Genesis records that the Ark was 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits. A cubit is the length from one’s elbow to the tip of their finger. Traditionally this is accepted to be 18”. However, up to a 22” cubit is accepted by Jewish Historians and being 600 years old, Noah’s could have been even bigger!
Accepting the smallest size for a cubit, the Ark would thus be 450’ x 75’ x 45’. This would give the Ark 1,518,750 cubic feet of room. Equal to the capacity of 565 railroad stock cars! But was that enough? To answer this question, we must know how many animals were on the Ark.
Genesis records each “kind” of animal was on the Ark. Though we do not have a list of God’s classification of ‘kinds’, in the creation account, we see that kinds can reproduce. Bearing this in mind, we can see not every ‘species’ was required, but a far smaller number would be required. For instance there would not be a Poodle, Labrador, Great Dane, Wolf and fox on board, but one dog kind.
It is believed this number to be less than 35,000 animals. However, even if we were to take the worst case, and look at species, is there enough room?
Looking even at species, there are only 21,100 species that would have needed the protection of the ark. Multiply this by 2 so we have a male and female of each brings our total to 42,200. There are well less than 1000 ‘clean’ kinds but even adding 7 of each at that many, still leaves the number at less than 50,000 even after adding in two of each dinosaur kind. But will they fit?
If you take all animals, including dinosaurs, from the smallest to the largest, the average size would be that of a sheep. As stated earlier, the Ark can hold the same as 565 railroad stock cars. Shipping records show a stock car will hold 240 sheep. So:
50,000 animals at 240 per car = 208 stock cars. Only 36% of the Ark’s capacity to fit all the SPECIES! Room with plenty to spare!
So that's approximately 30 cubic feet per animal for the animal & their food? Pretty small space considering the size of some animals and 40 days of food. Also, what about insects?
ReplyDeleteThat's an average. Bigger animals would get more, smaller ones would get less. Remember, this wasn't a cruise, it was a survival barge. The conditions did not have to be nice or sanitary, just survivable.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Noah would have taken adolescent animals at the oldest, not the full grown ones (a young T-Rex was the size of a parrot). You want the animals coming off the ark to just be able to start having young so they can have the longest life span after the journey to repopulate their kind.
Insects did not need to be on the ark. First, they could survive outside the ark on debris or the hull, either as-is or as eggs.
To further support this, Genesis 7: 2-3 Gives specifics on how many animals of each to bring, clean, unclean and birds. No mention of insects.
Also, the New International Version of the bible says, "Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind."
DeleteIt clearly says every living thing perished. It never says that insects were outside the haul.
The King James Version makes it also clear as I have said before, "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man."
First, it also never says aquatic life was outside the ark but we know that to be true. Second the word there as 'earth' can be translated several ways, whole earth, ground or land, country . According to Strong's, the most common translation is ground or land and that is the way it is interpreted in this passage. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=ground%2A+H776&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1) If you are floating on a log, you are not on the land.
DeleteEven so, I do not believe the above to be the case (so don't try to argue it with me - I have a hard time defending something I don't believe to be true). If you look at my rendition of the ark, there is PLEANTY of room in the waste area of the ark to house them and feed them.
Oh, and you still had 2/3 the ark to store food in. And since all the animals were vegetarian, you wouldn't have needed wide varieties for them.
ReplyDeleteM8 why were all the animals vegetarian? God doesn't care about the carnivores? And yes, vegetarian species do still eat a wide variety of plants. After being submerged for days on end and deprived of sunlight do you expect all of the plant life to be intact and ready to be eaten?
DeleteWe know they were vegetarian because God said "and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so." We don't see this rescinded anywhere until after the flood. That's not to say some didn't disobey, but we saw what happened to those that disobeyed God during the flood.
DeleteWe know there was vegetation. Scripture says the land began to appear as the water receded in the tenth month, on the first day of the month. 47 days later Noah sent out a dove who came back with a branch from a new olive tree in its beak. Then, it was not until the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month that Noah and the rest came out of the ark. Plenty of time for the vegetation to be there especially considering how fast God made it grow 6 chapters earlier.
I was wondering - I believe the Flood was composed of fresh water. An atheist once asked me how could all the salt water fishes survive the influx of so much fresh water? He also asked how could the river dwelling fish, relying on shallow water, survive a flood that filled the world to such a depth making their source of food much deeper than they were capable of swimming down to. I had no good answers, what would you have said to him?
ReplyDeleteTo answer this, first they need to answer some questions:
ReplyDeleteBefore the flood:
1) What was the salinity level of the ocean?
2) What was the salinity level of the "fresh water" lakes?
3) What fish were in existence, were living in each and what were their physical tolerances towards salinity levels (at least of the ones that survived).
Once you ask these questions, their question disappears. They don't know the answer to these questions (no one under 4000 years old does) so they cannot set that parameters for their own question. Its like asking you to give the sum of two numbers, but they won't give you the numbers to add together.
Simply put, we don't know the requirements of the fish nor the condition of the waters. The conditions could have been fine for the some to survive (obviously a vast number didn't as shown in the fossil record).
Then turn the question around, "Do you actually believe that of the billions upon billions of aquatic animals alive, every single one of them drowned?" Now that is ridiculous.
In His service... Arthur
As for the water being too deep, turn that question around as well.
ReplyDelete1) What were the requirements of the fish that were alive at the time (not fish alive today)?
2) How deep was it?
Again they cannot answer #1 and thus negate
their question. Even if the fish were the same general kind as today, we don't know that their diet didn't also change after the flood or in the 4000 years to follow.
How deep? This one we do have an answer to. Scripture says 15 cubits or about 22 feet. Still think it was too deep?
In His service... Arthur
The only taking baby animals argument has flaws as well. An elephant doesn't produce offspring until it is about 13 the gestation period is about 21 months. Given that Noah, his family and the animals they did take with them were on the ark for a little over a year then the first baby elephant would not have been born for about 14 years.
ReplyDeleteLions can reproduce between 2 and 3 while tigers can reproduce between 3 and 4. Both animals have multiple offspring while elephants only produce one at a time. There could be at least 6 generations of lions and and 3 generations of tigers.
That would mean that two elephants lived for 14 years in the wild with hundreds if not thousands of lions and tigers on the earth, Highly doubtful.There are other animals that take a while to reach maturity also.
You wouldn't take babies that are too young to care for themselves. You would take adolescents. Old enough to produce offspring as soon as they disembark, young enough to have the longest period of child bearing years left to them after the flood, and still not full grown. Too young to produce or with half their reproducing years gone, would be a waste.
ReplyDeleteThis really plays mostly for dinosaurs as even a full-grown elephant would have plenty of room. As would a dino for the first decade or more of its life. The point is they didn't need a 150 year old, 50' tall dino on the ark.
You avoided his toughest argument. If you don't believe there was a fall till after the ark, then there would still be hundreds, if not thousands, of lions, Hyenas, tigers to consume the elephants because of their slow gestation period. Also, since you believe that they didn't go extinct millions of years ago, all species of dinosaurs that were predators would apparently be around.
DeleteYou might reply back by saying that elephants aren't usually attacked nowadays. Although that is usually true, that is due to the fact that they travel in herds. Since there would be so few elephants reproducing after the flood, there would be no herds of elephants.
Finally, scientists estimate that 99.9% of animals are extinct. There is no way for Noah to keep all those animals on board.
Not 'fall' but change from vegetarian to carnivore. But see, you assume that these animals, post flood, all of a sudden became vicious killers. No, their natures wouldn't change over night, it would have to come as a gradual change over time as the animals couldn't find food and got desperate enough to try another animal. In fact, Scripture describes the only change in their nature as then being affraid of man (thus keeping man alive).
DeleteAs for extinct species. First, most are going to be related to other existing kinds and therefore derived from parent kinds that were on the ark. This would eliminate the majority.
Second, even with people, animals, food and supplies, the ark was less than half full. That is COUNTING room for the dinosaurs and the like. Plenty of room for many, many more.
Blessings... Arthur
I am a Christian that worships the Lord Jesus Christ but I thought numerous stories in the bible or just that, stories. I never thought that EVERYTHING in the bible are to be taken literally.
ReplyDeleteHow do Poodles, Labradors, Great Danes, Wolfs, and foxes exist today if they were not the chosen specie of dog chosen to be on board?
Also, how did all the animals survive being on the arc and their place of landing if different animals need different climates to live?
What happened to all that water that caused the flood?
Everything isn't to be taken literal. But those things that are not, are made obvious like "The kingdom of Heaven is like..." But Christ and the apostles all refer to the flood of Noah as a literal event. Either it was, they were wrong or they lied.
DeleteDogs are easy. There were two dog kind aboard with a full range of genetic information. Throughout the 4000 years since, those dogs have separated and LOST the genetic variety of the originals. As this happens, the traits become more and more narrow, favoring the particular one that thrives best in that particular environment. In the case of dogs, this is sped up by man force breeding in and out traits to get certain results.
Climate is also easy, pre-flood there was only one climate. It wasn't until after the flood that things got messed up by the continent being broken into several, them moving to current locations, the mountains being raised, the vapor canopy being lost and other such events. The animals we see now with specific climate requirements have developed them over 4000 years to better adapt to where they have migrated to since the flood.
The water? It is all right here. There is PLENTY of water on earth to do the job taking into consideration Scripture says during the flood the mountains were raised and valleys were lowered to store the flood waters. Level those out even a small bit, and the earth is covered far deeper than Scripture says it was during the flood.
So you're basically stating that the reasoning behind not needing multiple species is because of evolution?
DeleteThere are 7 kinds of evolution. One, the one referring to here which is merely change within a species (termed 'microevolution'), is the only observed form of "evolution". In reality, this form of "evolution" is really a detriment to the evolutionary claims because to date, only negative or lateral changes to the DNA have occurred. You need a positive change to 'evolve' upwards.
DeleteBlessings... Arthur
A t-Rex was a vegetarian? Where does the bible say anything about dinosaurs? Also, if the water depth was 15-22 ft as you say how is it possible that the highest mountains were covered?
ReplyDeleteYes. God says pre flood, that all animals were. Sharp teeth do not equal carnivore. It simply means they had sharp teeth.
DeleteScripture does not use the word "dinosaurs", true. But that is because the word "dinosaur" was not made up until 150 years AFTER Scripture was translated to English. However it does speak of dragons and firey flying serpents. It also describes in great detail, Leviathan which doesn't fit any living animal yet very closely describes a Kronosaurus. It also describes another such animal that EXACTLY matches a sauropod.
Depth = 15-22ft ABOVE the land masses. So that would be 15-20 feet above the tallest land mass. Not above sea level. Plus, Scripture says the mountains were raised up and valleys lowered down for the waters of the flood to reside. so the pre-flood mountains were no where near as tall.
If all of the animals at the time of the flood were vegetarians, then why were animals fossils found inside the stomachs of dinosaurs?
Deletehttp://www.livescience.com/22809-diinosaur-gut-contents.html
Because they ate them post flood... The flood would have created the majority of fossils, but not all. We have fossils of modern, man made items as well.
DeleteBlessings... Arthur
Also, if there were just eight people on the ark and the global flood took place 4000 years ago, how could there possibly be seven billion people on the planet now. That is flat out not possible.
ReplyDeleteHow did he collect the animals? One of the reasons for evolutionary theory is the discovery that some breeds of animal are only found in certain parts of the world. How did Noah collect all the animals from all the land masses of the earth first? It wouldn't be possible today. Why was it possible then? Then after Noah landed, all the animals would have had to have been returned to their natural habitat. They couldn't have walked because of land separation, so presumably Noah had to take them all their himself? How is this possible? Finally, since this is God we're talking about, why use such an absurd method to cleanse the earth and such an absurd method to spare the animals when he could have just removed the problems himself and avoid all that interim trouble.
ReplyDeleteI eagerly await a believable response.
Noah didn't collect them, God brought them to Noah. Pre flood, there is no indication that there were multiple land masses. In fact, Scripture all but states there was only one. Plus, most flood models a great shift in the plates (above and below water, so yes, land masses) to release the fountains of the deep as well as cause many of the geological features we see. Also, these fountains emptying would force these movements to occur.
DeleteAlso, these land masses are for the most part, still connected today. The connection is just under water. Add an 'ice age' (much shorter duration than were are told, like everything else) and the water level rises to form easy land bridges.
After the flood, their natural habitat was gone. They had to spread out and adapt to the environments they found. This again is merely change within a kind and it is observed to happen today when animals food sources dry up.
How was it absurd? It was quite effective as will be the next one He sends. As for why the ark, the whole ark account is simply a foreshadowing of the coming salvation through Christ.
Blessings... Arthur
Some creationists say that the flood took place 4000 years ago. If that's the case how can some trees live older than that? The following trees are dated by their rings and are over 7000 years old.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v312/n5990/abs/312150a0.html
That's an easy one. Science has OBSERVED that trees can and will produce more than one ring a year. The rings are not based on years (trees don't have calendars), they are based on climate conditions.
Deletehttp://www.icr.org/article/7058/
Also, the only way to reproduce on the ark would have been through inbreeding.
ReplyDeleteIt's a biological fact that inbreeding would cause genetic disorders within offspring and susceptibility to disease.
That is only true based on the observed state of genetics. These disorders happen when the flawed trait is passed on and takes over. It happens most in inbreeding because there is a greater chance of the mother's gene and fathers gene both having recieved the same flaw since they have the same parent. Whereas with unrelated pairs, it is likely one parent won't have that same flaw.
DeleteHowever, when God created everything, He said it was "Very Good". And we have seen that God's standard of merely good is beyond our reach. So the initial DNA would have had no flaws. It would take many generations for mutations to happen and the flaws to become so prevalent that such a concern would be anything to worry about. It is also why incest wasn't a sin until the time of Moses. The genetic flaws hadn't become enough to be concerned over.
Blessings... Arthur
Actually, Population growth is COMPLETELY on the side of Scripture. The average, observed growth rate is 2%. However, if we were to apply this using the evolutionists Unitarian view they insist upon, the population should be immensely greater than it is. In fact, if the growth rate were 1/4 (0.5%) of what is observed, we get the current population from the time of Noah until now.
ReplyDeleteif evolution were correct, this same figure would result in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000 people. Okay, you'll say the population growth rate was lower back then. But even during the plague the growth rate was .31%. But yet you'll insist. However, to force evolution to work, for most of 'human history' you would need a growth rate of .00438%!! If you can believe that, then nothing I can say can change your mind.
http://www.kolbecenter.org/population-statistics-support-biblical-chronology/
Blessings... arthur