Ham-fisted animal husbandry

| 53 Comments

Gwen Pearson, an entomologist formerly known as Bug Girl, has performed sort of a retrospective analysis of the Ark Park‘s facilities for caring for its animals. You might have thought that the Ham-merheaded proprietors of the Ark Park would have performed a prospective analysis but evidently you would have been mistaken. Cheer up! Here is Dr. Pearson’s advice to the Ham-itic designers:

[Providing captive animals with the wherewithal to stay healthy] takes specialized knowledge. If you have raptors or game birds, they can get bumblefoot just from the wrong kind of perches. Feeding an imbalanced diet, or just not noticing a raptor is off its food, can tip a bird into a metabolic crash. Ducks can get a fatal type of herpes that spreads rapidly, despite our best efforts.

Since the junk bond issue brought the Ark Encounter back into the news again, I thought it might be interesting to call the Ark folks up and ask some questions about their animal care. Mr. [Mike] Zovath [Senior Vice President of Answers in Genesis, the entity that has the illusion that it is building an Ark] was kind enough to chat with me on the phone this week.

***

I asked Mr. Zovath about the diagrams currently on the Ark Encounter website which show plans for bears, sloths, koalas, deer, monkeys, bats, owls, and “possom” [sic], among other animals. His response was that the diagrams were from the initial conception of the park in 2010, and that they are marked as “layout subject to change.”

Just for the record, Ark Encounter, not Dr. Pearson, misspelled “opossum.” Dr. Pearson continues,

Very specific, science-based guidelines on how to house captive animals exist. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), an international body of scientists and experts in animal care, has published their AZA Accreditation standards for 2014 (92 page PDF). AZA Accreditation is the gold standard for zoos; it’s not something all zoos can achieve. However, most reputable zoos do try to incorporate AZA Standards where and when they can. For many captive animal species there are very clear exhibit design guidelines about shelter, water, space, and behavioral enrichment.

As an example, let’s look at a skunk or a weasel, a likely small mammal candidate species for the Ark. [No Ham-sters?] The AZA Mustelid Handbook suggests 29 square meters (34.7 square yards) as a minimum exhibit size. Go back and look at that diagram above, or one of the ark schematics I’ve linked to. Nope.

Oh, well. Back to the drawing board!

_______

Acknowledgment. Thanks to Gaythia Weis and Dan Phelps, both of whom referred me to this splendid article.

53 Comments

Perhaps Ham will use stuffed animals or animatrons in the park, thus alleviating the issues of caring for the animals, and use audio tapes of animal sounds to thrill the overwhelming crowds. However, he’d be skirting the issue as Noah supposedly cared for all his animals for a year, all cooped up in the dark, smelly, waste-laden Ark.

Well if these guys make an entire career out of ignorance, is it really that surprising that they would be completely ignorant of the requirements for housing animals? Too bad that they probably won’t ever get the money to open up, only to be shut down for improper care of animals. Kinda makes you wonder how Noah did it for even forty days doesn’t it? Good thing for him there were no regulatory agencies that had to approve the project. Oh well, as long as you aren’t going to build an actual floating ark, I guess the point is pretty much made anyway.

It took just eight people to take care of two or more of every “kind” in the world, on a boat no less. However you count “kinds,” it’s a lot.

So, since Ham’s celebration of watery genocide is planned only to have a few representatives, how much trouble could it really be?

Joking? I’d be surprised if such nonsense were not a part of their too-much ignoring of the considerable task of properly caring for even a few non-domesticated animals.

Glen Davidson

If they put animals in there, then I hope many and various entities sue them for animal cruelty.

Of course, everyone knows that this park is doomed. There’s no chance it will be built and the money will mysteriously vanish into the coffers of the Ham.

If they put animals in there, then I hope many and various entities sue them for animal cruelty.

You said it. Drowning would be kinder to the animals.

I still say making 8 members of the executive board live on the boat for a year would be fun. Let’s see them do what Noah did. I bet they wouldn’t last… even without the animals.

Karen S. said:

If they put animals in there, then I hope many and various entities sue them for animal cruelty.

You said it. Drowning would be kinder to the animals.

Imagine simulating the more “realistic” scenario in which the entire replica is placed on huge hydraulic cylinders that roll, pitch, and yaw the structure for 40 days and nights at a time.

Then add to all this the energy dump from the rains at something like 1.6 x 108 watts per square meter, or approximately 40 kilotons of TNT going off every second for every square meter of the Earth’s surface.

The genuine “Ark Experience” actually simulated would kill everything in the Ark Park and for miles around.

And you would still have to pay for a damned ticket to get in.

Imagine simulating the more “realistic” scenario in which the entire replica is placed on huge hydraulic cylinders that roll, pitch, and yaw the structure for 40 days and nights at a time.

You could have frightened animatronics animals crapping, pissing, barfing, mating and (of course) eating each other. And 8 animatroncs people running around with carts to remove all the crap and dead animals.

The Gilgamesh Epic reports in Book 11 that the Ark was square “so that its length equals its width.” The sides were 200 feet high, with 6 decks and 9 compartments per deck, according to the Stephen Mitchell translation.

Gilgamesh dates from 2100 BC. The biblical Ark was supposed to be 300 cubits long, 50 wide, and 30 high. The biblical Ark was at first glance more seaworthy, although we have discussed at length on PT how one cannot scale the dimensions of a canoe up to a huge Ark. At least it would slide through the water better than a square would.

Suppose we assume that the Noah story was derived from Gilgamesh (a common scholarly idea). Somebody - in the Bronze or Iron Age - recognized that Utnapishtim’s boat was not a very good boat, but was more of a raft. That person, having some knowledge of small boats, attempted to fix the story. The logistics still don’t even come close to working out, but at least somebody tried to apply what little naval “science” they knew in re-crafting the narrative.

Who?

To paraphrase Portal, “the Ark is a lie.”

There will be no Ark Park. It’s all a scam. Old Hambo keeps raising more money and more money and all they have to show for it are some sketchy (!) drawings and a bunch of waffle. Hambo has already raised about $14 MILLION. Where is that money? Oh, yeah, “overhead.” Now, they’ve floated a $62 MILLION junk bond offering through the City of Williamstown (who should be investigated for fraud), bonds that are unrated and have no hope of return and are not backed. What kind of town is Williamstown to issue such bonds?

Hambo is simply lining his pockets but, hey, he’s fleecing the flock so why do I care? Let him gut the gullible. However, the fact that the State of Kentucky and the City of Williamstown are involved in this fraud is disturbing. I smell politicians lining their pockets, too.

BTW, for all of you who’ve been unable to fall asleep at night wondering what Noah’s wife’s name was, I found out after doing endless seconds of research.

She was named “Joan of Ark.”

Doc Bill said:

I smell politicians lining their pockets, too.

Given his record of obstructionism in the US Senate, I have to wonder what Mitch McConnell knows about all of this.

So can we conclude from all of this that Ham isn’t Kosher?

Carl Drews said:

The biblical Ark was at first glance more seaworthy, although we have discussed at length on PT how one cannot scale the dimensions of a canoe up to a huge Ark. At least it would slide through the water better than a square would.

Utnapishtim’s boat was not a very good boat, but was more of a raft.

There is no indication that the Ark was steerable. If hit broadside by a wave it would have been less stable than a raft.

I recommend that people here click on the link above to visit Gwen Pearsons’ posting in Wired. Clicks are important, and you will be rewarded with an illustration of their planned animal housing ‘facility’. Just one picture shows it is a complete joke.

All this assumes that they raise enough money to get the project far enough to have one animal on display. Wandering rats and feral cats don’t count. If the number of animals on-site is zero, then they are likely to have little problem satisfying the captive animal requirements. They will instead be busy coping with their own investors.

DavidK said:

BTW, for all of you who’ve been unable to fall asleep at night wondering what Noah’s wife’s name was, I found out after doing endless seconds of research.

She was named “Joan of Ark.”

See the Wikipedia article Wives aboard Noah’s Ark

If the Ark is to be built according to the literal description in the Bible, it would be a large rectangular box. The meaning of “ark” is something like “chest”. There would be no prow or stern, no keel or rudder, no sails or oars. There would be no navigation instruments: no hourglass, sundial or chronometer; no astrolabe or sextant; no almanac or nautical charts are mentioned. Remember that we are told (on what authority, I don’t know) that the storm was violent enough to carve out the Grand Canyon, so there would be quite some stress.

This eventual petting zoo is of course just the ‘A’ Ark. Next they need to build the ‘B’ Ark for themselves…

Well, if all those dwarfs and a hobbit can escape in barrels, why wouldn’t an ark work?

TomS said: If the Ark is to be built according to the literal description in the Bible, it would be a large rectangular box. The meaning of “ark” is something like “chest”. There would be no prow or stern, no keel or rudder, no sails or oars.

Can you provide a source for your translation of tebath? My understanding is that the word occurs only in this context and to describe the vessel which floated Moses down the river. And that while ‘ark’ is used in English to deliberately link it with the Ark of the Covenant (which would mean something like ‘chest’), here the best translation of tebath would be no more than ‘vessel’.

Anyway, your source please. Because I presume you do believe that some expertise is required before offering definitive statements on the literature of antiquity.

fnxtr said:

This eventual petting zoo is of course just the ‘A’ Ark. Next they need to build the ‘B’ Ark for themselves…

Cue Mr. Burns: “Excellent!”

Yes, old Hambo would be a great candidate for the “B” Ark, along with the entire Disco Tute and all their jolly good fellows. I think we should name the Ark the United Federation Starship Hambo. It would be a Bozon Class frigate and the first starship ever built with no navigation. Based on the Kodak Instamatic, the UFS Hambo would be simply “point and shoot.”

Brilliant, fnxtr, I am on board with your idea.

Doc Bill said: Yes, old Hambo would be a great candidate for the “B” Ark, along with the entire Disco Tute and all their jolly good fellows. I think we should name the Ark the United Federation Starship Hambo.

Hmmm.. might just work.

After all, the “Ark B” plan worked wonders for the Golgafrincham.

Then again, is it really fair to subject an unsuspecting, unprepared, universe to the likes of a spaceship full of UD luminaries and the odd Byers or two?

After all, that may be, with some justification, perceived as an act of intergalactic war.

stevaroni said:

Then again, is it really fair to subject an unsuspecting, unprepared, universe to the likes of a spaceship full of UD luminaries and the odd Byers or two?

Given the etymology of the word “luminary”, wouldn’t “UD luminary” be an oxymoron?

A better appellation might be “UD obscurantist.”

Thus, a more “poetic” strategy would be to aim the B-Ark at a black hole.

stevaroni said:

Doc Bill said: Yes, old Hambo would be a great candidate for the “B” Ark, along with the entire Disco Tute and all their jolly good fellows. I think we should name the Ark the United Federation Starship Hambo.

Hmmm.. might just work.

After all, the “Ark B” plan worked wonders for the Golgafrincham.

Then again, is it really fair to subject an unsuspecting, unprepared, universe to the likes of a spaceship full of UD luminaries and the odd Byers or two?

After all, that may be, with some justification, perceived as an act of intergalactic war.

Actually, I was thinking about sending the B Ark directly into the Space Goat, er, Sun.

My bad.

eddie said:

TomS said: If the Ark is to be built according to the literal description in the Bible, it would be a large rectangular box. The meaning of “ark” is something like “chest”. There would be no prow or stern, no keel or rudder, no sails or oars.

Can you provide a source for your translation of tebath? My understanding is that the word occurs only in this context and to describe the vessel which floated Moses down the river. And that while ‘ark’ is used in English to deliberately link it with the Ark of the Covenant (which would mean something like ‘chest’), here the best translation of tebath would be no more than ‘vessel’.

Anyway, your source please. Because I presume you do believe that some expertise is required before offering definitive statements on the literature of antiquity.

I think that you provide your own answer when you note that Moses was in an ark, also. Unless you think that that story was about a boat built for Moses, something that could be steered or propelled (by whom?), rather than something whose only function was to keep him safe. I can’t imagine calling something which had no prow or stern or keel or other means of orienting it, no rudder or oars or sails or other means of propulsion a “boat”

And that’s all that Noah’s Ark did. There is no indication that it functioned any different from a big box.

Oh, BTW, I just checked the early Septuagint Greek translation of Genesis. It uses the word kibo:tos for Noah’s Ark, for which Liddel and Scott’s Greek dictionary gives the meanings box, chest, coffer. Apparently, somebody back then thought that was a good translation.

TomS said:

Oh, BTW, I just checked the early Septuagint Greek translation of Genesis. It uses the word kibo:tos for Noah’s Ark, for which Liddel and Scott’s Greek dictionary gives the meanings box, chest, coffer. Apparently, somebody back then thought that was a good translation.

My last comment on this (because the debate isn’t worth having here, but should be reserved for people who really care; which probably isn’t either you or me).

Turns out I was wrong thinking that it was the English which first linked Noah with the Ark of the Covenant. The Septuagint translators were the ones who did so by making both kibotos. But only at the expense of violating the Hebrew text which made no such link there, instead linking Noah’s Ark with Moses’ vessel.

There is probably an interesting story to be told about the shift in thinking between the redaction of Genesis and it’s translation into Greek. But not one I can be bothered looking into right now.

So… I was mostly right. And partly wrong. We’ll call it a draw.

I did a bit more research, and found that it is generally thought that the Hebrew word is a borrowing from an Egyptian word, but it is not agreed which Egyptian word. In any case the Egyptian word refers to a container of some kind, not a boat. On the other hand, I agree that in the Hebrew that Noah’s Ark and Moses’s ark are referred to by the same word, and that there is no connection with the word for the Ark of the Covenant.

Ha, fun reading the actual article, I like this quoted in it: “Animals including giraffes — but only small, young giraffes — will be kept in pens on board. ‘We think that God would probably have sent healthy juvenile-sized animals that weren’t fully grown yet, so there would be plenty of room,’”

So what, they’re gonna house juvenile animals in it, and then what, they’re not gonna grow up? Well actually not, considering how awful the planned accommodations would be, I’m sure most would not live to see adulthood. This is such a ridiculous, fraudulent scam.

This is a lovely example of translator’s woe. People think that translation consists of finding the word that means the exact same as the word in the original. Sad truth: with most words, there is no exact equivalent.

The Q’uran may only be quoted - for scholarly purposes, among Islamic scholars - in the original. Any translation is invalid. They’re right, of course, and also horribly wrong. Even in the original seventh-century Arabic, it still doesn’t mean exactly the same to its current readers as it meant then. And that goes in spades, a hundred times over, for the Old Testament.

I listen to the baroque orchestra of the eighteenth century playing Bach, and applaud the attempt. The instruments are built with the greatest possible care to be exactly the same as those available then. The performers, with the most tremendous application and precision, duplicate the techniques and playing styles of the period. I have no doubt that the sound they produce is very close, if not absolutely identical, to the sound of an early eighteenth-century chamber orchestra. But it doesn’t have the effect on me that it would have had on an eighteenth century listener - because I am not one.

Translation is like that.

But when it comes to what the Hebrew word translated “ark” means, well, what are we to do? We call a seagoing ship a “vessel”. We also call a bucket a “vessel”. What does that mean? It means a supertanker. It also means a waterpot.

Something like the same thing is going on there. “Ark” means what it meant to an ancient Hebrew. But what was that?

daoudmbo said: ‘We think that God would probably have sent healthy juvenile-sized animals that weren’t fully grown yet, so there would be plenty of room,’”

The Bible says that the animals were taken as pairs, “the male and his mate”. Juveniles do not have mates.

And, as we all know, juvenile mammals eat a lot and grow a lot.

Probably no one cares, but isn’t the reason even viking used curved hulls is because they were more water tight than square boxes? Same reason for the rounded water barrels.

Surely even the fishing vessels of the time had rounded hulls for the same reason.

But Noah’s Ark was supposed to be a box, which is basically the worst of all possible worlds. A box has the lowest volume per material used. It’s much more difficult to keep water tight. And it’s much, much worse in rough weather.

TomS said:

eddie said:

TomS said: If the Ark is to be built according to the literal description in the Bible, it would be a large rectangular box. The meaning of “ark” is something like “chest”. There would be no prow or stern, no keel or rudder, no sails or oars.

Can you provide a source for your translation of tebath? My understanding is that the word occurs only in this context and to describe the vessel which floated Moses down the river. And that while ‘ark’ is used in English to deliberately link it with the Ark of the Covenant (which would mean something like ‘chest’), here the best translation of tebath would be no more than ‘vessel’.

Anyway, your source please. Because I presume you do believe that some expertise is required before offering definitive statements on the literature of antiquity.

I think that you provide your own answer when you note that Moses was in an ark, also. Unless you think that that story was about a boat built for Moses, something that could be steered or propelled (by whom?), rather than something whose only function was to keep him safe. I can’t imagine calling something which had no prow or stern or keel or other means of orienting it, no rudder or oars or sails or other means of propulsion a “boat”

And that’s all that Noah’s Ark did. There is no indication that it functioned any different from a big box.

Uh, there’s no indication that it functioned at all!

ogremk5 said:

But Noah’s Ark was supposed to be a box, which is basically the worst of all possible worlds. A box has the lowest volume per material used. It’s much more difficult to keep water tight. And it’s much, much worse in rough weather.

That was the best “design” the deity (intelligent designer?) could conjure up.

Ha, fun reading the actual article, I like this quoted in it: “Animals including giraffes — but only small, young giraffes — will be kept in pens on board. ‘We think that God would probably have sent healthy juvenile-sized animals that weren’t fully grown yet, so there would be plenty of room,’”

Well, couldn’t they induce dwarfism with magic?

Karen S. said:

Ha, fun reading the actual article, I like this quoted in it: “Animals including giraffes — but only small, young giraffes — will be kept in pens on board. ‘We think that God would probably have sent healthy juvenile-sized animals that weren’t fully grown yet, so there would be plenty of room,’”

Well, couldn’t they induce dwarfism with magic?

Freeze dry them and keep them packaged and dry in the ark as it is battered by energy rates of 40 kilotons of TNT per second per square meter.

Then add water later.

ogremk5 said:

Probably no one cares, but isn’t the reason even viking used curved hulls is because they were more water tight than square boxes? Same reason for the rounded water barrels.

Surely even the fishing vessels of the time had rounded hulls for the same reason.

But Noah’s Ark was supposed to be a box, which is basically the worst of all possible worlds. A box has the lowest volume per material used. It’s much more difficult to keep water tight. And it’s much, much worse in rough weather.

So Noah built a box, with a roof and multiple floors and (implied by Genesis) doors and windows. (And storerooms for food.) It sounds rather more like a barn than a ship.

So perhaps Noah built a barn on high ground, and drove his stock into it when it looked like rain was on the way. So he was nice and snug when the once-in-a-thousand-years flood washed away the neighbours.

The floating around would just be later tweaks to the story ready for Darryl F Zannuck’s screenplay.

Freeze dry them and keep them packaged and dry in the ark as it is battered by energy rates of 40 kilotons of TNT per second per square meter. Then add water later.

Well, according to the Official Noah Movie Site, Noah’s daughter is a witch! So magic is a real possibility.

I see a couple of references in the comments to forty days as the time the ark was at sea. I was taught that it was forty days and nights that it rained and the ark was at sea for about one year. There are real problems with trying to come up with a solid number. There’s too much to quote so I’ll paste the RW link here. Global Flood Chronology.

The claim that animals were brought aboard in pairs also has problems. I’ll directly quote RationalWiki here …

Number of animals contradiction

In Genesis 6, God tells Noah to bring two of all living creatures including (as is logical) several of all birds. The King James translation makes it slightly more flowery, but the meaning “two of each” is still clear.

“You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.” —Genesis 6:19-20[1]

In the next chapter, Genesis 7, God directly contradicts himself. Instead of two of every animal, male and female, God tells Noah to bring seven of every clean animal - although this is also read by many as seven pairs. How can one bring seven of some animals if he is already only bringing two of all animals? Genesis 7 also contradicts God’s statement in the previous book by stating that instead of two of all birds, seven of all birds were to be brought.

“Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.” —Genesis 7:2-3

linky

I don’t expect any of our usual suspects to show up here trying to sort this mess out for us. The more you attempt to apply apologetics to it the worse it gets.

I see a couple of references in the comments to forty days as the time the ark was at sea. I was taught that it was forty days and nights that it rained and the ark was at sea for about one year. There are real problems with trying to come up with a solid number.

I read that there were 2 different traditions fused together into one story. Hence the discrepancies. I think that’s a good explanation

I read that there were 2 different traditions fused together into one story. Hence the discrepancies.

Back in 2000, I analyzed the Noah story here. I noted that Genesis is a weaving of 2 disparate stories: in the J document, God is known as Adonai, and in the E (or P) document, God is known as Elohim. After quoting the relevant passages, with my glosses, I summed up:

Elohim tells Noah to take two of each kind into the ark. Then, Adonai says take seven pairs of each “clean” animal. Next, the P document tells us, almost as if P had been eavesdropping on J, that no, Noah has taken two of each kind, whether clean or not, as Elohim has commanded him. Finally, the P document repeats that Noah has taken two of all flesh into the ark. In short, there are two contradictory statements: Noah took two of each kind into the ark, and Noah took seven.

What about the term “clean”? It is taken to mean fit for sacrifice. Domestic animals are fit for sacrifice, whereas predators and animals that have wounds of any kind are not. The stricture against wounded animals means, in effect, that animals that have been hunted or trapped are necessarily unclean. The traditional explanation of these passages is that Noah was instructed to bring aboard seven pairs of each kind that was fit for sacrifice and two of all others. Presumably he did so in order to ensure that there would be enough clean animals to sacrifice ([Anglican Bishop John Shelby] Spong thinks, therefore, that this passage was altered by the Priests). Why then does 7:3 say, “of the birds of the sky also, seven pairs”? The birds of the sky, whether predators or not, will almost certainly have to be shot or trapped and will therefore be wounded if they are available for sacrifice. That is, the birds of the sky can never be fit for sacrifice, so one pair would have sufficed.

Nothing new here, but as Spong says, it is a pity that more people do not understand the Bible for what it is.

Karen S. said: I read that there were 2 different traditions fused together into one story. Hence the discrepancies. I think that’s a good explanation

It is certainly the explanation that scholars have generally accepted for over a century now. The varying numbers in the account of the Flood are not the only evidence for actually collated traditions in Genesis, or the Pentateuch generally. There are also the divergences between Genesis 1 and 2, the parallel passages with different wording and changes to vocabulary, and the changing style and thematic content - clearly discernable in different sections.

The “documentary hypothesis” is, in my opinion, on firm ground there. Clearly, one person didn’t write the whole of it, and the authors are in fact anonymous. But the hypothesis seeks to assign specific sections of the Pentateuch to particular authors, designated as “J”, “E” and “P” (for Yahwist, Elohist and Priestly, respectively) and even to date these contributions. I speak only for myself, but I think this goes beyond the very slight evidence available, and I regard it as conjectural, even though I think the evidence is sufficient for the conclusion that there were a number of contributors, and their material was collated and redacted later.

Nothing new here, but as Spong says, it is a pity that more people do not understand the Bible for what it is.

The opinions of the people who wrote it?

There’s also another aspect to all these animals on board the Ark being cooped up for a year’s time, including Noah, his wife, and his kin. They all, including the animals (well all, including the humans were animals of some sort) had to have abstained from sex for a year, or at least for one gestation cycle, else they would have increased the population of the Ark beyond its carrying capacity. Perhaps Noah held abstinence classes for everyone and he himself bit the bullet?

There’s also another aspect to all these animals on board the Ark being cooped up for a year’s time, including Noah, his wife, and his kin. They all, including the animals (well all, including the humans were animals of some sort) had to have abstained from sex for a year, or at least for one gestation cycle, else they would have increased the population of the Ark beyond its carrying capacity. Perhaps Noah held abstinence classes for everyone and he himself bit the bullet?

If this Ark is rocking Don’t bother knocking!

I’m sure the bonobos were not very good students in the abstinence class.

Dave Luckett said:

Karen S. said: I read that there were 2 different traditions fused together into one story. Hence the discrepancies. I think that’s a good explanation

The “documentary hypothesis” is, in my opinion, on firm ground there. Clearly, one person didn’t write the whole of it, and the authors are in fact anonymous. But the hypothesis seeks to assign specific sections of the Pentateuch to particular authors, designated as “J”, “E” and “P” (for Yahwist, Elohist and Priestly, respectively) and even to date these contributions. I speak only for myself, but I think this goes beyond the very slight evidence available, and I regard it as conjectural, even though I think the evidence is sufficient for the conclusion that there were a number of contributors, and their material was collated and redacted later.

I agree. Richard Friedman (The Bible With Sources Revealed, 2003) states on page 10 that the source (J/E/P) is based on the usage of the names “Elohim” or “YHWH” for God. But the name YHWH was revealed to the generation of Moses, which occurs in the first chapters of Exodus. So I think the “name usage” test is valid only within Genesis.

Most readers of Genesis can see that something different develops at Genesis 12 with the story of Abraham: more detail, recognized toponyms, realistic lifetime progression, etc. The sensible conclusion is that Genesis 1-11 (including the flood) is a retelling of earlier traditions in the Hebrew voice and theology.

