Could Noah’s Ark Have Supported the Weight of Two Million Sheep?

Students researching the dimensions of Noah’s Ark are surprised at their own findings. 

Masters-level students at England’s Leicester University Dept. of Physics and Astronomy decided to examine the dimension’s of Noah’s Ark as provided in Genesis, chapter 6. They came to a conclusion that might surprise many skeptics. “University of Leicester students show Noah’s ark would have been strong enough to carry pairs of each animal species,” the university’s website states.

The researchers say the ark could not only have easily held up under the weight of the 70,000 animals (35,000 species) some think might have been on the ark but, as far as weight is concerned, perhaps as many as two million or more sheep-sized animals theoretically could have been on the ark without sinking it. The researchers reached their conclusion by relying on Archmedes principle of buoyancy. “Every object when immersed in a liquid has an upwards force acting against it — a buoyancy force,” explained Oliver Youle, who led the project. “It also has a weight acting downwards — a downwards force, and in order for it to float, these two forces need to be equal.”

Some of the students were surprised at finding the ship could have remained afloat with so many animals on board. “You don’t think of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we discovered it would work,” said Thomas Morris, another one of the student researchers. “We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work.”

Of course, as we have often said here, the Bible doesn’t use the word “species” when describing the number of animals Noah welcomed on board the ark. The Bible talks about “kinds,” likely a broader term than species, which some creationists think was more equivalent to the level of “family” in the modern classification system. That would result in considerably fewer animals than the 70,000 figure with which the British students worked. I have seen estimates as low as only 2,000 animals that may have been on the ark, though there have been higher estimates. In any case, the student research, if true, further supports the belief that Noah’s Ark was fully capable of holding all the animals God wanted on the vessel along with food and other supplies.

Tim Lovett, a naval expert and mechanical engineer, wrote a book titled Noah’s Ark: Thinking Outside the Box in which he reports on the considerable research and testing he did in picturing what the ark might have looked like. The design he settled on, shown above, is the one being used by Answers in Genesis as AiG  goes about preparing for its Noah’s Ark Encounter.

Lovett refers to a research center which tried to make improvements on the dimensions of the ark to make the vessel even more seaworthy. However, these researchers concluded that they couldn’t improve on the biblical specifications. “The study confirmed that the proportions of the ark were cleverly balanced — a taller ark might capsize, a longer one might break, and a wider or shorter ark could give a dangerously rough ride,” Lovett writes. 

Lovett acknowledges some experts claim a ship as large as Noah’s ark could not have been made of wood. Ship builders in the 18th century had trouble keeping their largest wooden vessels rigid and leak-free. Lovett’s design, however, uses a different and better method of attaching the wooden planks. 

Although the elongated shape of the ark wasn’t needed for going anywhere, a long hull can be the best design for a comfortable ride. Lovett also reminds us that tsunamis, which the break-up of the earth’s crust would likely have caused during the flood, do not create big waves out on the ocean. It’s only the coastlines which can get hit hard by tsunamis. So, if the ocean was choppy, it would have been the wind, not tsunamis or earthquakes that would have been the main cause.

What about the serious problem of broaching Noah‘s ark could have had to face?  Broaching is the action of waves in turning drifting vessels sideways. Lovett thinks his design eliminates broaching as a problem for the ark. “Broaching can be avoided if the vessel catches the wind at one end and is ‘rooted’ in the water at the other, causing it to turn like a weather vane into the wind and waves.” In fact, his design is suggested historically in the depictions of the earliest large ships which often had a high stem at one end and a protruding appendage at the other, features still regarded as mysterious by modern experts. This mystery has a potential solution — the features may have been based on memories of Noah’s ark.

None of this information is really needed by the Bible-believing Christian for whom God’s Word is sufficient. But for those who are being influenced by attacks from Bible skeptics, reasonable answers like these may prove valuable in countering the arguments of the unbelievers, arguments often based on ignorance or misinformation. If the account of Noah and the flood is not trustworthy, then Jesus, when He referred to the flood as a real event, must also have been untrustworthy.

On the Last Day Jesus will return to earth to judge the world and take all believers with Him to heaven. Regarding this momentous day He said, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:36-39). Belief in all the details of Noah’s flood may not be absolutely crucial for salvation, but belief in Jesus as our Savior from sin and eternal death certainly is.

Reference: Billy Hallowell, “Researchers’ Stunning Claim About Noah’s Ark Might Surprise You,” The Blaze.

(Illustration from Answers in Genesis)

(Thanks to Mark Groth for this story.)

PRINT (Black type on white background)
  
**************************************

Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail your request to admin@lutheranscience.org].

****************************************

QUESTION OF THE DAY

Is it possible for a dramatic change in the weather to bring on a cold?

Temperature changes do not cause colds or make us more susceptible to cold viruses. If that were true, people would be getting colds all the time because dramatic temperature changes can happen during any of the four seasons or even from going into hot summer air from an air-conditioned theater. People get colds only from other people.

Source: Marilyn vos Savant, “Ask Marilyn, “ Parade (4/6/14)

****************************************

NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including those containing alternate views. However, comments containing profanity, personal attacks or advertisements will not be published. After posting a comment, please allow several hours for it to appear on the blog.