A mathematical refutation of Noah's ark

[Tomk80]

How many original finches did Darwin need to sell his story on how all the different varieties populated the different Galapagos islands? Seems to me this is one argument where evolutionists and creationists can agree, that only two of a super species are needed to produce a variety of species as they migrate to different geographical areas. Which means the very first premise in the OP is wrong. Only two "whatevers" that African and Indian elephants "evolved" from were needed to be on the Ark. And if God can feed millions of people in the desert for forty years on day at a time, why not a few animals for one year?

Because Noah had to take all the food with him, it says so in the bible (genesis 7, vs 21). And even your 'supra kind' solution won't work. You'll still need two 'supra elephants', two 'supra rhinos', two 'supra hippos', two 'supra horses', two of each clean animal, at which time I figure you've already filled your complete arc with food for those animals. And then you'll still have to load up your arc with 'supra cats', 'supra wolfs', supra ostriches' etc etc. Face it, you've got an overload problem.

 

[Tomk80]

If you limit my invokation of a supernatural power as a reasonable explanation how -- and more importantly to humans -- why things happened to get us to where we are, then you limit yourself to knowing truth. Just because you don't believe in God's intervention in this world affairs doesn't limit Him from doing so. We'll never come to a mutual understanding and agreement if you close you mind to the most obvious explanation.

But why is God's intervention not described in Genesis? Why does Noah need to take all the food with him. This sort of intervention reads a lot into Genesis and does not seem scripturally sound to me.

 

[Herman Hedning]

What always strikes me as particularly strange with a literal interpretation of the Noah story is how perfectly non-supernatural the whole concept is. The story is perfectly in line with what people a few thousand years ago would held for true.

"The whole world" was not very big then (the known word, that is), "the different kinds" of animals were not that many (the known kinds, that is), and the amount of water and the effects that water would have on the earth was of course not known at the time. All in all a perfectly believable story for the peasants of the day.

But when we look at it in the light of modern day science we see all the problems with the story. And here comes the funny part - to make the story work people have to recourse to supernatural explanations. But this actually just makes even less sense, since supernatural explanations are invoked for what would have been natural fenomena. "Too many kinds" - no problem, just let all modern species evolve from a few babies that were kept in suspended animation on the ark. "Too much water" - no problem, it came from inside the earth, or from outside the heavens, or from whereever. God can do it.

But why do it in such a roundabout way? If a god can do all these minor acts of magic, why couldn't he just snap his fingers and be rid of all the evil people and dinosaurs? What's the deal with having a puny boat float around all the while the earth gets scourged? It sure seems unnecessarily complicated.

 

[JohnR7]

The story is perfectly in line with what people a few thousand years ago would held for true.

But when we look at it in the light of modern day science we see all the problems with the story.

Somethings seems to be rather backwards to me here. A more primitive people would have no problem to understand the story, but you being more sophicated have problems understanding the story and it's meaning for you.

I think that maybe you create all of your own problems by trying to make it more complicated that what it is.

 

[cerad]

All in all a perfectly believable story for the peasants of the day.

I think peasants probably know more about animals than you are giving them credit for. Anyone trying to keep livestock alive through winter would have a pretty good idea of the feed requirements.

 

[Tomk80]

I think peasants probably know more about animals than you are giving them credit for. Anyone trying to keep livestock alive through winter would have a pretty good idea of the feed requirements.

Yes, but not necessarily on the complete variaty of animals present in nature. And not necessarily on the details of flooding, the amount of water on earth, the amount needed for flooding and so on, and so on. For your average nomad, there's nothing a big boat won't fix. Only when looking at the picture from a modern western human perspective, it just doesn't work anymore.

 

[Randall McNally]

Somethings seems to be rather backwards to me here. A more primitive people would have no problem to understand the story, but you being more sophicated have problems understanding the story and it's meaning for you.

I think that maybe you create all of your own problems by trying to make it more complicated that what it is.

I don't suppose you'd consider taking your own advice here?

