I've been following the discussion about Noah and the topic of a
specific area of land or whole earth flood. I am going to make
some comparisons to what modern zoos are doing for endangered
animals and Noah's Ark. I think some might find it interesting.
Zoos have cooperative breeding programs, sometimes
international, with the objective of preservation of an endangered
species with captive breeding programs. Here in the United States
these plans are called SSP's or Species Survival Plans. I wont go
into the many intricacies of how this is accomplished but, rather I
would like to discuss one aspect of SSP's in general; TAGs. (Yes,
another acronym. This plan is fraught with them.) TAG stands for
Taxonomic Advisory Group.
TAGs concern themselves with: what in fact is defined as a
species of the animal in question, are there subspecies, is it
necessary to breed subspecies with species, are there viable
captive representatives already in place, and possible other
considerations that I have forgotten or don't know about. *TAGs
make important decisions as to which animals are allowed on the
"Ark." *
I find it interesting to hypothesize that an intelligent creator could
have had a TAG in mind with the commissioning of Noah's Ark. I
am not suggesting I know the purpose of such a TAG I merely
make a comparison here. I know to some that this may sound
crazy but, if it where true one can find answers as to why there
were birds that could swim or fly to land on Noah's Ark or for that
matter there could have been what some would call a scientific
genetic purpose for any animal to be on Noahs Ark. These animals
could have held some important aspect to their species survival
OR even latter extinction, the possibilities are endless.
Theres some genetics prof. or student reading this shaking their
head. Perhaps you will offer a better explanation as to why this
couldn't or could work, if so please do. As I understand, it wild
populations with diminished numbers suffer a lack of genetic
diversity. An introduction of animals from an Ark with "fresh" genes
could be useful or detrimental. I'm getting a little above my head
here but, there could be an explanation for all that has been said
in this thread concerning what animals were taken and why they
were taken if the whole earth didn't flood.
Anyway,the concept of Noah's Ark as compared to modern zoos is
not a new one and I'm not the first to make this comparison by any
means.
Peace,
Kevin Koenig
>>I believe that some have suggested, and I would concede, that
it
>could
>>be that Noah was basically preserving domesticated livestock,
>but Genesis
>>does say every kind of living creature on the land, and also
every
>bird.
>>Surely the birds could have survived by flying away to
>somewhere the flood
>>was not occurring?
>
>If the flood were in Mesopotamia (as is popularly contended) I
>would
>absolutely agree with you. That area is so small that birds could
fly
>and
>animals could walk to the high ground. But not if the region were
>large
>enough as in the case with the Mediterranean. I calculated once
>that the
>rising water which is forcing the air out of the empty basin, would
>most
>likely cause severe rainfall all around the edges of the
>mediterranean for
>a couple of hundred miles. In other words, the flood wouldn't be
>localized
>just to the basin itself but would have extended partway through
>the
>Sahara. The birds would have to fly a long, long way.
>
>Secondly, some birds don't fly.
>
>>
>>If you have good answers for this argument, I would love to
hear
>them,
>>because, as I stated, I do struggle with this question.
>>
>Don't know if they are good, but they are my answers.
>glenn
>
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>& lots of creation/evolution information
>http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
>
>
>
* Considering the amount of accusations flying around lately I
would like to remind myself and everyone else that what makes
this listserve different from others I've seen is the fact that it is, or
was, friendly disscussion.