I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. (Genesis 7:4)
One of the odd things about the story of the Biblical flood is this idea of all the world’s land animals coming to the Ark, and then returning to their locations afterwards. Now, to understand why this is strange, consider the fact that animals in the Americas would have a hard time walking to the Middle East. Even if we presumed an ice bridge across the Bering Strait, it would be difficult for cold blooded animals to travel from the Ark back the the Americas. This problem affects snakes, lizards, spiders (including tarantulas), scorpions, insects, and all kinds of other tropical and desert dwelling animals. Most of those animals aren’t very capable of traversing the arctic.
I mentioned this to one creationist, and he gave the explanation that maybe (post-flood) people brought them back to the Americas on their boats. That explanation didn’t seem very good. First of all, are we supposed to believe that humans brought animals (snakes, lizards, tarantulas, and scorpions) – some of them poisonous – thousands of miles on their boats? Second, those animals are not found on the (intermediate) Pacific Islands, which they would surely inhabit if brought there on a journey from the Old World to the New World.
Additionally, once the animals left the Ark, there are a lot of nearby regions they could inhabit, but didn’t. For example, all varieties of rattlesnakes are found in the Americas (33 species, and numerous subspecies). There are none in the Old World – despite the fact that there are regions similar to the American deserts – the Sahara, the Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Llamas fit this same pattern – found in the New World, but not in the Old World. The Caucus (where the Ark supposedly landed) and Himalaya mountains have different species than the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Why didn’t some of the Rocky Mountain species stick around in the Caucus Mountains – they were already there the minute they stepped off the Ark. Similarly, the species in the South American tropics aren’t found in Old World tropics (Southeast Asia and Africa), and vice-versa. For example, New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys. Theoretically, with the movement of creatures caused by the global flood, one could find the same species living in distant places. Somehow, we don’t.
I suppose the best explanation that a creationist could give to all this is simply “it’s a miracle”. Miracles are pretty flexible things – able to fix all kinds of problems. In fact, there’s no problem a miracle can’t fix. Although, one has to wonder – with God bringing animals halfway around the world (miracle #1), keeping them alive in climates where they can’t normally survive (miracle #2), providing them with food in cases were their regular diet was not available / making them not need food (miracle #3), producing land bridges over water (e.g. between Australia and Southeast Asia, Madagascar and Africa) (miracle #4), producing massive quantities of water to drown everything (miracle #5), making sure that freshwater fish and saltwater fish can all survive in the same common floodwater (miracle #6), making sure they all go back to where they came from without stopping in similar geographical areas (miracle #7), and repeating miracles #1, #2, #3, #4 during the return trip – why did God use a flood and a man-made Ark? Seems like it would’ve been a lot easier to have all the bad humans simply disappear in the middle of the night, send a local flood, or miraculously protect all the animals from drowning (just like how He kept all the freshwater and saltwater fish alive in common floodwaters).
Related Topic: The Creation Museum Teaches Super-Evolution (i.e. super-fast diversification and speciation after the flood) in order to explain how all those species could fit inside the Ark. (Which, by the way, super-speciation adds one more miracle God has to perform.) I find it particularly ironic that creationists use super-fast speciation to fix the Ark’s size problem, and meanwhile, other creationists attempt to attack evolution by claiming there are few or no examples of speciation – and calling it a “key problem” for evolution.
Arguing with a creationist about such topics is like arguing with a child. No amount of logic or facts is going to make any difference. In addition, children will often use the same argument from both directions, as either a reason for or an excuse for why not, when it suits their purpose.
I was raised fundamentalist and was a creationist until I was about twelve years old, when I began reading science books from the local public library. This kind of argument about how creationism conflicts with scientific evidence is what led me to become an ex-creationist (the ex-fundamentalist and ex-Christian parts took a little longer).
Arguing with a creationist about such topics is like arguing with a child. No amount of logic or facts is going to make any difference.
I definitely realize that there are creationists who could never be convinced by any amount of evidence – they’re right no matter what. Some of them are simply too old or too deeply immersed in creationist ideas to consider changing their minds, uprooting their whole worldview, and admitting they’ve been on the wrong side for so long. But, there are others who will continue to be creationists in the face of evidence, understand that they don’t know everything, and not try to do ridiculous things like try to push creationism into schools or stop teachers from teaching evolution. And, there are still others who can be convinced – provided that they respect science. I had been raised in a creationist home, taught creationism in Christian school (including the ridiculous “rocks date the fossils; fossils date the rocks = circular reasoning” distortions – thanks to A.C.E. Christian materials). While I didn’t know enough creationist “facts” to argue creationism, I did think that creationism was the undebatable truth. It wasn’t until around 19 that I actually read anything written from the evolutionist side. Needless to say, I found the pro-evolution material much better than the creationist’ stuff.
It is true that more Christians are becoming atheists than atheist becoming Christians. It must be 10,000:1 in the sciences. I personally think that atheism is going to blossom in the next few years. The creationists/fundamentalists/wackos have pushed it too far.
Let’s assume for the sake of my rant here, that what the young earth creationist say is true. According to Morris’s book the ark contained 15,500 animals, (including dinosaurs) and the average size was that of a sheep. The ark contained one window, and 8 people. Each person would have to feed 1938 animals a day. They were tough biblical people that worked 16 hours a day. They would have to feed 121 animals an hour or about one animal every 30 seconds. Sheep eat about 25 pounds of hay a day so each person would have to lift and move 1.5 tons of hay per hour.
Oh, wait, there is the poop. Now most of us don’t have a couple of sheep to observe, but lets take 2 large dogs. Now if we scoop up the poop of those two large dogs, and then throw it off the ark, and assume a sheep poops about 5 pounds a day, then each person has to shovel about 9690 pounds of poop a day, carry it up to the one window and throw it out.
Perhaps they left the poop on the Ark. Here is my scientific experiment on the poop problem. Take 2 large dogs. Scoop the poop of those 2 dogs for one year. Take the poop inside your home and live with it. You are allowed to open one window.
Perhaps they all hibernated. The only solution goes back to the miracle part. I would be ok if people said, look Noah’s ark was a miracle and that all you need to know about it. But when they say that they scientifically prove it; “It” always involves a miracle. It’s like proving the story of Santa. At some point you have to say, well, Santa is magical!
TinyFrog,
Sorry, but I can’t resist. Where did you get your ideas about the creationist flood model? It certainly doesn’t represent anything I’ve heard from creationists.
You seem to think creationists believe the continents (and even the weather) has remained unchanged since creation. Nothing is more inaccurate. If the earth was actually once covered in water, as the Bible says it was, it would be silly to think the event didn’t have any geologic effects.
For example, the flood theorists I’ve heard believe (like secular geologists) that the continents in the East and West were once connected–except that flood theorists think the Flood is what triggered their separation. So the distance between, for example, Europe and North America soon after the Flood may not have been nearly what it is today. Another alternative for animals getting to the Americas are floating vegetation/log mats, a likely component of a massive flood. And you’ve already mentioned an ice bridge (global flood models predict an ice age would follow the flood event).
The fact is, as an atheistic evolutionist you still have to deal with the problem of biodiversity you’ve presented here. Fossils remains of rhinos and camels have been found in Nebraska. The tapir, contrary to what you wrote in the post, is an example of an animal found in both South American and Malaysian tropics. And of course all Pacific tropical islands are densely populated with wildlife.
In light of what the Bible says, the type of species variation we find in the wild makes sense (snakes all over the world, but only rattlesnakes in Americas). After the flood these animals spread out, died off in some places but remained in others, and diversified in their respective locations.
Also, “speciation” can be an arbitrary term, because there aren’t clear boundaries between what constitutes a separate species (or sub-species or sub-sub-species) either in the Linnaean system or in the minds of creationists, ID theorists, and evolutionists alike. While many view speciation as the appearance of unique traits that occur when a population is isolated, creationists and IDers sometimes use it to refer to the appearance of completely different organisms with different functions–say as the difference between dodos and penguins–that have not been observed.
Yes, I’ve seen some information about “hydro-plate” creationist theory – that the continents are on top of water and that continents sped around the planet at an amazing “45 miles per hour“. Of course, this is only one subgroup of creationists who believe this. And, if I’m not mistaken, even the “hydro-plate” guys say that the continents were basically in their current locations by the time the animals were leaving the ark.
First, these “floating vegetation/log mats” would have to persist for years (there’s roughly a year between the rains and Noah’s landing on mount Ararat, alone). Second, they would move slowly and aimlessly – which raises the question: what would the animals have to eat while floating on these mats (Would they eat the mats out from underneath themselves? Would the mats provide adequate nutrition?) Some animals have very specialized diets – for example, Koala eat eucalyptus leaves (which only exist in Australia), and cats are incapable of surviving without eating meat (they get deficiencies of a number of nutrients, such as Taurine). Third, would enough animals arrive at the destination to establish the species?
And that works well for mammals. Not so much for cold-blooded animals.
Yes, North America had a number of interesting megafauna. Some of these could’ve been in the Americas since the time of the breakup of Pangea. According to this map, it was possible to travel by land from Africa to europe to North America 65 million years ago (and probably for a while afterwards).
Yes, there are similar species in different parts of the world. I’m saying they’re not the *same* species. Your example of the Tapir is not contrary to what I wrote – since I acknowledged the existence of similar animals in both places (“New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys”), but said they were different species. There aren’t the same indigenous species in the New World as in the Old World, though (unless we’re talking about modern animals – e.g. bears, wolves, etc – that could’ve traversed the Bering Strait).
Also, according to this, based on genetic analysis of Tapirs , “[i]t is believed that Asian and American tapirs diverged around 20 to 30 million years ago”. That would mean that Asian and American Tapirs are 4-6 times more genetically distant than Humans and Chimpanzees are. If this level of genetic differences appeared in four thousand years, then it’s reasonable to suggest that humans and chimpanzees diverged one thousand years ago.
But what wildlife? Take the Hawaiian islands as an example: they have no indigenous wildlife that could not have come to the island by flight, “piggy-backing” on birds, or amphibious travel. Hawaii currently has animals introduced to the island such as deer, boar, pigs, snakes, etc, but there are no indigenous large animals, the only mammal native to Hawaii is the “Hawaiian hoary bat“, and there are no native snakes.
Well, we can do a little genetic study. Do you think all Kangaroos (dozens of different species) all came from one group of kangaroos a few thousand years ago? Do you think it’s reasonable to suggest this kind of “super-evolution” that can divide a species into so many non-interbreeding groups in a few thousand years? Further, places like Australia have animal life skewed heavily towards marsupials (as opposed to placentals, which dominate everywhere else). Is is a coincidence that so many different types of marsupials got on the mats going to Australia? (Yes, I know there are some marsupials on other continents; I’m talking about the majority.) Or does the evolutionary view make more sense: Australia’s marsupial wildlife evolved from common ancestors – meaning that very different looking animals (like the marsupial mouse, kangaroo, koala, tasmanian devil, etc) came from a common ancestor? (The “they just diversified” argument doesn’t work here since they’re more diverse than you would allow with your creationism-based microevolution.)
It’s not an arbitrary term. Yes, there are gray areas – a horse/donkey mix produces a mule – which is usually, but not always infertile. Lions and tigers can be cross-bred, as well, but their offspring have some unusual traits (extra large or extra small due to genetic effects I won’t explain here). And, of course, ring species and so on are gray areas. The existence of gray areas does not mean black and white areas don’t exist, however.
You mean that they use “speciation” synonymously with “macroevolution”, which would be inaccurate and intentionally misleading.
Daniel sez:
“..the flood theorists I’ve heard believe … that the continents in the East and West were once connected–except that flood theorists think the Flood is what triggered their separation.”
Current plate tectonic research indicates that threre was more than one previous supercontinent. So are you saying that there was more than one flood? If so, when do you think it was? What caused it? see (eg) http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm
What are the characteristics of water at, say 2000 C and 3000 atomospheres that suggest the plates could “slide” over it?
Can you give me a citation?
sb
If snakes failed to make it to Ireland because of a few tens of miles of open water, I find it hard to believe that they managed to cross hundreds of miles to North America.
And don’t forget the plants! Why are there only cacti in the Americas, for example? Did people take cacti, corn and chicle with them but somehow forget to take wheat, barley, flax and oranges?
Daniel, however, seems to favour the idea that the continents galloped about the globe so my immediate question is: how large was the bow wave? We all saw the damage caused by a small section of seafloor moving a few metres. No doubt racing continents would cause massive erosion. Where are all these deposits?
The trouble with creationists is that they indulge in ad-hoccery, fail to consider the basic interconnectedness of nature and routinely land themselves in the mire.
Noah did not have all the worlds land animals in the ark.
If want to know why I say this send me an email and I will explain in detail.
[...] (3) The distribution of animals is not what we would expect if there were a global flood killing all life. If all life was limited to the top of a mountain in the Middle East in 2350 B.C., then how to explain the distribution of animals across the world? All the kangaroos on the Ark went to Australia? How did the animals get to the Americas? If they crossed via an ice-bridge in the Bering Strait, then the Americas should be limited to animals that are warm blooded and capable of traveling hundreds of miles across snow. This means no reptiles, no spiders, etc. Yet, the Amazon contains a wide variety of animal biodiversity. And why didn’t American desert animals stay behind in the deserts of the Old World? (See related post: “Creationism versus Animal Biodiversity”) [...]