How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?by Jonathan Sarfati Many skeptics assert that the Bible must be wrong, because they claim that the Ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals. This has persuaded some Christians to deny the Genesis Flood, or believe that it was only a local flood involving comparatively few local animals. But they usually have not actually performed the calculations. On the other hand, the classic creationist book The Genesis Flood contained a detailed analysis as far back as 1961.1 A more detailed and updated technical study of this and many other questions is John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This article is based on material in these books plus some independent calculations. There are two questions to ask: How many types of animals did Noah need to take? Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals? How many types of animals did Noah need to take? The relevant passages are Genesis 6:19–20 and Genesis 7:2–3. Genesis 6:19–20: ‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.’ Genesis 7:2–3: ‘Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.’ In the original Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.2 Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood. However, if God in His wisdom had decided not to preserve some ocean creatures, this was none of Noah’s business. Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well. The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton. Clean animals: Bible commentators are evenly divided about whether the Hebrew means ‘seven’ or ‘seven pairs’ of each type of clean animal. Woodmorappe takes the latter just to concede as much to the biblioskeptics as possible. But the vast majority of animals are not clean, and were represented by only two specimens each. The term ‘clean animal’ was not defined until the Mosaic Law. But since Moses was also the compiler of Genesis, if we follow the principle that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’, the Mosaic Law definitions can be applied to the Noahic situation. There are actually very few ‘clean’ land animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. What is a ‘kind’? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera). One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic mating, so the ‘kind’ may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the ‘kind’ with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation. For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind. Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. With extinct genera, there is a tendency among some paleontologists to give each of their new finds a new genus name. But this is arbitrary, so the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated. Consider the sauropods, which were the largest dinosaurs—the group of huge plant-eaters like Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc. There are 87 sauropod genera commonly cited, but only 12 are ‘firmly established’ and another 12 are considered ‘fairly well established’.5 One commonly raised problem is ‘How could you fit all those huge dinosaurs on the Ark?’ First, of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown. Second, as said above, the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated. But these numbers are granted by Woodmorappe to be generous to skeptics. Third, the Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep. Another problem often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is ‘how did disease germs survive the flood?’ This is a leading question—it presumes that germs were as specialized and infectious as they are now, so all the Ark’s inhabitants must have been infected with every disease on earth. But germs were probably more robust in the past, and have only fairly recently lost the ability to survive in different hosts or independently of a host. In fact, even now many germs can survive in insect vectors or corpses, or in the dried or frozen state, or be carried by a host without causing disease. Finally, loss of resistance to disease is consistent with the general degeneration of life since the Fall.6 Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals? The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep. If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway. Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals’ needs for exercise anyway. Even if we don’t allow stacking one cage on top of another to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe shows from standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark’s three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals. Food requirements The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Perhaps Noah fed the cattle mainly on grain, plus some hay for fibre. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark’s total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4 % of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs. Excretory requirements It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour. Hibernation The space, feeding and excretory requirements were adequate even if the animals had normal day/night sleeping cycles. But hibernation is a possibility which would reduce these requirements even more. It is true that the Bible does not mention it, but it does not rule it out either. Some creationists suggest that God created the hibernation instinct for the animals on the Ark, but we should not be dogmatic either way. Some skeptics argue that food taken on board rules out hibernation, but this is not so. Hibernating animals do not sleep all winter, despite popular portrayals, so they would still need food occasionally. Conclusion This article has shown that the Bible can be trusted on testable matters like Noah’s Ark. Many Christians believe that the Bible can only be trusted on matters of faith and morals, not scientific matters. But we should consider what Jesus Christ Himself told Nicodemus (John 3:12): ‘If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?’Similarly, if the Scriptures can be wrong on testable matters such as geography, history and science, why should they be trusted on matters like the nature of God and life after death, which are not open to empirical testing? Hence Christians should ‘be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you’ (1 Peter 3:15), when skeptics claim that the Bible conflicts with known ‘scientific facts’. Christians would be able to follow this command and answer skeptics’ anti–Ark arguments effectively, if they read John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This remarkable book is the most complete analysis ever published regarding the gathering of animals to the Ark, provisions for their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. For example, some skeptics have claimed that the post-Flood ground would be too salty for plants to grow. Woodmorappe points out that salt can be readily leached out by rainwater. Woodmorappe has devoted seven years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti–Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the Biblical account, and other relevant questions. Nothing else like this has ever been written before—a powerful vindication of the Genesis Ark account. ‘It has just the sort of facts and details that kids find fascinating, and would make an excellent source of information for enhancing Bible study projects and class lessons on the Ark and Flood. Anyone interested in answering the many questions about the ark, especially from skeptics, would be advised to read Noah’s Ark.’7 Recommended ResourcesWeb linksNoah’s Ark Questions and AnswersNoah's Flood - Where did the water come from? References and notes J.C. Whitcomb, and H.M. Morris, The Genesis Flood, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, USA, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961. A.J. Jones, ‘How many animals on the Ark?’ Creation Research Society Quarterly 10(2):16–18, 1973. It is high time that certain atheistic skeptics showed some intellectual integrity and actually read the Bible. Then they would stop making ridiculous comments about whales flopping up gang–planks and fish–tanks on the Ark. One common fallacy brought up by evolutionists is that variation within a kind somehow proves particles-to-people evolution. The examples commonly cited, e.g. peppered moths and antibiotic resistance in bacteria, are indeed examples of natural selection. But this is not evolution. Evolution requires the generation of new information, while natural selection sorts and can remove information due to loss of genetic diversity. Natural selection can account for variations, but cannot account for the origin of bacteria or moths. With the moths, natural selection merely changed the ratios of black and peppered forms. Both types were already present in the population, so nothing new was produced. [Since this article was published, new evidence shows that all the moth pictures were staged, further undermining this ‘evidence’ — see Goodbye, peppered moths: A classic evolutionary story comes unstuck.] The same applies to different breeds of dogs. By selecting individuals which are very large or very small, Great Danes and Chihuahuas were bred. But these breeds have lost the information contained in genes for certain sizes. See Creation 18(2):20–23. [See also What is Evolution?.] J.S. McIntosh, Sauropoda, in Wieshampel, D.B. et al., The Dinosauria, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 345, 1992. C. Wieland, ‘Diseases on the Ark’, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):16–18, 1994 (see online version). Viruses often become much more infectious by random mutations causing changes in their protein coats. This makes it harder for the antibodies to recognize them, but there is no increase in information content, so no real evolution. Reason and Revelation, May 1996.

About 100 years ago, bird-biting mosquitoes called Culex pipiens entered the tunnels then being dug for the London Underground (the ‘Tube’). Cut off from their normal diet, they changed their habits to feed on rats and, when available, human beings. During WW2, they attacked Londoners seeking refuge from Hitler’s bombs. Their plaguing of maintenance workers may be the reason the underground variety has been dubbed molestus. British scientists have now found that it is almost impossible to mate those in the Tube with the ones still living above ground, thus suggesting that they have become a new species1 (or almost so). This has ‘astonished’ evolutionary scientists, who thought that such changes must take many times longer than this.read more at:http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/biters.asp

It could be that Noah gathered babies from each species :-) I suppose that would help them fit ;-)

Though I fully believe in the story of Noah's Ark, and a world wide deluge that destroyed every living thing on the face of the earth, it is interesting some of the intellectual objections to such a story. Some have objected to the possibility of the storm due to the sheer size of the ark being made entirely out of wood. From what is argued, is that a wooden boat of that size has never actually been built, nor have people actually figured out how to make a boat of that size, strictly out of wood. So, Noah's Ark would have been an engineering miracle amongst other things.

Bub said:So, how did the Australian Saltwater Crocodile, which is indigenous to Australian only, get on the Ark? How did it get back to Australia after the flood and not exist anywhere else?How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?this should help matt

While I believe the literal 6 day creation story in the Scriptures, and that if tracing backwards through the genealogies, that would make the earth probably under 10,000 years old, as a student of the Word, and one who has taken a few science classes at the college level, I have to admit, the scientific evidence right now seems to point to a 6 billion year old universe. Granted, I think there are some philosophical assumptions underlying some of this "science," things that are actually beyond objective scientific proof. No matter how many "missing links" one finds, you cannot prove that a species actually evolved. You can put forth such a theory that such indeed happened, and perhaps that theory is pretty strongly accorded with evidence. However, ultimately, you can only demonstrate there are a bunch of fossils that have been discovered that have some similarities, but you cannot actually prove such a change did indeed take place.Likewise, much of "Creation Science" seems quite flawed, and while trying to take into consideration what the Scriptures say in interpreting the scientific data, most of "Creation Science" seems to be more geared towards disproving what other researchers are saying that favors evolution. While that is fine, it seems more negative than trying to make a positive contribution to science.

BubClearly then you are aware of the answers in genesis ministry, you say they believe in a literal flood and a literal Genesis and i take it therefore you dont... a few questions to start with:1: Who wrote Genesis?2: What did God promise Noah in Gen 9:11?3: Did Noah actually exist?4: Why do you say "And this does not cause me to doubt the truth of Christ Jesus' saving Grace. The Holy Spirit attests to this Truth in the here and now." was the article calling into question your salvation?You speak about humans an chimps sharing 95% of their DNA. A problems with this is the NG report does not state that the difference between the human and chimp genomes are not the 'odd letter here and there' but massive sections.another problem i have with the article is it says:"We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes," how is this 'sciecne' in-line with Genesis 1:26,27: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.are chimp's therefore also created in the image of God as the article states quite clearly we are chimp-like apes.matt

Humans and chimpanzees share more than 95% of our genes in common. Evolution is the only good explanation for this. We diverged from a common ancestor approximately 6 million years ago according to the article. Darwinian 'evolution' is not the only 'good' explanation for this. Why could God not have used the same genes in one creature as in another. This is fawlty logic. The word 'animal' and the word 'man' use some of the same letters but no one would suggest that they had any generic link. A racing care and a tractor will share many components but no-one would suggest that they share a common genetic ancestor. Incidentally, here is another statistic for you...Arabidopsis has the simplest of plant genomes. Small size, short life cycle and prodigious seed production have made it a laboratory mouse of the plant world. Work with Arabidopsis and its genes has already revealed some of the plant kingdom's secrets: the difference between cauliflower and cabbage, for instance, lies in the mutation of just two genes whose function was discovered in Arabidopsis. Likewise, 30 per cent of the weed's genes have notable similarities to human genes. Indeed, of the 289 human disease genes that the scientists focused on, almost half were found to have near relatives in the Arabidopsis. According to your logic, the only 'good' explanation for this must be that the human race and the cabbage have 'diverged from a common ancestor'! sometimes you can still see the similarities especially in their logical processes. :-)

Are god is awsome he opened the red sea and raised the dead Why do we doubt god!!!

Dr Kent Hovind has a wonderful website that has some good resources to answer these questions.www.drdino.com/downloads.php Enjoy Greg ;-)

I believe species is a more acurate word described in Gen. For example, a zebra may have all the nessary genitics to re-populate all the horse species. That's how I have come to understand that section of scripture.

Humans and chimpanzees share more than 95% of our genes in common. Evolution is the only good explanation for this. We diverged from a common ancestor approximately 6 million years ago according to the article.A Cloud in the sky, a watermelon, and a jellyfish are all 96% water but you're not gonna say they have a common ancestor. That 4% makes all the difference. A common creator, not evolution, is the only good explanation.

An evangelist once replied when asked by someone “How could you believe that a whale swallowed Jonah and spat him after three days?” his reply was “ I would believe it even if the bible says Jonah swallowed the whale!!!!” Rom. 1, 18-20 “ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse:”Finished!Your sis. Mek.

The problem with answers in genesis is that they start from the position of believing in a literal flood story and a literal Genesis and then set out to prove it, while refusing to consider anything that doesn't fit by making up rediculous explanations such as continental drift happening in 6,000 years.Evolutionist do that. They start from the position to prove evolution and that their is no God. It depends on your prospective. (by the way not every prospective is correct) People do this with theology all the time. They believe strongly in one thing and in their mind everything is bent that direction, but it reality it is not. It depends on your "glasses" what you see. There is a matter of faith in both views.But if you believe in God and evolution you believe God used death to bring His world to be. If you believe in creation you believe God used life to bring it to be. Which is closer to the character of God?

Also, if you don't belive in the first Adam how can you belive in the last Adam? If evolution is true God created death from the begining. If creation is true sin caused death. Which is true?

