veggies and fruits for all the carnivores to eat to prevent them eating all the weaker animals. Besides that without preserving methods we have today, all the fruits and veggies would have rotted during the year long haul. Even the grains without modern preserves may have spoiled. As we say in the SE, The math ain’t mathing.
I say grant them the 16,000 animals. 1. 4000 years is far too generous, that sort of assumes that boop – last week we discovered buffalo, and at that rate, certainly wouldn’t new critters be popping out weekly? but fine – let’s say magic, all the ‘evolution’ happened in 400 years. 2. No way to make the numbers work for 16,000. No way for 600 to be justifiable with a small family maintaining them for a year. let alone in a world where you don’t just bowl up to the feed store with an amesx platinum and have thousands of people gather all the food and load it for you. and it was two of the unclean, 5 of the clean wasn’t it?
Concerning the volume of the ark: I read somewhere that a large percentage of the volume of a wooden ship is taken up with bracing. So that’s even less space for their fanciful number of animals. Also: Creationists never mention plants. Reading Genesis, you get the idea that the flood waters just rose up and then drained away, and there were all the wet trees and shrubs and grasses sparkling in the sunlight as if after a summer rain, no harm done. Not quite what you’d expect from modern creationists idea of a raging, tumultuous, churning storm.
Agreed, the Ark is prime mockable material. Actually, it was just a houseboat for his own domestic animals. Noah measured the runoff every spring and noticed every year it got higher. So, he took steps to mitigate any possible harm that might come to his household should the runoff be extra high in years to come. Not a “worldwide flood” (how could the author even know that?). perusal Inherit the Wind, I thought I heard Spencer Tracy ask Brady, “what about the fishes?” but I guess I must have imagined it.
Yeah it’s fun to think of some fishes as technically having the “breath of life” since it may be hard to define what that is. The labyrinth organ in labyrinth fishes is essentially a modified gill, and fishes like the mentioned bichir and lungfish have a primitive lung and need to breathe atmospheric air not unlike how we do. I guess you don’t count if you have a… transitional… form of lung. Also random but if I remember correctly, the plural of Genus is Genera!
Well that thought experiment with the embryos is not a very good one. For one the person might not have the strength to carry the large container of embryos. Two it is not like the machine that keeps them frozen is fully self sustaining and you can’t just carry them by hand either so you don’t really have a way to save them.
An Ark is a box, not a boat… the Ark is a lot more believable if you think of it as walkable dam between two points; Its great length is arbitary because it wouldn’t be built in an open field, but between two points to block water from both sides. Think something like a deep wadi if someone (perhaps Noah) expected a natural dam to breach in a few years and so built a structure to keep his pasture safe and if things get worse it can act as a walkway/tunnel(?) between two high points on the wadi.
… and that’s not even going into the seven pairs of the clean animals, as AIG themselves acknowledge, that would add another big chunk … Also, supposedly they found a living olive tree. What olive tree survives a full year (or however long it actually was) of being completely underwater (which it must have been if the bird couldn’t it find before the water receded)? And on, and on, and on … there’s no end of problems with that story.
An Ark-shaped TARDIS really would be an interesting take on this. Kind of like The Doctor saving a family of Romans from the wrath of Vulcan at Pompei, only with a family of Israelites from the wrath of Yahweh. Then one of his companions pleads with him to save all the other animals as well, so TARDIS trips galore begin and end in seemingly no time. He could even pick arbetrary points throughout time to collect the various evolved species.
Something occurs to me. On the one hand, “kind” is super broad. All cats are “cat kind”. A lion and a tiger and serval are all of the “cat kind” so it’s not evolution. But then, “animals bring forth after their kind” – that’s part of the definition. So, can a lion and a serval “bring forth” a tabby? So how are they the same “kind” then?
How was the ark supposed to have been put together in the Biblical story? It was made of timber and sealed with pitch, but I don’t think they had nails back then. So did each piece of wood have joints and nodules that allowed them to “snap” together like legos (like the wooden barge of Khafre), or were the timbers just lashed together with straw and then covered with pitch?
My main criticism to the Abrahamic god if it existed is why didn’t he instruct when the bed bugs and mosquitoes were being loaded onto the ark with the T rexes and brontosaurus could not just whisper in Noah’s ear…. “no one will notice.. just drop the bed bugs and mosquitoes in the water. My creations have suffered enough”.
