Monday, January 12, 2009 1:47:59 PM
To take the story of Noah's Ark literally is to miss the point of the story. Silly religious bibble thumpers. Watch out! The world is supposed to end in 2012! Oh wait, it was (predicted) to end hundreds if not thousands of times before... We are still here... You never know, the 1563rd times a charm!
Monday, January 12, 2009 1:37:48 PM
Goes to show, doesn't it Angilion? I massively understated the problem, and it still didn`t make sense even then. When you think even closer, like you did, the insanity of thinking this was real becomes even more pronounced.
Monday, January 12, 2009 12:40:46 PM
I forgot a key point:
You also need to have all the extinct animals on board as well, because creationists say that all fossil records date from the flood too (and that the entire Earth is only about 6000 years old anyway).
There's even more bovine excrement in these people`s arguments than there would be after a year in an ark.
Monday, January 12, 2009 12:38:34 PM
Musuko42: It's far worse than you decribe, for these reasons:
There were up to 14 of each animal, not 2. You need to go further than species, because creationists also deny evolution. So you need far more than the 60,000 animals (not including insects) that you refer to. The gases from the animals would probably be fatal. The ark as described doesn`t have anything like adequate ventilation systems. You mention food, which would be an insurmountable problem in itself (e.g. many animals require fresh plants - where were they grown?) but you don`t mention drinking water. For at least a couple of hundred thousand animals. Where does the urine and faeces from the animals below deck go? How can 8 people tend all those animals? The animals would need exercise space, so the ark would have to be far bigger yet again. Although 8 people couldn`t exercise that many animals anyway.