Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 10 February 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Buy it on E-Bay[edit]

Its amazing what you can buy on E-bay! Look at the sponsored links to the right. - Icewedge 21:31, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Ah, those things are automatic. I once got the same kind of thing for "Stressful Christmas". Mind you, imagine the postal charges! Totnesmartin 07:15, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

New bit[edit]

" Every time they find the Ark Turkish authorities invariably swoop down, expose their film, confiscate their wood samples and deport them, forcing believers to settle for using Google Earth to look for it." - This implies there really is an Ark. What? Totnesmartin (not actually here) 15:33, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

It is very funny. IMHO. Worth keeping, since it's so dry, it makes you go WTF? Then you realize it's the classic conspiracy structure (all evidence always destroyed by authority). humanbe in 18:06, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

YECers and dinos[edit]

According to CP there are YECers who actually believe there are still dinosaurs roaming the earth.

Hahahaha. But I think most "mainstream" YECers (AIG?) think they became extinct by being left off the ark? I'm not going to fight over it, but let's at least throw in a link to some IDiot saying whatever they say. humanUser talk:Human 16:08, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm curious. If all the dinos went extinct because they wern't on the arc, what about other animals that were common in the oceans. Trilobites and ancient crinoids are the ones that are most obvious in their absence. Whats even more intresting is when you start looking at how many of them there were. If you look at the Mississippian period, you get huge strata of fossils that look like . Start doing the math on how many there where with a young earth, and you start thinking that the ocean bottom had deep mat of trilobites and crinoids. This doesn't even go into shark tooth fossils and how many sharks there must have been. Anyone want to take up the question of "Assume the earth is 6k years old - given the number of fossils found that were supposedly created in 40 days, how much life was there prior to Noah?" Some points to be made - all of these are sea animals, and YEC denies plate tectonics, therefore all of the animals buried during the flood. Fossils above the ground of sea animals could not have been created at a later time. --Shagie 16:57, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm not wedded to the idea of dinosaurs on the ark. I just love the mental image it conjures. Sort of Jurassic Park meets the Flintstones meets the Watchtower. Rational Edwelcome to the bizarro world 17:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Shagie: "human mimes teh assfly plugging his ears with two 1/2" drill bits and auto-lobotomizing hisself". Ed: Yes, the imagery is wonderful. Can we try to figure out a way to exploit it in a new section, perhaps? We have the Jesus riding Dino image here somewhere already, let's photoshop up a few more (tigers snuggling with antelope, anyone?). Do we dare use a Flintstones screenshot under some guise of "fair use"? humanUser talk:Human 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, I went to the source (CP), and YEC Creationists do indeed believe that dinosaurs were taken aboard the Ark. Rational Edirrational 15:04, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Yup, I see they sure do think that! Nutjobs... humanUser talk:Human 15:11, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Googled "Noah's ark" Dinosaur (images) got this horrible thing! Marghanita Laski 15:26, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Aw, she looks like a bright little kid. Too bad her education is being poisoned. humanUser talk:Human 15:41, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Baby dinos and ickle pussycat sized dinos were there.Marghanita Laski

How many?[edit]

According to Genesis 7:2, there were SEVEN of each animal, not two. Daecon 11:53, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it was seven of some, two of others, right? And isn't it only two in another chapter? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:15, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

recommended disco inst research[edit]

So, if Disco or AIG research...if Noah's Ark is true, there should be an obvious founder effect. Since we "know" when it took place, they could do genomic analysis to determine whether the present population is consistent with a pair of founders x thousand years ago. Think theyll do it?-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Yee haw! 21:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, there you go again with your Devil's "Science" to support your atheist lies... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 18 August 2008 (EDT)


Looking at some of PJR's drivel about the Ark over at aSK, I've started to wonder about a topic I don't see raised all that often. Even aside from feeding the animals, there are a lot of tasks required to keep a ship afloat. But their entire crew consisted of eight people, including females who probably wouldn't be expected to be doing much of that stuff. Now I know most of the models assume the Ark to be pretty much a giant wooden brick because there aren't sails, rudder, and so forth mentioned in the Bible, but seeing as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", they might actually be included even if not explicitly brought up. But if they were there, that'd be that much more work for an untrained, far-less-than-skeleton crew who'd never worked a ship that size before (obviously nobody had). The Creatards keep trying to find ships of comparable size, but most of those took a platoon to keep them afloat. --Kels 12:15, 10 April 2009 (EDT)


Another little side issue now that I'm thinking of the Ark, aside from the Hurculean and then some task of feeding all the animals, dealing with carnivores, etc., very few of them would be domesticated. And I think we all know how wild animals act once put in a cage, even if it's for their protection. So not only would they have hungry animals, you'd have pissed off animals, all looking for an escape. And even the domesticated ones would probably be in full panic during the conditions of a flood like that. Thinking of the inside of that Ark, pitching and tossing, with elephants, rhinos, tigers and similar in full panic, he'd back only by some wood bars, it'd be a total horror show. --Kels 12:09, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

A problem[edit]

If Noah was real, I would feel very sorry for him having to collect 2(or seven) of every beetle.--Thedoctor80 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


Creationists say that every animal was created during the creation week, right?Well, there are some websites, like Answers in Genesis which say that there were not as many animals in Noah's time as there are today?How did the other animals get here if it was not evolution???--Thedoctor80 (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Magic. 2. Baraminology. 3. Better to ask them than us.:-) --BobSpring is sprung! 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Creationists aren't in the business of explaining. But if we're going to ask questions about what they think they're talking about: If there were only kinds (baramins) on Noah's Ark, how did it come about that, in the post-Deluge world, animals got classified into species, and kinds are not of any significance any more? Where does the Bible tell us about the creation of species? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Explaining" the ark[edit]

It was a #very# large tardis-like construct, complete with interdimensional-storage and the creatures were like Schroedinger's Cat neither alive nor dead until let out. There were also vast quantities of 'Instant Reconstruction greenery" (tm) (genetically engineered for waterlogged soil). One all the creatures had been decanted the Ark was used to store all the waters of the flood (which was then sent to Duneworld).

Another problem with the Ark thesis is the lack of genetic variety (as with the UK elms - all descended descended from 1 tree (and thus virtual clones) - and were all affected by Dutch Elm disease as none had immunity. (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

External links to funny[edit]

If it were OUR funny, I'd be all over it; but link to somebody else's funny don't really add much to what could be a a big-deal article given its centrality to the mission. That said, I'm not gonna get all pissy about it. B♭maj7 (talk) Medical science has confirmed that this is the worst head cold that anyone has ever had. Nobody has ever been sicker than this. Ever. 01:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't get pissy about it either, but the NonStampCollector video is not only quite amusing, but it does present some very pertinent information in a very accessible way. It's an argument against the Biblical literalist interpretation in itself. I really don't see what harm it does, especially if we present it as a humorous representation. DickTurpis (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep both links. They are both relevant, entertaining and informative. And I am always pissy. DamoHi 01:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The thing that I really like about the NonStampCollector vid is that it so brilliantly highlights the absurdity of it. Biblical literalists say this actually happened; so let's see what that would look like... ADK...I'll steal your fetus! 10:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How much water?[edit]

Many creationists point out that the Bible not only refers to rain as a source of the water (that is, the water above the firmament) but also "the fountains of the deep". TomS TDotO (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hence the whole hydroplate theory thing. Probably worth clarifying in the article here, though. Scarlet A.pngbomination 14:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sentence excised[edit]

I cut this bit out: Every time they find the Ark Turkish authorities invariably swoop down, expose their film, confiscate their wood samples and deport them, forcing believers to settle for using Google Earth to look for it.

I excised it because it's just not true, it's not particularly funny and frankly a bit racist (retracted). My wife is a Turkish diplomat, so she's well aware of what actually goes on in this area. The Turkish government is extremely tolerant of the Ark hunters, primarily because it deeply believes in the fundamental right of every human being (and particularly Americans) to give them hard currency.

The recent permission given to a group of ark hunters to open a "Noah's Ark Museum" in eastern Turkey was taken by some as meaning the Turkish government has now endorsed the "fact" of the ark's existence. This is akin to believing the US government endorses the existence of "magic" because they gave Disney a permit to open the "Magic Kingdom". Voxhumana (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Voxy in that although it isn't racist in the slightest it is completely unsourced. AceModerator 02:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm putting together a somewhat more reliable version of the situation (complete with sourcing). In keeping with the tone of RW, I'll be presenting this more from the perspective of... "Turkey is delighted to be the owner of this little cash-cow." Voxhumana (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
We're into sourcing stuff now? Neat. ^.^ --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 02:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Well only to a point. I was about to write a fascinating section explaining that the Turkish government encourages Ark hunters, and had even named the area "Noah's Ark National Park". (A key point which is espoused by hundreds of pro-flood websites - (Google search)). Plus my wife has been involved in arranging visas and permits for a few Australian "ark hunts" in the last couple of years.
This belief about there being "official support" was (I'm embarrassed to say) largely based on the claims of these "pro-flood" websites. However a bit of digging has made me completely doubt this "official" approval, as the actual name for the national park is "Durupınar", and it was named for a Turkish military hero who died in the 1970s. I can't find any evidence which suggests the Turkish government officially recognises anything, other than the cashflow. I've asked my wife to dig a bit deeper, purely because I'm now interested. She has the advantage of being able to communicate with the Turkish Ministry of Culture directly (and in Turkish). Voxhumana (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that as my first instinct was to revert. Please replace it with something snarky and sourced. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 07:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, a Turkish government point of view would be most interesting. --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 08:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Turkish Government position[edit]

I'm still working on this, but so far I can confirm there is definitely no such place as "Noah's Ark National Park" in Turkey, despite the claims of various flood websites and Fox News. There IS a road sign that points to the site discovered by Wyatt, which you can learn about here. (My absolute favourite part of that site is how they suddenly decide the Koran is A-OK by them when it appears to agree with their theory). As road signs are provided by the local government that's not exactly conclusive (I've personally seen the road sign in Turkey indicating the birthplace of Santa Claus). Voxhumana (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nother pic here. I guess that's how you spell Noah in Turkish? Or in the Koran?--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 10:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Bu what about this?--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 10:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
(Citing my wife here, my turkish is crap). Noah in Turkish is Nuh. "un" is the possessive, so Nuh'un = "Noah's". "Gemesi" literally means "big boat", but is equivalent to "ship".
As far as the second pic, the Turkish underneath translates as "Noah's big boat information visitor center". There is nothing about it being a National Park. Every now and then Turkish borrows an English word, so "National Park" in Turkish is just "Milli Park" (the plural however is "parklar" - hence see for the official national park website). Bottom line, this appears to be something run by an enterprising local. My wife is still investigating however. Voxhumana (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
"Visitor Center" - the spelling shows who is the intended audience. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 11:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake, that's actually what my wife originally said. I'll get her to do the future translations :) Voxhumana (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't a dig at you, it was the use of US spelling in the image that I was remarking on. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 11:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, once we have (or, in reality, Voxhumana has) got the info it will certainly make an interesting - and potentially amusing - addition to the aricle.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 12:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Googling about I find the the "exhibition center" must be a powerful organization! It says here that: On June 20, 1987 the Government of Turkey was founded by Noah's Ark Nature Reserve. So apparently they control the government!--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 12:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
And to think all those Turks still believe it was Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. I'll go and correct the Wikipedia article immediately.Voxhumana (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The update[edit]

OK, here's the actual position, courtesy of the Turkish Ministry of Culture.

  1. - As an Islamic republic, the republic of Turkey recognizes the scriptural significance of the story of Noah's Ark to Jews, Christians and Muslims across the world. However the Turkish government does not recognize the existence of the physical remnants of 'Noah's Ark' within the Republic of Turkey.
  2. - Ağrı Dağı National Park (Ağrı Dağı Milli parkı) was established in 2004 as the 35th National Park in Turkey. It covers an area of 87,380 Ha. Here is the official page for it (in Turkish) Ağrı Dağı Milli parkı). The mountain known in English as 'Mount Ararat' is located within this national park.
  3. - There is a district within Ağrı Dağı National Park called Durupınar. Located in that district is a rock formation popularly known as Nuh'un Gemisi, or 'Noah's Big Boat'.
  4. - It is a standard practice to provide road signs that reflect the local name for a landmark. The road sign indicating the location of "Noah's Ark" acknowledges that that is the common local name. It does not have any other significance.
  5. - The Turkish Ministry of Culture does not operate a "Noah's Ark National Park Visitor Center". The official visitors centre for Ağrı Dağı National Park is located in the town of Doğubeyazıt.

I got all of the above information from the Turkish Consulate General in Sydney. Feel free to verify it at your local consulate or embassy (list). Contacting the Ministry of Culture directly is only advisable if you can communicate in Turkish. VOXHUMANA 04:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What about all the other boats?[edit]

Seems like something we should address. -- Seth Peck (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tar pitch[edit]

