Could Noah's Ark Have Happened Realistically? Well, Yes.

[LogiChristianity]

There's no solid proof that humans weren't around when Pangaea broke apart.

Fossils. They're pretty solid. In fact, they're solid rock. The reason Pangaea was first theorized to exist was because of dinosaur fossils found in africa and south america. They were of the same species, so the only way it made sense was if they swam thousands of kilometres or the continents were pushed together.

How can fossils really concretely prove it? How can we accurately date fossils? Besides, maybe the molten rock and various Earth melting things melted fossils and muddled things up so we don't really have a clear picture.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

They're called fossils.

Which are in fact, very solid.

A bit dusty and brittle, though.

[Revolutopia]

We are required to suppose that two (and only two, one male and one female) of every land-based, sexually reproducing species present on the planet at the time was somehow preserved.

And in this we arrive at a serious problem: inbreeding. Inbreeding would be, as of the first generation of offspring, impossible to avoid since all members of that generation are directly related as brothers and sisters. The second generation of offspring, therefore, would begin a cycle of accumulation of deleterious recessive genes. This is especially problematic for those species on the boat since the extremely low population makes them all endangered by default. Endangered species with extreme genetic uniformity are especially susceptible to environmental factors and therefore extremely vulnerable to extinction.

Now let's address the matter of water-based species. The fact of the matter is that there is a great diversity of ecological niches occupied by water-based species. A freshwater fish could not easily survive in brackish water, nor could a saltwater fish survive easily in a lake filled with freshwater. The species which would survive would have to be highly resistant to sudden fluctuations in water temperature, pH, and salinity. There's also the added problem for predatory and omnivorous species finding their prey in a significantly expanded environment (not to mention the problem for herbivorous species whose food supply has been killed by constantly harsh weather conditions and the absence of sunlight with which to carry out photosynthesis).

As for inbreeding, where's your proof that he didn't choose the best and most diverse examples of each species? That could've happened, and that would solve your problem.

As for saltwater and freshwater, God could've just split the waters and made them not mix, like when Moses split the red sea.

Where is your prove that he did either of these as the imperative is on you.

[Noobubersland]

We are required to suppose that two (and only two, one male and one female) of every land-based, sexually reproducing species present on the planet at the time was somehow preserved.

And in this we arrive at a serious problem: inbreeding. Inbreeding would be, as of the first generation of offspring, impossible to avoid since all members of that generation are directly related as brothers and sisters. The second generation of offspring, therefore, would begin a cycle of accumulation of deleterious recessive genes. This is especially problematic for those species on the boat since the extremely low population makes them all endangered by default. Endangered species with extreme genetic uniformity are especially susceptible to environmental factors and therefore extremely vulnerable to extinction.

Now let's address the matter of water-based species. The fact of the matter is that there is a great diversity of ecological niches occupied by water-based species. A freshwater fish could not easily survive in brackish water, nor could a saltwater fish survive easily in a lake filled with freshwater. The species which would survive would have to be highly resistant to sudden fluctuations in water temperature, pH, and salinity. There's also the added problem for predatory and omnivorous species finding their prey in a significantly expanded environment (not to mention the problem for herbivorous species whose food supply has been killed by constantly harsh weather conditions and the absence of sunlight with which to carry out photosynthesis).

As for inbreeding, where's your proof that he didn't choose the best and most diverse examples of each species? That could've happened, and that would solve your problem.

As for saltwater and freshwater, God could've just split the waters and made them not mix, like when Moses split the red sea.

Doesn't work like that, you need at least 500 mating pairs to continue a species

[LogiChristianity]

There's no solid proof that humans weren't around when Pangaea broke apart.

So you're saying humanity has been around for billions of years?
What happened to six thousand years ago, on a Tuesday, or whatever the hell it is?

How do we know that Pangaea broke apart that long ago? How can we truly date that accurately? I don't see how that works.

[LogiChristianity]

As for inbreeding, where's your proof that he didn't choose the best and most diverse examples of each species? That could've happened, and that would solve your problem.

As for saltwater and freshwater, God could've just split the waters and made them not mix, like when Moses split the red sea.

Doesn't work like that, you need at least 500 mating pairs to continue a species

Source?

[Mavorpen]

We are required to suppose that two (and only two, one male and one female) of every land-based, sexually reproducing species present on the planet at the time was somehow preserved.

And in this we arrive at a serious problem: inbreeding. Inbreeding would be, as of the first generation of offspring, impossible to avoid since all members of that generation are directly related as brothers and sisters. The second generation of offspring, therefore, would begin a cycle of accumulation of deleterious recessive genes. This is especially problematic for those species on the boat since the extremely low population makes them all endangered by default. Endangered species with extreme genetic uniformity are especially susceptible to environmental factors and therefore extremely vulnerable to extinction.

Now let's address the matter of water-based species. The fact of the matter is that there is a great diversity of ecological niches occupied by water-based species. A freshwater fish could not easily survive in brackish water, nor could a saltwater fish survive easily in a lake filled with freshwater. The species which would survive would have to be highly resistant to sudden fluctuations in water temperature, pH, and salinity. There's also the added problem for predatory and omnivorous species finding their prey in a significantly expanded environment (not to mention the problem for herbivorous species whose food supply has been killed by constantly harsh weather conditions and the absence of sunlight with which to carry out photosynthesis).

As for inbreeding, where's your proof that he didn't choose the best and most diverse examples of each species? That could've happened, and that would solve your problem.

As for saltwater and freshwater, God could've just split the waters and made them not mix, like when Moses split the red sea.

If you're going to say,"GOD DUN IT!" at everything, this is not a debate.

[Individuality-ness]

We are required to suppose that two (and only two, one male and one female) of every land-based, sexually reproducing species present on the planet at the time was somehow preserved.

And in this we arrive at a serious problem: inbreeding. Inbreeding would be, as of the first generation of offspring, impossible to avoid since all members of that generation are directly related as brothers and sisters. The second generation of offspring, therefore, would begin a cycle of accumulation of deleterious recessive genes. This is especially problematic for those species on the boat since the extremely low population makes them all endangered by default. Endangered species with extreme genetic uniformity are especially susceptible to environmental factors and therefore extremely vulnerable to extinction.

Now let's address the matter of water-based species. The fact of the matter is that there is a great diversity of ecological niches occupied by water-based species. A freshwater fish could not easily survive in brackish water, nor could a saltwater fish survive easily in a lake filled with freshwater. The species which would survive would have to be highly resistant to sudden fluctuations in water temperature, pH, and salinity. There's also the added problem for predatory and omnivorous species finding their prey in a significantly expanded environment (not to mention the problem for herbivorous species whose food supply has been killed by constantly harsh weather conditions and the absence of sunlight with which to carry out photosynthesis).

As for inbreeding, where's your proof that he didn't choose the best and most diverse examples of each species? That could've happened, and that would solve your problem.

As for saltwater and freshwater, God could've just split the waters and made them not mix, like when Moses split the red sea.

Deux ex machina then? Is God the answer to everything now? Not valid enough for me.

[Revolutopia]

Fossils. They're pretty solid. In fact, they're solid rock. The reason Pangaea was first theorized to exist was because of dinosaur fossils found in africa and south america. They were of the same species, so the only way it made sense was if they swam thousands of kilometres or the continents were pushed together.

How can fossils really concretely prove it? How can we accurately date fossils? Besides, maybe the molten rock and various Earth melting things melted fossils and muddled things up so we don't really have a clear picture.

Again if you are making an affirmative claim they existed then it is one you to prove it.

[Great Void]

Lilith only came to be in the Talmud, so she wasn't really edited out of the Bible.

Lilith only came to be in the late stages of Frasier, so she really wasn't so funny (and no, Cheers does not count).

[Noobubersland]

Fossils. They're pretty solid. In fact, they're solid rock. The reason Pangaea was first theorized to exist was because of dinosaur fossils found in africa and south america. They were of the same species, so the only way it made sense was if they swam thousands of kilometres or the continents were pushed together.

How can fossils really concretely prove it? How can we accurately date fossils? Besides, maybe the molten rock and various Earth melting things melted fossils and muddled things up so we don't really have a clear picture.

If they were in Pangaea they would have fossils everywhere, we can very reliable date things, it's called Carbon dating

[LogiChristianity]

As for inbreeding, where's your proof that he didn't choose the best and most diverse examples of each species? That could've happened, and that would solve your problem.

As for saltwater and freshwater, God could've just split the waters and made them not mix, like when Moses split the red sea.

Deux ex machina then? Is God the answer to everything now? Not valid enough for me.

Why not? Why don't you believe God could do that?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Fossils. They're pretty solid. In fact, they're solid rock. The reason Pangaea was first theorized to exist was because of dinosaur fossils found in africa and south america. They were of the same species, so the only way it made sense was if they swam thousands of kilometres or the continents were pushed together.

How can fossils really concretely prove it? How can we accurately date fossils? Besides, maybe the molten rock and various Earth melting things melted fossils and muddled things up so we don't really have a clear picture.

Carbon dating. The amount of carbon in the fossils can be measured using radiocarbons, and a rough age of the fossils can be determined that way.
The reason Pangaea was first theorized was because of similar contemporary animal species, not dinosaurs.
And no. Fossils don't melt and then re-mold back together. Sorry. Try again.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Fossils. They're pretty solid. In fact, they're solid rock. The reason Pangaea was first theorized to exist was because of dinosaur fossils found in africa and south america. They were of the same species, so the only way it made sense was if they swam thousands of kilometres or the continents were pushed together.

