I don’t see any such distinction in what you wrote. It would have to involve mathematics to address the question.
Please show the numbers. How do you get from 8000 species to >10 million species in 4500 years? How many genera were on the ark relative to those existing today? How many kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, and families were represented on the ark? How do you explain the higher taxonomic categories?
The number estimated for total species is 8.7 million (Nature Journal)… that is an estimate, perhaps it is accurate. Presently only 1.2 million are cataloged. The number refers to all eukaryotes, which are multi-celled organisms. Of these, an enormous number did not need to be “saved” from the flood; they include all sea creatures, plants, and insects.
The number of 8.7 million (est.) includes about a million plants and fungi and algae. It includes 2.2 million water species. About 950,000 insect species are known, and estimates of unknown vary widely (up to 30 million), but even if this number triples or quadruples, it would mean about 3 or 4 million (est). That means the number of species to be derived would be less than half of 8.7 million, and likely a lot less than that.
The number of known non-fish vertebrates is about 30,000 species. Of these some are water dwelling. Even if the estimated number of non-fish vertebrates was 180,000 (6 x as great as known), this is a far cry from 10 million.
[quote=“johnZ, post:80, topic:3141”]
The number estimated for total species is 8.7 million (Nature Journal)… that is an estimate, perhaps it is accurate. Presently only 1.2 million are cataloged. The number refers to all eukaryotes, which are multi-celled organisms.[/quote]
No, that’s not the definition of “eukaryote.” You might want to look it up instead of pretending to know.
I don’t see how the vast majority of plants and insects would survive a global flood. Would you please explain?
Moreover, Genesis 7 (KJV) clearly states, “every thing that creepeth upon the earth,” so I don’t see any Biblical basis for excluding insects. Do you see something I don’t?
And those must be included in “every thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
I don’t see how you get there from 8000 in 4500 years. Let’s be generous and cut it 10-fold. How do you generate 100x new species in 4500 years?
The Bible doesn’t only mention “beasts,” it also mentions “every thing that creepeth upon the earth” three times, which is a lot more than vertebrates.
[quote]Of these some are water dwelling. Even if the estimated number of non-fish vertebrates was 180,000 (6 x as great as known), this is a far cry from 10 million.
[/quote]So how do you get from 8000 to 180000 in 4500 years? That’s still a lot faster than the Cambrian radiation. You’re not addressing the question.
One of the many things I wonder about is how Noah could leave the ark and start farming in saline muck.
By “flat” I’m assuming you mean “smooth” … no valleys or mountains. This to me seems like a major assumption on your part. There is nothing in the Flood account that says mountains rose because of the deluge … one might argue why and to what purpose? The purpose of the Flood was to destroy all flesh because of the wickedness and evil of mankind… not to change the topography of earth.
In any case, there’s at least two references during the deluge that challenges your viewpoint.
Genesis 7:19, 20 says “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”
Whether one understands these verses as talking about Mt. Everest or simply the hilly regions, in either case it demonstrates that the world is not flat and has character. As Carol Hill mentions in her article: The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local? she makes comments about Genesis 7:20
“Another difficulty with Gen. 7:20 is: How
did Noah measure the depth of the flood
at fifteen cubits? In riverboats of that day,
people used rods or poles to measure water
depth. Upon a tempestuous global ocean,
where mountains were supposedly rising
and continents were rapidly moving apart,
how could Noah have taken a pole measurement
on top of a mountain like Ararat? The
biblical account (Gen. 7:14) seems to suggest
that the waters increased continuously until
the ark was gently lifted up above the earth
(land), and in this situation, one can imagine
Noah measuring the depth of water either
to the alluvial plain or to the tops of “mountains”
(ziggurats) to see how deep the flood
waters were rising. In any case, the phrase
“fifteen cubits upward” does not necessarily
imply a universal flood; if anything, it favors
a local flood where the depth to the ground
surface could be easily measured.”
After things start to calm down, in Genesis 8:4 we read, “And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.” <<< notice that it does not say “the newly formed, or, recently created, mountains of Ararat.”… but simply mountains of Ararat… as if they were there all along.
Read Psalm 104, verses 6 through 9. Most biblical commentators that I’ve read colloquially call this Psalm “The Creation Psalm” in how much it refers to creation. Not only that but the verse are organized in a very similar fashion to that of Genesis 1. In this it presumes the existence of mountains and valleys, prior to the Flood. So the assumption that the Flood “created” mountains is not Biblically supported, and does not, in my opinion, “hold water” (pun intended). Also it refers to the waters, when the dry land got revealed, shall “never again cover the earth” <<< what does this say about the Flood?
But even if all my points aren’t valid, and it is true that the deluge created the mountains, you still have the problem with “Where did the water go?” The Flood account says that the waters receded, that the waters abate, that the waters dry up — it says nothing about mountains rising or being formed.
What About the Dove That Found No Rest For Her Feet?
Genesis 8:5 says “And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.”
then just a few verses later it says in verse 9, “But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth:”
This has a multitude of problems. First, as we just read earlier, the tops of the mountains were clearly seen, so waters were not “on the face of the whole earth”. Why didn’t the dove land there? Secondly, according to your view, there was vast multitudes of floating vegetation everywhere, swarming with insects, and possibly frogs. Why didn’t the dove land in any of these places?
The text says that food was needed on the ark, both for Noah’s family, and the animals. So I don’t think many very many were in hibernation state, if at all. In the Noah movie, Noah has some form of incense contraption that knocks the animals unconscious … not that I’m claiming that the movie was very biblical, but I wonder where the director got this idea from?
Genesis 7:2 says, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.<<< the text would seem to indicate that the animals were not infants, but reached sexual maturity. Other translations are even clearer on this, and state “the male and his mate”…
Even so, if we assume anyway, that the animals were infants you still have a year of growth taking place in the ark. How did carnivorous creatures survive a year on a vegetable diet?
Even if a feeding system is set up, you still only have 8 people taking care of all the animals through out the day, not including themselves. Did not a single animal die on the ark, during that whole year? Did any animal get diseases or infections being in such a confined place? I watched a documentary on pig farms, and because the pigs are confined in such a tight area they get massive sores on their legs and feet … a great many of them die because of this, and those pig farms are operated by much more than 8 people. Not only that, but those pig farms only take care of a single kind of animal. We are talking about a huge variety of animals that need different forms of care … I’m just not seeing how that’s possible with 8 people and 16,000+ animals.
Fair enough. But we are still talking about a global flood that lasts a whole year. Are you saying that those insect eggs survived in soil buried under miles of water? And which soil are you referring too … the thousands of feet of sediment that buried the dinosaurs… that soil? Floating tree trunks and rotting corpses? I thought the deluge was responsible for burying billions of dead things, laid down from rock layers, all over the earth. I guess some of the corpses avoided that?
While it seems clear to me that insects weren’t on the ark, because the requirement says “all in whose nostrils held the breath of life”. Insects don’t have nostrils and breathe through their carapaces in their skin. Even so… the text seems adamant that “every living substance” and “everything that creepeth” was destroyed (Genesis 7:4, 23… do insects not fit this category?
Trees surviving harsh winters, and the pine-cone system causing trees to germinate when lightning strikes it, is not the same thing as trees being under miles of ocean for a whole year. Harsh winters, and lightning strikes, are common place… global floods are not.
That seems rather optimistic of you. I think the situations are pretty problematic not simply in coming up with solutions to how it all fits, but the amount of assumptions and extra details are added to the story. Some come up with naturalistic explanations for the flood account, others with supernatural explanations. In either case the explanations typically end up becoming man-made speculations that the Bible is silent about it, which bothers me.
Your last remark says that “even if things are problematic…” This demonstrates some of the futility of convincing others of pre-conceived notions. No amount of argumentation will convince others, because they already have it in their heads, that a certain premise is true. So bringing up more arguments against a person’s viewpoint, only causes that person to think of other arguments to support their viewpoint. This is true for many beliefs … but it’s important to realize that these prior commitments do exist and they do affect a person’s judgement and reasoning.
I enjoyed hearing the story of Antony Flew, a world renowned atheist, going 180 and writing a book called There Is A God. When pressed for an explanation of why he changed his view he said, “I had to follow the evidence… wherever it lead.”
-Tim
Good question Beagle.
Some solution would be to assume a localized flood, and Noah’s farming, and growing a vineyard, happened somewhere outside the flood region. Of course there are many that don’t want to consider a local flood, but it is a proposition. Their are many articles that argue for this local flood scenario (Carol Hill has written about this), others that argue a more theological approach of un-creation, bringing the earth back to the state it was in Genesis 1:2, where waters covered the whole earth (John Walton comes to mind), and of course, the historical-chronological approach embraced by every YEC organization (Jonathan Sarfati, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, etc.)
Along with the text that says Noah became a husbandman, one also has to wonder the deeper meaning of the “drunk-episode” with Noah. Why did Noah curse his grandson for something his son, Ham did? What was the offense in what Ham did in seeing his father’s nakedness, and why did Noah single out Canaan, when Ham had four sons?
The problems, as I see them, in Noah becoming a husbandman are scientific and theological.
-Tim
No, I won’t explain. It has been explained many many times before. Furthermore, since you seem to know so much, you would be able to figure it out for yourself, even without doing any further research.
You are right. Nor did I specifically say it was the definition, although I did incorrectly exclude other organisms. Although they include multi-cellular organisms, they also include protozoans…“Unicellular eukaryotes include protozoans, slime molds and some forms of algae, and are differentiated by one of four ways in which they acquire energy…”
Thankyou for this. It also highlights that even single celled protozoans are included in the the 8.7 mill species (est.), and are some more that did not need to be taken on the ark, although some might have been there as hitchhikers.
Probably. This has been well explained by Sarfati in his book Refuting Evolution, as he explains the Hebrew. Sarfati is also of Jewish ancestry, and has a reasonable grip on Hebrew, even though he is a PhD in Physical Chemistry.
You think fish had to be taken on the ark because fish creep on the earth? Really? You think plants and algae and fungi creep upon the earth? birds too? Really?
The point is that it’s not the ten million you incorrectly mentioned. In addition, the 180,000 is still speculation and generalization… it is likely that the number is considerably smaller, when species such as whales, dolphins, seals and various seabirds and water birds are eliminated. The estimate for unknown vertebrates compared to known, is also likely to be smaller than the overall ratio of all unknown to known species, since vertebrates tend to receive a higher rate of attention for identification. It is a wild guess on my part to know what a more likely number would be, but to think that six different bovine species originated from one, or seven different cat species from one, or ten different dog species from one, or five different bear species from one… not so impossible. As for how it happened, I won’t explain. I’m sure you can figure it out if you want to, and won’t buy any explanation if you don’t want to.
[quote=“johnZ, post:85, topic:3141”]
No, I won’t explain.[/quote]
I think that you can’t explain. Remember,
Then point me to an explanation, but point me to the evidence as well.
Sorry, I apparently lack your mental acuity. Here’s what I can’t figure out: the explanation for fossils of extinct species of vertebrates is that they represent extinctions caused by the flood. We have plenty of fossils of extinct plants, too. If they weren’t killed off by the flood, shouldn’t all of the plant fossils be from non-extinct species?
And if the insects survived the flood, how do you explain all of the insect fossils from extinct species? If insects and plants simply floated, shouldn’t we see the same plants and insects on the coasts of every continent today?
I don’t know why you’re thanking me. All of the protozoans that die in salt water would have to have been on the ark, no?
You keep forgetting the gold standard:
Sarfati’s words are not the actual evidence. Have you, personally examined any actual evidence?
I am too, but that doesn’t mean that I know Hebrew. Most practicing Jews I know have forgotten the Hebrew they learned for the Bar or Bat Mitzvah.
But as my learned friend Eddie points out, Sarfati disagrees with the consensus of Biblical scholars, not just scientists.
How would you know unless you have an equally reasonable grip?
“Even though”??? I’m not sure why that education would be a hindrance to having a grip on Hebrew. Are you saying that Israeli physical chemists have trouble with Hebrew for some reason? I’m pretty sure that they speak Hebrew just as well as Israeli biologists do.
Where did I mention fish creeping on the earth?
Focus, John. Insects creep upon the earth. Put those goalposts down.
No, the point is that I granted all of your speculations and you still can’t explain the massive increase.
In 4500 years? That’s insane. I am amazed that you would bring up dogs as an example, as we’ve been artificially selecting them for thousands of years and still haven’t achieved speciation.
See, you think evolution is capable of accomplishing literally orders of magnitude more change over time than I think it can!
It’s quite remarkable that an anti-evolution organization would turn around and propose evolution on an impossible scale.
There’s not an example I know of that refer to fish or algae as “creeping things” in the Bible… But there are numerous examples of insects being referred to as such (even birds).
http://www.insectman.us/articles/karls/insects-in-bible.htm
The above site explains it well.
So we have an interesting conundrum here. Either insects survived on the floating mats of vegetation (which goes somewhat contrary to the biblical text), or the insects were gathered onto the ark like the other creatures.
If the latter is true one might wander how that went down. Did Noah personally pick out male and female Mosquitos? Or did they gather themselves into ark, by some unnamed method.
If we take the verse, “all in whose nostrils held the breath of life were in the ark” to be understood as a literal boundary for what kinds of creatures are on the ark, then insects can’t be on the ark. But we could interpret it as meaning that the Hebrews “thought” insects have nostrils (they are after all really tiny).
Who knows? I’m stumped at the moment.
-Tim
You have made some good points and good questions, Timothy. I don’t have time to get at them all. But the above sentence is misleading. When you say a great many die because of sores on legs and feet, this is simply not true in my experience (and I have raised pigs at one time). Nor are those pig farms operated by much more than 8 people. It is possible to feed at least 4000 pigs with no more than one person. More people would be needed if you had a pig nursery, but even a nursery of 100 sows and growing 2000 feeder pigs could be managed by one person.
I think this is true. On every side.
As far as a local flood is concerned, it would require as much geological shifting as a global flood, in order to cover the high hills, wouldn’t it?
So there was a modern factory farm on the Ark?
You’re more apt to know about the pigs since you’ve had first hand experience taking care of them. I don’t have experience on the issue since I’m not familiar with farming — sores on feet and legs did seem like an issue, according to the documentary — but it was also a documentary made in favor of the “meat is murder” crowd.
In any case, like Beagle points out, it does seem like your examples involve a more modernized approach to the ark. But this seems more optimistic… Should we expect them to have more modern equipment then what was available at the time? The issue I have isn’t just the sheer amount of animals, but the variety. Each different animal “kind” requires different attention and different forms of food (they aren’t all farm animals for example).
In reference to your point about the high hills (Genesis 7:20), a number of different factors need to be considered.
When it says “15 cubits upward” is it meaning that the floodwaters raised 15 cubits? or was the total height of the floodwaters 15 cubits?
Were the “high hills” referring to the highest hills (mountains) on the entire earth? or just the hills that were in Noah’s view?
Carol Hill points out in her article that some of the complication is that the word can mean “the hilly region” “the mountains” and even “ziggurats” according to Sumerian/Babylonian texts.
Another factor is the location of the ark’s landing spot. The text says, mountains (plural) of Ararat, and has more traditionally been understood to be Jebel Judi as the ark’s landing spot. Other places in the Bible that talk about “Ararat” refer to it as a place of residence “the kingdoms of Ararat” rather than a mountainous region.
So I don’t quite have a definitive answer for your question, but there is some interesting reading material online.
-Tim
This conversation has raised some interesting questions. How did Noah regulate the environment, especially the temperature and humidity) on the ark for so many different kinds of animals? And what did all of them drink after leaving the ark, since there would be no fresh water in lakes or ponds?
Those are things I never thought of before, Beagle. Very good observations.
One might also ask how it is they got their water while on board? 16,000+ mouths (and 8 people) for 365 days, would add up to a lot of water I imagine.
-Tim
It certainly would. And we can go longer without food than without water.
Isn’t it? The same mechanisms that they claim are unable to produce the diversity of life on Earth in billions of years are suddenly able to produce diversity orders of magnitude more rapidly post flood, and far beyond anything we can do with our most intense artificial selection.
How does a mind reconcile such a blatant contradiction?
Again, I am going to bow out of the discussion, Timothy, although I appreciate your attitude. I have enough experience with animals, including pigs, cows, and chickens, to know that you do not need fancy equipment, once you have the feed in place relatively close to the animals. Keep in mind most animals are quite small. I’m quite sure I could feed a hundred cats in about ten minutes or less, by hand, for example. Most people have their preconceived ideas about the care of feeding, etc. But a necessary reality is quite different. While there are different kinds of food for different animals, most will pick and choose what they want, and many can also adapt to other kinds of food… you may have heard the story of the vegetarian lion, for example.
And when it rains for forty days, a boat can collect quite a bit of water, and likely even floated on fresh water at times. It is your attitude, not the limitations, that influence your perception of the possibilities.
All the best.
Peace to you John.
My perceptions of animal care might not be totally accurate as I’m not a farmer.
Like I said earlier, I hope that are our discourse has changed both of us (at least in a small way) for the better. If I ever came off as overtly argumentative or abrasive then I apologize. To gain a fuller understanding of God’s Word and the world around us, I believe, should be the ultimate intention in these discussions.
Farewell and may we both continue in our Walk with Him.
-Tim
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.