Noah's Ark volume calculation

Hi prophet and welcome to EvC!There is a page of posting tips here. It will show you how to use the various dBCodes this site uses (you can use HTML as well).You can also use the "peek" button in the bottom right corner of each post to see how any special features were done. Like quote boxes;

quote:

---

Could it be the ark was bigger on the inside than it was on the outside?

---

Are you serious? Are you really suggesting that the ark was a TARDIS? Is God a Time Lord? What would The Doctor do?Joking aside, whilst that may seem like a good idea to you, this is a science forum and such fanciful speculation simply doesn't meet the standards expected for this forum's science threads. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, they should be backed up with some kind of evidence.Nice try though. Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi prophet,

quote:

---

First: To prevent me from continuing in my belief [Belief ] is not even remotely available. BUT, Im trying to debate this under the guise of science and with the limitations of science.

---

Well you've fallen at the first fence then. In admitting that you have already made up your mind and will not change it under any circumstances, you have placed yourself a long way outside the realm of science.In science, as in all forms of reasonable and honest enquiry, doubt is your friend.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

Because I know {not only without doubt - but with an understanding you cannot comprehend that God is real and the Ark was...

---

You know, but you cannot explain how in any objective sense. This is like saying "I have an astonishing proof in this box, but I'm afraid I can't open it up and show you.".

quote:

---

Does not conclude that I know its prupose could have been done within the limitations of science. Whether or not the Ark could have achieved its goal via physical dimensions and from a scientific standpoint is the topic. And this, is the something I do not know.

---

Fair enough. I respect your honesty there.Please bear in mind that there is only one reason why creationists try to present the Flood as being explainable through naturalistic science; religion cannot be taught in science classes.This is the bottom line in these debates and it is a major part of the reason why there are strict standards on this boards's science forums. Teaching religious dogma in schools as if it were science is explicitly banned, so creationists who want to teach flood mythology or a six-thousand year-old Earth must present their views as science. There is no other motivation.If you honestly enquire into the science that contradicts the Flood, you will soon realise that not just one, but many miracles are required if the Biblical account is to be considered true. That's fine for religious purposes (so long as you don't mind believing in a God who creates evidence that contradicts his works), but it has no place in schools.Unless you are interested in pushing Flood classes in schools, you simply have no need to twist the science to fit the Flood. Just accept that it was a miracle and be honest about it.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Thanks for your reply prophet, indeed, thanks for both of them! Just so as you're aware, if you want to change what you have posted, you can edit your posts. When you are logged in, you will see an "Edit" button in the bottom right corner of each of your posts. Using this means you won't need to double post if you want to adjust what you've said.

quote:

---

Yes, I do know... And, I could explain... but I'm not required to. The proof is not in a box and I'm not afraid to show it. Be reasonable, would you show such a thing to people like I encounter in this forum?

---

Umm... yeah.I understand your dilemma, at least somewhat. The kind of proof you feel you have is not available to others. It is subjective. Unfortunately, proof like that is of little use in debate and of no use to science, which demands objective independently verifiable evidence.

quote:

---

Religion is not what I would wish in school. Nor do I wish for the myth of evolution to be taught.

---

I have to ask. What would you like to see taught in biology lessons then? Don't answer here though. It's too far from the topic. The Education and Creation/Evolution would be a good place, perhaps in the Neutral Education, or you might like to start a new thread to discuss it (or I could if you prefer).

quote:

---

I am attempting to discover whether or not the Ark could have sustained the animals of the world for the duration by its own accord...via the size/structure.

---

Fair enough.The thing is that if you want to know whether the ark/flood was a naturalistic event or not, you don't need to go as far as analysing the volume of the ark. Ask yourself some simple questions;Do wild animals normally up sticks and obligingly walk onto a boat at the behest of men?Would a gazelle normally walk into the same boat as a lion?And if the animals did not co-operate, could a single family of Bronze Age tribes-folk really have coerced a multitude of them into that boat?Could thousands of normal wild animals be housed together without them trying to eat each other, fight each other, escape, run around, freak out, catch diseases, injure themselves and otherwise cause difficulties?Could ancient tribesmen have had the knowledge necessary to look after all these animals, knowledge that would dwarf that of today's most experienced zoo keepers?It doesn't require any calculations to know that the answer to all these questions is a resounding no. There is no way that people of any era, let alone the Bronze Age, could get all those animals, or even a handful thereof, onto any kind of boat. The whole idea is absurd, from a naturalistic viewpoint. Wild animals are simply too difficult to deal with.The only way the feat could have been accomplished is by means of divine intervention or some other fantastical agency.And that is before we get started on the volume (which has already been shown, from Message 1 onwards, to be insufficient), the construction problems, the logistical problems whilst at sea, the lack of sufficient water to flood the Earth and the whole zoo of other objections.Face facts, it's miracle or bust for the ark.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

The kind of proof I possess is not subjective - though some may try to make it such. You are correct, in that it is of little use in a debate... It is like bringing tigers to a debate about whether or not tigers exists. Kinda, sorta well... destroys the debate.

---

This might be a fair comparison if you brought an invisible tiger...

quote:

---

Maybe they did and this is why there were 7 pairs of clean animals, the males were food. [after the females were pregnant. ] Of course, this dwindles the size of the food necessary and increases the amount given.

