Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Ark volume calculation
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 238 of 347 (495862)
01-24-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by prophet
01-24-2009 2:20 PM


Re: standards?
I put a post with your name in the title in the correct forum.
You should address these questions there, not here.
http://EvC Forum: What is a Theory? -->EvC Forum: What is a Theory?
Edited by Coyote, : Added link

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by prophet, posted 01-24-2009 2:20 PM prophet has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 249 of 347 (496675)
01-29-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by prophet
01-29-2009 10:02 PM


Re: The workload
Prophet, you are busy rearranging the deck chairs on the HMS Ark when the overwhelming mountains of scientific evidence show that the global flood event did not happen as described.
Don't you think you should show that such a global flood actually happened before you start arranging the feeding and waste disposal schedules?
{It sure seems to me that Prophet is on-topic and Coyote is heading off-topic. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by prophet, posted 01-29-2009 10:02 PM prophet has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 256 of 347 (496929)
01-31-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by prophet
01-31-2009 3:53 PM


Re: standards?
I see a problem too, and will require more investigation.
I would venture that what you mean is you want to find a way to rationalize the problem. To find a "what if" story that will allow you to continue in your belief.
There have been a lot of posts to this thread and the preponderance of the evidence says that the ark simply could not have functioned as a vast floating zoo.
Have you ever even thought of entertaining the possibility that somehow maybe the ark story is not a literal chronicle of actual events? That as our great story teller, Tolkein, one wrote: "The tale grew in the telling."
Would this somehow present an insurmountable problem for you?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 3:53 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 6:05 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 275 of 347 (497131)
02-01-2009 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by prophet
02-01-2009 8:32 PM


Re: standards?
Religion is not what I would wish in school. Nor do I wish for the myth of evolution to be taught.
On the first we agree. On the second, evolution is not a myth--it is evidence backed. But that is a subject for another thread.
Pertinent to this thread is that volume calculations make it most likely that the ark story is the one that is a myth. And that is but one line of reasoning suggesting the biblical account of the flood is not a literal account of an actual event.
Staying on topic--do you have any specific rebuttals to the posts dealing with volume and space usage on the purported ark? Do you have any thoughts on how such an unlikely scenario could have happened? Or would you ascribe it all to a miracle?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by prophet, posted 02-01-2009 8:32 PM prophet has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 297 of 347 (497604)
02-04-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by prophet
02-04-2009 8:35 PM


Myths
My actual point concerned the prior 2000 years of advancement mankind had before the Ark AND we should also mention that because one lived so much longer they had a MUCH HIGHER opportunity to excell in technology. Having the ability to progress your ideas for several hundred years rather than a few decades should allow one much more refined achievements.
That's nice.
The problem is there is no scientific evidence for a global flood, nor an ark, nor a young earth, nor several hundred year life spans.
They are all religious beliefs (myths) based on unverifiable claims. You can't base a scientific argument on a religious beliefs myths.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by prophet, posted 02-04-2009 8:35 PM prophet has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 324 of 347 (500188)
02-23-2009 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Black
02-23-2009 8:45 PM


Dinosaurs
You do realize that dinosaurs became extinct some 65 million years before the Noah's ark myth, don't you?
And that the volume calculation of the ark is just a thought experiment to show that that specific part of the myth is physically impossible?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 8:45 PM Black has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 9:35 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 328 of 347 (500200)
02-23-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Black
02-23-2009 9:35 PM


Re: Dinosaurs
Coyote writes:
You do realize that dinosaurs became extinct some 65 million years before the Noah's ark myth, don't you?
Based on current exploration hence current scientific data. I have old science books that state our universe is 70,000,000 years old but based on current data it is approx. 20,000,000,000 years old. Who knows how old our universe will be in another 50 years. I also remember, historically, scientific data supporting a flat earth and even a geocentric earth. What other scientific data/facts do you have for me?
Science is increasingly accurate. Is that a problem for you? Or are you convinced that science is all wrong and the earth is something like 6,000 years old? If so, find or start an appropriate thread and we can discuss it.
Coyote writes:
And that the volume calculation of the ark is just a thought experiment to show that that specific part of the myth is physically impossible?
In theory.
No, in fact. That is the whole point of this thread. If you disagree, show some evidence.
I have evidence from my own archaeological research that disproves the global flood about 4,350 years ago. We can take that to an appropriate thread as well.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 9:35 PM Black has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 10:38 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 330 of 347 (500206)
02-23-2009 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Black
02-23-2009 10:38 PM


Re: Dinosaurs & definitions
I have respect for Science and Faith. One claims we came from a rock and another claims we came from God. However, they are both theoretical.
Science is based on evidence. Faith is belief in spite of the lack of evidence (see below).
The actual volume calculation could be fact but what was inserted into the ark is theoretical.
There is no scientific evidence that the ark ever existed; it is a myth. The volume calculation, the subject of this thread, is a thought experiment.
You are using "theoretical" incorrectly. You most likely mean "speculation." The term "theory" is well-defined in science. Here are a couple of definitions which may help out:
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. (Source)
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 10:38 PM Black has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 11:10 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 333 of 347 (500213)
02-23-2009 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Black
02-23-2009 11:10 PM


Re: Dinosaurs & definitions
Incorrect. The book of Genesis is evidence that the Ark existed. The rest of your post is mute.
The bible is not scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence that the ark ever existed. There are mountains of scientific evidence that show the global flood about 4,350 years ago never happened. I have some from my own work. Find an appropriate thread and I'll share it with you.
And you mean moot, not mute.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 11:10 PM Black has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 339 of 347 (500219)
02-23-2009 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Black
02-23-2009 11:10 PM


Re: Dinosaurs & definitions
Incorrect. The book of Genesis is evidence that the Ark existed. The rest of your post is mute.
The bible is not scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence that the ark ever existed. There are mountains of scientific evidence that show the global flood about 4,350 years ago never happened. I have some from my own work. Find an appropriate thread and I'll share it with you.
And you mean moot, not mute.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 11:10 PM Black has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 11:28 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 340 of 347 (500220)
02-23-2009 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Black
02-23-2009 11:10 PM


Re: Dinosaurs & definitions
Oops.
Edited by Coyote, : Eliminate duplicate

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 11:10 PM Black has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 342 of 347 (500224)
02-23-2009 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Black
02-23-2009 11:28 PM


Re: Dinosaurs & definitions
Coyote,
The book of Genesis does indicate that an ark existed therefor it is evidence.
I ment mute. In other words: STFU
This thread is in the Science Forum. Evidence here should be scientific evidence. The bible is not scientific evidence; it is folklore and myth.
The scientific evidence shows that the purported global flood about 4,350 years ago didn't happen as described.
And no, I won't STFU.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 11:28 PM Black has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by IchiBan, posted 02-23-2009 11:51 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 344 by Black, posted 02-24-2009 12:02 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 346 of 347 (500230)
02-24-2009 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by Black
02-24-2009 12:02 AM


Re: Dinosaurs & definitions
Coyote,
http://ehwchurch.org/...nar+3+-+Dinosaurs+and+the+Bible.html
check the link out it has some good information in it. just click play when the link loads.
I'm not interested in religious apologetics or creation "science."
I do real science for a living.
Why don't you propose an appropriate thread where we can continue the discussion of the ark and flood? Otherwise we ane getting off-topic for this thread.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Black, posted 02-24-2009 12:02 AM Black has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024