We're a hawk on the issues.

Creationist Solves Problem of How Dinosaurs Fit on Noah’s Ark

Creationist Carl Kerby has solved the problem of how two of every animal could have possibly fit on Noah’s Ark, even dinosaurs.

According to Kerby, the ark, which based on biblical measurements was about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 50 feet high, has plenty of room for all the animals to fit, as long as Noah took just the babies.

“You think of a guy like me, if you’re going to go repopulate a planet, you’re not taking me with you,” Kerby explained. “I’m old. My repopulating days are done. You take my son or my grandson. My grandson is a whole lot smaller than I am.”

Using his young-only theory, Kerby further stressed that there would have been plenty of room for even massive reptiles, like approximately 50 dinosaurs, to come along for the epic ride.

“I see some people that like to mock and ridicule, especially about the dinosaurs, how did they put the big old dinosaurs on there?” he said. “Well, I would suggest to you they didn’t take the big old dinosaur — they would have taken the younger ones.”

According to young earth creationist theology, due to the fact the earth is actually only thousands of years old, not millions,  and all of creation occurred literally over one week, humans and dinosaurs must have co-existed, making it perfectly logical that dinosaurs may have wanted to hitch a ride on Noah’s lifeboat.

Answers from Genesis explains the belief on its site. “We come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years.Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.”

Young earth creationists also point out that dinosaurs are described in the Bible even after the flood, meaning they must have survived the only way possible-on the ark.

“So dinosaurs—all the different kinds—must have lived alongside of people after the Flood,” Answers in Genesis notes, citing a source found in Job.

The problem of how massive dinosaurs fit on a wooden ark, though, remained a problem for young earth creationists and their dinosaur views, or at least until Kerby figured out it was entirely possible as long as Noah only took babies along.

Photo Credit: John Scalzi/Creation Museum

About the author

Tamar is a New York based freelance writer and photographer whose work has appeared in over 15 publications. You can catch her work regularly on Issue Hawk, Latest, Jspace, and MediaGlobal.

  • jaydweaver

    This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. How do they explain carbon dating? Literalism is a dinosaur. Evolution rules!

    • Jennifer Aumanstal

      They don’t explain carbon dating. They believe it is a hoax.

      • Arlen Strader

        We don’t believe it is a hoax, only that it has limitations. For example, Carbon-14 dating of diamonds shows an age of 10’s of thousands of years (rather than the 10’s of millions believed by evolutionists. Also, non-fossilized dinosaur tissue has been found (which, in itself, is hard for evolutionists to explain) shows ages in the thousands of years — not 165 millions. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible if you are interested in details of the Creationist stance on carbon-14 (as well as other radiometric dating methods)

        • Ronald N. Wall

          Arlen, rather than quoting a Creationist web site, please present us with evidence from real scientists. Did the web page site their sources? When you are citing sources you must cite the original source, not a second or third party one. I believe you will find that Answers in Genesis has an agenda, and it is not to prove the Bible through actual science, even when they claim to do so.

          • Arlen Strader

            I would disagree that the scientists at Answers In Genesis are not real scientists. The web article I cited contains the citations you are looking for including the RATE and RATE 2 studies conducted to determine if the assumptions in radiometric dating are valid. If you disagree with one of their findings, you should cite that disagreement rather than just question the motives.

          • äöü

            Let’s understand that there is a difference between obtaining a degree in science, and being a research scientist working in the field.

            Some of them have published on topics other than creationism, but they don’t publish their support in actual scientific journals.

            You have to admit that they don’t publish anything creation related in anything but creation journals.

            I can’t believe that someone who is moderately capable of understanding simple ideas in science could actually believe that the Earth is only 6k old.

            If, however, you have someone who is saying that God is somehow a mystery that is only knowable through personal self, and the bit about the age of the Earth is actually a human mathematical error, then have at it.

            There is no technology that has ever been created by using creation science. There is no falsifiable test to demonstrate that the world is only 6k old.

            Some apologists will pretend that time runs differently now. That’s always a good one.

            However, you need to get over the idea that disproving something as simple as Carbon dating would render all of the rest of the collaborating science irrelevant.

            If you disregard radiometric dating, fine. Explain the speed of light, and the distance of objects. If you rationalize a reason to disregard that, then you need to explain anthropology- we have objects that are far older than 6k years. If you disregard that, then you have to explain the oldest trees.

            And it goes on.

            If it were really just one piece of evidence, then we wouldn’t rely on science the way we do.

            Materialist science- Lots of advancements.
            Creation science- No discernible technological capabilities.

            Let’s see how science works. Answer this question-

            Let’s pretend that you are told that you are going to be in a room with 100 people, all of whom are in various stages of a serious infectious disease like Mumps, small pox, or whooping cough.

            Long before you know that you are going to do this, you are given the option of preparing for the event by getting an appropriate vaccination shot, or you may prepare for the event by praying on it by yourself, or in a group.

            If you could only choose one option, which would you choose? Prayer or science?

          • Arlen Strader

            I’ll address of few of your items.

            > Explain the speed of light, and the distance of objects

            The Creation model includes supernatural events such as a God creating the cosmos for mankind. Including the light between the distant objects and the earth would have been included in that event.

            > Anthropology.

            The oldest known civilization is the Sumerians whose dates fit within the Biblical timeline. Objects are dated based on the evolutionary model (typically from radiometric dating).

            > If you disregard that, then you have to explain the oldest trees.

            The oldest trees are dated around 5000 years ago. Tree ring dating is not an exact science, but these dates are not far off from the Creationary model.

            There is one tree in Sweden believed to be almost 10,000 years old. But, the dating is based on Carbon-14 dating of the root system not the tree itself (the visible tree is pretty young). 10K is at the extreme end of the Creation dates, but still within it. That, and the usual margin of error of such dating makes it fit fine within the creationary model.

            And, I can respond with a list of evidences for a young earth
            * receding moon
            * decaying magnetic field
            * short orbit comets
            * helium within radioactive rocks
            * degradation of human DNA

            > Materialist science- Lots of advancements.
            > Creation science- No discernible technological capabilities.

            * If you are including observable/repeatable phenomenon in “Materialist science,” then this is an invalid comparison since creationist don’t object to those. Our model simply includes supernatural events thousands of years ago.

            And, your dichotomy is false since one could never prevent someone from simultaneously preparing a vaccine and praying.

          • äöü

            So, you wouldn’t rely only on prayer? That’s an interesting thing.

            If you want to claim that miracles occurred, go ahead. However, you should never ever expect to have the discussed in any scientific context.

            There are people who are going around right now in places like India who are claiming that perform miracles like turning water into wine. They get people to believe them. Okay? Those people would report to you that they saw a miracle.

            We also have thousands of people who claim to have seen Elvis, and we don’t trust their opinion as automatically valid.

            Just don’t expect to have creationism taught anywhere near a science class.

            I think we can agree that miracles are not part of science.

          • Arlen Strader

            So, no abiogenesis or big bang. Both require miracles (supernatural) since neither have been observed and both violate natural science.

        • äöü

          Scientists don’t just believe it has limits, they know it has limits. That’s why Carbon dating is not used for dinosaurs. Creationists need to know the different types of radiometric dating that is done.

          It simply won’t do for you all to pretend to be ignorant of other types of dating methods that use half life.

          Now that you know that we don’t use radiocarbon dating for dinosaurs, you will never use that argument again. Unless, of course, you plan to intentionally mislead- er… lie. #9

  • George O’Hagan

    Oh dear. this is ignorance and stupidity raised to a whole new level, even for professional xtians, poisoning the minds of their children. Why is this even being discussed? I grew up in a strict Catholic family, and we all knew the Noah’s ark story was just that…a story. We went the Museum of Natural History and knew, and believed, the dinosaurs lived millions of years before humanoids. This is what makes America the laughing stock of the world. In the 21st Century, we have a whole new generation of flat-earthers. Fundamentalism: If swallowed, induce vomiting.

  • Ronald N. Wall

    I have heard this before from a Southern Baptist evangelist who makes speaking tours and advertises himself as “Dr.” Unfortunately, his so-called doctorate was from a Southern Baptist seminary. Also, I guess fundamentalist who believe Noah was a real person and the flood really happened must also explain where wall the water came from to cover all of the earth, including I assume, the Himalayas, to a depth of 30,000 feet. And I fail to understand why no one other than Noah thought to jump in a boat when it started flooding. Even 6,000 years ago humans knew that boats floated.

    • Arlen Strader

      The Himalayas would not have likely been that tall at the beginning of the flood. They would have been pushed up during the upheaval of the flood (which included widespread vulcanism).

      • Ronald N. Wall

        When you argue a special case, such as, “The Himalayas would not have likely been that tall…” You are inventing a special case to support a belief, rather than supplying evidence that this was true. You can make any number of assumptions, but if none of them are supported by the Bible or science they are simply excuses to explain an unlikely event. If this were the case (the Himalayas were smaller), Genesis at least should have explained so there would be no doubt in the minds of Christians. The truth is that the writers of Genesis had no idea the Himalayas even existed. In fact (not faith) the Himalayas have actually gotten shorter (by a rather miniscule relative amount) since their original creation, over millions of years, by the actions of plate tectonics, and naturally begin eroding (again, over millions of years) by wind, snow and water. Again, you are not presenting evidence, you are in effect offering excuses.

      • äöü

        Just stop. It’s just wrong. you don’t prove a positive assertion by attempting to refute one or two points.

        It’s just dishonest. If your worldview about science is based on a few unsupported ideas that, in your personal religious/scientific opinion, cast a bit of doubt onto one or two scientific principles, then it is a weak and shattered worldview that only seeks to hang on by tearing away the tiny parts of the rope that is holding you up.

  • SeanP

    The explanation of babies were the animals of choice is nothing new. It has been the go-to argument when it was asked how elephants and giraffes fit. What I find funny though is his claim of ’50’ dinosaurs. Even a casual observer of dinosaur fossils would have to realize there are far more than 50 species at any given time for any given period. Unless of course you can’t see what is right in front of you.