Years ago, I had a “discussion” with a christian – we all know it rather was me stating facts and him ignoring them all. Like Constructing a ship of that size with the means of the time. Salt and fresh water fish dead. All plants dead and nothing to eat for the herbivores which in turn would go extinct the moment a predator got one of them. Torque and flex of the wood and resulting in sinking. Getting rid of animal feces. Tending for all the animals with 20 to 45 seconds per animal per day per person, depending on the number of animals you use and if Noah and gang are allowed to eat or sleep. The required food – this was a doozy … the guy actually claimed, gawd gave Noah nutrition pills. Evidence? When did believers bother with evidence? Oh, and the best evidence the boat existed? Wood floats. And the best part of the stgory as is told? The first thing Noah and gang do the moment they leave the boat is to kill a bunch of animals, basically genociding them. And gawd tells them everything that moves is food, yaih cannibalism? Hey, these people want literal, no human exception, therefore I’m right.
That their “kinds” puts mammal kinds at almost twice as much as any other kind exposes their bias. I bet all turtles (and likely tortoises) are one “kind” as well as crocodilians, regardless of the fact of their long and complex history as evidenced by the fossil record, but mammals deserve special separation.
A note on abortion and the Bible. The interpretation of Exodus 21 22 was changed in most US Bibles after Roe v Wade. If you can get an older, say 1960’s era Bible it will probably say: If two men strive with each other and one strikes a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage . . . . It did not say that she gave premature birth. My housemates old Catholic Bible even uses the term “miscarriage”. That shows quite a bit of desperation on the part of the antiabortionists.
The thing that gets me the most about the arc story is that nothing at all needed to eat apparently. Not termites nor anteaters, koalas or lions, zebras… There’s supposed to be creatures on the ark that eat all sorts of things they wouldn’t have on the ark in amounts they couldn’t store. It’s all bad Also, 420 atheist: 🤙
Just wondering. Fresh water fish can not survive in salt water, salt water fish can not survive in fresh water. The rain that caused the flood was most likely fresh water. So what I am wondering is was all the water fresh or salty or a mixture and would any fish survive in that. No-one seems to talk about that. Edit: I typed this before you talked about it. 🙂
Mount Everest is almost 9 km high, so the water is a bit higher than that. This means that bodem dwellers on the ocean can’t survive, plus the delicate ecosystem most see lives require to survive is gone. And how would the plant life come back after the salt water got back to pre flood levels? The soil would not be suited for most plant life, plus most trees require decades to grow to a descent size. There is no way the Arc story can truly happened. Except if it was all done by magic!
(Leibniz’s contingency argument for God, clarified): Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D. 0 and it’s geometric counterpart 0D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) not-natural (not-physical) 4) necessary 1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) natural (physical) 4) contingent Newton says since 0 and 0D are “not-natural” ✅ then they are also “not-necessary” 🚫. Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are “natural” ✅ then they are also “necessary” 🚫. This is called “conflating” and is repeated throughout Newton’s Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. con·flate verb combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one. Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes. Leibniz’s “Monadology” 📚 is zero and it’s geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space. 0D Monad (SNF) 1D Line (WNF) 2D Plane (EMF) 3D Volume (GF) We should all be learning Leibniz’s Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3). Newton’s 1D-4D “natural ✅ = necessary 🚫” universe is a contradiction. Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different. Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary. Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything. Leibniz’s Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚…
The Korean naval architect’s study is far more illegitimate than explained here. Among their rules for deciding the optimal shape they limited themselves to factor of 2 changes to dimensions. The optimal shape is a circle if you don’t artificially limit the range of shapes. — And logically: The design described in the Bible is that of a river barge. People had been building river barges for centuries so the expectation would be that they experimented enough to find the optimal design. Trial and error, aka evolution, is good at finding optima without having a rigorous mathematical formula guiding the process. It is not a sign of heavenly intervention for people to display knowledge that can be gained by secular activities.
