No,  no. Of course there were no dinosaurs in Noah's Ark, but we'll get to that.

I find it irritating interesting that Religious Fundamentalists attempt to discredit science and put forth the Bible as absolute fact, as if the Bible were a History book instead of a piece of bull*** literature, which is what it really is.

They even go as far as to make up numbers and events, and depict them as if they were facts to feed the children with,  like this website that could possibly increase your blood pressure and make your brain explode. They actually say that there were some dinosaurs in said ark... somehow. No, I'm not kidding.

I know, right?

Some of the narratives found in the bible are just that, boring narratives, but for far fetched stories, Noah's Ark and the biblical flood is by far one of the most implausible. Well, putting aside the rising-from-the-death stories, that is. Okay, that's material for another post.

Let's analyze these facts:

According to the Bible, "The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."  The Egyptian cubit, which Genesis' author Moses would have been familiar with, is just over 20 inches. Using this, the Ark would have measured a little over 500 feet long, 84 feet wide and 50 feet tall.  This is smaller than an average Cruise ship.

Since, according to the Fundamentalists, there are no new species here on Earth since the flood, it would have had to shelter over 10,980 mammals, not including humans or marine mammals such as whales and dolphins, over 16,450 reptiles, over 13,190 amphibians, over 20,000 birds, and over 1,800,000 insects, if he marched them in two by two as told by the Bible. So, the size of the Ark itself when compared to its cargo just doesn't add up. Do we even need to go through the amount of food needed to feed so many creatures for a 40 day 'cruise'?  The numbers may vary a little bit depending on the different sources (so these are kinda ballpark figures, as there isn't a consensus on the number of species), but not as much as to make this story any less absurd.

Since the Bible states that "the Mountains were covered", it is safe to assume that the water rose at least 5,000 feet. In order to do this in 40 full 24 hour periods, it would have to rain 5.2 feet an hour! That's over an inch per minute, every minute for every hour for 40 full days. Now this is based on 5,000 feet of flooding, but if we take the Bible absolutely literally, then the water covered all of the mountains, including Everest at 29,029 feet which would be over 30 feet of rain an hour! So, the amount of rain needed to flood the Earth in only 40 days and 40 nights, not even close to possible!

Since with the exception of humans, waterborne mammals and fish, only two of each species survived, the lack of genetic diversity would have spelled the doom for every species on the Ark, yet the world is full of life today. There's a good reason you are not allowed to procreate with your sibling(s), and it's not just a moral reason! This applies to almost all species, not just humans.

Marsupials are only found in Australia, Penguins are only found in Antartica, Polar bears are only found in the Artic Circle, all places that Noah never even heard of, so how did he collect these species and then put them back in their respective environments?

The answer is simple — he didn't. The entire story is pure nonsense. So if you can believe the Biblical Flood actually happened, and there was in fact such a ship, why not throw in a few dinosaurs too, right?

If this one story from the inerrant 'Word of God' is false, who is to say which parts are true and which parts are not?

The bible is a work of men, thus it is just as flawed as its authors.


Originally posted at

Views: 1268

Comment by James Mills on May 5, 2011 at 9:50pm
it's TRUE!!!
Comment by Monica McGee (Monicks) on May 6, 2011 at 12:43pm
Hahahaha! That video is SOOO funny! Thank you, James.
Comment by Robert Karp on May 6, 2011 at 4:08pm

@james  -  toooo much......side hurts........stop............


@Monica. I just don't know what to say.

Comment by James Mills on May 7, 2011 at 5:56am
haha, good ol' 1GOD1JESUS to the rescue ;-)
Comment by RICHARD IDES on March 3, 2012 at 2:57pm







Comment by James on March 3, 2012 at 3:19pm

Good summary Monica.

But there are even more problems than what you mentioned.

1) The mix of salt and fresh water would have likely killed all aquatic life.
2) All the plants that were flooded over would be dead.
3) Assuming seeds survived or were taken along, it would take a great deal of time until such saturated ground would be capable of planting and growing vegetation.
4) Assuming that the water had to cover Everest, the low air temperature and thin air would have killed off many species. (especially if at that altitude for a prolonged period)
5) Only the period of rain was 40 days. After that, they were supposedly afloat for a full year. That's a lot of food needed, a lot of waste to get rid of, not to mention the health issues associated with being cramped into a boat (that wouldn't fit remotely close to the animals it would need to) with no room for exercising their muscles.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service