---

Unfortunately it does absolutely nothing to explain why so many wild animals would refrain from, as I put it before, "trying to eat each other, fight each other, escape, run around, freak out, catch diseases, injure themselves and otherwise cause difficulties".How could regular wild animals behave in this extraordinary way without a miracle? The technology involved in the moon landing was developed over centuries, not in 69 years, so your example is a misleading one. Furthermore, you missed out a rather essential section my question; Exceeding such knowledge would require a vast system of scientific enquiry for which there is no evidence from the Bronze Age. In fact, the written records we have from back then, including the Bible, display a woeful lack of understanding of the natural world.The fact remains that gathering and caring for so many species of animal would be impossible today and it was impossible back then.

quote:

---

I have yet to see math results form variables I posted, or other posts such as the animals were young.

---

First of all, young animals provide no solution. getting all those animals together, all in infancy would be an incredible feat of logistics and I mean literally incredible. Invoking infant animals only increases Noah's workload. Besides, many animals need to be brought up by adults of their species, so this option is out of the question.As for maths, you have not provided any maths. You have mentioned that you are not happy with some of the assumptions in the OP, but you have provided no numbers of your own.If you want some maths, my advise is simple; do the maths. You have suggested, for instance, that sheep are too large to represent the average sized animal. So do the maths. Give us your idea of a fair average size and let's see the maths. Do not expect others to do the work for you.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

I find it extremely difficult to believe you cannot answer this question yourself.

---

I can. It's your answer I'm interested in and boy, it's a doozy.

quote:

---

You can put a fish in a small pond with a big gator... If that gator does not eat the fish soon enough it will adopt it as a friend. This is a frequency in nature. Also baby predators can easily be tempered to tolerate as friends, animals it would otherwise eat.

---

I'm having more than a little trouble believing that. Care to back it up with some evidence? Even if the gator bit were true, which I doubt very much, these gators were not in a pond. They were in a stall, in a boat. That is one unhappy gator which is going to bite just about anything that comes near, just out of general principle.This is not "a frequency in nature". That is a fantasy you have created. Lions cannot be raised to look on all other animals as "friends". Snakes eat rodents. It's in their nature. Pretending that they can be raised to do otherwise is laughable. If you want anyone to take this nonsense seriously, you must provide evidence that not just gators, but many predators, from all relevant groups, can be made to befriend their prey. You must also prove that the prey can be habituated into ignoring their predators. It's a non-starter.Further, this business of habituating the animals to one another only serves to make Noah's job even harder again. Even if it were possible, it would be a logistical impossibility to raise them all at the same time and habituate each animal to its eventual neighbours without taking so long that any of them grow to maturity. It's impossible. You would need a miracle.You claimed to be engaged in honest enquiry about whether the ark was miraculous or natural. Instead, you have wandered off into the realm of fantasy in an effort to rationalise a naturalistic ark story. Why not just accept the miracle?

quote:

---

Your response was to equte ancient people with tribeman like it has to be. There is nothing that proves they were not as "civilized" as we are tody.

---

Actually, I think that Bronze Age people were very clever and highly sophisticated in many ways. I just don't believe that they had zoological knowledge that dwarfs that of modern experts. If you want to make the extraordinary claim that they did, I can only ask you to provide some evidence to that effect.

quote:

---

Even today we continue to discover abilities in the "old school" ways that though antiquated re-proved itself valuable. A recent one is an adaptation to an old school cooler for homes in florida where water from the canals are used in rqadiators to cool houses more effectively.

---

I wasn't going to comment on this, because it is irrelevent, but one thing is worth mentioning.You put forward an example of an ancient technique being appropriated by modern people, but that is not what is needed. What you are suggesting, with Noah's amazing zoological expertise, is a case of ancient people displaying modern knowledge. That is what makes it unbelievable.

quote:

---

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.

---

Much higher lifespans are something else for which you must provide evidence. If you have none, it is merely another piece of unbelievable supposition. It also sounds suspiciously like another miracle. Why not just accept the miracle? What harm could it do?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi dronester, Indeed it is. I am well aware that there are a small number of cases of animals displaying an unusual lack of aggression toward other animals that they might normally regard as prey. That isn't the issue though. Note the bolded section of my quote above. I wrote "all" for a reason Demonstrating that some individual animals can be peaceable toward other individual animals does nothing to make prophet's case. What would be needed here would be evidence that all, or at least a very high percentage of animals could be deliberately raised this way, not merely evidence of an unusual behaviour in a wild animal. A great many animals would need to be raised this way, not just a handful, but literally thousands. They would also need to maintain this friendly relationship under extreme stress and with all of the animals with which they were housed, something that is clearly not happening in the case you cite. Bear in mind that the lioness must be hunting and killing some animals, or she would not survive.Note this bit from the cited article; Great. Let's suppose a calf dies. Now we have an insane and maternally outraged lioness aboard. This is not helping make Noah's job any easier. Nor does it sound as though it would work with male lions. Note this part too; Your example is certainly very interesting, but it is clearly an aberration and not something that has been deliberately induced by human handlers. It is limited to one calf at a time, with one very confused lioness. It is far from the level of tameness and ubiquity that would be required for prophet's idea to make even the slightest bit of sense.

quote:

---

But please don't mistake my post as evidence FOR the flood/Noah's ark myth. It is a childish idea, I am often surprised how much time is spent debating this nonsense.

---

Yeah, it's shocking isn't it. Grown adults are seriously debating an idea that should have been rejected by any sensible person at about the same time as they stopped believing in Santa.Welcome to EvC! Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade