This
week, a Dutch builder, Johan Huibers finally realized his decades old
dream of building a full scale “replica” of Noah's Ark. I use
the word “replica” loosely because we really don't know much
about what the original ark looked like. According to Genesis 6, the
Ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, 30 cubits high, had 3
levels, a door, a one cubit high window, was made of “gopher wood,”
and was covered in pitch. That's everything we know about the Ark's
construction.
Not
knowing any more about the Ark than the brief description given in
Genesis, Huibers certainly has taken a few
liberties. His modern version is true to scale but, beyond that, I'm
not sure how much it resembles the original Ark. The modern ark is
reinforced with steel, stocked with plastic animals, has
theater-style conference rooms, and is powered by a motor.
We
also don't know much about the man who built this. Most sources
identify Huibers as a “creationist” but I can't tell from the
reports if he is a young-earth creationist or if he believes in a
global flood.
Several
news reports say that he was “inspired” to build the ark 20 years
ago when he had a dream that part of Holland was flooded. That may
have given him the idea but I'm still not sure of his objective. The
news stories call the ark a “floating faux zoo” and say that
Huibers intends to make it a first-rate, tourist attraction. An
article
published by AiG's “Answers” magazine
a few years ago says that Huibers hoped his first ark, a ½ scale
version, would “bring
renewed interest in Christianity to the Netherlands.”
That's certainly a worthwhile goal.
As
usual, the media has exercised shoddy investigation in covering this
story. One
article said the following:
This
feat of true biblical proportions was inspired by a dream Mr Huibers
had 20 years ago, in which he saw part of his native Netherlands
submerged in a flood like the one featured in the Book of Genesis.
Do
you see what I mean? However bad the flood was 20 years ago, it was
nothing “like the one featured in the Book of Genesis.”
Later the article says:
And
though it may not be able to shelter two of every animal, as the
original story dictates, it can hold 1,500 people – not to mention
a menagerie of life-size plastic creatures including giraffes,
elephants and donkeys, as well as a few live chickens.
What
do they mean, “it may not be able to shelter two of every
animal”? The article may mention that Noah's Ark was more than
½ the size of the Titanic but little else is said about the enormity
of the Ark. It doesn't speculate how many animals truly could have
fit on a ship this size but instead amusingly highlights the plastic
animals used on the replica. Admittedly the story is meant to be
more of a human interest piece than a substantive, in-depth report
but this article seems to go out of its way to make light of Huibers
replica.
Finally,
still another
article said:
As
far as God’s command to Noah that the ark be stocked with two of
everything in the animal kingdom, Huibers steered a wide berth around
animal rights activists and opted for inanimate models instead —
and indeed, the ship now boasts faux giraffes, zebras, cows and
donkeys by the pair.
God
did not command Noah to stock “two of everything in the animal
kingdom” but specifically told him to include terrestrial animals
who breathed air. And by the way, zebras and donkeys belong to the
same “kind” and so both would not have been on the Ark.
Shoddy
journalism aside, the most unfortunate thing for me is that I'm not a
world traveler so it's not likely that I'll ever have the opportunity
to see this ark in person. Even so, I would still say that I'm
excited it was built. Such a thing could be a wonderful tool in
reminding people of the judgment of God as well as His mercy. At the
very least, this will generate discussion around the Bible. It
already has.
7 comments:
Huiber's ship has a steel frame, a feature not mentioned in Genesis, even though iron is mentioned earlier (though it's not clear whether the text means that Tubalcain himself worked iron, or merely that iron workers carried on in his tradition).
Have you ever read Pat James' internet essay "Torpedo Ye Arke?" He argues that, on the one hand, the Ark was too big to do its job: without a metal frame, it would sag or bend at sea, take on water, and sink. James notes that the Royal Navy, back in the days of "iron men and wooden ships," had no vessels much more than half the Ark's length, because the best shipwrights on Earth couldn't build a stable wooden ship more than 250 feet long.
To be sure, the treasure ships of the Chinese admiral Zheng He, back in the 15th century, are said to have been about the size of Noah's Ark, but it's possible that these accounts are exaggerations -- and in any case, charts of Zheng He's voyages show them hugging the coast; his ships were not blue-water capable. The Ark would have needed to be.
On the other hand, James argues that in another sense, the Ark was too small. Using young-earth creationist John Woodmorappe's calculations of the number and mass of the animals and their food carried by Noah's Ark (5500 tons of animals and 67,000 tons of food for the voyage) and compares it to the displacement for a 450 x 75 x 45 foot ship (ca. 50,000 tons). On Woodmorappe's own calculations, the Ark could not have floated.
Pat James goes on to argue that Woodmorappe grossly underestimated the weight of the animals and their fodder, and the volume they would need (e.g. for exercise), but that's just icing on the cake.
Now, in fairness, if you use Egyptian (22 inches) rather than Hebrew (18 inches) cubits, you get a displacement of ca. 80,000 tons -- which would float. Barely. And probably briefly, given that this would aggravate the problems of "straddling and hogging" (bending in the middle) as it moved over the waves. Assuming that Woodmorappe's very conservative estimates are right, and that animals can be crammed together for a year-long voyage as tightly as if they were taking a train trip for a day or so.
Nobody is suggesting that the ark of Noah was also built using steel, as the version Huiber built.
Also, the statement that using 22 inches and 'barely float', is irrelevant, since you only 'need' to float 'barely', as long as you float.
I am sure that during the some parts of the 40 days of rain and storms, the ark was covered under water for a few moments, but that would not make it sink, since it was sealed well enough.
'Oxygen', you do not need to seal it air tight to prevent it from sinking, think upside down tube as an 'air chamber'.
Also, I disagree with this statement: "because the best shipwrights on Earth couldn't build a stable wooden ship more than 250 feet long."
I think they can, it depends on how much money an effort you want to put into it, and more importantly, what you define as ark, and what as ship.
Noah did not build a ship, he built an ark. It's most important goal was containment, keeping the occupants alive long enough, with enough air, and it only needed to float 'barely is good enough' and be stable.
I am sure the Royal Navy was not interested in building vessels that only floats, and could not travel at decent speeds.
I am an engineer, and I am sorry to say, I think Pat James did not do his homework.
He is not staying neutral in thinking of the solution. It’s understandable, since he is biased, like all of us are, but at least try to be honest .. hmm, no wait, he does not have to be, he will not answer to a non-existing God one day, now will he ?
-jjk
Steven J,
You said, “Huiber's ship has a steel frame, a feature not mentioned in Genesis.”
Yes, I mentioned that in my post. Of course, we can't insist that Noah did not use any metal in constructing the Ark. We typically describe structures as “wooden” if they are primarily wooden even if they contain some other materials such as iron.
You asked, “Have you ever read Pat James' internet essay "Torpedo Ye Arke?"”
No I haven't. I have read many criticisms of the Flood by modern skeptics.
You said, “He argues that, on the one hand, the Ark was too big to do its job: without a metal frame, it would sag or bend at sea, take on water, and sink. James notes that the Royal Navy, back in the days of "iron men and wooden ships," had no vessels much more than half the Ark's length, because the best shipwrights on Earth couldn't build a stable wooden ship more than 250 feet long.”
The mere fact that modern shipbuilders could not build such a large wooden boat is not evidence that one cannot be built. Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society of England, after centuries of failed attempts to fly confidently proclaimed that heavier than air flying machines were impossible. A few years later, two brothers named Wright proved him wrong.
But from what I understand, modern attempts to build large, wooden ships are complicated by the need of a mast and a rudder. Noah's Ark didn't need either.
You said, “On the other hand, James argues that in another sense, the Ark was too small. Using young-earth creationist John Woodmorappe's calculations of the number and mass of the animals and their food carried by Noah's Ark (5500 tons of animals and 67,000 tons of food for the voyage) and compares it to the displacement for a 450 x 75 x 45 foot ship (ca. 50,000 tons). On Woodmorappe's own calculations, the Ark could not have floated.”
We cannot conclusively say how many animals were on the Ark and so we can neither say how much food they needed.
For a long time, scientists were baffled by bumble bee wings. We believed that given the weight of the bee and the size of the wing, our understanding of aerodynamics showed the bee should not be able to fly. Yet it flew notwithstanding. Your speculations about the impossibility of the Ark are defeated by the simple fact that the Flood happened!
Yours is an argument from ignorance. The fact that you do not know how something could happen is not evidence that it can't happen. I've mentioned this very thing on my blog before. To say the Flood did not happen as described in Genesis on the flimsy grounds of our limited understanding is about as ridiculous as saying the bumble bee cannot fly.
Thanks for your comments. God bless!
RKBentley
jjk,
You've struck upon two very relevant points:
1) The Ark only needed to float.
2) Modern ship builders were not interested in building ships that only floated.
We cannot judge modern shipwrights' ability to build a 450' long wooden ship that does not need to be navigated by comparing it to the 200' long ships they built to be navigated.
God bless!
RKBentley
First, to Anonymous: the Ark is described as built with a cubit-wide window; this is, like many details of its construction, vague, but probably means that the top cubit under the eaves was open all around the Ark for ventilation. If the water covered it for a moment, the water rushes in that opening and the water doesn't uncover the Ark for another year.
Also, open water is notorious for the way wind picks up force going over it; a globe-girdling sea is going to be whipped up by hurricane-force winds on many occasions. The Ark needs to float really, really well to last a year under such conditions (this is not counting the point that many "flood geologists" see the flood as a time of massive tectonic activities, with the mountains rising, ocean floor dropping, volcanoes erupting: we're talking constant earthquakes and associated tsunamis).
And Pat James is making rather generous allowances in the portions mentioned. After all, Woodmorappe's calculations assume that Noah doesn't have to pack lions, tigers, pumas, lynxes, snow leopards, etc. separately, since he can just board two of the "cat kind" and all the modern species of Felidae can "micro-evolve" after the Flood, in a few thousand years (actually, given that the ancient Egyptians knew of lions and house cats as separate species, in a few hundred years. Challenge that assumption (and related assumptions about the horse kind, elephant kind, rat and mouse kind, etc.) and you need to multiply the mass of animals and food aboard the Ark by an order of magnitude.
And that still ignores the need for space to exercise. The Ark isn't a train carrying cattle to some market a day or two's journey away; it's a floating zoo that needs to keep its cargo alive and fit for thirteen months.
For R.K. Bentley:
"Argument from ignorance" is at least a charge that could be made against either side here. If you wish to argue that the Ark could have incorporated metal, you need to assume that just because this rather crucial detail wasn't mentioned in the story, it doesn't exist, which is making large allowances for bad writing in a supposedly divinely inspired text.
Likewise, arguing that entirely unknown techniques of the ancients could have enabled them to build wppden ships much larger than the wooden ships known from history is an appeal that "just because we have no idea how to do it, we can't be sure it's impossible."
It has been pointed out many times: the fewer species you put on the Ark, the more hyper-fast evolution afterwards you need to explain the diversity of life observed in historical times (and there's something awkward in arguing that horses and donkeys can diverge into distinct species within a thousand years, yet the less genetically-different humans and chimpanzees could not have done so in six million).
Steven J,
You said, “"Argument from ignorance" is at least a charge that could be made against either side here. If you wish to argue that the Ark could have incorporated metal, you need to assume that just because this rather crucial detail wasn't mentioned in the story, it doesn't exist, which is making large allowances for bad writing in a supposedly divinely inspired text.”
Whether there was metal used in the Ark I cannot say. I didn't suggest there was: I only said we can't insist there wasn't. I doubt there was an iron frame but certainly Noah could have used nails if that technology existed. If metal was used in the construction of the Ark, it doesn't contradict the Biblical account. Like I said, we consistently refer to structures as “wooden” even though they may contain some metal. A “wooden” bridge, for example, very likely has metal nails or bolts.
You said, “Likewise, arguing that entirely unknown techniques of the ancients could have enabled them to build wppden ships much larger than the wooden ships known from history is an appeal that "just because we have no idea how to do it, we can't be sure it's impossible."”
I'm not sure if you understand what an argument from ignorance is but you're precisely saying that since we can't do it, it's impossible. That's the same attitude that has led some people to attribute the building of the pyramids to space aliens.
Also, as I said in my reply to jjk, we cannot necessarily judge the ability of shipwrights to build a wooden ship the size of the Ark (which didn't need to be navigated) based on the modern ships they built (which they designed to be navigated). It's my understanding that the mast alone contributes greatly to the problems involved in building large, water tight, wooden ships.
You said, “It has been pointed out many times: the fewer species you put on the Ark, the more hyper-fast evolution afterwards you need to explain the diversity of life observed in historical times (and there's something awkward in arguing that horses and donkeys can diverge into distinct species within a thousand years, yet the less genetically-different humans and chimpanzees could not have done so in six million).”
I believe speciation can occur far more quickly than your average evolutionist believes is possible. Evolutionists often label this as “hyper-evolution” but I reject that characterization for reasons I've stated in previous posts.
I've been looking for topics to write on and this may be one. Keep visiting for more on this subject.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment