Permalink			Rate: 5 4 3 2 1

Updated every weekday.         Please vote!    

2009-12-11 God explains to Noah how to fill the ark in Genesis 6:19-22. He needs a male and female of every kind of animal on Earth. Mammals, birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles... all of them. That's about 1.1 million species, far too many to fit on the ark. Also, mating pairs is a neat concept for Bronze Age folks, but centuries of zoological research shows us that several animals are asexual or hermaphroditic, and some, like ants and bees, need an entire colony to propagate. Even if Noah had all the animals in front of him, even trying to get a male and female is an surprisingly difficult task. While mammals tend to carry their genitalia on the outside of their bodies, this is not true for a large number of animals. Birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects often require experts to determine their sex. And how would Noah get all these animals? Two penguins and two polar bears would take a complete journey across the planet. Creationists argue that, since only 1,600 years have passed since creation, all of the animals on Earth are still pretty close to the garden, so gathering them is a snap. This requires that all animals lived together in the Middle East, along with all their food sources (i.e., all plants). That would be a very crowded place! As expected, no evidence has ever been discovered that even hints at this possibility. Creationist point to the flood washing all the evidence away; how convenient. As for the food, Noah would need to gather an excruciatingly large amount. The animals are going to be on the ark for around a year. Think about how how big of a stack would be made if you took all of the food you ate in a year and piled it together. Now picture how much it would take for an elephant. Animals eat many times their own body weight each year—some every day! And most animals have very specialized diets. Pandas only eat bamboo, koalas only eat eucalyptus, predators only eat meat, insectivores only eat insects, etc. So, Noah gathers a bunch of cobras, scorpions, mosquitoes, and other cuddly animals. Well, what about extinct animals? God did say all the animals didn't he? Far more species of animals have gone extinct than are alive today, and all of them would have to be on the ark. So, over 1,000 different species of dinosaurs would be on there. Where would you stick the pair of Amphicoelias? Noah would also need to get other massive and dangerous animals like mammoths, numerous saber-toothed cats, giant ground sloths, and literally, billions of other species. He's quite the herder!

Comments Ray writes:   I bet you've been wanting to do that speech for a long while, TAG. Glad to see you got it off your chest. :D Also, in reference to your annotation, it's "koalas" not "kolas". Anyway, does this mean Ducky will be going on the arc? Ducks can dwell on land, water & fly in the air. So is Ducky going to follow, ride, or maybe die a horrible death in the turbulent flood waters?? just me writes:   Ducky!!! Welcome back :D On a side note. I'm no expert on this field, so I might be very wrong about this. But wouldn't a year long global flood also be very harsh for the plants? I imagine that many plants would "die out" if they spent a whole year constantly under several 100m of water. Anyone with more botanical knowledge care to elaborate? :) Sewerrat writes:   I feel expert enough to agree that almost all plants (except some salt water plants) would go extinct. At the very least because all plants need oxygen and oxygen in water isn't available for normal plants. Also the high salt concentration in sea water would cause all plants to die because of osmotic pressure and hypertonicity. Plants also need light and if my physics knowledge doens't fails me there doesn't comes much light at 100m water depth. About the dinosaurs and creationist i thought creationist didn't believe animals could go extinct because God made all animals perfect. So all fossils aren't real. For a more humorous sight on this you should read Terry Pratchetts Strata. Uncle Jellyfish writes:   Picturing 2.2 million animals and an entire human family crammed onto a boat is quite a humorous image. Perhaps they'd all fit on the ship if all the animals and people were stick figures? hmmm.... writes:   in answer to just me's qustion even if the plants died, the seeds and roots should be able to make it till the water come down.but alas i'm no expert on this topis either Sewerrat the Biologist writes:   No rootsystems survives a year without oxygen and most seeds don't make it through a year aswell, this would make earths plant biodiversity extremely depleted at the least. Research has calculated that 99.9% of all known animals are able to fit in to the Noahs boat. the 0.1% that doesnt fit into the boat are the animals usually pictured onto the boat, like elephants, giraffes and other big mammals. TheAlmightyGuru writes:   Ray: Thanks for the typo notice. It would be odd to see a bunch of soft drinks on the ark! Sewerrat: You're right about the plants dying off. Although I'm not sure what you mean about the animals fitting. Are you talking about space for the several million animals, or size constraints for individual animals? I think even giraffes would fit. The ark in the story is 13.5 meters high, broken into three stories (4.5 meters each). Giraffe's will often grow taller than 5 meters (too tall to stand in one floor), but a simple hole in the floor above them will give them enough space to stand. Of course, as Mr-know-it-all alluded to in the comments of #132, we're basically talking about whether Superman or Batman would win in a fight. The outcome doesn't matter, since the whole thing is a work of fiction anyway. Amber writes:   I think Sewerrat was referring to if we had all of the known animals all together, only 99.9% of them would be able to fit on the ark all at the same time. Adding elephants and giraffes would