I don’t dispute that there are different sources that contributed to the Pentateuch and to the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings). I do agree with Dave that the dating of the sources, and the assignment of individual verses, is conjectural.

TomS said:

daoudmbo said: ‘We think that God would probably have sent healthy juvenile-sized animals that weren’t fully grown yet, so there would be plenty of room,’”

The Bible says that the animals were taken as pairs, “the male and his mate”. Juveniles do not have mates.

And, as we all know, juvenile mammals eat a lot and grow a lot.

And require intense amounts of care from their parents and or surrogate parents.

Somehow, I don’t think a staff of eight people, no matter how magically well-endowed by God, could possibly care for the young of all “kinds” of mammals in addition to the young of all “kinds” of dinosaurs in a year.

Especially since Creationists who insist that this was the case refuse to explain how it could be done beyond some halfassed armchair musings.

apokryltaros said:

TomS said:

daoudmbo said: ‘We think that God would probably have sent healthy juvenile-sized animals that weren’t fully grown yet, so there would be plenty of room,’”

The Bible says that the animals were taken as pairs, “the male and his mate”. Juveniles do not have mates.

And, as we all know, juvenile mammals eat a lot and grow a lot.

And require intense amounts of care from their parents and or surrogate parents.

Somehow, I don’t think a staff of eight people, no matter how magically well-endowed by God, could possibly care for the young of all “kinds” of mammals in addition to the young of all “kinds” of dinosaurs in a year.

Especially since Creationists who insist that this was the case refuse to explain how it could be done beyond some halfassed armchair musings.

Ah! I just figured it out. (One of those halfassed musings.) It was that “magic” thing. First, like the Tardis, the inside of the Ark was larger than the outside, and all of the animals could easily have fit. It just expanded to accommodate more passengers. Second, if time passed more slowly in the Ark than outside it, then the 8 humans would not have needed to care for, or even remove the feces from all the animals. Everyone could have gone for 2 days of subjective time without needing a significant bio-break.

Problems solved! :-)

Well, not for Mr. Ham, though. :-(

Ah! I just figured it out. (One of those halfassed musings.) It was that “magic” thing.

Yes. Didn’t you see the trailer to the Noah movie I posted above? A Hogwarts witch plays Noah’s daughter. More magic than the Magic Kingdom.

apokryltaros said:

TomS said:

daoudmbo said: ‘We think that God would probably have sent healthy juvenile-sized animals that weren’t fully grown yet, so there would be plenty of room,’”

The Bible says that the animals were taken as pairs, “the male and his mate”. Juveniles do not have mates.

And, as we all know, juvenile mammals eat a lot and grow a lot.

And require intense amounts of care from their parents and or surrogate parents.

Somehow, I don’t think a staff of eight people, no matter how magically well-endowed by God, could possibly care for the young of all “kinds” of mammals in addition to the young of all “kinds” of dinosaurs in a year.

Especially since Creationists who insist that this was the case refuse to explain how it could be done beyond some halfassed armchair musings.

Just want to emphasize, because from people’s quoting it seems like that was my idiotic notion, certainly not! I was just pulling an amusing quote out of the original article.

Karen S. said:

Ah! I just figured it out. (One of those halfassed musings.) It was that “magic” thing.

Yes. Didn’t you see the trailer to the Noah movie I posted above? A Hogwarts witch plays Noah’s daughter. More magic than the Magic Kingdom.

Exactly. It was your post that inspired me. The trick was figuring out the optimum amount and kind of magic that would accomplish the deed with the minimum fuss. Simply decreasing the subjective time that the passengers have to spend on the Ark eliminates of all the problems of provisioning and waste treatment and eating and birthing and getting cabin fever and a host of other problems. Keeping even large animals cooped up in small cages for just a day or two becomes feasible. And making the inside larger than the outside eliminates all of the problems of how many animals can fit on board.

Simple!

Scott F said: …making the inside larger than the outside eliminates all of the problems of how many animals can fit on board.

And that’s really all you have to do when discussing Noah’s Ark with creationist ignorami - once you get them to admit that magic or miracles have to be involved to make it work, it’s game over: “We’re not talking about reality anymore, are we? It’s a fairy tale.”

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on December 7, 2013 10:10 AM.

NCSE’s second webinar: Lobbying policymakers to defend and improve science education was the previous entry in this blog.

Ice stalagmite is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter