Can Two Of Every Animal Fit On The Ark

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

The Bible specifies Noah's Ark as 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high, a huge, stable, seaworthy vessel.

Another problem oftentimes raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is 'how did affliction germs survive the overflowing?' … In fact, even at present 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 illness is consistent with the general degeneration of life since the Autumn.

Many skeptics assert that the Bible must be wrong, considering they claim that the Ark could non possibly have carried all the unlike types of animals. This has persuaded some Christians to deny the Genesis Overflowing, or believe that it was just a local inundation involving comparatively few local animals. Just they ordinarily have not actually performed the calculations. On the other mitt, the classic creationist book The Genesis Flood contained a detailed assay as far dorsum every bit 1961.¹ A more detailed and updated technical study of this and many other questions is John Woodmorappe's book Noah'south Ark: a Feasibility Study. This commodity is based on textile in these books plus some independent calculations. There are two questions to enquire:

• How many types of animals did Noah demand to have?

• Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?

How many types of animals did Noah demand to take?

The relevant passages are Genesis 6:19–20 and Genesis seven:2–iii.

Genesis 6:nineteen–xx:
'And of every living affair of all flesh, you shall bring 2 of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with yous. 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 basis, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come up in to you to proceed them alive.'

Genesis 7:2–3:
'Accept with you seven pairs of all make clean animals, the male person 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 likewise, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.'

In the original Hebrew, the word for 'creature' and 'cattle' in these passages is the aforementioned: 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 non need to take sea creatures³ considering they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction past a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil tape, and many oceanic species probably did get extinct because of the Flood.

Nonetheless, if God in His wisdom had decided not to preserve some body of water creatures, this was none of Noah's business. Noah did not need to accept plants either—many could accept survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to take survived on these mats also. The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not exhale through nostrils only 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 blazon of make clean animal. Woodmorappe takes the latter just to concede as much to the biblioskeptics equally possible. But the vast majority of animals are not clean, and were represented past only two specimens each. The term 'clean brute' was non defined until the Mosaic Law. But since Moses was also the compiler of Genesis, if nosotros follow the principle that 'Scripture interprets Scripture', the Mosaic Law definitions tin can be applied to the Noahic state of affairs. There are actually very few 'clean' land animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy fourteen.

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 generally be represented past a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today inside what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).

One common definition of a species is a grouping of organisms which tin can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the then-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to encounter what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between then-called species, but at that place are many instances of trans-generic mating, so the 'kind' may in some cases be equally high equally 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 stale foodstuffs, and probably a lot of full-bodied 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 well-nigh fifteen % of the Ark'south full volume. Drinking h2o would only have taken up ix.four% of the volume.

For case, 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-similar) kind. All dissimilar types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so at that place were probably at most vii (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may accept 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 near 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about sixteen,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. With extinct genera, at that place is a tendency among some paleontologists to give each of their new finds a new genus proper name. Merely this is arbitrary, then the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated. Consider the sauropods, which were the largest dinosaurs—the group of huge establish-eaters similar Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc. In that location are 87 sauropod genera commonly cited, but simply 12 are 'firmly established' and another 12 are considered 'fairly well established'.^five

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, every bit said above, the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated. But these numbers are granted by Woodmorappe to be generous to skeptics. 3rd, the Bible does non say that the animals had to exist fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented past 'teenage' or fifty-fifty younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe'southward upwardly-to-date tabulations, while only about 11% would accept been much larger than a sheep.

Another problem ofttimes 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, and then all the Ark's inhabitants must have been infected with every disease on globe. But germs were probably more than robust in the past, and have only fairly recently lost the power to survive in dissimilar 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 exist 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

Was the ark large enough to agree all the required animals?

The Ark measured 300 × l × xxx cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140 × 23 × 13.v metres or 459 × 75 × 44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m³ (cubic metres) or i.54 meg cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent carrying chapters of 340 semitrailer trucks (i.e. articulated lorries), each of which can concur 37 1,200-pound slaughter steers, xc 500-pound feeder calves, 180 250-pound hogs, or 300 125-pound sheep. This would exist a line six lanes wide and half a mile long.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of l × 50 × 30 centimetres (20 × xx × 12 inches), that is 75,000 cm³ (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would simply occupy 1200 m³ (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Fifty-fifty if a million insect species had to exist on board, it would not exist a trouble, because they crave picayune space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or thousand cm³, all the insect species would occupy a full volume of only grand m³, or another 12 cars. This would go out room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah's family and 'range' for the animals. Nonetheless, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah orremes in Genesis 6:xix-xx, and then Noah probably would non have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

Tabulating the total book is off-white plenty, since this shows that in that location would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would exist possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the corporeality of food carrying the humans had to do), to make full more of the Ark space, while nonetheless allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is enough of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals' needs for practice anyway.

Fifty-fifty if nosotros don't allow stacking one cage on top of some other 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 take needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark's three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of nutrient and h2o storage on top of the cages shut to the animals.

Nutrient requirements

The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Possibly Noah fed the cattle mainly on grain, plus some hay for fibre. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of foodstuffs would accept been only nearly 15 % of the Ark's full volume. Drinking water would only take taken upwards nine.4% of the book. This volume would exist reduced further if rainwater was nerveless and piped into troughs.

Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall abroad from the animals and be flushed abroad (plenty of water around!) or destroyed past vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food source.

Excretory requirements

Information technology is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every forenoon. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall abroad 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 nutrient source. Very deep bedding can sometimes terminal for a yr without needing a change. Absorbent material (east.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and peculiarly peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.

Hibernation

The infinite, feeding and excretory requirements were acceptable even if the animals had normal 24-hour interval/dark sleeping cycles. Merely hibernation is a possibility which would reduce these requirements even more. Information technology is true that the Bible does non mention it, just it does non rule information technology out either. Some creationists suggest that God created the hibernation instinct for the animals on the Ark, simply we should not be dogmatic either way.

Some skeptics argue that nutrient taken on board rules out hibernation, simply this is non and so. Hibernating animals practise not slumber all winter, despite popular portrayals, then they would withal need food occasionally.

Conclusion

This article has shown that the Bible tin can exist trusted on testable matters like Noah's Ark. Many Christians believe that the Bible can merely be trusted on matters of faith and morals, not scientific matters. But nosotros should consider what Jesus Christ Himself told Nicodemus (John iii:12): 'If I have told yous earthly things and you practice not believe, how tin can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?'

Similarly, if the Scriptures can be wrong on testable matters such as geography, history and science, why should they exist trusted on matters similar the nature of God and life after death, which are non open to empirical testing? Hence Christians should 'but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord equally holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks yous for a reason for the promise that is in y'all; notwithstanding practise it with gentleness and respect' (i Peter three:15), when skeptics claim that the Bible conflicts with known 'scientific facts'.

Christians would be able to follow this control and answer skeptics' anti-Ark arguments finer, if they read John Woodmorappe'southward volume Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study. This remarkable book is the most complete analysis always 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-Overflowing ground would be too salty for plants to grow. Woodmorappe points out that salt can be readily leached out past rainwater.

Woodmorappe has devoted vii years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti-Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the Biblical account, and other relevant questions. Nix else like this has always been written before—a powerful vindication of the Genesis Ark account.

'It has just the sort of facts and details that kids observe fascinating, and would brand an fantabulous source of information for enhancing Bible study projects and class lessons on the Ark and Overflowing. Anyone interested in answering the many questions near the ark, especially from skeptics, would be advised to read Noah'southward Ark.'⁷

References and notes

1. J.C. Whitcomb, and H.M. Morris, The Genesis Flood, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, USA, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961. Return to text.
2. A.J. Jones, How many animals in the Ark? Creation Enquiry Social club Quarterly ten(2):xvi–18, 1973. Return to text.
3. It is high time that certain atheistic skeptics showed some intellectual integrity and actually read the Bible. Then they would terminate making ridiculous comments about whales flopping upwardly gang–planks and fish–tanks on the Ark.  Return to text.
4. I common fallacy brought upward by evolutionists is that variation inside a kind somehow proves particles-to-people evolution. The examples unremarkably cited, e.m. peppered moths and antibiotic resistance in leaner, are indeed examples of natural selection. Simply this is not evolution. Evolution requires the generation of new data, while natural pick sorts and tin can remove information due to loss of genetic diverseness. Natural option tin account for variations, but cannot account for the origin of bacteria or moths. With the moths, natural choice only changed the ratios of blackness and peppered forms. Both types were already nowadays in the population, and then nothing new was produced. [Since this commodity was published, new testify shows that all the moth pictures were staged, farther undermining this 'evidence'—encounter Goodbye, brindled moths: A classic evolutionary story comes unstuck.] The same applies to different breeds of dogs. By selecting individuals which are very big or very pocket-sized, Great Danes and Chihuahuas were bred. But these breeds have lost the information independent in genes for certain sizes. See  Dogs convenance dogs?Creation 18(two):20–23. [Run into also  What is Evolution?] Render to text.
5. J.S. McIntosh, Sauropoda, in Wieshampel, D.B. et al., The Dinosauria, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 345, 1992. Render to text.
6. C. Wieland, 'Diseases on the Ark', Journal of Creation (previously Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal) eight(i):16–xviii, 1994. Viruses often go much more infectious past random mutations causing changes in their protein coats. This makes it harder for the antibodies to recognize them, merely there is no increase in information content, so no real evolution. Return to text.
7. Reason and Revelation, May 1996. Return to text.

Source: https://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

Posted by: zanderspronful1972.blogspot.com

Share this post