THE FLOOD ACCOUNT in Genesis 6 9

Transcription

1 308 Reviews Defending the truth of the Ark story* Brian Hurn THE FLOOD ACCOUNT in Genesis 6 9 was commonly accepted as being true until about the middle of the eighteenth century. Up to that time only a few hundred mammal species had been identified, so no problem was seen in the housing and care of this small number in the Ark. Largely because of the ever-increasing number of known species of animals, there came about a growing prejudice against the idea of the Ark housing them all. This motivated various revisions of Scripture, such as the local-flood theory, which relegated the Flood to a glorified river flood of the Tigris- Euphrates region. Atheists continually resurrect long-discredited ideas about an overcrowded Ark. Sceptics often put up inaccurate objections, as, for example, that the Ark had to carry whales and deep-sea fish, or that slow-moving sloths would have needed a very long time to reach the Ark from South America. Then we have those who attempt to compromise by saying that the Ark only had to carry a few common domestic beasts. John Woodmorappe s book, Noah s Ark: A Feasibility Study, aims to meet these various objections and show that they are not valid. Which species went in the Ark? There are about one million animal species. It is clear from Scripture, however, that those which entered the Ark were limited to land mammals, birds and reptiles (Gen. 7:14,21-23). The Hebrew does not include insects or other invertebrates, which make up over ninety-eight per cent of all animal species. The same holds true for marine and aquatic vertebrates such as whales and some amphibians. Ernst Mayr, a leading taxonomist, lists the following numbers of species in the relevant categories: Mammals...3,500 Birds...8,600 Reptiles and amphibians...5,500 17,600 These figures should be adjusted as follows: Add 25% to cover species which have become extinct...4,000 Subtract marine/aquatic forms...-1,600 Species approximately...20,000 Identifying created kinds Many so-called species are in fact the same species, because they can interbreed. Many named species are only breeds or races of one species. For example, dingoes, coyotes, wolves and dogs can all interbreed and can therefore be regarded as only one species, not four. They all belong to what is known as a genus (plural genera), the next classification level above species. The existence of hybrid animals such as the zorse (zebra/horse), liger (lion/tiger), wholphin (whale /dolphin), zeedonk (zebra/donkey), cama (camel/lama), cattalo (cattle/buffalo) and mule indicate that other animal species have diverged from a common stock. If we counted the number of genera (closer to the Genesis kinds than species) instead of the number of species there would have been only about 8,000 genera or kinds of animal on the Ark. These would have later diverged, as dogs have, into different breeds or races. As there were two of each kind which went aboard, the total number of creatures in the Ark would have been about 16,000. Land dinosaurs would have been on the Ark, but the number of sauropod dinosaur genera is estimated to have been only in the range twentyfour to eighty-seven. (Sauropod is the name given to the herbivorous four-legged dinosaurs.) Clean animals The list of clean animals in Scripture is exhaustive, and includes only thirteen animal genera and sixteen bird genera. The inclusion of seven * Noah s Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe, Institute for Creation Research, 1996.

2 309 of each of these animals instead of two increases the numbers of animals on the Ark by 5 29 = 145, less than one per cent. According to Jewish custom, Noah only sacrificed an ox, a sheep, a goat, two doves and two young pigeons when he left the Ark. Size of animals So we have about 16,000 animals in the Ark, ranging in size from hummingbirds, a few grams, to sauropod dinosaurs, anything from the size of a rooster up to a possible eighty tonnes (metric tons). However, the vast majority of animals were small. Even without allowing for a few large animals to be represented by juveniles, the median animal on the Ark would have been the size of a small rat (about 100 grams). Only about eleven per cent of the animals were substantially larger than a sheep. The average size would be closer to a cat. Young adults of some kinds would make transport and feeding easier. The large dinosaurs probably reached sexual maturity at a fraction of their maximum potential size, and so smaller adults could have been taken. The following are summaries of the author s conclusions and proposals in regard to the practical considerations of life afloat. Each point is exhaustively investigated and referenced in the book. Floor space allotments Animals were not squeezed together as in modern ship transport that lasts only a few weeks, nor were they in accommodation like spacious zoo enclosures intended for permanent public display. The Ark was, in effect, temporary emergency housing, so we need only consider the minimum floor space for animals to survive in reasonable conditions for a year. Modern intensive livestock units have up to 100,000 animals under one roof, cared for by a handful of people. Ark size The Ark was 300 cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. The ancient cubit was in the range centimetres according to how it was measured. If we use the Hebrew cubit of Ezekiel 40:5, which measured centimetres, then the Ark was 155 metres long, twenty-six metres wide and sixteen metres high, with a volume of 62,600 cubic metres. This matches the size of the large vehicle-carrying ferries used around the world. It was the largest wooden boat in history, being the biggest ship ever built until modern iron ships. In 1858 the Great Eastern became the first to surpass the Ark in size. If an uninspired man wrote the Bible 3,000 years ago why did he make the Ark so big? Food and water Some object that many animals have specialised diets that could have been difficult to supply on the Ark. Nectar eaters can be maintained on sugar-water, and captive fruit-eating bats have been kept on a melon or fruit juice diet. However, the majority of mammals kept in captivity can be maintained adequately on diets that have primarily been designed for domestic farm stock. Noah was told to load a diverse food supply (Gen. 6:21). If the foodstuffs averaged eighty per cent dry by mass, their total mass would be around 2,500 tonnes. The volume used would be 3,000-6,000 cubic metres of volume, which is six to twelve per cent of the Ark s volume. Noah probably collected rainwater from the roof into a storage tank. Waste management Noah and his family did not spend all their time shovelling manure. The amount of excreta produced depends on the diet. Concentrated and highly digestible feeds result in considerably less faeces. Only the waste of the large mammals is significant in quantity and would have amounted to around twelve tonnes per day. Animal droppings, such as poultry droppings, can be allowed to accumulate over long periods of time in indoor enclosures without any problems. Straw bedding was probably not used. Sloping floors made from wooden slates, as used in rabbitries, save the need to replace soiled bedding, and allow excreta to fall into gutters and then overboard, or into a pit. Ventilation Fears about air stagnating in the Ark are unfounded, as smoke-release studies show that air in animal houses is in constant circulation. Wind through vents would have been more than capable of producing the required turnover of air. The windows could have been adjusted to produce the ideal ventilation. The roof of the Ark was also moveable (8:13). Lighting The window around the perimeter would have allowed daylight in. Levels of illumination comparable to that of modern laboratory animal housing could have reached even the lowermost

3 310 deck if a few tens of metres of the window were in direct view of the floor. Dark areas could have been used advantageously for storage, for raising hydroponic greens or for burrowing and nocturnal animals. Ark dimensions and construction Noah had up to 120 years to construct the Ark (6:3), which gave time to make it high tech, with planning and labour-saving devices. The interior was divided into three stories. We know that the ancients built many complex structures, such as the pyramids. Unfortunately, owing to the complete destruction of the antediluvian civilisation, we are ignorant of their technical know-how. Ships capable of carrying over 450 tonnes of grain have been dated from around 1550 B.C. The Leontifera, involved in a sea battle in the Aegean Sea in 280 B.C., must have been over 100 metres long. The Ark was unlikely to have been affected by tsunamis (popularly known as tidal waves) because in deep water they are barely visible, let alone harmful. It did not have tall masting or rigging that could have been torn off in storms. It could have survived winds of over three times hurricane force, and waves over thirty metres high, without danger of being capsized. Ancient husbandry Many ancient people kept huge menageries. The Roman Emperor Trajan had 11,000 animals in his collection. The Romans built aviaries housing several thousand diverse wild birds. Noah did not have to collect animals from distant lands because God caused them to come to him (6:20). He may not have had to care for them beforehand, as