Birch tar has been found in places associated with Neanderthals for crying out loud. pitch/tar can be produced by a rather simple (though sophisticated sounding) process of heating wood (or birch bark) in absence of oxygen. This process has been known to humans for longer time thaen YEC claims the earth to be old. Hence mentioning this as an argument in the current form is bound to be problematic. Kind regards Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the edit that prompted this section. BoN 62.88 has a point, that any mention of fossil hydrocarbons is silly in this context. The Egyptians used bitumen in their mummification process, perhaps bitumen of JudeaWikipedia or some similar material. That doesn't mean it was the only tar-like substance available to boat-builders. Tree species able to provide suitable resins (e.g. mastic and sandarac) were and are extant in the lands around the Mediterranean.
There were many logistical difficulties facing a putative ark-builder in those days, and one of them may well have been gathering enough pitch. Still, fossil asphalt formed over millions of years is not relevant to ark debunkery. Without that, the removed section is almost too skimpy to matter. If anyone wants to tuck something about pitch into the "Construction" section, be my guest, but please leave off the bogus ref. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Lebanon - when it was reigned over by the Phoenicians - was powerful enough through its cedar trees to be able to extort tons of gold out of Egypt who needed the resin for their religious rituals. Which of course flies in the face of all the "Mideast=Desert" ignoramuses Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, lookee here, a crescent-shaped fertile area, with rivers and all
There is that, too. The middle east has not always been a sandy waste land. It was the breadbasket of much of the ancient world, until primitive agricultural practices turned it into a dust bowl. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Nor has the Mediterranean vegetation always been this poor and thorny. This has a lot to do with soil degradation, which I happen to know a thing or two about... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a complete non sequitur to blank out a properly sourced portion that specifically details part of God's clearly very plausible instructions to a bronze age geriatric to cover a 229,500 square foot something in anything. As is not the first time I point out, even if the bleeding task was to smear sand over the thing as it was sitting in the desert, that's still kind of a bizzare request for the creator of countless galaxies to levy upon one old geezer - who, mind you, also had to reserve some of his elderly energy to somehow travel the world as the original Pokémon master and collect all the animals. And if the whole point you people are trying to make is that the pitch was made from wood and that that wood was readily avaliable, then we'll just change the line to reflect that. Like, as if the problem here is the availability of pitch. A bronze age senior citizen can't cover anything the size of an aircraft carrier in anything, period. God should've He-Manned Noah if he wanted to give him even the shadow of a shot in hell at even attempting this. That, or maybe he should've simply admitted that this impossible fool's errand was really just for shits and giggles. No more pseudo wood-expertise, please. Improve - instead of blank - this properly sourced and relevant section. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Without the red herring about "fossil pitch not fitting with the YEC world view," the "ENTIRE SECTION" amounts to a single sentence. If you like, keep the reprint of Robert A. Moore's 1983 Hartford Courant article, "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark" as an external link. It makes interesting reading, but it needs a different lead-in than a rookie mistake about not enough time for a young earth to form ancient tar, when fresh stuff was there to be tapped out of conifer trees. Also if you like, there is room under the "Construction" heading for a sentence or two about Chapter 6, verse 14 and what it entails in terms of labor for an elderly shipwright and his sons. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like the portion kept where - despite and also because of the already comical amount of strange, impossible instructions - God instructs Noah to cover the ark in X, not failing to also point out to the reader that the amount of X required for something the size of the Ark is going to be ridiculous even if it's smeared a millimeter thick, atleast mentioning never mind the raw materials required for that (as in - even if it were water or dirt of grass you'd need a zeppelin hangar full of it). That's all I'd like kept. With the current source, or a better source for that matter. If that can be constructively baked into the text somehow, like you say possibly under the "Construction" section, I'm going to fully support erasing the squalid remainder of that portion. No problem. Would you do the honors of baking that in, Sir? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You may just have piqued my interest. I will set some dough to proofing, and see what turns out. By the way, a tenth of a millimeter is sloppy thick for some wood treatments like that. To get it slushed on (without holidays of bare wood peeking through) takes solvents, rags, brushes, scrapers, maybe heat, and lots of practice. Those old guys had the time and materials... CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The New Yorker recently had an article on boats being discovered during the digging of a new Tunnel under the Bosporus.. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Round, not long[edit]

See the Wikipedia article on Kuphar. Also see NOVA: Secrets of Noah's Ark. Archaeologists build a larger version of a traditional marsh Arab circular watercraft using bundles of reeds, sealed with an approximation of Mesopotamian bitumen. With the aid of modern gasoline-powered bilge pumps, it floats, sort of. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your point being? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
"With the aid of modern gasoline-powered bilge pumps, it floats, sort of." MYTH CONFIRMED! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
If anyonecough bothers to read/view the links, they will see that Irving FinkelWikipedia found (and, more importantly, read) a cuneiform tablet in the collection of the British Museum, telling of a flood and ark, a story with remarkable parallels to the later biblical story of Noah's ark. The marsh Arabs of eastern Mesopotamia used round reed boats for hauling cargo, and had to deal with recurring floods. Funny how folk tales have elements familiar to the local, umm, folk.
From the Telegraph article: "It was while they were in captivity in Babylon, he [Finkel] argued, that Jews heard the flood story, and when they eventually returned to Jerusalem they turned it into the tale of suffering and redemption we know from the Bible."
The Biblical dimensions of the ark look like a copying error from the tablet's account, which "tells the story of how the god Enki warns a Sumerian king named Atra-Hasis of a future flood that will destroy mankind; Enki gives him instructions for building a boat to save his family and livestock." (according to the recent PBS show)
Watch the show, look at the pictures, and you will see. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Only we can't redefine everything we think about the ark on the guess that it's description was just a scribal error, that's one heck of a unsupportable change. You're also acting like it's some new idea of some kind that the Jews stole from the existing Babylonian mythologies. That the Jews enhanced/edited their religion with stuff from surrounding religions is well known. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The "new thing" here is a particular cuneiform tablet, in the collection since 1948 or so, but only relatively recently translated. Details, details. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Add it to the pile of stuff which the Jews cribbed off of to enhance their generic Semitic religion into the monotheistic behemoth it is became. I'll restate this: Without any actual evidence, going around trying to make the main idea be "it's a scribal error and the ark is a disc" is not going to happen. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
All jokes aside, I think this was interesting and I'm glad you brought it up, Camel. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I have no interest in arguing about the shape of a mythical boat. Just caught the visual presentation of Finkel's take on it on NOVA last night, found it interesting, and felt like sharing. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I did find it interesting, just opposed to it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
What's to oppose? The Noah story and the Atra-Hasis story share a lot of details. Their boats were described differently, with a plausible textual path from round to not-round, and historical migrations to bring the earlier story many hundreds of miles west. Biblical literalists may ignore that kind of thing, which might just be relevant to the RW mission. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Because going "well it's round because this one flood myth they cribbed from had a round ark" isn't good enough evidence to declare "it must be a scribal error"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is saying we need to "redefine everything we think about the ark." We are discussing comparative mythology here, FFS. One story says one thing, another, very similar, story has a different detail. Some guys in India had fun building a scaled-up Iraqi coracle, still not as big as the ark of various tall tales. They rolled it into the water to see how well it could work, and there were cool pictures on TV. On the plain face of it, that's all I'm trying to show. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So did I read this right? The Jews stole a round boat. That wasn't round? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lots 'o' citations[edit] Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

2 is equal to 14[edit]

If the base for your numbering system is negative two.

Note that only an insane mathematician (or a sadistic math professor) would use a negative base. MDB (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


God remembred that he liked sacrifices and Noah would need some spares to offer up after the flood. Also 7 > 2 so if you take 7 you have also taken 2. If God had said takest thou 2 only, 1 is not enough and three is too many then there would be a problem. (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Suddenly it's all so clear. Yes, the flood must have happened!--BobSpring is sprung! 19:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The point is that the original compilers wouldn't have thought these two stories contradicted each other. Unlike the narcissistic hypervigilance Icewedge has for logical inconsistencies, they would've been more inclusive. NOTE: Your opponents don't have to be all wrong for you to be right, and it doesn't make you worthless if your opponents don't see you as infallible.--Dbabbitt (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I would really like to see this section updated, as it makes it look like "we" are really grasping at straws.--Scord (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
And 5 is right out - David Gerard (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mosaic law anachronism[edit]

I'm not really surprised when I see creationists coming up with ridiculous interpretations of the bible to attempt to justify their broader claims. An example is that Cain would have had to marry one of his sisters. The standard objection is that this is of course forbidden by Levitical law. I was just looking at for my daily outrage and happened upon a smug and subtly hateful piece addressing this and other objections that the bible is merely a book about morality and salvation as "ignorance + unbelief." The crux of it is that the bible is a perfectly good history book and that the prohibition against marrying one's sister only applied to Moses' people and their decendants, which obviously doesn't include Abraham, who married Sarah his half-sister, and Cain, who presumably married his own full sister even though this and the mechanism for him populating an entire city are never explained in the bible. So what about this biblical claim that Noah was to have taken "clean and unclean" animals by certain numbers onto the ark. It's already been explained in this article that it's a bizarre anachronism, and one for which I've never seen an adequate explanation from creationists. Do they get to pick and choose which Levitical law is going to apply retroactively? How would Noah have known what was clean or not clean if those concepts were ostensibly explained hundreds of years later? I would imagine creationists would claim that the concept was well-known to people in Noah's time, though unwritten. That's not very satisfying. Anyone have an answer to any of this? Anyway, as I said I'm rarely surprised when I see creationists reading the bible to do whatever it is they want it to do, which is pretty easy on a case by case basis. What does surprise me is how incredibly arrogant and nasty they are about it, particularly when the facile answer they've just come up with is completely at odds with the rest of their rubbish. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice clog. Obviously you didn't expect anything less ad hoc, did you? So basically, those patriarchs of old, pre-Moses, were in fact not bound by any Biblical laws. So they could have done what they wanted to, including killing, having other gods, generally being a complete heathen and so on and so forth. Yet they're recorded (let's assume the Bible is actual history for the sake of highlighting the contradiction) as not doing anything of the kind. So they had a morality that was clearly non-Biblical. But I thought this wasn't supposed to be possible as the Bible contained all morality (including abortion). Oh well. The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 19:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This one's interesting to me precisely because it's not addressed by the major web apologists, who would undoubtedly be aware of the problem and be able to muster some academic support for their spin on it if people were actually raising it. But we're at the top of the google results for this and there's not much else. I found Thomas Paine referring to the problem in his typically snarky way and will keep looking for more. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Has food ever was brought up as an explanation?[edit]

Gen 6:20 says "two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive." and Gen 7:3 says " to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth." Apparently 5 of the 7 (whatever the unit of measurement, be it individual or pairs) does not need to be alive as long as their seeds are (Give birth to fertilized eggs, get eaten themselves?). Thieh"6+18=24" 16:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Most animals go through their own bodyweight in food every 40 days. If the food on the Ark is still alive, that requires even MORE food to be stored on the Ark to feed the food. CorruptUser (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Only herbivores need to eat every day, though. (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't everything herbivore before the flood, or was that only humans? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, according to some interpretations God originally created all creatures as herbivores and sometime later some of them were corrupted into carnivores due to sin entering the world (because Adam and Eve took a bite from the wrong apple! *gasp*). But such interpretations are kinda shaky, because it interprets a verse where God says "Hey humans, here's plant stuff, you can use it for food. And you too, other creatures, plants = food." as implying that plants were the only thing allowed to be eaten. (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

4 unclean and 14 clean and birds[edit]

I'm always baffled by the readings of the numbers of animals. It seems very clear to me that "2 of every kind, male and female," means 2 males and 2 females, while "7 of every kind, male and his mate," means 7 males and 7 females. But no one seems to ever address this direct parallel and say that that means there were 4 of every unclean animal and 14 of every clean animal and bird. (This is setting aside the contradictions about the birds and Mosaic law, of course.) -- (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one seeing this elephant in the room?[edit]

Why aren't we pointing out that (1) 2, or even 7 or 14, specimens is far from enough to reestablish a viable population and (2) even if the former wasn't the case and all animals today are descendants of the few ones Noah saved, this would be very apparent from their genomes? (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Magic. Incest is magically okay as long as god wants it to happen. See: Adam and Eve, Lot, Noah. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Your point is absolutely correct. But as Ikanreed points out magic and logic don't mix. The creation account in Genesis with the talking snake, The Tower of Babel, the Ark and the Crucifixion all fail (to name but a few) if you apply logic. But the moment that magic is involved then all bets are off.
On the other hand I agree that this particular inconsistency should probably be mentioned in the article.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The Bible treats humans and animals as different categories of being, though. And the anti-evolutionists seem to insist that animals haven't undergone any big changes since primordial times, so God deciding to change all organisms on a whim to make incest unviable wouldn't really fit their narrative. The ones that accept micro-evolution at least seem to accept a little biological science, but due to ignorance or uninquisitiveness they still accept the biblical narrative, despite the obvious biological consequences a story like that of Noah would have that would be observable to this day. (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


Aha, this is where you are wrong, my friend! You make the mistake of assuming that the dispersion of animals, and even landmasses, following the flood was the same as prior. In fact, every single animal on the ark was within Noah's reach, and further they only changed their habits (but not their forms) afterwards, when presented with this new environment. You can thank me later for this wise criticism. --Kels 05:34, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, though it pains me to admit it, I think this is the "solution" that would be offered to that part of the problem. a more interesting question might be how they survived after they left the ark. What did the herbivores eat? It would have been a great wet plant less plain. Even more interestingly, what did the carnivores eat? If there were only two examples of all the "unclean" animals then they couldn't have survived much (or indeed any)predation. --Bob_M (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
I actually have that problem covered, Today I start construction on the creationist claims section. - Icewedge 13:57, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
Shame we don't have a resident creationist to fight the other corner.  :-( --Bob_M (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2007 (CDT)


All the animals were swooshed up by God into his (later) pyramid building interstellar spacecraft and dumped just out of sight behind that hill there. 07:16, 25 July 2007 (CDT) Oops! Forgot to log in Keepthe faith 07:21, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Let us consider the kangaroo for a moment. If all the animals existed in proximity of the ark, then certainly there would be some record of the kangaroo - either fossil, linguistic (the ancient hebrew word for kangaroo), or written (Fantasia 2000 does not count). As there is no evidence of the kangaroo ever being in the middle east, you not only have the question of how did the kangaroo get to Australia after the flood but how did it get to the ark before the flood. This problem also exists for bison, turkey, humming birds, and all other animals endemic to some other continent than Africa, Europe, and Asia. Penguins are a poor example - they spend much longer than 40 continuous days at sea. --Shagie 14:57, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Penguins are not used as an example in the section on the oceanic barrier. - Icewedge 15:02, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Marsupial mammals[edit]

Thea article presently states: Marsupial mammals (such as platypi and kangaroos) don't do well competing with placental mammals (virtually every mammal outside of Australia).. This may be a bit of a hostage to fortune. There are marsupials in South America and at least one in North America. Just wanted to mention it before some YEC started to jump up and down about it.--Bob_M (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2007 (CDT)


There seem to be some duplications between the main, critical, section and the section for what Creationists claim. Climate and predation are both mentioned as criticisms, and then repeated below. Shouldn't they be removed from the latter section, since I don't see a lot of Creationists arguing against the Ark being possible. --Kels 17:22, 26 July 2007 (CDT)


Problems with this line of thinking (for the sake of argument)

Assuming worldwide flood (as opposed to known world flood):

  1. Argues that while God has to power to flood the whole world, he does not have the power to arrange for animals to make it to the ark.
  2. Argues that the transport of said animals, if done by natural methods (as opposed to supernatural), took place in the course of a signal animal generation.

Anyway, just a couple of problems. HeartGoldShow me your intolerance 15:37, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

About #2, having the journey take more that a single generation causes more problems than it solves. While it would be extremely difficult for the animals to just survive outside there normal habitat it would be nearly impossible for them to mate. Consider penguins, there eggs would overheat and the chicks would die. The young of the more fragile animals would also be preyed upon mercilessly by the local predator population. - Icewedge 15:50, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
What about animals like badgers, who can't stand other animals, including other badgers outside of mating season? Their aggressive, territorial nature would be a serious hinderance in a rather close environment like an ark. --Kels 16:01, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
I should change my name to badger. HeartGoldShow me your intolerance 16:04, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
Badgers are awesome. In the sense of bad-tempered, nasty little brutes. --Kels 16:08, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

The Obvious Solution[edit]

"God did it, you atheistic, anti-school prayer evilutionists! God can do anything!"

Icewedge deleted this (with the same header I used here) when he added the global flood template thing. Was it intentional? I am not wedded to the wording, but the idea mocks any attempt to rationally debunk the flood myth. humanbe in 17:03, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

oops. Revert it if you want. - Icewedge 17:07, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
Actually, I do question any attempt to debunk this. If you're dealing with God, and have no claim that the Bible is the "complete" flood story, I really don't see the point in debunking the myth with natural arguments. Simply stating that it is impossible to debunk is more succinct. HeartGoldShow me your intolerance 17:08, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
(edit conflict) Its not really that, the truth of the bible is technically impossible to disprove. This is more of a response to sites like answers in genesis. - Icewedge 17:14, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
Putting back in. humanbe in 17:11, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Tons of room[edit]

"The Bible" is on TV - there's tons of room in the ark. (and they've got kangeroos) Keepoff the grass 20:03, 29 July 2007 (CDT)


I think I can say with 101 percent certainty that you A) oppose school prayer 2) oppose the bible in math class and D) oppose God-fearing children bringing their guns to school. Well? Dontcha got anything to say, fairy? ʄĹїþþїɲ;-) 14:38, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

you got me :)! - Icewedge 14:39, 2 August 2007 (CDT)


Animals having a hard time in Palestine is mentioned a few times in this article. Trouble is, it's not clear that the ark was built and launched there. My impression has been that the ark's home port was somewhere in the fertile crescent. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Really badly written[edit]

This article is really badly written and in need of mob attention! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:21, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

take off a bunch of animals , because they were maybe aboard as eggs , and hatched after the ark landed, and a bunch of the others hibernated. And creation SCIENCE has shown only one pair (or maybe 7 , or seven pair) of each KIND were taken onboard. Gentlemens remember yer Baraminology Hamster 00:13, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Given the extremely advanced technology of the time...[edit]

(as documented on Conservapedia) it possible that Noah's ark actually contained an intricate CES inhabited by shrunken animals? 01:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can one shrink the animals (and then have to Breed them back to original size?) without accepting evolution? Perhaps. ThiehZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Noah just harvested their DNA and resurrected them once dry land was available again. It's really very simple. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

8 people[edit]

Through out the article it always says 8 people, but the Bible talks of Noah, his three son's and their wives, it never specifies how many wives each man has. We can't discount the possibility that Noah's son's (or himself for that matter) had multiple wives. - π 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


What about rotting? Anyone who has kept pets in wooden cages can tell you that piss can rot through sealed wood. - π 02:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved this for a moment[edit]

According to the Bible, Noah was instructed to load the Ark with two (or seven) of every kind of animal on earth at the time. The logistics involved in rounding up the animals (chasing down every nematode, netting every last songbird and riding herd on the rhinos, though creationists state God brought the animals to Noah) and getting them on board the Ark are amusing to contemplate. Then there is the no small matter of collecting and loading a year's supply of the correct kind of food for every single species. How did they keep enough meat for all the carnivores without the benefits of refrigeration? The meat required by the T-Rex alone would have been prodigious. Keeping the predators separated from each other and from the species they would ordinarily have eaten must have proven a formidable task. Finally, disposing of the enormous quantities of fecal matter such a menagerie would produce over the course of a year must have tried the patience and fortitude of even the most devout of Noah's super-devout family. One hopes they had plenty of room deodorizer. For an image of pure bedlam one may imagine the view of Young Earth Creationists, who picture dinosaurs, goats, saber-toothed cats, deer, and mastodons all happily sharing their ocean cruise on board the Ark. Now, Young Earth Creationists have this strange notion that the animals must have been "hibernating" or had converted to vegetarian diets during the flood. One might also wonder about the shifting of the cargo in rough seas - rough enough to carve out the Grand Canyon, after all. Picture seasick giraffes being tossed around.

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 04:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Uh, God did it...[edit]

Couldn't God filter the water, water the animals, muck out the stalls, feed the animals, and so on? Jimaginator (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If God is going to stoop to that level of divine providence, then why not use his magic powers to poof the evil people off the face of the planet? Why go through the rigmarole of a global flood, just to kill off a few million humans? The story of the flood only works if you're prepared to suspend disbelief for one aspect - that God required a big flood to kill everyone and everything whilst saving a select few. If you start allowing for magic powers to eliminate the perceived physical difficulties then why not go the whole hog and question the absurd logic of the entire process? Natman (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
If you ask many christians, especially the more fervent, fundi ones, they will say he DOES step in that minutely. he wins football games for people, and finds lost children in the woods. Cures the cancer in a hospitalized (and treated) child. but sadly, has never chosen to grow and arm back, or repair a deaf person's ear. but they must not be as worthy as the foot ball team.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 14:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
And don't forget; if there's a disaster or something that kills a lot of people, the sole survivor is a miracle!. Never mind the 99% of the other people who died, or that god was responsible for the whole sorry mess in the first place, that one person, surviving against the odds, proves god's mercy!Natman (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly true that the flood would be a bizarrely inefficient way of killing everybody - requiring as it does a whole series of wildly improbable sub-miracles to keep the big one going and then to re-boot the biosphere. Simply turning the bad people to dust would have been far more efficient.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Especially since the flood required the drowning of innocent babies, pregnant mothers (guess it's not abortion if god kills the mom, too), and cute little kittahs, and koalas, and eye-eyes, and sloths. God must hate sloth.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Plus all those dinosaurs, and the poor old unicorns. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I am enlightened. And I was all set to convert to the type of Christians that play with the snakes in church. Rats. I mean, Reptiles. Jimaginator (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


Just saw a yt video that mentioned the parasite dilemma. The unbusinesslikeman of business 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The poor crushed critters[edit]

With all of those animals confined in such small spaces for over a year and with the ship rocking and rolling for as long as it did during the flood, they would have been turned into a mushy pile of viscera after a month. Let alone a year. And even if they were able to survive being thrown and pitched against the wall for that long, God is still an enormous dick for putting all of those animals through that. (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)