It wouldn't make sense, a global flood would be their ideal habitat. I don't think a shark would survive very long on a big wooden boat.
2007-07-06 16:10:16 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
fish no, duck probably
2007-07-06 16:12:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, I don't think there was an ark, at least not one that coinsides with the Hebrew scriptures as in Noah and the Ark.
The flood story was borrowed, from beginning to end from the stories of Gilgamesh (written long before the Torah).
If there had a been, I could see where the ducks might have need to rest but why would fish need to be on a boat if the whole earth is covered with water?
Now, about mosquitos and flies.....
2007-07-06 23:25:43 · answer #2 · answered by Big Bill 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm wondering if the ocean water was salty, or (more likely as the cause of a global flood) was fresh-water. In either case, there are animals that wouldn't survive in the ocean that way, and would have to be kept on the ark in tanks of salt water or fresh water. Imagine keeping a blue whale on board, and fed? And fed with what, if only 2 of each animal were on board? What about the carnivores? I can't believe adults still believe in this story.
2007-07-06 23:22:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Noah was told to collect the land animals and the birds. He was not told to collect fish. He probably would have include ducks because even though the like water, the flood lasted for an entire year. It is unlikely that a duck could have survived that long without needed to land somewhere. Assuming they survived the violent upheavals that caused the flood.
2007-07-06 23:14:18 · answer #4 · answered by dewcoons 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
im sure they had water space for the animals that swimmed. the bible does say two of every animal was on the ark. so it would make sense that ducks and fish were on there too.
2007-07-06 23:17:49 · answer #5 · answered by ~*~Crissy~*~ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Based on what is said in the Bible there were 2 of each animal on board. Yes, it is stupid since there are fish and what not in the oceans and all....this is why non-religious, or modern Christians, don't put a lot of weight in the Bible. It's all good!!!
2007-07-06 23:14:45 · answer #6 · answered by roritr2005 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing was on the ark; the story is fiction. No such flood ever occurred.
2007-07-06 23:23:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
if fish weren't on the ark and the flood wiped out all life outside of the ark, why are there still fish?
fill me in please.....
BS story!
2007-07-06 23:14:09 · answer #8 · answered by God ◊ Machine 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Stupid question.
Why would they need to be on the boat? They would not.
Point: Noah is a story not history.
2007-07-06 23:14:32 · answer #9 · answered by Linda R 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes; the water was rushing and there were probably 100 foot waves that would submerge them in water and crash them into rocks, that would kill any animal no matter no matter whether they can breath underwater.
2007-07-06 23:13:36 · answer #10 · answered by Bobby 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes in a fish bowl
2007-07-06 23:14:30 · answer #11 · answered by Tommy D 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