www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=77/
and the author is Dr. Kent Hovind of the Creation Science Evangelism web site. I will be quoting from the article and trying my best to comment on it, but it will be hard for me because, as you all must know by now, I am a moron. A moron with an agenda. Note that the numbers in the quotes are from Hovind’s own list, so if you see a number missing, it’s because I did not quote that particular one. The arguments presented by Hovind are typically believed by most creationists. The author lists his own brief comments in a numbered list so I will start with the first quote from the author:
1. Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.
This means only that the Genesis myth about the flood is one of over 250 legends and nothing special about it. I’m not surprised there are so many flood myths and that they are similar (but different) since the source of these legends probably has something to do with the melting of the great ice sheets, and the catastrophic release of huge volumes of waters from numerous glacial lakes that happened from time to time as the waters breached the ice dams that were holding them back. Right here in Edmonton, we have a huge valley carved out and enlarged by the catastrophic drainage of Glacial Lake Edmonton through the valley now known as the Gwynne Outlet.
Again, from the author:
2. Noah’s ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a “barge” shape, not a pointed “boat” shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts, and sails to catch the wind. Noah’s ark needed neither of those and therefore had far less torsion related stress.
3. Even using the small 18-inch cubit (my height is 6-ft. 1-in. and I have a 21-in. cubit) the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals, people, and food with room to spare.
According to the text in the Bible, the ark was 450 feet long by 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. This is from Genesis 6:15 in the New International Version of the Bible. Now, ignoring attempts of Creationists to make the unit of measure (the cubit) larger by invoking a larger human body, and ignoring Creationist bickering about certain nuances of words changing from version to version of the Bible, that would give a total volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet. I will even assume the ark was just a big box, or a barge, that is, not streamlined like a ship, as the author suggests from point number two, above. This will give a much larger available volume than one would get from a streamlined ship.
Currently, there are about 1,500,000 terrestrial species on the planet, most of which are insects. The reference is very dated but is here:
- May, R. M. 1988. How many species are there on earth? Science 247: 1441-49
I obtained this reference from the net here:
www.ciesin.org/docs/002-253/002-253.html
Why am I quoting from an internet web page found in a quick Google search? I am doing this because it gives a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, because a reader can find it quickly, and because I do not have the time nor resources to go to a major library to find the original issue of Science this article appeared in, or to do a more thorough and scholarly search and review. But I would if I had to.
There are about 3000 terrestrial mammalian species not including bats and sea mammals, according to this same study. I am being extremely conservative in quoting these figures. That cage for each animal would be a cube about 8 feet on a side. But wait. There’s more! We have to divided that at least in half because there has to be two (male and female) of a species. So let’s shrink the available space per specimen to a cube just 6 feet on a side. But wait! There’s more! We have to have at least human access to these animals in order to not only let the animals walk aboard, but to allow the humans to walk down to maintain these animals. I won’t make a tiny 1 foot wide walkway for a porcupine because the walkway would have to allow a man through so let’s compromise on a two foot walkway. Heck, let’s be really generous and save ourselves a whole lot of messy calculations by assuming there was only ONE walkway down the length of the ship and Noah and his hardy crew were able to somehow throw the food to the animals over the tops of the intervening cages and that they were really good throwers. That would remove from the volume of the ship 5400 cubic feet if we allow a 2 foot by 6 foot by 450 foot hallway. Maybe we should also assume that the crew slept with the chickens and there were no stairs because they could just jump up and down into the hold. Let’s also assume there was no thickness to the supporting internal structural beams. Let’s also assume that the food supply required to maintain these animals was stored on board in a space of…what shall we say…how much hay can a elephant eat in one day? How about 250 pounds per day of the easiest thing to gather together which is grass? That would mean Noah would have to store 365,000 pounds of grass for the four elephants. (There are two species of elephant, if you ignore genetic data that shows there may be more). The density of dried grass (“hay”) is about 5 pounds per cubic foot, if it is chopped and baled:
Reference = http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/livestoc/as1282w.htm)
That means the volume of the needed hay for those four elephants (two of which we hope are pregnant!) would be 73,000 cubic feet. Should we now calculate how much food space the other plant eating animals like zebras, rhinos, bison,and so on would need? I don’t think we need to bother with that, because even if we assume that NO bedding was provided, it would be a heck of a lot more. If it was a case of …well…it’s awfully close, maybe it just could be possible, then I think it would be worth detailed calculations. What about the remaining space for the other 1,457,000 species? Can we assign a mere cubic inch per species for the really small insects and other critters, or would one cubic foot be more appropriate per species? Keep in mind that estimates (again from the above study in Science) could range in the 50 million species range, and that does not include the dinosaurs which the creationists claim were also on the Ark. I repeat: I have not even brought the thousands of dinosaur species into the equation.
I think we can end this discussion here and just say it was physically impossible to house all the world’s mammalian species in a volume the size of the ark even if you ignore the other estimated 5 to 50 million other terrestrial species. Creationists are forced to get around this difficulty by claiming that they were not species but “kinds” which means family or even class, and not species. Then the family “evolved” into all the various species today (but not in the Darwinian macro evolutionary sense). That is, Noah only took the “dog” kind (let’s assume “wolves”) which later diversified into all the types of wolves, foxes, and dogs in the world today. But this is just micro evolution and thus consistent with creation. Absolute rubbish if you ask a moron like me! Hmm…I wonder how he handled the “Tyrannosaurus Rex” and “Apatosaurus” kind? Oh yes, I think it was all about the eggs. Come to think of it I don’t recall how they all died out yet mammals lived according to the creationist viewpoint. I can’t wait to hear their convoluted story about that little problem!
Here is the author, Kent Hovind about the possibility of a bigger ark:
7. Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio. See Seminar tape #2 for more info on this.
I guess if the evidence does not fit, make up some evidence so that it does begin to fit. At this point I have to say that this is not science. This is pure unabashed wishful thinking. This is typical of the thinking processes of Creationists. In order to avoid admitting the truth at all costs they resort to fabrication, invention, and imaginative distortion with no basis whatsoever in the facts. One of the things about their “style” that really annoys me is that every last one of them is an expert in ancient Greek and biblical languages such that they all accuse one Biblical translation after another of giving the wrong sense to a translated word. They then proceed to give their adoring and largely clueless audience the REAL meaning or intent of the word, which somehow hundreds of scholars working for decades have somehow got wrong, but they got right. But that’s another story, another post. Let’s get back to Noah and the flood.
Here is Hovind’s reasoning on the number of species, or kinds:
8. God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind, which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The “kind” grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach. (They teach, “Kelp can turn into Kent,” given enough time!)
So it is claimed that all species and sub-species came from the “head of a family”. This would mean that most if not all the varieties of “dog” or “cat” would have had to have “diversified” from one unknown dog-like ancestor in a matter of a few years. Here, I admit I am speculating: If all foxes, dogs, wolves came from one pair of “wolves” they had to do it in miraculous time since many animals have been known in their modern forms for thousands of years. I mean, surely the Egyptians knew about leopards, cheetahs, and lions, not to mention house cats, no? And the Egyptian civilization started at least three to four thousand years ago. That would leave a very narrow time frame of a few hundred years for all this diversification to take place. This line of speculation from the Creationists is beyond my ken.
Here we have a couple more rationalizations:
9. Noah did not have to get the animals. God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20, “shall come to thee”).
10. Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, “in which is the breath of life,” 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.
In point 9, the Creationists seem overwhelmed by their increasingly impossible and indefensible positions when faced with the facts. As such, when faced with insurmountable difficulties, they have to resort to bringing in God to perform selective miracles. Having said that, it is true that it is written God would have these creatrures come to him. (Genesis 6:20) Is this science? I don’t think so. Every time a difficulty they can’t resolve comes up, (and there are so many) they have to say, well, God did a miracle here to make it so.
In point 10, in order to save space on the Ark, did Noah have to toss all the insects overboard? Or did God not really mean the distinction between “animal” and “creature”? As it is written, “…every kind of creature that moves along the ground…”, as opposed to “every kind of animal…” (Genesis 6:20). WTF? Now the Creationists are forced to come up with some way to evolve millions of insect species from what? A giraffe? Oh yah, “Dr.” Hovind says that plants are not alive, and neither are insects, according to the Biblical definition of life. The fact that both groups have DNA means diddly squat. I guess the insects spontaneously appeared afterward. Another miracle of God I guess.
11. Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.
12. All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.
I guess point 11 eliminates the requirement for large quantities of food. And point 12 eliminates the problem of what Noah had to feed the carnivores. There were none. I’m assuming that the carnivorous dentition of all carnivores “evolved” in a “diversified” manner from the peg teeth of vegetarians.
I can say too that Noah did not need to bring fresh water for the animals since it was raining all the time, and they could store some as the hay got eaten up, in anticipation of when the rain stopped after the 40 days. I can say that, the plants all came back because they grew from buried seed. What I can’t figure out is how a rare species of plant such as the silver sword, Argyroxyphium macrocephalum, (see the above reference in Science) although not numerically rare, is only found in one crater on one volcanic island. The same can be said of many other species not only plant but animal as well. Darwin noted this in his “Origin of Species”.
I think I have had enough of Noah and the flood story. I would not be so passionate about pointing out the flaws in thinking that the Creationists suffer from if I did not think they presented a clear and present danger. If left unchallenged, they will eventually destroy our civilization, and their leadership will quickly turn into tyranny and genocide. Not in our lifetimes, perhaps, but sooner than you think. If you think I am exaggerating, I am not. If they take the Bible so literally and are determined to be obedient to it, they will not only destroy science, burning science textbooks, but they will be stoning and burning at the stake you, your family, and your children. Because that is what it says to do to you in the Bible if you make any trouble. I’m not making this up.
There are constant challenges from creationists to remove science from the classroom and to replace it with creation rubbish. Lately their attacks have been more subtle, asking only that “scientific lies” be removed from the textbooks with no reference to adding creationism to the classroom. This is just a tactic to get their foot in the door. Once they remove the competition they will be in a position to replace it with intelligent design pseudoscience. They are masters at these sort of sneaky tactics, and they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Their main goal is to keep people as ignorant as possible and offer them illusory solutions to their everyday problems in the interests of the almighty dollar. This is a multibillion dollar industry my friends, make no mistake.
Let me add that I am presenting the worst of the worst to you in the form of creationist and fundamentalist philosophies. I have nothing against spirituality. Having faith in God and a loving father figure who cares for you every moment of every day can be a very powerful source of courage and hope for struggling peoples everywhere. It can be a powerful crutch to help you get back on your feet again. I support spiritual beliefs to the extent that they help people get along and to cope with life when times are tough. I don’t support them when they lead to oppression and tyranny.
Most of these people are sincere and well meaning, but they do not realize how damaging their beliefs are to our children, nor do they seem to realize where their lack of critical thought and their unquestioning obedience and reliance on authority will lead them. If I were to come to your house, or you to mine, and I were to begin teaching your children that God loves them unless you don’t do as he says – in which case after they die God will make sure they stay “alive” forever so that they can suffer by being burned in their flesh with hell fire for all eternity, would you think I was being abusive? Or would you laugh, and say, better listen to Pastor (insert name here), little Susie, or else you’re going to fry in hell while being tortured by demons for all time! But don’t worry, God loves you if you obey him and don’t sin. You’ll only go to hell if you are bad, or more specifically, if you don’t accept Jesus as the son of God whom God killed to save you from hell. This is psychological terrorism and leads to many emotional and psychological problems that will take years to recover from.
How many of you so-called Christians actually believe you love God for who the Bible claims he is? How many of you aren’t just hedging your bets to avoid a possible hell and so you convince yourself that you actually have chosen God merely on the basis of your free will and not because you have been threatened with eternal torture if you don’t? Be honest with yourself. Because if you aren’t, you can be sure as hell that you won’t fool God for a second. I’ll bet you dimes to donuts that most of you haven’t even thought about it. For that matter I bet most of you haven’t a clue what the Bible really says. I, for one, cannot bring myself to subjugate myself to a threat. I can however, be seduced by good. I can’t be intimidated by threats of force, or love someone based on fear. I’m not saying I wouldn’t be a sniveling little coward if it came down to being threatened with torture or death, no one does until the moment comes; I would probably do or say anything to avoid it. (I hope and imagine I will be very brave and stick to my principals, though). How can you love someone who you unconsciously fear can cast you into hell on a whim? Don’t choose God to avoid hell. Choose him because you love him.
Come on people. How can you possibly reconcile the two faces of God as he is depicted in the anthology of mythology you call the Bible? Clearly, the Bible does not represent the unaltered word of God. Do you want to find the character of God? How would you find the character of anyone you haven’t actually met? Why not start with a list of his supposed actions? Put the ones you think are cool on one side of the list, and the ones you think are bad on the other. If you were to meet someone who did similar things, what would you think about him? Prove to me that you wouldn’t end up with a list you might expect from observing a genocidal, homicidal, schizophrenic psychopathic serial killer who sometimes says nice things? I dare you to open your Bible and make such a list. Prove it to me. Prove your faith is based on love and not fear.
If you want to believe in God and that God will save you, then believe he is good. Believe he is perfect. Believe he has the ability to rehabilitate everything. Even believe that all the good things on the list you’ve just made are the truth and that Jesus loves you and that you are going to heaven, but don’t tell ME that God is a psychopathic despot because some tyrants with a political agenda inserted words into the Bible to place the blame for their crimes directly on the shoulders of the God you claim to love. Let me put it more bluntly: How DARE you blame God for the actions of a few evil men! And don’t tell me the evil genocide in the Bible is justified. It isn’t. What difference does it make if I rip open the bellies of a group of pregnant women if I say I am a righteous crusader for God, or if I say I do it because I am evil and it’s just for a laugh? The end result is that another person has butchered someone dead. What does it matter to the victim? It is the action, not the thought that counts, contrary to the popular saying that it’s the thought that counts. Sometimes it is the thought that counts, but it all depends on the circumstances. In order for God’s plan to be perfect, it means everyone and everything he created will eventually be reconciled to him. Anything less would be a failure on his part.
You really need to reexamine your faith.