 

[searchingforanswers1]

I think peasants probably know more about animals than you are giving them credit for. Anyone trying to keep livestock alive through winter would have a pretty good idea of the feed requirements.

They didnt even know how to read. They sure didnt know how to calculate.

 

[Logic_Fault]

When it comes to food, we see God miracle of supply all the time. Look at how many people Jesus was able to feed with the little boys lunch basket. He could feed 5000 people with two fish and five loaves of bread.

I can't believe everyone let you get away with stating this. In particular the first statement. I guess you slipped that one in while everyone was busy discussing the ark. Anyway... on with the post:

852 million people across the world are hungry, up from 842 million a year ago.

Would those 852 million people be included when you used "we"? I'm pretty sure they don't see a "miracle of supply all the time". Or does that "we" only apply to people who aren't starving to death?

In the developing world, more than 1.2 billion people currently live below the international poverty line, earning less than $1 per day.

Among this group of poor people, many have problems obtaining adequate, nutritious food for themselves and their families. As a result, 815 million people in the developing world are undernourished. They consume less than the minimum amount of calories essential for sound health and growth.

Maybe you could get in touch with Jesus on their behalf? Oh, and tell him to bring a couple dozen loaves and fishes with him, he's going to need them.

SOURCE: Bread for the World Institute

 

[searchingforanswers1]

I can't believe everyone let you get away with stating this. In particular the first statement. I guess you slipped that one in while everyone was busy discussing the ark. Anyway... on with the post:

852 million people across the world are hungry, up from 842 million a year ago.

Would those 852 million people be included when you used "we"? I'm pretty sure they don't see a "miracle of supply all the time". Or does that "we" only apply to people who aren't starving to death?

In the developing world, more than 1.2 billion people currently live below the international poverty line, earning less than $1 per day.

Among this group of poor people, many have problems obtaining adequate, nutritious food for themselves and their families. As a result, 815 million people in the developing world are undernourished. They consume less than the minimum amount of calories essential for sound health and growth.

Maybe you could get in touch with Jesus on their behalf? Oh, and tell him to bring a couple dozen loaves and fishes with him, he's going to need them.

SOURCE: Bread for the World Institute

And much of this could be solved by a timely rain now and then. Surely God could arrange a little rain now and then.

 

[Logic_Fault]

And much of this could be solved by a timely rain now and then. Surely God could arrange a little rain now and then.

That would certainly be easier, and much more likely, than having Jesus make a personal appearance.

 

[FieryBalrog]

all this mental effort and twisting through hoops just so someone can continue to believe in the Noah's flood story.

 

[awstar]

I can't believe everyone let you get away with stating this. In particular the first statement. I guess you slipped that one in while everyone was busy discussing the ark. Anyway... on with the post:

852 million people across the world are hungry, up from 842 million a year ago.

Would those 852 million people be included when you used "we"? I'm pretty sure they don't see a "miracle of supply all the time". Or does that "we" only apply to people who aren't starving to death?

In the developing world, more than 1.2 billion people currently live below the international poverty line, earning less than $1 per day.

Among this group of poor people, many have problems obtaining adequate, nutritious food for themselves and their families. As a result, 815 million people in the developing world are undernourished. They consume less than the minimum amount of calories essential for sound health and growth.

Maybe you could get in touch with Jesus on their behalf? Oh, and tell him to bring a couple dozen loaves and fishes with him, he's going to need them.

SOURCE: Bread for the World Institute

And exactly how much of the blessings God gave to us did we share with the 852 million who have nothing? Jesus taught us what to do. We just refuse to do it.

 

[awstar]

But when we look at it in the light of modern day science we see all the problems with the story. And here comes the funny part - to make the story work people have to recourse to supernatural explanations. But this actually just makes even less sense, since supernatural explanations are invoked for what would have been natural fenomena. "Too many kinds" - no problem, just let all modern species evolve from a few babies that were kept in suspended animation on the ark. "Too much water" - no problem, it came from inside the earth, or from outside the heavens, or from whereever. God can do it.

