Noah's Ark volume calculation

And that's not all!

​

Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus into the ark?

​

A. Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!

​

(Noah! Make them stop. I'm getting seasick!)

---

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

Since this is in the Science Forum, I'll venture a reply.You folks are debating the fine points of the ark, and the animals it contains, as if there really was a global flood 4,500 years ago.I agree it makes an interesting thought experiment, but until there is some evidence that there actually was a global flood about 4,500 years ago it makes as much sense to comment on the size and shape of Yorik's skull in Hamlet, and his reaction to it. Both have the same historical validity, i.e., none.

---

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

The evidence shows that those various species continued with no interruption from before to after the date posited for the "global" flood (4,350 years ago).As did human cultures, and human DNA lineages. The Egyptians didn't even notice the flood, and kept on building pyramids and the like.Isn't is becoming obvious by now that the "global" flood is a local tribal myth and never really happened?The ark was probably a local barge that had a lucky break when the Black Sea rose. And then, as Tolkein wrote, "The tale grew in the telling."

---

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

There is about the same chance of this idea of yours being accurate as there is of the Easter bunny laying colored eggs, i.e., none.Seriously, do you really believe this stuff that you post, or are you just putting us on?

---

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

That's nonsense. It also appears to be one of the latest creationist talking points.What it boils down to is that the evidence supports one interpretation, but not the other.Right now what you are doing is cherry-picking bits and pieces and feeding us "what if" stories. That won't cut it in science. You have to present a scenario, with supporting evidence, that does not contradict one or more established facts. You have not done that. You have just given us about two "what ifs" -- selected ice age glacial features and quick-frozen megafauna.If you want to propose a global flood, you first have to pick a time frame; having the flood wandering about from 3,000 years ago to the Cambrian is just not going to work. That's not science, that's religious apologetics.Biblical scholars suggest that the most likely date for the global flood is about 4,350 years ago. Are you willing to accept that date? And stick with it?If not, what specific date do you propose, and why?If so, you will have to give up on ice age glaciers and megafauna; both were long gone by then. And don't even consider fossils. They take much longer to form than that.See what the problem with the flood myth is? If you have to consider all of the evidence it becomes clear that a global flood never happened. Only when you cherry-pick bits and pieces that can be misinterpreted the way you want them to be does the evidence appear to support a global flood. Again, that's not science; that's religious apologetics.

---

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

Is there any evidence to support this, or is this just another in a long line of "what ifs" presented to rationalize the flood and ark stories."What ifs" are not evidence, nor do they contradict existing evidence. They are simply unsupported questions.If you think suspended animation was involved, perhaps presenting some evidence would help convince others of your idea.Welcome!

---

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

This is one of the founding principles of geology and archaeology.And I have a nice bumpersticker that reads:

Archaeologists Assume Superposition

Perfectly straightforward statement but I get odd looks and an occasional snicker.

---

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

---

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

That is a religious belief.This is the Science Forum section of this website.Here you are expected to provide evidence for your statements. Do you have any scientific evidence to present?

---

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

Actually I would put it the other way around.It is my understanding that science obtains data and then seeks to explain that data. This involves hypotheses and testing, leading to formation of theories.There is no belief needed at any of these steps. Data is something that can be observed by multiple researchers. And we don't have to take any single person's word for it.Once we have a theory we don't "believe in" it as much as we accept it because it accounts for all of the relevant data. If we were to consider our theories truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH, and believe in them strongly, we would be reluctant to modify or discard them if new data contradicted them.It is better that we consider theories to be the current best explanations for a given set of data.You ask, "BELIEF must first be presented, examined and allowed." Actually what are first presented are ideas or hypotheses. These are examined (tested) and often discarded or modified. Remember cold fusion? Once an hypothesis stands the test of time, and makes successful predictions--and by then has no major competition--it is considered a theory, as long as it is not contradicted by any significant facts.Here are a couple of definitions:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

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

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

​

Hope this helps.

---

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

Science operates under the working assumption of methodological naturalism. That is, things pertaining to the natural world can be figured out without resort to the supernatural.This seems to have produced quite good results for the past few centuries. But if evidence is found to show that this assumption is not accurate, I'm sure that science will adjust its assumptions and methods to accommodate.Is there evidence that methodological naturalism is insufficient? No, it is a working assumption not a belief. If evidence for deities and the supernatural can be produced, that assumption certainly will be reworked. In the absence of that evidence, science will just keep on using methodological naturalism. Hypotheses are quite distinct from beliefs. Hypotheses are ideas that are subjected to tests to determine their ability to explain data. Beliefs are accepted as true with or without supporting data. A belief need have no supporting data, or could in fact contradict all relevant data. That is certainly not the same as an hypothesis, which is an idea offered for testing against data. It is in the evidence that we see the difference.Beliefs need have no evidence supporting them. This is certainly the case with many religious beliefs: they are accepted on faith alone, often in direct contradiction to scientific evidence.Scientific explanations (i.e., theories) are appropriate to explain natural phenomena (back to methodological naturalism).The problem arises when religious belief is put forth as science. Creation "science" is a classic example of this. When beliefs are put forth as science, they are subject to the same tests to which any other idea will be subjected using the scientific method. At that point they either succeed or fail on the scientific evidence. At that point religious belief has no relevance--it is the scientific evidence that counts.As far as allowing "the liberal use of beliefs by believers" -- go ahead! Knock yourselves out and believe whatever you choose.But if you present your ideas as science, expect that science will subject them to the normal testing and criticism that takes place in science. And don't complain when those beliefs are found to be without scientific evidence.

---

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

This is on topic, as it speaks directly to the size of the (fictional) ark: Show me the bones! I've been studying human bones for decades, all through my Ph.D. work and since. I consult to local coroners when bones are found. I'm not exactly a novice when it comes to people parts.Show me the bones of these (fictional) giants supporting the "much larger" cubit. Good references will be sufficient.(But please, no creation "science" references--those folks lie when it comes to science. They can't help it.)

---

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

If you have any evidence post it.And don't just post naked links; that's against forum rules.And I suspect that any link with Drdino in the url is absolute anti-science nonsense. But go ahead and post the "evidence" and we'll take a look.

---

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

No, they are not. A theory in science has a specific definition. It does not mean a guess or something just made up on the spot. Research the definitions of "theory" lest you seem a fool or a religious apologist. ?????????? Correct. That is the opposite of science. (You are posting religious apologetics in the Science Forum; see tagline.) Nonsense. Catholics are the single largest religious denomination and they have no problem with science and the theory of evolution. It is only fundamentalists, including Muslims, who do. ???????? Facts lead to hypotheses, then theories. A theorem is something else entirely.You're not doing too well. You seem to be witnessing, more than discussing science. Perhaps you should be in a different part of this website?

---

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

That stuff is absolute crap. You should be embarrassed to post it.Its all nonsense, or refuted long ago. Its not even well done crap.My advice--get a few real books on archaeology and learn something worthwhile.

---

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