To the flood believers, why won't you accept the facts don't add up.?

Question

4000 species of land mammal, x 2 is 8000
8000 species of reptile x 2 is 16000
10000 species of birds is 20000

44000 animals minimum (some animals taken in 7s and not including insects)

Floor area of the ark (3 floors) is 101000 square feet. Thus we have 2.29 square feet per aninmal.

Adult elephants had to be taken as they reach sexual maturity at 11 and begin breeding (bulls) at 25 - 30 years. To feed an adult elephant you require a minimum of 140 kg of food.

140 x 4 (Indian and African elephant) x 150 days of the flood is 84000 kg or 84 tonnes. That is only for the elephants. Remeber there are at leaset another 43996 animals to feed.

Weight of 44000 animals - guess around 30000 -50000 tonnes? Already with just the animals and elephant feed the weight is 114000 -134000 tonnes. How much would this increase to with the rest of the animal feed?

Michel container ship is 110m and can only carry 98 tonnes.

I made the assumption that adult elephants had to be taken onto the ark. If baby elephants were taken onto the ark they wouldn't have been able to reproduce for over 20 odd years in which time they would have probably not survived without herd protection. The food calculation was based on elephants alone.

Answering Genesis uses an estimate of 16000 species which is clearly wrong. I have included current species numbers which shows at least 44000 species of mammal and reptile and does not include insects.

Also it does not answer the question regarding the amount of food necessary! It claims research but presents none.

In one section they use "research " by Dr Humphrey's, the physicist who will not openly debate his "science" with the rest of physics community!

Why is people say that Noah took only kinds of animal onto the ark. I mean Christains argue that evolution is not true because monkey don't evolve into humans (even though that simply shows their misunderstanding of evolution) and then they imply that Noah took dogs onto the ark which then led to the other species after the flood e.g. foxes, wolves, coyotes etc. Now when have you ever seen a breeding pair of dogs produce a coyote, or a fox or a wolf? Never. It simply can't happen. The kinds of animals argument simply can't explain the species of animals we see today. It would have had to have been every species.

Breed cats and see if you can make a lion!

Two young elephants could be take by tigers easily. There is no herd to protect them and baby elphants are small. Two tiger would take down an elephant or indeed any other prey animal. Tigers eat meat so they would have hunted after they got off the ark and killed a lot of animals - lions tigers, bear, cheetahs, leopards, crocs,

All the animals left for these animals to eat were on the ark. Once they all got off the ark the meat eaters either ate the other animals or died. That is a conundrum for ark believers. Either the prey was wiped out or the predator.

Somebody, you just don't get it. Tiger cubs need to be taught to hunt. They need to learn from an adult. Tigers do not leave their mothers until 2 years. If they leave before that they die. After 2 years they are full grown. That is when they are considered self sufficient. Now all the prey for predators was on the ark and when the predators are released the only things they can hunt is what was on the ark. That means antelopes, deer, and everything else they could get their hands on. It would have been a blood bath. The majority of prey animals would have been wiped out by the predators. 2 Tigers would easily take down an elephant.

"Tigers go out of their way to kill the largest prey available and only adult Asian elephants and greater one-horned rhinoceros are safe from tigers, although tigers do kill rhinoceros and elephant calves." That is from a website regarding Tigers.

Answer 1

i learned a long time ago no matter what evidence and facts you show them they still wont believe so i just let them remain deluded

Answer 2

Ha! Yes, the old embellished flood story. There was a TV programme about it a while ago that said there was a major flood back then when the Atlantic broke through what is now the straights of Gibraltar, creating the Mediterranean Sea. A farmer was on a river with a raft containing some animals, probably drifted for a number of days before finding land. This is the most likely origin of the story, I believe. There is actual evidence that this flood happened at around that time, give or take a century or two.

I remember as a kid my old teacher telling us the story of the Ark, and how the discovery of sea creatures on hills and mountains was proof, but I now know through science and common-sense that those creatures were up there because the mountain was once a part of the ocean floor, and geological forces made it rise to become a mountain over millennia. I hate the fact that they tried to fill my head with all that crap at such an early age, I had no defense.

Answer 3

It's a shame that so many people are ignorant of the facts when it comes to understanding the Biblical flood and Noah's Ark. Many of the answers here display such ignorance and bigotry. If you really want to know how all the animals managed to fit on the Ark try reading "Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe.
Most people have no concept of how big the ark would have been and how many animals needed to be on board. It could easily have accommodated every "kind" of animal required to produce all the "species" we have today.
The geological and fossil records certainly support the view of a global flood so the "facts" are not opposed to the Biblical account at all.

Answer 4

It's not every species that was taken, it was every kind. For example, not every type of dog was taken on the ark, just one type. They did not have to take zebras, horses, and donkeys, just one. That narrows it down to somewhere in the 4000 range. And they did not have to take insects, or any water creatures for that matter. Insects would have survived. Think about a flood today. When the water recedes there are bugs, and lots of them. Cockroaches can survive a nulear bomb, they would not be phased by the flood.

And yes, babies. Herd protection? There weren't even packs to attack them, and by the time there were packs they would be big enough to protect themselves. Plus, they could find other protection, other animals, Noah.

Maybe you should start investigating your own beliefs, I bet they don't add up. Statements with "probably", "theory", "might", etc don't count as fact. That's what most "science" about history and evolution use. IT IS NOT FACT, JUST THEORY!! Flood believers and knowledgable Christians don't use these flimsy words.

Answer 5

All very true and logical but people who believe that the bible was all true don't want to listen to facts and wont. Also I think you have underestimated the problem because we know that not only would he have had to take all these animals on board but he would have had to go and find them including the many different marsupial animals of Australia and the giant and now extinct Moa bird as well as the Kiwi and other flightless birds of New Zealand. I think the Ark must have had a really good engine or some very big oars

Answer 6

You make the assumption that adult animals were taken on the Ark. Why do you make this assumption? Baby animals grow up to be adult animals, right!?!? So, there was no need to bring fully grown animals on the Ark. There was also no need to bring different varieties of the same species so there was only one pair of elephants, not two pairs. You need to go back and recalculate.

edit in response to additional details:

You make another assumption, that they would "probably" need herd protection to survive. Protection from what??? Even if you assume that predation had developed immediately, an elephant as young as 4 years old, although of considerably smaller size than an adult, has the hearing acuity to detect a predator from miles away. Not to mention the speed, agility and strength to meet any surprise attack with swift retribution.

edit:

You again are assuming that full grown tigers were on the Ark when it was not so. They were most likely freshly weened kittens of about 6 months of age weighing in at about 100 pounds. Elephants weight two to three times that much at birth and ween at 4 to 5 years of age and would be massive in comparison to tiger cubs, weighing in at about 3,000 pounds by age 4. So, you are saying that tiger cubs can take down an elephant calf. That is the funniest thing I have heard in a very long time. I would like to see it. It would look more like a tiger getting a piggy back ride, slightly annoying to the elephant but no real problem.

In addition, you forget that we "flood believers" also believe that animals were all herbivores both before and during the flood and did not turn predatory until sometime afterwards.

Believe what you like but when you try to refute what I believe, please try to understand exactly what it is that I believe.

Answer 7

Perhaps the Ark was really a spaceship and the animals were really just DNA files to seed this new planet after Krypton blew up.

Seriously, I think that the flood happened, but Noah's idea of "the whole earth" and "every animal" were alot different than ours is today. After all, Noah didn't have GPS or National Geographic to help him out.

Answer 8

New species of animals, in general, are being discovered daily. The ones we know of today weren't known to us before. And we certainly don't see polar bears in the desert, do we? So pairs of two of every species at that place and time sounds reasonable to me. Don't exaggerate. Be realistic.

And when they say every animal, don't take it so literally. Noah was human just like we are. What would you have done? The way you describe it, you'll need years just collecting them. I'll collect the common ones and what's at hand in the time that is permitted.

Answer 9

I am not vaguely religious in any way but I think that you are confusing belief with truth when it comes to faith.

Belief does not need fact to be verified, but truth does have to be factually based.

You used the word believers yourself, so these people do not have to want to know the facts of the ark and the flood, the mere belief in it is enough to sustain faith

Answer 10

I believe that the stories in the bible are "stories", they all have a lesson in them to help live a good life.

Noah's Ark lessons: being kind to animals, importance of family, and rebirth.

Answer 11

Please, please stop presenting theists with facts. They just change tack , or say you hate God, or they re-invent the dimensions, or say that God made certain animals float in the air above it etc, or say that it was just 'in context', or an allegorical tale etc etc

In a way you are dignifying their myth by even presenting a counter argument...

Remember, their whole argument rests on the fact that their "God can do anything" so why should you question...