
By: Sue Armstrong
To: Jerry Gilbreath
Re: Noah's Impossible Ark


Part 2 of Wolfie's Challenge ...

----------------------------------------------------------------
Note from the editor of this scanned ASCII formatted version:

Several compromises were make  in  the scanning and translation from
the printed text to the ASCII format.   1) The underline character _
has been used to denote italicized words in the text.   2) The small
bold print of subheading starting sentences has been placed one line
apart from the text.   3) The large bold print of  subject  headings
has  been  text  centered  and word capitalized.   4) Paragraphs are
blocked and spaced rather then indented. 

Although I have endeavored to make this translation as error free as
possible,  some errors may in fact still exist in this text.   These
errors are not to be taken as errors in the original text. 

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE),  the publishers of
"Creation/Evolution",  have been contacted and have graciously given
their permission for  the  no-cost  electronic  distribution of this
article. 

If you redistribute this  file,   please  make  no  changes  to  the
notices, address, nor to the text of the article. 

The NCSE can be contacted at:

NCSE
P.O. Box 9477
Berkeley, CA., 94709-0477

510-526-1674
800-290-6006

E-Mail: NCSE@CRL.COM

Larry A Meyering
February, 1995


Creation/Evolution XI (Volume 4, Number 1)
Winter 1983
Special Issue:The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

*Robert  Moore,   a  writer on religious subjects,  has testified at
hearings  on church-state  issues  and  is  an  experienced mountain
climber (with no intention of joining any ark expedition).

Copyright @ 1983 by Robert A. Moore


                     The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

                               Robert A. Moore*


Suppose you picked  up  the  newspaper  tomorrow  morning  and  were
startled  to  see headlines announcing the discovery of a large ship
high on the snowy slopes  of  Mt.    Ararat in eastern Turkey As you
hurriedly scanned the article,  you learned that  a  team  from  the
Institute  for  Creation Research had unearthed the vessel and their
measurements and studies  had  determined  that it perfectly matched
the description of Noah's Ark given in the book of Genesis.    Would
this  be  proof  at  last--the  "smoking  gun"  as it were--that the
earliest chapters of the  Bible  were  true  and that the story they
told of a six-day creation  and  a  universal  flood  was  a  sober,
scientific account? 

Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is no.   Even this sensational find
is  not enough  to  validate  a  literal  reading  of Genesis.   Our
continuing skepticism is in the tradition of philosopher David Hume,
who wrote  that  "the  knavery  and  folly  of  men  are such common
phenomena that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events
to arise from their concurrence than admit of so signal a  violation
of  the  laws  of  nature." As we shall see,  the story of the great
flood  and  the  voyage  of   the   ark,   as  expounded  by  modern
creationists, contains so many incredible "violations of the laws of
nature" that it cannot possibly be accepted by any thinking  person.
Despite  ingenious  efforts  to lend a degree of plausibility to the
tale,  nothing  can  be  salvaged  without  the  direct and constant
intervention of the deity. 


                               Building the Ark


The requirements of the story.

To make this point clear,  let's  start  at  the  beginning  of  the
biblical  narrative  and  follow  the story step by step.   From the
moment the impending storm is  announced (Genesis 6:7,  13,  17) and
Jehovah sets forth the design and dimensions  of  the  ark  (Genesis
6:14-16), problems start appearing. 

The  ark  is  to be made out of gopher wood according to a plan that
calls for the ark to  be  three  hundred  cubits long,  fifty cubits
wide,  and thirty cubits tall (450x75x45 feet,   according  to  most
creationists.   See Segraves, p.11).  It is to contain three floors,
a large door in the side,  and a one cubit square window at the top.
The floors are to be divided into rooms,  and all the walls,  inside
and out, are to be pitched with pitch.  Since the purpose of the ark
is  to  hold  animals and plants,  particularly two of "every living
thing of all flesh .   . .    to keep them alive with thee" (Genesis
6:19), it will have to be constructed accordingly.

Most creationists simply breeze through this description of the size
and requirements of the ark without a second glance ("It is hard  to
believe  that  intelligent  people  see  a problem here"--LaHaye and
Morris,  _The Ark on Ararat_,  p.248),  often with a passing comment
about the architectural skill  of  ancient  peoples as manifested in
the  Seven  Wonders  of  the  World.    But   Noah's   boat-building
accomplishments have not been fully appreciated by his fans. 


Ancient shipbuilding.

In  the  first  place,   the analogy with the Seven Wonders does not
hold.   Only one,  the Great  Pyramid  of  Cheops,  comes within two
thousand years of Noah's day,  and it is really the only  one  whose
construction  could conceivably approach the level of sophistication
of the ark.  But the Great Pyramid did not spring _de novo_ from the
desert sands;  rather,  it was the  culmination of over a century of
architectural evolution,  beginning when the "experimenting genius,"
Imhotep,  inspired by the ziggurats  of  Babylon,   built  the  Step
Pyramid  around  2680  _BC_,  passing through some intermediate step
pyramids to the Bent Pyramid of Snofru, then the first true pyramid,
and finally the masterpiece at Cheop (Stewart, pp.35-39).

On the other hand,  in an  era when hollowed-out logs and reed rafts
were the extent of marine transport,  a vessel so  massive  appeared
that   the   likes   of  it  would  not  be  seen  again  until  the
mid-nineteenth century AD.   Before he could even contemplate such a
project,  Noah  would  have  needed  a  thorough  education in naval
architecture and in fields that would not  arise  for  thousands  of
years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis.
There  was  no  shipbuilding  tradition  behind him,  no experienced
craftspeople to  offer  advice.    Where  did  he  learn the framing
procedure for  such  a  Brobdingnagian  structure?    How  could  he
anticipate the effects of roll,  pitch, yaw, and slamming in a rough
sea?    How  did  he  solve  the  differential equations for bending
moment, torque, and shear stress? 

Ancient  shipbuilding   did   achieve   a   considerable   level  of
technological sophistication,  so much so that marine archaeologists
are divided over its history (Basch,   p.52).    But  this  was  for
vessels  that  were  dinghies  compared  to the ark,  and this skill
emerged slowly over many centuries: nearly a millennium passed while
Egyptian boat lengths increase from 150 to 200 feet (Casson,  p.17).
Despite this,  the  craft  remained  a  prescientific art,  acquired
through long years of apprenticeship and experience,  and  disasters
at  sea due to faulty design were so persistent that the impetus was
strong for a  more  scientific  approach  (Rawson and Tupper,  p.2).
Obviously, the astronomical leap in size, safety, and skill required
by Noah is far too vast for any naturalistic explanation.

Not only was the ark without pedigree,  it was  without  descendants
also  Creationists  Kofahl  and  Segraves  tell us that civilization
quickly redeveloped after  the  flood  because the survivors carried
over the prediluvian culture: Noah lived 350 years afterwards,  Shem
502 (_The Creation Explanation_,  p.227).   During this time, people
were fanning out and "replenishing the earth,"  carrying  with  them
reminiscences  of  the  deluge  that  would  someday excite American
missionaries  from  Sumatra  to  Spitzbergen.    Yet  Noah's primary
contribution  to  humanity,   his  incredible  knowledge  of   naval
engineering, vanished without a trace, and the seafarers returned to
their  hollow logs and reed rafts.   Like a passing mirage,  the ark
was here one day and gone the next, leaving not a ripple in the long
saga of ship-building. 

The needs of the animals.

As if the rough  construction  of  the ship weren't headache enough,
the internal organization had to be honed to perfection.  With space
at a premium every cubit had to be utilized to the  maximum;   there
was  no  room  for  oversized  cages and wasted space.   The various
requirements of the myriads of animals  had to be taken into account
in the design of their quarters,  especially considering the  length
of  the  voyage.    The  problems  are legion:  feeding and watering
troughs need to be the correct height for easy access but not on the
floor where they will get filthy;  the cages for horned animals must
have bars spaced properly to prevent their horns from getting stuck,
while rhinos require round  "bomas"  for  the  same reason;  a heavy
leather body sling is  "indispensable"  for  transporting  giraffes;
primates require tamper-proof locks on their doors;  perches must be
the  correct  diameter  for  each  particular  bird's  foot  (Hirst;
Vincent).   Even the flooring is important,  for, if it is too hard,
hooves  may be injured,  if too soft,  they may grow too quickly and
permanently  damage  ankles  (Klos);   rats  will  suffer  decubitus
(ulcers) with improper floors  (Orlans),   and ungulates must have a
cleated surface or they will slip and  fall  (Fowler).    These  and
countless other technical problems all had to be resolved before the
first termite crawled aboard,  but there were no wildlife management
experts  available  for  consultation.    Even  today  the transport
requirements of many species are  not  fully known,  and it would be
physically impossible to design a single carrier to meet  them  all.
Apparently,  when God first told Noah to build an ark, he supplied a
complete set of blueprints and engineering details, constituting the
most intricate and precise revelation ever vouchsafed to humankind.


Problems for the builders.

So Noah grabbed his tools and went to work.   LaHaye and Morris tell
us that Noah and his three sons could have built the entire thing by
themselves  in  a mere eighty-one years (p.248).   This includes not
merely framing up a hull but: building docks,  scaffolds, workshops;
fitting together the incredible maze of cages and crates;  gathering
provisions  for  the  coming  voyage;   harvesting  the  timber  and
producing all the various types of lumber from bird cage bars to the
huge keelson beams--not to mention wrestling the very heavy,  clumsy
planks for the ship  into  their  exact location and fastening them.
What's worse,  by the time the job was finished,  the earlier phases
would be rotting away--a  difficulty  often  faced  by  builders  of
wooden  ships,   whose  work  took only four or five years (Thrower,
p.32). 

Faced with such  criticism,   the  creationists  quickly convert the
humble, righteous farmer into a wealthy capitalist who simply  hired
all  the help he needed (Segraves,  p.86-87).   It is estimated that
the construction of the  Great  Pyramid  required as many as 100,000
slaves;  Noah could have probably gotten by with less  (there  were,
after all,  "giants in the earth in those days" according to Genesis
6:4),  but what he lacked in numbers he sorely needed in experienced
and highly skilled craftsmen.   How did he learn when to fell a tree
and  how  to dry it properly to prevent rot and splitting,  when the
larger beams might take several years to cure (cf.  Dumas and Gille,
p.322)?   Did the local  reed-raft  builder  have equipment to steam
heat a plank so it could be forced into  the  proper  position?    A
shipyard  in nineteenth-century Maine would have been overwhelmed by
the size and complexity of this job, yet Noah still supposedly found
enough time to hold revivals and preach doomsday throughout the land
(Segraves, pp.87-90). 

God told the patriarch to coat  the  ark,  both inside and out,  all
229,500 square feet of it,  with pitch,  and,  in fact,  this was  a
common  practice  in  ancient  times.   But when Noah hurried to the
corner hardware store,  the shelf was bare, for pitch is a naturally
occurring hydrocarbon similar to petroleum (Rosenfeld,  p.126),  and
we know that oil,  tar,  and  coal deposits were formed when organic
matter was buried and subjected to extreme pressure during the flood
(Whitcomb and Morris,  pp.277-278,  434-436),  so none of it existed
in the prediluvian world.   Morris (1976,  p.182) tries to say  that
the  word  for  "pitch" merely means "covering," but not only do all
other Bible dictionaries  and  commentaries  translate it "pitch" or
"bitumen," but creationist Nathan M. Meyer reveals that all the wood
recovered by arkaeologists on Mt.   Ararat is "saturated with pitch"
(p.85).   Thus it seems that God accommodated Noah  by  creating  an
antediluvian  tar  pit  just  for the occasion,  and we have another
miracle. 

Finally,  our farmer-turned-architect  had  to  confront the gravest
difficulty of all:  in the words of A. M. Robb,  there was an "upper
limit,  in the region of 300 feet, on the length of the wooden ship;
beyond  such  a  length  the  deformation  due  to   the   differing
distributions   of  weight  and  buoyancy  became  excessive,   with
consequent difficulty in maintaining the hull watertight" (p.  355).
Pollard and Robertson concur,   emphasizing  that "a wooden ship had
great stresses as a structure.  The absolute limit of its length was
300 feet,  and it was liable to 'hogging' and 'sagging'" (pp.13-14).
This is the major reason why the naval industry turned to  iron  and
steel  in  the 1850s.   The largest wooden ships ever built were the
six-masted schooners,  nine of which  were launched between 1900 and
1909.   These ships were so long that they  required  diagonal  iron
strapping for support; they "snaked," or visibly undulated,  as they
passed  through the waves,  they leaked so badly that they had to be
pumped constantly,  and they were  only  used on short coastal hauls
because they were unsafe in deep water.    John  J.  Rockwell,   the
designer  of  the  first of this class,  confessed that "six masters
were not practical.    They  were  too  long  for wood construction"
(Laing, pp.393, 403-409).  Yet the ark was over 100 feet longer than
the longest six-master,  the 329 foot U.S.S.   _Wyoming_, and it had
to  endure  the  most  severe  conditions  ever  encountered   while
transporting  the  most  critically  important  cargo  ever  hauled.
Clearly,   God  had  to imbue this amateurishly assembled gopherwood
with some very special properties to fit it for the voyage.

So it should be clear by  now why "intelligent people" somehow see a
"problem" in the building of the ark.


                       Accommodating All Those Animals


The requirements of the story.

With the huge freighter near completion,  the time was drawing  near
when  its colorful cargo would clamber aboard.   We now turn to this
subject to see if we  can  learn  who  and how many made the fateful
trip. 

Genesis 6:19-20 declares that two of each kind of animal were to  be
collected and brought on board.   This is repeated in Genesis 7:8-9,
and  it  is explicitly stated that this applied to clean and unclean
beasts as well as to birds.   But Genesis 7:2-3 specifies that clean
beasts and  birds  were  to  be  taken  by  _sevens_.   Whatever the
numbers, it is clear that no animals could be left out.  Genesis 7:4
states that "every  living  substance"  that  God  made  was  to  be
destroyed  "from  off the face of the earth" by the impending flood.
Genesis 7:23 repeats the point and  adds that only those things with
Noah in the ark could survive.


Limiting the cargo to "kinds."

Creationists realize that the ark had a limited amount of  room  and
they are aware of the large number of species in the animal kingdom.
Therefore,   they  have  employed  various  tactics  to  reduce  the
population  needed on board.   Probably the most important tactic is
to restrict the command to "kinds"  rather than species and to argue
that the former are much fewer in number than the latter.

A kind (or "baramin" in creationist jargon)  is  the  unit  of  life
originally made  by God.   Within each kind is an enormous potential
for variation,  resulting, during the past six thousand years or so,
in a large number of  similar  animals that scientists classify into
species.   Meyer contends that "He  created  into  the  reproductive
apparatus  of  genes  and  chromosomes  the  possibility  of endless
hereditary combinations producing the possibility of endless variety
within each 'kind'" (p.37).  By juggling the number of kinds, LaHaye
and Morris reduce  the  total  population  aboard  the ark to 50,000
(p.247),  Whitcomb and Morris reduce it to 35,000 (p.69),  while Dr.
Arthur Jones squeezes it down to a bare bones total of 1,544 (quoted
in Balsiger and Sellier, p.130).

Genetic problems.

Is this a valid  argument?    Without  going  into  the  details  of
genetics,   it  can be  stated  that every inherited trait,  however
small,  is coded for by one or  more genes,  and each gene locus may
have a substantial number of variants (alleles),  which accounts for
the great variety observed in a  given  population.    Any  specific
individual,   however,   has at most only two alleles per locus--one
from each parent.  As James C. King writes: 

     There is good evidence for  concluding that every message coded
     in the DNA  exists in any sizeable population in numerous versions,
     forming a spectrum grading from grossly defective alleles--such
     as  the  one  for  albinism--at  one end,  through the slightly
     deviant,  to the normal at  the  other end.   And the normal is
     probably not a single version of the message but  a  collection
     of slightly different alleles.  (p.  55) 

Hence, for a trait such as human pigmentation, "we can visualize not
merely  a few dozen interacting loci but an array of perhaps a dozen
or so alleles at each locus" (p.60).

From this we can see that  the original canine baramin in Eden would
have needed a fantastic set of giant chromosomes  with  alleles  for
every  trait  that  would  someday  be manifest in coyotes,  wolves,
foxes, jackals, dingos, fennecs, and the myriad of minute variations
in hair color (twenty-four genes at nine loci),  height, face shape,
and so forth that are seen  in  the domestic dog (cf.   Hutt).   So,
too,  for the feline kind,  within which creationists  Byron  Nelson
(p.157)  and  Alfred  Rehwinkel  (p.70)  both  place lions,  tigers,
leopards,   and  ocelots  as  well  as  housecats.    Similar  giant
chromosomes would be required for the bovine kind,  equine kind, and
so on. 

In the centuries before the  deluge,  these strange progenitors must
have rapidly diversified into their potential species, as the fossil
record shows.   The equine kind developed not only zebras,   horses,
onagers,  asses,  and quaggas but Eohippus, Mesohippus, Merychippus,
and    other   now-extinct   species   that   paleontologists   have
misinterpreted  as   evidence   for   evolution.     (Remember  that
creationists hold that the flood is responsible for  the  burial  of
most,   if not all,  fossil species.   Therefore they had to already
exist prior to the deluge.) 

Then one day,  many centuries later,  the Lord told Noah to take two
canines, two felines,  two equines,   two pinnipedians--one male and
one female each--and put them aboard the ark.   The trick is,  which
does our ancient zoologist choose?   A male kit  fox  and  a  female
Great Dane?   A female lion and a male alley cat?  An Eohippus and a
Clydesdale?    Which  two  individuals  would possess the tremendous
genetic complement that their ancestors  in Eden had,  to enable the
many species to reappear after the flood?    How  could  Noah  tell?
Creationist   Dennis   Wagner  tells  us  that  the  original  kinds
degenerated through inbreeding so that their offspring would "_never
again_ reach the hereditary  variability  of  the parent" (quoted in
Awbrey;  my emphasis).   Yet the unique couple aboard the ark needed
the full genetic potential of the original kind,  if not more, for a
vast new array of climatic and geographic niches was  opened  up  by
the flood.

Speaking of a hypothetical group of six or eight animals stranded on
an island,   King  says,   "Such  a  small number could not possibly
reflect the actual allelic  frequencies  found in the large mainland
population" (p.107).  What, then, of the single pair on the ark?

These criticisms apply to the eight humans aboard the boat  as  well
(Genesis 6:18  and  7:7).    Creationists  still  cling  to obsolete
stereotypes  concerning  the   "three   distinct  families  of  man"
descended from Noah's three sons (Custance,  p.204)  and  even  talk
candidly  of  the  Afro-Asian "Hamites" being "possessed of a racial
character concerned  mainly  with  mundane  matters"  and subject to
displacement by "the intellectual and philosophical  acumen  of  the
Japhethites  and  the  religious zeal of the Semites" (Henry Morris,
1977, p.130). 

In reality the ethnic  complexity  found throughout the world cannot
be derived from the flood survivors in the few centuries since  that
time.    The human genetic pool was reduced to five individuals--Mr.
and Mrs.   Noah  and  their  daughters-in-law  (the three sons don't
count because they only carry combinations of the genes  present  in
Mr.    and Mrs.   Noah,  unless creationists are willing to admit to
beneficial gene mutations).  And even if, by some freak coincidence,
the five people never had a variant in common,  there would still be
far too few alleles to account for humankind's diversity.   Nearly a
third of  human  genes  are-polymorphic  (Bodner and Cavalli-Sforzi,
p.589), and some, such as the two controlling A and B antigens, with
thirty varieties (p.589),  would require substantially  more  people
than Genesis makes available. 

If  creationists  allowed beneficial mutations to produce the thirty
different antigens of the A and B series in the HLA region, it would
still not solve their problem.  Individuals are only heterozygous at
a fairly low  percentage  of  loci  (5  to  20  percent),  while the
population could be polymorphic at  nearly  half  the  loci.    It's
questionable   how  viable  an  individual  would  be  with  a  high
percentage of heterozygosity (Dobzhansky, Ayala, et al., p.72). 

Creationist Lane Lester recognizes the force of these facts,  but he
believes that supergenes,  several  genes  acting in concert,  would
solve the problem (p.251).  This, however, only confuses the concept
of supergenes,  which control several characters in an organism, not
one,  and thus cannot produce the observed variety in  a  population
from  two  parents  (cf.    Parkin,   p.141).    How this horizontal
evolution would be realized  is  even  more mystifying.   Since each
generation  would  receive  a  huge  set  of  variants,    including
maladaptive  recessives,   a  wholly random mix of oddball creatures
should result, and the rapid, efficient adaptations necessary in the
hostile post-flood climate would  prove  impossible.   How could the
arctic fox branch of the canine baramin be assured that  only  those
alleles  permitting  tolerance to extreme cold would dominate?   Why
shouldn't freshwater fish hatch  offspring  manifesting the genes of
their  saltwater   relatives?     Furthermore,    strangely   shaped
chromosomes  and odd-numbered sets of them (necessary to contain the
excess genes)  usually  disrupt  meiotic  cell  division and produce
sterile offspring (White, pp.172, 261).

On the other hand,  it  seems  puzzling  that  such  diversification
should  occur  at all,  for the originally created kinds were "good"
and their "devolution" would  "reduce  the  ability of the animal to
survive in nature" (Whitcomb, 1972, p.80); since the baramins, after
all,   prospered  and  replenished  in  the  bleak   desolation   of
post-diluvian   Armenia,    they  should  feel  comfortable  in  any
environment today.   The impetus  for  speciation is lacking in this
model, and there is no reason why, say, a snow leopard should evolve
when the superior,  better-fit "feline-min" migrated into an  alpine
environment.   We can only conclude with creationist Walter Lammerts
that "intelligent design" was activating and controlling this entire
process (p.261). 


Taxonomic problems.

The  taxonomy  of  kinds  is another bewildering subject.   The only
clear thrust  of creationist  writing  seems  to  be  ridiculing the
concept of species,  a term usually rendered with  quotation  marks.
We  respond  with  White that,  "if we were to give up the notion of
species altogether,  most  discussions  in  such  fields as ecology,
ethology, population genetics, and cytogenetics (to name only a few)
would simply become impossible" (p.5). 

Aside from this,  the creationist baramin can vary anywhere from the
level of genus to order (Siegler,  1978)--or even to  phylum  (Ward,
p.49)--although there seems to be a vague consensus approximating it
with  the  biological  family.    The most often-cited instance of a
kind,  for example, is the family Canidae, which has fourteen genera
and thirty-five species (Siegler, 1974).   But Sciuridae (squirrels)
has 281 species, and the _genus Rattus_ (old world rats) has several
hundred.   Would  creationists  recognize  the  eighteen families of
bats,  with their eight-hundred-plus species,  as eighteen  distinct
kinds,   or  would  they make the order Chiroptera into a single bat
kind?   Would  they  distinguish  the  nearly  thirty  families (two
thousand species) of  catfish?    At  the  other  extreme  are  many
families with but a single species, and even higher categories, such
as   the   orders  Tubulidentata  (aardvarks)  and  Struthioniformes
(ostriches)  or   even   the   phylum   Placozoa,    with   but  one
representative.   Why did the creator endow rats, bats, catfish, and
mosquitos (twenty-five hundred species  in  family  Culicidae)  with
such  adaptive potential but withhold this potential from aardvarks,
ostriches,  and placozoans,   especially  when  we  learn that "each
baramin was intended to move toward maximum variation"  (Ancil,   p.
124)?    What becomes of the science of taxonomy under this basis or
when the "major categories" (phyla?) are sea monsters,  other marine
animals,  birds,  beasts of the earth,  cattle, and crawling animals
(Henry Morris, 1974, p.216)? 

The theory of kinds  is  incoherent  and  confusing.   Since it runs
counter to all the known facts of genetics and taxonomy,  the burden
of proof is upon the creationists to  verify  it.    Where  are  the
fossil baramins?   What findings show that such ideal creatures ever
existed?  If complete sets of kind alleles could survive twenty-four
hundred  or  more years of radiation before the flood,  it should be
possible  to   find   specimens   today   with   inexplicably  large
chromosomal  complements;   perhaps   in   undiversified   families.
Unfortunately for "baramin geneticists," studies _have_ been done on
such  families  (cf.    Loughman,   Frye,  and Herald),  and nothing
extraordinary  has  been  discovered.    Still  no  experiments  are
forthcoming from the ICR to test  its hypothesis.   It is,  in fact,
"armchair science" without a shred of evidence, and we are justified
in rejecting it entirely and assuming that "two of every sort" means
two of every species.

                          Leaving Some Things Behind

Nonmarine animals.

Another foil used to lighten the ark is the assertion that many,  in
fact most, species could have survived outside  the  ark  and,   _eo
ipso_,   did.   Creationists somehow do not mind that this gambit is
contradicted by Scripture (Genesis 7:4, 23).  So, starting with fish
and marine invertebrates,  the  list  is expanded to include aquatic
mammals,  amphibians, most other invertebrates, sea birds, and "land
animals that could not have survived otherwise" (LaHaye and  Morris,
p.   246),   culminating  in John D. Morris's spectacle of dinosaurs
"somehow surviving outside" (1978, p.201; cf.   Whitcomb and Morris,
pp.68-69).   From this it is but a short step to the ancient Eastern
legend that the giant Og of Bashan survived by wading after the ark!
But can the great ship be so easily emptied? 

We can dismiss the  waterlogged  Stegosaurus splashing about for 371
days as an idea as absurd as Og of Bashan's big swim; amphibians and
other animals that need some terra firma can be passed by  as  well.
Let's  go  directly to those creatures that spend all of their lives
in the water. 

Although creationists seem to  think  that  once you're wet it's all
the  same, there  are  actually  many  aquatic  regimes   and   many
specialized inhabitants in each.  Some fish live only in cold, clear
mountain  lakes;   others  in  brackish  swamps.    Some  depend  on
splashing,   rocky,   oxygen-rich  creeks,  while others,  such as a
freshwater dolphin,  a manatee,   and a thirteen-foot catfish,  live
only in the sluggish Amazon.  In all these instances plus many more,
the environment provided by the deluge waters  would  have  no  more
suited these creatures than it would have the desert tortoise or the
polar bear. 

The salinity of the oceans would have been substantially affected by
the flood; Whitcomb and Morris lamely address this concern by noting
that  some  saltwater  fish can survive in freshwater and vice versa
and that "some individuals of each kind would be able to survive the
gradual mixing of the waters and gradual change in salinities during
and after the flood" (p.387).   We are asked to believe that a storm
so vast that the tops  of  the  mountains were covered in forty days
was so "gradual" that fish could adapt to these minor fluctuations!

In reality,  although some species can inhabit both fresh and saline
waters, most freshwater fish dropped in saltwater shrivel  and  die,
while   saltwater   fish   dropped  in  freshwater  bloat  and  die.
Creationist E. Norbert  Smith  theorizes  that  the denser saltwater
would not have mixed with  the  flood's  freshwater  and  thus  both
varieties  of  fish  could  have  made  it  through.    But  his own
experiment,  in which a goldfish thoroughly mingled the two types of
water in a fishbowl in fifteen  days,  shows how long the separation
would last during the violent shiftings of the earth called  for  in
the creationist flood model. 


Marine animals.

Arguing  over  salinity  is,   however,   a  moot  point,   for  the
environmental  hazards of the flood had to be so great that the salt
content would be a  fish's  least  concern.   We must remember that,
according to creationists, the deluge, in one year's time, deposited
nearly all of the sedimentary rocks present in the world today.   To
get some idea of how muddy this  would  be,   we  should  note  that
creationist  flood theorists maintain that the original ocean basins
were  greatly  enlarged  to  their  present  depths  to  receive the
retreating flood waters (Whitcomb,  1973,  pp.   35, 38); therefore,
the quantity of water in the oceans is basically equivalent to  that
of  the flood.   This volume is 1,350 x l0^6 cubic kilometers.   The
volume  of  Phanerozoic  sedimentary   rock  ("flood  deposits")  is
654x10^6 cubic kilometers (Blatt, Middleton, and Murray, p.34).  The
ratio of water to rock is thus 2.06:1.   Try mixing two parts  water
to  one  part sand;  double or even triple the equivalent to that of
the flood.   Try mixing two parts water to one part sand;  double or
even triple the  amount  of  the  water,   and  then  stick your pet
goldfish into the muck and see how long it lives!

Then,  too,  most  of  the  world's  volcanic  activity,   sea-floor
spreading,  mountain-building,  and continent-splitting was supposed
to  have  occurred  at  this  time  as  well,  filling the seas with
additional huge volumes of rock,  ash, and noxious gases.   Undersea
volcanoes  usually  decimate  all   life  in  the  surrounding  area
(Buljan),  and their extent had to be global  during  this  terrible
year.   The earth's prediluvian surface would thus have been scoured
clean,   and  forests,   multi-ton  boulders,   and  the  debris  of
civilization hurtled about like missiles.   Finally, this tremendous
explosion  of  energy would have transformed the seas into a boiling
cauldron in which no life could possibly survive.

Accurate calculations are nearly  impossible,  given the creationist
penchant for vagueness;  but  by  multiplying  the  amount  of  heat
generated during a typical volcanic eruption (cf.   Macdonald, p.60;
Bullard,   p.288)  by  the total volume of such material (Macdonald,
pp.350-351)--most of which would have  poured  out in the few months
under consideration--we arrive at a mind-boggling  3.65  _octillion_
calories.   This is enough to raise the temperature of the oceans by
more than 2700oC!   Obviously,  nearly any concessions,  any margins
of error, can be granted to the creationists within their geological
framework  and  the  flood  water  would remain a churning,  boiling
inferno,  easily  accomplishing  God's  intention  of destroying the
world. 

Yet amidst all of this,  creationist icthyologists  aver  that  life
went  on  as usual,   with  a few minor adjustments to the "gradual"
changes.  The salmon swam to their (long-vanished) riparian breeding
grounds that fall as they  always  had;  sea anemones clung to their
rocky perches,  which were on the beach one month  and  the  abyssal
plain  the  next;   blue  whales  continued to strain for krill even
though their baleen plates were choked with mud; corals,  which grow
in clear,   shallow  water,   somehow  grew  anyway;  hapless bottom
dwellers,  their lives carefully adjusted to certain  conditions  of
pressure  and temperature,  suddenly saw the former increase by more
than 5,000 pounds per square  inch  and  the latter fluctuate in who
knows what directions. 

Backhaus tells us that "aquatic species would pay for  any  attempts
at  acclimatization  with  their  lives or,  at any rate,  would not
survive for  very  long"  (p.194).    Most  are  highly sensitive to
changes in salinity,  temperature,  light,  oxygen,  and even  trace
elements (cf.   Bond; Hill).  The conclusion is unavoidable: barring
a  special miracle from God,  nothing but the hardiest microorganism
could have survived the flood outside the ark. 

Of course, the omnipotent deity could have performed several million
individual   miracles   and   preserved   representatives   of   the
invertebrates,  fishes,  amphibians,  and even dinosaurs outside the
ark;  but,  if so,  why not extend the coverage to the few remaining
terrestrial  vertebrates  and  dispense  with  the  boat altogether?
Again,  by some freak combination of luck,  we may imagine one  male
and   one   female   octopus  surviving  the  disaster  and  somehow
encountering each other between Japan  and California to renew their
species,  but the only way Noah,  as designated curator of the world
zoo,  could have guaranteed their persistence was by  bringing  them
aboard.    We  must conclude,  therefore,  that every species of the
animal kingdom had at least two members within the ark.


Adult animals.

So now we  are  back  to  fitting  all  the  animals on board.   Yet
creationists still have  another  method  of  saving  space.    They
postulate  that  many full-grown adult animal forms were left behind
and that only young  and  thus  smaller specimens were taken or--the
ultimate economy--that eggs were sufficient for the preservation  of
the dinosaurs (John Morris, 1980, p.66).   Most zoologists, however,
would  agree  with  Neill when he writes that "the mortality rate is
usually very high among seedling plants and young animals;  but once
the critical juvenile  stage  is  passed,   the  organism has a good
chance of reaching old age" (p.388).  In birds, for example, as many
as 80 percent die before reaching maturity (Dathe)-- facing everyday
hazards.   Furthermore,  the young of many  species  cannot  survive
without parental care and feeding (imagine two tiny unweaned kittens
shivering in their stalls!),  and,  even if they can,  the lack of a
normal   social  environment  often  results  in  severe  behavioral
disturbances.   The luckless animals aboard the ark were confronting
the gravest challenge to their endurance ever known, and they needed
to be the strongest,   healthiest,   and most virile representatives
their species had ever produced; juveniles would not do.  As for the
dinosaur eggs,  how did Noah know whether one would yield a  female,
the other a male--or even that both were fertile?  And since no eggs
require  a  year's  gestation,   he  soon  would have had a hoard of
fragile hatchlings on his hands. 

Plants and seeds.

Noah's responsibilities did not end with animals, for without plants
all life would perish.   Whitcomb  and  Morris grant that many seeds
were aboard the ark in the  food  stores  (p.70)  but  quote  fellow
creationist  Walter  Lammerts to the effect that "many thousands" of
plants survived either upon their  own  "arks" of floating debris or
simply by experiencing a rather thorough watering and then  sprouted
again as soon as the sun came out.   George Howe,  too, referring to
an  experiment  where three of five species showed germination after
twenty weeks of soaking in  sea  water,  concluded that the survival
rate  through  dormancy  would  have  been  high  (December   1968).
However, two of these three sprouted only when their seed coats were
scarified  (cut).    This presents a special problem.   The abrasive
force of the deluge would have easily scarified the seed coats,  but
this would have been too soon.   The seeds would have sprouted under
water and died.   But after  the  flood waters receded and the seeds
were  exposed  to  dry  land,   what  would  guarantee  their  being
scarified then?  Howe's experiments failed to properly duplicate the
conditions required by the flood model and hence his work offers  no
support for seed survival during the deluge.

In reality, seed dormancy is a complex affair and involves metabolic
and environmental  prerequisites for entrance into and recovery from
the state as well as several forms of quiescence.  The vast majority
of seeds  which  become  dormant  do  so  in  order  to  endure cold
temperatures or prolonged drought, and in the warm flood waters most
would germinate immediately and then drown for lack of  oxygen  (cf.
Villiers). 

The waters weren't the only thing that would bury them, however, for
huge deposits of silt and  lava  would  have been laid down as well,
entombing entire forests  and  paving  the  way  for  coal  and  oil
formation.    Today the surface of the ground consists of 80 percent
Phanerozoic rock and  only  20 percent Precambrian ("pre-diluvian"),
the latter found mostly in large shields and entirely absent in many
areas (Kummel,  p.87).   These shields themselves  would  have  been
eroded  to  the  bedrock by the flooding ("the vegetation would have
been uprooted .   . .   leaving no protection at all for the exposed
soils"-- Whitcomb and Morris,  p.261),  and in the rest of the world
the few seeds that may  have  survived  would have faced the task of
pushing up a sprout through thousands of feet of mud and rock.

Floating is also unsatisfactory as a means of riding out the  storm.
Less  than  1 percent  of  sermatophytes  produce disseminules which
drift for as long as one month,   much less a year (Gunn and Dennis,
p.4).   And although many debris rafts could have  been  torn  loose
during the early days of the storm, such vessels tend to break up in
rough  water (Zimmerman,  p.57),  so they would not have lasted very
long.   If somehow a few of them  did,  how would they know where to
unload their precious cargo afterward? 

Suppose,  for example,  that a hefty chunk was  torn  loose  from  a
densely  grown forest  and  managed to swing through a sparse desert
area,  where such rafts presumably  wouldn't form,  to pick up seeds
from a few rare cacti.   After a year at sea, what is the likelihood
that these seeds would be dropped in an area where the  temperature,
rainfall,  soil,  and light would be suitable for their growth?   As
the retreating waters evaporated, the topsoil would become saturated
with salts much like the beds of dry lakes in arid regions,  and all
but  the  hardiest halophilic plants would find the ground too toxic
for any growth.   Seawater  contains  thirty-five grams of salts per
liter,  and most plants cannot tolerate one-tenth this concentration
(Levitt,  p.371);  the residue left in the  soil  would  clearly  be
excessive.  Finally, assuming that some seeds did reach a survivable
spot, how long would their flowers have to wait before the birds and
insects arrived from Ararat to cross-polinate them?   Could the many
species  indigenous to the New World hold on while the transatlantic
trip was made? 

Isaac Asimov observes that the ancient Hebrews did not regard plants
as alive in the same  sense  animals  are (p.49);  therefore they no
doubt had  no  problem  picturing  olive  trees  enduring  a  year's
drowning    and    sprouting    immediately   afterward.     Today's
fundamentalists should have learned some botany since then, but they
still  carry  on  about  the  "hardiness"  of  olives  (Whitcomb and
Morris,  p.105),  and Nathan Meyer knows of a bristlecone pine  that
was  five  hundred  years  old  when the big rains came and is still
living (p.42)! 

If we are  to  take  the  deluge  seriously,   we  must be much more
skeptical about such stories.   The creationists need to soak  seeds
in  very  deep,   muddy  water  for  a  year  and then plant them in
unconsolidated,  briny silt in an unfavorable climate without insect
or  avian   pollinators   to   see   what   happens.     Have  their
mathematicians,   so  skilled  at  calculating  improbabilities  for
protein formation,  ever determined the odds of a seed enduring  the
flood  and  then  landing  in the right soil and climate rather than
being swept out to sea  by  the  retreating waters or coming down in
Antarctica? 

It seems that Noah needed to have not merely "many" seeds  but  many
samples  of all  the seeds and spores of the 420,000-plus species of
plants in order to guarantee  their  survival--or else we must tally
up a few million more miracles of divine preservation.


                              Sizing Up the Load

Getting an accurate count.

We can finally begin to make some calculations.   Robert  D.  Barnes
lists the number of living species for each phylum, ranging from the
sole member of Placozoa to the 923,000 in Arthropoda (pp.12, 85-88).
Using his figures, we arrive at a total of 1,177,920 species.

In addition, there are many animals that are as yet unknown.   Wendt
estimates that  only 2 percent of all the parasitic worms are known,
which would easily  add  another  million  species (p.   83).   This
includes as many as 500,000 nematodes,  although  only  15,000  have
been described (Levine,  p.1).   Ten thousand new species of insects
are discovered every year,  yet still only a small fraction of those
in existence have been found (Atkins, p.45). 

All  of  those creatures were known at one time,  for Adam gave them
all names (Genesis 2:19-20),  and, since they exist today, they must
have been on the ark.    But  we  shall be extremely generous to the
creationists and add only 500,000 undiscovered species to our figure
of 1,177,920--thus giving a mere 1,677,920 species with  which  Noah
had to contend. 

To  this  number,   we  must  add  the myriad of extinct prehistoric
animals,  which creationists assure us were alive at the time of the
flood,  making tracks in the Paluxy  River,  and which were known to
Job afterward (John Morris, 1980, p.65).  This would vastly increase
the numbers,  since "only a tiny percentage of the animal and  plant
species  that  have  ever  existed  are  alive today" (Kear,  p.10).
However,  since creationists do  not  believe in transitional forms,
we can again give them the benefit of the doubt and add to our total
only the 200,000 different fossils that have been described.    This
brings  the number to 1,877,920 species or animal pairs that were to
be boarded onto the ark. 

Of course,  we can't forget  that Genesis 7:2-3 (particularly in the
Revised Standard Version) makes it clear that only  unclean  animals
come in single pairs,  male and female;  the clean animals and birds
come in seven pairs,  male and female.   That means fourteen of each
clean  animal  and  each bird.   But since figures for the number of
clean animals are hard to find, we will have to let creationists off
the hook and ignore them.  Birds are another story.  There are 8,590
species of birds.   Since they have already been calculated into our
figure of 1,877,920 species  or  3,755,840 individual animals on the
ark,  we need only six more pairs of each species of bird to make it
come out to seven pairs.   That brings our count up to a grand total
of 3,858,920 animals aboard the ark--two of  each  species,   except
birds which number fourteen each. 

Problems with the biblical limits.

This figure may seem excessive at first glance, but in reality it is
so small as to be unrealistic.  Many animals need more than a single
pair  to  reproduce.   Bees and other hymenopterans live in colonies
and "apart from  the  community  [they]  cannot properly function or
survive"  (Lindauer,   p.l28).    Many  types  of  flies  engage  in
reproductive swarming.   Some birds will not mate  unless  they  are
part  of  a flock (Conway,  p.205;  Kleiman,  p.255),  and many fish
spawn only as part of a  school (Bond,  p.434).   In fact,  "animals
which unite into colonies for purposes of  reproduction  are  by  no
means rare phenomena" (Wendt, p.118).

The whole process of mating, egg-laying, gestation, and the survival
of  the fragile young is a risky business that can easily be aborted
by many factors,   including  predators,   disease,  exposure to the
elements,  and so on.   In many species of spiders, given the chance
the female will kill and devour the male _before_ they mate;  on the
ark,  the hapless husband would have to be particularly  fleetfooted
or his wife would unwittingly exterminate her species!   Infanticide
is  another  significant  concern  and  occurs frequently even among
primates.   Dayflies, so named because their mature stage lasts only
a few hours,  form a tiny  cloud  of dancing males trying to attract
females,  with a successful mating rate of at most 1 percent (Wendt,
p.135).    Even  the  prodigious   rabbits   fare   poorly   outside
many-chambered   warrens,    the   work   of   numerous  individuals
(Andrewartha, p.134). 

Locating one's mate can also be tricky.   The Sumatran rhino depends
on communication points in its range,  and, if it can't visit these,
it loses contact with others  and reproduction doesn't occur (Lang).
The tick,  _Ixodes ricinus_, mates only on a sheep which must browse
through a field and by chance pick up  both  a  male  and  a  female
tick--and  even  then  these poor crawlers can't find one another if
they are too far  apart  on  the  sheep's body (Andrewartha,  p.55).
Imagine the microscopic parasites of a bull elephant, limited to two
per species by Sacred Writ,  searching for each other  on  the  vast
cosmos of their host's body! 

Competitive  social  behavior  between  males  is often necessary to
achieve successful androgen levels  (Kleiman,   p.247);  an isolated
male is effectively impotent.   Individual incompatibility between a
pair of animals is another commonplace,  often  thwarting  the  most
determined zoo keepers' efforts at breeding.

All  told,  with but a single male and female apiece,  or even seven
pairs of birds and clean animals,   every  species on earth would be
well below the margin of endangerment, and the chances of successful
survival,  especially in the devastation of the post-diluvian world,
would be so small that they can he  considered  nil.    Conservation
biologists  estimate  a  minimum  size  of  fifty  for  a  species's
survival.   Hence our grand total could be multiplied many times and
still represent only the most tenuous hold of life on earth. 

Was there room enough on the ark?   It contained 450x75x45=1,518,750
cubic  feet of  space if it was exactly rectangular with no curve on
the keel or elsewhere.   Part  of  this was occupied by the quarters
for Noah and his family.   Room had to be provided for  the  orderly
compartmentalization  of plants and seeds.   An immense storage area
for food,  fresh water, and waste was needed.   Also, the ark had to
have corridors throughout,   large  enough  for  the  passage of the
bulkiest animals to their stalls when boarding and unboarding and at
least large enough for the crew to pass into the most remote corners
of the vessel.  There would finally be a considerable volume lost in
wood alone;  the decks,  larger cages,  supporting beams,  and so on
would occupy a considerable space.   The  six-masted  schooners  had
keelsons  7 feet high and 8 feet wide running the full length of the
hull and often used 20 x  20  inch beams (Snow);  the switch to iron
construction increased cargo capacity by upwards of 20 percent  (cf.
Hutchins, p.443). 

If  we  conservatively allow all of these requirements to consume 30
percent of the space, this leaves 1,063,125 cubic feet to be divided
among the nearly 4 million animals,  resulting in a mere 0.275 cubic
foot per individual!  No arrangement of cages, however ingenious, no
high-density packing of minute invertebrates, could squeeze everyone
into this amount of room.   For comparison,  a sable antelope or red
hartebeest needs a crate of 57 cubic feet for the brief journey from
capture to quarantine; a zebra, 77 cubic feet; medium-sized giraffe,
99;  eland,  110; hippopotamus or small elephant,  214 (adapted from
Hirst, p.121).   These seven species alone, male and female, require
more than 5,600 times  the  allotment  per  specimen for a trip that
rarely exceeds three days.   For the 371 days of the flood, the area
would need to be greatly enlarged--for crowding and lack of exercise
would be extremely detrimental,  if not fatal, to most (cf.   Young,
p.137; Voss,  p.157).   Many birds must have high roofs with room to
fly,  and even a pond snail needs a gallon  of  water  for  adequate
living (Orlans, p.85). 

Probably  the  greatest  space  requirements are involved in keeping
aquatic organisms.   Many fish swim continually, even when sleeping,
and the general rule is  100  gallons  of  water per pound of animal
weight (Atz, p.180).  Gruber and Keyes state that "the primary cause
of mortality in captive pelagic sharks is that their living space is
not large enough" (p.376).   Marineland of the Pacific has an  80x22
foot  circular  whale  stadium  of 640,000 gallons,  containing four
small whales and some dolphins;   the many large whales would occupy
aquaria "the size of a football stadium" (Hill, p.151). 

All of this would have constituted a tremendous weight.  Filby would
put a mere hundred tons of animals aboard,  with a few thousand tons
of supplies (cited by Montgomery,  p.58).   However,  a mature sheep
(the creationists' average-sized animal) weighs 120 pounds,  and  at
this  rate the vertebrates alone would exceed 4,500 tons.   When the
huge volume of food and drinking water, the hundreds of thousands of
gallons in the  aquaria,   and  the  giant dinosaurs and prehistoric
mammals are included,  it is clear that the ark would have sunk like
a brick the moment it was launched.

At this stage, further discussion of the overcrowding becomes rather
pointless.   We leave the conundrum in the laps of the creationists,
recalling the words of theologian Johannes Weiss,  "The apologists .
.  . can get the better of any historical result  whatever"  (quoted
in   Schweitzer,   p.234).    Perhaps  God  performed  a  miraculous
miniturization on the animals; as the flood legend takes on more and
more of an Alice-in-Wonderland air, anything becomes possible.

Before moving on,   we  must  briefly  take  note  of an argument so
popular that nearly every ark theorist uses it: that the interior of
the  ark  could  have  held  literally  hundreds  of  standard-sized
railroad stock cars and thus was quite roomy.  But while the figures
for rail car size and capacity are cited with fair accuracy, ignored
is the federal law which requires a train on a  long  haul  to  stop
every  twenty-eight  hours,  to unload the stock,  to feed and water
them,  and to give them a five-hour rest period (Ensminger, p.1062).
This may be just a minor inconvenience to American ranchers,  but it
would have  been  quite  impossible  for  Noah.    Thus  the analogy
collapses.  The fact that every creationist has triumphantly trotted
out his  train  statistics,   yet  overlooked  this  decisive  flaw,
demonstrates once again the sloppiness of creationists' research.


                             Gathering the Cargo

Animal migration.

Having  drawn up a passenger list,  the next order of business is to
gather them all  at  dockside.    At  this  point,  the creationists
themselves are unable to propound any sort of scenario in which Noah
and his sons could perform such a  feat,   so  they  resort  to  the
convenient  dumping  ground  of  the  inexplicable:  miracles.   God
himself intervened  by  implanting  in  the  chosen  pair  from each
species the instinct of  migration,   and  by  this  mechanism  they
gathered  from  the  four  corners  of  the world and headed for the
Plains of Shinar (Witcomb,  p. 30).   LaHaye and Morris (p.251) even
spice things  up  with  an  added  ability  to  instinctively "sense
imminent danger," but in any event a cheetah here,  a penguin there,
here an ant, there an ant, all dropped what they were doing and made
a beeline for the ark.   That this is not too farfetched we can  see
today, say creationists, for many animals still migrate, and this is
the  most "scientific" explanation available for their ability to do
so. 

