|
|
|
Q4: How Could the Ark Hold all Those Animals?
Given the fact that there is a
veritable wealth of creation literature on this topic, it is virtually
inexcusable for a sceptic to be ignorant of such information.
Nevertheless, in the hopes that they will realize the explanation is
permenantly settled, it will again be answered with the hopes that any
time the issue is again brought up, the challanger can be directed to
this paper for their answers, saving people the time of explaining it
over and over again.
The single most comprehensive study on the ark issue was done by John
Woodmorappe in Noah’s Ark: A
Feasiblity Study, readily available from many creationist
organizations, and, the last time this author checked, on amazon.com.
Nevertheless this hardly the only study done on it.
The author of the thread constructs a strawman from the outset by
stating “now count the number of
species (or ‘kind’ if you prefer).” This is really quite
unacceptable given the aformentioned wealth of information on the
subject in creationist literature. He establishes a premise (the
animals couldn’t fit on the ark). To substanciate his point, he
indicates that the number of species in the world could not fit upon
the ark and equivocates a ‘kind’ with a species. It is not in the
awareness of the author that the creationist “Kind” has ever been
associated with the species class, however much the mistake may be made
by followers of the creationist movement. Needless to say, the issue
has already been addressed previously (see Q1),
but it can be summed as “a kind is a group of organisms which share
genetic ancestry and can demonstratably produce fertilization.”
The argument that ‘kind’ is the ‘species’ class is, fortunately, merely
a strawman and has, in the awareness of the author never been
associated wholly with the species class, though it would be a
subdivision of the kind. As has been pointed out, “Creationists have long pointed out that
the biblical ‘kind’ was broader than today’s ‘species’.”
(Sarfati 1998)
In light of this, it is critical to also determine what kinds of
creatures qualified for being brought aboard the ark for saving. The
two key passages are Genesis
6:19–20 and Genesis
7:2–3.
It has been correctly pointed out that the original Hebrew word for
‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in the above passages is behemah refers to land
vertebrates in general and the word for ‘creeping things’ is remes,
which has several meanings, but in the context probably means reptile
(Sarfati 1997) and is likely to include dinosaurs (being reptiles).
The creatures not to be included on the ark were marine creatures and
invertebrates, obviously, nor insects. Genesis
7:22 states that only creatures which breathed through their
nostrils, also disqualifying plants.
In his book, Woodmorappe determines there to be about 8000 kinds of
animals, extinct today and living, giving us a total of about 16000
animals. Additionally, extinct genera are generally overstated. Every
little bone is classified as a new genus or species (Lubenow 1992).
This would reduce the number of needed kinds. For example, out of the
sauropods, as is correctly pointed out, there are 87 sauopod genera
commonly cited, but there are only 12 firmly established (Sarfati 1997)
and another 12 considered ‘fairly well established’ (McIntosh 1992), so
this cuts it down considerably.
Many would argue that the dinosaurs were too big to fit in the ark, but
creationists tend to find this objection entirely without merit
considering that of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only about 106 of
them weighed over 10 tons when fully mature. Considering that the
number is likely exagerated, as suggested above (Woodmorappe includes
all of them simply to be generous to the sceptics), and given the fact
that the Bible does not state that they had to be fully grown, it is
fully likely that they were younger and not yet fully mature and were
far less of them to take on board.
According to Woodmorappe’s calculations, the median size of the animals
would be that of a small rat, with only 11% being larger than a sheep.
Knowing this, we must turn to the Bible to determine the size of the
Ark. In Genesis
6:15 it states that the ark was 300x50x30 cubits. This would be
about 140x23x13.5 metres, or 479x75x40 feet. Given this information,
the volume can be calculated. It comes up with 43,500 cubic metres, or
1.54 million cubic feet. This is equivolent to 522 standard american railroad stockcars!
Each stockcar can hold 240 sheep.
Let us assume that each animal was held in a cage of these dimentions;
50x50x30 cm (20x20x12 inches). This is 75,000 cubic centimeters, or
4800 cubic inches. This being so, the
16,000 animals and their cages would only ocupy 1200 cubic meters
(42,000 cubic feet) or only 14.4 stockcars of the available 522.
Let us assume, moreover, that Noah had to take insects on board as
well, even though the text indicates that he did not have to. Let us
assume a million insect species. Let us assume (reasonably) that they
were kept in cages of 4 inches (10 cm). Each cage would therefore be
1000 cubic centimetres. Assuming these things (all of which are quite
reasonable), those million insect species would only take up an
aditional 1000 cubic meters, which converts into only another 12
stockcars. And this doesn’t even assuming that the cages could have
been stacked (when reasonable) to make extra room if they desired
(Sarfati 1997).
But they still have to have food on board. How much room would that
take up? Woodmorappe calculated the volume of needed foodstuffs to be
about 15% of the total volume. Drinking water would have taken up only
about 9.4% of the total. This could have even been reduced more if they
had been able to collect the rainwater and piped, or drained, into
troughs.
Many have said the Ark was impossible because the animals’ excrement
would have built up incredibly. However, this assumes that they did not
have any variety of ways of solving the problem, such as slanted floors
or slatted cages for the excrement to fall away from the animals and be
flushed away by the large volumn of water available (like, for example,
the whole world). It also assumes that they did not employ
vermicomposting, allowing the worms to take care of it themselves, thus
providing the worms with food. It assumes that they did not give the
animals very deep bedding. Deep bedding can last a year without needing
changing. Sawdust, straw, softwood shavings, and peat moss could also
have been employed to absorb the moisture and significantly reduce the
odors.
Hence the Bible can be trusted on scientific, testable things such as
Noah’s Ark. If creationists and scoffers alike would read the
literature, they would have the answers to defend their faith for the
former and the answers to their “falsifications.”
Talking Back: Fitting the Animals Aboard the Ark
Previous Page - Next Page
|