How can fossils really concretely prove it? How can we accurately date fossils? Besides, maybe the molten rock and various Earth melting things melted fossils and muddled things up so we don't really have a clear picture.

Radiometric dating and analysis of the rock formations they are found in. And if fossils were melted, then we would have no idea that they existed. In order to melt rock...

Oh, nevermind. You will either ignore this post or respond to it with what I sincerely hope is a troll response.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

So you're saying humanity has been around for billions of years?
What happened to six thousand years ago, on a Tuesday, or whatever the hell it is?

How do we know that Pangaea broke apart that long ago? How can we truly date that accurately? I don't see how that works.

There's this thing called plate tectonics...measuring the drift gives a pretty good indication.

[Chinese Regions]

As for inbreeding, where's your proof that he didn't choose the best and most diverse examples of each species? That could've happened, and that would solve your problem.

As for saltwater and freshwater, God could've just split the waters and made them not mix, like when Moses split the red sea.

Doesn't work like that, you need at least 500 mating pairs to continue a species

100 clones of Adam, Lilith, Eve, Cain and Abel
Nerv has already started us off!

[LogiChristianity]

How can fossils really concretely prove it? How can we accurately date fossils? Besides, maybe the molten rock and various Earth melting things melted fossils and muddled things up so we don't really have a clear picture.

If they were in Pangaea they would have fossils everywhere, we can very reliable date things, it's called Carbon dating

How is carbon dating reliable AT ALL? And give a source.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

So you're saying humanity has been around for billions of years?
What happened to six thousand years ago, on a Tuesday, or whatever the hell it is?

How do we know that Pangaea broke apart that long ago? How can we truly date that accurately? I don't see how that works.

Radiocarbon dating

[Mavorpen]

Doesn't work like that, you need at least 500 mating pairs to continue a species

Source?

Without genetic diversity, you generally do not survive.

[North Franklin]

Why did God use a flood if he was going to have to use so much magic anyways? Seems like it would've been simpler to just magic everyone to death in the first place.

[LogiChristianity]

How do we know that Pangaea broke apart that long ago? How can we truly date that accurately? I don't see how that works.

There's this thing called plate tectonics...measuring the drift gives a pretty good indication.

How do we know that the movement isn't constant? How do we know that God didn't move the continents really fast to make the flood?

[Erinkita]

We are required to suppose that two (and only two, one male and one female) of every land-based, sexually reproducing species present on the planet at the time was somehow preserved.

And in this we arrive at a serious problem: inbreeding. Inbreeding would be, as of the first generation of offspring, impossible to avoid since all members of that generation are directly related as brothers and sisters. The second generation of offspring, therefore, would begin a cycle of accumulation of deleterious recessive genes. This is especially problematic for those species on the boat since the extremely low population makes them all endangered by default. Endangered species with extreme genetic uniformity are especially susceptible to environmental factors and therefore extremely vulnerable to extinction.

Now let's address the matter of water-based species. The fact of the matter is that there is a great diversity of ecological niches occupied by water-based species. A freshwater fish could not easily survive in brackish water, nor could a saltwater fish survive easily in a lake filled with freshwater. The species which would survive would have to be highly resistant to sudden fluctuations in water temperature, pH, and salinity. There's also the added problem for predatory and omnivorous species finding their prey in a significantly expanded environment (not to mention the problem for herbivorous species whose food supply has been killed by constantly harsh weather conditions and the absence of sunlight with which to carry out photosynthesis).

As for inbreeding, where's your proof that he didn't choose the best and most diverse examples of each species? That could've happened, and that would solve your problem.

Do you know what the word 'diverse' means? It's not something you get from two animals, even if they are the 'best', whatever that's supposed to mean.
Even if we put aside the extinction of every plant species and we have a timescale of tens of millions of years, which is what it would take to properly repopulate, the genetic bottlenecking would be so severs and the infant mortality rate so high that they'd be lucky to last three generations.

[Revolutopia]

I again repeat myself.

Why don't you creationists rebuild the ark exactly according to the Bible, and see if you can fit every animal on the planet on it.

[Individuality-ness]

Fossils. They're pretty solid. In fact, they're solid rock. The reason Pangaea was first theorized to exist was because of dinosaur fossils found in africa and south america. They were of the same species, so the only way it made sense was if they swam thousands of kilometres or the continents were pushed together.

How can fossils really concretely prove it? How can we accurately date fossils? Besides, maybe the molten rock and various Earth melting things melted fossils and muddled things up so we don't really have a clear picture.

I bring in... carbon dating! You know, radioactive half-life, carbon-14, all that shiz?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Deux ex machina then? Is God the answer to everything now? Not valid enough for me.

Why not? Why don't you believe God could do that?

Its too easy.