Showing posts with label Noah's Ark and the Flood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Noah's Ark and the Flood. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Noah's Flood and Coral- Planetary Flood Scenario

Hi everyone!

You may recall my post on the effects of Noah's flood on coral a few weeks back: http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral.html

In light of the large number of people who think that a global version of Noah's flood took place within the last 6000 years, I thought it would be a good idea to point out that I focused my research on a local flood.

The reason I did this was because there is no reason to do serious research on the effects of a global flood on coral. A global flood would very obviously kill 100% of the coral on earth. There is simply no mechanism left to allow for their survival. All stationary colonies would die due to ridiculously large increases in pressure, a temperature drop to between 0 and 5 degrees Celsius, and the absence of light. Gamete expulsion of any kind would fail due to the lack of habitat (the entire world, except for maybe the peak of the highest mountain would be unsuitable for coral. Keep in mind that gametes would not be able to travel the distance necessary to reach this lonely safe haven- if anyone wishes to debate this I would be happy to hear what you have to say). Polyp bailout would be useless for the same reason.

Here is a summary of the reasoning that goes along with a planetary flood (as opposed to a local one):
  1. If a planetary flood took place, 100% of the coral on earth would die
  2. There are an abundance of coral on earth today
  3. 6000 years is not long enough for coral to evolve from species which survived the flood
  4. Therefore, a global flood did not take place within the last 6000 years
 And so we can say with a very high degree of certainty that a global flood like the one described in Genesis (if you interpret Genesis to describe a global flood) did not happen.

A local flood is a different story. However, a local flood probably (but with a lower degree of certainty) would have killed 100% of coral on earth. That is why I focused my research on the local flood scenario, and you can check it out here! http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral.html

--------------------------------------------------
Response to a common response to my argument:

Keep in mind that to say something like "well God must have re-created coral after the flood!" would be to add information to Bible. The flow of Genesis is such that only the animals and people on the ark survive the flood. Aquatic organisms are never mentioned. Also, there is NO mention of God re-creating organisms after the flood.

If one were to allow for adding something like "oh, and even though the Bible doesn't say this, God also created organisms after the flood and that is why we see them today," you would also have to allow for additions to the the Bible in other places that suit another party's bias or fancy. For example, let's say I really want Jesus to happen to tap dance, do gymnastics, and be really good at juggling. The Bible doesn't mention him doing those things, nor does it mention him not doing those things. Anyway, if we allow for additions to the text in one place, you have to allow for additions on another place.

What this means is that instead of 'saving' the text by adding information, you actually destroy the reliability of the text. Also, I think Revelation says something bad happens to people who add stuff to the Bible.
-----------------------------------

Thank you for reading!

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Noah's Flood (Even a Local Flood) Would Have Killed 100% of Earth's Coral


I hope everyone will forgive me for being gone for so long! My work has slid away from popular writing and moved in a more scholarly direction. Unfortunately, scholarly stuff takes more time. Fortunately, scholarly stuff gives you better conclusions. Anyway, here is a bit on coral and Noah's Flood that I have been working on over the past semester under my marine biology professor for Honors Credit. Arguments about Noah's flood seem to revolve mostly around numbers of animals, ark logistics, animal distributions post flood, and where the heck the water came from/went, and I am here to tell the 'figure out whether or not Noah's flood happened' community that CORAL ARE PEOPLE TOO!!! So stop ignoring them. Anyway, I hope ya'll like scientifickee-style writing. I know I do.

 --------------------------------------

The Effects of a Proposed Model for the Genesis Flood Account on the Mortality of Mature Coral, Coral Gametes, and Swimming Coral
(or)
Noah's Flood Would Have Killed ALL of the Coral Even if it Was a Local Flood <--easier to read and more to the point title for blog purposes
Abstract
The purpose of this inquiry is to examine the historical reliability of the flood account in Genesis. Using modern knowledge of brooding and broadcasting species of coral, I will attempt to deduce whether a cataclysmic flood like the one described in Genesis would cause the extinction of coral. If the flood described in Genesis would cause the extinction of coral, and yet coral are alive today, the Genesis account loses reliability as a historical document. Interpretation is key when comparing Genesis to scientific information. I do not examine every possible interpretation of Genesis, but instead select a single, conservative interpretation to compare with my findings. I acknowledge that alternative interpretations of Genesis are valid, and may result in alternative conclusions. I hypothesize that a global flood of 5137 meters lasting for about one year would cause the extinction of all coral species including (a) mature coral attached to the bottom, (b) coral gametes suspended in the water, (c) coral planula larvae, and (d) pieces of mature coral that break free from the stationary colonies. If my hypothesis is demonstrated to be valid, it is unlikely that the proposed interpretation of Genesis could have taken place. 

