What do you think?
Rate this book
Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study
This book on Noah's Ark is a one-of-a-kind compendiuum of information about animal-care methods, food-preservation techniques, animal-handling techniques, etc. It discusses in great detail how 8 people could have cared for 16,000 animals using pre-scientific technology. Whether or not the reader believes in the Bible or not, he or she can be fully confident that my book conveys substantive information about the workability of Noah's Ark and its inhabitants.
306 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1996
3 people are currently reading
210 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
June 18, 2007
This book is SO AMAZINGLY COOL. If you don't believe in an ancient world wide flood, you should give this book a try. If your objections to the biblical account of Noah and his ark have anything to do with "impossible" then this book was written for you.
What are we talking about? Eight people and a serious number of animals confined together in a large wooden boat for over a year. This book is a thoughtful and well researched study to answer the question "How do you feed, water and store that many animals for that long in that small a space with the available technology?
A fascinating read, even if you don't agree with the author's conclusions.
What are we talking about? Eight people and a serious number of animals confined together in a large wooden boat for over a year. This book is a thoughtful and well researched study to answer the question "How do you feed, water and store that many animals for that long in that small a space with the available technology?
A fascinating read, even if you don't agree with the author's conclusions.
July 11, 2024
Quite an imaginative book of pseudoscience!
The Old Testament ALLEGORY of the flood and Noah's ark was based on older Mesopotamian flood myths:
The ALLEGORY of the flood was retained from the Babylonian Captivity of the Hebrews (ca. 597 - 532 BCE). The Hebrews then added the FICTIONAL folklore flood account to their oral-cultural tradition.
Upon the return of the Hebrews to the homeland, this folklore became recorded in the Old Testament by the various authors of the Pentateuch, a.k.a. books of Moses.
The feasibility study here conveniently ignores that there must also have been a extremely large fish tank on Noah's ark. Depending on the type of flood (saltwater or freshwater), then the ark would also require a water tank to retain the types of fish, aquatic mammals, and reptiles in the required environment.
This "one-of-a-kind compendium of information" fails to understand that survival in the ark would require an exacting water quality not found outside the ark in water that was either saltwater or freshwater.
The Old Testament ALLEGORY of the flood and Noah's ark was based on older Mesopotamian flood myths:
The ALLEGORY of the flood was retained from the Babylonian Captivity of the Hebrews (ca. 597 - 532 BCE). The Hebrews then added the FICTIONAL folklore flood account to their oral-cultural tradition.
Upon the return of the Hebrews to the homeland, this folklore became recorded in the Old Testament by the various authors of the Pentateuch, a.k.a. books of Moses.
The feasibility study here conveniently ignores that there must also have been a extremely large fish tank on Noah's ark. Depending on the type of flood (saltwater or freshwater), then the ark would also require a water tank to retain the types of fish, aquatic mammals, and reptiles in the required environment.
