An argument against a universal flood is that no ark could contain so many species of animals as existed
The ark measured
The best guess for a "cubit" is about 45cm, (about eighteen inches), but this is really only an educated guess and by no means certain. It is largely based on a
There is an assumption, of course, that the "cubit" in Moses's and Ezekiel's time was the same as in Noah's time, and unchanged since. In making categorical statements about the size of the ark, we need to remember that we are dealing with a unit of measurement of uncertain length. How can anyone say with confidence, "The ark was too small..." when they can only guess at how high or long or
Having noted this uncertainty, we will assume the guess to be correct, and go on now to discuss the size of the ark
The ark provided three decks. If the ark was box shaped, and the decks evenly spaced, then each deck had a floor space of three thousand square metres, a ceiling height of four metres. That means 12,000 cubic metres of space in each deck, 36,000 cubic metres in the whole ark. An average room in an Australian suburban house would measure about 36 cubic metres. Sit down in your lounge room and consider that the ark had a thousand times as much space.
Most animals are quite small. They are smaller than a sheep for example. Relatively few animals are larger. The problem of carrying large animals such as elephants could be solved by taking them on board as young, rather than full grown. So we hear people saying that there was not enough room for the animals, when they have not worked out how big the animals were. The animals had to be taken in sevens and twos, but nothing is said about these animals having to be of full adult size
Most arguments about the variety and numbers of animals are based on the modern category of "species" which of course are so numerous as to require dozens of scientists to count and classify. It would be impossible for Noah to take every animal "species" according to modern classification. Of course Noah never did that, and was not
Noah was to take animals "according to their families... after their kind"
The ark carried horses, but not every variety of horse; cats, but not every variety of cat; kangaroos, but not every variety of kangaroo. Nobody, as far as I know, has ever
researched the minimum number and size of ancestors needed to generate today's wide variety animals. How can anyone reasonably say, "The ark was too small to hold enough animals", when one has no data about the number of animals involved? Only when you have got a passenger list, can you decide whether the
Statements are made about the problem of feeding the animals
People say there was not enough room for the animals and their food. However they do not take account of the fact that animals are clever at modifying their behaviour to reduce their space and food requirements when their
Before we leave Noah, the ark, and the flood, let us not overlook the example Noah set for us, who are all his children. "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" because "Noah did according to all that God commanded him"
The longsuffering of God is waiting now, as it did in the days of Noah while Noah prepared the ark and preached salvation from the coming flood. So Jesus Christ, Noah's
antitype, came preaching salvation from destruction at the end of this present world. Like Noah, Jesus was rejected by the world at large. Noah passed through the waters of
the flood, the antitype of which is baptism. Just as the passengers of the ark left the doomed world, and passed through the waters into a new world, so we, through the
waters of baptism, pass from death into life, from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son. In this sense, the waters of baptism save us, as the waters of the flood, paradoxically, saved the occupants of the ark
Through baptism, sin is done away with on account of the death of Christ, and we walk in newness of life on account of his resurrection