Ship of Fools: Kangaroos and dinosaurs on Noah's Ark

Thread: Kangaroos and dinosaurs on Noah's Ark Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028520

Posted by Herrick (# 15226) on :

I would imagine this thread ( or something like it) has appeared before. However, last year at my mother's funeral one of her brothers told me to repent (with a hearty slap on the back). They were brought up believing that the Bible was the word of God, Inspired by God. He believes that Noah had kangaroos and dinosaurs (and probably every type of insect but I didn't ask about that) on the Ark.

Do any people here believe that, or is literalism a little ignorant?

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

You may find a few people on the ship who believe it. I certainly don't.

Welcome aboard btw. I can see you've made a fair few posts by now but I think this is our first encounter.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

Perhaps you could ask him how he thinks Noah fitted all those kangaroos and dinosaurs (let alone kiwis, pumas, tapirs, giant ground sloths - and insects) onto an ark measuring 300x50x30 cubits. The size of a Jewish cubit varied a little over time but its longest was about 17.5 inches.

Posted by Petaflop (# 9804) on :

I keep wondering if anyone believes in a literal firmament? (To go with the literal ark and literal days of creation.)

Has anyone encountered this, either as a modern belief, or in historical Christian writings?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

You'd be surprised pre-cambrian, there's whole libraries of books dedicated to explaining that one. Some of them even sound convincing.

One question I don't think has been answered, (not that it would bother a serious creationist, I'm sure) is how the kangeroos on Noah's ark got to Australia after the flood and how come there's no trace of them in any of the countries they'd have to cross to get there. This is especially a problem if you believe in a young earth as well.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

Maybe Ham, Shem and Japhet ran a shuttle service of mini-arks.

Actually a part of the OP that surprised me was the belief that the dinosaurs were on the ark. I thought it was more common amongst creationists to use the flood to explain why the only dinosaurs are dead ones as they'd literally missed the boat.

Posted by Alan W (# 14090) on :

I keep wondering if anyone believes in a literal firmament? (To go with the literal ark and literal days of creation.)

We have a small number of literalists in our congregation, and that is on my list of things to ask them next time the topic comes up. I'll be very surprised if the answer is affirmative though.

Personally I always wanted to know whether the ark included aquaria for the fresh-water fish, molluscs etc so that they weren't wiped out by the salinity of the global ocean (or maybe salt-water aquaria if all of the extra water was fresh)?

That's one trouble with a literal flood story - the number of arbitrary additional miracles you need in order for it to work is almost endless.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

PC: I would expect that Shem, Ham and Japheth cut a deal to privatise the taxi-ark concession, and arranged it for profit, since this would be necessary to fit the views of most of the literalists I know (they tend towards the rather strange form of conservative that has appeared recently)

I presume that oddly-shaped critters must have been seen as sinful in the Eye of God, so would have to be segregated into distant places, the equivalent of lepers.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Perhaps you could ask him how he thinks Noah fitted all those kangaroos and dinosaurs (let alone kiwis, pumas, tapirs, giant ground sloths - and insects) onto an ark measuring 300x50x30 cubits. The size of a Jewish cubit varied a little over time but its longest was about 17.5 inches.

DNA samples. [Biased]

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Actually a part of the OP that surprised me was the belief that the dinosaurs were on the ark. I thought it was more common amongst creationists to use the flood to explain why the only dinosaurs are dead ones as they'd literally missed the boat.

I'm confused. The creation was in 4004BC, the flood in 2348BC. That leaves 1656 years for dinosaurs to be living on the earth.

Did they just die out before the flood? Or did Noah forget to put them on the ark - thus defeating God's purpose in saving two of every kind of animal?

I don't get it.

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Maybe Ham, Shem and Japhet ran a shuttle service of mini-arks.

Would that be Ken Ham?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

The dinosaurs were playing silly games with the unicorns.

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Actually a part of the OP that surprised me was the belief that the dinosaurs were on the ark. I thought it was more common amongst creationists to use the flood to explain why the only dinosaurs are dead ones as they'd literally missed the boat.
I'm confused. The creation was in 4004BC, the flood in 2348BC. That leaves 1656 years for dinosaurs to be living on the earth.

Did they just die out before the flood? Or did Noah forget to put them on the ark - thus defeating God's purpose in saving two of every kind of animal?

I don't get it.

Noah must have been the greatest sailor that ever lived. After all, he must have sailed to the Americas to get on board the pronghorn antelopes, buffaloes and pumas from the north, and the sloths, capybara, iguanas and jaguars from the south. He must have sailed to the Arctic to pick up a few polar bears, and Australia to get all sorts of things: koalas, wombats, thylacines and, yes, kangaroos. Then he must have been the greatest zookeeper ever, working out how to keep everything at the right temperature, feed the beasts onboard, and to stop, in this respect, the lions from eating the zebras, the crocodiles from eating anything that moved, etc.

Unless God caused all these animals to migrate to Noah’s neck of the woods, across hitherto unknown land bridges, just so to get on the Ark. And of course, one way or another they had to be taken back to where they belonged. More epic voyages? Or maybe, in defiance of all the adaptations they later had for hot climates/cold climates/arid conditions/open plains/forests * (*delete as applicable) they were all living around Mesopotamia quite happily and only later moved to where we associate them with. Maybe they did some rapid evolution! Oh sorry, evolution doesn’t happen!

Presumably the lack of dinosaurs on the Ark was because Noah had had a few beers and didn’t notice the 100ft sauropods and 30ft high carnosaurs. Pity the poor fellow – he had enough trouble with the tigers, lion and pumas without having T.rex to worry about!

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

You rotten lot. You're confusing me with scientific facts. [Biased]

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Maybe Ham, Shem and Japhet ran a shuttle service of mini-arks.
Would that be Ken Ham?

Could someone invite him to their church - I'd love to Mystery Worship him. (OK Amanda, I know I'm supposed to be neutral.) [Smile]

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan W:
I keep wondering if anyone believes in a literal firmament? (To go with the literal ark and literal days of creation.)

We have a small number of literalists in our congregation, and that is on my list of things to ask them next time the topic comes up. I'll be very surprised if the answer is affirmative though.

One argument I have heard is that the the waters above the firmament were released at the flood and that's why they aren't there now. Not quite the literal firmament issue, but nearly.

Carys

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Perhaps you could ask him how he thinks Noah fitted all those kangaroos and dinosaurs (let alone kiwis, pumas, tapirs, giant ground sloths - and insects) onto an ark measuring 300x50x30 cubits. The size of a Jewish cubit varied a little over time but its longest was about 17.5 inches.

Well, Kiwis are descended from Noah and his family, just like Aussies, Poms and Yanks...

The normal answer is 'God can do anything, it was a miracle' [brick wall]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

[Three guesses where this thread is going.]

This is a clear Dead Horses thread in accordance with Dead Horses guidelines.

So off you go.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan W:
We have a small number of literalists in our congregation, and that is on my list of things to ask them next time the topic comes up. I'll be very surprised if the answer is affirmative though.

At the risk of putting my nose where it doesn't belong, why bother? I doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's mind, and it could be rather divisive. Isn't it better just to live and let live?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
At the risk of putting my nose where it doesn't belong, why bother? I doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's mind, and it could be rather divisive. Isn't it better just to live and let live?

Reminds me of this cartoon which always makes me smile.

Posted by Alan W (# 14090) on :

quote:
At the risk of putting my nose where it doesn't belong, why bother? I doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's mind, and it could be rather divisive. Isn't it better just to live and let live?

Hence "When it next comes up", which actually means "when they next bring it up", as it's not a discussion which anyone else ever starts. As for why, actually because I am curious about the answer (i.e. whether there is any limit to their literalism, and a literal firmament seemed to be one place where there might be).

Posted by Petaflop (# 9804) on :

That's my problem too. Molecular biologist (trained as a physicist) in a housegroup lead by a creationist (who is also a friend). Mostly I avoid the issue because it is not pastorally appropriate. Very occasionally (about once a year) I feel compelled to challenge verifiable falsehoods.

I'm uncomfortable asking a question like that out of the blue on the grounds it might be divisive. But if they raise the issue, I am happy to argue the case. Doing so in a gracious manner is something I still aspire to, however.

Hawk's xkcd cartoon is spot on when it comes to why it matters. Many non-scientists these days seem to take a consumer/entitlement attitude to science (just as we see with respect to doctrine worship) - "I can accept the bits of science I want and reject the rest".

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Noah must have been the greatest sailor that ever lived. After all, he must have sailed to the Americas to get on board the pronghorn antelopes, buffaloes and pumas from the north, and the sloths, capybara, iguanas and jaguars from the south. [etc]

Genesis 7:9 says the animals "came to Noah" -- surely this means they made the arduous journey to Noah, and not the other way around. God presumably sent out an APB to the animals, and two (at least) of each type set out. I say at least because they may have needed multiples to cover deaths along the way.

One thing I rarely see mentioned in this type of discussion about Noah is fodder. In addition to storing all of these animals, and straw for them to sleep on and poop in, Noah would have needed provender for the lot. Animals have notoriously varied requirements in that area. Maybe God adjusted them -- just for the duration of the trip, mind you -- so they would eat whatever it was that Noah was able to store up.

