Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #5 - unstoppablegiggle (09/30/2013) [-]
The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals.
User avatar #135 to #5 - fukkendragonite (10/01/2013) [-]
You also forget that there were no kangaroos on the ark.

It's almost as if we hadn't discovered Australia when the Bible was written or something. But surely God knew it was there, hm.....?
#131 to #5 - anon (10/01/2013) [-]
Correct. And this was all built by a guy with no previous building experience in an incredibly short amount of time, and probably would've taken more wood than is on Earth.
User avatar #146 to #131 - commontroll (10/01/2013) [-]
Actually, it wasn't a short time. Bible said he was 600 when the flood struck, and that he was building for I believe a hundred years.
#119 to #5 - rabidaardvark (10/01/2013) [-]
where do you get the number '16,000' from? thats nowhere near going to be right. There are millions of species, estimates anywhere from 2-3 to 50 million, and there have to be 2 of each. Even if we discard fish and whales and other marine species because they would be fine in a flood, and accept that about half the animals are small invertebrates, the shear scale of this operation makes it unbelievable. hell by the time youd finished loading half the smaller ones would have dies of old age.
#89 to #5 - envinite (10/01/2013) [-]
I don't even know if thatwas lawyered or retarded
#87 to #5 - rakoom (10/01/2013) [-]
Now we just question how Noah and his family was capable of building that kind of boat, gathering those animals, maintain all of those animals, etc. The boat itself was just the first hurdle.

But heck, with a huge-ass army or empire on their side, it COULD'VE worked. With a high rate of failure.
#73 to #5 - sparkysparkybooman (10/01/2013) [-]
>Explain how its only 16000 animals when its supposed to be one of every species. Claiming that "kinds" exist does not count, as there is no valid scientific evidence behind it. It is a term invented specifically for this argument.
> Explain how noah kept the animals from eating each other
>Explain how he kept it clean. There'd be a lot of animal dung. Not only would it get dirty, smelly, and germ infested, it would make the animals get sick and in turn, die.
>Explain how the penguins made it from Mt Ararat to Antartica?
>Explain how koalas made it to Australia without any Eucalyptus?
> Explain how fish survived the flood
>Realize that all those numbers were pulled out of your ass off some website you found and thought it was cool so you posted it on here. Don't deny it I've seen it many times. It's been debunked many times.
#105 to #73 - helgestrichen (10/01/2013) [-]
Explain how Fish survived the Flood....
User avatar #120 to #105 - kuchikirukia (10/01/2013) [-]
Rain is freshwater. Oceans are salt water. The change in salinity would kill just about every aquatic species. Also, creos claim that all sedimentary deposits were deposited by the flood. The quantity of these deposits on Earth means that the Flood would have been actually been thick mud.

Please learn something about reality before commenting.
#133 to #120 - helgestrichen has deleted their comment [-]
#132 to #120 - helgestrichen (10/01/2013) [-]
Should have written Freshwater then. So the Change in Salinity would have killed only freshwaterspecies, which make up a far lower percentage of all sea creatures. about the mud part: i dont think so, with a land-sea-ratio of 70 to 30 and the sinking of the sediments. anyways, i just wanted to use my reaction-pic and we're arguing over fiction. but if you are a student of the behaviour of maritime sediments in global flood scenario, hit me with some knowledge, so i can really comment...
User avatar #136 to #132 - kuchikirukia (10/01/2013) [-]
It would have killed the saltwater species as well. Rain in oceans to raise the sea level to cover the tops of the mountains = brackish water.

And please learn the difference between viewable surface area and volume. The earth is not 70% oceans and 30% land, its SURFACE COVERING shows 70% water and 30% land. The bottom of the ocean is -- get this -- land. There are sedimentary deposits there. There are sedimentary deposits on dry land. The volume of the total sedimentary deposits compared to the volume of water means that the water would have been mud.
User avatar #147 to #136 - commontroll (10/01/2013) [-]
Good thing about brackish water though, is that it's a good water for many types of young saltwater fish.
#141 to #136 - helgestrichen (10/01/2013) [-]
yeah maybe you should look up, what all that land volume is made of. its <1m humus and soil in most of the middle latitudes, a bit less towards the poles, a bit more towards the tropics. Compare that to 3,7 km average ocean depth and you got yourself a ratio of soil to water of >90:10. beneath the soil is hard rock, whicj doesnt move or dissolve. the sediments on the bottom of the ocean wouldnt give a crap if sea levels rise, miles above them, they're not going anywhere, either.
#142 to #141 - kuchikirukia (10/01/2013) [-]
We're not talking topsoil, numbnuts. The YEC argument is that all the sedimentary rock (and the fossils within) was laid down in the flood and turned to rock by the immense pressures. (You don't have hundreds of millions of years for deposits if your Earth is only 6000 years old.)
Sedimentary rock makes up ~8% of the crust. You try to fit that as sediment in the oceans and guess what you get? Mud.
#134 to #132 - helgestrichen (10/01/2013) [-]
i meant to write 30:70
#68 to #5 - bobbyshallunite (10/01/2013) [-]
could be baby animals too
#66 to #5 - obliviousretard (10/01/2013) [-]
where do you get food to feed 16,000 animals, especially the ones that are carnivores such as lions and wolves?

plus they would require a lot of incest to reproduce afterwards
User avatar #51 to #5 - tittylovin (10/01/2013) [-]
Cool story.
Now explain how one man was able to find two of each species in months, when we have biologists finding new species all the time thousands of years later?
User avatar #106 to #51 - coldactill (10/01/2013) [-]
God is a God.. no one has to explain anything. If you're ever going to really believe any story in the Bible actually happened you have to believe it means what it says when it says God was able to just send animals to Noah through his own divinity and power. That's like doubting a fairy tale because it has fairies in it.
User avatar #56 to #51 - thebesttrumpeteer (10/01/2013) [-]
to be fair i'm pretty sure the bible said two of each kind. i always took that to mean two mammals, two reptiles, etc. then afterward evolution filled everything back in. i don't actually care since i'm a staunch atheist but i still think we should be fair in our analysis.
User avatar #148 to #56 - commontroll (10/01/2013) [-]
I've always believed it meant two of every geneus or family, and we got all the other species and such from those ancestor animals.
User avatar #63 to #56 - hydraetis ONLINE (10/01/2013) [-]
Ah but that would imply that they support evolution. Which 80% of the time, they don't.
User avatar #98 to #63 - threeeighteen (10/01/2013) [-]
I can't understand how people can be so ignorant, just because someone is Christian, it doesn't mean they don't acknowledge scientific fact. I went to a Catholic school, so by your logic, in science we learnt how through the power of prayer we can cure little Tommie's cancer.

There's absolutely nothing that stops people from being religious as well as accepting scientific fact as fact.
User avatar #154 to #98 - hydraetis ONLINE (10/02/2013) [-]
I went to Catholic School too.
#83 to #63 - alexanderh (10/01/2013) [-]
The current pope has said that the catholic church supports evolution, overseen by god.
User avatar #82 to #63 - doctorhue (10/01/2013) [-]
Almost all Christians, not in America, believes in evolution. In fact, I have yet to talk to one who don't.
#69 to #63 - kentuckyfriedcrack (10/01/2013) [-]
well, look at it this way:
At the time the origin of species was written the church was originally ok with the idea when they first heard it because god might have created them all through this process ect ect. The church's problem with the theory began after a little more was found out about the theory, and how it suggested that all of creation were simply scared, hungry and miserable, and they thought this a dangerous and depressing idea, so they encouraged ridicule of the idea and said they did not support it. So nowadays, a lot of religious zealots will bag it out because they say it goes against the literal sense of the bible as opposed to the idea of gods love and care exhibited to all creatures, when in reality they are pretty vicious little ******* for the most part, like cats eating their dead owners ect ect. Sorry, i know thast way to ******* long but im on a roll here.
User avatar #50 to #5 - slumberdonkey (10/01/2013) [-]
This boat the size of 522 standard railroad cars was supposedly created by an 800 year old man that lived in the dessert. He also (in the meantime) began to collect every species on the planet. I wonder how this man from the dessert would have gotten say, polar bears, or penguins, or kangaroos.

Not to mention that your conservative estimate of 16,000 animals and a million insects, but the total is closer to 100,000 animals that would be in need of shelter from the flood.
User avatar #48 to #5 - willisteal (10/01/2013) [-]
>Implying the entire earth was flooded even though there isn't enough water to do that.
User avatar #96 to #48 - coldactill (10/01/2013) [-]
If you read the bible careful enough you'll find there was a canopy of water above and surrounding the earth, and it served many purposes.
User avatar #137 to #96 - willisteal (10/01/2013) [-]
Considering the bible isn't scientific, and that you can't use the bible to prove the bible is true, you'll have to do better than that.
I mean, it says that light came before the sun in that book, how retarded was the man who wrote that book?! Ha?
User avatar #149 to #137 - commontroll (10/01/2013) [-]
Well, we're talking about the Bible though, and the Bible has its bases covered in this, that's all he's saying.
User avatar #152 to #149 - willisteal (10/02/2013) [-]
I guess you're right, it's the exact same as when talking about spells and magical beings in Harry Potter. Fiction is an amazing genre
User avatar #36 to #5 - acidreign (10/01/2013) [-]
Go try to fit a giraffe and an elephant in cages measure 50x50x12 cm, come back, and report your findings.
User avatar #97 to #36 - toosexyforyou (10/01/2013) [-]
I knew someone would say that, I just didn't think they'd have green thumbs. Anywhoosel... he literally says AVERAGE size of 50x50x30.
User avatar #79 to #36 - commontroll (10/01/2013) [-]
Who says you can't have young ones on the ark?
User avatar #108 to #79 - kirkbot (10/01/2013) [-]
how long was the ark on the water? how long does it take for an animal to grow?
User avatar #145 to #108 - commontroll (10/01/2013) [-]
Bible says 150 days, though I don't know if that's including the 40 days and nights of rain and flooding.

So less than half a year, most large animals would still be juvenile at that point (tigers and bears and such are only at their full size after a year. And before you mention carnivores, I believe somewhere in the Bible it says that the animals didn't eat meat until after the Flood.
User avatar #153 to #145 - kirkbot (10/02/2013) [-]
that does make it more difficult to find all those animals in time though
User avatar #155 to #153 - commontroll (10/02/2013) [-]
Well, if we're debating what the Bible says and whether it could happen, it says that God gathered them and brought them to the Ark, not Noah. Though Noah being some elephant wrangler would be pretty damn cool.
User avatar #156 to #155 - kirkbot (10/02/2013) [-]
I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for clarifying
User avatar #157 to #156 - commontroll (10/02/2013) [-]
No problem dude. I'm all about helping give information. I understand that if you don't study the Bible, there's lots of things you won't know. I think that's why so many Christians don't understand evolution at all. Information helps prevent misunderstanding, so I take it as my job to inform people on things I know.

Anywho, I'm rambling. I'm glad you didn't just attack it right away. High five for civil discussions about a religious book!
User avatar #158 to #157 - kirkbot (10/02/2013) [-]
I still don't agree with religion as a whole, but I am man enough to acknowledge stories that do make sense. They can still be implemented in my own world view that way. Just as Christians can acknowledge evolution as soon as they understand it and agree that it does make sense.
User avatar #159 to #158 - commontroll (10/02/2013) [-]
Indeed. I'm Christian, and spiritual, but I don't agree with religion. I agree with community to help you and those around you grow. At the very least, the stories probably provide to a certain degree what happened, perhaps not fully accurate, but still giving us an idea what might have happened in those times.

I appreciate your non-negative view on religion by the way. It's a bit of a relief on funnyjunk.
#65 to #49 - obliviousretard (10/01/2013) [-]
thats a hippo not an elephant!
User avatar #72 to #65 - tabarzins (10/01/2013) [-]
#34 to #5 - twofreegerbils (10/01/2013) [-]
[ ] NOT TOLD   
[X] TOLD   
[X] 			*******		 TOLD
[X] ******* TOLD
User avatar #32 to #5 - iridium (10/01/2013) [-]
You do realize that most mammals are way bigger than 1.7x1.7x1.0 feet, right?
#19 to #5 - kuchikirukia (10/01/2013) [-]
Here's the thing: When you put holes in things so closely-packed animals can breathe, they don't float so well.
User avatar #21 to #19 - gildemoono (10/01/2013) [-]
by that logic any boat ever with a door or opening somewhere on it would not float.
User avatar #22 to #21 - kuchikirukia (10/01/2013) [-]
Jesus Christ you're stupid.
User avatar #23 to #22 - gildemoono (10/01/2013) [-]
you're saying that, if im getting you, that if we put holes in the pens of the animals, which would be inside the boat, that these holes that lead from one interior room of the boat to another interior room of boat will cause the boat in question to not be buoyant? because thats what i thought you were saying. And if it is then you need to think twice before you dish out those insults. And if it isnt, im sorry then, could you clarify?
User avatar #26 to #23 - kuchikirukia (10/01/2013) [-]
Oh Christ, now he thinks that passages between interior compartments filled with animals would provide ventilation for those animals?
User avatar #29 to #26 - gildemoono (10/01/2013) [-]
No but i would assume that the many doors and surface grates and gates that lead below decks would provide the air that would reach the interior that would reach the holes.
User avatar #13 to #5 - skypatrol (10/01/2013) [-]
If it actually existed, then it actually would have been much larger.
There has been evidence that the water was not always in the oceans, that it was in the atmosphere instead. This protected the earth from the deadly solar rays. This caused everything to live much longer and be much larger. This is shown from how we have such HUGE oil deposits. The people back then would have also been much larger. Back when the bible was written, a cubit was no a standardized measurement. It was the distance from one's elbow to the fingertip.
There have also been human bones found to show human height to be around 15-20 feet.
So if we assume the the bible is 100% accurate, then the ark would have been ABSOLUTELY HUGE.
Easily big enough to hold all of earth's animals and the pokeballs from Hoenn.
User avatar #24 to #13 - gildemoono (10/01/2013) [-]
weren't humans smaller in the prehistoric times? Also Im pretty sure the point where water was not in a liquid form on earth was far before the water-dependant species of man took form.
User avatar #25 to #24 - skypatrol (10/01/2013) [-]
There were still rivers. Those are from glaciers. And it still rained.
Humans may have been smaller at first, but there has been some evidence indicating that they become quite large. The only reason we are the size we are now, is because of the sun. The sun causes our lifespan to be what it is (not including medical science of course, which combats these effects)
User avatar #27 to #25 - gildemoono (10/01/2013) [-]
I will not claim to be an expert on this. Regardless of the correctness of this, it is good food for thought.
User avatar #28 to #27 - skypatrol (10/01/2013) [-]
It's just a theory that has been made based on a few pieces of evidence. I'm not saying it's 100% true, only that it's a possibility.
Also a possibility is pokeballs.
User avatar #11 to #5 - trivdiego (10/01/2013) [-]
but you dont know how many animals that was. more and more species of animals are discovered each day, and while small, i doubt that you can casually claim that they can all fit onto the boat with much space left over for noahs family
User avatar #101 to #11 - coldactill (10/01/2013) [-]
Did you know we got every species of dog we have today from wolves alone. Animals placed in different situations adapt and change, like the colour of your skin in summer. It's science, DNA code can be broken down and re-arranged overtime to create new and different species, and not all animals follow the same pattern, it branches out which is where we get our variety. Also the Bible never mentions 'Species' it only mentions 'Kind'.
User avatar #9 to #5 - vicsix (10/01/2013) [-]
Now explain how one dude got all the ******* wood for this.
User avatar #15 to #9 - funnychemaster (10/01/2013) [-]
Woods the easy part. How the hell would have gotten two of each species of animal.. especially while he's ******* around with a gigantic ship.
User avatar #80 to #15 - commontroll (10/01/2013) [-]
To be fair the Bible says God brought the animals to him.
User avatar #143 to #80 - funnychemaster (10/01/2013) [-]
Didnt know that
User avatar #150 to #143 - commontroll (10/01/2013) [-]
Yeah, it's just a little mention of it, either way it also says he was building for like, a hundred years.
User avatar #151 to #150 - funnychemaster (10/02/2013) [-]
Now that's some dedication
#12 to #9 - tugaii (10/01/2013) [-]
Probably from trees.
User avatar #16 to #12 - vicsix (10/01/2013) [-]
Then why are people bitching about deforestation now instead of then? That would have been a **** load of trees in noahs damn back yard.
User avatar #84 to #16 - illusiveshade **User deleted account** (10/01/2013) [-]
The rest of the trees drowned though... so it would not matter.
Even the tallest mountain tops were cowered by water. And the water came from an "Atmosphere" of water around the earth. And before you say its impossible, then remember, if god created it all, why wouldn't he be able to make a ring of water float around earth.
#17 to #16 - tugaii (10/01/2013) [-]
Ya but there would have been a greater number of trees back then compared to the number of people.
User avatar #10 to #9 - rokulda ONLINE (10/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #8 to #5 - carneymaster ONLINE (09/30/2013) [-]
being pointless to respond to anon, i dont get how he thinks your retarded.
#18 to #8 - guythatagrees (10/01/2013) [-]
I agree.
#6 to #5 - anon (09/30/2013) [-]
Are you retarded?
 Friends (0)