Scripture indicates the animals came into the Ark to him (7:15). Critics often dust off the old chestnut about a slow-moving sloth needing a very long time to reach the Ark from South America. However, no one knows how far apart the sloth and the Ark were in antediluvian times. Animal distribution must have changed significantly since the Flood due to continental movement (continental sprint rather than drift ) and accelerating climate change, causing migration and regional extinction. God can easily control the movements of animals, as seen with the fish that swallowed Jonah, the lion that killed a prophet, and the ravens that brought food to Elijah. He brought the animals to Noah and probably redistributed them around the world afterwards. The animals were on the Ark for a week before the Flood began (7:4,10) to allow time to organise them in their enclosures and accustom them to the Ark before it became seaborne. Boarding time may have been around five hours. It is not unreasonable to assume that all the animals were easy to be handled. God would have chosen hardy pairs that were best suited for the voyage and with the most genetic diversity. Manpower required Based on actual manpower studies, eight people could definitely have cared for 16,000 animals within a forty-hour working week. Zoos do not provide the best comparisons, as much time is wasted with manual dung removal, enclosure maintenance, breeding programmes, and handling visitors. Using semi-automation, one person can care for thousands of livestock. Of the 2,000 animals per person (there were eight on the Ark Noah, his three sons and their wives), the vast majority were much smaller than hens. Labour-saving devices, including self-feeders and overhead bins for food storage, are not exclusive to modern times. Water could easily be piped into troughs. Some animals may have needed an exercise ring for periodic exercise. Caging Materials for caging may have included netting for bird enclosures and bamboo for smaller animals. The animals could have survived without the individual care they get in some zoos. Captive eagles talons and beaks normally go a year without trimming. Despite the fact that zoos provide bathing facilities for elephants, they can go for long periods without it. Hippos are semi-aquatic but can survive with an occasional rinse. Seals can survive long periods without bathing, provided they are protected from excessive heat. Small standing ponds are a possible alternative for these animals. Burrowing animals are often kept in zoos on concrete floors in darkened enclosures. Food storage Hay will deteriorate rapidly if not properly cured, but year-old hay is commonly used. Changing large herbivores to a grain-based diet saves a lot of space storing bulky feed. Hay could have been compressed to take up less room. Dehydration of meat and fish has been used for preservation since ancient times, with some kinds lasting up to three years. There are fruits and vegetables that can survive in a fresh state without refrigeration

4 311 for up to a year. Drying fruit and vegetables is an age-old technique. Root crops such as potatoes store well. Hydroponic greens can be raised in total darkness. Many animals can be switched to dry food in captivity. Live food Animals were not carnivorous at Creation (1:30), and this behaviour may have been suspended for the Flood year (9:3). If not, some 300 tonnes of meat would have been required, taking up onesixth of the food space. Giant tortoises are one method of supplying fresh meat. They have long been used for this purpose on long voyages, as they can go at least several months without being fed or given water to drink. There are many fresh meat substitutes. Dried meat takes up less space and, when soaked in water, closely resembles fresh meat. Captive carnivorous mammals have been maintained largely on baked biscuits consisting of compressed blood, meat, bran, and grain. Animals that normally eat live prey can be kept without supplying live food. Snakes can be taught to take inert prey. They will even eat strips of meat or pelletised food. It would have been easy enough to raise selected prey, such as mealworms, crickets or earthworms, for very fussy eaters. Bat glops are composed of common foods and are used to feed insect-eating bats in captivity. Even the echidna and anteater will accept common food. Despite popular belief, animals that will eat only one type of food are rare. Even animals with highly specialised diets in the wild can be switched to more readily obtainable food. Dietary specialisation may have partly arisen from changes after the Flood. A few extra reptiles could have been kept to feed the three types of vampire bat. As they simply lap blood, their needs could be supplied from any animals killed for the carnivores. Specialised leaf eaters can be fed a diet of vegetables, nuts and dried fruits. Zoos have kept giant pandas on bamboo-free diets for up to two years. Koalas, which are fussy eaters, have been maintained on a glop made of blended common foods mixed with pulverised eucalyptus leaves. The first one brought to Europe survived on dried leaves. Others have been kept on milk, bread and eucalyptus oil. Climatic needs Some argue against species survival in the Ark based on the presumed climatic preferences of different animals. However, these ignore their ability to acclimatise to different conditions. Environmental temperature extremes may well have become greater since the Flood. Polar regions themselves are not areas of perpetual cold, but get surprisingly warm in summer. Polar creatures show few highly specialised adaptations for life in the cold. They differ from their non-polar relatives primarily in quantity of plumage, fur or fat. Polar animals do not pine for the cold in temperate climates but they do need a cool retreat and clean water in summer. Critics confuse a desert animal s tolerance of desert conditions with an obligation to live under such conditions. Aridity, and certain adaptations to it, is another condition that probably increased after the Flood. Desert animals have no special organs to enable tolerance to aridity. They can survive in wetter environments. There may have been temperature differences from inside to outside and from top to bottom in the Ark, providing for those with special needs. Some animals may have entered dormancy. Survival outside the Ark Only land vertebrates went into the Ark. All other backboned animals that moved upon the face of the ground died (7:21-23). Water-dwelling vertebrates such as whales and fish, and land invertebrates such as insects, took their chances outside in the Flood. Of all life forms, the vast majority were not on the Ark and so must have survived by being on or in the water, on mats of vegetation, pumice or ice, or by being airborne. Aquatic organisms vary as to what salinity they live in. How could all these animals have survived in the same floodwater? Salt water contains thirty-five parts per thousand of dissolved salts, whereas fresh water contains half a per cent. Fish can gradually become accustomed to a wide range of ambient salinities. Most saltwater fish can survive a very low salinity. Water in saltwater aquaria rarely exceeds fifty per cent of the salinity of salt water. Many amphibians can survive brackish or even salt water. The antediluvian seas were probably less saline than today. Suppose that the seas then had only twenty parts per thousand dissolved salts and accounted for fifty per cent of the earth s surface water. During the Flood, if completely mixed with available fresh water, the ocean would have been ten parts per thousand saline. If we allow some minor uneven mixing, a range of five to fifteen parts is possible. The vast majority

5 312 of fish can survive these conditions. In addition, distinct salt water and fresh water layers could have developed, and this salinity stratification could have persisted throughout the Flood. Many creatures could move into a salinity level suitable to them. Plants Large numbers of uprooted plants and trees would have resulted from the Flood. Tangled mats of vegetation or flotsam are often encountered at sea. Such floating logs are frequently found to have roots with soil attached to them and teaming with an astonishing variety of life. Uprooted plants themselves can survive a long time in water. Floating fields of pumice from volcanoes are even more durable than vegetation. Large blocks can provide cover for reef organisms such as corals, molluscs, crustaceans and fish. Many buried seeds could have remained dormant until unearthed again. Other trees might have been buried and later uncovered. Olive trees, of particular note in the Flood story (8:11), are easily propagated from any small part of the plant. Food sources post-flood The Ark settled on a site within the mountains of Ararat. This need not have been a high peak. There was a time lag of a few months between landing and disembarkation, giving plenty of time for plants to sprout. Even the largest of herbivores eat grass. Seaweed is eaten by a large number of animals and even by humans. Carnivores leaving the Ark may have made use of stranded sea creatures or the large numbers of exhumed dead animals. Carrion is eaten by even the largest of predators. There would have been an explosive population growth amongst the Flood s survivors. A single pair of rats can have 15,000 descendants in one year. Slow-growing populations may have been protected by the greater abundance of other food sources. With less predation, the insect population must have been plentiful towards the later stages of the Flood. Most vertebrates, including the largest predators, will eat insects and rodents. Genetics Populations of many animals have started from one pair of animals. Animals selected to survive on the Ark would have maintained the variation in that kind. Inbreeding does not itself lead to loss of overall genetic variation. A single pair of founders can have the same genetic diversity as fifty founders. There are many animals today, such as the cheetah, that are successful despite low genetic diversity. Disease Most human diseases are believed to have arisen in the last several thousand years. Human lentiviruses, such as HIV, are believed to have arisen from non-human primates, who in turn got them from hoofed animals. Pathogens could have also survived in corpses outside the Ark. Conclusion The author s thorough and timely treatment of this foundational Bible story shows that the account of a global Flood and the survival of the Ark and all its inhabitants is eminently reasonable. I can thoroughly recommend this extremely well-researched book. It raises many questions you will never have thought of, and answers them all. It also destroys those old objections to the truth of the Flood story that are trotted out from time to time. Yasser Arafat s army If the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat declares the establishment of the State of Palestine, senior Palestinian security officials say that he plans to unveil a Palestinian army of up to 100,000 soldiers. In recent months Arafat has secretly been building up this the most important national symbol of all, laying the foundations for transforming the Palestinian Authority s existing paramilitary-style police and national security forces of some 40,000 into a fully mobilised, although not heavily armed, army. Israel is starting to worry about the Palestinians drive to acquire medium-range weaponry. Thousands of Palestinian policemen and security operatives are undergoing military training in the West Bank, and retired Egyptian army officers have been helping the Palestinians prepare for the possibility of a future confrontation with Israel. Joan Brooks