Noah's Ark vs running a zoo

[atheist buddy]

The directory of the Bronx Zoo shows that it takes 205 full time professionals to feed, manage and keep safe 650 species of animals. That's 650 out of 8.7 million species of animals and plants in existence.

By rough approximation, we could say that if it takes 205 people to manage 650 species, it would take 2.7 million people to manage all 8.7 million species in a megazoo hosting all known species.

Let's say it would take another million highly qualified professionals to build this megazoo, and another million to gather all the animals.

So, a total of 4.7 million trained experts to maintain and manage 8.7 million species in a man-made environment.

On average, approximately 1 person for every two species.

Assuming Noah had 19 people helping him, he would be operating on a ratio of 1 person for every 435,000 species.

In other words, if you believe in the story of Noah, you believe that a bronze age (600 year old drunk) was 217,500 times better at running a massive zoo than modern people are.

And did I mention this 8.7 million species zoo had to float on water during a massive storm?


In light of these simple empirical facts, can we agree that anybody who believes the story of Noah's Ark actually happened, is victim of such intense delusion that it borders on mental disability?

Why is a professed belief in a flat earth an instant disqualification from public office, or from getting a high level job, or from attaining any kind of social status, but professed belief in Noah's Ark put on a pedestal, and regarded as acceptable if not mainstream?

[Overcomer]

atheist buddy wrote:

"And did I mention this 8.7 million species zoo had to float on water during a massive storm?"

That number is grossly inflated as it pertains to the ark in its time period. John Woodmorappe, in his book entitled Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, notes that the designation of "created kind" ("min" in Hebrew) used in Genesis is not the equivalent of a species. It refers to what we would call "the family level" in current taxonomy.

This is why the argument that taking one pair of canines, for example, from which all the many species of canines evolved (I believe in microevolution within a species, but not macroevolution between species) makes sense. One pair of canines = a created kind.

Also bear in mind that we are only talking about taking air-breathing land animals and birds on the ark. There would have been no need to take sea creatures -- everything from fish to mollusks to whales to turtles would have been fine in the water and would have needed no care from Noah and his family.

Woodmorappe suggests there may have been as few as 2,000 land creatures on the ark, naming 16,000 as the absolute maximum.

Certainly there was plenty of room for that many. The Bible gives us the dimensions of the boat in cubits. When worked out, the size of the ark is the equivalent of 569 modern railway stock cars. And it may well be that Noah took young animals, not fully-grown, which means they would take up less space.

So how did Noah and his family take care of the animals? Studies of non-mechanized animal care indicate that they could have handled that many animals for 40 days. The Bible doesn't tell us the specifics, but it isn't hard to imagine Noah using self-feeders, for example, to cut down on the work. And let's face it, they had nothing else to do but tend animals day in and day out for 40 days. I grew up on a farm and we cared for a lot of animals without the technology that exists today. I have no trouble envisioning Noah and his family being up to the task.

One additional thing: We also should consider the fact that there would be created kinds that wouldn't need feeding such as insects which would thrive on vegetation taken aboard or on animal waste, for example.

Therefore, I find the zoo comparison to be an inadequate and misleading one.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

philosophically one can't reconcile billions of years of death with a loving God.

philosophically whats the difference between a billion or 10,000 years? in terms of death.

Is there a particular X number of deaths that you find philosophically irreconcilable?\

is 10,000 deaths ok but not 10,0001?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 11 by Overcomer]
There appears to be a bit of inconsistency in your stated position:

the designation of "created kind" ("min" in Hebrew) used in Genesis is not the equivalent of a species. It refers to what we would call "the family level" in current taxonomy.

And:

I believe in microevolution within a species, but not macroevolution between species

Those familiar with biological taxonomy (The classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships) realize that taxonomic families are ranked above genus and species.

Thus. if one doesn't "believe in" evolution at or above species level (insist that "microevolution" within species is maximum accepted), then differentiation of genus and species from within "biblical flood families" is impossible.

And, that is just one of the many impossibilities in the flood story. For instance, many animals (family, genus, species) have very specific habitat requirements – cold, warm, hot, dry, moderate, wet, full sun, shade, etc, etc – which could not be provided aboard the storied "ark."

There is one problem after another when trying to defend ancient pagan myths, folklore, and tales as though they were literal truth.

[Elijah John]

But why do you take the Bible seriously? Who cares what the Bible says. Any 8 year old today knows more about morality, about the world in general, than any Bible author. Why do you listen to what bronze age shephards have to say, and pay no credence whatsoever to what people who can build planes, perform brian surgery and put a man on the moon? Couldn't it be that these kinds of people know a little more about the physical universe than people who thought the earth was flat and desease was caused by curses?

EJ replies:

Are we talking about morality here, or are we talking about knowledge of the physical universe. Seems you are conflating the two here...they are not the same.

One can indeed take the Bible seriously, regarding belief in God and ethics, without taking every story as literal history or truth. One can take the Bible seriously, without taking it literally.

At the very least, it is Spiritual inspiration to millions. Reason enough to take it seriously.

In fact, you take it serously enough to discuss it here on these forums. A tacit admission of it's importance, if only as a book worthy of your attention to be refuted.

[atheist buddy]

atheist buddy wrote:

"And did I mention this 8.7 million species zoo had to float on water during a massive storm?"

That number is grossly inflated as it pertains to the ark in its time period. John Woodmorappe, in his book entitled Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, notes that the designation of "created kind" ("min" in Hebrew) used in Genesis is not the equivalent of a species. It refers to what we would call "the family level" in current taxonomy.

This is why the argument that taking one pair of canines, for example, from which all the many species of canines evolved (I believe in microevolution within a species, but not macroevolution between species) makes sense. One pair of canines = a created kind.

You are contradicting yourself.

Do you understand that a dog and a coyote are two different species? That if you try to breed a dog and a coyote, nothing will come out. ditto dogs and foxes, ditto wolfs and dingos, ditto jackals and fennecs, etc.

If you don't believe in macroevolution (one species evolving into a different species), then you can't assume that just one pair of canines could evolve after the Ark into several different species. Therefore there must have been dogs, foxes, dingos, jackals, coyotes, etc in the ark.

Do you follow me? Do you believe that one species can evolve into another species?

Can a fox evolve into a wolf?

If not, then both a fox and a wolf would have had to be on the ark.

Can a jackal evolve into a coyote?

If not, then both a jackal and a coyote would have had to be on the ark.

There are 8.7 million different "kinds" of living organisms. That is, 8.7 million species that cannot interbreed and which, according to you, cannot macro-evolve one into the other.

Sorry.

Also bear in mind that we are only talking about taking air-breathing land animals and birds on the ark. There would have been no need to take sea creatures -- everything from fish to mollusks to whales to turtles would have been fine in the water and would have needed no care from Noah and his family.

False. All sea creatures can only survive inside a very narrow range of water salinity (saltiness). With a great flood, salt water and fresh water would mix and all sealife would die. Noah would have to have large tanks inside the ark, to house all the whales, sharks, dolphins, etc.

Woodmorappe suggests there may have been as few as 2,000 land creatures on the ark, naming 16,000 as the absolute maximum.

Well, he is wrong, isn't he?

Unless you allow that some species can evolve into other species (macro evolution), then there has to be one of every species. It really is that simple.

But let's say that there were only 2000 animals on the ark. It takes 400 people to build a zoo, capture, and manage 650 animals with today's modern technology.

So it would take 1600 people to manage those 2000 animals. Did Noah have 1600 people with him?

So how did Noah and his family take care of the animals? Studies of non-mechanized animal care indicate that they could have handled that many animals for 40 days. The Bible doesn't tell us the specifics, but it isn't hard to imagine Noah using self-feeders, for example, to cut down on the work. And let's face it, they had nothing else to do but tend animals day in and day out for 40 days.

Lol, he had nothing else to do but tend the animals. Right... becuase it's not like he was sailing a boat though the most cataclismic of natural events in the history of the world.

It's a well known fact that wooden boats built by a 600 year old man, sail themselves, especially though cataclismic global events.

Are you even remotely interested in your arguments making sense?

[ttruscott]

...


In light of these simple empirical facts, can we agree that anybody who believes the story of Noah's Ark actually happened, is victim of such intense delusion that it borders on mental disability?

...

Please do not ignore that
- you have given no proof that all 8.7 species were available on earth at that time but have merely assumed it

- you have given no proof that the ark held adult animals that were not in some kind of suspended animation but merely assumed it

- you have not proven that this was not a miracle of GOD's so the ark was miraculously outfitted to achieve what was written to give the world HIS prophecy that no matter how horrible it gets down here, no matter if there are only 8 people to stand against the world, HE has it all under control and when the time comes in the end times to do it again with fire...

How can such a stilted point of view stand against a GOD of great miracles as Christians believe in? Pointing to the mundane to prove there are no miracles is just a shrug to most Christians who believe in and expect great and wonderous things from their GOD.

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

Please do not ignore that
- you have given no proof that all 8.7 species were available on earth at that time but have merely assumed it

You (generic term) are free to demonstrate how many species (or "kinds", whatever that means) of animals WERE present at the time of the fabled flood (whenever that is claimed to have occurred) AND to demonstrate how the multitude of species has EVOLVED since that time

- you have given no proof that the ark held adult animals that were not in some kind of suspended animation but merely assumed it

You are free to demonstrate that animals aboard the fabled ark were in some kind of suspended animation. Speculation and opinion (or pronouncement) may work in church or in Christian favored environments, but do not fare well in debate (which is supposedly what one does here – as opposed to preaching and speculating -- passed off as knowledge).

- you have not proven that this was not a miracle of GOD's so the ark was miraculously outfitted to achieve what was written to give the world HIS prophecy that no matter how horrible it gets down here, no matter if there are only 8 people to stand against the world,

You are free to demonstrate that the ark story reflect the action of one of the proposed "gods" – but cannot rationally demand that others prove that some favored "god" was NOT involved.

In debate, those who make a claim / implication / suggestion (such as "god was involved" or "animals were in suspended animation" or "there were fewer kinds of animals back then" are expected to demonstrate that they speak truth.

HE has it all under control and when the time comes in the end times to do it again with fire...

Fires occur in nature and humans have developed atomic weapons capable of setting widespread (perhaps worldwide?) fires, an asteroid impact could evidently result in widespread (worldwide?) fires.

If there was a worldwide conflagration, how would anyone know that a particular proposed "god" was involved? "My favorite god said so" is NOT evidence of anything other than religious conviction / opinion / folklore / dogma / etc.

How can such a stilted point of view stand against a GOD of great miracles as Christians believe in?

In these debates (and elsewhere) views against god tales fare rather well (or dominate) when there is a "level playing field" on which religion is not given favorable treatment AND claims are expected / required to be supported (with something more substantial than opinions, testimonials and ancient religion promotional literature).

Pointing to the mundane to prove there are no miracles is just a shrug to most Christians who believe in and expect great and wonderous things from their GOD.

Christians (and Muslims, and all the thousands of other religious adherents) are free to expect great things from their "god" (usually "after you die"). At least, being dead, they should not be disappointed to discover that they have followed a pipe dream.

[atheist buddy]

...


In light of these simple empirical facts, can we agree that anybody who believes the story of Noah's Ark actually happened, is victim of such intense delusion that it borders on mental disability?

...

Please do not ignore that
- you have given no proof that all 8.7 species were available on earth at that time but have merely assumed it

It's a fact that there are 8.7 million different species today. So either they already existed at the time of the great flood, OR they emerged subsequently by macroevolution.

Are you saying that macroevolution is real and that new species emerged that didn't exist 6000 years ago? I mean, I agree with you (incidentally, it's a documented fact), but do you agree with this? Do you believe new species can emerge though macro-evolution?

- you have given no proof that the ark held adult animals that were not in some kind of suspended animation but merely assumed it

You are right that Noah could conceivably held all the whales and elephants in cryogenic fugue, of course that would require not just a multi billion dollar investment and technology that doesn't exist now, let alone in the bronze age, but it would require at a minimum electricity. Would you like me to prove that Noah didn't have access to electricity?

- you have not proven that this was not a miracle of GOD's so the ark was miraculously outfitted to achieve what was written to give the world HIS prophecy that no matter how horrible it gets down here, no matter if there are only 8 people to stand against the world, HE has it all under control and when the time comes in the end times to do it again with fire...

Ah! The win-all trump card. Noah did it by magic. Of course.

Is there ANYTHING that we can't presume happened, if we allow that maybe it happened by magic?

How can such a stilted point of view stand against a GOD of great miracles as Christians believe in? Pointing to the mundane to prove there are no miracles is just a shrug to most Christians who believe in and expect great and wonderous things from their GOD.

You are correct that I am biased against explanations that don't make sense.

If in order for something to be plausible, we must assume that it happened by magic, then I tend not to believe it.

In order for me to believe something, there must be some kind of evidence for it. Do you have any evidence for the occurance of the kinds of miracles that would make Noah's ark possible but NOT Mohammed's flying horse or Santa's flying reindeer possible?

Are you saying that the Almight Lord and creator of the universe doesn't have the power to make a reindeer fly?

[1213]

In other words, if you believe in the story of Noah, you believe that a bronze age (600 year old drunk) was 217,500 times better at running a massive zoo than modern people are.

Actually I think Noah could have been more 217,500 times better. In my opinion modern people are not very advanced, especially mentally.

And did I mention this 8.7 million species zoo had to float on water during a massive storm?

On what basis it had to float during a storm?

Personally I think you have also wrong number for species. I think for example that there could have been just one pair of bears and all modern bears are offspring of those two.

Why is a professed belief in a flat earth an instant disqualification from public office, or from getting a high level job, or from attaining any kind of social status, but professed belief in Noah's Ark put on a pedestal, and regarded as acceptable if not mainstream?

I think most modern people believe in flat earth, if they believe that earth consists of continental shelves. (Earth in the OT meant dry land)

God called the dry land Earth...
Genesis 1:10

[atheist buddy]

In other words, if you believe in the story of Noah, you believe that a bronze age (600 year old drunk) was 217,500 times better at running a massive zoo than modern people are.

Actually I think Noah could have been more 217,500 times better. In my opinion modern people are not very advanced, especially mentally.

That's certainly true in some cases.

And did I mention this 8.7 million species zoo had to float on water during a massive storm?

On what basis it had to float during a storm?

On what basis do we assume that a boat would float? Ummm, I don't get it, are you trying to reinforce the point you made above?

It has to float, becuase if it didn't float, it wouldn't be a boat.

Personally I think you have also wrong number for species. I think for example that there could have been just one pair of bears and all modern bears are offspring of those two.

Panda bears and American Black Bears are two different species. They cannot create fertile offspring (cubs), which is the definition of being different species.

So, EITHER both a couple of Black Bears AND a couple of Pandas were on the Ark (in addition to a haf dozen other bear species), or a predecessor of all these different species of bears was on the Ark, AND THESE DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BEARS EVOLVED FROM IT- that's called macro-evolution.

Do you accept macro-evolution? If not, there were AT LEAST 17.4 million living organisms on that boat, including about 90 different species of whales and dolphins, about 80 species of sharks, and a few million others. All inside a boat.

Why is a professed belief in a flat earth an instant disqualification from public office, or from getting a high level job, or from attaining any kind of social status, but professed belief in Noah's Ark put on a pedestal, and regarded as acceptable if not mainstream?

I think most modern people believe in flat earth, if they believe that earth consists of continental shelves. (Earth in the OT meant dry land)

God called the dry land Earth...
Genesis 1:10

Excellent try. Sorry, you're wrong. Even if we wanted to define continental shelfs as "earth" as opposed to the entire planet, no they are not flat. They are large enough to bend with the shape of the planet.

Nobody believes the earth is flat except for a few lunatics who are on the very fringe of society.

I don't understand why people who believe in the Ark don't suffer from the same ostracization yet.