Noah's Ark vs. Biodiversity

[Brimstone]

UNEP estimates that there are 1.25 million species of animals in existence today. According to Gen 6:15, the Noah’s ark was 300x50x30 cubits (450,000 square cubits), which is approximately 450x75x45 feet (1,518,750 square feet). That means fitting 2.5 million animals (2 per species) into 1.5 million square feet. There is no calculated average size of an animal, but even if it were only one square foot, it would only be enough to pack slightly more than half of them all in leaving no room to move, and the problem of where to store the feed for all the animals would remain unsolved. Noah’s ark simply wasn’t big enough to save every known species on the planet. So why do Creationists still insist that it was? ​

 

[Bushido216]

Because they believe that if Genesis isn't literal, then there is no basis for their religion.

It's sad, and I do mean that seriously. I genuinely feel sorry for them.

 

[JGMEERT]

UNEP estimates that there are 1.25 million species of animals in existence today. According to Gen 6:15, the Noah’s ark was 300x50x30 cubits (450,000 square cubits), which is approximately 450x75x45 feet (1,518,750 square feet). That means fitting 2.5 million animals (2 per species) into 1.5 million square feet. There is no calculated average size of an animal, but even if it were only one square foot, it would only be enough to pack slightly more than half of them all in leaving no room to move, and the problem of where to store the feed for all the animals would remain unsolved. Noah’s ark simply wasn’t big enough to save every known species on the planet. So why do Creationists still insist that it was? ​

John Woodmorappe has shown it is no problem at all to fit all these on the ark. Of course, he also writes old earth evolutionary articles. I can't figure him out.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Pete Harcoff]

A lot of YEC organizations accept rapid speciation following Noah's Ark, hence Noah would only need 10000 or so different species of animals to repopulate the Earth. Most lay-creationists don't seem to keep up with this, though, so it's not uncommon to see creationists arguing against speciation.

 

[Drotar]

Simply put, both YEC's and OE theistic evolutionists believe that not all those species fit on the ark. Except maybe Hovind.

AIG answered this question. They explained that species did evolve after the flood (they had to have- I mean, there are over 100 million insect species I hear).

I don't know where I stand. By this time, I'm almost completely through with my transition. I'm pretty much a theistic evolutionist now. But I do believe the flood happened- whether it was a global flood or a freak flood that wiped off the people from the earth (which were consequently only living in a small region around the Fertile Crescent at the time according to the Holy Scriptures) I do not know.

Man that was hard to say.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Fitting how you have Darth Vader in your avatar. Welcome to the dark side Drotar >=D

 

[Drotar]

Hey! I'm still a light jedi!

 

[MartinM]

If I were Noah, I would have left the cats behind. Creatures of Satan, if you ask me.

Oh, and welcome to the forum, Brimstone.

 

[Drotar]

I'm a cat person.

Dogs smell, they bark, they relieve themselves on your carpet or you have to keep them outside, and they hate bathing.

Cats just walk up to you when you're working quietly and purrr and meow. I always saw them as more sophisticated animals. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Brimstone]

John Woodmorappe has shown it is no problem at all to fit all these on the ark. Of course, he also writes old earth evolutionary articles. I can't figure him out.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Woodmorappe attempts to solve these problems by admitting that evolution occurred after the flood, causing biodiversity. He gives no substantial reason why these processes could not have been going on before the time of the flood. It seems he uses selective reasoning to avoid the core of the issue.

 

[Zadok001]

(Note:

Many Creationists use the specialized natural adaptions of certain creatures as evidence of God's hand in creating them. Spitting fish and bombadier beetles are the favorite choices. Such an argument assumes that these creatures were created specially. The argument for rapid speciation after the landing of the ark specifically contradicts that premise. If you see someone using both of these arguments, call them on it. )

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Simply put, both YEC's and OE theistic evolutionists believe that not all those species fit on the ark. Except maybe Hovind.

Actually, Hovind accepts speciation, even though he hates using the dreaded "E" word (instead he says it's "variation within a kind").

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Haha, ****! Now everytime I read one of Drotar's post I read it in Timmy's voice. It's really trippy to hear that voice discussing virtual particles

 

[Jet Black]

Woodmorappe attempts to solve these problems by admitting that evolution occurred after the flood, causing biodiversity. He gives no substantial reason why these processes could not have been going on before the time of the flood. It seems he uses selective reasoning to avoid the core of the issue.

"He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions -- 'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water' -- and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as 'two and two make five' were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain. "

 

[DirectAnim]

I am not sure of the relivance, or intent, of that quotation. I was unable even to determine whether your were trying to defend, or attack his position. It helps, when you make a quotation (if it is actually quoted or not is irrelivant) if you preface what you are about to quote. It tends to fit the context better.

 

[Jet Black]

I am not sure of the relivance, or intent, of that quotation. I was unable even to determine whether your were trying to defend, or attack his position. It helps, when you make a quotation (if it is actually quoted or not is irrelivant) if you preface what you are about to quote. It tends to fit the context better.

George Orwell, 1984.

 

[Routerider]

I don't know where I stand. By this time, I'm almost completely through with my transition. I'm pretty much a theistic evolutionist now. But I do believe the flood happened- whether it was a global flood or a freak flood that wiped off the people from the earth (which were consequently only living in a small region around the Fertile Crescent at the time according to the Holy Scriptures) I do not know.

Man that was hard to say.

I respect you wholeheartedly but I believe you are wrong with your position on the global flood. If you believe the biblical version of the flood, it happened meerly 4400 years ago [give or take]. Are you under the impression that there is evidence for a global flood?

 

[Brimstone]

I am not sure of the relivance, or intent, of that quotation. I was unable even to determine whether your were trying to defend, or attack his position. It helps, when you make a quotation (if it is actually quoted or not is irrelivant) if you preface what you are about to quote. It tends to fit the context better.

He is saying that Woodmorappe applies "doublethink" to the theory of evolution.

 

[Brimstone]

I respect you wholeheartedly but I believe you are wrong with your position on the global flood. If you believe the biblical version of the flood, it happened meerly 4400 years ago [give or take]. Are you under the impression that there is evidence for a global flood?

If there is any evidence for a global flood, I'd like to see it.

 

[lucaspa]

If there is any evidence for a global flood, I'd like to see it.

Brimstone, you have been doing well. However, asking the question as you have is going to trip you up.

What you mean is: "is there evidence for a global flood that cannot be explained by any other hypothesis."

The scientists who originally held to a global flood to explain geology did have evidence. Around 1700 - 1750.

There were two problems:

1. Evidence that could not possibly be there if a global flood were true was found.
2. Other hypotheses -- such as local floods or glaciers -- also explained the evidence attributed to the Flood.

Remember, in science it is not the evidence for a theory that counts. You can always find "evidence for" if you look just for that. What counts is evidence falsifying the theory.

If you persist in the direction your question leads, you will end up comparing stacks of "evidence for" YEC and evolution. And you will overlook all the evidence that falsifies a global flood and YEC. Both Flood Geology and YEC are falsified scientific theories. Never lose sight of that.