take the room that a lot of smaller animals could use. Baughbe writes:   The matter of 99+% of the animals fitting on the ark at the same time would be only if you literally filled every square inch from wall to wall, floor to ceiling. Leaving no breathing room and crushing to death those on the bottom. Also requiring you to fit all together like an Escher print, so every inch of every animals body would be in contact with another animal except where in contact with wood. Also another problem, hyperthermia. Like you said, it is fiction at best. Mr-know-it-all writes:   I too think it would be 99%+ of known species could actually be transported in the damn thing. Separately. Sort of like dogs and cats and rats and stuff like that is fine. Blue whales and the like don't count, they can swim on their own (though still many cartoons give the ark an aquarium), but an elephant in such a small, wooden ship would make it sink, I think. Unless you got 4 elephants and put them in opossing corners, but that is against the "2 of each" rule, and it would probably still sink out of sheer weight. Dinosaurs are out of the question. And as of giraffes, while you could poke a hole and make the giraffe stick the head out, the first time a wave rocks the boat it would break the giraffe's neck. And Batman would win. He always carries a chunk of kryptonite, most often given by Superman himself, in case some other Kryptonian attacks or someone mindcontrols the Man of Steel. But the point I was making back then was actually that it is NOT a valid answer. "The writters wanted it" is about the same as "a wizard/god did it". Answers should be given in-universe, or scratch it altogether. tussock writes:   When they say animals, what they mean is the family's farmed animals. Mice, insects, and other such vermin don't breed, you see, they're just spontaneously generated in piles of grain and filth, respectively. There'd be plenty on the boat and wherever you land it, even if you let none on initially. Any fertile ground naturally grows weeds and food plants even if you don't seed it, and untended ground turns to wild, common knowledge. The wild animals naturally appear out of that wild, eh. Fish? You just pull them from the water, like the rain falls forever down from the sky, but never back up. Perpetual spontaneous generation. Yes, the ark looks stupid once you know a few of modern science's universal principles, but no one knew them 2600 years ago. TheAlmightyGuru writes:   tussock: I trust that your usage of the ancient, and incorrect, idea of spontaneous generation is referring to the beliefs of Bronze Age people, and not meant to be used as a valid argument? Ladyofthemasque writes:   Slightly off-topic... Mr. Know-it-all, as a published author with several bestsellers under my belt, I have to say that your comment, "Answers should be given in-universe, or scratch it altogether," ...is absolutely spot-on. *applaud* Personally, I cannot abide writers who violate their own canon. There are numerous examples in the works of major authors of fiction, from Meyers to Rowling, and I'm afraid the Bible is no exception...as The Blasphemer's Bible is able to prove over and over and over. Fictional or "created"...writers should NOT violate their own established canon of rules and regulations for their worlds. That's a sign of sloppy creation, not of superiority. Mr-know-it-all writes:   Actually I think Rowling has an excuse, what with the story being about magic, and mostly, told from the point of view of a 10 to 17 years old who is just learning the workings of the magic world. And of course he isn't always told the truth. If they had told the students that a wand taken in a fight becomes rightfully theirs, the school would instantly had become no man's land. That being said, yeah, I too prefer for fictional worlds to be logically coherent, unless stated otherwise. Gordon writes:   To me The interesting fact about Noah's ark is the mental hoops that 'belivers' must go through in order to swallow this. Its pretty easy to come up with all sorts of issues like what happened to all the fresh water fish when the oceans rose.. (or the other way round.. osmosis kills either way) Its too easy. Im far more facinated by how somone can twist thier brain into beliving this as a fact. Is it possible to get somone like that to post.. of have they alll been banned for threatening to fatwah/burn at the stake the authour? Ladyofthemasque writes:   Mr-know-it-all...actually, she didn't fully flesh out her world. Remember, humans like doing things the easy way far more often than the difficult way. This is why shopping malls are so popular: a wide variety of stores and services in one easily accessed, convenient place. Supermarkets have a wider variety of products in one location than either green grocers or dry goods ever did, which is why the latter two are now mostly confined to farmer's markets and gas station mini-marts. Department stores have become popular because their services are vast, varied, and--most importantly--convenient. Why should wizards and witches, the vast majority of which do have at least one Muggle parent, raise/grow/build/make it all themselves, or just amongst themselves? And this is only one set of examples in several areas that are not just left blank, but are gaping holes in the universe she built. Of course, I'll concede it's a story written about a young boy growing up, and they might not pay attention to such things. Maybe it's just that I noticed such things as a girl "because I'm female"...but I can't believe that. Nearly every kid knows where their family's groceries come from, which clothing and furniture and supply stores their mums and dads shop at, et cetera, ad nauseam. I'll also concede that including such things in any depth of detail would've made the books a lot longer...but she didn't even hint at such things in the story telling. It isn't that they don't come up as an important component of the stories, it's that they don't exist. Not even a smidgen-in-passing teeny scrap of detail...other than that the Weasleys have a vegetable garden, and that the school grows some of its own food, too. Same with the Bible, just as Gordon puts it. The mental hoops one must go through to believe it are too complex and convoluted. For myself, I refuse to limit God. (God/Creator/Designer/Grand Architect, whatever. Not to be confused with Jehova/Yahweh of the Bible.) I refuse to believe a Creator God is so simplistic and dumb as to be unable to create a universe which is capable of evolving sentient life under logical, scientifically discoverable and definable physical laws / mathematical rules for systems behavior. ...I definitely don't believe in a petulant spoilt-brat God who, after creating something imperfect, demands that it be destroyed. Well, all but a few cherished "toys" which he/she doesn't care to destroy after all. If such a God did exist, you can bet I'd be calling up his mother to lodge a complaint! XD tussock writes:   TAG: It's an argument for why people thought it was sensible to write that down in the first place, and keep copying it that way for a very long time, not for why people should still accept it as God's truth. Pasteur was still busy disproving it as a theory in the 19th century, after all. Mr-know-it-all writes:   Well, yeah, you don't see mages in Rowling's work shopping for groceries because that would be uninteresting. You must assume they do at some point, unless you prefer to assume they somehow do not need to eat. But at least it is eventually stated that their food is basically provided by slaves (the house elves). It is the same as the greek philosofers, you could see them philosofing all day long because they had slaves to provide for them. Hogwarts has the largest collection of those because it also has thousands of kids fed at the same time (though they can still get into the kitchen at any time and ask for food). The Malfoy's house also should have had a bunch of elves, not only Dobby. The Blacks had at least Kreacher and the Crouchs had at least Winky. The Weasleys are mentioned specifically because they DON'T, that is, they are the exception. Personally, the most jarring example of Rowling's work lacking coherency was their apparent ignorance of basic mithology. They should have known who Nicholas Flamel was outright, at least the genius kid. But the rest of their society is actually quite coherent, once you accept their reason for holding up the masquerade (which would be respect for the muggles, whom would be completely crushed should they have to compete with the mages). Back on topic, it isn't exactly fair to think they had to do strange mind stuff to keep up with it. That was the world, as far as their understanding worked. I could say the same of somebody using, say, Newtonian phisics. As for why they kept copying it as it became more and more implausible, keep in mind that it is implausible FOR US. Not everybody in the Renaissance was as smart as Da Vinci, the commoner still believed the truths of the past, and it was a hard work convincing them otherwise. TheAlmightyGuru writes:   tussock: Phew! For a second I thought I was going to have to deal with someone who still believed in spontaneous generation! But, yes, that's a very good point. Up until just a few hundred years ago, many people believed that animals and plants simply sprung into existence. Gordon: I've not yet banned a single legitimate person, I value constructive criticism too much to censor them. So far, I've only banned bots posting links for Mexican Viagra. Gordon writes:   I apologise unreservedly for any implication that people have been unjustly banned. I had a trawl through some creationist websites to see thier ppoint of view... Well it was a massive waste of time. there is no co-herance there that I could find. The most rational site I could find on the subject .. (and I use the word rational quite wrongly in this instance) was http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/noahsark.htm I was of cours referring to the modern day people whio still belive this.. (for instance the authours of the above link.) Anyway thamk you for writing this webcomic.. It provides me with endless entertainment. Have you considered publishing this? TheAlmightyGuru writes:   Gordon: You and I have probably read a lot of the same sources regarding the Creationist's take on the Ark story. Including the link you posted, they all have a lot of common logical fallacies and incorrect "facts". Notice how the rebuttals often include phrases similar to "I can't imagine", "it may be possible", and "if you want scientific evidence, let me read you a verse from this Bronze Age book". I especially love point #15, where they claim that God drowning millions of children is "comforting". As for publishing, it has indeed crossed my mind. I'd like to come up with some extras to give to those willing to dish out the money. Chris writes:   TAG: You can always look for an agent, this genre is selling like hot cakes right now. Alternatively, you could self-publish. I have done some research on self-publishing companies, and I have found that an American company, Xlibris, is pretty reliable. $1600 for a ridiculous amount of perks. And I think extras would be an awesome idea haha, maybe you could sell annotated copies of the bible! That or t-shirts and stuffed animals. Unless you want to avoid being cliche, then I would try to come up with something better chris writes:   I just read that link (http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/noahsark.htm ) and I was disgusted.... "I believe it because my saviour Jesus Christ said it was true" things aren't true just because we want them to be... I think I should quote Gregory House here: "I am surrounded by naked cheerleaders...." damn, I really thought it would work that time! TheAlmightyGuru writes:   Bless you for making a House reference! Make A Comment Name: Comment:   HTML is disabled.

Oh the irony!