Question for YECs about the ark

[dies-l]

My wife and I started a "chronological" reading plan of the Bible a couple of days ago, and last night we were reading the story of Noah and the ark. It occurred to me, as we were reading I was wondering if the ark was big enough for the task for which it was to be built. So, I punched some numbers, and concluded that the available floor space on the ark was no more, and probably considerably less than, 101,250 sq. feet., and its volume was not more, and probably considerably less than 1,518,750 cubic feet.

The Bible says that, Noah was to bring on the ark two of every unclean animal and fourteen of every clean animal and fourteen of every bird. Currently, according to one estimate I saw, there are approximately 10,000 species of bird living on the Earth (probably more in Noah's time, especially if YEC theory is correct). So this means that there would have been at least 70,000 birds on the ark. Based on what I have read, it seems a reasonable estimate to say that there are at least 20,000 non-bird/non-fish invertebrate species (mammals, reptiles, and amphibians) living on the Earth today. So, in addition to at least 70,000 birds, Noah had more than 40,000 other invertebrates. (I don't know how to figure out how much more than this there were, because I do not know the exact break down between clean and unclean animals, but for the sake of argument, we will assume it is a negligeble number, perhaps balanced out by the number of mammals that live comfortably in the sea).

So, based on currently living species, we looking at at least 110,000 animals sharing no more than 101,250 sq. feet of floor space and no more than 1.5 million cubic feet of total volume. For this to be feasible, the average animal would need no more than 1 sq. foot of floor space and no more than 13 cubic feet of volume to survive 150 days. Now, adding to this that many YECs believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted until recently, the space on the ark becomes even more cramped, because if this is true, in addition to the animals already mentioned, we would now need to make room for two of every dinosaur, many of which were quite large considerably more than 1 sq. foot.

I am sure that I am not the first person to make this observation. Nonetheless, I want to ask those who believe in a young earth as described literally in the Old Testament to help me understand how this worked. I have been on the fence between YEC and TE for quite some time now, and it is observations like these that make me increasingly willing to assume that some parts of Genesis are allegorical folklore. But, I remain interested in hearing a reconciling explanation.

 

[MiserableSinner]

AiG, et al., have addressed this subject ad nauseam.

• Kinds, not species
• Infants, not adults
• Hibernation
• Etc.

FWIW, of course.

 

[dies-l]

AiG, et al., have addressed this subject ad nauseam.

I ask this out of a genuine desire to understand the YEC position. In my years as a Christian, I have gone back and forth about whether the YEC position is reasonable, and the best way I can see to determine this is to address the reasonable concerns brought up by a literal reading of Scripture. I am interested in how these concerns are addressed. Even if you could point me to a quality book or website, written by people with proper scientific credentials, I would appreciate it.

• Kinds, not species

But, if we reject evolution (or so-called macro-evolution as some YECs would call it), wouldn't it be necessary for there to have been representatives on the ark from every species that has ever existed since then? If species cannot evolve from other species (as the distinction between so-called micro and macro evolution is explained), then how would we arrive at greater diversity of species than that which was protected, either by having been made able to survive in water (such as whales and fish) or by having a spot on the ark?

• Infants, not adults

This could be a possiblity, as Scripture does not say one way or the other. I would accept that.

• Hibernation

Sure, for animals that have that natural ability. But, according to the story, the only supernatural involvement of God was the excessive rain. I don't read anything indicating that God was to bless non-hibernating animals with that ability, as this would require a miracle.

• Etc.

FWIW, of course.

Like what?

 

[MiserableSinner]

If you could point me to a quality book or website, written by people with proper scientific credentials, I would appreciate it.

Giggle! Good luck with that. When you are ready to lower your standards, proceed to answersingenesis.org.

• YECs regularly tell us that the "original" "wolf/dog" contained all the "diversity" we observe today in the "wolf/dog" "kind". Or at least the "potential" for that diversity. Whatever.
• Yes, there are a lot of assumptions inherent to YEC.

Like what?

Okay, I was bluffing.

 

[dies-l]

Giggle! Good luck with that. When you are ready to lower your standards, proceed to answersingenesis.org.

I don't think that that is really too much to ask. I would consider someone like Kurt Wise to be a properly credentialed paleontologist, but I wondered whether there was someone in the realm of biology or related sciences with similar qualifications.

• YECs regularly tell us that the "original" "wolf/dog" contained all the "diversity" we observe today in the "wolf/dog" "kind". Or at least the "potential" for that diversity. Whatever.
• Yes, there are a lot of assumptions inherent to YEC.

Incidentally, I took a look at AiG today and found an article on the topic of species vs. kind. It struck me as odd that the explanation seemed to reflect a form of the so-called macro evolution that YECs seem to despise so much. But, rather than conceding that all species descend from a common ancestor, the author of the article seemed to assume that each "kind" represented a beginning point, the common anscestor of a grouping of modern species. I hadn't realized that YEC Creation science had come so close to accepting Darwinian evolution. It's funny that the same website that contained this article that was so obviously influenced by Darwinism, was so critical of Darwin himself.

