How Much Space Would Noah's Ark Need for All the Animals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tribdog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of Noah's Ark accommodating two of every animal species, excluding aquatic life. Participants explore the implications of space requirements, food storage, and the logistics of animal preservation, alongside various interpretations of the biblical narrative.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether all animals could fit in the Ark, considering the space needed for food and waste management.
  • Others propose that the concept of "two of every animal" could be interpreted at different taxonomic levels, suggesting that fewer specimens might suffice.
  • A few participants introduce the idea of using frozen embryos as a more space-efficient alternative.
  • There is discussion about the distinction between clean and unclean animals, with some clarifying that the biblical account specifies different numbers for each type.
  • Some participants speculate about the role of evolution in explaining the diversity of animals today, suggesting that not all current species would have been present on the Ark.
  • Concerns about inbreeding among species if only two individuals were preserved are raised, with discussions on the implications of such genetic limitations.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the historical accuracy of the Ark narrative, suggesting it may have been exaggerated over time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the feasibility of the Ark's capacity, the interpretation of biblical texts, and the implications of animal breeding and evolution.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying interpretations of biblical texts, assumptions about species classification, and the speculative nature of evolutionary claims. The discussion also reflects differing views on the historical context of the Ark narrative.

tribdog
Messages
768
Reaction score
17
Say you are Noah and you have to put two of every animal into your ark. You don't have to worry about fish or aquatic mammals. How much space would you need on your ark. Even if you put the animals into a blender so that you could fill your ark with no empty spaces would they all fit into Noah's ark?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
I thought about that once before, many years ago. Granted, it was several decks tall and so many cubits this way and that, but more then just animals, food storage would take up a lot of space. Grains and foods for the carnivores, not to mention fresh water, would take up as much space as the animals. So my answer is no.
It was the poop factor alone that made me think, I would rather die then be saved on that Ark.
 
I'm surprised that this thread is still here. I expect it to go any minute now. Any deity that can cover the Earth including the highest mountains with water could make all those animals fit in a cookie box. What part of omnipotence don't you get.
 
If you started with the smallest animals (gathering two of every insect, worm, etc) and working your way up in size, I doubt that you'd even be able to jam a little mouse or shrew in there edge-wise. All the large animals would be abandoned to drown.
 
Well, technically all you need is frozen fertilized embryos...
 
tribdog said:
Say you are Noah and you have to put two of every animal into your ark. You don't have to worry about fish or aquatic mammals. How much space would you need on your ark. Even if you put the animals into a blender so that you could fill your ark with no empty spaces would they all fit into Noah's ark?
Of course they won't all fit.

That's why you can see some green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born
You're never going to see no unicorns
 
tribdog said:
Say you are Noah and you have to put two of every animal into your ark. You don't have to worry about fish or aquatic mammals. How much space would you need on your ark. Even if you put the animals into a blender so that you could fill your ark with no empty spaces would they all fit into Noah's ark?

What do you mean by 2 of every animal? Species level specimens? Genus? Family? Class? Order? Would Phylum level specimens do?

There's likely a point at which you can fit a minimum required specimen set in a small SUV.
 
It's only 2 of unclean animals, it's 7 of each kosher animals!
 
Or maybe he kept only a few small animals and the rest is evolution :biggrin:
 
  • #10
what does kosher mean? I know a little about it, but not the specifics. Once, when I worked at pillsbury we had a liquid nitrogen flash freezer. you put stuff on a conveyor belt and it came out the other side frozen. I had heard about making ice cream with liquid nitrogen so I asked if I could send some through and they said no because it would ruin their kosherness, even though none of my ice cream would have touched any part of the machine.
 
  • #11
mgb_phys said:
It's only 2 of unclean animals, it's 7 of each kosher animals!
That would be 14, not 7 and they were clean, but not necessarily kosher. Kosher was not a concept until Moses brought down the law.
 
  • #12
tribdog said:
what does kosher mean? I know a little about it, but not the specifics. Once, when I worked at pillsbury we had a liquid nitrogen flash freezer. you put stuff on a conveyor belt and it came out the other side frozen. I had heard about making ice cream with liquid nitrogen so I asked if I could send some through and they said no because it would ruin their kosherness, even though none of my ice cream would have touched any part of the machine.
The Bible identifies certain animals as taboo for eating by Jews. Most famously, pigs. Animals which can be eaten are Kosher, others are not. Only Jews are subject to this law, non-Jews who eat these animals are not diminished by doing so according to Judaism.

There is no prohibition against eating dairy products, but there is one against eating meat and dairy products at the same time. I doubt there was meat in the freezer at Pillsbury, but if there was, there would be an issue with running ice cream through. My guess is that the people who told you not to do it were not familiar with Kosher laws and were simply being extra careful because they didn't know.

The Bible does not specifically forbid eating meat and dairy together. What it says is that you must not boil a kid in the milk of its mother. By the 2nd century BC, many of the biblical laws were in need of interpretation and the Talmud was written for that purpose. When the rabbis got to the part about the kid, they had no clue what was meant by it. In a manner perhaps similar to what happened at Pillsbury, they decided that if they forbad the mixing of meat and dairy in general, that they would err on the side of safety.

There was a rival religion thriving among the Jewish people called Baalism. It involved two practices that made it an object of detestation to the Jewish religious leaders, temple prostitution, and human sacrifice. Less detestable, but still a problem were the idol worship and rival god. There are many passages in the Bible exhorting Jews to stay away from it with limited success. Modern archeology has apparently unearthed a temple devoted to this religion along with a wall carving depicting a kid being boiled in its mother's milk. So now we know what the Bible passage means, but it is too late. The Talmudic law obtains for observant Jews.
 
  • #13
so all the animals today are inbred? :S
 
  • #14
offtheleft said:
so all the animals today are inbred? :S
Yes. What's your theory?
 
  • #15
humanino said:
Or maybe he kept only a few small animals and the rest is evolution :biggrin:

That's always been my position. I probably shouldn't elaborate any more than that, or else I'd have to give myself an infraction for religious discussion.
 
  • #16
humanino said:
Or maybe he kept only a few small animals and the rest is evolution :biggrin:

It was all evolution.

Revert back to my "inbred theory." Or, look at the end of my post.


jimmysnyder said:
Yes. What's your theory?

Natural Selection.


:)


Lets hope I'm not totally out of the ball park! I never did believe in the Arc anyways. But, it is fun to talk about.
 
  • #17
My theory is, it was a minor flood and he gathered the animals in his vicinity. They just over exaggerated the massive flood because, it seemed big to them at the time. How could he travel the world in time to collect every animal?
 
  • #18
Nesiox said:
How could he travel the world in time to collect every animal?

How? Because it didn't happen. I'll throw my theory down tomorrow morning after my 8am class.
 
  • #19
offtheleft said:
Natural Selection.
so all the animals today are inbred? :S
 
  • #20
jimmysnyder said:
so all the animals today are inbred? :S


Yes. What's your theory?
 
  • #21
offtheleft said:
Yes. What's your theory?
Putting together posts number 13 and 20, my theory is that inbreading is a bad thing.
 
  • #22
jimmysnyder said:
Putting together posts number 13 and 20, my theory is that inbreading is a bad thing.

Yes! Now were getting somewhere.

If you have two of every species. Which, Is completely unrealistic for endless reasons, especially with the given circumstances. But, say you start to breed the species, the babies come. Who's next to breed? The parents, to keep from inbreeding? Eventually they won't be around. So, the spawn are left to breed. The only options I see are: Father & daughter, Mother & son. Which, is inbreeding? Or the siblings. Isn't that inbreeding?
 
  • #23
offtheleft said:
Yes! Now were getting somewhere.
If you start off with a single species. Which, Is completely unrealistic for endless reasons, especially with the given circumstances. But, say you start to breed the species, the babies come. Who's next to breed? The parents, to keep from inbreeding? Eventually they won't be around. So, the spawn are left to breed. The only options I see are: Father & daughter, Mother & son. Which, is inbreeding? Or the siblings. Isn't that inbreeding?
 

Similar threads

Writing: Input Wanted Are Clone Ships a Better Alternative for Space Colonization?
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Writing: Input Wanted Revisiting the Enzmann Starship Design: A Sixty-Year Perspective
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Which Dinosaurs Were Warm Blooded or Cold Blooded?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Evolution and preservation of endangered animals
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Why are mammals limited in color compared to other animals?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
What is the Evolutionary History of Tool Use in Different Animal Species?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Would Products Manufactured in U.S. be Safe from Carcinogens?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Animal Intelligence Distribution
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Time take to colonize the galaxy with interstellar arks
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Meat or No Meat? What's Your Take on Animal Treatment and Evolutionary Diets?
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K