Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a fateful trip
That started from this mid eastern port
Aboard this tiny ark.
The mate was a mighty sailing man,
The skipper righteous and sure.
Eight passengers set sail that day
For a one year tour, a one year tour.
The weather started getting rough,
The tiny ark was tossed,
If not for the courage of the fearless crew
The ark would be lost, the ark would be lost.
The ark set ground on the side of this uncharted mountain range
With Noah
His wifey too,
seven pairs of every kind of clean animal
one pair of every kind of unclean animal
and also seven pairs of every kind of bird
Here on Noah's earth
(Based on "The Ballad of Gilligan's Island" by George Wyle and Sherwood Shwartz.)
Ok, so my version of the song kind of breaks down when I try to list all the passengers on the ark. Well, no kidding. There were probably tens of thousands of them.
Noah's ark was one of my first real problems with reliability of the Bible. (Read about it in Genesis 6-8). It just seems very implausible to me: A 450x75x45' foot boat being able to hold 8 people plus thousands and thousands and thousands of animals as well as food for all of them for almost a year - which is how long they were on the ark in total (much of that time was waiting for the water to recede and some dry ground to reappear). It's a decent sized boat, but not in consideration of all that was supposedly on board.
I know it can be debated what the word "kind" means in regard to the two of each kind of animal. It could mean something at a higher level than specific species, assuming then that micro-evolution takes over after the flood to (re)create all the species of animals we have today. It's still going to be a heck of a lot of animals plus food for all of them. Then also if you assume the evolution thing takes over after the flood, then you run into a time issue. The flood was only about 4000 years ago according to the genealogies in the Bible. That isn't a lot of time for natural mutations to add a lot of new species to the earth, especially from such a small base population. In addition, 4000 years isn't a lot of time for animals and people to re-disperse themselves across the rest of the world. There were no planes trains or automobiles, but they ended up everywhere - all over Asia, Africa, the Americas... And how did they all get to Australia?
Back to the boat, hopefully the carnivores weren't eating any of the other animals. But let's say Noah and the crew were able to compartmentalize them and keep that from happening. Or God sort of tranquilized them for the duration of the trip. But then what happens after they are let go again outside the ark? Wouldn't they be hungry and start eating other animals, which were in decidedly short supply, thus killing off those species or kinds almost immediately. They had to eat, right?
I'm not claiming to have done any rigorous research on this, but a cursory analysis of the logistical problems involved seems to me to be so insurmountable as to make further research pointless. (However, I'm open to debate on that.)
I will also add that I have no problems with miracles. That is to say, God doing something supernatural that defies logic. If he can make the earth and the whole universe, I would assume he can break the natural laws and do whatever he wants. But the only two parts of the flood story the Bible indicates as supernatural is the flood itself, and all the animals gathering nicely to get on the boat.
What happens is that if you can say that one part of the Bible seems to be inaccurate or untrue, then you have to ask what other parts might be. Then the slippery slope begins and you then have to figure out which parts might be true and which aren't. How can anyone really determine that? Who gets to judge that when there are differences of opinion?
I recently had a conversation about this with a friend whom I greatly respect and consider much smarter than me. Basically, his stance on Noah's ark is that he doesn't understand it, it doesn't make sense, but he believes it anyway because he doesn't want to go down that road of then calling everything in the Bible into question. I can't bring myself to do that. Its like lying to myself. What do you think?
I agree that you can't lie to yourself. On the other hand, I think that you can reasonably question certain parts of scripture without dismantling the whole. Have you considered genre? The stories told about the kings and judges in ancient Israel are of a completely different kind than those told about figures like Noah. Both of these kinds are, in turn, different from the narratives in the New Testament. I think that there are ways to be rational and critical without destroying faith, especially the kind of faith that matters the most.
ReplyDeleteComing from a different perspective here. Assuming that the Ark account did happen, how could it possibly have been feasible?
ReplyDeleteYou bring up the question of the work "kind". One source I found stated,"Creationist estimates for the maximum number of animals that would have been necessary to come on board the Ark have ranged from a few thousand to 35,000, but they may be as few as two thousand if the biblical kind is approximately the same as the modern family classification." and it concludes:"Using a short cubit of 18 inches (46 cm) for the Ark to be conservative, Woodmorappe’s conclusion is that “less than half of the cumulative area of the Ark’s three decks need to have been occupied by the animals and their enclosures.”6 This meant there was plenty of room for fresh food, water, and even many other people."
My next biggest problem like yours is what about the carnivores? So sure, they are kept separate from the herbivores until the doors fell open, then what? All of the herbivores would have to reproduce before any predators got them... then I came across an article that talked about all animals can survive on a meatless diet. Some carnivores even choose a vegetarian lifestyle. It goes on to talk about hibernation as well... but this made sense because before the Fall, there was no death. So all of the animals would have been vegetarians to begin with.
With the evolution thing, the prevalent creationist theory is more about speciation, not evolution. Evolution has this problem with information added. Speciation assumes ALL of the genes to make the different species existed in the original kinds of animals in Noah's time. No need for random mutations. The same way dogs have all descended from one ancestor, all of the genes existed in the progenitor, just reshuffled and expressed in different amounts in decedents. Which gives us all the variants we have today.
As far as dispersion, a lot of animals migrate thousands of miles in a season, Australia... I don't know about that one yet. But all of this is how it could have happened, In my opinion it is possible, maybe not likely, but it doesn't have to be. I also can't tell you how it DID happen because, well, none of us were there and the people who were there didn't write it down or pass it on. For me, even though at first blush it seemed too incredible of a story, It is plausible.
Here are my sources:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark
http://icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2465
My intent by the way is not to convince you that it did happen but spur you on to investigate it further yourself. There are a number of different organizations working on explaining Noah's Ark. A Japanese group built a scale model to see how sea worthy the proportions of such a vessel would be - very. Another group is trying to build a full size ark complete with interior rooms. The final shape and layout of the rooms would be speculation but in the end would show the feasibility of such a craft.
ReplyDeleteSeems unreliable to test the acts of a creator against the logical rules of the created. While we are made in the image of God, it seems quite reasonable to assume that it's an image and there are some important bits left out. It would follow then that when the way God is and the things he does don't fit our human logic, it's probably due to our lack and not his. Maybe faith, then, is basically agreeing with that assumption that God is more than we are and can easily fill in the blanks between what we have the capacity to understand and what is real. (because, of course, God is then much more real than we are) I think the search for God is probably most valuable when we search for the parts we have been given the capacity to understand...maybe the personal relationship part. Even that he made possible because He became like us, not yet the other way around as much
ReplyDeletethe math does not add up either let alone the logic.
Delete(annonymous there was James denbow. I have no account)
ReplyDeleteWhere does it say in the Bible that the flood was only 4000 years ago? This is non-sense. I've found nothing in the Biblical Creation story to indicate that the earth is only 6000 years old, unless you take six days literally and I don't. There are many Christians who do not subscribe to the young earth philosophy, a certain local museum not included, including a geologist you know who has studied really old rocks. :-) Karen
ReplyDeleteBears hibernate from early October through May. That's 7-8 months with very little eating or drinking. That's in natural settings, without supernatural intervention. The size of the ark may be problematic, but the length of time is not. Anyone who has ridden a bus through the mountains knows that your appetite leaves quickly once the waves start to roll. My father lived 9 months in a prisoner of war camp on only 1 cup of rice per day. I suspect that everyone on the ark came out skinny but very much alive.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of getting around the earth in a short amount of time. The indigenous peoples of South America are clearly Asiatic. This can be seen physically, heard in their music and explains the proliferation of Chinese restaurants in Peru. A voyage from Malaysia to Peru was tested a few years ago, in a hand-made reed boat. It was successful. There's no reason to doubt that people from Africa could not have sailed throughout the entire southern hemisphere, including Australia. One person can get around the entire globe, alone, in less than a year. It's been done hundreds of times. People working as a team, going in different directions, can hit all the continents in weeks. Realistically, though, most of Noah's descendents just walked--since the Americas and Australia have only seen significant population growth in the last 200 years.
It would not take 7 pairs of animals very long to differentiate. Think of all the breeds of dogs there are and how long it takes to establish a specific breed. If that is what man can do, God can do no less.
Finally, I don't believe in God, because the Bible is true. I believe the Bible because I've met Jesus personally and He has affirmed the Bible. I'm relieved that so much of the Bible is verifiable. That is God's merciful nod to 21st century American Scientific arrogance. The very definition of a miracle is that it defies the general rules of current scientific understanding--usually emphasizing and challenging mankind's foolish arrogance. I've met Jesus personally. His validity is a fact in my life. I may confess to Him that the flood story is hard to swallow, but I can't tell Him that He doesn't exist because I don't like the fact that He left out so much information.
Finally, an early Chinese written character for the word "boat" has 8 people on it.
there is so much suspect about the noah and ark narrative. it is unprovable one way or the other and i believe unlikely. I agree with bill on the he met Jesus part and he proves the bible to be true to him. I can not deny his experience. what i can not do is say that jesus has done this for me. i find it difficult to accept a god that would destroy his own creation if he was all wise and all knowing. as a painter i will sometimes start over and throw the beginning work that i am not satisfied with away. i have a hard time that god did this to his own creation that he supposedly loved. the very concept is so counter to how i see god. if he is a god of judgement and damnation then we are his prisoners regardless and he calls the shots for us. there is no freedom in that. if that is who god is then he is just a thug that extorts us for love and submission. and biblically speaking i have doubts about anybody seeing jesus or experiencing him in the flesh in this modern time. unless he has come back to judge then he hs not returned according to scripture. you may have had a vision/hallucination but an actual full frontal with jesus. really- that is a bit vain if you ask me. i do not deny your experience it is yours. it just does not seem probable. so i say in closing that bill if you have had this experience in the flesh and you have said that you have and in your spirit then awesome and great for you. the rest of us schmucks arent so blessed. we may have been invited to sup with him but so far we are eating alone.
DeleteJoe