Noah’s Ark: An Engineering Imposibility

Actually the story of Genesis is, even at first glance, absurd.

First let us look at the ark built by Noah. Genesis 6:15 gives its measurements as 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. The length of the cubit is based on the length of the human forearm and varies among the various ancient cultures. For instance, the Babylonian cubit was approximately 0.53 metres, the Roman cubit was about 0.44 metres while the Hebrew cubit was about 0.56 metres. Using the Hebrew cubit the ark would have measured 168 metres long, 28 metres wide and 17 metres high. There are two problems with this ark as described: it is both too big and too small at the same time.

It is too big, because before the invention of steel, the wooden ark of Noah simply could not have been structurally sound and was thus unseaworthy. The longest wooden ship ever built (i.e. historically verified) was the USS Wyoming. This vessel, which was, at 110 meters long, a full 50% shorter than Noah’s ark, was found to be so unstable that it could only be used for short coastal hauls to avoid rough conditions further out in the sea. The huge structural stresses that developed in the USS Wyoming made the ship sag and, well, it leaked. Water thus had to be pumped out continuously to prevent the ship from sinking. Now, here we have Noah’s ark, built with wood, before the invention of steel and hydraulic pumps, undergoing the turbulent conditions of the flood unscathed. It is simply an engineering impossibility.

It is too small, because there is simply not enough room for all the animals. There are extant today over 4,500 species of mammals, 6,000 species of reptiles, 8,600 species of birds and 3,000 species of amphibians. Each of these have many large members: elephants, camels, rhinoceros, hippopotamasus, giraffes, horses, donkeys, zebras, cattle, bison, tapirs, pigs, tigers, lions, jaguars, panthers, sea lions, walruses, crocodiles, alligators, giant turtles, Komodo dragon, snakes, ostriches, emus, falcons and giant salamanders. There are 23,000 species of fishes, many of which will not be able to survive the flood if not taken up into the ark. Each kilogram of fish require about a cubic meter of water to survive-this is simply to provide enough oxygen and provide space for swimming while sleeping and feeding. The volume of water required for the fishes alone would be larger than the ark.[4] And then there are the little creatures; there are about a million species of insects and 60,000 species of arachnids. How were these species stored in the ark?

Other Impossibilities

Gathering all these animals would be a problem. Genesis 7:11-15 makes it clear that the gathering of all the animals took only one twenty-four hour day. Thus each pair of animals have less than 1/10th of a second to get into the the ark. The question of pairs also raises the issue of organisms that simply don’t survive or reproduce in pairs: insects such as bees and flies.

Noah was also supposed to store food for these animals (Genesis 6:21). This presents another problem in terms of storage space and the actual variety required. A pair of elephants would require about 300 kgs of bulky greenery per day. Enough meat must be stored for the various carnivores such as tigers, lions, jaguars and panthers. The 10,000 species of termites would have to be fed to ensure that they do not consume the ship itself! The giant panda would have to be fed only bamboo shoots. The koala must be fed only fresh eucalyptus leaves. Animals such as snakes, penguins and bats need to be fed with living food; so Noah would need additional storage space for rats, fishes and insects for these creatures. Removing the wastes and excrements of the animals in the ark would provide a logistical nightmare. How could pairs of all these be taken up the ark and looked after by only eight people (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives.)?

And what about terrestrial plants and vegetation? The immense weight of the flood water would have destroyed them all. What kept the plant alive through the flood? It is naive and pointless to say that God kept these alive by miraculous means; for what is the reason then for Noah building the ark? If God could keep the plants and the fresh water fishes alive without Noah taking them into the ark, He surely could have kept all the rest alive without needing the ark.

There are still more difficulties with the story. It fails to explain the distribution of animals after the flood; How did the animals know how to reach their respective habitat after the flood? What an amazing coincidence that almost all marsupials end up in Australia. Why did the penguins head for the south pole and not the north? Where did all the water go after the flood? What did the carnivores eat before the first pairs of their food have a chance to reproduce? What did the herbivores eat, since all the plants woulsd have died during the flood?

Does it even matter?

Would an all-wise God use such a stupid method of eradication anyway?

Would an all-loving and all merciful God drown all the innocent children and babies?

Would an all powerful God who can supposedly cure cancer in an individual when they pray to him to do so not be able to simply give the sinners heart attacks, or something other means of death?

Clearly the very idea of a God who had to flood out creation is an idea of a completely inept God in the first place.

The mere fact that any modern day person still believes in these ancient myths is truly scary.

It also flies in the face of the idea that the biblical God is supposed to be unchanging and therefore dependable.

All this says is that at one time God handled mankind disobedience by flooding out humanity.

But then later, he decided to sacrifice his son to save mankind from his own disobedience.

This implies that God had changed his persona, and the way he does things. After all, if God loved the world so much that he was willing to give his only begotten son to save it, then why didn't he do that the first time around?

He sound have send Jesus long before things every got that far out of control to warrant the need for a flood.

Clearly the whole religious doctrine is a completely unworkable mythology.

More Jesus didn't even agree with the God of Abraham.

The God of Abraham instructed people to stone sinners to death and seek revenge (an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth)

People were still obeying the God of Abraham in the days of Jesus, and Jesus disapproved and told them not to stone sinners to death. Jesus also denounced revenge seeking and taught forgiveness instead (turn the other cheek).

Clearly Jesus was NOT the God of Abraham, nor was he sent by the God of Abraham.

In fact, the earliest Christians (before the gospels were written) actually believed that the Jews murdered Jesus for blaspheme. No one could blame the Jews if they had because the God of Abraham clearly instructed them that it is their DUTY to murder heathens, and Jesus was most certainly a heathen because he completely disagreed with the God of Abraham and denounced his commandments to stone sinners to death and to seek revenge.

So it would make perfect sense that the Jews might have murdered Jesus believing that he was a heathen and believing that they were doing the will of God. This is precisely what the God of Abraham had demanded that they do.

In fact, it would be pretty stupid for the God of Abraham to have told people to murder heathen and then to send his own son to earth to denounce his own commandments! That would have been a truly foolish God.

So there's no need to prove that the ark is scientifically impossible. It doesn't even float as being reasonable in the face of what the Bible claims God is supposed to be like. The very idea is a slap in the face to God.

Agreed,
Also, Why did someone have to die for him to forgive us anyway?
If my son does something bad I don't tell him, "It's o.k. I forgive you but the family dog has to die first".
Plus if prayer realy worked, the fact that every christian is not at the childrens hospital right now makes them assholes.

Truly.

In my humble opinion the biblical claim that God can only forgive sins if there is a blood sacrifice given first to appease him is an insult to the creator of this universe.

I don't believe that the creator of this universe would be that sick.

Also, why would the real creator of this unvierse just happen to be as sick as all the other manmade mythologies that people don't believe came from God?

Appeasing the gods with blood sacrifices is clearly a superstition of men.

Yet this is the entire basis of the crucifixion in Christianity. Without a God who needs blood sacrifices before he can forgive sins there would be no need to it.

Clearly the biblical God lusts for blood sacrifices, and then supposedly sends his son to become one.

Also, what kind of a message does that send to mankind as a whole?

It's like God is saying, "Here, take my son and nail him to a pole and I'll forgive you of your sins"

That's nothing short of assinine.

Also, if that's what turns God on then for God it would have been a good thing!

And if it doesn't turn God on, then why would he have lusted for blood sacrifices in the first place?

It just makes absolutely no sense at all.

To teach this religion to little children should be considered to be psychological child abuse.

The religion should be outlawed on Child Abuse laws alone.

I think we have freedom of religion, but isn't there some clause in there that religions aren't allowed to be harmful?

There is no way that a planetary flood could have taken place. There is absolutely no archeological record of it. It just didnt occur. It cant rain like 6 inches an hour or whatever it was supposed to be. The precipitation would have had to come from outside the atmosphere. Its absurd. Nothing could have survived such a deluge, except sea animals because they DONT DROWN.

O Lord… uh… what the hell is this? What are you playing at, here? ARE YOU TRYIN’ TO YANK MY FREAKIN’ CHAIN?!

I think its in the netherlands.......but it has been built!!!!!
a guy made an exact replica, even stocked with life sized animals!!!!

well the fact remains that just because you think it was an Engineering imposibility....the fact is there was one key factor you left out GOD

Genesis 7:11-15 has nothing to do with the speed in which the animals went onto the ark....God again his spirit is what was used to draw the animals....so validity for me sorry.

Did these 8 people take care of all of these animals? What about all of the crap? They would have been defecating everywhere. What about all of their varying diets? What about all of the water for the animals and humans to drink? Some of these animals would have been nocturnal. There is no way.

I don't think that it is an engineering imposibility. It Is One.]

And if you bring in the god factor then why did he even need to build a boat in the first place.

Was god not able to kill every man woman and child without the need for him to build a boat?

And why did not the chinese have the chance to escape the flood.

We have wrightings from them at the time(which makes the tower of babble story imposible also).

Might I suggest that you temper your judgements with a definition of "world." In my "world," I could write about 6 - 8 feet of snow every winter. Someone in Florida would judge that I am liar because, in their "world" that does not happen. Consider the "world" of the bible; just a small portion of the middle east. Consider the "world" of the pre-Columbus europeans....it was considered flat and their "world" ended at the horizon of the oceans.
I suggest that you research a little bit the history of the ending of the last Ice Age and the effect it had on the Bosphorus and the present day seas east of it. Kindly explain to us the existence of submerged villages and houses on the bottom of the black sea. Could this be the origin of the Noah's Ark story?
It is easy to bash a book written a couple thousand years ago by people who were using the best of their language and understanding of natural occurances. I would challenge you to describe and explain something as simple as radio/television satellite communication today with the language and knowledge of the ancient Mayans. I am certain that you all can do it with no effort, so, I eagerly await your next post in which you accomplish this task. I am certain with all your intelligence and knowledge that you can accomplish this in five or ten minutes. Get after it

what happened to the intellect that was posting earlier? Did such a simple challenge send them packing? Or, are they actually off researching facts instead of posting biased unreasearched drivel?

So what are you suggesting here sir? That you feel a planetary flood is feasible even though there is no physical, anthropological or geologic record of its having taken place? Or are you attempting to impart that your personal assumption was that the flood described in the bible was localized? Now that is very possible and I could get on board (pardon the expression) with that theory.

I agree with you that for these men writing this down at 3000 BC or whenever it was. Im sure the exact point in history is debatable. Its possible there was a period of heavy rainfall which was monsoon like and it caused major flooding throughout the region. Someone may have even made a large craft to attempt to save their own animals. My theory is it may have occurred in one central area and people probably were feverishly attempting to load their livestock onto any kind of raft or flotation device they could possibly build from available materials. In this time period, your animals were the basis of your entire livelihood. When one begins to picture it like that mentally, it does not even seem nearly as far fetched.

So its possible the flood occurred, just not as expansive and earth-encompassing as depicted in the bible. But let me once again remind you that modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science, geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth and you need to work within the confines of these academic studies and cant just rant wildly because you are Christian. The key tenets behind the concept of a world flood are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community so you will need to show me the money so to speak. Otherwise I will assume you are a crazy person and should be locked up.

Right, I mentioned that in my OP.

It is almost laughable to take any of this story seriously.

Along with the tower of babble or any of the stories in the bible.

Too take any of them seriously is to be ignorant of facts.

And wern't these animals trying to mate on board the Ark? What about the people? Were they trying to mate also? Or I guess god took away all of their "carnal needs"?

With God... all things are possible...

I Agree.. Blessings...Miles


SHEARER & ASSOC.

P.O. BOX 9576
METAIRIE, LA 70055
(504) 836-6009
FAX (504) 831-8431

NAVAL ARCHITECTS . MARINE ENGINEERS . MARINE SURVEYORS

NEW ORLEANS . HOUSTON . NASHVILLE

February 7, 2000

Forefront Communications Group
5837 Bartlett Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15217

Subject: Noah's Ark. References: (a) Your letter received January 10, 2000.

I appreciate the opportunity to read and offer comments on Mr. Joe Silver's manuscript about Noah's Ark. His research and findings seem quite extensive and well-founded. My profession involves my reviewing acceptability and workability of marine designs developed by my firm as well as others and submission to various regulatory agencies for approval. In this case, I am reviewing the design of a vessel developed by G-d; Who even supercedes the demands of the United States Coast Guard. My concern in reviewing this manuscript was if I found a design flaw, who is at fault?

The vessel's size, according to Mr. Silver, is 627' long X 104'-6" wide (beam) X 62'- 8 3/8" overall depth at the side. (On page 100, he calculates the depth at 62.07' which is actually 62.70 ft.) The second deck is 20'-10 7/8" above the lowest deck, the third deck 20'-10 7/8" above the second and the "roof" 20'-10 7/8" above the third deck with a one cubit (2'-1") crown. Based on Mr. Silver's structural arrangement given on page 113, the 'tween deck height between the hold and the second deck is about 16'- 4 3/4"; the 'tween deck height between the second and third decks is about 16'-10 7/8" and the 'tween deck height between the third deck and the roof is about 20'- 4 3/4" at the side.

