From EvoWiki

two things to consider:1)we didn't have to have every single species of animal i.e. dogs just a basic wolf and she wolf could have populated the world with dogs who would have bred and made all the varieties we know of today 2) hibernation, think about it, sleep for a year, even a normal hidernation period for most animals would cut the needed food supply in half at least also the body waste would have to be dealt with

Let us know how many animals you WOULD need. Just declaring you wouldn't need them all is nothing but handwaving. You want to be respected as science, do science. Give us some numbers! What is a kind? How can we test whether two animals are part of the same kind or not?

You do realize that there is more variation among dogs than there is between humans and chimps. If all dogs can descend from a pair of wolves on the ark in a matter of a few hundred years, humans and chimps could easily be the same kind. You're rather shooting creationism in the foot.

Why were the animals hibernating? Most don't, you know. In fact, true hibernation is unknown among mammals or birds. (Bears never truly hibernate, despite popular misconceptions.) So, another miracle.

If the entire ark story depends on miracles to counter every single problem, how can you claim it's science? More pressing question: if God is willing to perform a hundred miracles to save the ark, why does he need an ark to begin with? Why not just *poof* all the bad people gone and avoid the hassle? Is he omnipotent or not? --Suttkus 04:58, 3 May 2006 (BST)

The closest any mammal comes to true "sleep through the entire winter" hibernation is the sleep some bats go through in caves. Even then, they have to wake up at least once or twice. Originally, scientists thought that they did so to urinate, but, in fact, it's to jumpstart their immune systems, as, a leading cause of death among hibernating bats is mold. Yes. Mold. If the bats sleep through the entire winter, they stand a good chance of being, for a lack of a better term, killed and eaten by common mold. And as such, you should have a way of explaining how all these hibernating animals in the warm, damp hold of the Ark weren't at risk of developing fatal fungemia.--Mr A. 05:25, 3 May 2006 (BST)

==

I feel that it's completely pathetic to write an article about Noah's Ark on this site, which as I understand is created to inform about the theory of evolution rather than to criticise Christianity! Noah's ark is a bed-time story from the bible, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Then can you come up with an alternative to dealing with those Young Earth Creationist Christians who insist under pain of eternal damnation and infinite flaming brimstone that Noah's Ark is The Truth, while the Fossil Record is a children's bed-time story that has nothing to do with science? I mean, would it kill you to give us some good advice, or constructive criticisms and suggestions, rather than play the part of the popinjaying pilgarlic of the peanut gallery?--Mr A. 01:45, 15 July 2006 (BST)

It is the creationists who make this a relevant argument. They use the Ark and the Flood to account for history. They make it an anti-evolution argument. I hardly see how responding to creationist arguments on an anti-creationist website is "pathetic." Perhaps you'd care to elucidate. Are there creationist arguments we shouldn't react to? Why?

--Suttkus 05:31, 15 July 2006 (BST)

Why would they need to be dealt with? It is possible that I'm less creative than most Christians, but how this story could be used as an argument against evolution is beyond me. The way I feel it, you could just as well write down arguments against Jesus walking on water. I'd simply write "The story of Noah's Ark involves too many supernatural aspects to be discussed on this scientific website."

Do realize that many professed Christians are extremely inventive in perverting and distorting the Bible in order to have reality, biological or otherwise, conform with their worldview. To simply dismiss John Woodmorappe's absurd assertions as being grotesque pervertions of science AND biblical theology without discussing WHY his absurd assertions are grotesque pervertions of science and biblical theology does a tremendous disservice to everyone.--Mr A. 18:05, 17 July 2006 (BST)