The size of the ark was given in precise detail in the Bible. Rough calculations tell me that there could easlily have been 180 ( 3 x 2 x 30 ) stalls of 15ft by 30ft to accomodate larger animals, which is bigger than most living rooms in a modern house. Enough room for quite a few large animal pairs. We don't know how much food creatures required before the flood, since their metabolisms functioned for 900 years and the source of food may have been much more nutritious. And the water went into the basins that were formed when the waters of the deep escaped, causing the earth to buckle, forming the ocean basins and the mountains ranges, leaving the seams in the earth that we witness today.

But why do it in such a roundabout way? If a god can do all these minor acts of magic, why couldn't he just snap his fingers and be rid of all the evil people and dinosaurs? What's the deal with having a puny boat float around all the while the earth gets scourged? It sure seems unnecessarily complicated.

Because God is righteous. Everything He does is right. Through Noah, He warned people of the coming flood for over a hundred years before he "snapped his fingers and got rid of all the evil people." But nobody listened. Are we any more attentive to the ones He is speaking to us through today? The ones who faithfully preach the word of God as it is written in the Bible?

God must really really desire fellowship with us, if He will go through such lengths to provide a way for an unholy creation to be declared righteous, even as they are rebelling against Him.

 

[Jet Black]

The size of the ark was given in precise detail in the Bible. Rough calculations tell me that there could easlily have been 180 ( 3 x 2 x 30 ) stalls of 15ft by 30ft to accomodate larger animals, which is bigger than most living rooms in a modern house. Enough room for quite a few large animal pairs.

so how many kinds are there on the ark then, roughly?

We don't know how much food creatures required before the flood, since their metabolisms functioned for 900 years and the source of food may have been much more nutritious.

what are you basing all of this on? we do not see nay evidence for this kind of behaviour, for example in the stomach contents of mammoths and so on and in other fissilized faeces.

And the water went into the basins that were formed when the waters of the deep escaped, causing the earth to buckle, forming the ocean basins and the mountains ranges, leaving the seams in the earth that we witness today.

why is there no evidence of this then? where did the water go? why do your suggestions not match the geology that we see?

 

[h2whoa]

which is bigger than most living rooms in a modern house.

Out of interest, ever tried accomodating a couple of hippos or elephants in even a large living room? For 40 days?

h2

 

[Jet Black]

Out of interest, ever tried accomodating a couple of hippos or elephants in even a large living room? For 40 days?

h2

wasn't it getting on for a a year? It was forty days for the rain iirc.

 

[h2whoa]

wasn't it getting on for a a year? It was forty days for the rain iirc.

Forty days, 365 days. Whatever. It's all the same when you've got to share your sofa and the remote with a couple of hippos.

h2

 

[Herman Hedning]

... We don't know how much food creatures required before the flood, since their metabolisms functioned for 900 years and the source of food may have been much more nutritious. And the water went into the basins that were formed when the waters of the deep escaped, causing the earth to buckle, forming the ocean basins and the mountains ranges, leaving the seams in the earth that we witness today.

See, you are proving my point here. To make the story work you have to invoke all kinds of minor magic. Changed metabolism, buckling earth ...

Because God is righteous. Everything He does is right. Through Noah, He warned people of the coming flood for over a hundred years before he "snapped his fingers and got rid of all the evil people." But nobody listened. Are we any more attentive to the ones He is speaking to us through today? The ones who faithfully preach the word of God as it is written in the Bible? God must really really desire fellowship with us, if He will go through such lengths to provide a way for an unholy creation to be declared righteous, even as they are rebelling against Him.

Great, but why did he have to kill everybody by violent flooding? Why couldn't just "snapping his fingers" be enough? And why kill all the animals too? Where they also "rebelling against Him"?

 

[Jet Black]

Forty days, 365 days. Whatever. It's all the same when you've got to share your sofa and the remote with a couple of hippos.

h2

I don't thnik I can post the only replies I can think of.