Noah's Ark a DNA Bank?

Dan the Man

spoice
Nov 20, 2004
1,619
153
50
✟2,513.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
While I was waiting for my cracker jacks to heal this past week, I watched a show on the history channel where they theorized that rather than Noah's Ark literally containing 2 of every animal on earth, that it actually only contained the DNA of every animal, male and female. This was an interesting theory to me because the story of Noah's Ark has always been one that I've been skeptical about. Do you think it's possible that this theory is correct?
 

Dan the Man

spoice
Nov 20, 2004
1,619
153
50
✟2,513.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I saw that on 2012 movie :D ~did Noah know what a DNA strand was and how to clone from said strand?

It wasn't a movie I was watching, it was some TV show on the History Channel. I think it's possible that Noah knew what a DNA strand was. It personally makes a lot more sense to me than cramming 90 billion animals on a wooden boat.
 
Upvote 0

MrJim

Legend 3/17/05
Mar 17, 2005
16,491
1,369
FEMA Region III
✟42,622.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It wasn't a movie I was watching, it was some TV show on the History Channel. I think it's possible that Noah knew what a DNA strand was. It personally makes a lot more sense to me than cramming 90 billion animals on a wooden boat.

..but to store and then recreate life from a specimen thousands of years ago? Did he store the tissue in clay jars at room temperature? I think I'll take Moses' account that they were real critters. It was a large ship and he didn't need every variety of every species; I expect there were far fewer species then than now.
 
Upvote 0

Dan the Man

spoice
Nov 20, 2004
1,619
153
50
✟2,513.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
..but to store and then recreate life from a specimen thousands of years ago? Did he store the tissue in clay jars at room temperature? I think I'll take Moses' account that they were real critters. It was a large ship and he didn't need every variety of every species; I expect there were far fewer species then than now.

I really don't know (obviously). But I still think it's possible that they somehow could have discovered DNA that far back. And even if there were far fewer species than there are now, it still would be impossible for them to all fit on a boat and not kill each other.
 
Upvote 0

MrJim

Legend 3/17/05
Mar 17, 2005
16,491
1,369
FEMA Region III
✟42,622.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I really don't know (obviously). But I still think it's possible that they somehow could have discovered DNA that far back. And even if there were far fewer species than there are now, it still would be impossible for them to all fit on a boat and not kill each other.

Nothing is impossible if God wants it done:cool: He made the axehead float and the jackass talk. Still, two of each kind could have been very young of each species--baby elephants & rhinos would allow for more room...
 
Upvote 0

freezerman2000

Living and dying in 3/4 time
Feb 24, 2011
9,523
1,221
South Carolina
✟39,130.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
..but to store and then recreate life from a specimen thousands of years ago? Did he store the tissue in clay jars at room temperature? I think I'll take Moses' account that they were real critters. It was a large ship and he didn't need every variety of every species; I expect there were far fewer species then than now.

If God is capable of everything else in the OT, why should He not be capable of dealing with a DNA bank?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan the Man
Upvote 0

MrJim

Legend 3/17/05
Mar 17, 2005
16,491
1,369
FEMA Region III
✟42,622.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If God is capable of everything else in the OT, why should He not be capable of dealing with a DNA bank?

God is capable~it would seem, given the era, he could have just destroyed the world and rebuilt the animals from scratch-why bother with DNA?

I'll take the Genesis account for what it says lol.
 