This size makes it one of the larger vessels ever built. The new "VOYAGER OF THE SEAS" was buiit by Kvaerner-Masa Yards in Finland for Royal Caribbean is touted as the World's largest cruise ship. She is 1021' long (overall) X 156' beam X 70' depth (to the promenade deck). She has a 28' design draft and can carry 1180 crew and 3840 passengers. The new tanker "ARCO ENDEAVOUR" being built by Litton-Avondale for ARCO is 846' long X 152' beam X 83' depth with an operating draft of 58'.

We modeled (digitized) Noah's Ark using "HECSALV" software developed by Hebert Engineering Corp. of San Francisco. "HRCSALV" is used extensively by the U. S. Navy and Coast Guard in their engineering and salvage analyses. Figure 1 [left side] is the plot of the digitized plot of the Ark using "HECSALV."



FIGURE 1


Discovery Channel: "Biblical Technology"-Apr. 7 '04



Figure 2 [not shown] is a plot of the curves of form for the Ark, and Table 1 [not shown] is the hydrostatic tables.

The length to depth ratio of the "ARCO ENDEAVOUR" is 10.19:1; the "VOYAGER OF THE SEA" has a length-depth ratio of 14.58; the Ark has a length-depth ratio of 10.01. Mr. Silver addresses the hull strength of the Ark on page 104 by mentioning the cells' construction, so it appears that longitudinal strength is not a problem.

On page 103, Mr. Silver concedes that the entire roof area is made of a transparent material. This would indicate that the uppermost deck (the "roof") is not a structural member contributing to the longitudinal hull girder strength of the vessel. On page 113, he calculates the "roof" weight of wood at 6" thick which, presumably, accounts for the transparent material. Considering this, the hull depth of the Ark for structural considerations is only twenty cubits (41'- 9 5/8") which calculates to a length-depth ratio of 15:1 which is still acceptable.

As an aside, the American Bureau of Shipping "Rule of Thumb" for ocean-going deck barges is that they should have a length-depth ratio of 15:1 or larger. The Ark can be considered a barge and, therefore, is in compliance with one of the world's foremost regulatory bodies.

With the uniform hydrostatic loading of the Ark and the fact that the "cargo" (the animals) are confined to areas that distribute their load evenly, longitudinal strength is not considered to be a great factor in the design. But, again, the Designer must have transmitted the structural design to Noah and I am not one to question His specifications.

Page 101 of Mr. Silver's manuscript states that the Ark was made of Cypress Wood and weighed (light ship) 14,150.66 long tons (2240 lb/LT). His weight estimate seems to be reasonable as he not only includes the weight of the sides, ends and bottom but internal decks, the roof, bulkheads and longitudinal walls. This internal framing (bulkheads arid longitudinal walls) would contribute to the overall hull girder strength of the Ark.

Table 2 [not shown] is the General & Lightship Data for the Ark. The vertical center of gravity of the Ark (centroid of all vertical weights) is assumed to be approximately 50% of the overall depth of the Ark, a conservative estimate. The longitudinal center of gravity (centroid of all longitudinal weights) is assumed to be at the half-length of the Ark (amidships) due to the Ark's symmetry. Draft Mark locations were included by the software and do not have a bearing on the analysis. Table 3 [not shown] is the Trim & Stability Summary for the Ark in the light ship condition. The Ark has a light ship draft of about 7'- 8 1/2".

I will use Mr. Silver's estimates for the weights of animals, food, soil, waste and humans on the Ark. However, on day 1, there would be 100% food and crops and practically no waste; on the last day, there would be somewhat less food, but 100% waste. This is true, of course, unless the waste was discharged overboard which would involve a large human effort and an exemption from Coast Guard regulations on discharge of sewage at sea. But, for our conservative estimates, we will analyze the Ark with Mr. Silver's weights.

Table 4 [not shown] is the Miscellaneous Items Data giving the weights and centers of gravity for all of the "cargo." All items are assumed to be distributed over the entire length of the Ark. The animals are located on the second deck; the soil, food (crops) and human contingent on the third deck; and the waste in the hold. The vertical centers of gravity of the animals and humans are assumed at 5'-0" above the deck where located. Table 5 [not shown] is the Trim & Stability Summary for the Ark loaded per Table 4 with 18,000 animals. This indicates a loaded draft of about 17'-0" and a GMt value of 36.694 ft.

