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.​

 

[WAB]

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,

I live in Arizona! There is a God!

 

[Learner]

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,

I live in Arizona! There is a God!

Its a sign! A sign for you to come home. See you in church.

(I'm not proselytizing, no banning please)

​

 

[WAB]

Love to you, Learner!

 

[DLH]

(I'm not proselytizing, no banning please)

Nonsense. Everyone here is proselytizing.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Actually I have the Ark. I'll sell it for some fentanyl patches. Just give me ten. Ten.

How do you touch the thing without getting killed by God?

 

[WAB]

Actually I have the Ark. I'll sell it for some fentanyl patches. Just give me ten. Ten.

How do you touch the thing without getting killed by God?

I don't touch it. That's the thing. Even if I get close to it my face starts to feel hot. And I get tingly. But not the ASMR tingly. A bad tingly. Like there's an alien octopus that looks like Regan McNeil under my bed...

 

[Learner]

(I'm not proselytizing, no banning please)

Nonsense. Everyone here is proselytizing.

Thinking about it now..perhaps you're right. 1st warnings for the lot of us!

 

[DLH]

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

The etymology of the word, which does mean chest, box, has a point to it countering your comparison to modern day ships. The ark didn't have steering, sails, oars, and engine, rutters etc. That point was made in the OP.

Science fiction was a response to your assumptions made regarding what a flood would be evident by. There's nothing wrong with assumptions, speculation etc. but to say this couldn't happen isn't scientific. You can say you belieit unlikely or improbable due to the evidence, but you can't scientifically conclude it didn't happen. Science does that sometimes when it shouldn't. Germs, mechanical flight, for example. The comparison of witches and banana-shaped Earth was a parody on primitive science. The assumptions there may have seemed rational at the time.

I never shifted the burden of proof, I said there is no proof in science and theology. The burden is a facade.

You tell me what the point is to an argument like this, because I don't see much of one. I've stated very briefly a Biblical perspective, you've countered it with a scientific perspective. What else is there, or what is the point?

 

[Ford]

 

[WAB]

Noah's ark is a story. A story.

 

[Ford]

Noah's ark is a story. A story.

Of course. Anyone remember the folks who tried to "find" Noah's Ark? How'd that work out? Last time I checked, nobody has found the remnants of a massive wooden ship on the top of Mount Ararat.

 

[NoHolyCows]

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

The etymology of the word, which does mean chest, box, has a point to it countering your comparison to modern day ships. The ark didn't have steering, sails, oars, and engine, rutters etc. That point was made in the OP.

Science fiction was a response to your assumptions made regarding what a flood would be evident by. There's nothing wrong with assumptions, speculation etc. but to say this couldn't happen isn't scientific. You can say you belieit unlikely or improbable due to the evidence, but you can't scientifically conclude it didn't happen. Science does that sometimes when it shouldn't. Germs, mechanical flight, for example. The comparison of witches and banana-shaped Earth was a parody on primitive science. The assumptions there may have seemed rational at the time.

I never shifted the burden of proof, I said there is no proof in science and theology. The burden is a facade.

You tell me what the point is to an argument like this, because I don't see much of one. I've stated very briefly a Biblical perspective, you've countered it with a scientific perspective. What else is there, or what is the point?

The etymology of the word “ark” does not resolve the structural problems of a wooden vessel of that size. Whether it is called a chest, box, or vessel, it was still intended to function as a floating structure carrying thousands of animals and humans for over a year. The fact that it lacked sails, oars, or a rudder does not change the fundamental engineering challenges involved. The largest wooden ships in history, such as the 19th-century Wyoming, which was much smaller than the ark but still required metal reinforcements to prevent it from flexing and leaking. The Ark, being far larger and having no such reinforcements, would not have remained seaworthy under real-world conditions. The claim that it was simply a floating box rather than a traditional ship does not address these issues; if anything, it amplifies them because it would have been even more prone to structural stress, warping, and eventual breakage. The argument from etymology does not resolve the fundamental problem of physics, hydrodynamics, and structural integrity.

Science fiction was not used as a response to assumptions—it was used as a rhetorical misrepresentation of how scientific reasoning works. The scientific method is not based on assumption but on testable hypotheses and falsifiability. The claim that a global flood happened is a scientific claim, and as such, it must be evaluated against physical evidence. A worldwide flood would leave undeniable geological markers, such as a single uniform sediment layer across all continents, but no such layer exists. Instead, the stratification of Earth’s crust is consistent with slow deposition over millions of years, not a single catastrophic event. The comparison to germ theory and mechanical flight is misleading. Germs and flight were not disproven before being later accepted; they were theorized based on observation, then demonstrated through testing and evidence. The flood hypothesis has been tested and fails to match reality, which is why it is rejected. The comparison to witch trials and banana-shaped Earth is an appeal to historical ignorance, not a valid critique of scientific methodology.

Saying that the burden of proof is a facade is an outright rejection of logical argumentation. The burden of proof is fundamental to both science and rational discourse—whoever makes a claim must provide evidence to support it. This principle applies equally to all claims, including religious and scientific ones. If someone claims a global flood happened, it is their responsibility to provide evidence for it. Saying there is “no proof in science or theology” is a contradiction—science does not deal in absolute proof but in testable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence. If proof were meaningless in science, then medicine, engineering, and forensic science would not work—yet they do, because they rely on demonstrable evidence. Rejecting burden of proof is not a legitimate argument; it is a way to avoid defending a claim with actual evidence.

The point of this argument is not simply to contrast a Biblical perspective with a scientific one—it is to determine whether a historical claim holds up under scrutiny. If someone claims the flood was a literal event, then it must be subject to historical, geological, and biological testing. The flood story is not simply a faith-based belief; it is a claim about past reality, and when tested, it does not hold up to scrutiny. The discussion is not just about contrasting perspectives but about establishing what is true based on evidence rather than assertion.

NHC

 

[steve_bank]

Religion is a performance art, and DLH is giving a performance.

 

[ideologyhunter]

a performance.

More like dispatches from Ted Kaczynski's shack.

 

[steve_bank]

'All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players'

And Snaglepuss 'Exit stage right...'

 

[EricH]

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.

It was a farming commune. I was born there and spent the first 18 years of my life there until I enlisted in the Corps. My father was a Chemistry teacher who had found Jesus and started his own commune with a few other families to live a Christian life in the frozen wasteland that is northern Michigan. I was raised Christian but lost my faith fighting in Vietnam, and my exposure to the real world outside the borders of the commune. By age 21 I was an atheist, having cast off my childish superstitions, and I went off to college and then medical school to become a physician. I am retired since 2019.

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).

So you don't believe in learning from books and teachers, preferring instead to letting your mind (untouched with the stigma of knowledge - you are NOT going to take a bite of that apple, no matter what the serpent says) roam free to come up with answers that you like. Answers that don't necessarily match reality, the stuff written down in the books you don't read, answers that are taught in schools and universities that you don't desire to attend. But you call yourself Learner. That explains soooo much!

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

Imagination is a wonderful tool for coming up with new ideas, new ways of thinking about things. But if this imagination has no foundation in reality, information about the real world we have learned over thousands of generations, information that is recorded in books and taught in schools and universities, it is merely navel gazing. Fruitless, of no consequence, of no real benefit to anyone including yourself, not contributing one brick to the tower of knowledge our predecessors and colleagues have built through their hard work that shelters us from a hostile world full of germs and disease and disasters waiting to happen. But you call yourself Learner. And you appear to believe that the ideas you come up with have just as much weight as the knowledge we can find in books and universities.

There is a phenomenon known as the Dunning Kruger effect, which tells us that people who are the least qualified to speak authoritatively on a subject often have the greatest confidence in their ability to do so. The graph below illustrates what I am talking about in a format that should be easy to understand for lay people. I submit that you belong near the left side of the graph, the so-called Mount Stupid. And having read your posts, I believe you have been stuck on that mountain for a very long time. I say that because you have made assertions like "But you find whale bones/fossils on the top of mountains" before, and you have been corrected before, but you continue to make such silly assertions, having chosen to ignore the knowledge that was imparted to you by kindly forum members in the past. You like where you are on the curve and you ain't movin'.



Mountains are formed when the continental plates that make up the Earth's outer crust move and push against one another. In the case of the Himalayas, for example, the site was once the location of a body of water named the Tethys Ocean, a predecessor to what is today the Indian Ocean. As time passed and what is today the Indian subcontinent collided with the plate to the north of it (mainland China and Russia today), it pushed up the Himalayan mountains. The material that makes up the mountain once lay at the bottom of the ocean, and is largely comprised of limestone and other rocks. Now limestone is formed at the bottom of seas and oceans through the accumulation of dead sea creatures, including the hard shells of such creatures. Therefore, we should EXPECT to find the remains of dead animals, even fossilized whale bones which fall to the bottom when the animal dies, in the rocks that make up the Himalayas. You would know this if you had read some of the books that you don't trust, maybe paid a little more attention in school. But, being that you love to sit on the left side of the graph on that magnificent (from your point of view) Peak of Stupidity, you can't be bothered to move. And if past performance is an indicator of the future, you are stuck on that peak for the rest of your life. And you will continue to believe that the ideas you have come up with bear merit equal to the ideas you find in books. Books that explain why you would expect to find the fossilized remains of sea creatures in the Himalayas, for example.

 

[pood]

. And if past performance is an indicator of the future, you are stuck on that peak for the rest of your life.

Yes, he is, because he wants to be there. It’s safe and warm and comfy-cozy there, as he imagines Jesus welcoming him to heaven right after death. I would advise Learner, however, not to shake Jesus’s hand when the pearly gates swing open for him. It’s got a hole in it, and it might be painful for the Son of God.

 

[Learner]

Obviously Eric isn't a prophet... and you ain't a Poirot.

Dur leetol grey cells ah esleep messieurs. Weyk dem urp et wunce.

 

[steve_bank]

Obviously Eric isn't a prophet... and you ain't a Poirot.

Dur leetol grey cells ah esleep messieurs. Weyk dem urp et wunce.

This from Learner, aka the Reverend Clouseau.

 

[pood]

Obviously Eric isn't a prophet... and you ain't a Poirot.

Dur leetol grey cells ah esleep messieurs. Weyk dem urp et wunce.

Keep living on Mount Stupid.