prophet_5

I enjoy all of this debate on Noah's Ark. One question that everyone seems to overlook is that if God flooded the ENTIRE surface of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits for 40 days and 40 nights, where did the food come from to feed 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species of creature? And once the flood waters receeded, what did the animals eat, since that would've killed any plant life. Just as an example, how could 2 ants feed 2 anteaters?

deank

Christianity != Reality

Senlathiel

A far more interesting question: how did the plants survive? Last I checked, dunking a plant in a bathtube full of water for forty days killed it.

3DChizl

I'm no scientist, so does anyone know what that weight of water would have done to the earth? I figure that since it would have had to been as deep as the highest mountain, that that would be quite a lot of weight. Also would it cause problems with the rotation of the earth?

Secular Guru

Not to mention the amount of atmospheric pressure that would have been required to keep all that water up in the air until just the right time (when the Ark was finished?). Also, precipitation generates heat. Can't imagine the heat that would have been given off when that much rain fell.

NAPPYDUGGOUT

###I enjoy all of this debate on Noah's Ark. One question that everyone seems to overlook is that if God flooded the ENTIRE surface of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits for 40 days and 40 nights, where did the food come from to feed 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species of creature? And once the flood waters receeded, what did the animals eat, since that would've killed any plant life. Just as an example, how could 2 ants feed 2 anteaters? ###

You assume God had the ability to flood the entire earth(or at least the known world) but then question how he could possibly reproduce plant life?
If Im not mistaken, localized floods have proven the resiliency(resiliancey? resiglyancy? rigamatto? ) of plant life and vegitation, so in light of the much bigger issues I don't see this one as particularly troubling.
S/F
Mac

Megatron

The only way to justify the ark and accompanying story is with one big "goddidit"... period.

The scientific effects mentioned here and elsewhere have pretty much destroyed any other possibility.

Debate isn't even really necessary... either you believe in the impossible or you don't...

I, for one, scratch it up to Easter-bunny-ology: "When I see the Easter Bunny, I'll believe it."

botkin

One presumes that the 'world' that the writers of the OT is the same 'world' that is in our handy coffee table atlas. There are many other extra-biblical accounts of a massive flood; the epic of Gilgamesh and the Greeks have accounts as well.
To say that I've always had problems with the fact that there are over 1,000,000 species of insects, and not all of them are asexual! I do believe that the picture that the Precious Moments figurines paint of the flood story does a great injustice to the accuracy of the account. I don't think that zebras were on the ark, there were no zebras in Mesopotamia!
Please remember to try and understand the bible in its context and try and understand what the writers understood of the world, and maybe it won't taste like so much bile to you.

Botkin

ex-preacher

So are you trying to rescue the Noah's Ark story - that it really happened as the Bible claims, only on a local scale rather than a global? If so, the writers of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are against you. Of course they were writing from a human perspective. It's the only one that any human writes from. It doesn't taste like bile, just pure fiction.

botkin

How do you mean that the authors are against me? In the sense that they believed the entire world was flooded? They would be against me if I was under the presupposition that this was true!
Botkin