Answering “Questions Christians Can’t Answer” #6 – Noah’s Flood?

The Ark

 

E. Pucket was a faithful Christian for much of his life. However, as he began to expand his reading and investigate arguments against faith, he became convinced that faith was irrational. This impression was strengthened by the fact that Christians with which he interacted largely told him that he should believe for belief’s sake, and that faith trumped rationality.

Pucket now spends a significant amount of time interacting with born again Christians who he feels are trying to convert him and win his soul. He rebuffs these attempts by presenting arguments that seem to stymie these Christians who in turn make vague appeals to “God’s Plan” and blind faith. 

In his article, “Top 50 Questions Christians Can’t Answer” on Yahoo voices, Pucket lists out some of the arguments he has found that Christians seem to have no rational, logical answers for, and invites the readers to inspect their faith in light of these questions. Says Pucket: 

“Don’t get me wrong, they will have an answer for them. You will find, however, that their answers have no basis in verifiable fact or evidence whatsoever, and will be largely based in their blind faith forsaking all reason.” 

This series of articles will examine all fifty of Pucket’s questions, five per article, and offer responses to these questions. One preliminary comment is in order: 

A variety of the Christian views that Pucket attacks in these questions are held by a very specific sect of Christian believers, and by no means characterize the whole of Christian views. The questions also occasionally make broad statements which either mischaracterize Biblical teachings, or are backed up with no supporting evidence. Where these mistakes are made, the responses are largely aimed at correcting these mischaracterizations. This is not to say that the attack has no merit, but the attack would need to be re-worked to fit a proper representation of that belief. 

Finally, it is worth noting that the questions are sometimes phrased in highly emotive or sarcastic forms. These articles will attempt to respond to the fundamental objection being raised, rather than the tone in which they are presented, however the questions themselves will be presented in their original form. 

Source

6 – If Noah did fit all of these species on the ark for forty days and forty nights, how did the penguins make it from Mt. Ararat to the Antarctic? How did the koala bears make it to Australia with no eucalyptus to eat along the way? 

This carries on the theme of the previous question. Question #5 asks how the billions of species of animals on the planet could all fit on the ark. The article answering that question noted, among other things, that Christians in general do not have universal agreement on the details and actuality of the Flood narrative. Worst case scenario for Christianity as a system of belief is that the Ark narrative is a product of mythology. This does nothing to destroy Christianity as a system – at best, it simply causes Christians to re-assess how they read the Bible.

However, the question posed by Pucket here does not present an impossible scenario. Assuming that a relatively small population of people and animals began to breed and expand from a particular area of the planet, the simple laws of natural selection tell us that they would tend to change over generations to adapt to their new environment. Oddly, this is something upon which almost everyone – Christians and Atheists, Creationists and Evolutionists – agree: the current population of wildlife that we see around the planet is the result of gradual migration and speciation of a smaller population from a particular location; probably in the area of North Africa. The mechanisms as to how animals developed there and how they migrated from that location might be a subject of disagreement, but the very fact that they started there is more or less an accepted fact.

 

Leave a Reply