My sites: Noah's Ark | Angels | Jonah and the Whale | Queen of Sheba | my other sites | email this page

Did it happen?

Fundamentalists | Anti-Fundamentalists


Christian Answers: Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood? Fundamentalist math.

"Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]."
I love the precision of "13.716000000000001 meters." The cubit is a customary measure—the length of one's forearm; it is not the sort of measure one can push to 16 digits. Nor does such a precise measurement mean anything—that extra .000000000000001 meter (10-15) is quite literally the size of an atomic nucleus!

Christian Answers: Did Noah take dinosaurs on the Ark? The Bible says Job saw a behemoth, therefore there were dinosaurs on the ark. Quod erat demonstrandum. The whole dinosaur questions and answers section is a truly scary mix of science and its opposite.

Is this Noah's Ark? from Creation Tips. Fundamentalist/creationist arguments against the Ararat boat. Apparently it's not long enough. The site also covers:

Christian Answers: Does the Bible really claim that the Flood covered the ENTIRE Earth? Yes.

How did All The Animals Fit? by Sid Galloway. Standard arguments about ark size, "kinds" of animals, etc. The author confronts what I feel is the central question: "What does all of this have to do with you and your family?"

"Noah's rescue in the Ark was real, and so is God's offer to rescue you from the curse of death and decay, and the coming judgment day!"

Investigating "pre-flood" civilizations from an LDS perspective with considerable (but mostly dismissive) noodling about spacemen, the old-sphinx theory, and etc. See also this page, on how Noah got from America to Ararat. Author unknown, from

Genesis 6 Commentary by the uknown webmaster of Jesus, Dinosaurs and More. The Noah commentary is a creationist omnium-gatherum, touching most all the topics discussed elsewhere—size, waste disposal, fish, dinosaurs, "gopher" wood, the "Nephilim," etc. It also has many of the stylistic tics[1] This bio-theodicy tickles my funny bone:

"Some have suggested that Noah may have had slaves to help in the construction. But if this was true, it wouldn't really seem fair that the slaves would perish in the flood. It is more likely that some of the stronger apes (like the Australopithecines and Pithecanthropus erectus were used as helpers)."
Fair? What's fair got to do with it? Oh, and check out his page on the burning question How did penguins and kangaroos get on Noah's Ark? Also covers why koalas only live in Australia, upon which the entire edifice of Christian truth depends.

Who was Mrs. Noah? from Christian Answers. I don't see how biblical literalism combines with plain-old "makin' stuff up." I mean, the only "biblical" answer to this question is "well, we don't know much."

Does the Quran Teach a Local Flood by Sam Shamoun, from Answering Islam. Non-Muslim examines claims that the Koran is compatible with "local flood" ideas, concluding they are not in agreement with the text or its traditional interpretation. Not that the author is a muslim or anything.


Thomas Henry Huxley, The Lights of the Church and the Light of Science. 1890 essay . Interesting article on the development of geology and the Anglican church's reaction to it. The author, a geologist and sometime President of the Royal Society, was a participant. The whole essay should be read, but here are some choice quotes.

"At the present time, it is difficult to persuade serious scientific inquirers to occupy themselves, in any way, with the Noachian Deluge. They look at you with a smile and a shrug, and say they have more important matters to attend to than mere antiquarianism. But it was not so in my youth. At that time, geologists and biologists could hardly follow to the end any path of inquiry without finding the way blocked by Noah and his ark, or by the first chapter of Genesis; and it was a serious matter, in this country at any rate, for a man to be suspected of doubting the literal truth of the Diluvial or any other Pentateuchal history."
"I have been unable to discover that the universality of the Deluge has any defender left, at least among those who have so far mastered the rudiments of natural knowledge as to be able to appreciate the weight of evidence against it."[2]

Why it's a load of old cobblers by Adrian Barnett. Attack attack on literalism (too many animals, too much water, etc. etc.) His retelling of the flood from the perspective of one of its victims hits the problem from another rhetorical angle. His email me page is savagely funny (no the "demon" in his URL is not significant), as is his Gallery of Lame Arguments. Some objections[3]

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on the 1977 documentary In Search of Noah's Ark. Quoted in full:

"Semi-documentary sets out to prove the literal truth of the biblical account of the Flood, basing its case largely on conjecture and hypothesis. Directed by James Conway, its inept dramatization of the building and stocking of the Ark makes it appear ridiculous and undercuts the religious significance of the biblical story."

LibraryThing: Catalog your books online.

If you enjoy this site you may like this other site by me:

Angels on the Web. Everything about angels, from art of every period, to religion, poetry and movies.

Mermaids on the Web. 1,320 pictures, plus folk-tales, stories and movies.