RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3680Goal: $6000

Talk:Noah's Ark

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon flood.svg

This global flood related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:  

Oceans[edit]

Just like to point out that moose are actually pretty good at swimming. Obviously they couldn't cross oceans, but they wouldn't drown within minutes as asserted on this page -CR

Noah's ark replica badly damaged after colliding with coastguard boat in Oslo[edit]

No animals were on board at the time and no one was hurt in the collision. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Another problem[edit]

Termites, wet and dry rot, and other 'pests and pestilences.'

My money is still on the 'conflation of stories of various severe local historical floods and various families deciding they have had enough of bailing out their houses #yet again# and piling 'persons, beasts, possessions and baggage' onto a variety of coracles and rafts and floating downriver until they reach higher ground. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The kiwi bird[edit]

The sloth is a good example, but I've always wondered about the poor kiwi bird? It is native to New Zealand so if (by some unlikeliness) it didn't exist there before the flood (ancient fossils?), it managed to make it back there after the flood. I've heard the argument that land bridges between countries were different before the flood (ridiculous as that sounds in the previous <6,000 years), but there's no chance that there was a land bridge between New Zealand and Australia (over 2,000 kilometres above a deep ocean), so the flightless kiwi bird would have had quite a swim!

The article might also consider Minimum Viable Population because two of each species is well below the recognised number required to avoid extinction. It's not a coincidence that the writers of the bible wouldn't have understood that fact.

Even if "God's will" was upon the animals to make the journey to Noah (and the return journey), how long did that will prevail (upon the animal's return to their homelands) to ensure the two antelopes weren't eaten by the two lions? And if the two lions didn't eat the two antelopes, which two species (many times over) did the lions eat before God's will dissipated and they returned to the behaviour we witness today? The gestation period of the antelope is eight months, so how many years did the lions have to remain hungry before the minimum viable population of each of the lion's prey was re-established?124.171.21.204 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Just accept (as most of us probably do) that 'Noah's flood' was based on various 'local extensive flooding' stories amalgamated, the Gilgamesh story component and various other components. And there is a blatant refusal of a certain group of people to think outside the Ark/plausibility box. Anna Livia (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
So despite statements such as "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark" (Genesis 6:19) and "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die." (Genesis 6:17), there were no lions and antelopes? If that's the case, then I guess the begging question is why the ark needed to be "a sizeable fraction of the size of an aircraft carrier" (as per the article)? Surely there can't be that many types of animals in the dry Middle East?121.44.236.195 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
There is reality/whatever actually did happen, there is the 'our tribe's flood story is bigger and better than your tribe's version' that ended up being in the Bible, and there is 'the model(s) proposed by certain persons.' The tribesfolk back then were no more stupid than us (just lacking areas of knowledge we have) and would have worked out that inbreeding with animals can lead to problems (not least that you can't create flocks quickly enough with too few animals to start with). Anna Livia (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Creationwiki view[edit]

It is said they think the Ark is '...under a mile of sedimentary rock...' Is this not logically implausible - or did the Ark get stuck in the mud, all the creatures ran off to solid ground/into the water and the boat sank down, or what? Anna Livia (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The logistics[edit]

How did Noah pay for all the resources required (and how come 'all and sundry' didn't ask him what he was doing and why - and building their own boats etc, and charging him excessive prices for the bits of wood they had left over)? Anna Livia (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)