Table 6 [not shown] is the Trim & Stability Summary for the Ark loaded with 36,000 animals. The Ark has a draft of about 20'-6" which makes the waterline slightly above the second deck and a GMt value of 29.378 ft.. According to Mr. Silver's sketches, the opening for the loading door is in the side of the Ark at the level of the second deck. As he states on Page 104, the ramp was "pitched" when it was closed making the hull watertight in this area.

GMt is a calculated value of the transverse stability of a marine vessel. The lower the GMt, the less stable a vessel is and, conversely, the larger the GMt, the more stable. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 46 (Shipping) Part 171, Subpart C is the regulations for stability for large vessels carrying more than 150 passengers. Assuming that 18,000 (or 36,000) animals would constitute passengers, this will be the criteria used to evaluate the fully-loaded Ark. Paragraph 171.060 gives intact stability requirements for a mechanically propelled or a nonself-propelled vessels: The formula is

GM = Nb/[(K)(W)(tan(T)]

Where:

N = Number of passengers
b = distance in feet from the centerline of the vessel to the geometric center of the passenger deck on one side of the centerline.
K = 24 passengers per long ton
W = displacement of the vessel in long tons
T = 14 degrees or the angle of heel at which the deck is first immersed whichever is less.

N/K is equal to the weight of passengers.
b = is assumed to be Beam/6

For the Ark, GM (req'd) = [(6428.57)(17.417)]/[(31185.39)(0.249)] = 14.42 ft.

GM (actual) = 36.694 ft.

Increasing the animals to 36,000 increases the Ark's draft and lowers the GMt (Table 6 - Not shown). Applying the same criteria in this condition:

GM (req'd) = [(12857. 14)(17.417)]/[(37613.96)(0.249)] = 23.91 ft.

GM (actual) = 29.378 ft.

The actual GMt in both cases exceeds that required and, therefore, the stability of the Ark is acceptable.

The Coast Guard also dictates survivability criteria for passenger vessels. Location of watertight bulkheads, quantities and types of damage and resultant minimum drafts and stability have to be evaluated. The Ark has transverse bulkheads as described by Mr. Silver on page 113 and as shown on pages 106 and 107. He makes no mention if these are only structural or if they are watertight. From his description of the feed, air and gas shafts, one can assume that the bulkheads are non-tight as well as the two decks. Therefore, it is my opinion that the Ark had no watertight integrity and, if damaged, would have sunk. However, in the operating environment at that time for the Ark, I would imagine there were very few obstructions and other vessels that could cause damage.

Therefore, from the information supplied, it is my opinion that the Ark is structurally sound, and has sufficient stability and buoyancy for the cargo carried. Water-tight integrity is not present, but is not required. But, it was G-d's design (Contract Plans and Specifications) so I'm sure He incorporated all of the required design features in the vessel.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript and offer our comments. If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to call.

Sincerely,

SHEARER & ASSOC. INC

President



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess that all depends on which God you're talking about.

Obviously the God described in the Bible had a lot of things he couldn't do.

He can't forgive sins without first receiving a blood sacrifice.

He can't look upon sin! Which raises the question of how he would know when people are sinning if he can't watch?

The very crude method of using a messy flood to destroy a sinning civilization suggests that he was limited in what he can do.

If with God all things are possible then why just just flick his magic wand and make all the sinners magically disappear?

Poof! Their gone.

He could have even commanded Noah and his family to raise the innocent children that were left behind.

Instead of having them build a stupid ark he could have had them build a school to properly raise the innocent children that had survived his magic wand that made the evil people disappear.

I should have written the bible!

I could have come up with more constructive and more positive stories that those Mediterranean mythologists made up.

With fantasy authors, anything is possible.

Are we to understand that they had Tigons and Ligers on board the Ark also? What about large aquatic animals? Or did god just intend on drowning the fishes? What about dinosaurs? Were they on board? Raptors and so forth? That was bound to be trouble.

With god all things are possible I guess.

Sure he could of done those things. But he chose to teach other generations. If they will listen.

Thier is prophecy relating to this about our time. It says "ever learning but never coming to the knowlege of the truth"

I in most cases do not believe in Blind Faith. We are Told to " Prove all things holding fast to that which is good"

We are told how to live and how to listen. In doing this knowlege is increased for the believer. Shalom...Miles

Do we see anything about any of those being around at the time of the arc? Shalom..Miles