Introduction
                In chapters 4-7 of Genesis, a cataclysmic flood is claimed to have taken place within the last 6000 years. According to Genesis, God decides to judge the earth for its wickedness by flooding it with water. However, God also decides to save a few humans and animals through a man named Noah, whom God instructs to build a massive ark. Once Noah completes his ark, God causes huge amounts of rain to fall and “opens the gates of the deep,” causing the water level to rise. Only Noah, his family, and any animals taken along survive the flood. After about one year the waters subside and Noah is able to disembark upon a cleansed earth (ESV Genesis 6-9).
                Due to the multiplicity of valid interpretations of Genesis, I have decided to develop an argument which is valid for almost every interpretation of Genesis which stays true to the text. According to Genesis, a flood took place which covered “all the highest mountains” (Genesis 7:19). This flood could have been global, covering all of the highest mountains on earth, or regional, covering all of the highest mountains in the region. However, even if the flood covered “only the mountains in the region”, sea level around the world would still have to rise to a level at least as high as these mountains. It is impossible to have a flood in which the highest mountains in a region are covered and sea level elsewhere is lower because water fills the container in which it resides. In short, a regional flood which covers mountains in one region may not result in total planetary submersion, but will cause a global flood equal to the height of those mountains.
                For the purposes of this inquiry, I have selected Mount Ararat (elevation 5,137 meters) as the highest of the mountains which would have been covered by the flood. I have selected Mount Ararat for two reasons. First, it is probably in the region that Genesis is talking about. Second, it is the highest mountain in the area, and would therefore be included in the category of “highest mountains” for the region. I acknowledge that peaks in other regions could have been the actual mountains covered by the flood, which could result in alternative conclusions. These alternative scenarios could be the subject for future study.
                In addition, I will make several assumptions which are necessary at this time for the sake of argument. First, I assume that Mount Ararat was at about the same elevation during Noah’s time as it is today. Second, I assume that sea levels before and after the flood were about equal. Third, I assume a somewhat uniform rate of sea level rise (5137 meters over 40 days and 40 nights) and a slower, more gradual decline in sea level which comes to completion about one year after the flood started. Fourth, I assume that currents generated by the flood would be capable of carrying water-bound coral very long distances. Fifth, I assume that after less than a year of growth in a new environment, coral species will still be capable of polyp bailout. In the future I hope to address these issues so that fewer assumptions are necessary.
While I will rely primarily on general information concerning coral, I have selected three representative species of coral when specific information is needed. These species are Diplori labyrinthiformis, Diploria strigosa, and Diploria clivosa.
The interpretation of Genesis 6-9 I use is as follows: Within the last 6000 years, God caused sea level to rise to a depth greater than 5000 meters in 40 days and 40 nights. After about 10 months, the water subsided to the level that it was before the flood.

Background
                 Coral are marine animals of the class Anthozoa and phylum Cnidaria. Coral generally live in colonies consisting of many identical polyps. They have the ability to capture prey using nematocysts, but primarily receive sustenance from symbiotic algae known as zooxanthellae. Because the zooxanthellae require light for photosynthesis, coral typically live in shallow, clear water. Coral reproduce sexually once a year, typically during the summer and fall months. . Coral reproduce sexually through either broadcast spawning or brooding. Broadcasting species discharge sperm and eggs into the water at specific times each year (Gleason). The positively buoyant gametes float to the surface, meet, and form zygotes. The zygotes develop into free-swimming planula larvae which settle on the bottom and become primary polyps. Over time the primary polyps grow and reproduce asexually until they are large enough to generate gametes of their own. Brooding species do not release eggs into the water. Rather, eggs are kept inside of the coral’s body and negatively buoyant sperm are discharged into the environment. Once the sperm reach the eggs,  planula larvae develop inside of the coral for some time before being released. The mature planula larvae swim away from the parent coral, find a place on the bottom to settle, and form a new colony. Coral can also reproduce asexually through fragmentation and parthenogenesis. Fragmentation occurs when a piece of coral breaks off from the colony and settles in a new location. Parthenogenesis takes place when unfertilized eggs transform into larvae (Richmond 176-178).
                Mature coral do not typically move, but through the process of polyp bailout coral can actively leave their skeletons behind, transform into swimming coral, and find a new location to settle (Richmond 176).

Methods
I conducted a keyword search on coral to find scientific literature using the Mendeley search engine.
They key words I used are as follows:
  • Coral
  • Coral reproduction
  • Coral sexual reproduction
  • Coral asexual reproduction
  • Coral broadcasting
  • Coral brooding
  • Coral and temperature
  • Coral and depth
  • Coral and salinity
  • Coral and pressure
  • Coral and light
  • Planula larvae
  • Coral gametes
  • Buoyancy of coral gametes
  • Survivability of coral gametes
  • Competency of planula larvae
  • Timing of coral reproduction
After collecting scientific papers through my keyword search, I compiled information pertaining to the survival capabilities of mature coral, gametes, planula larvae, and pieces of mature coral that break free from the stationary colonies. My goal was to examine every potential venue for the survival of coral species.
I started by examining the effects of a 5,137 meter increase in depth on mature coral. I gathered information on the effects of depth increase on pressure, temperature, and light penetration. Next I gathered information on the expulsion of coral gametes during broadcast spawning, the motion of gametes through the water, and potential mechanisms for gamete survival and reproduction. I then found information pertaining to the motion of planula larvae produced by brooding corals. I focused on information concerning whether or not these larvae have tendencies to swim up towards the surface, down towards the bottom, or both sequentially. I also collected information pertaining to alternative forms of coral reproduction, including fragmentation and budding as they relate to potential mechanisms for coral survival. Finally, I determined the timing of spawning for three coral species: D. labyrinthiformis, D. clivosa, and D. strigosa. In future studies I hope to include information on additional coral species.

Results
For every increase in depth of 10 meters, pressure increases by 1 atm (Castro and Huber 48). Therefore, an increase in depth of 5,137 meters would cause the amount of pressure on all mature, stationary coral on the planet to increase by 513.7 atmospheres. Less drastic increases in depth (Less than 100 meters) have been shown to decrease the growth rates in coral (Logan).
As depth increases, temperature drops. As depth increases from the surface to 200 meters the temperature quickly decreases. As depth continues to increase past 200 meters the temperature continues to drop, but at a slower rate. Once the depth becomes greater than 1000 meters, the temperature remains fairly constant at a range of 0 to 5 degrees Celsius (Castro and Huber 52-54).
As depth increases, the amount of light able to penetrate decreases. The maximum depth at which photosynthesis occurs is about 200 meters, depending on how clear the water is. Some light can penetrate deeper than 200 meters, but it is not enough for photosynthesis. At depths greater than 1000 meters, no light penetrates (Castro and Huber 332).
Mature coral colonies attached to the bottom are not capable of avoiding the dramatic environmental changes introduced by the flood. Coral tissue which actively leaves the skeleton through polyp bailout, however, can swim through the water and change their location (Richmond 176).
During sexual reproduction through spawning, coral gametes are expelled into the water. Initially the gametes are positively buoyant and will rise to the surface. The gametes can potentially travel large distances. When sperm and eggs meet, they unite to form a planula larva which swims to the bottom to form a new colony (Richmond 187).
Brooding species expel only negatively buoyant sperm into the water. Eggs remain inside of the coral, waiting to be found by sperm. Once a sperm arrives, it unites with an egg to form a zygote. The zygote then becomes a planula larva which develops inside of the coral. After a period of development, the larva will exit the coral and swim until it finds a place to settle. For most species, once a planula larva settles on the bottom it commits to the location. However, for a few species, larvae can settle, decide that conditions are not right, transform back into a swimming larvae, and attempt to settle again. I did not find any instances in which a larvae could settle, switch locations, settle, and then switch locations again. The nutrient carrying ability of larvae limits the length of time that they can spend in the water without settling (Richmond 178-187).
D. strigosa and D. clivosa spawn anywhere from July to September. D. labyrinthiformis spawn anywhere from April to May. All three species are broadcasters which expel gametes once a year (Weil 417).
D. strigosa and D. clivosa have a minimum reproductive size over 100 square centimeters. D. labyrinthiformis has a minimum reproductive size over 50 square centimeters (Weil 417).

Discussion
Stationary coral that had been growing on the bottom before the flood would be subjected to a year-long increase in pressure of 513.7 atmospheres, a decrease in temperature to below 5 degrees Celsius, and the absence of light. These individuals would not have survived, leaving reef skeletons behind.
Mobile forms of coral have the potential to avoid these drastic environmental changes. In order for the gametes of broadcast spawners to survive, sea level rise due to the flood would have to correspond directly with the timing of gamete release into the environment. Positively buoyant gametes would be able to stay near the surface until gametes unite resulting in the formation of planula larvae, which swim towards the bottom to settle. It would not be impossible for currents to carry gametes and subsequent larvae quite far. While the vast majority of the broadcast spawner’s offspring would die, a unique combination of currents, species durability, avoidance of predators, and timing for the unification of sperm with eggs would make it possible for some of these coral to survive the initial sea level rise. Even though the timing of the flood (about one year) corresponds directly to the timing of spawning (once a year), any coral that survived the sea level rise due to broadcast spawning would not be able to produce gametes themselves because one year is not nearly enough time for single planulae larva to reach the minimum reproductive size. This does not, however, rule out the possibility of these corals reproducing asexually.
                Because of the differences in timing for spawning in D. strigosa and D. clivosa (Jul-Sep), compared to D. labyrinthiformis (Apr-May), and the rate at which the flood caused sea level rise (5137 meters over 40 days and 40 nights), it is unlikely that all three species would be able to send out potential survivors through broadcast spawning. If additional species of coral spawn at other times , then the number of coral species excluded from the window of opportunity during which coral could expel gametes will decrease. In short, if the timing is correct for certain species of coral, it will be incorrect for other species, in which case the gametes will be subjected to the increase in pressure, decrease in temperature, and decrease in light reception.
                Coral planulae which result from brooding species spend more time developing, which could potentially allow them to swim farther (Richmond 178-187). However, the larvae have a tendency to swim downwards in order to settle on the bottom. Depending on currents, it would be possible for a brooded planula spawned at the correct time to survive the initial rise in sea level and settle. As with broadcast spawning, however, a single year would not be long enough for settlement, development, and growth to the point that the brooding coral could produce gametes to brood.
When the water drops, any stationary coral that managed to settle in a place with appropriate depth, temperature, salinity, pH, and light (for example, near the peak of Mount Ararat or on the slopes of mountains around the world) would once again be killed due to lack of water. The only way for coral to survive would be to make it past the initial rise in sea level, settle and survive for a year, and then once again find a way to become mobile and make the long journey back as sea level dropped.
                It is important to note that brooding coral, like broadcasters, do not send out their planulae all at the same time (Weil 417). Once again, if the timing is correct for certain species of brooders, it will not be correct for other species, resulting in the death of 100% of either one group of species or the other.
                Two final ways for coral to become mobile and potentially survive the sea level rise both involve asexual reproduction. If pieces of coral broke free from the colony and were carried by currents up to a viable location, they could survive. I find this scenario extremely unlikely due to the negative buoyancy of coral structures.
                Some coral can also detach from the parent colony, transform into swimmers, and swim to alternate locations (Richmond 176). If currents were favorable, and the coral neglected to settle too early, they could potentially survive the sea level rise. This type of reproduction is extremely important to this inquiry because corals budding off of the parent colony could survive the decrease in sea level, unlike the processes of broadcasting and brooding.

Conclusions
It is certain that any stationary coral would die because of a year-long increase in pressure of 513.7 atmospheres, a decrease in temperature to below 5 degrees Celsius, and the coral would be well over 4000 meters below the photic zone.
The only way for all species of coral to survive the flood is through polyp bailout because it can take place at any time during the year and it provides a viable mechanism for surviving sea level decrease. Broadcast spawning (as well as parthenogenesis) and brooding may be more likely to allow some species of coral to survive the initial rise in sea level, but the timing of the flood would exclude species that do not expel gametes at the correct time. In addition, neither broadcast spawning nor brooding are viable mechanisms for surviving the decrease in sea level.
I neither reject nor confirm my hypothesis that a 5137 meter deep flood lasting for about one year would cause the extinction of coral at this point. However, I would strongly recommend readers to take into account the fact that polyp bailout is the only way for every species of coral to survive both the increase and decrease in water level (because it is the only method of survival that is not time sensitive). As opposed to broadcasting and parthenogenesis, polyp bailout is not a phenomenon in which an immense number of coral are ejected into the water. Polyp bailout is neither the standard method for reproduction, nor does it generate a large number of water-bound coral. Because of this, polyp bailout does not enjoy the increased odds of success due to sheer numbers. In future studies I will examine whether or not all species of coral are capable of polyp bailout, and whether or not a minimum size is required in order for polyp bailout to occur. In addition, I hope to determine the amount of time that gametes, larvae, and other forms of water-bound coral can survive before settling on the bottom.

Summary Table!
Survival method
Advantages
Disadvantages
Broadcast Spawning
·         Huge numbers
·         Time sensitive- if the timing allows one group of species to survive, another group will die.
·         Requires unification of sperm and egg
·         Once sperm and egg unite, they become negatively buoyant (the sink)
Brooding
·         Huge numbers
·         Increased maturity may allow for longer periods of time spent before settling
·         Sperm and eggs will unite before the larvae starts swimming
·         Time sensitive- if the timing allows one group of species to survive, another group will die.
·         Sperm are negatively buoyant
·         Larvae seek out the bottom to settle
Parthenogenesis
·         Huge numbers
·         Unification of sperm and eggs not required
·         Eggs will not become negatively buoyant due to merging with sperm
·         Eggs will spend more time suspended near the surface before changing into a larvae
·         Time sensitive- if the timing allows one group of species to survive, another group will die.
·         Once eggs do turn into larvae, they will become negatively buoyant (not as much of a disadvantage in this case)

Pieces of coral physically breaking off of the colony

·         Coral skeletons are negatively buoyant
·         Low numbers
·         Extreme currents required for any survival
Polyp Bailout
·         Not timing-sensitive
·         Coral are mobile
·         Low numbers
·         Larvae tend to seek out the bottom

 
Bibliography
Castro, Peter, and Michael E. Huber. Marine Biology. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Your Page Title. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://glencoe.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0011062009/student_view0/>.
English Standard Version Bible. London: Crossway, 2010.
Gleason, D. F., & Hofmann, D. K. (2011). Coral larvae: From gametes to recruits. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 408(1-2), 42-57. Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2011.07.025
Logan, A., Yang, L., & Tomascik, T. (1994). Linear skeletal extension rates in two species of Diploria from high-latitude reefs in Bermuda. Coral Reefs, 13(4), 225-230.
Richmond, R. (1997). Reproduction and recruitment in corals: critical links in the persistence of reefs. Life and death of coral reefs. Chapman &amp; Hall,. Retrieved from http://www.kewalo.hawaii.edu/docs/richmond/Publications/1997Richmond.pdf
Weil, E., & Vargas, W. L. (2010). Comparative aspects of sexual reproduction in the Caribbean coral genus Diploria (Scleractinia: Faviidae). Marine Biology, 157(2), 413-426. doi:10.1007/s00227-009-1328-5

Friday, October 7, 2011

Dead Fish Make No Babies

After unsuccessfully attempting to calculate the volume of every species of animal on the planet, I started to look for alternative methods for determining whether or not the Biblical account of Noah's flood could have actually happened.

It was not long before my thoughts turned towards what would be going on everywhere else in the world, as opposed to just the happenings on the ark itself.

If a gigantic flood occurred which covered the highest mountain in the world (Mt. Everest, 5.5 miles high), or even if a somewhat less cataclysmic flood took place which covered the highest peak in the region (Mt. Ararat, 3.2 miles high), then all of the bodies of water below these elevations would unite into a single super-ocean.

All of the fish in the oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, ponds, estuaries, etc. would now be swimming in the same body of water, which would have a fairly uniform concentration of salt.

If this super-ocean was high in it's salt concentration, then most of the freshwater fish would die. If the super-ocean had a low salt concentration, then most of the saltwater fish would die. Either way, diverse species which require differing concentrations of salt in their environments in order to survive would all now be clumped into a single gigantic puddle.
---------------------------------------------------

But what does this mean? Well, first you have to decide whether or not you agree with evolution.

First let's examine the scenario if you don't agree with evolution:

Scenario #1: No Macro-Evolution
  • Huge categories of fish would have died during the flood.
  • Let's say that the flood happened to have a high salt concentration, and all the fresh water fish died (although the same scenario applies with super low, low, moderate, high, and super high concentrations of salt- no matter what, the salt concentration would be about the same throughout the super puddle and this would cause someone to lose).
  • There is a mass extinction of all fresh water fish (except for the few that already have the ability to survive in various levels of salinity).
  • The flood recedes.
  • From that point on, there would be essentially no more fresh water fish anywhere beneith the level of the flood (either 3.2 or 5.5 miles), because species do not change.
This is obviously false, because I myself have caught and eaten fresh-water fish at low elevations many times.

Conclusion: If you don't believe in evolution, then it is impossible for the account in Genesis concerning the flood to be factual. This would be considered an error in the Bible.