No, I do look at children’s book depictions of the ark and believe that’s what a lot of Christians believe to be an accurate depiction. Probably because I view their beliefs as childish. Probably because I held those same beliefs when I was a child. So that “daddy will be back any minute now” line fits pretty well…
5:50 The world mocks them for having that ark not in spite of it. 16:39 This is also my take on miscarriages, but as expected, fundamentalists would blame the women for the miscarry. I mean who else can they blame? Hey Viced if I remember correctly AIG does have the answer to how the insects survived when Noah did not take them on the ark. The answer is: *drumroll, floating mats of vegetation and driftwood! Yup, these floating mats were responsible for keeping all the various insect species alive and well for the duration of the flood, don’t ask me how. They are also responsible for various other miraculous acts of salvation, like being post flood food for the various animals, even the carnivores because AIG belives that carnivorous and herbivorous are simply lifestyle choices for animals. They were also instumental in getting animal species to the right places after the flood should there be bodies of water in the way, and “some say” they worked tirelessly at their transport job and managed to get all the animals back to exactly where they needed to be. After that, their purpose was done and they died, becoming further nourishment for the next geberation of plants thereby cleansing them of their salted earth sins. They did not manage to rise from the dead though. So yeah floating mats of vegetation and driftwood did much heavy lifting and were the miracle workers of the flood era akin to what Jesus was in his era minus the resurrection. They were even able to solve problems that stumped even Noah proving that he should have built the ark out of driftwood and vegetation mats from the start.
1400 kinds, she says. Okay: eight people in the boat to care for these kinds, that’s 175 kinds for each person to care for every day. Assuming they work for 20 hours a day with no breaks, that’s 8.75 minutes to care for each kind. 8.75 minutes to fetch and distribute the feed for the elephants and then shovel their droppings out the single window. 8.75 minutes to then get from the elephants to the cheetahs and chop up their meat (or toss their salad – whatever those critters ate in those days) and then shovel their droppings out the single window. Then on to the next one, and the next, and the next… God is truly loving and merciful!
Ummm actually….. I don’t think the Berenstain Bears Family car is a convertible. I can’t find an image of it with a roof, and all the trivia calls it a “roadster” which is broader then just convertibles. Oddly, roadster seems to refer to a 2 seat vehicle that has no weather protection, and the car is definitely not a 2 seater…
It doesn’t even matter if they could fit all the PAIRS of animals in the arc. After a year of the flood, all the grassland and plants and trees would have disappeared, so the herbivores would have nothing to graize, but that wouldn’t matter either because as soon as the carnivores got out of the arc they would have eaten the herbivores…and the humans too, by the way.
The flood myth is pretty high on the list of indefensible bible stories, but dang it, AiG’s gotta try! I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… I’d appreciate it more if they just stick to miraculous means instead of easily falsifiable pseudoscience. The former is definitely more honest, in my opinion.
I would love to build a to-scale arc and try to sail it, without animals because that would just be cruel to kill so many. And of course, have plenty of life boats installed so the crew can leave when it does inevitably sink. It’d be highly unethical no matter what though. Because it would fail spectacularly. That’s why no creationists have ever truly tried it.
So… their position is that evolution is wrong because there have to be all parts in place so that a complex organism can function. And at the same time they claim you can stuff animals into a boat from all over the world and leave insects behind because they are not so important? And plants apparently too, because nobody needs plants and insects (and bacteria, and fungi, and …) to keep a biotope running… I would argue that if he save every single part, the complex mechanism that is a biotope wouldn’t work afterwards, wouldn’t it?
How could they just assert that the insects would survive off the Ark. This is a global ocean where the entire biosphere was destroyed by God (the Bible says all air breathing organisms died). So this would mean all mammals and birds died off the Ark, so their “vegetation mats” saving animals could not be allowed if holding to the Bible. Also vegetation mats would be destroyed plants that were uprooted and rolled in saltwater for months. Certainly no insects would survive very long given only a few insects have salt tolerance, and most have different life stages that need very specific conditions and hostplant associations. Some moths only live for a few days.
Could God have killed all humans in some other, more efficient way that didn’t involve also killing all the animals? Viruses are quite often species specific. For example, HIV effects ONLY humans. If is a mutation of a similar virus that effects monkeys, called SIV. If exposed to HIV monkeys don’t get sick. And if exposed to SIV humans don’t get sick. It seems that God could have created a virus that only effects humans and would leave the animals along. And, because He is God, he could have protected any humans who happened to be good.
Hell, if Christians could build a wooden constructed boat to the specifications in the Holy Bible using modern techniques and equipment, it would be an amazing task. From what I’ve read from engineers, there’s a reason no wooden boat has ever been made this big, because it’s effectively impossible, it would break under it’s own weight, let alone on the open ocean.
The only way you can take the Ark story seriously is if you take magic has the way they survived, God magically feed and took care of 98% of the animals while Noah and his family took care of the other 2%, that God use magic to make the dimensions within the ark much bigger to support all the animals. If we are talking every animal literally then God magically feed and took care well over 99% of the animals