A closer look reveals that  a  miracle  is  indeed called for in the
gathering of the animals,  but it is a much larger and more  complex
one than merely imparting "premonition" and migration.  In the first
place,   a glance at Jarman's Atlas of _Animal Migration_ shows that
of all the birds,   fish,   and  terrestrial animals whose paths are
shown,  only one,  the common crane of southern  Russia,   currently
migrates  to  the  Mesopotamian  Valley.    Therefore,  God not only
programmed the animals to go to  Noah's place before the flood,  but
afterward he deprogrammed most of them and  rerouted  all  the  rest
except  the  common crane--a reverse miracle.   Incidentally,  it is
noteworthy that many  aquatic  creatures  migrate,   a faculty whose
origins  the  creationists  find   incomprehensible   unless   these
creatures were also sent to the ark. 

Climatic zones.

However accurate their suddenly acquired instinct,  for many animals
it  could not have been enough to overcome the geographical barriers
between them and the  ark.    The  endemic  fauna  of the New World,
Australia,  and other remote regions,  as well as animals unable  to
survive  the  Near  Eastern environment,  would find the journey too
difficult no matter how desperately they yearned to go.

Flood theorists are unperturbed by such obstacles, however, for they
simply gerrymander the  map  to  give  us  an  antediluvian world of
undivided  continents  and  a  uniform,   semitropical,   springlike
climate,  and--_presto_!--all the animals become evenly  distributed
and  hence  within  a  short stroll of the ark (Whitcomb and Morris,
p.64).   But this resolves one  question  only to raise another:  in
such a world,  where did the animals which are found  today  in  the
arctic,  desert,  alpine,  and other specialized postdiluvian niches
live?   The polar bear, caribou, walrus, yak, snow leopard, and many
more would suffocate in the warm tropics; many desert dwellers could
not   have   endured   the  excessive  humidities  they  would  have
encountered. 

Creationists would no  doubt  respond  that  these creatures evolved
within their " kinds" after the flood,  but we  have  already  found
that concept so vague as to be meaningless.  Besides, since in their
chronology  the  ice age immediately followed the deluge and started
freezing woolly mammoths, the rapidity of intra-kind evolution would
be far greater than  any  Darwinist  ever dreamed possible and there
could be no logical justification for  continuing  to  rage  against
interkind transformation.   On the other hand, there may have been a
small desert here, a tiny tundra there, to house these specimens for
the  few  centuries  from  the  creation  to  the time their regular
habitats appeared, but that puts us back on square one wondering how
they struggled through the heat and humidity to the ark.

Other creatures had it even rougher.   Hundreds of species live only
in caves and are so  sensitive  that  many cannot survive in caverns
just slightly different from their own and many  may  be  killed  by
exposure  to light (Vandel,  pp.37,  399).   For these cavernicoles,
even a very short journey  from  their homes would prove impossible.
Could Noah have fetched them himself  to  save  them  from  a  fatal
march?     Could   he   have   distinguished   the  293  species  of
pseudoscorpions and picked out a male and female of each? 

Aquatic animals would also find  the trip challenging.   Did all the
representatives of the oceans,  lakes,  and streams  overcome  their
sensitivities to normally lethal changes in environmental conditions
and  swim  up  the ancient Euphrates or the "mighty Hiddekel" to the
docks nearest the ark?    How  did  the  many sessile species,  from
sponges and corals to anemones and barnacles,  detach themselves and
waddle through however brief a trip it may have  been?    A  problem
analogous  to  that  of terrestrial arctic and desert dwellers would
be the exotic inhabitants  of  the  abyssal  and  hadal zones of the
ocean depths.   In this instance,  too, creationists have postulated
only shallow seas before the deluge,  precluding the very  existence
of  deep-sea dwellers.   In reply,  we again insist either that such
accelerated  evolution  occurred   that   creationists  have  argued
themselves out of a job or else that there was  a  trench  somewhere
in the "shallow seas" specifically for these organisms.


Parasites and diseases.

Some  important  complications  arise  with  that extensive group of
organisms known as parasites.   Hundreds of thousands of species are
known,  and a very large  proportion  of  them are host specific and
must spend all or part  of  their  lives  within  the  host  animal.
Therefore  the single pair of animals from each species had to carry
aboard the ark the parasites  that  were adapted to living within or
upon them.   Although many of these are harmless freeloaders, others
are pathogenic and often fatal to their host.   Yet  the  fact  that
such  organisms  exist  today  demonstrates _that_ they survived the
flood,  and the fact that  they  must inhabit their host shows _how_
they survived. 

The example of _Homo sapiens_  will  show  the  seriousness  of  the
problem.    Humans are sanctuary to over one hundred parasites,  and
many are host specific.  Although the four species of human malarial
parasites undergo sexual development in mosquitos, they must undergo
further development in humans.    Hence,   a member of Noah's family
must have had malaria at some  point  in  his  life  and  must  have
remained   infected   after   the   flood  until  the  earth  became
sufficiently repopulated that  the  parasite  passed to others.   In
similar manners,  the vectors of many other parasitic infections are
also specific to humans, such as the tapeworms _Taenia saginata_ and
_T.   solium_,  the intestinal  worm  _Ascaris  lumbricoides_,   the
hookworm _Leishmania tropia_, the pinworm _Enterobius vermicularis_,
three  agents  of  filariasis,  two species of _Schistosoma_,  three
species of lice, and many dozens more (Jones).  Also, of course, the
five types of venereal disease bacteria cannot survive outside their
human abode. 

These eight unfortunate  souls  were  afflicted with enough diseases
and  discomforts  to  support  a  hospital--all  as  their  part  in
"preserving life" through the great flood.   And nearly every  other
animal on board--from Shem's lice to the right whales--had parasites
of their own to cope with.  What remarkable creatures they must have
been;   in  order  to  ensure  their  survival  they  had  to be the
strongest, healthiest, most fertile pair possible, while at the same
time they had to carry  a  full  set of debilitating parasites so as
to guarantee _their_ survival.

How was Noah assured that the proper complement of viable  tapeworms
was present  in  each rodent and each lizard waiting to come aboard?
How could he confirm the presence of microscopic fauna in their tiny
stalls?   If a prospective passenger  was lacking an essential flea,
what could be done?  Was there opportunity to correct any errors?


Verifying sex.

If just one of the  teeming  hoard  of  animals  turned  out  to  be
sterile,   that species  would  become  extinct.   Could Noah verify
everyone's fertility?   For that matter,   could he even verify that
the couple on the gangplank were male and female,  when a great many
animals,  including 30 percent of the birds and even  some  mammals,
are  sexually monomorphic and cannot be distinguished without modern
veterinary techniques or  even  hormonal  analysis?    Most fish are
indeterminant as juveniles and will only become male or female  when
mature (Bond,  pp.415-416), while some female worms will change into
males when starved (Hapgood,  p.78).   No wonder Segraves proposes a
miracle here (p.16). 

Creationists insist on a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis;
so  when those  animals  which reproduce by asexual budding,  or the
over one thousand thelytokous  (all-female)  species from insects to
lizards,  converged toward the ark,  another special  miracle  would
have  been  called  for to fulfill the explicit command to take both
male and female aboard.   By the time Noah encountered the sea star,
_Asterina gibbosa_,  which  begins  life  as  a  male and eventually
becomes female,  he must have been ready to throw in  the  towel  in
frustration. 


Difficulties of Travel.

The  journey of the animals presents other remarkable facets.   They
traveled over hill, over dale, through the dense jungles, and across
the mighty Edenic rivers without  a single accident.   No limbs were
broken,  no drownings occurred.   Amazingly, not one perished at the
paws of a predator;  from the tastiest  earthworm  to  the  freshest
frog,   all  marched  past the hungry inhabitants of the forest with
impunity.   Orr stresses that "migration is hazardous.   For species
that engage in long  migrations  it  may  be  a  great strain on the
bodies of the participants.   There may be extended periods  without
food  as  well  as  long  hours  of  travel....    Attrition through
predation may be higher during migration" (p.   239).  He also notes
that getting lost can be  a problem,  especially for those traveling
singly as opposed to flocks and herds (pp.175,  240).   But  if  the
divine instinct often fails today's travelers,  what chance did such
unlikely  way-farers  as  eyeless cave fish,  giant sloths,  and sea
urchins have of locating a specific acre in Asia?  St.   Christopher
was clearly in his  finest  hour,  performing literally thousands of
miracles every day. 


The botanical garden.

Perhaps with a vivid imagination we can  picture  this  divine  Pied
Piper  saga  in action;   but  no such excuse can save Noah from his
responsibility for gathering the  seeds  of  the nearly half million
plants that survived the flood.   No premonition,   however  urgent,
could cause a pine cone to commence rolling toward the ark;  someone
would  have  to go get it.   Our biblical botanists would have to be
able to identify fertile seeds and  spores,  find them at the proper
season,  and make sure that the storage area aboard  ship  would  be
suitable.    In the damp depths of the ark,  most seeds would either
rot or sprout and then die for lack of nutrients and light.  How did
Noah  prepare  and  maintain  the  special  low-humidity  containers
necessary to ensure their  dormancy?    How  did he control insects,
rodents,  and fungi?   Seed storage is  a  complex  technology  and,
without  proper techniques,  "no seed can maintain its viability for
long" (Thomson, p. 100).

In addition,  God told Noah  to  gather food for the various animals
(Genesis 6:21),  many of  whom,   as  we  shall  see,   have  highly
specialized diets.   Hence,  even if the animals could reach the ark
unaided, an overwhelming burden would be placed upon our heroes with
regard to the plant kingdom. 

Boarding the ark.

At last this remarkable menagerie gathered before the gaping door of
the  great ship.   Still the protective aura hovered over them,  for
natural enemies stood  side  by  side  without conflict:  the mighty
carnivores ignored countless opportunities to fill  their  stomachs;
the  panicky  impulses  of  animals  in  strange  surroundings  were
subdued; even the centipedes and beetles escaped extinction from the
chance  misstep of the elephant.   This surreal tranquility extended
to animals that were not among  the elect--for the sounds and smells
of the  teeming  throng  undoubtedly  piqued  the  interest  of  the
denizens of the surrounding jungle,  yet none of them took advantage
of having a meal spread out before them on a silver platter.

The peaceful scene was about to come to an abrupt end, however.  All
at  once the  command  went forth to board the ark,  and pandemonium
erupted.   The  Bible  emphasizes  that  all  the  animals and human
passengers entered the ark on  the  _same_  day  (Genesis  7:11-15).
Simple division of our grand total shows that 44.66 creatures had to
dash  up the gangplank and through the door every second in order to
fill the ark within twenty-four  hours!    Even if we grant that the
parasites could hitch a ride with their hosts and many insects could
go through  at  once,   and  if  we  simply  count  the  vertebrates
(including the seven pairs of birds), this still averages out to two
per  second.    This  was not merely a mad scramble for the door but
involved weaving through the  intricate  maze of corridors until the
correct cage--that one specific stall exactly designed to meet  that
animal's  needs--was  located,  entered,  and secured.   It includes
Noah's  unenviable  task  of  getting  clams  and  piranhas,  barely
visible mites, and killer whales, into their quarters.   How did our
overworked crewmen wrestle all the huge aquatic creatures  from  the
river  to  their aquaria in half a second,  especially when improper
handling can severely injure such  animals?   How did the "migratory
instinct" guide the panicy porcupine  to  the  right  stall  in  the
twinkling of an eye? 

Looking back over this entire wonderful journey, from the flicker of
illumination  that separated two grazing gazelles from their herd to
the frantic stampede to  their  stalls,   one can only conclude that
Jehovah should have had access to a _Star Trek_  script  and  simply
beamed  the animals aboard,  saving everyone a whole heap of trouble
and conserving a substantial supply of his own mirific energy.

                              Surviving the Flood

Those that died.

No  sooner  had  the  last  snail  slithered  aboard  than  the Lord
accommodated Noah once again by supernaturally shutting the enormous
door of the ark (Genesis 7:16).   From this moment on,  the die  was
cast,  and everyone outside the ark was doomed.   Sinful man and all
his works were to be washed away. 

It  is  worthwhile to pause here and wonder what became of this lost
world, especially when we learn  that  it  may  have  had as many as
twenty-five _billion_ inhabitants and a fairly high  cultural  level
(Henry Morris,  1977,  p.80).   Yet aside from some supposedly human
footprints in early strata and two insignificant artifacts (Balsiger
and  Sellier,   pp.44-45),   not a trace of this civilization or its
renowned giants has ever  been  found.    All of the hominid fossils
that  have  been  found--from  Olduvai  Gorge  to   the   caves   of
France--represent   degenerate   post-diluvian  tribes  (Kofahl  and
Segraves,  pp.130-131).   Henry Morris  (1974,  p.119) suggests that
these billions of people fled to  the  mountains  and  thus  escaped
burial  while  their  cities  were  entombed so deeply that they can
never be found.   What  remarkable  tenacity these prediluvians had,
clinging to the mountain tops even though they  were  submerged  for
five  months  as the waters surged "to and fro" !   And their cities
wouldn't have been buried any  deeper  than the ocean floor dwellers
whose fossils are exposed abundantly.   With Nelson,  we are  forced
once  again  to  the  _deus  ex machina_:  "_It was God's deliberate
purpose to leave no  vestige  of prediluvian man remaining_" (p.161,
his emphasis). 

The flood not only destroyed wicked humanity.   All of the  innocent
creatures  on earth suffered and died in this God-ordained cataclysm
(Genesis 7:21-23).  Why?  Whitcomb and Morris reveal that "sub-human
creatures" which have been used  as  instruments of sin are punished
(p.465).   But surely every animal on earth, many of which had never
even seen a human,  didn't deserve to be summarily  drowned.    What
cruel hand of fate selected the two of each species to board the ark
leaving all the others behind without hope?  These issues are beyond
the  scope  of this article,  but we merely mention them to indicate
some of the many additional  quandaries  a literal acceptance of the
flood story entails. 


The size and effects of the flood.

We have alluded to the immensity of  the  deluge  already,   but  to
really  appreciate  it  we  should  savor some of the remarks of the
experts: 

    The Flood was accompanied  by  violent  movements of the earth's
    crust  and  by  volcanic  activity  of  momentous   proportions.
    Tremendous tidal waves and  rushing  currents scoured and deeply
    eroded the continental surface.   Entire forests were ripped  up
    and  transported large distances to be dumped where the currents
    slowed.  (Kofahl and Segraves, p.226)  

    Even after the first forty days,  when the greatest of the rains
    and upheavals diminished,   the  Scriptures  say that the waters
    "prevailed" upon the earth for one hundred and ten days  longer.
    This  statement  .    . .   would certainly imply that extensive
    hydraulic and sedimentary  activity  continued  for a long time,
    with  many  earlier  flood  deposits   perhaps   re-eroded   and
    reworked....   The only way in which land could now appear again
    would be for a tremendous orogeny to take place.  Mountains must
    arise  and  new basins must form to receive the great overburden
    of  water  imposed  upon  the  earth.    (Whitcomb  and  Morris,
    pp.266-267) 

    Yielding of the crust at  even one point,  with resultant escape
    of  magmas  and  water  or  steam,   would  then  lead  to earth
    movements causing further  fractures  until,   as the Scriptures
    portray so graphically,  "the same day were all the fountains of
    the great deep broken up" (Genesis 7:11).    Truly  this  was  a
    gigantic catastrophe,  beside which the explosion of the largest
    hydrogen   bomb,    or  of  hundreds  of  such  bombs,   becomes
    insignificant! (Whitcomb and Morris, pp.242-243)

    The worldwide ocean  of  the  Genesis  flood  was  swept by wind
    storms  that  would  make   modern   tornadoes   seem   like   a
    zephyr. (Schmich, p.121)

    There  are  perhaps  five hundred active volcanoes in the world,
    and possibly three times  that  many  extinct  volcanoes.    But
    nothing  ever  seen  by  man in the present era can compare with
    whatever the phenomena were which  caused the formation of these
    tremendous structures.  (Whitcomb, 1973, p.85) 

For once we  can  agree  that  creationist  rhetoric  has  not  been
exaggerated.     A cataclysm   that  could  accomplish  the  largest
percentage of the  geological  activity  in  earth's  history in one
year--events that uniformitarians assign to billions of years--would
be so overwhelming that we cannot begin to imagine what it would  be
like.    Yet  into  the  jaws of destruction sailed a rickety wooden
boat--oversized,  leaky and unsound,   carrying a cargo whose safety
and protection was all important!   It is utterly inconceivable that
it could have survived even a few days  of  this  maelstrom  without
being blasted to splinters--unless it was protected by the unceasing
intervention of the deity. 

The survival of the ark.

Curiously,    when   the   talk  turns  to  the  fate  of  the  ark,
diluviologists suddenly paint a much rosier picture.   Whitcomb, for
example,  has read that tsunamis (so-called tidal waves) in the open
sea are of such low amplitude  as  to be hardly noticeable and would
"thus have had very little effect on Noah's Ark" (1973, p.73).   But
why mention these and omit wind-driven waves,  which have been known
to exceed one hundred feet in an  ordinary  hurricane?    The  winds
that  would  make  tornadoes  "seem like a zephyr," blowing over the
unlimited,  unobstructed  fetch  of  the  entire  globe,  would have
generated waves many times higher;   arkeologist  Meyer  suggests  a
height of several _miles_ (p.57)!   And what sorts of waves would be
produced  by  the  breakup of the "fountains of the great deep," the
splitting of the continents,  and the worldwide orogeny?   The shock
waves from  present-day  submarine  earthquakes  have  been known to
damage or destroy vessels far from land (Thrower, pp.90-91).

Furthermore,  there were at least two occasions when the ark was not
in the open sea.   As she sat on the Plains of  Shinar,   her  first
encounter  with the deluge would most likely have been a mountainous
tidal wave or flash flood or  both,   smashing her to pieces just as
easily as it uprooted "entire forests." At  the  other  end  of  the
trip,   the  vessel  was  slammed  into the side of Mt.   Ararat and
battered a few more days by the violently receding waters. 

There were other hazards as well.   Volcanic ash and molten boulders
filled the air,  while at  least  in  the  early stages of the storm
vegetation rafts and the debris of  civilization  shot  through  the
water  like torpedoes.   For most of the time,  the ark was the only
object projecting above the sea's  surface,  and,  as such,  it must
have been subject to a continuous barrage of  lightning,   producing
fires, splitting beams, and electrocuting soaked animals. 

Then we have the puzzling currents of the flood, which flowed hither
and  yon, burying some places one week and uncovering them the next.
For example,  creationists tell  us  that  the Llano Uplift of Texas
remained a haven for men and dinosaurs while eight thousand feet  of
sediment was being deposited nearby (John Morris, 1980, pp.182-185).
Hence  the ark should have also encountered swift-moving,  riverlike
currents  and  whirlpools,   with  frequent  collisions  against the
outcrops that broke the surface.  Noah neglected putting any kind of
steering mechanism on the ship,  leaving it completely at the  mercy
of the savage storm (Segraves, p.11).

In what must be a first,  creationists Balsiger and Sellier actually
conducted an experiment (pp.117-118).  They had a scale model of the
ark tested in a hydraulics lab and concluded from this that it could
have withstood waves of over two hundred feet before capsizing.  But
even  higher  seas  must have been commonplace in that fateful gale,
quickly sending the boat to the bottom.  It's a moot issue, however,
since  the  entire  test  is  vitiated  by  overlooking  the  ship's
excessive size.    which  would  have  rendered  it  unsound  in any
weather. 

Arkeologists cannot have their cake and eat it;  they can't  have  a
cataclysm  of the  magnitude  of the biblical flood and still expect
the ark to  survive.    Each  year  approximately two thousand ships
succumb to the forces of the sea,  in conditions that are  like  the
horse latitudes compared to the deluge.   These include structurally
sound  steel  freighters  larger  than  the ark,  some of which have
vanished so  fast  in  a  "mere"  hurricane  that  people  have even
suggested a paranormal force behind their destruction (cf.   Kusche,
pp.246-247).   Who can forget the 229,000 ton  supertanker,   _Amoco
Cadiz_, which ran aground off Brittany in March 1978 and was quickly
broken in two by swells that were calm compared to those lashing Mt.
Ararat?    Yet the ark was adrift,  without rudder or sail,  for 150
days (Genesis 7:24) in a storm that would make "hundreds of hydrogen
bombs" seem insignificant!


The fate of the cargo.

But mere survival is  hardly  the  proper  criterion of the voyage's
success.   The animals,  many of them so sensitive  that  they  have
never  yet been kept in zoos,  had to make it through in good enough
condition to reproduce and to spread over the earth.  Hirst tells us
that "wild animals should be  subjected  to a minimum of jolting and
rolling during transport....   Rapid acceleration,  sharp cornering,
and sudden deceleration are to be avoided  at  all  times"  (p.124).
Broken   legs   and   necks,    bruises,   and  cuts  are  important
considerations in even short  hauls  by  truck,   not to mention the
panic most of the overcrowded creatures would experience.  Even fish
in tanks are severely affected by  sloshing  and  jolting  (Van  den
Sande).    If  indeed  the ship avoided being reduced to toothpicks,
anything on board larger than  a grasshopper would have been pounded
into a bloody,  shapeless mass  long  before  the  last  tidal  wave
crashed against the creaking hull.


                              Caring for the Cargo

Assuming  that  the  chaos  outside  could  somehow  be  drastically
reduced, what special problems did the cargo pose?  According to the
time  periods  given  in  Genesis  7:9-11 and 8:13-14,  based on the
Hebrew Lunar Year of 354 days,   the inhabitants of the ark remained
there 371 days.   How did Noah and his family  take  care  of  their
charges during this long stay? 


Animal hibernation.

Our  Bible-believing  biologists have devised a clever mechanism for
easing Noah's task: hibernation.  LaHaye and Morris tell us that the
ability to hibernate is an "almost universal tendency" among animals
and that,  faced with "adverse conditions" and "extreme stress" they
would slip into this state  and  hence be easily manageable (p.252).
Henry Morris agrees,  attributing this behavior to "divinely ordered
genetic mutations," and asserts that this is  the  best  explanation
available for these abilities today (1977, p.98). 

This  "solution" is apparently an ad hoc idea into which none of its
advocates even bothered to delve.    If  they  had,  they would have
found that hibernation is far from "universal." In fact,  only three
orders of  placental  mammals--the  Insectivora,   Chiroptera,   and
Rodentia--plus   some   reptiles   and   amphibians   display   true
hibernation.    These  are  all  small  creatures;   larger animals,
including bears,  are too big  for true hibernation (Mount,  p.142).
Most fish,  birds,  and invertebrates do not become dormant  in  any
sense,  and other forms of torpor, such as reptilian estivation, are
physiologically  dissimilar  to  winter sleep and could not occur in
the same environment. 

Furthermore,  animals respond  to  "extreme  stress"  with panic and
flight--not hibernation, which is a response to lack of food or cold
temperatures.   Crowded into the ark like sardines with every  other
species  all about,  tossed and slammed against their cages with the
ear-splitting roar of the upheaval outside,  quiet inactivity is the
last thing one would expect to happen.   Many animals are so nervous
that they are difficult to  keep  in  an ordinary zoo;  if even true
hibernators like bats are aroused by touching,  what chance is there
that any specimen would quietly curl up for a year-long nap? 

Hibernation is not a simple siesta.   Rather,   "during  the  period
prior  to hibernation,  an animal must make a considerable number of
gradual physiological  and  metabolic  adjustments" (Mayer,  p.962).
These include an increase of fat deposition, gradual readjustment of
body temperature, heart rate, and metabolism, preparation of the den
and storage of food,  and so on.   Frogs and salamanders  frequently
overwinter  in  large aggregates;  other amphibians sleep only under
forest litter or in a few inches of icy water;  lungfishes construct
a mud cocoon.   Timing is also vital, for, if exposed to cold at the
wrong time of year, a hibernator will increase its activity in order
to keep warm. 

What  opportunities  did  the   migrating  hoards  have  to  prepare
themselves and their cages for  the  long  rest?    Were  the  ark's
spartan  stalls provided with cozy dens and burrows?   Newly arrived
from near and far,  the animals were stampeded, still exhausted from
their march, into strange, frightening cells and, only a week later,
were violently jolted onto their wild ride (Genesis 7:4, 10).

Finally,  hibernation is a risky affair,  rather than the refreshing
nap portrayed by creationists.  The animal loses about 40 percent of
its body weight during the  winter;   prorated  into the 371 days on
board the ark,  each would have been reduced to little more  than  a
skeleton  by  the  time  the  door  opened.    Even  bones and teeth
deteriorate,  and the  young  frequently  starve (Yalden and Morris,
pp.84-85).  In snakes, the mortality rate may be as high as 30 to 50
percent (Shaw and Campbell,  p.84).   On  page  964,   W.  V.  Mayer
concludes: 

     The  hibernator  apparently  is  balanced on a very narrow line
     between the maintenance of life at a level that makes  recovery
     from  hibernation  possible  and a reduction of metabolism to a
     level that will lead to death.   Evidence obtained from tissues
     indicates that  the  process  of  hibernation  is  a precarious
     method of survival at best and one from which many  animals  do
     not  awaken.   As a mechanism of species survival,  hibernation
     seems effective;  for the survival of the individual,  however,
     it is an uncertain and dangerous process. 

Yet on the  ark,   there  were  _only_  individuals,  hibernating in
extremely adverse conditions for more than double the time that  any
animal  normally  is dormant.   We must conclude that the animals on
the  ark  did  not  experience  any  type  of  dormancy  in  any way
resembling  these  phenomena  in  nature;   the  "divine  mutations"
produced a state closer to suspended animation,  a sort of celestial
cryonics (Segraves,  pp.83-84)--and we have another very  impressive
miracle. 

Feeding the animals.

This supernatural quiescence has a curious twist,  however,  for the
Bible plainly  informs  us  that Noah was to take food on the voyage
for the animals (Genesis 6:21).   Hibernators do awaken from time to
time to eat,  and apparently these supersleepers did so also.   Why?
If the Lord was going to  perform such a substantial modification of
natural physiology as this impossible hibernation involved,  why not
make the miracle complete and dispense with the  storage  space  for
the food and the inconvenience to the crew of the feedings? 

This  is  especially  pertinent  when  the  magnitude of the task is
examined.  For the total number of creatures on the ark, if each one
received but one feeding during the voyage,  and if all eight of the
crew worked sixteen hours per  day  at the chore,  each animal would
wind up with just  44.3  seconds  of  attention  during  the  entire
year-long  period!    Some  would  have their meal on the first day,
while others  waited  until  they  were  nearly  starved.   The poor
attendants would have to carry out their  chores  in  the  violently
pitching  vessel  and  in inky darkness (since lanterns could easily
drop and start a fire).   They  would  have to find the correct food
and somehow locate the right cage in the mind-numbing  maze.    When
they found it,  they would have to arouse an animal that could sleep
through the raging chaos;  the food could not be left in the troughs
for  it  would  spoil  or  spill.   Then it's back down the slippery
corridor to  the  storage  bins  for  the  next  meal--on  a perfect
schedule, without duplicated efforts or mistakes--all in less than a
minute! 

Unfortunately,  many animals  are  not  physiologically  capable  of
surviving  on an occasional meal,  however large,  and a meal once a
year--or once a week--would mean death.  Some birds eat continuously
during daylight and suffer when  taken  to regions with short winter
days (National Research Council,  1977,  p.28), and some fish brouse
constantly and  are  unable  to  utilize  infrequently  given  foods
(Wickins and Helm,  p.117).   Rodents, cud chewers, and insectivores
are others in the "continuous feeder" class (Gersh, p.60).   Thus it
appears  that the "hibernation model," cleverly concocted to relieve
Noah of  an  unmanageable  work  load,   is  vitiated  by the simple
scriptural requirement of providing food for the voyage.


Special dietary needs.

There are many other problems associated  with  the  feeding.    The
first   concerns the  carnivores:   where  did  Noah  get  the  huge
quantities of fresh meat required by these animals?  The creationist
response is that God (miraculously)  altered them so that they could
thrive on a vegetarian diet during the voyage.   Although some  aver
that  the  eating  of  meat  never occurred anywhere until after the
flood,  Whitcomb  and  Morris  discuss  at  length  the  change from
herbivorous to carnivorous physiology,  which they date to the  Fall
of   Adam   (pp.461-464).     Thus  these  animals  were  originally
vegetarian,  then became  meat-eaters  after  the Fall,  vegetarians
again for the  year  of  the  flood,   finally  returning  to  their
carnivorous ways afterwards.  Three times the Lord magically changed
the physiology and anatomy of a substantial proportion of the animal
kingdom.   And if this is true of carnivorous mammals,  it must also
be  so  for  insect-eating  birds,   amphibians,  reptiles,  for the
multitudes that live on fresh fish and other aquatic creatures,  and
for arthropods which  eat  other  invertebrates.   Were the slender,
sticky tongues of tamanduas,  pangolins,  and other  anteaters,   so
difficult  to feed in zoos,  altered to eat hay?   Were vampire bats
and mosquitos able to substitute tomato juice for fresh blood?   Did
the whales  adapt  to  kelp  instead  of  krill?    And  what of our
ever-troublesome parasites?   Were tapeworms and leeches content  to
spend  a  year sucking on an old log?   God was remodeling digestive
systems right and left! 

Even  if  everyone  ate  only  plants,   there  were  still enormous
obstacles.   Many animals have highly specialized diets:  koalas eat
only certain types of Eucalyptus leaves; the giant panda eats bamboo
shoots;  three-toed sloths so prefer Cecropia leaves that  they  are
almost impossible to keep in captivity.   Primates need fresh fruit;
many  birds  develop  cramps and spasms if they don't get sufficient
calcium;  desert rodents are poisoned by excessive protein;  and the
list goes on (cf.   Wallach and Flieg; Fiennes).   How did Noah know
what foods to get, how much and where to get them?

How were the stores  kept  from  rotting  during the lengthy voyage?
Even hay rapidly becomes moldy and unusable.

Young insists that feeding troughs be cleaned daily and uneaten food
removed to prevent decay (p.137).   Giraffes  and  moose  must  have
their  troughs  high  or  they can't reach them,  while animals with
large antlers can't get their mouths  into a basket placed against a
wall.   Carnivores deprived of  bones  to  chew  develop  peridontal
disease (Bush and Gray); rodents,  too,  need to gnaw or their teeth
will  overgrow  (Orlans,  p.247).   The tearing beak of eagles,  the
seed-cracking beak of parrots,  the  bill strainer of flamingos also
overgrow if unused (National Research Council,  1977,  p.27).   Many
animals, from fish to snakes, penguins to bats, will only eat living
food because they must see it move to sieze  it  (Fiennes;   Gersh).
Even  praying mantises eat only live food and will eat each other if
nothing else is available.  Did Noah know this? 


Storage of food and water.

Where did Noah find  room  for  all  these provisions?   Even if the
animals ate only a few times during the voyage, these must have been
hearty meals and a lot of feed  was  required.    Elephants  consume
three  hundred  pounds of hay per day,  hippos eighty to one hundred
pounds.   A large walrus eats  forty  pounds  of fish daily,  a lion
sixteen pounds of meat;  what would  be  the  equivalent  in  grain?
Whales  consume  several  _tons_  of  krill  per  day  when  feeding
(Lockley,  pp.87-88), and many insectivores and birds eat their body
weight every twenty-four hours.  Neubuser says that in the Frankfurt
Zoo each year "sixty  tons  of  horse,   cattle,  and whale meat are
required to satisfy the demands of the carnivores.    The  boxes  of
cereals and oil seed, each containing about a hundred-weight, if put
end to end,  would stretch for a distance of over half a mile.   The
annual  consumption of fruit,  vegetables,  roots,  and green clover
would fill fifty freight trains;   hay and straw,  thirty-five goods
wagons" (p.165).

Lest these  burdens  start  to  overwhelm  us,   we  find  Rehwinkel
discussing  a theory  that  Noah  possessed  a  "mysterious  oil" of
supernutrative powers--one drop of  which would sustain life (p.75).
In the creationist Land of Oz, why not?

Although water was the most abundant substance around, it was muddy,
salty, and full of volcanic pollutants.  Even the water falling from
the skies would have been useless,  since the  tremendous  level  of
volcanism  would  have  turned  it to poisonous acid rain.   For his
animals, Noah needed large quantities of fresh, clean water, kept in
troughs and inspected frequently.   Where  did this come from?   How
was it stored and distributed?   Conditions being what they were, it
must have splashed out  of  the  troughs  shortly  after  they  were
filled, mixed with food and waste to form a stinking, slippery swamp
all  over  each  deck,   while the reserves were rapidly choked with
algae to form an undrinkable swill.


Sanitation and water disposal.

The  mention  of  waste  brings  attention  to  that  problem.   All
authorities on animal care insist on the cleanliness of the  stalls,
urging  the  daily  removal  of waste and soiled bedding.   Neubuser
remarks that "the removal  of  zoo waste presents almost insuperable
difficulties" (p.170);   on  the  ark  these  must  have  multiplied
manyfold.    Creationists  Balsiger  and  Sellier  suggest  that the
bottom deck was used to store slurry,  which accumulated to 800 tons
during the voyage.   However,  a single adult elephant could produce
40 tons during this time (Coe),   and there were many creatures even
larger.  Our average animal, the sheep, produces 0.34 tons per year;
poultry,  0.047 (Sainsbury and Sainsbury,  p.110).   Multiplying the
number of vertebrates by 0.34,  the seven pairs of birds  by  0.047,
yields  25,508 tons of waste--six times heavier than the ark itself!
Of course,  hibernation would  greatly  reduce this quantity,  while
the invertebrates and dinosaurs would  add  to  it.    Whatever  the
total, it would have been an awesome amount on the overcrowded boat,
a breeder of infinite numbers of pathogens, and a source of noxious,
choking fumes. 

A   comparison  with  Lamoureux's  Guide  to  _Ship  Sanitation_  is
instructive. Complex plumbing systems of  pipes and pumps,  air-gaps
and back-flow valves,  filters and chemical treatments are necessary
to provide potable water and dispose of sewage.   Waste  is  treated
and  dumped  overboard,   not discharged to the bilge as on the ark.
Such  technology  was   clearly   beyond   Noah's  ability  and  the
maintenance capabilities of his tiny crew;  yet,   if  ever  it  was
needed on a voyage, this was it.

Specialized needs of animals.

"The  animals  in  a  modern  zoo  require a thousand and one small,
seemingly insignificant attentions and we  must constantly strive to
discover their needs.   " Thus writes Dr.   Heinz Hediger of  Zurich
Zoo,   introducing  us  to a host of additional headaches with which
Noah would have to deal. 

Many animals would not survive long  in barren stalls but would need
to have elements of their natural environment  present.    Squirrels
and  sloths  need trees to climb;  the latter are almost helpless on
the ground.  Armadillos, viscachas, and others require soil in which
they can scrape and burrow;  capybaras and tapirs must have pools of
water for bathing; and otters require running water.   The extremely
delicate  platypus  would  have  to  be  maintained  with  a  device
consisting of a water tank,  a nest, and tunnels with rubber gaskets
to squeeze water  out  of  the  platypus's  fur  to prevent the nest
getting wet and the  animal  developing  pneumonia.    Ungulates  in
transport  should be made to stand up _hourly_ to revive circulation
in their limbs.  Elephants and hippos develop dermatitus unless they
can bathe frequently (cf.  Crandall; Hirst; Neubuser). 

Wading birds  develop  leg  weakness  and  should  be transported in
special stockings; peacocks and long-tailed pheasants may need their
tails splinted and wrapped in bandages.   Woodpeckers'  cages  would
need  a  special coating,  and many other animals,  from termites to
rodents,  would gnaw through a normal stall.   Excessive moisture is
"extremely deleterious"  to  most  reptiles  (Kaufield).   While low
humidities  would  prove  fatal  to  many  amphibians.     Burrowing
invertebrates,  such as worms, crabs, and clams, will perish without
proper substrate. 

Perhaps the greatest difficulties arise with marine organisms.  Most
of  them are  extremely  sensitive to slight changes in temperature,
salinity,  pH value,  and other  factors,  and their aquaria require
constant monitoring.   Many need large,  round tanks to prevent them
from knocking against  the  sides,   and  some  tanks  must  have  a
polyurethane  foam  to  guard against injury from rubbing.   Complex
filtering systems--unavailable on  the  ark--are necessary to remove
waste;  most fish require a  high  degree  of  cleanliness.    Hadal
dwellers must be kept in special high-pressure tanks (cf.  Backhaus;
Hawkins).    Of course,  a system of active aeration is necessary or
the fish will suffocate--yet a  fragile  jellyfish can be damaged by
an oxygen bubbler.   Some sharks will  sustain  tissue  damage  from
lying  still as little as five minutes and may have to be stimulated
by an attendant when  in  a  captive  environment (Gruber and Keyes,
p.383).   Even humble planarian worms are likely  to  die  if  their
water  becomes  "even  slightly contaminated" (Orlans,  p.49).   The
National Research Council  concludes:   "Despite  the  best care and
equipment,  some  marine  species  will  not  tolerate  capture  and
transport" (1981, p.53). 


Ventilation.

Ventilation would have been another major concern.   The Bible tells
us  that Noah  placed  a  window  one cubit square at the top of the
vessel  (Genesis  6:16).     Creationists,    basing  themselves  on
"eyewitnesses'' who have seen the ark in modern times,  enlarge this
to a row of windows along a catwalk on top of the ship and postulate
a "wind-deflecting system" to get the air below decks (Schmich).  In
any ease,  the window(s) had shutters,   for  Noah  opened  them  to
release  the  raven  and  dove.   Considering the mountains of water
constantly washing over the ship,  they were probably closed most of
the time to prevent swamping.

Open or shut, the arkeologists' enthusiasm is premature.   Sainsbury
and Sainsbury give a number  of equations and tables for calculating
the ventilation of barns (p.166ff),  and it is clear that  when  the
openings  are  at the same elevation on the building,  especially if
near the top,  air circulation  will  be  very poor.   This would be
particularly  acute  in  the  densely  packed,   three-tiered   ark:
virtually  no  fresh  air  could reach the lower decks.   The result
would  be  a  rising   concentration  of  dust  and  microorganisms,
condensation on bedding and floors,  and resultant chilling, loss of
appetite, and susceptibility to respiratory disease.

The lack of ventilation would produce particularly dire consequences
with respect to the tons of waste accumulating in the  no-man's-land
of  the bottom deck.   Besides being a nursery for every conceivable
pathogen, it would also unleash large quantities of such toxic gases
as ammonia,  hydrogen sulfide,  and methane.   Hydrogen sulfide, for
example,   leads   to   appetite   loss   and  hyperexcitability  at
concentrations as low as twenty parts per million--yet agitation  of
stored slurry,  incessant on the ark,  can elevate levels to 800 ppm
(Sainsbury  and  Sains  bury,   p.207).    These gases also pose the
potential for  an  explosion.    Methane  which  composes roughly 55
percent  of  typical  landfill  gas,    is   highly   explosive   at
concentrations  of  5 to 15 percent oxygen (Emcon Associates,  p.35;
Noble, pp.157-158).  At this ratio, even a few hundred tons of waste
would rapidly convert the ship into a floating bomb,  needing only a
flash of lightning,  a glowing  volcanic cinder,  or the inadvertent
lighting of a lantern to blast the vessel and its priceless cargo to
the bottom of the sea. 


Light and temperature levels.

In the depths of the ship,  far from its tiny,   shuttered  windows,
with thick cumulo-nimbus and dense layers of volcanic ash above, the
darkness  must  have  reminded many of the cavernicoles of the black
tunnels they had recently vacated.   Lanterns, as we have mentioned,
posed too much of a  fire  hazard  to  be used--this was a danger in
even ordinary sailing conditions  (Thrower,   p.85).    Yet  animals
deprived  of  light,  particularly the young ones which creationists
wish  to  put  aboard,   often  have  poor  vision  and  even suffer
deterioration of optic nerves and retinae (King, pp.30-31).  Aquatic
creatures,  too,  are sensitive to even  slight  variations  in  the
quality of light (Backhaus, P.197). 

Fish are also highly sensitive to temperature, and separate tanks at
carefully regulated  levels  are  necessary  for  successful aquaria
(Atz).   How did Noah  accomplish  this?    As  his  boat sat in the
sweltering Shinar tropics waiting for the rain, the heat inside must
have become suffocating to many.   Polar animals could not have made
it through.   Chinchillas,  snow leopards,   and  many  others--even
frogs--are also apt to perish in hot conditions.   Reptiles not only
require  an  optimum temperature level,  dangerous if exceeded,  but
must have it  reduced  cyclically  to  simulate diurnal and seasonal
rhythms (Peaker).  As the flood progressed, the temperature may have
remained high due to volcanism;  alternatively,  it may  have  begun
declining with the lack of sunlight (remember,  the Ice Age followed
immediately  afterward).    Either  way,   as the ark sat perched at
fourteen thousand feet on Mt.   Ararat and the seas slowly subsided,
air pressure and temperature  declined until the luckless lowlanders
found themselves in thin alpine air and the first snows of  the  new
dispensation  as they waited to disembark.   If you endured the oven
at the beginning, you froze at the end!

Problems for the crew.

It is useless to continue discussing the animals.  We must pass over
the problem of  exercise  for  the  beasts  and  birds  and not even
contemplate the broken limbs,  bruises, lacerations, and concussions
from the nightmarish ride.   The diseases,  too,   were  far  beyond
Noah's  veterinary competence.   And what about reproduction?   Some
creationists deny that it took place;  others say it did.   Segraves
suggests a kind of divine birth control (p.85).   In either case, we
can feel confident that flies,   mosquitos,  and all sorts of vermin
multiplied astronomically even if no higher species did. 

Yet even with the miracle of hibernation,  the task facing Noah  and
his  crew was  absolutely  insuperable,  barring yet another titanic
intervention by Jehovah.  A random sampling of over one hundred zoos
from the 1980 _International  Zoo  Yearbook_  showed a ratio of 25.4
animals per zoo staffer--experienced workers  supervised  by  highly
trained experts in conditions infinitely superior to the ark's.   At
this  ratio,  the great boat would have needed a staff of 151,926 to
care for every creature aboard!  Noah had eight. 

Still other chores awaited  our  harried helmsman.   Although he was
fortunate not to have had to navigate  or  to  manage  engines  that
might break down,  some maintenance would still have been necessary.
Boat  rot  is  present  in  every  wooden  vessel and is enhanced by
moisture  and  poor  ventilation.    Duffett  recommends  a thorough
inspection from stem to stern,  with flashlight,  awl,  and  hammer,
every  two  months  (p.149).    There  would  have been trouble with
teredos, tiny, wormlike mollusks that eat their way through wood and
riddle planks and timbers  with  small  holes,  which makes them the
"greatest hazard to wooden hulls" (Noel, p.85).   Then, too, in this
awesome storm,  there would undoubtedly have been major breakage and
splintering of stalls, beams, floors, and myriads of other accidents
which normally entail substantial  time  in  drydock--all  of  which
would  have  had  to be located in the dark and somehow patched well
enough to last until the  ship  made Ararat.   We have already noted
how leaky were large,  overburdened wooden ships,   and,   in  these
mountainous  seas,   continuous pumping would have been essential to
keep the ark afloat.   Smaller,   better-built vessels can take on a
foot or more of water an hour;  therefore,  "crews could  become  so
completely  exhausted  by pumping as to be barely capable of working
the ship" (Thrower,  pp.89-90).    A  much larger,  more experienced
crew would be necessary for maintenance  alone,   not  counting  the
impossible zoological chores.

Balsiger  and Sellier talk about the life of leisure aboard the ark,
even mentioning the "woman's touch"  in the family quarters (p.134).
Segraves  speaks  of  an  entire  deck  devoted   to   "recreational
facilities"  (p.16).   Such is not the picture that emerges from our
study. 

Seafaring life was never easy  in  olden times:  food was monotonous
and  rationed and  often  spoiled;   water  was  scarce;    sanitary
conditions  were  incredibly  bad;   fire  and storms posed constant
threats; and diseases,  such as cholera,  yellow fever, and malaria,
often decimated entire  crews  (Pohjanpalo,   pp.100-101).   On long
voyages,  scurvy was a constant terror,  and extra men  were  always
taken because many died or became too ill to work.   The "romance of
the  sea"  was  so  unattractive  that,   despite  poverty  and high
unemployment,  no nation ever had  enough  sailors to crew her ships
(Phillips-Birt, pp.213-216).  Thrower concludes:

     The conditions of life for the ordinary sailor must  have  been
     little short of grim throughout the history of sail....   Think
     what these ships were like ...  wet and stinking, bad food, sea
     scurvy and fluxes rampant, and incessant toil.  Then there were
     the bugs, the rats, and the  cockroaches. (p.99)

What was grim for these poor souls must have been pure hell on board
the  ark. It  is  a  wonder  that  anyone limped off the sacred ship
except the flies.


                                 Disembarking

Landing on Ararat.

Finally one day,  a typically  gargantuan wave sent the ark crashing
into the cliffs on Mt.   Ararat,  and the long voyage  was  through.
But  Noah's luck was still running badly,  for he had literally gone
from the frying pan into  the  fire,   landing on an active volcano.
LaHaye and Morris tell us that Mt.   Ararat more  than  doubled  its
height  during  the  flood,   and  they know of lava from these very
eruptions that is hot yet today  (p.8)!   Imagine what life was like
during the 214 days between the ark's  grounding  and  the  animals'
release  (Genesis  8:4).    Constant  rumblings,   earthquakes,  and
landslides threatened destruction;   fumaroles  vented hot steam and
sulfurous gases on all sides;  occasional showers of ash and perhaps
even lava added to the misery;  and thunderstorms,  with  lightning,
hail, rain, and snow, made many nostalgic for the open sea.

Before  he set the animals free,  Noah devised a scheme to determine
if the land was dry.   He went to the ravens' cage, and later to the
doves',  and, without a second thought, aroused them from a dormancy
that all the chaos of the  deluge  had been unable to disturb.   Out
the window they went:  the raven never returned;  the dove came back
twice, then she too disappeared.   Noah concluded that the earth was
safe once again (Genesis 8:6-12). 

After the dove failed to return, Noah decided that it was just about
time to disembark.   Instead of simply opening the door, he "removed
the covering" of the ark  (Genesis  8:13).    Balsiger  and  Sellier
indicate that his means that Noah tore holes in the top deck,  which
modern  visitors  to the wreck claim to have seen.   Noah did indeed
have his eccentricities!   For fifty-six  more days they remained on
the ark while the earth dried,  waiting for God to sound the liberty
call--time enough to allow rain,  snow,  and  mudslides  to  cascade
through  the  holes  in  the  roof and torture the miserable animals
inside. 


Release of the animals.

Hirst advises,  "The release site  should  be level,  free of holes,
large stones, and low shrubs,  and should have adequate  visibility"
(p.125).  A more different location for the ark's survivors would be
hard to imagine.  Tired and weak, battered and bruised, nearly blind
from  a  year's  darkness,  they began their exodus by clambering up
through the roof and  leaping  forty-five  feet  to the rocks below.
From here it was a perilous trek  across  hoof-splitting  fields  of
jagged  lava,   through  rushing,   boulder-strewn  streams  and icy
snowbanks,  and  onto  the  mud  flats  far  below.   Landslides and
volcanic hot spots were ever-present dangers.  Modern-day Ararat has
often bested experienced mountaineers; what were the chances for the
miserable wretches from the ark?   They should have panicked in  the
radically unfamiliar terrain and stampeded over the nearest cliff.

While the descent was difficult enough for most animals, for some it
was simply impossible.   Tree-dwelling sloths, eyeless cavernicoles,
tropical  snails,   the  legless caecilians of Seychelles--these and
countless others should have seen  the  sun  set on their species on
the harrowing heights  of  Ararat.    And  the  myriads  of  aquatic
creatures, from starfish to sharks, had to be crated and hauled down
the  mountain  by the eight aching crew members and deposited in the
nearest river in  the  hopes  that,   before  they died,  they could
somehow swim to waters suitable for each.   How  they  managed  this
with   hundred-ton   whales   is  just  one  more  mystery  for  the
creationists to ponder.   It is  evident once more that supernatural
assistance was required in this phase of the journey.

Survival and redistribution.

The animals had just endured the longest,  most  severe  hibernation
ever  known and  would have expected to awaken to a springlike world
with abundant food.   Instead they  were treated to a landscape like
that of Mt.  St.  Helens--only worse.

As we have seen,  plant seeds  lay  beneath  thousands  of  feet  of
sediment  and lava  and  the  surface  was  barren  except  for  one
miraculous  olive  tree,   which  was  no  doubt chewed to the stump
immediately.   Creationists maintain  that  the  ground was littered
with carrion.   This,  too, is doubtful; but, even if true, it would
be the occasion for another remarkable  marvel:   herbivores  turned
carnivores   turned   herbivores   were   changed   once  more  into
meat-eaters,  only this time they  were specifically given a craving
only for rotten, water-logged carcasses rather than the tasty living
animals stumbling all about.  Then, somewhat later, after sufficient
"replenishing" had taken place,  they were altered  one  final  time
into their present forms!   In actual fact, it seems that there must
have  been  a  period  when all the animals were programmed like the
serpent in Eden to subsist on "dust." 

For Noah,  one more task remained.   After disembarking, he built an
altar to the Lord and offered  burnt offerings "of every clean beast
and  of  every  clean  fowl"  (Genesis  8:20).    Biblical  scholars
generally state that the reason why Noah took a dozen more  of  each
clean  animal  was  so  that  he  could  have extras to sacrifice--a
sacrifice that must have amounted  to the destruction of hundreds of
thousands of the precious animals which had endured all  the  perils
of  the storm.   So the animal population was drastically reduced in
this manner,  and the Lord savored  the smell and said that he would
never send a flood again (Genesis 8:21).

But for the luckless animals that remained after the sacrifice,   no
doubt terrorized by the smell of their cooked comrades,  many months
of  toil  and  tears  still  awaited  as they began repopulating the
earth.  A large number of marsupials, found today only in Australia,
made the long journey to that continent, which, strangely enough, is
the only place where fossils  of their progenitors are found.   Even
stranger is the fact that such fragile creatures as the platypus and
the blind marsupial mole raced across the land bridge  quicker  than
Malaysian  tigers  and other robust placentals.   In a similar vein,
the ceboids (New World primates)  found  their way to South America,
again,  the very region where their fossil  ancestors  had  thrived.
The elephant bird, a nine-foot, thousand-pound giant, decided not to
remain  on the mainland like the ostrich but splashed across the sea
to Madagascar.   In similar fashion,  the dodo headed for Mauritius,
the solitaire to Reunion,  the white dodo to Rodriguez,  the kagu to
New Caledonia, and the kiwi to New Zealand--all flightless birds who
swam to remote islands to make their only homes. 

The fish of  family  ("kind")  Comephoridae  somehow crossed Asia to
live in Lake Baikal, while the family of electric eels opted for the
trans-Atlantic trip to South America.   The gila monster and Mexican
beaded lizard,  the only members of family Helodermatidae, chose not
to stay in convenient Asian deserts but  journeyed  through  Siberia
and across the Bering land bridge,  Alaska,  and Canada to arrive in
the American Southwest,  accomplishing this feat during the same Ice
Age  that  creationists say decimated dinosaurs and buried mammoths!
And all of this  occurred  despite  the reproductive bottleneck of a
single male and female, in which the slightest mishap, even a chance
separation in the unknown  wilderness,   would  have  meant  instant
extinction. 

The  plant  seeds  that  Noah  had stored on board had to somehow be
distributed around the world to climates  and soils where they could
grow.   Two thousand species of cactus had to find their way to  the
New  World  while  avoiding the arid lands of Asia and Africa.   The
giant sequoia and redwood trees  had  to  reach the Pacific coast of
North America and produce, from the handful of seeds in the ark, the
magnificent forests that date to  within  a  few  centuries  of  the
flood.   Who carried the double coconut to the Seychelles,  its only
home,   or  planted  the  endemic  flora  atop the towering peaks of
Venezuela's "Lost  World"?    How  did  the  post-diluvian botanists
determine which seeds would sprout only  on  the  tundra  and  which
required  brakish  marshes?    The  Bible  has our patriarch and his
family return to the simple pastoral life they once knew, leaving no
one to handle the  impossible  chores  of re-establishing the global
ecosystem. 

But why go on?   The geographical distribution of animals and plants
is a powerful piece of evidence for evolution  and  is  satisfactory
explained  only  by  that  theory.    In  a  simple  creation model,
biogeography becomes merely quixotic;   when the straitjacket of the
flood is added, with a rapid distribution from a single point in the
Middle East,  during an Ice Age, resulting in a few centuries in the
complex ecological patterns seen everywhere on the earth today,  the
whole thing  becomes  completely  impossible  and  incomprehensible.
So,   the  most tremendous series of miracles of all brings down the
curtain on this amazing adventure.

                                  Conclusion

The nature of the story.

When one reads the story of the  great flood in the book of Genesis,
one is struck by the matter-of-fact style of the narrative.    While
it  definitely  has  the larger-than-life flavor typical of legends,
the reader would not  suspect  that  he  or  she is dealing with the
bizarre impossibilities we have detailed above.    After  all,   the
ancient  Hebrews  lived  on  a small,  disc-shaped world with a dome
overhead and waters above and below.   There were only a few hundred
known  animals,   and  subjects  such  as  ecology,   genetics,  and
stratigraphy were not even imagined.  The deluge was a mighty act of
God,  to be sure,  but nothing that the ancient Hebrews  would  have
found too extraordinary. 

When, however, this same story is brought into the twentieth century
and insisted  upon  as  a  literal  account of historical events,  a
considerable change is observed.   No longer a simple folk tale,  it
has become a surrealistic saga of fantastic improbabilities.  Events
which seem relatively  straightforward  at  first glance--building a
boat,   gathering  animals,   releasing  them  afterwards--become  a
caricature of real life.   The animals themselves are so unlike  any
others that they may as well have come from another planet;  genetic
Frankensteins  with completely unnatural social,  reproductive,  and
dietary behavior,   they  survived  incredible  hazards yet remained
amazingly hardy and fecund.

In fact,  these sixty-eight verses of Scripture,   when  interpreted
literally, are  crammed with more miracles than any comparable piece
of literature anywhere on earth--miracles that are often pointlessly
complicated and unedifying.   Building one large ship of wood rather
than many small ones,  landing it  on  a volcano instead of a plain,
preserving all five varieties of venereal disease  while  permitting
thousands of species to become extinct--these examples plus more add
up to a thoroughly senseless level of supernaturalism.  If there was
ever a situation in which Hume's distinction between the credibility
of miracles and the credibility of miracle-tellers applies,  this is
it. 

How can we account for this transformation?  Put simply, the tale of
the  ark grows  taller  in  inverse  proportion  to  the  advance of
science.   Two centuries ago, when biology and geology were in their
infancy,  the theory of a  worldwide  flood  as a major event in the
earth's physical history seemed perfectly plausible and,   in  fact,
was advocated by various scientists.   But as geology progressed and
as   evolution   gradually   achieved   a  position  of  fundamental
importance,  the concepts of  biblical  literalists were shown to be
untenable and were falsified.   At the same time, the disciplines of
biblical criticism,  comparative religion, and archaeology uncovered
the true origins of these stories and myths  and  showed  that  they
were a natural part of the religious development of the Near East.

The nature of creation-science.

Most   people,   including  most  Christians,   have  been  able  to
accommodate themselves quite satisfactorily  to these changes.   But
there are others who cannot and who,  with a flush of bravado,  have
clung tighter to their beliefs the more impossible they have become.

We would  ask  the  creationists  if  they  would  consider  simpler
alternatives to their present ark theory.  Since one ship is far too
small,  how about several?   Since eight people are far too few, why
not crew the ark with eighty?   For that matter,  what is wrong with
having  a flood of many years,  long enough to accomplish everything
diluviologists demand,  during which  righteous  Noah and his family
were whisked to safety aboard a fiery chariot,  Elijah-style,   with
the animals and plants simply being re-created afterwards?  These or
any  number  of  additional  hypotheses would simplify the story and
would require substantially  fewer  miracles.   Even re-creating all
life would expend  far  less  divine  energy  than  the  complicated
manipulations needed to preserve it. 

But  merely  to  pose  such  questions  is  to answer them,  for the
creationists already "know" what occurred  and  seek only to confirm
it.   As Henry Morris concludes,  "But the main reason for insisting
on the universal flood as a fact  of  history  and  as  the  primary
vehicle  for  geological  interpretation  is that God's word plainly
teaches it!   No geologic  difficulties,   real or imagined,  can be
allowed to take precedence over the clear statements  and  necessary
inference of Scripture" 1970, p.33). 

It  is  within this framework that creation "science" sets about its
task,   with the  predictable   result   being   nothing  more  than
old-fashioned  apologetics--just  enough  rhetoric  to  assuage  the
doubts of those who are ready  to  believe  anyway.    Most  of  the
difficulties,    from   ancient   shipbuilding  skills  through  the
destructiveness of the storm  to  the  landing on an active volcano,
are swept aside with one or two irrelevant comments.    What  little
research is done,  such as on the hardiness of seeds or the capacity
of freight trains, is vitiated by considerations so simple they seem
hard to overlook.  Ad hoc hypotheses, such as the theory of kinds or
the hibernation model, are cooked up to suit the occasion, reminding
one of historian W. E. H. Lecky's remark about "the tendency .   . .
to  invent,   without  a  shadow  of foundation,  the most elaborate
theories of explanation rather than  recognize the smallest force in
an objection" (I:345).   By the time we read of fish adapting to the
"gradual" change in salinities or of dinosaurs  "somehow  surviving"
outside,  we begin to wonder if the creationists can take themselves
seriously. 

When even these nonsensical suggestions fail, the apologists have no
qualms about  resorting  to the interpretive wastebasket:  miracles.
Had there been any scenario for the gathering of the animals and for
their care aboard the ark  which  had any semblance of plausibility,
we can be sure that it would be highly  touted  as  "proof"  of  the
scientific  accuracy  of  Genesis.    As it is,  a virtue is made of
necessity and we  are  told  that  the  supernatural is an essential
element  demonstrating  the  divine  character  of  the  catastrophe
(Whitcomb, 1973, pp.17-42). 

But since miracles are by  definition  violations  of  the  laws  of
nature and hence beyond experimental scrutiny,  any theory that must
employ  them  loses its status as science.   As Mueller has recently
written,  "Science .   . .   became  a unique attempt to explain the
observed world in  its  own  terms--that  is,   without  introducing
supernatural forces.   In all history, science has never been forced
to  resort  to  a supernatural or miraculous hypothesis to explain a
phenomenon" (p.17).   Yet  for  creationism,   the deluge,  with its
miraculous rescue of the animals,  is not a minor incidental  but  a
key  feature.    Without  it there is no creationist explanation for
sedimentation,  orogeny, large-scale erosion, fossils, coal and oil,
glaciation--or even the phenomena of migration and hibernation.  The
universal flood is a part of all "scientific" creation models and of
most draft creationism legislation  being  pushed across the nation.
Yet by its  proponents'  own  canons,   it  is  not  scientific  and
consequently  has  no  more business in the science classroom than a
ghost story. 


The failure of the effort.

It has by now  become  abundantly  clear  that  the case for the ark
utterly and completely fails.   Despite the clever ingenuity of  its
proponents,   nothing,   from  the trickiest problems to the tiniest
details,   can  be  salvaged  without  an  unending  resort  to  the
supernatural.   This includes so  many pointless prodigies,  so many
inane interventions for no reason other than to save a  literalistic
Bible,   that  religion  itself is cheapened in the process,  not to
mention the total abandonment of any semblance of science.  No doubt
in days to come some erstwhile arkeologists will concoct "solutions"
to some of the difficulties  we  have raised,  but no intellectually
honest person can any longer pretend that the  legend  of  Noah  can
possibly represent a historical occurrence.

It  is  also  quite obvious that the creationists are not engaged in
any meaningful search for  the  truth concerning origins.   They are
committed in advance to a particular creed, and the facts exist only
to be explained away.    Apparently  they  are  not  even  sincerely
curious about prehistory,  since they maintain that Genesis contains
all the information on this subject that we need to know.   As Henry
Morris writes,  "If we are to know anything about the creation--when
it was,  what methods were used,  what order of events occurred,  or
anything  else--we  must  depend  _completely_ on divine revelation"
(1977, p.14).

In fact,   the  real  _raison  d'etre_  for  the  entire creationist
movement has nothing to do with science at all;   it  is  evangelism
pure  and  simple.    Kofahl  candidly  confesses  that  "supposedly
scientific theories such as evolution which contradict the Bible can
cause  some  people  to  doubt  the  Bible and thus hinder them from
coming in humble faith to Jesus Christ for salvation" (p.  141).  In
the specific instance of Noah's ark,  its "confirmed discovery .   .
.  would open the door for  witnessing to many people who may before
have been indifferent" (John Morris, 1973, p.109) and "our attention
should then be focused on .   . .  our present day Ark of Salvation,
Jesus   Christ"   (Ikenberry,     p.69).      Before    our    eyes,
creationism--complete    with   seminars,    debates,    institutes,
"technical"  journals,   and  major  campaigns  to  sabotage  public
education and scientific autonomy--dissolves  into nothing more than
a scheme to proselytize conversion to fundamentalism.

Our study of the epic of Noah has two results:  we have shown beyond
any reasonable question that such a  voyage  never  took  place  and
could  not  possibly  have ever occurred.   And we have demonstrated
that  those  who  accept  this  tale  are  using  not  knowledge but
faith--faith of that irrational variety expressed in the old quip as
"believing something that you know isn't true." 

                                 Bibliography

Ancil, Ralph E. September 1980. "A Proposal, for a New Creationist 
Discipline."
     _Creation Research Society Quarterly_. 17:2:123-l27.

Andrewartha, H. G. 1971. _Introduction to the Study of Animal 
Populations_.
     Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Asimov, Isaac. 1981. _In the Beginning . . ._ New York: Crown 
Publishers.

Atkins, Michael D. 1978. _Insects in Perspective_. New York: 
Macmillan.

Atz, James W. 1965. "Principles and Practices of Water Management 
for Marine
     Aquaria." _International Zoo Yearbook_. 5: 173-181.

Awbrey, Frank. T. 1981. "Defining 'Kinds'--Do Creationists Apply a 
Double
     Standard?" _Creation/Evolution_ V.2:3:1-6.

Backhaus, Dieter. 1968. "The Show Aquarium." In Rosl Kirchshofer 
(ed.),
     _The World of Zoos_. New York: Viking Press, pp. 191-197.

Balsiger, Dave, and Sellier, Charles E., Jr. 1976. _In Search of 
Noah's Ark_.
     Los Angeles: Sun Classic Books.

Barnes, Robert D. 1980. _Invertebrate Zoology_. Fourth edition. 
Philadelphia:
     Saunders College.

Basch, Lucien. 1972. "Ancient Wrecks and the Archaeology of Ships."
     _International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater
     Exploration_. 1:1-58.

Blatt, Harvey, Middleton, Gerard, and Murray, Raymond. 1980. 
_Origin of
     Sedimentary Rocks_. Second edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 
Prentice-Hall.

Bodmer, Walter F., and Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 1976. _Genetics, 
Evolution,
     and Man_. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Bond, Carl E. 1979. _Biology of Fishes_. Philadelphia: W. B. 
Saunders.

Bullard, Fred M. 1976. _Volcanoes of the Earth_. Austin: University 
of Texas
     Press.

Buljan, Miljenko. 1955. "Deep Submarine Volcanisms and the 
Chemistry of
     Ocean." _Bulletin Volcanologique_. 17:41-56

Bush, Mitchell, and Gray, Clinton W. 1975. "Dental Prophylaxis in 
Carnivores."
     _International Zoo Yearbook_. 15:223.

Casson, Lionel. 1971. _Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World_. 
Princeton:
     Princeton Press.

Coe, Malcolm. November 1972. "Defaecation by African Elephants 
_(Loxodonta
     africana africana [Blumenbach]_)." _East African Wildlife 
Journal_.
     10:3:165-174.

Conway, William G. 1980. "An Overview of Captive Propagation." In 
Soule,
     Michael E., and Wilcox, Bruce A. (editors), _Conservalion 
Biology: An
     Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective_. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 
Assoc.
     pp. 199-208.

Crandall, Lee S. 1966. _A Zoo Man's Notebook_. Chicago: University 
of Chicago
     Press.

Custance, Arthur C. 1970. "Fossil Man in the Light of the Record in 
Genesis."
     In Lammerts, Walter E. (editor), _Why Not Creation?_ Nutley, NJ:
     Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 194-229.

Dathe, Heinrich. 1968. "From the Daily Life of a Zoo Director." In 
Kirchsofer,
     Rosl (editor), _The World of Zoos_. New York: Viking Press, 
pp. 145-l50.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius, el al. 1977. _Evolution_. San Francisco: W. 
H. Freeman.

Duffett, John. 1973. _Modern Marine Maintenance_. New York: Motor 
Boating and
     Sailing Books .

Dumas, Maurice, and Gille, Paul. 1979. "Ships and Navigation." In 
Dumas,
     Maurice (editor), _A History of Technology and Invention_, 
vol. III:
     _The Expansion of Mechanization, 1725-1860_. (Translated by 
Eileen B.
     Hennessy.) New York: Crown.

Emcon Associates. 1980. _Methane Generation and Recovery from 
Landfills_.
     Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers.

Ensminger, M. E. 1978. _The Stockman's Handbook_. Fifth edition. 
Dannville,
     IL: Interstate Printers and Publishers.

Fiennes, Richard. 1966. "Feeding Animals in Captivity". 
_International Zoo
     Yearbook_. 6:58-67 .

Fowler, Murray E. 1974. "Veterinary Aspects of Restraint and 
Transport of
     Wild Animals". _International Zoo Yearbook_. 14:28-33.

Franklin, Ian Robert. 1980. "Evolutionary Change in Small 
Populations". In
     Soule, Michael E., and Wilcox, Bruce A. (editors), _Conservation
     Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective_. Sunderland, 
MA:
     Sinauer Associates.

Gersh, Harry. 1971. _The Animals Next Door: A Guide to Zoo and 
Aquariums of
     the Americas_. New York: Fleet Academic Editions.

Gruber, Samuel H., and Keyes, Raymond S. 1981. "Keeping Sharks for 
Research".
     In Hawkins, A. D. (editors), _Aquarium Systems_. London: 
Academic Press,
     pp. 373-402.

Gun, Charles R., and Dennis, John V. 1976. _World Guide to Tropical 
Drift
     Seeds and Fruits_. New York: Quadrangle.

Hapgood, Fred. 1979. _Why Males Exist_. New York: William Morrow & 
Co.

Hawkins, A. D. (editor). 1981. _Aquarium Systems_. London: Academic 
Press.

Hediger, H . 1968. "From Cage to Territory". In Kirchshofer, Rosl 
(editor),
     _The World of Zoos_. New York: Viking Press, pp. 9-20.

Hill, Ralph Nading. 1956. _Window in the Sea_. New York: Rinehart & 
Co.

Hirst, S. M. 1975. "Transportation of Wild Animals". In Young, E. 
(editor),
     _The Capture and Care of Wild Animals_. Hollywood, FL: Ralph 
Curtis
     Books, pp. 119-125.

Howe, George F. December 1968. "Seed Germination, Sea Water, and 
Plant
     Survival in the Great Flood". _Creation Research Society 
Quarterly_.
     5:3:105-112.

Hume, David. 1977. _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_. 
Indianapolis:
     Hackett Publishing. (First published 1748.)

Hutchins, John G. B. 1941. _The American Maritime Industries and 
Public
     Policy, 1789-1914_. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hutt, Frederick B. 1979. _Genetics for Dog Breeders_. San 
Francisco: W. H.
     Freeman.

Ikenberry, Larry D. 1976. _Noah's Ark: Mystery of Ararat_. Olympic, 
WA:
     Cascade Photographics .

Jarman, Cathy. 1972. _Atlas of Animal Migration_. New York: John 
Day Co.

Jones, Arthur W. 1967. _Introduction to Parasitology_. Reading, MA: 
Addison-
     Wesley Publishing Co.

Kauffeld, C. 1969. "The Effect of Altitude, Ultra-Violet Light, and 
Humidity
     on Captive Reptiles." _International Zoo Yearbook_. 9:8-9.

Kear, Janet. 1977. "The Problems of Breeding Endangered Species in 
Captivity."
     _International Zoo Yearbook_. 17:5-14.

King, James C. 1971. _The Biology of Race_. New York: Harcort Brace 
Jovanovich.

Kirchshofer, Rosl (editor). 1968. _The World of Zoos_. New York: 
Viking Press.

Kleiman, Devra G. 1980. "The Sociobiology of Captive Propagation." 
In Soule,
     Michael E., and Wilcox, Bruce A. (editors), _Conservation 
Biology: An
     Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective_. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 
Associates,
     pp. 243-261.

Klos, Heinz-Georg. 1968. "The Vet in the Zoo." In Kirchshofer, Rosl 
(editor),
     _The World of Zoos_.  New York: Viking Press, pp. 183-191.

Kofahl, Robert E. 1977. _Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter_. San Diego: 
Beta Books.

Kofahl, Robert E., and Segraves, Kelly L. 1975. _The Creation 
Explanation_.
     Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers.

Kummel, Bernhard. 1970. _History of the Earth: An Introduction to 
Historical
     Geology_. Second edition. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Kusche, Lawrence David. 1975. _The Bermuda Triangle Mystery--Solved_.
     New York: Harper and Row.

Lamoureux, Vincent B. 1967. _Guide to Ship Sanitation_. Geneva: 
World Health
     Organization.

LaHaye, Tim F., and Morris, John D. 1976. _The Ark on Ararat_. 
Nashville:
     Thomas Nelson.

Laing, Alexander. 1971. _American Ships_. New York: American 
Heritage Press.

Lammerts, Walter E. 1970. "Discoveries since 1859 Which Invalidate 
the
     Evolution Theory." In Lammerts (editor), _Why Not Creation?_ 
Nutley,
     NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 248-267.

Lang, E. M. 1977. "What Are Endangered Species?" _International Zoo 
Yearbook_.
     17:2-5.

Lecky, W. E. H. 1898. _History of European Morals from Augustus to
     Charlemagne_. Two volumes. New York: D. Appleton & Co.

Lester, Lane P. 1976. "Mimicry." In Morris, Henry M., and Gish, 
Duane T.
     (editors), _The Battle for Creation_. San Diego: Creation-Life
     Publishers, pp. 247-252.

Levine, Norman D. 1980. _Nematode Parasites of Domestic Animals and 
of Man_.
     Second edition. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co.

Levitt, Jacob. 1980. _Responses of Plants to Environmental 
Stresses_, vol.II:
     _Water, Radiation, Salt, and Other Stresses_. Second edition. 
New York:
     Academic Press.

Lindauer, M. 1980. "Hymenoptera." _Encyclopedia Britannica, 
Macropoedia_.
     9:126-133.

Loughman, William D., Frye, Frederic L., and Herald, Earl S. 1970. 
"The
     Chromosomes of a male manatee _Trichechus Inunguis_." 
_International Zoo
     Yearbook_. 10:151-152.

Lockley, Ronald M. 1979. _Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises_. Newton 
Abbot,
     England: David & Charles.

Macdonald, Gordon A. 1972. _Volcanoes_. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 
Prentice-Hall.

Mayer, W. V. 1980. "Dormancy." _Encyclopedia Britannica, 
Macropoedia_.
     5:958-966.

Meyer, Nathan M. 1977. _Noah's Ark--Pitched and Parked_. Winona 
Lake, IN:
     BMH Books.

Montgomery, John Warwick. 1974. _The Quest for Noah's Ark_. Second 
edition.
     Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship.

Morris, Henry M. 1970. _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science_. 
Nutley, NJ:
     Craig,

------  1974. _Scientific Creationism_. General edition. San Diego:
     Creation-Life Publishers

------. 1976. _The Genesis Record_. San Diego: Creation-Life 
Publishers.

------. 1977. _The Beginning of the World_. Denver: Accent Books.

Morris, John D. 1973. _Adventure on Ararat_. San Diego: Creation-Life
     Publishers.

-----. 1978. "The Paluxy River Tracks." In Gish, Duane T., and 
Rohrer,
     Donald H. (editors), _Up With Creation_. San Diego: 
Creation-Life
     Publishers, pp. 247-252.

------. 1980. _Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs . . . and the 
People Who
     Knew Them_. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.

Mount, Lawrence E. 1979. _Adaptation to Thermal Environment: Man 
and His
     Productive Animals_. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Mueller, Marvin M. Spring 1982. "The Shroud of Turin: A Critical 
Appraisal."
     _Skeptical Inquirer_. 6:3:15-34.

National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal 
Resources, Committee
     on Birds. 1977. _Laboratory Animal Management: Wild Birds_. 
Washington,
     DC: National Academy of Sciences.

National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal 
Resources, Committee
     on Marine Invertebrates. 1981. _Marine Invertebrates_. 
Washington, DC:
     National Academy of Sciences.

Neill, Wildred T. 1969. _The Geography of Life_. New York: Columbia 
University
     Press.

Nelson, Byron C. 1968. _The Deluge Story in Stone_. Minneapolis: 
Bethany
     Fellowship.

Neubuser, Helmut. 1968. "The Work of the Zoo Inspector." In 
Kirchshofer, Rosl
     (editor), _The World of Zoos_. New York: Viking Press, pp. 
164-171.

Noble, George. 1976. _Sanitary Landfill Design Handbook_. Westport, 
CT:
     Technomic Publishing Co.

Noel, John V., Jr. 1977. _Knight's Modern Seamanship_. Sixteenth 
edition. New
     York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Orlans, F. Barbara. 1977. _Animal Care from Protozoa to Small 
Mammals_. Menlo
     Park: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Orr, Robert T. 1970. _Animals in Migration_. London: Macmillan.

Parkin, David T. 1979. _An Introduction to Evolutionary Genetics_. 
Baltimore:
     University Park Press.

Peaker, M. 1969. "Some Aspects of the Thermal Requirements of 
Reptiles in
     Captivity." _International Zoo Yearbook_. 9:3-8.

Phillips-Birt. Douglas. 1971. _A History of Seamanship_. Garden 
City, NY:
     Doubleday.

Pohjanpalo, Jarma. 1970. _The Sea and Man_. (Translated by Diana 
Tullberg.)
     New York: Stein and Day.

Pollard, Sidney, and Robertson, Paul. 1979. _The British Shipbuilding
     Industry, 1870-1914_. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rawson, K. J., and Tupper, E. C. 1968. _Basic Ship Theory_. New York:
     American Elsevier.

Rehwinkel, Alfred M. 1951. _The Flood in the Light of the Bible, 
Geology,
     and Archaeology_. St. Louis: Concordia.

Robb, A. M. 1958. "Ship-Building." In singer, Charles, Holmyard, E. 
J., Hall,
     A. R., and Williams, Trevor I. (editors), _A History of 
Technology_,
     vol. V: _The Late Nineteenth Century, c1850 to c1900_. Oxford: 
Oxford
     University Press, pp. 350-390.

Rosenfeld, Andree. 1965. _The Inorganic Raw Materials of 
Antiquity_. New York:
     Frederick A. Praeger.

Sainsbury, David W. B., and Sainsbury, Peter. 1979. _Livestock 
Health and
     Housing_. London: Bailliere Tindall.

Sande, A. P. van den. 1974. "The Long-Distance Transport of Fishes 
and Aquatic
     Inverbrate." _International Zoo Yearbook_. 14:43-47.

Schmich, J. E. September 1974. "The Flood and the Ark." _Creation 
Research
     Society Quarterly_. 11:2:120-122.

Schweitzer, Albert. 1961. _The Quest of the Historical Jesus_. New 
York:
     Macmillan.

Segraves, Kelly L. 1975. _The Great Dinosaur Mistake_. San Diego: 
Bela Books.

Shaw, Charles E., and Campbell, Sheldon. 1974. _Snakes of the 
American West_.
     New York: Aldred E. Knopf.

Siegler, Hilbert R. September 1974. "The Magnificence of Kinds as 
Demonstrated
     by Canids." _Creation Research Society Quarterly_. 11:2:94-97.

------. June 1978. "A Creationists Taxonomy." _Creation Research 
Society
     Quarterly_. 15:1:36-38.

Smith, E. Norbert. March 1979. "Marine Life and the Flood." 
_Creation Research
     Society Quarterly_. 15:4:179-183.

Snow, Ralph L. 1976. "The Twilight of Commercial Wooden 
Shipbuilding, 1896-
     1920." In National Trust for Historical Preservation, _Wooden
     Shipbuiding and Small Craft Preservation_. Washington, DC:
     Preservation Press, pp. 76-91.

Soule, Michael E., and Wilcox, Bruce A. (editors). 1980. 
_Conservation
     Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective_. Sunderland, 
MA:
     Sinauer Associats

Stewart, Desmond. 1971. _The Pyramids and Sphinx_. New York: 
Newsweek Book
     Division.

Thomson, J. R. 1979. _An Introduction to Seed Technology_. New 
York: John
     Wiley & Sons.

Thrower, W. R. 1972. _Life at Sea in the Age of Sail_. London: 
Phillimore.

Vandel, A. 1965. _Biospeleology_. (Translated by B. E. Freeman.) 
Oxford:
     Pergamon Press.

Villiers, Trevor A. 1975. _Dormancy and the Survival of Plants_. 
London:
     Edward Arnold.

Vincent, J. 1975. "Accommodation Facilities and Procedures.'' In 
Young, E.
     (editor), _The Capture and Care of Wild Animals_. Hollywood, 
FL: Ralph
     Curtis Books, pp.l26-l33.

Voss, Gunter. 1968. "Difficult Mammals in the Zoo." In Kirchshofer, 
Rosl
     (editor), _The World of Zoos_. New York: Viking Press, pp. 
151-163.

Wallach, J. D., and Flieg, G. 1970. "Cramps and Fits in Carnivorous 
Birds."

     _International Zoo Yearbook_. 10:3-4.

Ward, Rita Rhodes. 1965. _In the Beginning_. Grand Rapids, MI; Baker
     Book House.

Wendt, Herbert. 1965. _The Sex Life of Animals_. (Translated by 
Richard and
     Clara Winston) New York: Simon & Schuster.

Whitcomb, John C., Jr. 1972. _The Early Earth_. Grand Rapids, MI: 
Baker
     Book House.

------. 1973. _The World That Perished_. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker 
Book House.

Whitcomb, John C., Jr., and Morris, Henry M. 1961. _The Genesis 
Flood_.
     Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.

White, Michael J. D. 1978. _Modes of Speciation_. San Francisco: W. 
H. Freeman.

Wickins, J. F., and Helm, M. M. 1981. "Sea Water Treatment." In 
Hawkins,
     A.D. (editor), _Aquarium Systems_. London: Academic Press, pp. 
63-128.

Yalden, D. W., and Morris, P. A. 1975. _The Lives of Bats_. New York:
     Quadrangle.

Young E. 1975. "The General Care and Nutrition of Wild Mammals in 
Captivity."
     In Young (editor), _The Capture and Care of Wild Animals_. 
Hollywood,
     FL: Ralph Curtis Books, pp. 134-147.

Zimmerman, Elwood C. 1948. _Insects of Hawaii_, vol. 1. Honolulu:
     University of Hawaii Press.


EOF

--Wolfie


"In the higher animals the ability and inclination to do damage 
is, unfortunately, in direct proportion to the degree of their 
intelligence."   -- Konrad Lorenz, "King Solomon's Ring"


... Born again?  It seems your brain got left out in the process.
--- GEcho 1.00
 * Origin: [Windsor Download BBS] USR/V.Everything (519)-973-9330 
(1:246/15)