----------------------------------------

Scenario #2: Yes Macro-Evolution
  • Once again, let's say that the salt concentration of the super puddle remains at about the same level as the ocean before the flood.
  • Once again, most of the fresh water fish die.
  • The flood recedes, and we are left with just salt water species, and an extreme minority of freshwater fish that pulled through.
  • Now, because it is possible for species to undergo macro-evolution, they are subject to slow changes over time.
  • Unfortunately, 6000 years is not even close to enough time for speciation to occur (take humans for example- we haven't changed that much in 6000 years). This is especially true when we consider the huge number of species of fresh water fish that would have had to evolve.
Conclusion: Even if macro-evolution occurs, there is not enough time for the diversity of fresh water species to evolve. Because we have a great diversity of fresh water fish, the account in Genesis concerning the flood cannot be factual. The account of the flood in Genesis is an error in the Bible.
---------------------------------------------
 

Friday, September 16, 2011

Noah's Ark: Test Boat #1

Over the past week or so, I have been attempting to find a way to determine the total volume of every species on the planet that would not be able to swim for the duration of the flood. This has been quite a dubious task, to say the least.

To my dismay, most statistics on animals report only their average mass and height, as opposed to volume (height x length x width). In addition, the male and female species are almost always different sizes, which adds more variables to take into account.

In this post, I will show you my first (and unfortunately very inaccurate) attempt at determining whether or not all of the animals in the present day could have fit on Noah's ark. If anyone has ideas concerning an effective way to determine the total volume of all animals which could not have survived the flood, please let me know.
-----------------------------------------------------
Calculation Attempt #1

Purpose: Determine if the number of 'animals' alive today could have fit on the ark (the ark's volume is 41006.25 cubic meters) (see http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-big-was-noahs-ark.html for how I got this volume)

Methods: Use low estimations of the average volume needed for each category of life as opposed to calculating the volume needed for each individual species. A low estimation is being used for the following reason: If the low volume would not fit on the ark, then the actual volume (which is higher than this estimation) also would not fit on the ark.

'Animals' will be divided into the following broad categories:
  1. Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
  2. Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
  3. Reptiles: 7,984 species
  4. Amphibians: 5,400
  5. Insects: 1-30 million+ species
  6. Arachnids: 75,500 species|
I obtained all of these numbers from <http://animals.about.com/od/zoologybasics/a/howmanyspecies.htm>.

It will be estimated that each category will require on average the following volume:
  1. Mammals: 2 shoe boxes (about .01 cubic meters)
  2. Birds: 1 shoe box (about .005 cubic meters)
  3. Reptiles: 1/2 shoe box (about .0025 cubic meters)
  4. Amphibians: 1/2 shoe box (about .0025 cubic meters)
  5. Insects: 1 match box (about .0000123 cubic meters)
  6. Arachnids: 1 match box (about .0000123 cubic meters)
Note: Your typical Air Jordan shoe box has the dimensions: 29.5cm x 18cm x 9.5cm (.295m x .18m x .095 m). A typical matchbox has the dimensions .0254m x .0381m x .012m.
 
I understand that these volume estimates are a gross oversimplification of the situation. However, I attempted to keep my estimates of volume required per species on the low end of the spectrum (I'm sure you can think of plenty of mammals that would take up more than 2 shoe boxes of volume) (then again, there are many insects and arachnids that would require much less than a match box).

Now, to calculate the volume needed by all of these animals.

  1. Mammals: 5000 species x .01 cubic meters x 2 = 100 cubic meters
  2. Birds: 10,000 species x .005 cubic meters x 2 = 100 cubic meters
  3. Reptiles: 7,984 species x .0025 cubic meters x 2 = 40 cubic meters
  4. Amphibians: 5,400 species x .0025 cubic meters x 2 = 27 cubic meters
  5. Insects: 15,000,000 species x .000123 cubic meters x 2 = 3690 cubic meters
  6. Arachnids: 75,500 species| x .000123 cubic meters x 2 = 18.5 cubic meters

Now, taking the sum of numbers 1 through 6 we get: 3975.5 cubic meters
-----------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:
From the calculations I have just made, no conclusions can be drawn. I made far too many estimations and oversimplifications. This post was more of a first practice run to get acquainted with the subject material and get experience so that the second, third, fourth, etc. attempts will be more accurate.

If all of my assumptions were correct (which they were NOT), then all the animals could have fit in the ark easily:

Compare 3975.5 cubic meters with 41006.25 cubic meters. Or a comparison that is easier to understand: 4,000 cubic meters to 40,000 cubic meters. Basically, all of the animals could have fit inside of the ark ten times over.

Remember that I attempted to utilize low estimations for volume, which will obviously cause the final volume to be lower than it actually is.

Keep in mind that the floors of the decks would also take up some volume, as would the food required to feed the animals for the duration of the journey. There were a number of animals that were taken in 7's instead of 2's. The humans also need to be taken into account. In addition, space would have been required for hallways, packaging of foods, prevention of violence between species, waste disposal, tools, and a number of other things would have also taken up a great deal of space.

At this point, the answer to the question "could all the animals that exist today have fit on the ark?" is 'we don't know, but if we had to bet our lives on it right now, we would go with yes, the animals could fit.'

In the next few posts, I will be attempting to improve my calculations to the point that meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

What Was Noah's Definition of Animals?

Before reading this post, check out part 1 of this series! http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-big-was-noahs-ark.html

Here is exactly what God told Noah to take on the ark with him:

Genesis 6:19-21
"You must bring into the ark two of every kind of living creature from all flesh, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Of the birds after their kinds, and of the cattle after their kinds, and of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you so you can keep them alive. And you must take for yourself every kind of food that is eaten, and gather it together. It will be food for you and for them."

and:

Genesis 7:1-3
'The Lord said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, for I consider you godly among this generation. You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, the male and its mate, two of every kind of unclean animal, the male and its mate, 7:3 and also seven of every kind of bird in the sky, male and female, to preserve their offspring on the face of the earth."'

Here is what I take from the first passage:
  • Two of every living creature from all flesh, male and female (would this exclude organisms that are asexual?)
  • Of the birds after their kinds
  • Of the cattle after their kinds
  • Of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind
Here is what I take from the second passage:
  • Seven of every clean animal
  • Two of every unclean animal
  • Seven of every kind of bird in the sky
There may be a discrepancy between these two lists, but that is the topic of another discussion

For the purpose of examining the topic at hand further, I propose the following list of things which God commanded Noah to take on the ark with him:

  • Two of every living creature from all flesh
    • Birds
    • Cattle
    • Creeping things of the ground
  • Seven of every kind of clean animal
---------------------------------------------
Now, how did Noah interpret God's command? One thing we can know for certain is that Noah was not a taxonomist, biologist, or zoologist like our modern scientists are. The definition of what we consider to be separate species now is different than what Noah would have considered to be separate species over 4000 years ago. Because of this unknown factor, it is extremely difficult to pin down a reasonable list for what Noah would have felt necessary to take on the ark with him.

Fortunately, my line of argumentation is going to bypass the topic in the previous paragraph.

---------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
We do not know how Noah interpreted God's command. In the next post, we will see why the question 'what did God command Noah to take on the ark' can easily be bypassed.

I addressed this topic because most would consider it to be a relevant question, and because I will need to point out that 'we don't know what Noah's interpretation' was in future posts.

Monday, September 12, 2011

The Flood: Planetary Submersion or Local Phenomenon?

The next step in determining the plausibility of Noah’s ark and the flood is to answer the question “is Genesis referring to the entire planet, or just part of the planet?”

There are several Hebrew words in Genesis 6 that are translated ‘the earth.’

'adamah
Definition:
1) ground, land
1a) ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance)
1b) piece of ground, a specific plot of land
1c) earth substance (for building or constructing)
1d) ground as earth's visible surface
1e) land, territory, country
1f) whole inhabited earth
1g) city in Naphtali,

Urah and Urab
Definition:
1) land, earth
1a) earth
1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
1a3) earth (inhabitants)
1b) land
1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1b3) tribal territory
1b4) piece of ground
1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
1b6) inhabitants of land
1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
1b8) city (-state)
1c) ground, surface of the earth
1c1) ground
1c2) soil
1d) (in phrases)
1d1) people of the land
1d2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
1d3) level or plain country
1d4) land of the living
1d5) end(s) of the earth
1e) (almost wholly late in usage)
1e1) lands, countries
1e1a) often in contrast to Canaan
--------------------------------------------------

At this point it seems that there are two possible interpretations of ‘the earth’ in Genesis 6.

1. The entire planet
2. A part of the planet

--------------------------------------------------
Much debate could go into which is the better interpretation, but I don’t think it matters. The reason for this is that even if ‘a part of the planet’ is a better interpretation, the water had to be at least deep enough to cover Mount Ararat.

