How Did Noah and the Ark?

Go down

How Did Noah and the Ark? Empty How Did Noah and the Ark?

Post by Admin on Tue Jan 26, 2016 2:22 am

Kangaroos, lemurs, frogs and emus. Besides the obvious absurdity that Noah crammed 2 of each of more than 5,000 mammal species, 10,000 bird species, 1,000,000 insect species, and 9,000 reptile species in a 450-foot long boat, there are other biological problems with the Bible. Leaving aside all the evidence for evolution, we can look at current animal distribution to see that Noah’s Ark is bunk. Supposedly, Noah collected 2 of each animal into his boat and rode the Flood out for a year until he disembarked and released all of these animals from one point on Earth (legend says in Turkey). They then reproduced and spread out to where they are now. If this were true, animals would be present wherever they could have migrated since the Flood. Animals go where they can survive. That would mean that there would not be the kind of differences that we see in the world. Why are most marsupials in Australia? Are we really expected to believe that all the Kangaroos got off the Ark and made a beeline to Australia without leaving one behind on the mainland? Why did all the lemurs head for Madagascar? Why are the platyrrhines only found in the Western Hemisphere and catarrhines only in the Old World? How did all those animals get to Australia or any other island at all? Frogs cannot survive in salt water, so how did they get to Australia? I could list such problems in animal distribution forever. These questions are all easily answered by evolution, but they really make no sense if we accept Genesis.

This is an example of false assumption, the assumption being that every single species of animal, bird, insect and reptile came into the ark. That would not have been necessary. For instance, God would have needed one male and one female dog to come on board; He would not have needed a male and female of every kind of species, so the numbers presumed to have been on board is greatly reduced. Once disembarked from the ark, those two dogs would have begun the process of multiplying successive generations of dogs that, over time, would have created the many species of dogs that exist today. (Note: Many of the varieties of dogs that exist today are the result of human breeding, not natural variations of the species.) Also, these species could have been brought to the ark as young juveniles that would have matured during their time on the ark that would mean that, as they left the ark, they would have been mature and ready to mate within their species. Obviously juveniles would have been smaller than fully mature adults.
Regarding where animals ended up on the planet following the Flood, they would have spread out and thrived based on competition within an environment and the possibility of land bridges and other means of getting to different areas of the globe. It is suggested that ocean levels may have been different in the years immediately following the Flood, allowing passage to areas of the planet (such as Australia) that would not be available now. The idea of “land bridges” is a theory of how man migrated from Asia to the North American continent; why should that not be an option for animals such as the unique animal life of Australia? Too often the issues brought up by atheists and other nonbelievers are done with assumptions wearing the conditions found in today’s world—ocean levels, salinity of ocean water, etc. That is simply not valid. Finally, it was God who brought the animals together to the ark: You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 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—God speaking, Genesis 6:19-20. And that is exactly what happened: Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah—Genesis 7:8-9. It is God’s creation, to move as and where He wants. As surely as He brought the animals to a certain place, their distribution across the planet could have been just as much a product of His divine, miraculous direction. If you take God out of the process, of course it seems absurd. The absurdity actually speaks to the likelihood of God’s direction participation in the process.


Posts : 160
Join date : 2015-09-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum