• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Science and the Bible: Noah's Ark

Noah's ark was designed to carry Noah and his family along with animals through the global deluge of 2370 - 2369 BCE. The ark (Hebrew tevah, Greek kibotos) was rectangular, a chest, actually, having square corners and a flat bottom. It was designed simply to float, without the need for steering, and to be watertight. This shape not only would make capsizing very improbable but also allowed for one third more space. The roof had a 4% pitch, with a 1 cubit elevation - 25 cubits from wall to ridge, which allowed water to flow off.

It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The ancient cubit was 17.5 inches (44.5 cm), although some think it was nearer to 56 or 61 cm, which means the ark measured 437' 6" x 72' 11" x 43' 9" (133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m), which is less than half the length of the Queen Elizabeth II. The proportion of length to width being 6 to 1 is also used by modern naval architects.

It had approximately 1,400,000 cubic feet (40,000 cubic meters) in gross volume, with a displacement comparable to the 883 ft (269 m) Titanic. It was strengthened internally by the addition of two floors. With three decks, it would have a total of approximately 96,000 square feet (8,900 square meters) of space.

For light and ventilation, there was an opening of a cubit in height near the roof which extended around the four sides, providing 1,500 square feet (140 square meters).

The wood used was from a resinous tree, probably cypress or similar. Cypress was favored by shipbuilders such as the Phoenicians and Alexander the Great, even to the present day. Noah was instructed not only to caulk the seams but to cover the ark inside and outside with tar.​

Bitumen and Pitch

Bitumen is a black or brownish asphalt. There are three Hebrew words which describe first its degree of hardness: zepheth is pitch, the liquid form, and chemar is bitumen, its solid state. Kopher, tar, describes its usage, an application overlaying woodwork. The ark in which Moses, as a baby, floated down the Nile was covered with both bitumen and pitch, rendering it watertight (Exodus 2:3), and the builders of Babylon used bitumen for not only its waterproofing but its adhesiveness as mortar in kiln-dried bricks. (Genesis 11:3)​

Cargo

Noah's ark had, without a doubt, a most interesting passenger list: Noah, his wife, three sons, and their wives, as well as two of every sort of animal, seven of each of the animals considered to be clean. Also, food for over a year. Many people grossly overestimate the number of animals involved here because they don't understand that the Bible means every "kind," a term which differs a great deal from the biological term. There wasn't a need, for example, for Noah to include every breed of dog or cat, just two or seven (if clean) of each.

It has been estimated that 43 kinds of mammals, 74 kinds of birds, and 10 kinds of reptiles could have produced the variety of species known today. A more liberal estimate is 72 kinds of quadrupeds and less than 200 kinds of bird kinds would have sufficed. There are about 1,300,000 species of animals, but 60% of those are insects. Of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, and 10,000 are birds - many of which could have survived outside the ark.

Of the 5,000 mammals, which would include whales and porpoises who would have stayed outside the ark, 290 are larger than a sheep, and 1,360 are smaller than rats.

Plenty of room for Noah's family as well as for all the animals and their food.​
 
A wooden vessel of that size would not be seaworthy. The largest wooden ships in history suffered from warping and leaking, even with metal reinforcements. The Ark, built without such support, would have broken apart under the stress of rough waters. The claim that its shape prevented capsizing ignores the reality that waves and shifting weight inside would cause severe structural strain.

The number of animals required to repopulate the earth presents an impossible genetic bottleneck. If only a few “kinds” were taken, they would have had to evolve at a rate unseen in biology, producing millions of species in just a few thousand years. Carnivores would have wiped out prey species before they could reproduce, leading to mass extinctions. Many animals require specialized diets, such as pandas needing bamboo and koalas needing eucalyptus. There is no evidence they can survive long-term on substitutes.

Feeding and watering thousands of animals for a year was logistically impossible. Large herbivores like elephants eat hundreds of pounds of food daily. Without refrigeration, meat for carnivores would have spoiled within days. Storing enough water for drinking and sanitation was another unsolvable issue. A single elephant drinks up to 50 gallons a day, meaning thousands of gallons were needed with no system to replenish them.

Ventilation was wholly inadequate. A 1-cubit-high opening would not provide sufficient airflow to clear out methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide from waste buildup. The toxic environment would have killed both animals and humans. Eight people could not possibly care for, feed, water, and clean up after thousands of animals. Zoos require large, specialized staff, and yet the Ark supposedly functioned with just Noah’s family.

A global flood would have destroyed all plant life. A year underwater would have killed trees, grasses, and crops. Even if seeds survived, ecosystems would have been uninhabitable for returning animals. Mixing saltwater and freshwater would have killed most marine life, as few species can tolerate such changes.

The Ark was coated with pitch, but ancient bitumen was not a long-term waterproofing solution. It degrades and cracks over time, especially under constant exposure to water and temperature fluctuations. The claim that the Ark remained watertight for over a year without maintenance is impossible.

After the flood, every animal would have had to migrate thousands of miles back to its original habitat, crossing oceans, deserts, and mountains with no food sources available. There is no evidence of a sudden worldwide migration or a massive die-off from post-flood starvation.

The story of the Ark is not physically, biologically, or logistically possible. The structural failures, animal survival issues, food and water shortages, ventilation problems, and post-flood consequences make it an impossibility. There is no evidence in genetics, archaeology, or history to support it. The claim collapses under scrutiny.

NHC
 
DLH, you'll have me convinced when you build yourself a big old boat at age 600. Then the story will pass all credibility tests and be as plausible as you see it. (Well, except for God murdering every human being outside of 8 nutcases led by an alcoholic.)
Now, I'd do the demonstration myself, but at this point I'm only 583.

Again, let's talk on your 600th birthday and see that big boat you made.
 
Last edited:
Besides, they weren't every species incarnate. They were frozen embyros. Much easier to store.
 
Plenty of room for Noah's family as well as for all the animals and their food.

There was even room for 2 (or should it have been 7?) unicorns. The alleged reason for the loss of the unicorns is explained in this excellent documentary. But modern religious scholars have determined that the old story is fiction. Noah's youngest son believed that the unicorns were originally two-horned antelopes who were in the middle of gender-change surgery. This revolted both Japheth and his father; they wanted a New World without DEI.

Hope this helps.
 
What I wonder is who had the job of shoveling manure.

It must have 'stunk to high heaven' inside the Ark.

Ya gotta,love the biblical federalists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
(Noah's wife isn't named in the Bible, and really, who gives a shit. But in the 11th century, a tradition started that she was named Naamah.)

Noah: What's for lunch? We're starved.
Naamah: Three guesses.
Noah: Not more of that damn millet.
Naamah: You don't like my millet?
Noah: Not 40 days in a row.
Naamah: Well, then...behold! (She produces a strange, bony, platter heaped with some kind of roast)
Noah: It smells good, but what the hell is it?
Naamah: It's lunch.
Noah: Where-did-you-get-it.
Naamah: You said you were sick of millet. This is triceratops. Try it. It's a little gamy, but it's good. And it had this big dumb curvy thing on its head, and, look, I have a new serving platter.
Noah: We only had two of those, but luckily, the female was expecting. Tell me this is the male.
Naamah: This is the female. The male was a touchy son of a bitch.
Noah: We can't breed any more of these!! How am I going to explain this to God?
Naamah: Tell him we were hungry and you didn't like my millet!! I don't care what you tell him! This is what I cooked, and this is what we're eating!

This is what scientists call the extinction of ceratops horridus.
 
What I wonder is who had the job of shoveling manure.

It must have 'stunk to high heaven' inside the Ark.

Ya gotta,love the biblical federalists.

It's all down to the design of the vessel, and the methodical system that's in place to maintain the Ark.

Who's design and plan was it again?

Clue: the same one that created animals (and the earth) who would know what was required for the Ark.

It sure weren't Noah 😏...

...otherwise he would build an Ark with the very flaws you atheist are highlighting - designed by man.

Yes folks, scripture is sound.
 
When you make up a fairy tale, you can read into it anything you choose.
Sheesh.
Noah's ark. One of the absolute worst Bible yarns. What a great lesson about God for the kiddies.
But if ain't a fairy tale, it would still be a fantasy to atheists... geee for the love of cheese.
 
I would .myself 'hunt for the ideology of Jesus', because for example, he quotes from the Old Testament, meaning: we may be reading the acts of God wrong.

See you in church.😁
 
What I wonder is who had the job of shoveling manure.

It must have 'stunk to high heaven' inside the Ark.

Ya gotta,love the biblical federalists.

It's all down to the design of the vessel, and the methodical system that's in place to maintain the Ark.

Who's design and plan was it again?

Clue: the same one that created animals (and the earth) who would know what was required for the Ark.

It sure weren't Noah 😏...

...otherwise he would build an Ark with the very flaws you atheist are highlighting - designed by man.

Yes folks, scripture is sound.

So you actually assume what you must demonstrate — that there was a creator of the world who could do anything at all, including making a magic boat. It’s incredible. And you REALLY BELIEVE that the story of Noah and the flood is literal truth?

Except, we know there was no global flood. So the story goes out the window.
 
Just briefly (in my break time)

Well before I poo poo anything pood. I would be open to the plausibility.. regarding the world flood for example, just by the simple reason, reasoning from observation: 70% -73% of the earth is covered in ocean, sea life (whale bones and sea fossils on mountain) etc.etc. I know of course there are "best" explanation (the biblical explanation is excluded ).

gtg
 
Just briefly (in my break time)

Well before I poo poo anything pood. I would be open to the plausibility regarding the world flood like, just by the simple reason, reasoning from observation. 70% -70,% of the earth is covered in ocean, sea life (whale bones and sea fossils on mountain etc.etc.Ino ow there are "best" explanations as long as the biblical explanation is not included.
gtg

Wow.

We know there was no global flood from a huge amount of evidence. You could look it up online or in a book.. There is nothing remotely plausible about such a fantasy — a cruel fantasy, in which the imaginary tribal war god you inexplicably worship sadistically committed global genocide. We also know from genetics and molecular biology that such an occurrence is diametrically at odds with what life looks like today.
 
What I wonder is who had the job of shoveling manure.

It must have 'stunk to high heaven' inside the Ark.

Ya gotta,love the biblical federalists.

It's all down to the design of the vessel, and the methodical system that's in place to maintain the Ark.

Who's design and plan was it again?

Clue: the same one that created animals (and the earth) who would know what was required for the Ark.

It sure weren't Noah 😏...

...otherwise he would build an Ark with the very flaws you atheist are highlighting - designed by man.

Yes folks, scripture is sound.
Any problem that can be solved with the simple explanation that magic was involved can be dismissed out of hand. Just my opinion. You clearly disagree.
 
Back
Top Bottom