David Ravenhill said something like this once: "God can create something as vintage... like when He changed the water into wine."He was just making a comment on the argument of the 6 billion year old year or whatever. That God could have made the earth in all it's splendor in a literal six days, but attached the vintage qualities onto it!Is our God limited?-EliPS- I like what you said, Deltadom

Evolutionist do that. They start from the position to prove evolution Today I came across this interview with the late Stephen Jay Gould which, in my opinion, corroborates PreachParsely's point. In the interview Gould admits that the gradualitic evolution was not supported by the fossil record. With fundamental commitment to naturalism and bias against special creation Gould makes a philosophic choice to explain the embarrasing evidence against Darwin's flawed theory. Gould saves evolution from extinction by replacing "gradualism" with "Punctuated Equilibrium." (Explaining the absence of gradual sequences in the fossil record by deciding that species must have evolved in random and radical spurts that were too fast for the fossil record to capture.)Here is an exerpt where Gould begins by assuring us this is not a philosophic issue, but an empirical issue. Why doth he protest so quickly?"Interviewer: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium? Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn't broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology. I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration. So that's what it came out of: the hope that statistical study would finally enable us to get around this source of frustration by revealing gradual, definitive change; but that didn't work either....The idea of punctuated equilibrium came from a very conventional motivation based on an operational frustration in the actual practice of empirical work. "The full articleMC

I [Dr. Hovind] have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief. This is from Dr Hovind's website.Read the article here.

Bub said:This explains how chimpanzees evolved into humans.andWe diverged from a common ancestor approximately 6 million years ago according to the article. :-? errr..which is it then are we decended from a common ancestor or from chimps themselves?and I'm sorry but that link with 4 lines of text and a few skull diagrams does not explain 6 million years of so called evolution.Sorry Bub but you just seem confused on this issuemattP.S. you haven't answered any of the questions i posted above yet

Don't want to seem like a know-it-all, but I am teaching creation in Sunday School, and I have a Biblical answer for the following posters:bubbaguy: The Australian or any type of crocidile is a variation of the crocidile that was on the ark. This does not prove evolution, but rather proves that animals do adapt to their environment. The Aussie croc does not prove evolution as it is still a croc.-Two different animals having 95% similarity still leaves a huge gap of differences. 5% difference when discussing DNA structure is a huge amount of difference. -I don't agree that Pangea turned into what we see today in 6000 years. There is some movement in the Earth, but the plates are not floating around like lillipads. I do support the young earth theory, but not the Pangea theory. If the Pangea theory is true, how did two major continents spin one way, and the last spin the opposite. Also, where is Mexico and Central America, and how did Africa shrink 35% to fit against the other continents? The fact that these continents seem to fit together is a coincidence of the present water level. KJ: The Chinese built masted ships much larger than 400 feet. Noah's ark was not masted. So the possibility is even more reasonable considering the ark did not have to withstand winds against masts.http://www.worldwideflood.com/objections/ancients_incapable.htmdeltadom: Amen!!! That's the whole thing. If He can create us, He is capable of anything! Eli: How true! Many argue that the earth must be millions of years old for us to see the stars, but God made a mature Adam and Eve that could walk, talk, and get married from their creation. They didn't have a bag of seeds, either, but a completed garden in which to live. Likewise, the light from the stars and sun was created mature.Compton: Concerning Gould, this is proof that evolutionists can find a way to make the imaginary trees of life to fit any time scale that someone comes up with. If we found evidence of humans living with dinosaurs today, the evolutionist would not be phased.Both creation and evolution must be taken by faith. I cannot convince anyone that everything in the Bible is true, just as evolutionists cannot prove to everyone that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and we came from rain that eroded rocks.Any of you guys that are willing to stand firm on an old earth theory, I double dog dare you or the professor that taught you the evidence for this to debate Kent Hovind. Hovind will pay you $250 for your trouble of getting ready for a public debate, and pay his own way to do so. Hovind is where I learned all my info, and he is willing to do this to strenghen people's faith that the WHOLE Bible is true. Many are being taught things in an environment where an atheistic professor has the advantage of studying only their side of the issue. I tell the kids I teach they are willing to believe whatever they want, but I show them the evidence for creation.Here are parts 1 and 2 of Kent Hovind's 'Lie's In the Textbooks.' Every objection that had been brought against a literal 6 day creation is handled publically by Hovind. Please watch these videos whether you support the youth Earth theory or not.https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=4544&commentView=itemCommentshttps://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=4545&commentView=itemCommentsWhich is harder to swallow:1) All the animals on Earth today came from animals kept alive on Noah's ark during a world-wide flood.2) All the plants, animals, and people on Earth today came from minerals that eroded under millions of years of rain that made a soup that came alive, and here we are.

The Aussie croc does not prove evolution as it is still a croc. :-P