Noah's Ark

[Pixel--Dude]

Let's say you were to be the next Noah and God wanted you to build an Ark. Only this time you can only save 5 different kinds of animals of your own choice as God wants more of a fresh start. Which 5 species of animals would you save and why?

@MrMan
@88jose88
@fschmidt
@Lucas88
@Tsar
@Winston

[TruthSeeker]

Horses - because they provide transportation.

Dogs - they are known as man's best friend and they provide protection. Good for hunting (but would not apply under your scenario.)

Cats - they provide comfort to the lonely and elderly.

Cows - because I love beef.

Chickens - good for meat and eggs.

Of course you'd still have all the fish in the ocean for seafood. I think those are my top 5.

[fschmidt]

bees, earthworms, chickens, sheep, horses

[Tsar]

Insects (especially bees, butterflies, fireflies, moths, dragonflies, ants, certain beetles, earthworms, and why I hate to say it, flies because they help decompose matter)

Birds because they help spread seeds and the environment. I'll let bats count as birds because they're a little similar.

Animal life in the seas (fishes, mammals, coal, mollusks, etc)

Cats because Freyja loves cats. Cats an also include housecats and wildcats
,
Four-legged forest life boars, deer, beer goats, sheep, rabbit, squirrels

If everything was too much then I need to redo it but the world can't function without enough animals

[MrMan]

bees, earthworms, chickens, sheep, horses

It's an unrealistic scenario of course, but that's a pretty good list. Beef tastes good when fully mature, so it has an advantage over mutton, or so I hear. I think I've had one nasty sheep sausage, and otherwise have eaten a bit of lamb. In spite of goat mutton having a similar reputation, I might choose goats over cattle or sheep. Goats can eat either leaves or grass, and would fill other terrain better. I've never raised either one, but goats can eat leaves or grass instead of just grass. They are more stubborn, but probably could survive on their own better. It would have to be a variety or two varieties that produce good goat wool. Cashmere comes to mind. Sheep may be a better for the wool. If you did sheep, you'd probably need the female to be the dairy variety. Goats may be the better choice for milk. At least feta might be a possibility.

Since this is a Noah's ark scenario, maybe Hebrew is acceptable and you could say tsone, and maybe get sheep and goats.

[Voyager1]

Tsar you can't include animal life in the sea because they would already survive the flood as TruthSeeker has stated.

[fschmidt]

It's an unrealistic scenario of course, but that's a pretty good list. Beef tastes good when fully mature, so it has an advantage over mutton, or so I hear. I think I've had one nasty sheep sausage, and otherwise have eaten a bit of lamb. In spite of goat mutton having a similar reputation, I might choose goats over cattle or sheep. Goats can eat either leaves or grass, and would fill other terrain better. I've never raised either one, but goats can eat leaves or grass instead of just grass. They are more stubborn, but probably could survive on their own better. It would have to be a variety or two varieties that produce good goat wool. Cashmere comes to mind. Sheep may be a better for the wool. If you did sheep, you'd probably need the female to be the dairy variety. Goats may be the better choice for milk. At least feta might be a possibility.

I picked sheep for a very practical reason. I have no experience with farm animals and I figure sheep are easier to deal with than cows or goats. I'm no cowboy, so I have no idea how to manage cows.

[Pixel--Dude]

@fschmidt, @Tsar I think bees are a really good choice! One that I didn't even consider! Bees for honey would be a really good idea.

I don't think you need fish or any sea creatures though, Tsar. @Voyager1 is right, they would be unaffected by the flood anyway, wouldn't they?

I guess I'd have to go with. Cows for milk, bees for honey, chickens for eggs. Maybe cats for companionship and finally sheep for their wool to help through the winter months.

By the way fschmidt, why did you choose earthworms? Is there a practical reason why?

[fschmidt]

@fschmidt, @Tsar I think bees are a really good choice! One that I didn't even consider! Bees for honey would be a really good idea.

By the way fschmidt, why did you choose earthworms? Is there a practical reason why?

I didn't pick bees for honey, but for pollination. Earthworms are needed for composting and softening the soil. Bees and earthworms are the 2 animals that plants depend on.

[MrMan]

@fschmidt, @Tsar I think bees are a really good choice! One that I didn't even consider! Bees for honey would be a really good idea.

By the way fschmidt, why did you choose earthworms? Is there a practical reason why?

I didn't pick bees for honey, but for pollination. Earthworms are needed for composting and softening the soil. Bees and earthworms are the 2 animals that plants depend on.

That's what I was thinking of, too. We'd need them for farming. But honey would be good, too.

[TruthSeeker]

@Tsar If Noah's flood was real, and I believe it was, I think it was more a regional flood than a global one.

The Noah Flood was not global, rather it was local and confined to an enclosed basin. The Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The watershed for the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers on which the flood could have occurred extends for more than 1600 km from the Persian Gulf through Mesopotamia into Syria and Turkey and laterally for about 1000 km from eastern Saudi Arabia to southwestern Iran. Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period. According to a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region.

So, if it was indeed a regional flood, mammals from North America, South America, Asia, Australia, etc. would not have been affected.

You have no basis to say the flood wasn't real and just a story.

[Pixel--Dude]

@Tsar If Noah's flood was real, and I believe it was, I think it was more a regional flood than a global one.

The Noah Flood was not global, rather it was local and confined to an enclosed basin. The Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The watershed for the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers on which the flood could have occurred extends for more than 1600 km from the Persian Gulf through Mesopotamia into Syria and Turkey and laterally for about 1000 km from eastern Saudi Arabia to southwestern Iran. Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period. According to a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region.

So, if it was indeed a regional flood, mammals from North America, South America, Asia, Australia, etc. would not have been affected.

You have no basis to say the flood wasn't real and just a story.

I also think that at some point in humanity's history there was a catastrophic event like a great flood. I can't go into details about whether this was a global or regional flood because I honestly don't have a clue.

However, that being said I don't believe a word of the Bible. Particularly the story of Noah's Ark, which seems more ludicrous than any other of the biblical myths. Perhaps @MrMan can clarify whether the biblical text specifically states whether this was a regional or global flood.

Either way, two of every unclean beast and seven of every clean beast would be ridiculously difficult to squeeze into the ark, regardless of how big it was supposed to be. Two of every ant alone would probably be enough to fill a standard sized living room.

What do you think @fschmidt? Do you believe this story actually happened?

I only intended this thread as a fun little hypothetical, but I would like actual believers to shed some light on how the logistics of Noah's Ark would actually work.

@TruthSeeker
@MrMan

[Pixel--Dude]

@Tsar If Noah's flood was real, and I believe it was, I think it was more a regional flood than a global one.

The Noah Flood was not global, rather it was local and confined to an enclosed basin. The Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The watershed for the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers on which the flood could have occurred extends for more than 1600 km from the Persian Gulf through Mesopotamia into Syria and Turkey and laterally for about 1000 km from eastern Saudi Arabia to southwestern Iran. Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period. According to a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region.

So, if it was indeed a regional flood, mammals from North America, South America, Asia, Australia, etc. would not have been affected.

You have no basis to say the flood wasn't real and just a story.

I also think that at some point in humanity's history there was a catastrophic event like a great flood. I can't go into details about whether this was a global or regional flood because I honestly don't have a clue.

However, that being said I don't believe a word of the Bible. Particularly the story of Noah's Ark, which seems more ludicrous than any other of the biblical myths. Perhaps @MrMan can clarify whether the biblical text specifically states whether this was a regional or global flood.

Either way, two of every unclean beast and seven of every clean beast would be ridiculously difficult to squeeze into the ark, regardless of how big it was supposed to be. Two of every ant alone would probably be enough to fill a standard sized living room.

What do you think @fschmidt? Do you believe this story actually happened?

I only intended this thread as a fun little hypothetical, but I would like actual believers to shed some light on how the logistics of Noah's Ark would actually work.

@TruthSeeker
@MrMan

What about naysayers?

@Winston
@Lucas88
@Tsar

Do you guys think the story of Noah's Ark could've been real? And if not, why?

[TruthSeeker]

Either way, two of every unclean beast and seven of every clean beast would be ridiculously difficult to squeeze into the ark, regardless of how big it was supposed to be. Two of every ant alone would probably be enough to fill a standard sized living room.

Not necessarily if it was a regional flood in the area that I have mentioned about. It would not be two of every beast on the whole globe but just a local region.

I've even heard speculation that Noah collected their DNA only. So that would be a possibility under that scenario. Only how would he re-breed them later assuming technology back then was not that advanced, or was it?

[Pixel--Dude]

Either way, two of every unclean beast and seven of every clean beast would be ridiculously difficult to squeeze into the ark, regardless of how big it was supposed to be. Two of every ant alone would probably be enough to fill a standard sized living room.

Not necessarily if it was a regional flood in the area that I have mentioned about. It would not be two of every beast on the whole globe but just a local region.

I've even heard speculation that Noah collected their DNA only. So that would be a possibility under that scenario. Only how would he re-breed them later assuming technology back then was not that advanced, or was it?

There is that theory of forgotten technologies and such. It's an interesting theory, but not one that can be verified. If we had superior technology at some forgotten stage in history then why have we found no evidence for it?

Personally, I'm a proponent of the ancient astronaut theory. I think aliens could've shared superior technology with humanity and then taken it with them when they left, leaving us to build civilisation from scratch with ancient Mesopotamia. Just a theory...