Applying Math, Physics, Archeology to THE STORY OF NOAH (page 34)

EntirelyPossible

http://www.thetruthishere.com/canopy.html

Wait, you expect us to believe in a link that 1)gets basic science wrong and 2)tries to suggest that Mayans had lightsabres like Jedi?

What a hoot.

Fundies are dumb.

thetrueone

For a person who self identifies himself as a Trutheeker, you certainly do not have that labeling attribute.

More like information Seeker who tries to find anything to support his theological beliefs.

Words once spoken by men who were to trying to bring power and relevance to their god of their own particular worship,

should be honesty recognized as so.

Thats if someone is honestly and earnestly interested in seeking the truth of course.

truthseeker

thetrueone,

For a person who self identifies himself as a Trutheeker, you certainly do not have that labeling attribute.

Learn to spell, then perhaps you will qualify for your labeling attribute

Regardless, I am a truthseeker, it doesn't mean I will find truth on the first or second attempt. If I have to go down alternative paths, beliefs, whatever, it doesn't change my goal. EntirelyPossible , you have little or nothing to add of any value to this thread except to put down persons you disagree with using your limited three word vocabulary, "Fundies are dumb."

truthseeker

I get the feeling here, that even if Jesus himself told you there was a flood, you still would not want to believe it or even consider the possibilty.

To be honest, it doesn't affect me one iota if you believe/don't believe.

I recently watched a doucmentary on the Sphinx which is believed to be older than Egyptian culture and could be a relic of the preflood era.

The difference between EntirelyPossible and myself, is that I am willing to consider possibilities unless I am proved to be wrong by an overwhelming abundance of evidence which I have so far not seen.

None of you, as far as I know, are historians, geologists, archaeologists, astronomers, astrophysicists, mathematicians etc, unless you say so, so what qualifies your opinions as FACT when you denounce everything I have to say.

thetrueone

Regardless, I am a truthseeker, it doesn't mean I will find truth.

There's been much Truth offered here on this particular thread and you simply disregard it because it does match

your own self devised semblance of truth. Which makes you not really a truth seeker at all by any stretch of the imagination.

so what qualifies your opinions as FACT when you denounce everything I have to say ?

Because we're not inflicted with cognitive dissonance in evaluating evidential information.

There are so many elements of rational thought expressed through evidence in opposition to this mythological Flood its laughable.

Wouldn't changing your name to LieSeeker be a little more honest and appropriate ?

truthseeker

thetrueone,

You would have to ask why would I seek to be a LieSeeker if I truly believe the Genesis account. How does lying benefit me when I already believe the Biblical story?

We are doing our best to convince each other, however, accusing me of seeking lies is beneath you and serves no purpose.

Seeking doesn't mean found.

thetrueone

Read on Mr. Whatever ...

Creationist models are often criticized for being too vague to have any predictive value. A literal interpretation of the Flood story in Genesis, however, does imply certain physical consequences which can be tested against what we actually observe, and the implications of such an interpretation are investigated below. Some creationists provided even more detailed models, and these are also addressed (see especially sections 5 and 7).

References are listed at the end of each section.

Two kinds of flood model are not addressed here. First is the local flood. Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the "world" that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew. Creationists argue against the local flood model because it doesn't fit their own literalist preconceptions, but I know of no physical evidence contrary to such a model.

Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

1. Building the Ark

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15 ]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

2. Gathering the Animals

Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.

Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.

Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.

There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms' preferred environments. The creationists who propose all the species living together in a uniform climate are effectively proposing the destruction of all environments but one. Not many species could have survived that.

How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10 ). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.

3. Fitting the Animals Aboard

To determine how much space is required for animals, we must first determine what is a kind, how many kinds were aboard the ark, and how big they were.

What is a kind? Creationists themselves can't decide on an answer to this question; they propose criteria ranging from species to order, and I have even seen an entire kingdom (bacteria) suggested as a single kind. Woodmorappe (p. 5-7) compromises by using genus as a kind. However, on the ark "kind" must have meant something closer to species for three reasons:

For purposes of naming animals, the people who live among them distinguish between them (that is, give them different names) at roughly the species level. [ Gould, 1980 ]
The Biblical "kind," according to most interpretations, implies reproductive separateness. On the ark, the purpose of gathering different kinds was to preserve them by later reproduction. Species, by definition, is the level at which animals are reproductively distinct.
The Flood, according to models, was fairly recent. There simply wouldn't have been time enough to accumulate the number of mutations necessary for the diversity of species we see within many genera today.

What kinds were aboard the ark?Woodmorappe and Whitcomb & Morris arbitrarily exclude all animals except mammals, birds, and reptiles. However, many other animals, particularly land arthropods, must also have been on the ark for two reasons:

The Bible says so. Gen. 7:8 puts on the ark all creatures that move along the ground, with no further qualifications. Lev. 11:42 includes arthropods (creatures that "walk on many feet") in such a category.
They couldn't survive outside. Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. And indeed, not one insect species in a thousand could survive for half a year on the vegetation mats proposed by some creationists. Most other land arthropods, snails, slugs, earthworms, etc. would also have to be on the ark to survive.

Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark? According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.

It is also worth pointing out that the number of extinct species is undoubtedly greater than the number of known extinct species. New genera of dinosaurs have been discovered at a nearly constant rate for more than a century, and there's no indication that the rate of discovery will fall off in the near future.

Were the animals aboard the ark mature?Woodmorappe gets his animals to fit only by taking juvenile pairs of everything weighing more than 22 lbs. as an adult. However, it is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard:

The Bible ( Gen. 7:2 ) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.
Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.

The last point does not apply to all animals. However, the animals don't need parental care tend to be animals that mature quickly, and thus would be close to adult size after a year of growth anyway.

How many clean animals were on the ark? The Bible says either seven or fourteen (it's ambiguous) of each kind of clean animal was aboard. It defines clean animals essentially as ruminants, a suborder which includes about 69 recent genera, 192 recent species [ Wilson & Reeder, 1993 ], and probably a comparable number of extinct genera and species. That is a small percentage of the total number of species, but ruminants are among the largest mammals, so their bulk is significant.

Woodmorappe (p. 8-9) gets around the problem by citing Jewish tradition which gives only 13 domestic genera as clean. He then calculates that this would increase the total animal mass by 2-3% and decides that this amount is small enough that he can ignore it completely. However, even Jewish sources admit that this contradicts the unambiguous word of the Bible. [ Steinsaltz, 1976 , p. 187]

The number and size of clean birds is small enough to disregard entirely, but the Bible at one point ( Gen. 7:3 ) says seven of all kinds of birds were aboard.

So, could they all fit? It is important to take the size of animals into account when considering how much space they would occupy because the greatest number of species occurs in the smallest animals. Woodmorappe performed such an analysis and came to the conclusion that the animals would take up 47% of the ark. In addition, he determines that about 10% of the ark was needed for food (compacted to take as little space as possible) and 9.4% for water (assuming no evaporation or wastage). At least 25% of the space would have been needed for corridors and bracing. Thus, increasing the quantity of animals by more than about 5% would overload the ark.

However, Woodmorappe makes several questionable and invalid assumptions. Here's how the points discussed above affect his analysis. Table 1 shows Woodmorappe's analysis and some additional calculations.

Log mass range (g)	0-1	1-2	2-3	3-4	4-5	5-6	6-7	7-8
Ave. mass (kg) (p. 13)	.005	.05	.5	5	50	316	3160	31600
# of mammals (p. 10)	466	1570	1378	1410	1462	892	246		7424
# of birds (p. 10)	630	2272	1172	450	70	4			4598
# of reptiles (p. 10)	642	844	688	492	396	286	270	106	3724
total # of animals	1738	4686	3238	2352	1928	1182	516	106	15746
Ave. yearling mass (kg) (p. 66)	.005	.05	.5	5	10	100	300	1000
Total mass after one year	8.7	234.3	1619	11760	19280	118200	154800	106000	411902
Total mass assuming adults	8.7	234.3	1619	11760	96400	373512	1630560	3349600	5463694
Additional clean birds	1575	5680	2930	1125	175	10			11495
Additional ruminants (138 genera)					260	420	10		690
Additional clean animal mass (yearling weight, kg)	8	284	1465	5625	4350	43000	3000		47600

Collecting each species instead of each genus would increase the number of individuals three- to fourfold. The most speciose groups tend to be the smaller animals, though, so the total mass would be approximately doubled or tripled.
Collecting all land animals instead of just mammals, birds, and reptiles would have insignificant impact on the space required, since those animals, though plentiful, are so small. (The problems come when you try to care for them all.)
Leaving off the long-extinct animals would free considerable space. Woodmorappe doesn't say how many of the animals in his calculations are known only from fossils, but it is apparently 50-70% of them, including most of the large ones. However, since he took only juveniles of the large animals, leaving off all the dinosaurs etc. would probably not free more than 80% of the space. On the other hand, collecting all extinct animals in addition to just the known ones would increase the load by an unknown but probably substantial amount.
Loading adults instead of juveniles as small as Woodmorappe uses would increase the load 13- to 50-fold.
Including extra clean animals would increase the load by 1.5-3% if only the 13 traditional domestic ruminants are considered, but by 14-28% if all ruminants are considered clean.

In conclusion, an ark of the size specified in the Bible would not be large enough to carry a cargo of animals and food sufficient to repopulate the earth, especially if animals that are now extinct were required to be aboard.

Yan Bibiyan

truthseeker,

I said earlier that I am out, but I feel compeleld to jump back in.

What would be necessary to convince you that the flood account may not be literal and may not have happened as described in the Bible?

A published study? A supernatural experience?

Nothing?

frankiespeakin

I think in all fairness it needs to be pointed out, that the flood story is to be understood not with our modern view of the earth floating in space, being a sphere and our knowledge of the highest mountain some 29,000+ ft above sea level, but with the common understanding of the time, and the geographical location this story was written. That being the case if it was written in a very flat geographical location then the meaning of highest mountain can be better understood.

That being said snap a blues beat and sing along:

"it musta been a mighty,

mighty, mighty,mighty,

Musta been a mighty big flood!"

truthseeker

Thanks for your comments, I will address them soon.

Yan, I've always believed the Bible is the Word of God. Perhaps if the flood account wasn't referenced by Peter and Jesus I might have thought differently, but both referred to the flood as an actual event. Why would they do this if it was just a story?

Applying Math, Physics, Archeology to THE STORY OF NOAH

1. Building the Ark

2. Gathering the Animals

3. Fitting the Animals Aboard

Share this