No Lions and Tigers were on Noah’s Ark

[Skwim]

A​

And creationists say there's no such thing as evolution.

"No lions and tigers were on Noah’s Ark. Instead, God brought one pair of every“kind.”
At least 38 living (shown here) and 36 extinct cats descended from this original pair!"
​

"Cats of the Cataclysm

The cat kind provides a great example of the diversity God placed within the created kinds. Many Ark illustrations show lions, tigers, and other large cats boarding the Ark, but this concept is mistaken. All of these large cats are members of the same created kind, so Noah did not bring two tigers, two lions, etc. In fact, Noah needed a total of only two cats—studies have shown that all cats are part of the same created kind. This would include modern alley cats, the famous saber-toothed cat (Smilodon), and many other large cats, whether living or extinct.

With such a wide assortment of traits within the felid [genus] kind, the task of determining the look of the Ark Encounter’s cats required extensive research. We paid close attention to the fossil evidence of the cats buried in rock layers laid down soon after the Flood, as determined by the Creation/Flood geology model adopted by our research department. These fossils likely give us a better idea of the size and structure of cats living within the first few centuries after the Flood.

Figuring out the size and shape is only part of the challenge. Cats have a wide array of coat patterns and colors, which are seldom preserved. They can have wide or thin stripes, large or small spots, or they can be a solid color or multicolored. One study concluded that small spots may have been the ancestral pattern of all other coat colors and designs."
source: A i G
​

Just think, from this single species of cats evolved the following 40 living species in just 4,300 years* no less---and this is being incredibly generous.

Subfamily Pantherinae
Genus Panthera [Lineage 1]
Tiger (Panthera tigris)
Lion (Panthera leo)
Jaguar (Panthera onca)
Leopard (Panthera pardus)
Snow leopard (Panthera uncia; syn., Uncia uncia)[24]

Genus Neofelis [Lineage 1]
Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa)
Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi)


Subfamily Felinae
Genus Pardofelis [Lineage 2] — since 2006, this genus is defined as also comprising Bay cat and Asian golden cat;[9]
Marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorata)

Genus Catopuma [Lineage 2] — syn. Pardofelis[9]
Bay cat (Catopuma badia) — syn. P. badia[9]
Asian golden cat (Catopuma temminckii) — syn. P. temminckii[9]

Genus Caracal [Lineage 3]
Caracal (C. caracal)
African golden cat (C. aurata) — syn. Profelis aurata;[9][25]
Serval (C. serval)[9]

Genus Leopardus [Lineage 4]
Pantanal cat (Leopardus braccatus)
Colocolo (Leopardus colocolo)
Geoffroy's cat (Leopardus geoffroyi)
Kodkod (Leopardus guigna)
Southern tigrina (Leopardus guttulus)
Andean mountain cat (Leopardus jacobitus)
Pampas cat (Leopardus pajeros)
Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)
Oncilla (Leopardus tigrinus)
Margay (Leopardus wiedii)

Genus Lynx [Lineage 5]
Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis)
Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx)
Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus)
Bobcat (Lynx rufus)

Genus Puma [Lineage 6]
Cougar (Puma concolor)
Jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi)

Genus Acinonyx[1][Lineage 6]
Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus)

Genus Prionailurus [Lineage 7]
Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis)
Iriomote cat (Prionailurus bengalensis iriomotensis) [aka Prionailurus iriomotensis][1]

Flat-headed cat (Prionailurus planiceps)
Rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus)
Fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus)

Genus Otocolobus [Lineage 7]
Pallas's cat (Otocolobus manul)

Genus Felis [Lineage 8]
Domestic cat (Felis catus)
Jungle cat (Felis chaus)
Sand cat (Felis margarita)
Black-footed cat (Felis nigripes)
Wildcat (Felis silvestris)
Chinese mountain cat (Felis silvestris bieti)
Source: Wikipedia

​

*Flood; 2,304 BC + 2,015 AD

​

 

[Tumah]

Assuming of course that "kind" is synonymous with "genus" or "species".
I don't really see any reason to make this assumption. Not that I am arguing against the concept of an animal evolving.

Just think, from this single species of cats evolved the following 40 living species in just 4,300 years* no less---and this is being incredibly generous.

Lion (Panthera leo)​

​

Not sure where you get this.

P. leo evolved in Africa between 1 million and 800,000 years ago, before spreading throughout the Holarctic region

 

[Sapiens]

Assuming of course that "kind" is synonymous with "genus" or "species".
I don't really see any reason to make this assumption. Not that I am arguing against the concept of an animal evolving.

Until you define "kind", "genus" and "species" conversation is meaningless.

Assuming of course that "kind" is synonymous with "genus" or "species".
Not sure where you get this.

I think he got it from wiki, right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion in the section headed: "Taxonomy and evolution."

 

[Draka]

I always wondered, regardless of what specific animals were supposedly on board the ark...what did the carnivores eat?

 

[Skwim]

Tumah,
Your formatting is throwing me off a bit, but I'm going to assume each of your comments applies to the quote below it

Assuming of course that "kind" is synonymous with "genus" or "species".
I don't really see any reason to make this assumption. Not that I am arguing against the concept of an animal evolving.

This is a matter of reason.
Given that it was a single pair of cats, male and female taken on board they would have had to been from at least a single genus, if not a single species. Animals of the same family but different genera are incapable of reproducing. Therefore "kind" would have to be at least equivalent to genus and more likely species. .

​

Not sure where you get this.

The article said "Noah needed a total of only two cats—studies have shown that all cats are part of the same created kind. This would include modern alley cats, the famous saber-toothed cat (Smilodon), and many other large cats, whether living or extinct."

The year of the flood came from "The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC ± 11 years."
source

 

[Skwim]

I always wondered, regardless of what specific animals were supposedly on board the ark...what did the carnivores eat?

Other animals, and for a good time past the forty days and forty nights no less. How long would it take all the water covering the earth to seep back into the ground producing dry land and a chance to sprout vegetation? My guess is at least three to four years. And what would these food-animals eat? All in all the story gets more preposterous the more one looks at it. I posted the OP, because it's the first time I've seen AiG or anyone make such a specific and clear assertion.

 

[David M]

Yeah, they need, and are happy with, hyper-speed evolution with speciations happening within a century but they claim that evolution that requires speciation events that usually take many thousands (or tens of thousands) of generations is "impossible".

 

[Tumah]

Until you define "kind", "genus" and "species" conversation is meaningless.

That's kind of what I'm saying.

I think he got it from wiki, right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion in the section headed: "Taxonomy and evolution."

I was the one that quoted the Wiki piece, I was comparing it with what his article said.

 

[Tumah]

Tumah,
Your formatting is throwing me off a bit, but I'm going to assume each of your comments applies to the quote below it

Sorry about that, I'll try to clear it up.

This is a matter of reason.
Given that it was a single pair of cats, male and female taken on board they would have had to been from at least a single genus, if not a single species. Animals of the same family but different genera are incapable of reproducing. Therefore "kind" would have to be at least equivalent to genus and more likely species.

you are giving a logical reason for why a given animal may fall into a specific genus or species. But there is no evidence that reproductive compatibility is the standard that Scriptures used to determine classification. I think its unreasonable to assume that people would have been aware for the most part of which species could reproduce with each other(assuming a person wrote it) and equally unreasonable to assume that G-d would use the same classification system that man formulated (assuming G-d wrote it).

​

The article said "Noah needed a total of only two cats—studies have shown that all cats are part of the same created kind. This would include modern alley cats, the famous saber-toothed cat (Smilodon), and many other large cats, whether living or extinct."

The year of the flood came from "The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC ± 11 years."
source

Right, I was contrasting what the article said, (that lions are a subspecies of a cat that lived in the past 4,300 year ago) with what Wikipedia writes (that lions evolved about a million years ago).

 

[Skwim]

That's kind of what I'm saying.

Consider what the quoted article says:

"The Bible says God sent “kinds,” not species, onto the Ark. What if that pair of prancing horses in our favorite Ark illustration never stood next to a pair of wild zebras? After all, both are equids and can breed together; so both must belong to the same kind. Genesis 6:19 says God sent only one pair of each (unclean) kind onto the Ark."
​

As far as I can see kind" has to be equivalent to genus. That there was one specific species of cat that evolved into all other species of cat is fine; however to say his happened in less than 2,000 - 4,000 years is ludicrous.

So "kind," is equivalent to genus, However, this presents some real logistical problems for the ark.

...............Land Vertebrates and birds on the ark

There are 1,258 genera of mammals, or 2 X 2...2,516 individual mammals.

................2,217 genera of birds..........................4,434 individual birds

................1,180 genera of reptiles......................2,360 individual reptiles

...................435 genera of amphibians .................870 individual amphibians
...............______.............................................................______
............... 5,090 total LV and B.........................10,180 individual Land Vertebrates and Birds
​

That's 10,180+ individual Land Vertebrates and Birds Noah and company had to load, feed, and clean up after for a couple of years. To say nothing of all the creepy crawlers and fish that had to be saved.

 

[Skwim]

Sorry about that, I'll try to clear it up.


you are giving a logical reason for why a given animal may fall into a specific genus or species. But there is no evidence that reproductive compatibility is the standard that Scriptures used to determine classification.