And why, you ask, did I just bring up Mount Ararat? Great question! The answer lies in chapter 7 of Genesis:

Genesis 7:19-24 (Net)
“The waters completely inundated the earth so that even all the high mountains under the entire sky were covered. The waters rose more than twenty feet above the mountains. And all living things that moved on the earth died, including the birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all humankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. So the Lord destroyed every living thing that was on the surface of the ground, including people, animals, creatures that creep along the ground, and birds of the sky. They were wiped off the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark survived. The waters prevailed over the earth for 150 days.”
-----------------------------------------


So, the water was more than 20 feet higher than the mountains, and this depth was maintained for 150 days. Mount Ararat has an elevation of 5,137 m (It is the 48th highest peak in the world). This means that even if Genesis 6 is referring to a flood in one part of the world, that flood had to rise up to at least 5,137 m (+ 20 feet) above sea level across the entire planet.

Note: It has not escaped my attention that the height of Mt. Ararat could have changed since the time of the flood. The thing is a volcano, after all (and one which has been active since the time of the flood). I am going to overlook this variable for now and return to it as soon as possible (maybe you could find some geo-historical data and send it to me!)

For now I think it is safe to assume that the water of the flood must have been at least 5000 meters above present day sea level. Because fluids fill the shape of their container, anything on the entire planet under 5000 meters would have been submerged.

Here is a map of the earth with an elevation scale included (see citation). If a flood deep enough to cover Mt. Ararat took place, then the vast majority of the planet would have been covered by water. Only the darkest of the red areas would have stuck out over the surface (If you can't see the numbers on the scale, click on the link at the bottom of the picture).



http://www.eoearth.org/files/120601_120700/120668/620px-Earth_relief_map.jpg
 


What is the point of all of this? Even if the Hebrew words in Genesis for ‘earth’ should be interpreted as a ‘local flood of a specific area,’ that ‘local flood’ would have been over 5000 meters deep. Therefore, basically the entire earth would have been covered by water anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:

Question- Is it possible to interpret the flood in Genesis as being a local event?

Answer- No, the water had to have been over 5000 meters deep, which would have submerged basically the entire planet underwater no matter how you interpret Genesis 6.

The best intepretation of 'a flood that covered the earth' in Genesis is defined by Genesis 7: 'a flood that was deep enough to cover all of the mountains in the area by at least 20 feet' (which means that the water was at least that deep everywhere else on the planet as well). A safe bet for this depth is about 5000 meters above present day sea level.

---------------------------------------------
Citation

Michael Pidwirny (Lead Author);Galal Hassan Galal Hussein (Topic Editor) "Mountain". In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth July 18, 2010; Last revised Date July 18, 2010; Retrieved September 12, 2011 <http://www.eoearth.org/article/Mountain>
There are several Hebrew words in Genesis 6 that are translated ‘the earth.’

Sunday, September 11, 2011

How Big Was Noah's Ark?

Because I need some time to process the information I have gathered on the historical argument, I will be taking a short break from such topics as the resurrection, the historical Jesus, and the gospel accounts. In the mean time, I will be doing a series on Noah's ark!

If Noah's ark was not big enough to fit as many animals as the Bible claims it did, we could have an external discrepancy on our hands. The first step in making this determination is finding out just how big Noah's ark is.

According to Genesis 6:15-17 (ESV)
"This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits,[a] its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. 16Make a roof[b] for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above, and set the door of the ark in its side. Make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die."

  • A cubit is about 18 inches, or 45 centimeters.
And now for some math which is much easier than probability calculus:

Length: 300 cubits x 45 centimeters = 13500 centimeters

13500 centimeters x (1 meter/100 centimeters) = 135 meters long

Breadth: 50 cubits x 45 centimeters = 2250 centimeters

2250 centimeters x (1 meter/100 centimeters) = 22.5 meters wide

Height: 30 cubits x 45 centimeters = 1350 centimeters

1350 centimeters x (1 meter/100 centimeters) = 13.5 meters high

------------------------------------------------------------------
Now what we really want is total volume, so:

135 meters x 22.5 meters x 13.5 meters = 41006.25 cubic meters = Approximate Volume of Noah's Ark*

*It is possible that the corners were curved, as opposed to being a box with flat edges. The would cause a slight variation in the actual volume.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly enough, someone built a full sized replica of the ark. Here are a few photos of Johan Huibers' full size ark taken from http://www.myinterestingfiles.com/2008/10/working-replica-of-noahs-ark.html.





In the following series of posts, we will examine topics such as:
  • What does Genesis claim about the number of animals God told Noah to take on the ark?
  • Does Genesis claim that the flood was worldwide, or localized to a specific area?
  • Could Noah have gathered all of these animals?
  • Could the number of animals claimed in Genesis fit on the ark?
  • Is there evidence for or against a worldwide flood?