literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ?

[jennica]

This subject hits very close to home for me, and I wonder how people from religions that interpret the bible literally have justified it. I personally could not in the end, though I tried, and it was one of the many things that eventually led me out of my religion and now I no longer believe that the bible was literal. However, I would like to see what others think of this and if they have some kind of answer to the puzzle.

So, if we believe that Genesis is literal, then we believe that humans were created about 6000 years ago by God, and no evolution was involved in their creation. My religion had publications that showed how false the "theory" of evolution was, and it showed how animals and humans obviously did not evolve.

However, a literal interpretation of Genesis also tells us that during the flood of Noah's day, all living things on the earth were saved in the ark, and every other living thing was drowned in the flood waters. This happened about 5000 years ago.

So now the big question. Obviously Noah could not fit the millions of species we see on earth today in the ark with him and his family, nor would they be able to care for millions of animals for 40 days. So, many people say that the kinds mentioned in Genesis were not divided by species, but by family or whatever. So, there was one feline couple, not house cats, lions, tigers, etc., and there was one or two rodent types, not the thousands of separate rodents we see alive today, and so on. This makes the story of Noah's ark possible because then there were not an overwhelming amount of animals on the ark, and though the animals that were there would not have been cared for properly by only 8 people, it is in the realm of possibility that they may have survived.

But, this means that evolution did indeed take place. Not just evolution that happens very slowly over the course of millions of years, but extremely rapid evolution that happened in only about 5000 years : If we start with one feline pair and from that pair we see all the different species and subspecies of felines around today, that is rapid evolution. Some say, "but look at all the different breeds of dogs or horses or the variations in humans that there are, it is just variations in the same species". But that doesn't make sense, because dogs can all still breed with each other and their offspring can produce offspring, so they aren't even hybrids or sterile creatures that are produced. A Great Dane and a Chihuahua are both dogs and if they could physically mate they will produce a dog, which in turn will be able to breed with other dogs of any breed and produce offspring. My house cats can't breed with Lynx, or Bobcats, or Cougars, or so on, because they are all separate species. If all felines came from one feline, that is evolution, which is what the fossil records show happened.

So, is this type of evolution acceptable, as long as human's are not believed to have evolved? If it is acceptable, then why take so much time disputing the fossil records that show it happening? Couldn't those records be proving the evolution that took place after Noah's Ark landed and the animals somehow made it back to their continents and started evolving into separate and distinct species? How do Christians that believe in a literal interpretation of the bible reconcile this?

[lilyka]

Some of the explinations I have heard:

Ok so he obviously didn't have to take any fish or water reptiles/mammals.

not all food had to be kept on the ark. and food was probably rationed to an extent animals not eating thier full amount.

everyone assumes they were adults but they could have been young animals that didn't take up too much space.

Some species are a product of cross breeding and mutations. This is sorta derived from the whole family not species argument argument but not as broad.

Ok so I am no expert on this and am not sure how it all works together. I believe the Bible literally but I could be wrong. I woudl rather risk being wrong in this direction because in the end it just doesn't make a lot of diffrence. but those are just some of the arguments i have heard from people more invested in proving things and working out all the kinks.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by lilyka

Some of the explinations I have heard:

Ok so he obviously didn't have to take any fish or water reptiles/mammals.

not all food had to be kept on the ark. and food was probably rationed to an extent animals not eating thier full amount.

everyone assumes they were adults but they could have been young animals that didn't take up too much space.

Some species are a product of cross breeding and mutations. This is sorta derived from the whole family not species argument argument but not as broad.

Ok so I am no expert on this and am not sure how it all works together. I believe the Bible literally but I could be wrong. I woudl rather risk being wrong in this direction because in the end it just doesn't make a lot of diffrence. but those are just some of the arguments i have heard from people more invested in proving things and working out all the kinks.

Acctually, when the flood waters mixed with ocean water, the water became brackish, or half or more salted. As you probably know, there are a lot of freshwater fish that can not survive in salt water, therefore fish would have had to be taken along, as well as insects that couldn't survive 40 days under water.

Not all food had to be kept on the ark? What do you mean, where else was it kept? The entire earth was filled with water, about 6 miles higher than the highest mountain peek, so where was their food?

And even with some animals a result of cross breeding and mutations, it is still too many animals when you sit down and try to pick them all out (which yes, I did try to do).

Not trying to argue, just wondering

[holyhelianthus]

i.e. fodd- i think she means that they could have eaten a lot of fish.
interesting convo.

[lilyka]

yeah, lots of animals can eat fish and would even be able to take a plunge and catch it themselves.

[mshollyk]

sounds totally chaotic. how many people would have been taking care of those animals? it must have sucked to have been the poop cleaner-upper.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by magstphil

i.e. fodd- i think she means that they could have eaten a lot of fish.
interesting convo.

Hmm, I never thought of that. Interesting theory. I just wonder if that would even be feasible though. Only 8 people on board to first catch, and then feed fish to thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of animals (depending on how many you think were on the ark).

As for the animals on the ark, the religion I belonged to had an actual passenger list that they pulled from a book published in the 1700's, which of course is sadly outdated (a lot of the Australian mammals weren't even classified yet). I wonder if other religions that believe in a literal ark have a passenger list as well? The passenger list I have would make it possible for the animals to fit and be cared for enough to maybe survive, if you factor in some divine help (since it takes hundreds of employees and volunteers to keep a zoo going, and zoo's only house a fraction of the animal species in existence), but it is so small that as I said before very rapid evolution would have had to take place after the flood to get the animals we have today.

[insahmniak]

You might be interested in reading one of my all-time fav books:Song of the Dodo by David Quammen. It's about island biogeography and in it he discusses some of the details which some religious folk have used in an attempt to make the whole "ark" idea seem plausible.

[earthluvinmama]

:

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by mshollyk

sounds totally chaotic. how many people would have been taking care of those animals? it must have sucked to have been the poop cleaner-upper.

that's what i always thought. and the smell. groooooosssss.

[captain crunchy]

See I am a Christian and quite frankly, I can't explain it.

Jesus is my personal saviour and I follow his teachings -- I just sort of don't get into that other stuff because honestly, it isn't the focus of my personal faith.

It is okay to say ya just don't know...and still follow the teachings of Jesus and call yourself a Christian (yourself meaning me) -- It doesn't cause confliction with me at all because I don't study those things...


Just piping in to let you know not all Christians will fight you to the death to tell you you're wrong Some of us just don't get into it!

[cappuccinosmom]

I would imagine that if one believes God put together the earth in 6 literal days, and if one believes God actually made everything by hand , then one would also be able to believe that He could work out the details of the flood, speciation, and so on. Without necessarily having to understand *how* He did it.

[Attached Mama]

I agree with Captain Crunchy - I don't necessarily have all the answers or concern myself with the logistics of the flood. Just glad I wasn't on that smelly boat

As for evolution. Christians I know don't believe in evolution on a grand scale such as a tadpole eventually became a monkey and eventually became a human. But evolution amongst a particular kind of animal is scientific fact in my opinion. And it occurs *very* *very* quickly. I remember reading a story about some Russians taking a wolf type wild dog and in 10 or 15 years they had tiny little toy breed white dogs from the large black and white ones - just by selective breeding of the smaller and white ones. Yes, that was selective, but imagine what can happen in 5000 years when the breeding is selected by who survives to adulthood in that particular environment etc.

I think of classical evolution as one animal "turning into" a completely different animal, not as evolution of traits among a certain type of animal. And I would imagine that with 5000 years of evolving, then some cats couldn't breed with others. Just my guess.... But they are still cats, not monkeys.

HTH!

[cappuccinosmom]

Answers In Genesis has a Q&A about Noah/The Flood (and everything else!) from a conservative Christian perspective. I don't know if they are 6 day literalists, though.

[kama'aina mama]

Originally Posted by jennica

This subject hits very close to home for me, and I wonder how people from religions that interpret the bible literally have justified it. I personally could not in the end, though I tried, and it was one of the many things that eventually led me out of my religion and now I no longer believe that the bible was literal. However, I would like to see what others think of this and if they have some kind of answer to the puzzle.

Please keep in mind that Christians who read the Bible literally are a small minority. It is a modern phenomenon and is largely only done in the US. Most Christians in the US and virtually all Christians in the rest of the world and throughout the history of the Christian movement have viewed various books of the Bible as allegorical, as parables, etc...

[merpk]

An MIT/Weizmann physicist's explanation of how neatly Torah and science 'click' in re Creation/the Big Bang.




From the link: "The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years.

The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years.

The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?



If you read the entire article, you'll see it clearly.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by Attached Mama

As for evolution. Christians I know don't believe in evolution on a grand scale such as a tadpole eventually became a monkey and eventually became a human. But evolution amongst a particular kind of animal is scientific fact in my opinion. And it occurs *very* *very* quickly. I remember reading a story about some Russians taking a wolf type wild dog and in 10 or 15 years they had tiny little toy breed white dogs from the large black and white ones - just by selective breeding of the smaller and white ones. Yes, that was selective, but imagine what can happen in 5000 years when the breeding is selected by who survives to adulthood in that particular environment etc.

I think of classical evolution as one animal "turning into" a completely different animal, not as evolution of traits among a certain type of animal. And I would imagine that with 5000 years of evolving, then some cats couldn't breed with others. Just my guess.... But they are still cats, not monkeys.

HTH!

I think what your talking about is adaptation, not evolution. The wolf/dogs were still wolf/dogs in the end no matter the size or color that they adapted to. A lynx and a tiger and two seperate species that can not mate with each other. There are thousands and thousands of examples of this. The fossil records that show the evolution of lynx and tigers, however that happened, would also be valid if one thought that it happened after the flood and not before, yet people fight that any evolution happened and reject those fossil records. And if two seperate species, like a lynx and tiger came from the same species at one point, and that is acceptable, then why is not acceptable that two seperate species, a primte and a human, came from the same species at one point? To accept some evolution, yet reject the fossil records that would prove that evolution, and also reject other types of evolution that the fossil records show, is where my confusion comes in.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

See I am a Christian and quite frankly, I can't explain it.

Jesus is my personal saviour and I follow his teachings -- I just sort of don't get into that other stuff because honestly, it isn't the focus of my personal faith.

It is okay to say ya just don't know...and still follow the teachings of Jesus and call yourself a Christian (yourself meaning me) -- It doesn't cause confliction with me at all because I don't study those things...


Just piping in to let you know not all Christians will fight you to the death to tell you you're wrong Some of us just don't get into it!

Yeah, that's totally cool. I know some people are Christians and don't believe in a literal interpretation, and some people are Christians and do believe in a literal interpretation but think that it was mostly miraculous thus we don't really need to figure it out. However, my question was to those that, like myself, believed and were taught that science DID back up our literal interpretation and were taught and beleived that evolution in any form just did not happen. My question is directed to them.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

Answers In Genesis has a Q&A about Noah/The Flood (and everything else!) from a conservative Christian perspective. I don't know if they are 6 day literalists, though.

I looked over what animal were on board, and yeah, my question still stands. It still would lead to very rapid evolution if we limit our passenger list to what they state.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama

Please keep in mind that Christians who read the Bible literally are a small minority. It is a modern phenomenon and is largely only done in the US. Most Christians in the US and virtually all Christians in the rest of the world and throughout the history of the Christian movement have viewed various books of the Bible as allegorical, as parables, etc...

Yes, I am now aware of that. My question was more out of curiousity in how others justified or solved this puzzle. It seems that no one else really ever thinks about it from the answer I've gotten here. I guess Dh and I think too much