This is actually a derail identification contest. The first person to identify the derail gets the point. your identification must quote the derail and must directly follow the derail. In case you don’t know what ‘derail’ means, it will be comments that have NOTHING to do with the question posed. Derails are attempts to change the topic to the derailer’s favorite topic. They cannot create their own topic and actually get a conversation going so they must derail another ‘successful’ topic.
Expected derails include a back and forth between an atheist and a black conservative about the existence of a being the atheist insists does not exist. It is not a debate, it is simply i am right, you are wrong nonsense. Derailers cannot put themselves in someone else’s shoes so any ‘conversation’ is pointless.
you may identify the derail any way you like but must include the word ‘derail’. You may also include an explanation of why it is a derail. I dont know if one should get extra points for a detailed explanation. we can debate that. There is no prize except the self satisfaction of maximum derailment identification. You may not identify your own derail. You may answer the question if you like. A conversation about derailment may constitute a derail unless an answer is also given to the question. If you would like additional rules, you can add them and have a 1 minute vote yea or nay.
You may not ‘debate’ a derailer as it is impossible. Anyone who debates an identified derailer is disqualified. you may vote on this rule.
Factually? There was no Ark. In the reality of the legend, I doubt it. Because the primitive men who wrote the story probably didn’t know that there were fresh and saltwater fish.
The answer is clearly YES, because, cladistically, all vertebrate species are “fish.” There is no clade that includes trout and hagfish and does not include homo sapiens sapiens.
The derailing is actually the second sentence in the OP.
I’ll give you two answers - in the context of the story, the text does not say whether there were fish on the ark, so the question cannot be definitively answered from the text, but it would not be unreasonable to presume that the author(s) took it for granted that the fish could take care of themselves without a boat.
If you’re asking it as a literal, historical question, then obviously there was no ark because there was no global flood. That is not a statement about the existence of god, by the way, it’s a demonstrable, provable geological fact about the earth. We also know that the story is derived from earlier Mesopotamian stories and is clearly identifiable as myth.
Well, the OP never said which Ark. Maybe the Hebrews were storing sardines in there with the Ten Commandments. I mean, if you’re going to lug the thing around the desert for 40 years, you may as well make some practical use of it.
Disagree. In Gen 7, we read "The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.” "
Most fish are clean animals* (bottom-feeders and shellfish aren’t) so…he had to take 14 of each type of fish (except for the non-clean ones, which went two-by-two)
Therefore (per the story) there were fish on the ark.
*And if you quibble that “fish aren’t animals” then you gotta deal with snakes, bugs, arachnids, etc.
