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.

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.

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.’