2. Two of every species on the ark?? The desert nomads were simplistic in their thinking, because all they knew about were maybe up to a hundred bird species and at best a few hundred mammal and animal species from elephants to fruit flies.
But we know that in an acre of jungle forest there are perhaps over 10,000 species of animal life mostly very small; and that worldwide there are hundreds of millions of animal species. How would you separate them, for otherwise many will soon eat others? Something like a matchbox size cell for each insect pair? Even then, some insect animals eat their mates, so they need separating.
In short, instead of questioning the story of Noah with the title “disproving the biblical flood using physics”, you should say “disproving the biblical flood using physics and commonsense”.
From: Ian Brightman [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 26 December 2009 16:31
To: Dr. Terence Meaden
Subject: disproving the biblical flood using physics
As a physicist what would you consider to be the best way to disprove the flood using mathematics and physics. I ask this, as the book im writing will be looking to disprove specific things within the bible. The biology stuff i have covered but im looking in terms of things such as the amount of water needed to cover the earths highest mountain, possible implications on the weight of water on the land, and pressures exerted and similar calculations.
Also what would be the best way to work out the measurements needed to contain at least 2 of every species of animal life on earth in said arc, would it be a simple weigh and length raito or would i need to factor anything else in??
if you can help i would really appreciate it. i promise i'm not being academically lazy, i just want to make sure the calculations are correct and unrefutable, and i promise you acknowledgement as well in the front part of the book.
Nonetheless, you raise the question as if the biblical fiction or exaggeration were true by invoking the flood for the entire world.
In that case, multiply the surface area of planet Earth by the height of Mount Everest, say 29,000 feet or 8900 metres.
Yes, Earth’s land surface would sink somewhat under the weight of water, but a sinking region would be matched elsewhere by rising regions. In fact, to go any further with calculations would be pointless because where would any such quantity of water come from? There is nowhere of course. All of Earth’s potential water supply is already present in the oceans, lakes and rivers.