Would it be fair to say, then, that according to "Creation Science," the distinction between so-called macro-evolution (which, I understand is baaad) and micro-evolution (which is gooood) is not the change from species to species but the change from kind to kind?

Okay, I was bluffing.

Am I correct to assume from this post that you are not yourself a YEC? If so, you really had me going on your first post.

 

[MiserableSinner]

I hadn't realized that YEC Creation science had come so close to accepting Darwinian evolution. It's funny that the same website that contained this article that was so obviously influenced by Darwinism, was so critical of Darwin himself.

Not so much, actually.

The distinction between so-called macro-evolution (which, I understand is baaad) and micro-evolution (which is gooood) is not the change from species to species but the change from kind to kind.

Yup.

Am I correct to assume from this post that you are not yourself a YEC? If so, you really had me going on your first post.

Anyone possessing the slightest familiarity with the war on science could have given you that starved synopsis.

 

[suzmot]

A wizard did it.

 

[philadiddle]

There are many ad hoc answers like "kind" not "species". My question is, which animals were on the ark? Lets start with some kind of list that we can test. Maybe it will change based on genetic or fossil evidence, but at least start somewhere. The problem with creationists is they don't actually try to make a working model for their beliefs, they just make vague statements about "kinds".

 

[shernren]

Regarding floor space, are you assuming that Noah couldn't have stacked cages? Having said that, 13 cubic feet (0.3 cubic meters - I can't think in non-standard units, sorry ) really is very small.

Another standard YEC answer is that the animals taken could have been juveniles and thus taken up less space.

I personally think that the YECs are trusting science too much. After all, who told them that dinosaurs exist? Scientists. Who told them that there are millions of species alive on the planet today? Scientists. If I were a creationist, I would only believe in the animals I had ever seen with my own eyes. Everything else was made up by unbelieving scientists wanting to damage the credibility of the Bible. There you go, Noah's-ark-space-problem solved in a flash.

It's the creationists' version of the slippery slope. If so many scientists lie all the time about evolution, how could you possibly believe that anything else they say is the truth?

 

[Assyrian]

Noah's-ark-space

Thanks shern, I knew your quantum-fu would solve the problem.
It's bigger on the inside.

 

[juvenissun]

For this to be feasible, the average animal would need no more than 1 sq. foot of floor space and no more than 13 cubic feet of volume to survive 150 days.

We need to know these creatures are not ordinary ones. They were escorted and kept by angels and they do not need any cage to be kept in the Ark. For example, flies and crickets could simply ride on the back of a horse. Noak did not go and seek them out. They came to the Ark on themselves. So there was not a problem to exhaust all life species and ages.

May be you forgot to count in all the fishes, shrimps, crabs etc. in the water.

 

[shernren]

Thanks shern, I knew your quantum-fu would solve the problem.
It's bigger on the inside.

Like the stable in The Last Battle - except that the animal poo still stinks real bad even if you believe in Aslan.

 

[The Barbarian]

We need to know these creatures are not ordinary ones. They were escorted and kept by angels

Show me where scripture says that. We should not invent miracles to clear up problems with beliefs.

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

Dies3l,

But here are three compelling videos for your perusal though perhaps they dont directly address your inquiry about the ark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAii5n0KIo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cNeGL6j9I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxMJIyWKKDA

Also, from Genesis 6:4

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of reknown.

Though this passage particularly "giants" is regarded as the Nephilim the offspring of an unholy union between woman and sons of God, could this passage rather be a reference to dinosaurs mistaken for that unholy union? Strong's Concordance is abit unclear and inconclusive. Not to mention, behemoth and leviathan found in the book of Job.

 

[dies-l]

We need to know these creatures are not ordinary ones. They were escorted and kept by angels and they do not need any cage to be kept in the Ark. For example, flies and crickets could simply ride on the back of a horse. Noak did not go and seek them out. They came to the Ark on themselves. So there was not a problem to exhaust all life species and ages.

May be you forgot to count in all the fishes, shrimps, crabs etc. in the water.

When I estimated the number of species, I was looking only at the number of mammals, birds, and reptiles. In order to keep the number as conservative as possible, in the very quick research that I did, I did not even look at insects, amphibians, fish, shrimp, etc. Admittedly, I did not account for aquatic mammals, such as whales, but I would suspect that that is relative negligible number.

As far the creatures not being ordinary, I would ask why it doesn't say anything about that in Scripture. In fact, the account in Genesis seems to portray the animals as quite ordinary. And, I do believe that it is important, unless we accept some form of so-called macro-evolution to account for all species. If the flood was truly global as YECs believe, and the flood wiped out all flesh as the Bible states, then all currently existing species would have have been represented on the ark in order to exist today.

What I think I am finding as I explore this question is that there is a growing acceptance in the YEC community of evolution, even though it is couched in terms to make it sound as though they are not conceding anything to Darwin. For example, an article a read in AiG, compared the Creationist "orchard" to the Evolutionists' "tree" of life. According to this explanation, God created a limited number of "kinds" and these "kinds" developed over time into different species. So, for example, the dog "kind" developed in to wolves, coyotes, foxes, domesticated dogs, etc. The article did not provide any explanation as to how this differentiation occurred, but it would seem to me that evolution by natural selection would be a completely plausible explanation. And, the idea of an orchard, rather than one tree of life addresses the percieved conflict with the Bible. To me, this reflects that Darwinism is even slowly making its ways into so-called Creation Science, but I would be interested to hear what others have to say about this.

 

[juvenissun]

Show me where scripture says that. We should not invent miracles to clear up problems with beliefs.

Nowhere. But why don't you tell me how did it happen. I guess the best you can say is that it did not happen. That is not an argument.

 

[juvenissun]

As far the creatures not being ordinary, I would ask why it doesn't say anything about that in Scripture. In fact, the account in Genesis seems to portray the animals as quite ordinary. And, I do believe that it is important, unless we accept some form of so-called macro-evolution to account for all species. If the flood was truly global as YECs believe, and the flood wiped out all flesh as the Bible states, then all currently existing species would have have been represented on the ark in order to exist today.

What I think I am finding as I explore this question is that there is a growing acceptance in the YEC community of evolution, ...

I could not use science to understand the animal part of the Noah's Flood. If we really want to understand it as what the animal world is today, it could only be taken as a miracle. However, at that time, the world was NOT the same as what we see today. So, a lot of conditions could not be evaluated by modern criteria.

Argument on evolution given by AiG people are just made for fun. The real issue is, in fact, on the young earth. As long as the earth is young, the classical view of evolution bankrupts. Another key view is that human is "obviously" not evolved from ape. If evolution is wrong on this one, how could anyone trust what it said about older, more distant, less well supported stories?

 

[70x7]

The Bible says that, Noah was to bring on the ark two of every unclean animal and fourteen of every clean animal and fourteen of every bird. Currently, according to one estimate I saw, there are approximately 10,000 species of bird living on the Earth (probably more in Noah's time, especially if YEC theory is correct). So this means that there would have been at least 70,000 birds on the ark. Based on what I have read, it seems a reasonable estimate to say that there are at least 20,000 non-bird/non-fish invertebrate species (mammals, reptiles, and amphibians) living on the Earth today. So, in addition to at least 70,000 birds, Noah had more than 40,000 other invertebrates. (I don't know how to figure out how much more than this there were, because I do not know the exact break down between clean and unclean animals, but for the sake of argument, we will assume it is a negligeble number, perhaps balanced out by the number of mammals that live comfortably in the sea).
.

re. bolding.
How do you figure that? Progression doesnt yield less, but more. Basically, the time period from creation to the flood is numerously smaller than the years since the flood till now. There has been more time for animals to "multiply within themselves", creating the different species that are around today.

 

[70x7]

.

I personally think that the YECs are trusting science too much. After all, who told them that dinosaurs exist? Scientists. Who told them that there are millions of species alive on the planet today? Scientists. If I were a creationist, I would only believe in the animals I had ever seen with my own eyes. Everything else was made up by unbelieving scientists wanting to damage the credibility of the Bible. There you go, Noah's-ark-space-problem solved in a flash.

It's the creationists' version of the slippery slope. If so many scientists lie all the time about evolution, how could you possibly believe that anything else they say is the truth?

negative.
Scientists do not tell us dinosaurs existed because we can just as easy find a fossil in the backyard that proves they did. Scientists do not tell us species in the world, as that is just as easily be verified by anyone with free time and money to travel. Evidence is evidence regardless. That sounds like pulling strings at an argument that is irrelevant.

 

[dies-l]

re. bolding.
How do you figure that? Progression doesnt yield less, but more. Basically, the time period from creation to the flood is numerously smaller than the years since the flood till now. There has been more time for animals to "multiply within themselves", creating the different species that are around today.

To me that sounds like an argument that concedes evolution as scientific fact. I have no problem, in fact, I would be encouraged, to know that even YECs embrace some of the principles of so-called macroevolution. However, I have heard the YEC argument articulated multiple times that says something like, "there is absolutely no evidence that evolution has ever caused a change in species." If you reject this notion, as it sounds like you do, then this clears up some of the question; however, I do have some trouble reconciling this acceptance of evolution with a view that the world is only a few thousand years old.

If we accept the argument commonly accepted by some YECs that evolution never results in a change of species, then the only factor that would change the number of species existing in the world would be extinctions. Arguably, Noah would have had species on the ark that have since gone extinct, including, according to some YECs, the dinosaurs.