How can I not believe in micro evolution and explain the millions of species formed after Noah's Flood?

Question

It is obvious, even from the Biblical proportions given, that it is impossible for two (at least, sometimes 7?) of every kind of animal on the earth to fit inside the diminsions given. This brings this question to mind for me...whether you believe "kind" refers not to species, but groups representing segments of the animal kingdom does not matter...how did we get all of the variations we have now without a hyper speed micro evolution of species? The only other options is that God created more afterwards, but there is no Biblical support for this.

Answer 1

*cough* macro *cough cough*

Answer 2

Considering it happened 4600 years ago or so, it's very possible given the reproductive rates and genetic variables within populations for all the land based creatures (as described in the Bible being allowed on the Ark) we see today to have arisen from a single set of inter-fertile parent "kinds" of animals. Creationist's don't dispute micro-evolution or speciation from those original pairs of animals. Given that most animals breed every year or two and some have multiple litters or offspring, we've had 2300-4600 generations of animals since the flood along with all the great genetic variety that goes with it. God probably instilled in some animals the migratory instinct to diversify and spread them out them further.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences17.html#wp1031464
Many studies have been done on the dimensions of the Ark and it is entirely possible for all the animals that met the requirements to have been loaded onto the Ark with plenty of room to spare.

Answer 3

Noah would have had to have had Dr. Who's tardis to float so many animals for so many days and nights. Noah cared so much about the animals he slaughtered several after the water receded just to show his appreciation for being alive. What a guy! Killing endangered animals for the joy of living! Scientists have proven by fossil data that there has not been a world wide flood of biblical proportions as described in the bible. at one time water covered the earth as genesis states but it was not the result of a cataclysmic flood.

Answer 4

There are several answers for this. The first, and most obvious, is that the flood was not world-wide, and so not every single animal species in the world would have to be included.

But that's too simple, right? That makes too much sense. Okay, let's assume, for the moment that, although it is *not* claimed in the bible, the flood was worldwide, and that literally not one piece of land on the entire planet was visible during the flood. What species did Noah *have* to have on the ark? What species could not survive, or continue, after a year without land?

Right away, we can rule out all sea creatures, all amphibians and all insects, all of which could survive inundation for a single year. It is quite likely that many water reptiles could also survive quite handily, as well as many land animals that obtain their food by sea-hunting (penguins or sea otters, for example).

Then there are the flighted birds. If there is substance firm enough for birds to land upon, do they need "terra firma"? For most flighted birds, the answer is "no". Remember, we're only considering what is necessary here for the survival of the species - not the survival of the entire population. *If* we conjecture that there were small floating "islands" of vegetation, flimsy but sufficient to support the weight of flighted birds for a time, we can rule out nearly all birds.

This leaves, essentially, land-bound creatures. The obvious thing to do (of course) is to carry only the youngest creatures. Presumably they would need to be weaned - or large milk-producing mammals (such as cattle) would have to be carried to feed the young. I would think it most space efficient to carry just-weaned mammals, and the freshly-laid eggs of other land-bound creatures.

So, now the ark is filled with 2 of every "unclean" baby mammal, 2 of every "unclean" land-bound animal's egg, 14 of every "clean" baby mammal (there aren't a whole lot of these), and 14 of every "clean" land-bound animal's egg (probably only the land-bound birds). Of course, food could have been plentiful - all the fish you can eat.

I have to admit that this still appears exceedingly unlikely - but much more feasible than the scenario that you presented. Certainly, 2 of *every* species was not required. I definitely favor the localized flood theory. Some tremendous event - perhaps such as that which occurred in North America during the ice ages (glacier dams bursting) - could certainly have flooded the entire region of the earth known to have the lowest elevation.

Jim, http://www.life-after-harry-potter.com

Answer 5

Exactly. Then take the fact that there are numerous extinct species in the fossil record. The millions of terrestrial species must have developed from no more than 40,000 in just 4,500 years. If all that diversification occurred in such a short time, the limited number of transitional fossils pales compared to the theory of evolution.

Answer 6

If there were 2 of every animal, only 2, what did the lions, cheetahs, tigers etc eat?

Answer 7

God can do anything he wants. You understand. No matter what evidence is found, it doesn't matter because god can do anything he wants. And we have the devil playing games, like burying fossils and laying false evidence. And how did the do all this? Just by thinking about it I guess.

Answer 8

Micro Evolution is proven fact.

Answer 9

That is why evolution makes more sense than believing an unbelievable story out of the Bible.

@>}----}----

AD

Answer 10

Don't even bother, man. Christianity has so many holes it's pathetic.

Answer 11

you should check out this website. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp