Objections to the Bible: Noah's ark

[Garland-Green]

"There is no way so many animals could fit hundreds of thousands of animals on the ark? It is simply impossible."

You most likely have heard this one before.

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 The Genesis Flood contained a detailed analysis as far back as 1961.1 A more detailed and updated technical study of this and many other questions is John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This article is based on material in these books plus some independent calculations. There are two questions to ask:

How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?
How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
Another problem often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is ‘how did disease germs survive the flood?’ … 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.
The relevant passages are Genesis 6:19–20 and Genesis 7:2–3.

Genesis 6:19–20:
‘And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.’

Genesis 7:2–3:
‘Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.’

In the original Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.2 Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 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.

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 through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton.

Clean animals: 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.

What is a ‘kind’? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 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 genus (plural genera).

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.

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.
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 Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs 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.

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 Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc. There are 87 sauropod genera commonly cited, but only 12 are ‘firmly established’ and another 12 are considered ‘fairly well established’.5

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.

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.6

This is an excerpt from:
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?  

[Aquatic_blue]

Noah's ark is definitely a heavily debated one.

I commonly hear people say, "Of course all of the animals were grown and could all fit because God can work miracles," which is a good concept. However, according to the size of the ark - I think he put in a pair of each animal. Not all animals are the same size. I'm sure lizards could run around as they pleased, not taking so much room. In theory, I would think it's possible if God put baby animals on the ark as well as adult ones - whatever was necessary for them all to fit. They all could've been grown, it's possible not all of them were grown as well. It's possible that they could've put baby dinosaurs on the ark - at least the ones that got ginormous in size. One thing that we mustn't forget is that God's peace is an amazing type of peace. He can give us all peace within our minds, bodies, and souls. God could've had all the animals in perfect harmony with each other and filled with peace so they wouldn't hurt other animals. Perhaps God lessened the animal's appetite a bit, too razz so that they could carry less food and water than we would think.

There's so many things we don't know about Noah's ark, and can only explore the possibilities. Sadly, this Bible story couldn't probably be solved with logic - that's why the atheists probably have such a difficult time understanding it.  

[Garland-Green]

Aquatic_blue

Noah's ark is definitely a heavily debated one.

I commonly hear people say, "Of course all of the animals were grown and could all fit because God can work miracles," which is a good concept. However, according to the size of the ark - I think he put in a pair of each animal. Not all animals are the same size. I'm sure lizards could run around as they pleased, not taking so much room. In theory, I would think it's possible if God put baby animals on the ark as well as adult ones - whatever was necessary for them all to fit. They all could've been grown, it's possible not all of them were grown as well. It's possible that they could've put baby dinosaurs on the ark - at least the ones that got ginormous in size. One thing that we mustn't forget is that God's peace is an amazing type of peace. He can give us all peace within our minds, bodies, and souls. God could've had all the animals in perfect harmony with each other and filled with peace so they wouldn't hurt other animals. Perhaps God lessened the animal's appetite a bit, too razz so that they could carry less food and water than we would think.

There's so many things we don't know about Noah's ark, and can only explore the possibilities. Sadly, this Bible story couldn't probably be solved with logic - that's why the atheists probably have such a difficult time understanding it.

Even if it was solved with logic it isn't always enough. We see through the filter of our opinions. If we want the story to be wrong we are bound to find something that fits our opinion while smoothing over things that don't.
It does in the end boil down to trust. If there was a God would he be able to hand down these stories to us in a trustworthy manner..? If He is not able to... Why not?  

[Aquatic_blue]

Garland-Green

Aquatic_blue

Noah's ark is definitely a heavily debated one.

I commonly hear people say, "Of course all of the animals were grown and could all fit because God can work miracles," which is a good concept. However, according to the size of the ark - I think he put in a pair of each animal. Not all animals are the same size. I'm sure lizards could run around as they pleased, not taking so much room. In theory, I would think it's possible if God put baby animals on the ark as well as adult ones - whatever was necessary for them all to fit. They all could've been grown, it's possible not all of them were grown as well. It's possible that they could've put baby dinosaurs on the ark - at least the ones that got ginormous in size. One thing that we mustn't forget is that God's peace is an amazing type of peace. He can give us all peace within our minds, bodies, and souls. God could've had all the animals in perfect harmony with each other and filled with peace so they wouldn't hurt other animals. Perhaps God lessened the animal's appetite a bit, too razz so that they could carry less food and water than we would think.

There's so many things we don't know about Noah's ark, and can only explore the possibilities. Sadly, this Bible story couldn't probably be solved with logic - that's why the atheists probably have such a difficult time understanding it.

Even if it was solved with logic it isn't always enough. We see through the filter of our opinions. If we want the story to be wrong we are bound to find something that fits our opinion while smoothing over things that don't.
It does in the end boil down to trust. If there was a God would he be able to hand down these stories to us in a trustworthy manner..? If He is not able to... Why not?

That's definitely true. If the questions do get answered, they usually find questions and keep on asking questions and pairing them with "logical" excuses to try to disprove God.  

[Lupas Deva]

I like to think that somehow they were able to create a working ecosystem inside the ark.

You'd have a lot of animal waste and that could possibly grow plant life to help feed the herbivores. The extra from the 7 pair of clean animals could be used as food for the carnivores. Possibly leaving 2 pair for a viable genetic line after they landed. You have water reserves from the rain as drinking water.

 

[Aquatic_blue]

Lupas Deva

I like to think that somehow they were able to create a working ecosystem inside the ark.

You'd have a lot of animal waste and that could possibly grow plant life to help feed the herbivores. The extra from the 7 pair of clean animals could be used as food for the carnivores. Possibly leaving 2 pair for a viable genetic line after they landed. You have water reserves from the rain as drinking water.

According to genetic studies - it is an invalid assumption to state that two animals (not humans) could produce a perfect lineage for the rest of animal kind. Clean animals reproduce in a different way than those that were considered "dirty" as well. For example, if you look at the animals that were considered clean - you would also noticed what they ate and what they foraged were key to their lifestyle. Inclusive to that, their hooves were incredibly important, which also allowed them to get to different landscapes. As far as a working environment - yes, it would have been a very stable environment, but as per scientific study - you didn't need any full grown animals on the ark. Not one had to be a full grown, reproductive, or of even reproducing age. For example, if a rabbit or rodent was brought on the ark at an age of reproduction - the ark would've probably been overrun with those animals. Another example would be calculating for human diet, which probably would've included eggs, some form of vegetable, and some possible meat (fish or possibly cattle - clean animals), but who says that any of the animals were eaten on the ark? That would've defeated God's purpose for bringing them on the ark in the first place. Yes, man and woman on the ark had a suitable living style, but the animals on the ark may not have behaved like any animal from the previous times or times past due to the fact that they were under the influence of God's power so it's possible that a carnivore may not have been eating meat - we just don't know what kind of things they were eating exactly at that time. It's possible that humans could've raised or taken care of animals in a different style than we do today, but we have no idea if the styles of taking care of animals back then was different than today.