SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

<h1>How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?</h1>
by Jonathan Sarfati</p>
Many skeptics assert that the Bible must be wrong, because they
claim that the Ark could not possibly have carried all the different types
of animals. This has persuaded some Christians to deny the Genesis Flood,
or believe that it was only a local flood involving comparatively few
local animals. But they usually have not actually performed the calculations.
On the other hand, the classic creationist book <i>The Genesis Flood</i>
contained a detailed analysis as far back as 1961.<sup>1</sup> A more
detailed and updated technical study of this and many other questions
is John Woodmorappe’s book <i>Noah’s
Ark: a Feasibility Study</i>. This article is based on material in
these books plus some independent calculations. There are two questions
to ask:</p>
<ul>
<li>How many types of animals did Noah need to take?</li>
<li>Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?</li>
</ul>

<h2>How many types of animals did Noah need to take?</h2>

<p class="main">The relevant passages are Genesis 6:19–20 and Genesis
7:2–3.</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="main">Genesis 6:19–20:<br>
‘And of every living thing of all flesh,
two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive
with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every
creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall
come unto thee, to keep them alive.’ </p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p class="main">Genesis 7:2–3:<br>
‘<span class="scripture">Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee
by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean
by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep
seed alive upon the face of all the earth.</span>’</p>
</blockquote>



<p class="main">In the original Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’
in these passages is the same: <i>behemah</i>, and it refers to land vertebrate
animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is <i>remes</i>, which
has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably
refers to reptiles.<sup>2</sup> Noah did not need to take sea creatures<sup>3</sup> because
they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However,
turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record,
and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.</p>
<p class="main">However, if God in His wisdom had decided not to preserve
some ocean creatures, this was none of Noah’s business. Noah did
not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and
others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects
and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats
as well. The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed <i>through
nostrils</i> except those on the Ark (Genesis
7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes
in their exterior skeleton.</p>
<p class="main"><b>Clean animals:</b> Bible commentators are evenly divided
about whether the Hebrew means ‘seven’ or ‘seven pairs’
of each type of clean animal. Woodmorappe takes the latter just to concede
as much to the biblioskeptics as possible. But the vast majority of animals
are not clean, and were represented by only two specimens each. The term
‘clean animal’ was not defined until the Mosaic Law. But since
Moses was also the compiler of Genesis, if we follow the principle that
‘Scripture interprets Scripture’, the Mosaic Law definitions
can be applied to the Noahic situation. There are actually very few ‘clean’
land animals listed in Leviticus
11 and Deuteronomy
14.</p>
<p class="main"><b>What is a ‘kind’?</b> God created a number of different
types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.<sup>4</sup> The
descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would
today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a
species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original
kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists
who classify living things) call a <i>genus</i> (plural <i>genera</i>).
</p>
<p class="main">One common definition of a species is a group of organisms
which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with
other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the
extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate
with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species,
but there are many instances of trans-generic mating, so the ‘kind’ may
in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the ‘kind’ with the
genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way
that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests
of reproductive isolation.</p>
<p class="main">For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably
descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed,
although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals
are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic
cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the <i>Aurochs</i>,
so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard.
The <i>Aurochs</i> itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including
bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce
hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended
from the same original kind.</p>
<p class="main">Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct
genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. With
extinct genera, there is a tendency among some paleontologists to give
each of their new finds a new genus name. But this is arbitrary, so the
number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated. Consider the sauropods,
which were the largest dinosaurs—the group of huge plant-eaters like
<i>Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus</i>, etc. There are 87 sauropod
genera commonly cited, but only 12 are ‘firmly established’ and another
12 are considered ‘fairly well established’.<sup>5</sup> </p>
<p class="main">One commonly raised problem is ‘How could you fit all
those huge dinosaurs on the Ark?’ First, of the 668 supposed dinosaur
genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown. Second,
as said above, the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated.
But these numbers are granted by Woodmorappe to be generous to skeptics.
Third, the Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown.
The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger
specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have
been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations,
while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep.</p>
<p class="main">Another problem often raised by atheists and theistic
evolutionists is ‘how did disease germs survive the flood?’ This is a
leading question—it presumes that germs were as specialized and infectious
as they are now, so all the Ark’s inhabitants must have been infected
with every disease on earth. But germs were probably more robust in the
past, and have only fairly recently lost the ability to survive in different
hosts or independently of a host. In fact, even now many germs can survive
in insect vectors or corpses, or in the dried or frozen state, or be carried
by a host without causing disease. Finally, loss of resistance to disease
is consistent with the general degeneration of life since the Fall.<sup>6</sup></p>

<h2>Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?</h2>

<p class="main">The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis
6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its
volume was 43,500 m<sup>3</sup> (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet.
To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard
American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.</p>
<p class="main">If the animals were kept in cages with an average size
of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm<sup>3</sup>
(cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only
occupy 1200 m<sup>3</sup> (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even
if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem,
because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10
cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm<sup>3</sup>, all the insect species
would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m<sup>3</sup>, or another 12
cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food,
Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included
in the meaning of <i>behemah</i> or <i>remes</i> in Genesis 6:19-20, so
Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.</p>
<p class="main">Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this
shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with
plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages,
with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the
humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing
plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency
situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty
of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals’ needs for exercise
anyway.</p>
<p class="main">Even if we don’t allow stacking one cage on top of another
to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe shows from
standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of
them together would have needed less than half the available floor space
of the Ark’s three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount
of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals.</p>

<h3>Food requirements</h3>

<p class="main">The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried
foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Perhaps Noah fed
the cattle mainly on grain, plus some hay for fibre. Woodmorappe calculated
that the volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark’s
total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4 % of the volume.
This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped
into troughs.</p>

<h3>Excretory requirements</h3>

<p class="main">It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages
every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where
the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty
of water around!) or destroyed by vermicomposting (composting by worms)
which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding
can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material
(e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would
reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.</p>

<h3>Hibernation</h3>

<p class="main">The space, feeding and excretory requirements were adequate
even if the animals had normal day/night sleeping cycles. But hibernation
is a possibility which would reduce these requirements even more. It is
true that the Bible does not mention it, but it does not rule it out either.
Some creationists suggest that God created the hibernation instinct for
the animals on the Ark, but we should not be dogmatic either way.</p>
<p class="main">Some skeptics argue that food taken on board rules out
hibernation, but this is not so. Hibernating animals do not sleep all
winter, despite popular portrayals, so they would still need food occasionally.</p>

<h2>Conclusion</h2>

<p class="main">This article has shown that the Bible can be trusted on
testable matters like Noah’s Ark. Many Christians believe that the
Bible can only be trusted on matters of faith and morals, not scientific
matters. But we should consider what Jesus Christ Himself told Nicodemus
(John 3:12): ‘<span class="scripture">If I have told you earthly things,
and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?</span><i>’</i></p>

<p class="main">Similarly, if the Scriptures can be wrong on testable matters
such as geography, history and science, why should they be trusted on
matters like the nature of God and life after death, which are not open
to empirical testing? Hence Christians should ‘<span class="scripture">be
ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of
the hope that is in you</span>’ (1 Peter 3:15), when skeptics claim
that the Bible conflicts with known ‘scientific facts’.</p>

<p class="main">Christians would be able
to follow this command and answer skeptics’ anti–Ark arguments effectively,
if they read John Woodmorappe’s book <i>Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility
Study</i>. This remarkable book is the most complete analysis ever published
regarding the gathering of animals to the Ark, provisions for their care
and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. For example, some skeptics
have claimed that the post-Flood ground would be too salty for plants


to grow. Woodmorappe points out that salt can be readily leached out by
rainwater.</p>
<p class="main">Woodmorappe has devoted seven years to this scholarly,
systematic answer to virtually all the anti–Ark arguments, alleged difficulties
with the Biblical account, and other relevant questions. Nothing else
like this has ever been written before—a powerful vindication of the
Genesis Ark account.</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="main">‘It has just the sort of facts and details that kids
find fascinating, and would make an excellent source of information
for enhancing Bible study projects and class lessons on the Ark and
Flood. Anyone interested in answering the many questions about the ark,
especially from skeptics, would be advised to read <i>Noah’s Ark</i>.’<sup>7</sup></p>
</blockquote><h2>Recommended Resources</h2>

<h2>Web links</h2>
Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers
Noah's Flood - Where did the water come from?
<h2>References and notes</h2>
<ol class="notes">
<li>
J.C. Whitcomb, and H.M. Morris, <i>The Genesis Flood</i>,
Phillipsburg, New Jersey, USA, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co., 1961.
</li>
<li>
A.J. Jones, ‘How many animals on the Ark?’
<i>Creation Research Society Quarterly</i> <b>10</b>(2):16–18, 1973.
</li>
<li>
It is high time that certain atheistic skeptics showed
some intellectual integrity and actually read the Bible. Then they
would stop making ridiculous comments about whales flopping up gang–planks
and fish–tanks on the Ark.
</li>
<li>
One common fallacy brought up by evolutionists is that
variation within a kind somehow proves particles-to-people evolution.
The examples commonly cited, e.g. peppered moths and antibiotic resistance
in bacteria, are indeed examples of <i>natural selection</i>. But
this is <i>not</i> evolution. Evolution requires the generation of
<i>new</i> information, while natural selection sorts and can <i>remove</i>
information due to loss of genetic diversity. Natural selection can
account for variations, but cannot account for the <i>origin</i> of
bacteria or moths. With the moths, natural selection merely changed
the <i>ratios</i> of black and peppered forms. Both types were already
present in the population, so nothing new was produced. [Since this article was published, new evidence shows that all the moth pictures were staged, further undermining this ‘evidence’ — see Goodbye, peppered moths: A classic evolutionary story comes unstuck.] The same applies
to different breeds of dogs. By selecting individuals which are very
large or very small, Great Danes and Chihuahuas were bred. But these
breeds have lost the information contained in genes for certain sizes.
See <i>Creation</i> <b>18</b>(2):20–23. [See also What is Evolution?.]
</li>
<li>
J.S. McIntosh, Sauropoda, in Wieshampel, D.B. <i>et
al., The Dinosauria</i>, University of California Press, Berkeley,
p. 345, 1992.
</li>
<li>
C. Wieland,
‘Diseases on the Ark’, <i>Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal</i>
<b>8</b>(1):16–18, 1994 (see online version).
Viruses often become much more infectious by random mutations causing
changes in their protein coats. This makes it harder for the antibodies
to recognize them, but there is no increase in information content,
so no real evolution.
</li>
<li>
<i>Reason and Revelation</i>, May 1996.
</li>
</ol>


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2005/10/19 12:21Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re: Brisk Biters



About 100 years ago, bird-biting mosquitoes called Culex pipiens entered the tunnels then being dug for the London Underground (the ‘Tube’). Cut off from their normal diet, they changed their habits to feed on rats and, when available, human beings. During WW2, they attacked Londoners seeking refuge from Hitler’s bombs. Their plaguing of maintenance workers may be the reason the underground variety has been dubbed molestus.
British scientists have now found that it is almost impossible to mate those in the Tube with the ones still living above ground, thus suggesting that they have become a new species1 (or almost so). This has ‘astonished’ evolutionary scientists, who thought that such changes must take many times longer than this.

read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/biters.asp


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2005/10/19 12:36Profile









 Re: Brisk Biters

So, how did the Australian Saltwater Crocodile, which is indigenous to Australian only, get on the Ark? How did it get back to Australia after the flood and not exist anywhere else?

Bub

 2005/10/19 13:56
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re: How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

It could be that Noah gathered babies from each species :-) I suppose that would help them fit ;-)


_________________
D.Miller

 2005/10/19 14:28Profile









 Re: How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

I have three main points to offer.

1) The change in the weather from never raining to rain for many many days, was cataclysmic - there were earthquakes (because the fountains of the deep were opened up) and there would have been a very choppy ride for the Ark initially.

This combination, as when there is an eclipse of the sun, for example, would have disturbed everyone's 'body clock' and there could have been quite a loss of appetite and lying low - which both people and animals are capable of doing for a suprisingly long time if there's no alternative.

2) Judging by some very old castles in the UK, people were a LOT smaller - which leads me to to suspect that some animals may have been smaller too.

Also, remember the fear of man was not put on them by God until AFTER the Flood and they had left the Ark - so cages probably were not necessary. This leaves even more room for timbers, firewood and bedding for the animals.

3) The dung was probably combined with fibrous material - stems of grasses - shaped and dried to be used for fuel - rather than throwing it away somehow.

 2005/10/19 14:56
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Though I fully believe in the story of Noah's Ark, and a world wide deluge that destroyed every living thing on the face of the earth, it is interesting some of the intellectual objections to such a story. Some have objected to the possibility of the storm due to the sheer size of the ark being made entirely out of wood. From what is argued, is that a wooden boat of that size has never actually been built, nor have people actually figured out how to make a boat of that size, strictly out of wood. So, Noah's Ark would have been an engineering miracle amongst other things.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2005/10/19 15:26Profile
saved_matt
Member



Joined: 2005/7/3
Posts: 233
Lancashire, England

 Re:

Bub said:

Quote:
So, how did the Australian Saltwater Crocodile, which is indigenous to Australian only, get on the Ark? How did it get back to Australia after the flood and not exist anywhere else?



[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/migration.asp]How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?[/url]

this should help

matt


_________________
matt

 2005/10/19 15:33Profile









 Re:

Can the Bible contradict observable, current genetic science?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

Humans and chimpanzees share more than 95% of our genes in common. Evolution is the only good explanation for this. We diverged from a common ancestor approximately 6 million years ago according to the article.

I don't have a problem with believing in evolution and God and no problem with the fact that we have to sort out what is factual and what is allegory or parable in the Bible. And this does not cause me to doubt the truth of Christ Jesus' saving Grace. The Holy Spirit attests to this Truth in the here and now.

Bub

 2005/10/19 15:41









 Re:

Saved Matt,

The article you cite is asserting that continental drift occured within the last 6,000 years!!!!!??????? They are clearly grasping at straws in order to preserve a foregone conclusion. The problem with answers in genesis is that they start from the position of believing in a literal flood story and a literal Genesis and then set out to prove it, while refusing to consider anything that doesn't fit by making up rediculous explanations such as continental drift happening in 6,000 years.

The theory of evolution was arrived at because the physical evidence pointed to it and it made sense of the observable phenomena.

Bub

 2005/10/19 15:54
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

While I believe the literal 6 day creation story in the Scriptures, and that if tracing backwards through the genealogies, that would make the earth probably under 10,000 years old, as a student of the Word, and one who has taken a few science classes at the college level, I have to admit, the scientific evidence right now seems to point to a 6 billion year old universe.

Granted, I think there are some philosophical assumptions underlying some of this "science," things that are actually beyond objective scientific proof. No matter how many "missing links" one finds, you cannot prove that a species actually evolved. You can put forth such a theory that such indeed happened, and perhaps that theory is pretty strongly accorded with evidence. However, ultimately, you can only demonstrate there are a bunch of fossils that have been discovered that have some similarities, but you cannot actually prove such a change did indeed take place.

Likewise, much of "Creation Science" seems quite flawed, and while trying to take into consideration what the Scriptures say in interpreting the scientific data, most of "Creation Science" seems to be more geared towards disproving what other researchers are saying that favors evolution. While that is fine, it seems more negative than trying to make a positive contribution to science.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2005/10/19 16:13Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy