• 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.​
 
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.

Oh, absolutely. Unicorn . . . one horn; you mean Bos primigenius. This is a “subfamily of the large horned ungulate family.” The New Encyclopædia Britannica explains:

“Certain poetical passages of the Old Testament refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called reʼemʹ. This word is translated ‘unicorn’ or ‘rhinoceros’ in many versions, but many modern translations prefer ‘wild ox’ (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew reʼemʹ.”
 
Last edited:
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.

You do know what an ark is, don't you? The thing Moses floated down the Nile in? The ark of the covenant? Indiana Jones? It's a chest. I explained that in great detail in the first paragraph of the OP.

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.

Here we go again. More science fiction. Tell me, using this scientific method of yours, how we know how to tell a witch or how we know the earth is banana shaped?



Feeding and watering thousands of animals for a year was logistically impossible.

Exactly how many animals and how much food? You've obviously done the math. That would be the evidence. The proof. You don't expect me just to take your word for it, do you? How stupid that would be of me! Huh? Tell me the gospel according to the No Holy Cows. This new learning amazes me.
 
Last edited:
That Ark Park is funny to me, as they accidentally disprove the whole concept; their recreation ark doesn't even come close to having room for thousands of species of animals in it, as is all too clearly obvious when you're in it.

No bird can fly for a year. Few can fly for longer than a few hours. Neither can any insect. Everyone needs a cage, a perch, foliage....

The kinds thing is funny, because when faced with paleontology, they complain endlessly about missing links and absent transitional forms. But they don't ask why their "kinds" are absent from the fossil record, present no genetic evidence, and why there are no, well, transitional forms to explain the intermediary steps between the Great Single Bearish Being and the golden Sun Bear, despite claiming that it all happened during recorded history when humans could easily have documented their ongoing progress.

Freshwater fish, amphibians and aquatic insects can't live in salt water. But the ancient world lacked the technology to keep them alive in aquariums/terrariums for a year either, without filters they would all choke to death in their own waste.

Then again, maybe it's the saltwater creatures that would really be in danger, if it really is rain that submerged everything. Even more of a problem, unless you want to make room for whales on your boat.

Obligate carnivores are obligate carnivores.

How'd all these animals get to and from the ark? Not all animals are migratory, and they definitely can't all swim. They would need a boat to get to the boat. And what would they eat on the way there?

Even if Scotty beamed them there, many animals would die immediately if transported to the deserts of Mesopotamia and Anatolia.

Many animals die if they can't burrow and hibernate.

Reef, littoral, and coastal shelf habitats would almost immediately die if abruptly. submerged miles below the water's surface.

Most sea animals would die if the temperature or chemical load of the waters suddenly changed on them, as they would if there was suddenly three times as much water on the planet.

Many animals have a life cycle significantly shorter than a year, and nearly all fertile animals instinctively mate and bear offspring at sime point during a year.

Eight people cannot physically feed and groom thousands of animals in a day.

There's a reason Creationists are vague about exactly what these the "kinds" are...

If God really just needed to kill off a few demigods he objected to, why go through the trouble of drowning the entire planet and driving most of its species extinct? Why not just kill the demigods?
 
Last edited:
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
The education system has clearly failed you as well. You should write to your Congressman and tell him that the US Dept. of Education is deeply, deeply broken, and should be disbanded immediately. Oh wait, you likely voted for Mr. Trump and he is working to do that right now. Never mind, please carry on.

Ok, not true but to ask a fun question. Being that my previous post quoted above is as you suggest not correct. Would I need to ask for a refund if I was educated in something totally different to Geology or Science even? ;)

Serious question - how far did you go in school? Did you not learn basic facts about the Earth in school at all? Like geography and science and the planets and mountains and the oceans? I am trying to understand how an adult living in the US who presumably went to High School never learned these things. I grew up on a farm in northern Michigan, home-schooled by my father till the 9th Grade when I was sent to high school, with very limited access to the outside world and even books for that matter. Yet I knew this stuff when I graduated in 1967. How is it possible that someone who is presumably much younger than I am, with access to free education, public libraries and the internet, never learned this very basic and important stuff? My flabber has been repeatedly gasted by the things you have said in this thread.

Snap.. I learnt alot on my uncles farm living and working for him from my teens too. And yeah, I learnt the basics when I was in school.

My previous post you quoted is an independent thought of my own initiative, i.e. ability not to rely soley on text books repeating and quoting pre-written texts to impress for arguments sake etc. staying strictly on a 'comfortable lane' if that is the only thing you can do. Rather than 'independently' ponder on the curiosity for possibilities, within reason mind you i.e. think-a-little-outside-the-box. Which can be quite good conversations too (without debating).

Even imagination I dare say, influences and increases the search for further knoweldege. Thats how alot of discoveries are found.

Anything on the religion section that is said by a theist is going to always gast your flabber, but strangely, you expect the same types of answers and you still get surprised.:oops: (I jest)


Btw, I would have to write to my local MP rather than congressman because I'm in the UK. I suppose that was an"educated"guess that wasn't correct. No worries.
 
Last edited:
You do know what an ark is, don't you? ... The ark of the covenant? Indiana Jones? It's a chest. I explained that in great detail in the first paragraph of the OP.

This is a topic which interests me. Was there one special ark of the covenant? Did it have magic powers? Where is it now?
 
You do know what an ark is, don't you? ... The ark of the covenant? Indiana Jones? It's a chest. I explained that in great detail in the first paragraph of the OP.

This is a topic which interests me. Was there one special ark of the covenant? Did it have magic powers? Where is it now?
In a warehouse. A huuuuuge warehouse where no one will ever find it.

ETA: close to where the autograph manuscripts of Shakespeare are...
 
Noah's Ark is a myth. Shakespeare's Authorship is a myth. Carrier's inane claptrap is worse than a myth.

I remain bemused that Infidels here at IIDB adamantly reject some myths, while embracing others without question.

ETA: Did I need spoiler tags? Noah's Ark is a myth. So are Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
 
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.

Shocker: I actually agree with your opinion, although....
...not the part you clearly weren't aware of in context to the bible.God is against "magic", "sorcery "and "fortune telling" i.e. counterfeit miracles!

As a modern Christian I'll use the language of today. God is the ultimate scientist, and magic is still a no no.
You misunderstood what I was saying. Let let rephrase:

Any problem that can be solved with the simple explanation that God-did-it, without any evidence or explanation of how God-did-it can be dismissed out of hand.

Is it clear now?
There wasn't much to go on by the few words you posted. But my word! How the context has grown...i so much bigger and detailed, and clearer, now that you've outlined what I misunderstood.

Question 1: how does one distinguish magic (sleigh of hand designed to fool unsophisticated humans which is what you are talking about) from seemingly impossible stuff that God does? How does one tell the difference?

Assuming you are going along the line of the hypothetical inquisitive since you don't believe in any of it.

A simple example of distinction to tell the difference: magic or magicians can't raise the dead!

Question 2: How did God do it? In this case, how did God design and build this ark that no human could have built to sustain the calamitous global flood event? And how could you know what God did?

Comment: I don't think you will even try to engage on this point. Which brings us back to the original point:

As I said in a previous post, and if we still going with the hypothetical, where God can do miracously things, who would know how the physics work..since he made them... then Noah could build an Ark from God's specific design which would be able to sustain in a flood.

How do I know if God did it? As previously mentioned in another post. Jesus quotes the OT, quoting Moses therefore authenticating Genesis.

(you'd have to have very good evidence Jesus didn't exist, then I would change my mind on everything...)


Any problem that can be solved with the simple explanation that God-did-it, without any evidence or explanation of how God-did-it can be dismissed out of hand. Just my opinion.

In other words, your assertion is empty and worth nothing. It can be dismissed without any further consideration.

Christians needn't really know the actual ingredients to an ancient recipe as long as they know there was a pie served at the table. I am not aware of anyone becoming a Christian because of the ark. Jesus in the NT is what gets us to be Christian and he validates Genesis.

It's absolutely fine to dismiss what ever of the bible. It isn't a problem...we understand it.
 
Last edited:
Noah's Ark is a myth. Shakespeare's Authorship is a myth. Carrier's inane claptrap is worse than a myth.

I remain bemused that Infidels here at IIDB adamantly reject some myths, while embracing others without question.

ETA: Did I need spoiler tags? Noah's Ark is a myth. So are Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

What about the history of Manetho? What about the Hyksos? Paul Revere riding his horse through town shouting the British are coming! George Washington never told a lie? Why are you bemused as such? Myth is synonymous with fable? Untrue?
 
You do know what an ark is, don't you? ... The ark of the covenant? Indiana Jones? It's a chest. I explained that in great detail in the first paragraph of the OP.

This is a topic which interests me. Was there one special ark of the covenant? Did it have magic powers? Where is it now?

I don't think anyone would find the ark. If it was used for its resources - dismantled for building shelter, fences & pens and used for firewood, as soon as they were able.


(There is a very interesting theory of the ark by a team (the name escapes me) who studies thorougly the scriptures and highlight quite a few things that scholars overlook. Its been a while and I haven't got the link to their page on this device).
 
You do know what an ark is, don't you? ... The ark of the covenant? Indiana Jones? It's a chest. I explained that in great detail in the first paragraph of the OP.

This is a topic which interests me. Was there one special ark of the covenant? Did it have magic powers? Where is it now?

Yes, no and gone. I think. I'm not terribly familiar with it. Normally I would do some quick research and try to give better answers, but I'm not at leisure just now and I have a lot of replies to get to. Since you are interested, I will direct you here. They could give you more information than I could. Ark of the covenant.
 
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.

You do know what an ark is, don't you? The thing Moses floated down the Nile in? The ark of the covenant? Indiana Jones? It's a chest. I explained that in great detail in the first paragraph of the OP.

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.

Here we go again. More science fiction. Tell me, using this scientific method of yours, how we know how to tell a witch or how we know the earth is banana shaped?



Feeding and watering thousands of animals for a year was logistically impossible.

Exactly how many animals and how much food? You've obviously done the math. That would be the evidence. The proof. You don't expect me just to take your word for it, do you? How stupid that would be of me! Huh? Tell me the gospel according to the No Holy Cows. This new learning amazes me.

The response about the ark misrepresents the argument. The fact that the Hebrew word “tevah” can mean a box or chest does not change the fact that Noah’s Ark is explicitly described as a massive floating vessel meant to house animals and people for over a year. The argument was not about the etymology of the word “ark” but the structural feasibility of such a wooden vessel. A box-like structure does not resolve the engineering challenges posed by a ship of that scale. The largest wooden ships in history, such as the 19th-century Wyoming, required metal reinforcements and constant pumping to prevent leaks. Noah’s Ark, as described, would have faced extreme stress, warping, and water intrusion without similar reinforcements, making it structurally unviable.

The claim that science is “science fiction” while invoking a strawman comparison to determining witches or a banana-shaped Earth is a complete misrepresentation of how the scientific method works. Science relies on testable, repeatable, and falsifiable hypotheses. The reason witch trials were faulty is that they relied on superstition rather than empirical testing. The shape of the Earth is known not by assumption but through multiple independent verifications: satellite imagery, the curvature of the horizon, and the way ships disappear bottom-first as they sail away. There is no legitimate debate about the shape of the Earth because it has been repeatedly confirmed through direct observation and mathematical proofs.

Demanding an exact count of animals and food is a deflection from the core issue. The argument was not about an exact number but about basic logistics. Even if the lower-end estimate of 16,000 animals were used, the Ark would require tons of food per day, storage that prevents spoilage, a way to distribute food to all animals, and a method to manage waste for an entire year. Zoos with modern infrastructure struggle to maintain even a fraction of these numbers. The burden is not on skeptics to prove every last calculation; the burden is on those claiming the flood to demonstrate how such logistics could have been managed with only eight people on board, no refrigeration, no mechanical waste disposal, and no adequate means to prevent disease. Without a valid explanation, the claim remains untenable.

Mockery does not refute an argument. The claim that “this new learning amazes me” is an attempt to dismiss evidence through sarcasm rather than engagement. It does not address the fundamental problem: a global flood should leave geological, biological, and archaeological evidence, and yet none exists. The attempt to shift the burden of proof and dismiss scientific methodology only highlights the weakness of the flood hypothesis. Truth withstands scrutiny, and a claim that collapses under logical examination is not one worth defending.

NHC
 
You do know what an ark is, don't you? ... The ark of the covenant? Indiana Jones? It's a chest. I explained that in great detail in the first paragraph of the OP.

This is a topic which interests me. Was there one special ark of the covenant? Did it have magic powers? Where is it now?

I don't think anyone would find the ark. If it was used for its resources - dismantled for building shelter, fences & pens and used for firewood, as soon as they were able.


(There is a very interesting theory of the ark by a team (the name escapes me) who studies thorougly the scriptures and highlight quite a few things that scholars overlook. Its been a while and I haven't got the link to their page on this device).

I wouldn't be surprised if they had a museum with one on sight somewhere in Arizona or someplace.
 
Actually I have the Ark. I'll sell it for some fentanyl patches. Just give me ten. Ten.
 
You do know what an ark is, don't you? ... The ark of the covenant? Indiana Jones? It's a chest. I explained that in great detail in the first paragraph of the OP.

This is a topic which interests me. Was there one special ark of the covenant? Did it have magic powers? Where is it now?

I don't think anyone would find the ark. If it was used for its resources - dismantled for building shelter, fences & pens and used for firewood, as soon as they were able.


(There is a very interesting theory of the ark by a team (the name escapes me) who studies thorougly the scriptures and highlight quite a few things that scholars overlook. Its been a while and I haven't got the link to their page on this device).

I wouldn't be surprised if they had a museum with one on sight somewhere in Arizona or someplace.
Ah, I typed ark and Arizona in the search just now and quite a few links came up. Looks interesting, :)
 
  • Roll Eyes
Reactions: DLH
Back
Top Bottom