This "one-of-a-kind compendium of information" fails to understand that survival in the ark would require an exacting water quality not found outside the ark in water that was either saltwater or freshwater.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 6, 2012
I love how even some one that is as scientifically challenged as I am can understand this book
June 2, 2024
A DETAILED STUDY OF VARIOUS TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ARK
Author John Woodmorappe wrote in the Abstract of this 1996 book, “This work is a systematic evaluation of the housing, feeding, watering, and waste-disposal requirements of some 16,000 animals on Noah’s Ark. It is also a comprehensive rebuttal to the myriads of arguments that have been made against the Ark over the centuries. It is shown that it was possible for eight people to care for 16,000 animals, and without miraculous Divine intervention. Proven solutions are offered to the problems of animals with special diets, such as the panda and koala. The bulk of hay poses no problems, and neither do the climatic requirements of animals. The latter part of this work � answers� arguments related to salinity tolerances of organisms in floodwater, seed survival and germination through the Flood, and a host of genetics ‘problems� of post-Flood population bottlenecks.� (Pg. xi)
He clarifies, “Scripture does not give us details about the manner or extent of supernatural involvement during the Flood. Since we do now know and cannot know, this side of eternity, about miracles connected with the Ark, I focus almost exclusively on non-miraculous solutions to alleged problems with the Ark account.� (Pg. xiii)
He explains, “If, as the preponderance of evidence � shows, the created kind was the equivalent to the family� then there were only about 2,000 animals on the Ark� However, in order to make this exercise more interesting, I have deliberately made the problem of animal housing on the Ark much more difficult by adopting the genus as the taxonomic rank of the created kind. This necessitates� nearly 16,000 animals on the Ark.� (Pg. 7)
He states, “we do not need to calculate the excreta production of all the animals on the Ark in detail, for the following reasons. Only the excreta produced by the large mammals is of numerical importance, because the amounts generated by the smaller mammals (and all non-mammals collectively) is negligible by comparison� I compute that the 16,000 animals on the Ark produced 12 megagrams of wet excreta daily� This value is comparable to the daily production of excreta in the many intensive poultry houses� in contrast to 430 tons daily in some intensive swine units.� (Pg. 23-24)
He notes, “I have determined the minimum wind speed necessary to adequately ventilate the Ark� I now consider a somewhat different Ark design for ventilation, one which goes beyond Scripture but does not in any way contradict it� the window of the Ark (Gen 6:16) served as an air inlet, whereas the outlets were a series of chimney-like flues that went deeply into the Ark and exited above the longitudinal center of the Ark roof. The flues draw the air out of the ark because of the rising air generated by animal body heat.� (Pg. 41)
He suggests, “One way that exercise could have been provided on the Ark for the large animals was through the use of a circular room with devices for animals to climb on� In this scheme, animal enclosures are connected to this ring, and groups of animals can be periodically released from their enclosures for exercise. Alternatively, a running track could have been provided on the Ark so that large groups of animals could be allowed to run around for exercise.� (Pg. 86)
He notes, “Up to now, I have, for purposes of discussion, tacitly accepted the premise that certain animals before the Flood had dietary specializations identical to their contemporary representatives. However, it is more than possible that dietary specialization arose ONLY SINCE THE FLOOD through microevolutionary changes in the animals---the result of variation within the created kind.� (Pg. 116)
He points out, “I begin by reaffirming the fact that ALL the calculations regarding the logistics and manpower on the Ark, presented in this work, assume NO suspended animation of the animals of ANY kind. The reason for my deliberate neglect of dormancy is the difficulty of quantifying its effects, due to: 1) scientific ignorance of the manner and degree of dormancy states in many animals, 2) apparent lack of a comprehensive database on animal dormancy� 3) great variability among individuals of even the same species in their ability to enter and remain in a dormant state, and� 4) probable microevolutionary changes in the degree and nature of animal dormancy since antediluvian times.� (Pg. 127)
He argues, “Up to now, I have, for purposes of discussion, assumed that the restricted salinity tolerance of aquatic organisms as seen today� were also true during the Flood. However, when variations within the kind are taken into account, it becomes obvious that the antediluvian organisms were tolerant of much greater ranges of ambient salinity than are extant ones. Therefore, the salinity (or lack thereof) of the floodwaters was a much less limiting factor than would be the case were the Flood to re-occur today.� (Pg. 146)
He continues, “creationists � have suggested that distinct SW and FW layers could have developed in the floodwater, and this salinity stratification could have persisted throughout the Flood allowing � organisms with widely divergent salinity tolerances to survive� Similar sheltered cracks could have formed on the ocean bottom during the Flood, allowing high-saline waters with their fauna to be protected from mixing with the less-saline waters above them.� (Pg. 148)
He observes of the post-Flood land surface, “One good rainfall can drastically reduce the salt content of the soil, provided that the drainage is good� In the immediately post-Flood world, the cleansing effects of rainwater must have been particularly acute because of the excellent drainage engendered by the ubiquitous presence of recently-eroded gullies. Large areas of land must have been leached of salt in a matter of days or weeks of last floodwater inundation, allowing even salt-sensitive plants to germinate and grow. In addition, there are significant differences within individual plants� in terms of tolerance for salt� This would have allowed these individual plants to begin growth in areas that had not yet been well leached of the salt ostensibly left by the Flood.� (Pg. 153)
He suggests, “there are many ways besides flotation of seeds by which plants could have survived the Flood� many non-floating seeds could have lost the ability to float only since the Flood. Most significant of all, there is a fundamental difference between the flotation of mature seeds discharged regularly by plant life, and the flotation of seeds that have been massively liberated by the Flood� the seeds that DID sink in the floodwater� still could have germinated once the floodwaters drained off the land and left them behind as lag deposits� Finally seeds are not the only way that plants reproduce, and this is even more evidence during catastrophes. Uprooted plants and trees can survive a long time in salt water� mats of vegetation� are often encountered at sea� or freshly beached on islands.� (Pg. 153-155)
He asserts, “despite the common notion that the Ark landed on a mountain top � it is agreed by creationists � compromising evangelicals � and modernists� that Scripture does not teach this. It only states that the Ark landed in the MOUNTAINS of Ararat� saying nothing about the topography, elevation, etc., of the immediate site of the Ark landing.� (Pg. 164)
This book will be of great interest to those studying “young earth� interpretations of the Genesis Flood.
Author John Woodmorappe wrote in the Abstract of this 1996 book, “This work is a systematic evaluation of the housing, feeding, watering, and waste-disposal requirements of some 16,000 animals on Noah’s Ark. It is also a comprehensive rebuttal to the myriads of arguments that have been made against the Ark over the centuries. It is shown that it was possible for eight people to care for 16,000 animals, and without miraculous Divine intervention. Proven solutions are offered to the problems of animals with special diets, such as the panda and koala. The bulk of hay poses no problems, and neither do the climatic requirements of animals. The latter part of this work � answers� arguments related to salinity tolerances of organisms in floodwater, seed survival and germination through the Flood, and a host of genetics ‘problems� of post-Flood population bottlenecks.� (Pg. xi)
He clarifies, “Scripture does not give us details about the manner or extent of supernatural involvement during the Flood. Since we do now know and cannot know, this side of eternity, about miracles connected with the Ark, I focus almost exclusively on non-miraculous solutions to alleged problems with the Ark account.� (Pg. xiii)
He explains, “If, as the preponderance of evidence � shows, the created kind was the equivalent to the family� then there were only about 2,000 animals on the Ark� However, in order to make this exercise more interesting, I have deliberately made the problem of animal housing on the Ark much more difficult by adopting the genus as the taxonomic rank of the created kind. This necessitates� nearly 16,000 animals on the Ark.� (Pg. 7)
He states, “we do not need to calculate the excreta production of all the animals on the Ark in detail, for the following reasons. Only the excreta produced by the large mammals is of numerical importance, because the amounts generated by the smaller mammals (and all non-mammals collectively) is negligible by comparison� I compute that the 16,000 animals on the Ark produced 12 megagrams of wet excreta daily� This value is comparable to the daily production of excreta in the many intensive poultry houses� in contrast to 430 tons daily in some intensive swine units.� (Pg. 23-24)
He notes, “I have determined the minimum wind speed necessary to adequately ventilate the Ark� I now consider a somewhat different Ark design for ventilation, one which goes beyond Scripture but does not in any way contradict it� the window of the Ark (Gen 6:16) served as an air inlet, whereas the outlets were a series of chimney-like flues that went deeply into the Ark and exited above the longitudinal center of the Ark roof. The flues draw the air out of the ark because of the rising air generated by animal body heat.� (Pg. 41)
He suggests, “One way that exercise could have been provided on the Ark for the large animals was through the use of a circular room with devices for animals to climb on� In this scheme, animal enclosures are connected to this ring, and groups of animals can be periodically released from their enclosures for exercise. Alternatively, a running track could have been provided on the Ark so that large groups of animals could be allowed to run around for exercise.� (Pg. 86)
He notes, “Up to now, I have, for purposes of discussion, tacitly accepted the premise that certain animals before the Flood had dietary specializations identical to their contemporary representatives. However, it is more than possible that dietary specialization arose ONLY SINCE THE FLOOD through microevolutionary changes in the animals---the result of variation within the created kind.� (Pg. 116)
He points out, “I begin by reaffirming the fact that ALL the calculations regarding the logistics and manpower on the Ark, presented in this work, assume NO suspended animation of the animals of ANY kind. The reason for my deliberate neglect of dormancy is the difficulty of quantifying its effects, due to: 1) scientific ignorance of the manner and degree of dormancy states in many animals, 2) apparent lack of a comprehensive database on animal dormancy� 3) great variability among individuals of even the same species in their ability to enter and remain in a dormant state, and� 4) probable microevolutionary changes in the degree and nature of animal dormancy since antediluvian times.� (Pg. 127)
He argues, “Up to now, I have, for purposes of discussion, assumed that the restricted salinity tolerance of aquatic organisms as seen today� were also true during the Flood. However, when variations within the kind are taken into account, it becomes obvious that the antediluvian organisms were tolerant of much greater ranges of ambient salinity than are extant ones. Therefore, the salinity (or lack thereof) of the floodwaters was a much less limiting factor than would be the case were the Flood to re-occur today.� (Pg. 146)
He continues, “creationists � have suggested that distinct SW and FW layers could have developed in the floodwater, and this salinity stratification could have persisted throughout the Flood allowing � organisms with widely divergent salinity tolerances to survive� Similar sheltered cracks could have formed on the ocean bottom during the Flood, allowing high-saline waters with their fauna to be protected from mixing with the less-saline waters above them.� (Pg. 148)
He observes of the post-Flood land surface, “One good rainfall can drastically reduce the salt content of the soil, provided that the drainage is good� In the immediately post-Flood world, the cleansing effects of rainwater must have been particularly acute because of the excellent drainage engendered by the ubiquitous presence of recently-eroded gullies. Large areas of land must have been leached of salt in a matter of days or weeks of last floodwater inundation, allowing even salt-sensitive plants to germinate and grow. In addition, there are significant differences within individual plants� in terms of tolerance for salt� This would have allowed these individual plants to begin growth in areas that had not yet been well leached of the salt ostensibly left by the Flood.� (Pg. 153)
He suggests, “there are many ways besides flotation of seeds by which plants could have survived the Flood� many non-floating seeds could have lost the ability to float only since the Flood. Most significant of all, there is a fundamental difference between the flotation of mature seeds discharged regularly by plant life, and the flotation of seeds that have been massively liberated by the Flood� the seeds that DID sink in the floodwater� still could have germinated once the floodwaters drained off the land and left them behind as lag deposits� Finally seeds are not the only way that plants reproduce, and this is even more evidence during catastrophes. Uprooted plants and trees can survive a long time in salt water� mats of vegetation� are often encountered at sea� or freshly beached on islands.� (Pg. 153-155)
He asserts, “despite the common notion that the Ark landed on a mountain top � it is agreed by creationists � compromising evangelicals � and modernists� that Scripture does not teach this. It only states that the Ark landed in the MOUNTAINS of Ararat� saying nothing about the topography, elevation, etc., of the immediate site of the Ark landing.� (Pg. 164)
This book will be of great interest to those studying “young earth� interpretations of the Genesis Flood.
April 17, 2015
"Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe really is "a resource for the Serious Reader", as the cover suggests. The author is a professional in the fields of geology, biology and paleontology, so he's well qualified to speak about the subject. The book is incredibly comprehensive, the aim being to prove to the naysayers that the Genesis Flood account (Chapters 6-9) is historical truth and could be achieved without divine intervention. Considering it's now close to 20 years old, the content is surprisingly up-to-date.
The book is broken up into four parts:
Part 1) A Complete Inventory of the Animals and Supplies on the Ark
Part 2) Alleged Difficulties Regarding the Ark and its Cargo
Part 3) The Recovery of the Earth's Biosphere After the Flood
Part 4) The Adequacy of Single Pairs in the Repopulation of the World
"Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" has many thought-provoking and interesting components, but it's written more in the dry, matter-of-fact manner of a biology text book or thesis than something to be read for enjoyment. As a case study concerning the ark, the book achieves its aim, admirably. That said, the book's layout is very bland - many paragraphs of writing in one-column paragraphs, with a few dull diagrams here or there. I also would've appreciated more diagrams and picture references (and better one), as something this heavy in content needs some visual oomph!
Reading this book, I did learn many new things, both about the Bible and biology (the latter was never my strong suit), but some chapters towards the end (regarding human genetics) lost me. As such, it's an intriguing work, one that's well-written and heavily referenced (almost a third of this book provides an index of the references used), but not one for the average reader. I understood the majority of the content though.
All in all, I highly, highly recommend the case study content of "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" to everyone - it's an excellent resource, but the actual book I only recommend to the 'serious reader'.
7/10 (it's an important and powerful book, but not an enjoyable read, as such)
9/10 (if you're passionate about biology, academic speak and don't need visual pizazz)
The book is broken up into four parts:
Part 1) A Complete Inventory of the Animals and Supplies on the Ark
Part 2) Alleged Difficulties Regarding the Ark and its Cargo
Part 3) The Recovery of the Earth's Biosphere After the Flood
Part 4) The Adequacy of Single Pairs in the Repopulation of the World
"Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" has many thought-provoking and interesting components, but it's written more in the dry, matter-of-fact manner of a biology text book or thesis than something to be read for enjoyment. As a case study concerning the ark, the book achieves its aim, admirably. That said, the book's layout is very bland - many paragraphs of writing in one-column paragraphs, with a few dull diagrams here or there. I also would've appreciated more diagrams and picture references (and better one), as something this heavy in content needs some visual oomph!
Reading this book, I did learn many new things, both about the Bible and biology (the latter was never my strong suit), but some chapters towards the end (regarding human genetics) lost me. As such, it's an intriguing work, one that's well-written and heavily referenced (almost a third of this book provides an index of the references used), but not one for the average reader. I understood the majority of the content though.
All in all, I highly, highly recommend the case study content of "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" to everyone - it's an excellent resource, but the actual book I only recommend to the 'serious reader'.
7/10 (it's an important and powerful book, but not an enjoyable read, as such)
9/10 (if you're passionate about biology, academic speak and don't need visual pizazz)
December 10, 2024
I have never understood why scientists, creationists or otherwise insist on dedicating so much time and effort into something like proving the viability of something like Noah's Ark.
I'm glad they do though, because this book quotes a guy called Moore a lot and he has hilarious ideas.
What this book does is it goes into great detail showing that all the reasons why people claim the ark wouldn't have worked aren't actually an issue and that the ark would have been possible even without any divine help.
However it is exactly due to this book being so thorough that I had to give it such a low rating.
Sure it is hilarious at times when ideas are thrown about such as the ark exploding due to gas buildup, worms and snails taking thousands of years to arrive at the ark, and Noah and his family having to be carriers of all possible diseases.
But the problem is that a good majority of the book is focusing on the more boring explanations. Food storage capacity, waste management, man power and specialised diets. Sure the author is thorough and shows step by step that each of these things could easily have been possible, but that doesn't change the fact that such explanations do not really make for a very interesting read.
I'm glad they do though, because this book quotes a guy called Moore a lot and he has hilarious ideas.
What this book does is it goes into great detail showing that all the reasons why people claim the ark wouldn't have worked aren't actually an issue and that the ark would have been possible even without any divine help.
However it is exactly due to this book being so thorough that I had to give it such a low rating.
Sure it is hilarious at times when ideas are thrown about such as the ark exploding due to gas buildup, worms and snails taking thousands of years to arrive at the ark, and Noah and his family having to be carriers of all possible diseases.
But the problem is that a good majority of the book is focusing on the more boring explanations. Food storage capacity, waste management, man power and specialised diets. Sure the author is thorough and shows step by step that each of these things could easily have been possible, but that doesn't change the fact that such explanations do not really make for a very interesting read.
May 26, 2024
not too technical, not necessarily meant to be read straight through but more for reference. Give many possibilities as to how Noah & family could handle the ark from feeding, sewage, animal selection and care, etc
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.