I'm just trying to interpolate the creationist argument. In its article AiG says that "kind" equates with genus, and I took it from there.

I think its unreasonable to assume that people would have been aware for the most part of which species could reproduce with each other(assuming a person wrote it) and equally unreasonable to assume that G-d would use the same classification system that man formulated (assuming G-d wrote it).

This is a problem of the creationists own making. If the fundamental apologists of today want to insist that the "kind" Noah brought on board equates with genus, as AiG has said in its article, then they have to deal with all the attendant issues and problems that arise from their assertion. For instance it implies that just because two animals are from the same genus---it gives the example of the zebra-horse hybrid--they will bear fertile off spring. However, the fact is that the mule, a cross between an *** Equus asinus and a horse Equus caballus are incapable of reproducing baby mules. There are no mother and father mules.

​

 

[Tumah]

Consider what the quoted article says:

"The Bible says God sent “kinds,” not species, onto the Ark. What if that pair of prancing horses in our favorite Ark illustration never stood next to a pair of wild zebras? After all, both are equids and can breed together; so both must belong to the same kind. Genesis 6:19 says God sent only one pair of each (unclean) kind onto the Ark."
​

As far as I can see kind" has to be equivalent to genus. That there was one specific species of cat that evolved into all other species of cat is fine; however to say his happened in less than 2,000 - 4,000 years is ludicrous.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be thickheaded here, but again, there is no reason to assume that "kind" is synonymous with "species". Consider that according to the Talmud, spelt is a "kind" of wheat, but oat and rye are a "kind" of barely. Clearly, the Sages of the Talmud are using some other classification system to determine "kind". (I'm not using this to prove something about the Sages of the Talmud, just to show that other classification systems exist.) I don't see any reason to assume that compatible breeding was the classification that was being used to distinguish between kinds.

So "kind," is equivalent to genus, However, this presents some real logistical problems for the ark.

...............Land Vertebrates and birds on the ark

There are 1,258 genera of mammals, or 2 X 2...2,516 individual mammals.

................2,217 genera of birds..........................4,434 individual birds

................1,180 genera of reptiles......................2,360 individual reptiles

...................435 genera of amphibians .................870 individual amphibians
...............______.............................................................______
............... 5,090 total LV and B.........................10,180 individual Land Vertebrates and Birds
​

That's 10,180+ individual Land Vertebrates and Birds Noah and company had to load, feed, and clean up after for a couple of years. To say nothing of all the creepy crawlers and fish that had to be saved.

For me personally that's not much of an issue, because we already have a concept of miraculously fitting more than possible into a given space (Avoth 5:5). I don't know what other Creationists will do with this.

 

[Tumah]

I'm just trying to interpolate the creationist argument. In its article AiG says that "kind" equates with genus, and I took it from there.

This is a problem of the creationists own making. If the fundamental apologists of today want to insist that the "kind" Noah brought on board equates with genus, as AiG has said in its article, then they have to deal with all the attendant issues and problems that arise from their assertion. For instance it implies that just because two animals are from the same genus---it gives the example of the zebra-horse hybrid--they will bear fertile off spring. However, the fact is that the mule, a cross between an *** Equus asinus and a horse Equus caballus are incapable of reproducing baby mules. There are no mother and father mules.

​

Oh, sorry. I didn't catch that you were making an argument off an article from AiG. I thought it was something else altogether.

 

[jonathan180iq]

And creationists say there's no such thing as evolution.

You silly geezer... That's adaptation; not evolution. Let Kent Hovind set you straight:

 

[metis]

I think we tend to make a mistake when we try to force a religious narrative into science, which is sorta like putting a square peg into a round hole. The main purpose of the narrative undoubtedly wasn't written for scientific purposes.

 

[dust1n]

A​

And creationists say there's no such thing as evolution.

"No lions and tigers were on Noah’s Ark. Instead, God brought one pair of every“kind.”
At least 38 living (shown here) and 36 extinct cats descended from this original pair!"
​

"Cats of the Cataclysm

The cat kind provides a great example of the diversity God placed within the created kinds. Many Ark illustrations show lions, tigers, and other large cats boarding the Ark, but this concept is mistaken. All of these large cats are members of the same created kind, so Noah did not bring two tigers, two lions, etc. In fact, Noah needed a total of only two cats—studies have shown that all cats are part of the same created kind. This would include modern alley cats, the famous saber-toothed cat (Smilodon), and many other large cats, whether living or extinct.

With such a wide assortment of traits within the felid [genus] kind, the task of determining the look of the Ark Encounter’s cats required extensive research. We paid close attention to the fossil evidence of the cats buried in rock layers laid down soon after the Flood, as determined by the Creation/Flood geology model adopted by our research department. These fossils likely give us a better idea of the size and structure of cats living within the first few centuries after the Flood.

Figuring out the size and shape is only part of the challenge. Cats have a wide array of coat patterns and colors, which are seldom preserved. They can have wide or thin stripes, large or small spots, or they can be a solid color or multicolored. One study concluded that small spots may have been the ancestral pattern of all other coat colors and designs."
source: A i G​

Just think, from this single species of cats evolved the following 40 living species in just 4,300 years* no less---and this is being incredibly generous.

Subfamily Pantherinae
Genus Panthera [Lineage 1]
Tiger (Panthera tigris)
Lion (Panthera leo)
Jaguar (Panthera onca)
Leopard (Panthera pardus)
Snow leopard (Panthera uncia; syn., Uncia uncia)[24]

Genus Neofelis [Lineage 1]
Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa)
Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi)


Subfamily Felinae
Genus Pardofelis [Lineage 2] — since 2006, this genus is defined as also comprising Bay cat and Asian golden cat;[9]
Marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorata)

Genus Catopuma [Lineage 2] — syn. Pardofelis[9]
Bay cat (Catopuma badia) — syn. P. badia[9]
Asian golden cat (Catopuma temminckii) — syn. P. temminckii[9]

Genus Caracal [Lineage 3]
Caracal (C. caracal)
African golden cat (C. aurata) — syn. Profelis aurata;[9][25]
Serval (C. serval)[9]

Genus Leopardus [Lineage 4]
Pantanal cat (Leopardus braccatus)
Colocolo (Leopardus colocolo)
Geoffroy's cat (Leopardus geoffroyi)
Kodkod (Leopardus guigna)
Southern tigrina (Leopardus guttulus)
Andean mountain cat (Leopardus jacobitus)
Pampas cat (Leopardus pajeros)
Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)
Oncilla (Leopardus tigrinus)
Margay (Leopardus wiedii)

Genus Lynx [Lineage 5]
Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis)
Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx)
Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus)
Bobcat (Lynx rufus)

Genus Puma [Lineage 6]
Cougar (Puma concolor)
Jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi)

Genus Acinonyx[1][Lineage 6]
Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus)

Genus Prionailurus [Lineage 7]
Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis)
Iriomote cat (Prionailurus bengalensis iriomotensis) [aka Prionailurus iriomotensis][1]

Flat-headed cat (Prionailurus planiceps)
Rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus)
Fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus)

Genus Otocolobus [Lineage 7]
Pallas's cat (Otocolobus manul)

Genus Felis [Lineage 8]
Domestic cat (Felis catus)
Jungle cat (Felis chaus)
Sand cat (Felis margarita)
Black-footed cat (Felis nigripes)
Wildcat (Felis silvestris)
Chinese mountain cat (Felis silvestris bieti)
Source: Wikipedia

​

*Flood; 2,304 BC + 2,015 AD

​

Hmm, and I wonder if that kind has anything to do with with another feliform ancestor from 10 million years before then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudaelurus

 

[viole]

I think we tend to make a mistake when we try to force a religious narrative into science, which is sorta like putting a square peg into a round hole. The main purpose of the narrative undoubtedly wasn't written for scientific purposes.

I don't agree here.

Science is a tool that we use to ascertain truths about the world. Science makes sense only when we do not know things. In other words, science is great when ignorance is the default. Otherwise, it is useless.

i would expect that God does not need tools, but He can say immediately how things are, being the creator and all. A Scientific God is, in my opinion, absurd.

Maybe we can say that God did not want to promulgate truths which were too complicated at the time of the bronze age. But I do not buy that either. How difficult is it to understand something like "day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth around its axis"? I am sure people at that time would have grasped that or, at worst, left it verbatin in scripture for the people to figure it out.

I think the most rational explanation is that people, at that time, simply made things up, or used their obviously unguided intuition.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

For me personally that's not much of an issue, because we already have a concept of miraculously fitting more than possible into a given space (Avoth 5:5). I don't know what other Creationists will do with this.

There would be no point in making the ark a specific size if space was not an issue. Your ad hoc rationalization does nothing to resolve this issue.

 

[Ouroboros]

And creationists say there's no such thing as evolution.
...
Just think, from this single species of cats evolved the following 40 living species in just 4,300 years* no less---and this is being incredibly generous.

Exactly. I've asked Creationists about the same thing over the years and never got any answer. Usually it ends up in silence. It would require a super-speed evolution after the ark to produce all the "sub-kinds" of species.

 

[Demonslayer]

It would require a super-speed evolution after the ark to produce all the "sub-kinds" of species.

And they don't believe in evolution, so there's that little problem too.