The over 1,000,000 species of insects in the Amazon basin presents, to my mind, one of the most interesting challenges.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[Three guesses where this thread is going.]

This is a clear Dead Horses thread in accordance with Dead Horses guidelines.

So off you go.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Actually the DH Guidelines only specify that "evolution" is an automatic Dead Horse. Creationism isn't, and can theoretically be discussed in Purgatory. Since no one has metioned (until now) descent with modification or differential reproductive success, the one thing that hasn't been discussed on this thread is evolution.

Part of the problem with creationism is that it's an example of what could be called "faint-hearted theism". The basic Creationist premise is that certain things are the product of the miraculous (e.g. sub-, super-, or un-natural) working of some Divine Being in the material world. Given a premise that the ordinary laws of time and space can be overruled by Divine Fiat, it seems particularly baffling to then attempt to demonstrate that a miraculous occurance actually does comply with all known physical laws. It would be so much more consistent to simply say "God told Noah how to build a TARDIS, so while the Ark may have been only so many cubits on the outside, it was effectively infinite on the inside". Implicit in the Creationist scramble for scientific or logistical explanations for the Ark story is an assumption that miracles aren't a valid explanation. It shows they don't have the courage of their supposed convictions.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

Cro, I think the specific issue here is Biblical inerrantism, which I think is an automatic dead Horse.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, the Bible actually says one pair each of unclean animals, but seven each (or maybe seven pairs, I forget which) of clean animals. Which makes the storing and provanding (is that a word? [Confused]

) of them even harder.

Maybe God put them all in cryo-sleep.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned woodworm. Were they on the Ark too?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Presumably the lack of dinosaurs on the Ark was because Noah had had a few beers and didn’t notice the 100ft sauropods and 30ft high carnosaurs. Pity the poor fellow – he had enough trouble with the tigers, lion and pumas without having T.rex to worry about!

Actually, T. Rex was on the Ark. He just succumbed to an illness and died. There's even photographic evidence.

Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Maybe God put them all in cryo-sleep.

Exactly. He beamed them up to an orbiting space station, for which the Ark was an earthly metaphor. God can do that, you know.

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
At the risk of putting my nose where it doesn't belong, why bother? I doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's mind, and it could be rather divisive. Isn't it better just to live and let live?
Reminds me of this cartoon which always makes me smile.

I'd not seen that before, and I got some strange looks from my coworkers as I laughed out loud! Very good [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Alan W:

quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
At the risk of putting my nose where it doesn't belong, why bother? I doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's mind, and it could be rather divisive. Isn't it better just to live and let live?
Hence "When it next comes up", which actually means "when they next bring it up", as it's not a discussion which anyone else ever starts.

Well, if they're being militant about it, then go for it all guns blazing!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned woodworm. Were they on the Ark too?

I can just imagine Noah stopping in his daily walk down the corridor. "Honey," he says to his wife, "was this pile of sawdust here yesterday?"

Do pathogens count? Tapeworm, ringworm, smallpox, syphilis, rubella? Who volunteered to take them along?

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

And what about all the genetically inherited conditions? Or were they the result of such a small gene pool in subsequent generations?

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[Three guesses where this thread is going.]

This is a clear Dead Horses thread in accordance with Dead Horses guidelines.

So off you go.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Actually the DH Guidelines only specify that "evolution" is an automatic Dead Horse. Creationism isn't, and can theoretically be discussed in Purgatory. Since no one has metioned (until now) descent with modification or differential reproductive success, the one thing that hasn't been discussed on this thread is evolution.

[Hosting]
Crœsos, you query or nitpick hostly decisions in The Styx not on the thread, and Creationism has been a Dead Horse since the inception of the Board. Evolution in the guidelines is shorthand for Evolution/Creationism and anything related to that.
L.
Dead Horses Host
[/Hosting off]

[ 10. November 2009, 17:07: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

mt:

quote:
Do pathogens count? Tapeworm, ringworm, smallpox, syphilis, rubella? Who volunteered to take them along?

They came to him, as you mentioned. And Noah was "volunteered".

"Noah, how long can you tread water? Heh. Heh. Heh."

Anyone who recognizes that quote may now show their age. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Riiiiight.

Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :

Oh yea of little faith. Here's an explanation for it all.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned woodworm. Were they on the Ark too?

Yes they were.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]Genesis 7:9 says the animals "came to Noah" -- surely this means they made the arduous journey to Noah, and not the other way around. God presumably sent out an APB to the animals, and two (at least) of each type set out. I say at least because they may have needed multiples to cover deaths along the way.

Actually it's even more complicated than this.

In Genesis 6 God says:

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 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. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

But then God pulls a fast one in Genesis 7:

2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

So first God tells Noah it's two of every kind but then AFTER Noah builds the Ark, it's seven of every clean animal and bird and two of every unclean animal, which had to change the count (and the food supply) quite a bit.

What makes it even more confusing is that God doesn't tell the Hebrews which animals are clean and unclean until after the Exodus, so Noah has to somehow figure all this out on his own.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
What makes it even more confusing is that God doesn't tell the Hebrews which animals are clean and unclean until after the Exodus, so Noah has to somehow figure all this out on his own.

All he did was shout from the top of the ramp, "Yo, clean animals over here, line up in 7s. Unclean over here, line up by 2s, alternating sex." The animals sorted themselves out. Which is more than psychotic humans can do. Apply to ark-literalists as you see fit.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Why more clean animals than unclean ones? Some were probably snacks. After all, the first thing Noah did after getting the animals off the ark was to sacrifice a bunch of them. After all, who's going to miss the archæopterix?

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

More seriously, I have had a few creationist friends tell me that a "kind" isn't the same as a species. They've told me Noah just needed to load one species of cat, dog, elephant, kangaroo, insect, bird, etc., and that God diversified all of them right after the flood ended.

When I ask whether this process is still continuing (whether Satanic "macroevolution" is continuing) my salvation is often then questioned.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

To get serious for a moment there, the idea that change moves more quickly at some times than at others is not new. I seem to vaguely remember something about a Pre-Cambrian explosion in specification somewhere.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I don't know how one can reconcile the Pre Cambrian explosion, with the Noah's Ark story, yet deny that so-called macro-evolution happens or happened and insist that the earth is 6,000 years old.

I am sure people do it, but how?

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why more clean animals than unclean ones? Some were probably snacks. After all, the first thing Noah did after getting the animals off the ark was to sacrifice a bunch of them. After all, who's going to miss the archæopterix?

After all that time in cramped conditions battling off the attentions of the likes of the lions and finally getting a bit of fresh air*, getting sacrificed afterwards would really piss me off.

* I mean, what about the shite? There must have been enough to sink the ark!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
* I mean, what about the shite? There must have been enough to sink the ark!

Don't be silly. The shite was just the end result of feeding them the fodder (or clean animals) which was already on board. If it didn't sink the ship stored as fodder (or clean animals) it wouldn't do so after converted to shit.

But the shit could be shoveled up and tossed overboard (they left quite a wake, I imagine!). It's the urine from all those animals -- which had nowhere to drain to -- that would have made the place a living hell. The entire bilge must have been an unprecedented ammonia factory! The mind boggles. I imagine most of the humans, when not feeding animals or shoveling shit, must have spent most of their time on deck, rain or no rain, just to get away from the smell.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

An amusing take on all this is in a children's book, "Dr. Dolittle and the Secret Lake", in which the good doctor gets an account of the Flood from a long-living survivor.

Posted by ozowen (# 8935) on :

Actually Noah pulled off a ripper of a feat. We here in Oz have ad huge problems getting sheep humanely delivered to the Middle east with modern air conditioning and plumbing to help the poor bugger survive.

Who put their hands up to collect the various STI's Wasn't that a bit sinful. even thought they had to do it.

Best thing of all is that Noah built a huge wooden boat- something to challenge modern engineers using that material and then managed to stop it from being torn to shreds while the earth apparently suffered major cataclysm, tectonic shifts and did stuff like build the Himalayas and the European Alps. <ost modern, high tech boats including warcraft wouldn't cope with that sort of trauma.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

A couple of British legends might help you, Mousethief.

In one, Noah shovels all the shit overboard and in 1492 Columbus sails along and discovers it ...

There's also the Yorkshire story of the time that the Ark sprang a leak. First off, the dog pokes his nose into the hole to stem the trickle. The hole widens, so Noah's wife puts her hands in there. But still the hole widens, so Noah turns around and plugs the hole with his arse (sorry, 'ass').

Which is the reason why dogs have cold noses, women have cold hands and blokes always stand with their backsides to the fire.

Gamaliel

Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :

To Gamaliel
I tried to send you a reply to your kind pm, but your private message box is full.
[Smile]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

[Big Grin]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
To get serious for a moment there, the idea that change moves more quickly at some times than at others is not new. I seem to vaguely remember something about a Pre-Cambrian explosion in specification somewhere.

Explosion is a relative term.

quote:
Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated

Link

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

Well, there were dinosaurs on the ark (see here), and the book of Genesis even mentions two of them: the raven and the dove (Gen 8:6-8).

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

But how does one reconcile this explosion with a dis-belief in "macroevolution"?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think you'd be faced with the defining of terms at that point. And I rather suspect that your average disbeliever in macro-evolution means something quite different from what you mean. (Twas ever thus, in arguments...)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0