Noah's ark questions

Noah's job was to build the ark in obedience to God's instructions.
God brought the animals to him in the right type and number.
God sealed them in the ark at His proper timing.

 

#1 - #3:
are you seriously asking these questions? The makeup of the continents were not the same as they are today.......there were no Galapagos Islands then. The theory is that there was one large land mass before the Flood. Noah had 120 years to gather the animals he needed, and he did not need to gather two of every different animal. He only needed what God calls "kinds"......not the same as our "Kind". Two horse-like animals, two dog-like critters, etc.

#4 no, insects did not need to be specially gathered, though how much extra room would they have taken up, anyway? The Bible says all animals who breathed air through nostrils needed to be taken into the Ark.

#5 This can only be speculation as the Bible doesn't specify. But there are many times when animals hibernate and do not eat for extended periods of time. This has even been seen during times of extreme crisis in animals who do not usually hibernate.

#6 I imagine that if God could put the animals in a sleep state or a hibernation than there wasn't much danger of them fighting. Noah also would have most likely separated the predator animals from the prey animals.

#7 I don't know how he got fresh water. Rainwater isn't salty, right? It did rain continuously for 40 days and nights.........perhaps they were smart and collected it in containers for later use.

#8 Don't know.....but I bet he could have. There's men now who do.

#9 No. The variety of animals would be greater now, as there has been more time for breeding, inter-breeding, and variations happening due to geography. As I said before, he did not need to have two zebras, two horses, two donkeys, and on and on. He only needed two of a horse-like animal. Insects would have naturally come with the animals. THere would have been no need to collect them. And look at what kind of animals they are finding that are "new". They are finding a new "kind" of deer, or a new "kind" of goat somewhere. All these different variations did not have to be represented on the Ark in order for them to be present on earth today.

#10 no "covered the whole earth" means covered the whole earth

#11 I believe Noah did what he was told to do by a command from God and that God intervened and helped Noah do those things he was incapable of on his own.

 

Once you get the right answer to question number 11, the rest are pretty easy.

 

Answer to all these questions:
"Do you really want to know the answer?"

 

First of all, the Bible tells us that God caused the animals to come to Noah. See Genesis 7:8.
Second, the various species we see today are not what Noah had on the Ark. He had God-selected specimen of each KIND. For instance, the poodle, the great Dane, the chihuahua, etc., are all canines, right along with the wolf, dingo, coyote, etc. One canine kind was on the Ark, from which the others have all speciated or diverged. Same with equines, felines, bovines, etc. The bear kind included what would later become polar bears, black bears, brown bears, grizzly bears, and such.

He didn't have to. They were not in existence then.

How much Bible haven't you read? If you check Genesis 1:9, you will see that when the dry land appeared, the seas were gathered into ONE place. That means the land was the OTHER place, or one giant continent. It took science a few thousand years to catch up with what the Bible had been saying all along, but at first there was only one continent.

In addition, after the Flood there were no deserts for a long time. There were plenty of marshes and soggy areas, however!

If you check Genesis 7:14, you will find there were probably no insects on the Ark. They did not fit the qualifications given there. How did they survive? A number of ways. There are a number of insects whose eggs survive in the guts of birds and other animals. In addition, if we are to take any notice of the monsoon seasons in the Far East, we will see that in fiercer years quite a bit of vegetation is washed out to sea and floating vegetation mats persist for quite some time, harboring insects, amphibians, and even some other small animals who survived by clinging to them.

There was no need for Noah to take meat. All humans and animals were vegetarian up to that point. See Genesis 1:29-30 and compare with Genesis 9:2-4.

They would not try to eat each other as they were all vegetarians. Fighting for other reasons in the animal kingdom is generally for mating rights or food. With only pairs on the Ark, mating problems did not occur and since Noah had enough food for all, that reason was wiped out, too. No fighting.

Rain provided water, certainly. The fact is the waters which burst forth from underground and initiated the Deluge (see Genesis 7:11) were scalding hot and the ensuing rain would have been warm. This would have made evaporative desalination rather simple. We seem to have the idea that Noah and the antediluvians were brutish ignorant human beings. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They were probably much more intelligent than we are today and their technology quite advanced.

Animals were not afraid of man until after the Flood -- see Genesis 9:2. In addition, as mentioned before, God BROUGHT the animals to the Ark. Noah did not have to go out looking for them.

No. There may have been more varieties, actually.

Since God brought the animals to Noah, this was not a concern. God knows what He is doing now and He did then, too.

No, the entire earth was inundated. Under the Cambrian strata we have several MILES of first cobbled boulders and pebbles in a cement-like matrix and then, on top of that massive fine layers of carbon-rich sediment. This is found in areas all around the world, indicating the Flood was, indeed, world-wide, just as the Bible and many other extra-biblical sources state.

God won't ask any of us to do what He does not enable us to do. However, given that, it can be stated with a reasonable amount of certainty that Noah himself was responsible for building the Ark. Since his sons were grown and married at the time, it can be assumed they helped.

 

Where's the Science Forum?

Corndoggie, read through the old "Creation/Evolution" forum in the archives below.
You'll see that there are more than a few different viewpoints on the HOW of creation.

Each of your questions could provoke 20+ pages of heated debate.
...and most would probably be shut down well before it would reach that stage. :tear:

Rob

 

Variation exists and no one has ever argued that, to the best of my knowledge. However, evolution in terms of one basic sort of animal, like a fish, turning into another basic sort of animal, like an amphibian, given time, chance, mutations and natural selection is what is disputed.

The age of rocks is measured via radiometric dating. All radiometric dates have either the speed of light in the numerator or its inverse, Planck's constant, in the denominator. Thus, if the speed of light was ever higher in the past (which means Planck's constant was lower, and both have been measured showing this is so), then radiometric, or atomic, years must be adjusted accordingly to our calendar, or orbital years. This has been my husband's major field of study for about 27 years now. You will find a lot of his work at www.setterfield.org

At any rate, the Galapagos, measuring about four million years old on the atomic scale, means they were upthrust sometime during the Cenozoic Era geologically, which took place after the continental division at the time of Peleg. This continental division formed what we know as the Ring of Fire around the Pacific, and this ring includes islands such as the Galapagos.

So you are right. Noah wasn't around then. He had been dead for a number of hundred years.

No, some animals ended up ON the Galapagos after the division and then, as happens with small, isolated populations of any kind, gradually showed up with the traits that mark them as unique. This comes from consistent inbreeding and the appearance of resultant recessive traits.

That is the basis of evolution -- descent from a common ancestor.

To correct you as gently as I know how, the word 'evolution' actually simply means 'change' and is used a number of ways. Variation is a type of evolution and is often referred to as 'microevolution'. The type of changes which must occur to get a fish to become a man, or even 'just' an amphibian, requires much more than simple variation and is referred to as 'macroevolution.'

Your second mistake is in the idea that 'zebras were morphed from a horse', etc. Both are variations of an original equine ancestor. Now that statement is true whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist. The fact that polar bears did NOT 'morph' from grizzlies but that both are variations of an original population of ursidae is also not disputed either evolutionarily or in creation science.

It was pairs of these early ancestors that went on the Ark. After leaving the Ark, and especially after the time of the Babel catastrophe, there were vast migrations. As sub-populations migrated in different directions and to different areas, the changes in environment left some members of each population unable to cope. This is natural selection (which was first proposed by a Christian, by the way). Natural selection means that the less fit in any population either die or simply do not breed and thus their genetics do not get passed on to future generations in that population. Thus, natural selection is a negative sort of thing, weeding out and weeding out until a very small gene pool is left which can only survive in one particular environment. This is what we call an 'endangered species' -- of which there are quite a few today. But the original populations were much more robust and much more capable of producing varied offspring than are the populations of animals we see today.

Variation is still quite possible, although less so than before. Just look at what we have done with dogs on an artificial natural selection (called selective breeding) basis!

How long does it take for a population to show a variation? A very short time. Lizards in the Bahamas did it in fourteen years. Guppies can do it in one. When the original potential for variation existed along with a world that was 'new' after the Flood, then there were thousands, if not millions, of empty ecological niches to be filled and many, many sub-populations were able to split off into various areas and end up looking like something somewhat different than the original population.

Again, take a look at dogs. Or horses. Or just about anything...

But that is not the evolution which science itself does not have data for -- the sort of evolution that says we did all, indeed, come from a single celled organism some 3.5 billion years ago. THAT is what is argued. THAT is what is a pipe dream which was promoted by Huxley et al originally to avoid the idea of a God to which human beings are accountable. And as much as theistic evolutionists try to deny it, that is still the root and core of macroevolution -- to avoid God.

 

Just about every question presupposes the fallacy that all animals and breeds that we have now are as they had then. If they were to have dogs on the ark, they didn't need poodles, English bulldogs, etc. they just had a group or pair of dogs.

 

corndoggy, when the evolutionists backed up to the 'change in alleles over time' they were essentially saying either nothing or everything, depending on how you look at it. A change in allele frequency over time happens in every generation of people, for instance. The allele frequency of the USA, or the state of Oregon, or even just Grants Pass, where I live, changes from generation to generation. Are we then evolving? The definition means nothing because it includes everything.

It also has behind it the presupposition that these minor changes we see in allele frequencies are responsible for a fish turning into an amphibian. There is NO data, NO genetics, NO science of any kind which can back that up. It is pure imagination. We know about variation. We can see than in any family. No one argues variation. But to assume, as evolutionist apologists do, that the variation that makes you different from your parents and grandparents is the same evolution which produced you from a one-celled critter 3.5 billion years ago is a mighty, and unfounded, leap.

 

There is no more reason to think that all fowl are one 'kind' than that all mammals are one 'kind.' Personally, I have no trouble with an original penguin-type fowl which was not like the other birds. We know from the story of the Ark that both a raven and a dove were on the Ark, which means they were considered different kinds. So definitely a penguin is a kind different from them!

 

I saw this posted on another thread:

Why do certain threads and/or posters somehow make me think of this? Anyone got any ideas???

Ed

 

"g"s, Ed, I'm not sure. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Helen you do a very good job explaining the answers to the young mans questions in lay terms.I think you should consider an in depth article or a book.:thumbs: