Genesis 8:17
Previous Verse < Genesis 8 > Next Verse
Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee of all flesh, both birds, and cattle, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth. (ASV)
Pro
There are so many scientific, evidence-based, and logical problems with the idea that the flood story happened that they are too numerous to list here. However, a good summary is available at [1].
In addition to the many reasons that the flood obviously didn't happen is the fact that this would have produced a massive bottleneck in the populations of all species of animals. Biologists consider a bottleneck that reduces the population down to a few thousand to be a severe bottleneck, yet this brings the population down to 14 or less, and the human population down to just 8 (5 from a genetic perspective). Bottlenecks are easily detectable by biologists looking at the genome of the species in question - for an example, see this paper[2].
This means that a global flood as described in Genesis would have left a huge and unmistakable mark in the genomes of all animal (and plant?) life. Biologists would see this as a massive bottleneck in all species, dating to the same time 4500 years ago. They don't see any such thing. Even if a Biblical inerrantist denies all the dating methods, this would still hold since the bottlenecks in different species would all date to the same time, even if that time were scaled to a different date.
In light of the evidence from Geology, Biology, Thermodynamics, Engineering, and simple logic, claiming that the flood occurred is like claiming that God made the world's tallest mountain grow in Kansas last week. --Equinox 2006.08.30
Con
Response to Pro:
“There are so many scientific, evidence-based, and logical problems with the idea that the flood story happened that they are too numerous to list here. However, a good summary is available at…”
The link leads to www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html, here’s the response to its claims:
“Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding.”
Its important to note here that we’re not sure what “Gopher wood”, the wood the ark was made of, really was. So since we know nothing about what the wood Ark was made of, Talk.Origins begins with a statement the data doesn’t support – a recurring theme in the article, as we’ll see.
“The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps…”
Genesis 4:22 states that they had iron works at this time, so reinforcement with iron is a strong possibility.
“…and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped.”
Which is probably why God instructed Noah to “coat it with pitch inside and out” (Genesis 6:14).
“Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.”
The only “significant problem” is that Talk.Origins hasn’t even bothered to attempt to understand the current Creation model, leading them to see laughably ridiculous “problems”.
Its important to note, by the way, that odds are God sent the animals to Noah (Genesis 6:20 says that they “will come to [Noah] to be kept alive”). But, look at the ignorance Talk.Origins displays when they pose challenges like:
“There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage.”
They should, if they did 6 minutes of research, know that those environments formed after the flood, and that, according to current Creation models, the animals adapted to them.
In the next section, Talk.Origins displays an ignorance of basic biology:
“Species, by definition, is the level at which animals are reproductively distinct.”
Really? Then why is it Panthera leo and Panthera tigris can mate and reproduce?
“The Flood, according to models, was fairly recent. There simply wouldn't have been time enough to accumulate the number of mutations necessary for the diversity of species we see within many genera today.”
Not that Talk.Origins gives anything to back this claim up. But, genetic recombination, combined with adaptation, easily explains the diversity we see. There are, after all, far more potential gene combinations that can be made through recombination than there are stars in the known universe.
“The Bible says so. Gen. 7:8 puts on the ark all creatures that move along the ground, with no further qualifications.”
The text later specifies that it was only the creatures with nostrils that died, so only they would’ve needed to be on the Ark.
This sort of interpretation is like saying that when Jesus explained “all things” to his disciples (in Mark 4:34), he must’ve given precise details about earthworm circulatory systems. Paul taught against such wooden literalism in 1 Corinthians 15:27, where he says: “For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.”
So, the Bible teaches that when you read it, you can’t be woodenly literal – what “all” is all of is determined by the context.
“They couldn't survive outside. Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished.”
Here, Talk.Origins shows that they didn’t even bother to read the three verses! Genesis 7:22 states: “Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.”
Only every creature with nostrils died. Insects don’t have nostrils.
“The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of ‘the male and his mate,’ indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.”
Once more, Mark Isaak how little research he actually bothered to do. The Hebrew word used there, “'ishshah”, just means “female”. (See here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H802&t=KJV)
It can mean “wife”, but its never used to specifically refer to an animal’s mate.
His next argument shows just as much Biblical ignorance. He says:
“It defines clean animals essentially as ruminants, a suborder which includes about 69 recent genera, 192 recent species…”
No, Deuteronomy 14:4-5 lists the large, clean animals. There are only 10 of them.
Verse 6 is just a description of what the clean animals are like.
“Collecting each species instead of each genus would increase the number of individuals three- to fourfold.”
Woodmorappe was erring on the side of caution when he said that “kind = genus”. In reality, in many cases its closer to the family level, since Genesis 1 defines a “kind” as a set of animals that’re reproductively compatible. That’s often closer to the family level than the genus level (as seen from hybrids like wolphins and African elephant-Asian elephant hybrids).
So clearly, we can see Isaak failed to do basic research for his claims. It is only by ignoring facts and relying on impression and presupposition that we can say the Ark is impossible, or even unlikely.
Zeta Metroid (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2013 (PDT)
Neutral
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.
