If it was not on the Ark but here now, doesn't that prove evolution?

Answer 1

You're simply justifying a situation that never occurred (the flood story). I understand trying to talk to them in their terms but part of the reason why they are so confused about the reality of life on earth is due to that very tactic. When you load your argument with myth you justify said myth.

Step one is to allow them to see the absurdity of the claims of genesis... then allow them to discover the actual mechanics and evidence for the mechanics of evolutionary theory.

Answer 2

Not necessarily.

Let's assume that there was no dog on the ark. But it is here now. One explanation would be that it evolved from the wolf. Another could be that it had been brought here from another planet. Another could be that God created it after the flood.

Evolution is therefore not proven. Disproving creation also does not prove evolution. Perhaps there is a third theory that is more correct than either creation or evolution.

The ark story could also be interpretted differently to fit with newer information.

Answer 3

Yes. Creationists get a confused look on their face when you bring the Ark up and then get right back to discussing the 7-day creation. Even the evolutionists don't recognize that everything pre-ark is irrelevant in the argument

Answer 4

NO!

Could the Ark Have Held All the Animals?
It is true that encyclopedias refer to over a million species of animals. But Noah was instructed to preserve only representatives of every “kind” of land animal and flying creature. Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space, ample for the passenger list.
The ark had a carrying capacity equal to that of 10 freight trains of about 25 American boxcars each!
The book In Search of Noah’s Ark quotes George Hagopian, an Armenian, who claimed that he climbed Mount Ararat and saw the ark in 1902 and again in 1904. On the first visit, he said, he actually climbed on top of the ark. “I stood up straight and looked all over the ship. It was long. The height was about forty feet.” Regarding his observation on his subsequent visit, he said: “I didn’t see any real curves. It was unlike any other boat I have ever seen. It looked more like a flat-bottomed barge.”
The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.” It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds” the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two.

The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

Answer 5

I'd say so yeah, but I'm not a scientist. Though you know, common sense and all that rot does seem to agree.

But on the answer of mixed breeds, last time I checked interspecies intercourse can't create offspring. It's impossible. Gotta love that biology class.

Answer 6

it proves mixed breeds not evolution

Answer 7

It's a thing called hybridization.

Answer 8

No.