Upvote 0

Mr.SteveSir

Newbie
Jun 7, 2011
27
4
✟7,673.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
An interesting question Dan, however, Genesis does not say two of every animal. Noah took two of every kind and "seven pairs of clean animals." He could have taken baby animals, eggs, etc... but by taking a pair of every kind he would have taken two dogs, not two of every species, two cats, not two of every species, two unclean birds, not two of every species. I believe this is what happened and explains why some animals can be traced back to common ancestors, like dogs trace back genetically to wolves. God is very capable of creating hundreds of species from two of a kind in a few generations. I hope I've given you something to think on an keep using that brain, Christianity and God's Word can stand up to the harshest critiques. God Bless.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MrJim

Legend 3/17/05
Mar 17, 2005
16,491
1,369
FEMA Region III
✟42,622.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

MrJim

Legend 3/17/05
Mar 17, 2005
16,491
1,369
FEMA Region III
✟42,622.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
An interesting question Dan, however, Genesis does not say two of every animal. Noah took two of every kind and "seven pairs of clean animals." He could have taken baby animals, eggs, etc... but by taking a pair of every kind he would have taken two dogs, not two of every species, two cats, not two of every species, two unclean birds, not two of every species. I believe this is what happened and explains why some animals can be traced back to common ancestors, like dogs trace back genetically to wolves. God is very capable of creating hundreds of species from two of a kind in a few generations. I hope I've given you something to think on an keep using that brain, Christianity and God's Word can stand up to the harshest critiques. God Bless.

nod.gif


Welcome SirSteveSir!
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
32
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The idea that frozen DNA was kept on the Ark doesn't seem to make as much sense as any of the other ideas. It would definitely require a level of scientific knowledge that I really doubt that someone living in Noah's day and age would have possessed without being given special Divine guidance. Not only would Noah have required the capability to keep the DNA cool and dark to a point where it wouldn't degrade, but he would also have required the ability to somehow grow the new animals with a mechanical surrogate.

Easier to just assume that they were complete animals.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
May 25, 2010
1,905
198
Visit site
✟18,018.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Here's the automatic assumption.

People assume that since Christians are by and large opposed to the theory of evolution that it means all of the animals we currently have today (plus some that went extinct) were on board the ark. This is not the case. Every single species does not denote "kind".

For instance, for a kind, you could have a Mammoth, which would later divide into African Bush Elephant, African Forest Elephant (two separate species, btw) and the Asian Elephant.

From goo to you is what Christians are opposed to. That is called macroevolution. We recognize that some minor things change within kinds, but they are still recognizable in their kinds. A St. Bernard and a Jack Russel Terrier are both recognizable as dogs, even to each other. A chihuahua is recognizable as a rat (just kidding!) Certainly once the Ark was emptied they found a strange new world and even the climate had changed. The animal spread out an adapted to their environment via natural selection; those who displayed some traits that helped them survive did survive while others died out. This is called microevolution.

What kinds were on the ark, I don't know. Perhaps they were a common ancestor of animals we might recognize as two different types now but are not that different like sheep and goats, which definitely divided at some point in the Bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrJim
Upvote 0

travisbrainerd

New Member
Dec 4, 2017
1
0
37
Bend, OR
✟7,801.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Hi, I hope my answer can be of use to someone:
It would be best understood in context in a book I wrote, specifically the bottom paragraph of the chapter “Bank of Descent” on pg. 21.

If you don’t feel like clicking, it has to do with the golden ratio shared by Noah’s ark and DNA: two objects which carried all life *ahem* in one boat. Also refer to the Gilgamesh flood myth from 7 BC.

To me, it has nothing to do with aliens, archaeology or impossibility. Prophetic imagery can be viewed as more than its literal counterpart.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Glass*Soul

Senior Veteran
May 14, 2005
6,394
927
✟31,902.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
While I was waiting for my cracker jacks to heal this past week, I watched a show on the history channel where they theorized that rather than Noah's Ark literally containing 2 of every animal on earth, that it actually only contained the DNA of every animal, male and female. This was an interesting theory to me because the story of Noah's Ark has always been one that I've been skeptical about. Do you think it's possible that this theory is correct?

Genesis 6:20 "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."

If this verse actually means that DNA would be extracted from the animals and that they would then be left behind to die--if the language of the bible is that oblique even in story-telling mode--then what's to keep someone from concluding that Christ's resurrection was an actual cloning from DNA extracted from his corpse?

Better to be skeptical, no?
 
Upvote 0