|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Noah's Ark volume calculation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
earljones writes: I can't find any data on how kangaroos got from Mount Ararat all the way to Australia! the same way the Papua New Guinea people immigrated to australia - walked the findings of oceanographers indicate that at one time land ridges connected what are now isolated land areas. For example, oceanographic studies indicate that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge may have crossed that ocean above the surface. Possibly there were also other ridges, and animals could have migrated by means of these before such ridges sank below the surface of the ocean. Other oceanographic studies have turned up evidence that once there existed a huge South Pacific continent that took in Australia and many of the South Sea isles. If such was the case, then, of course, the animals had no difficulty in migrating to these lands
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
kuresu writes: two of those behemoths probably would have sunk the ark. Which is why I think creationists tend to remove dinosaurs from the ark list. as you knowe, Dinosaur bones are found in lower earth layers than are human bones, leading many to conclude that they belong to an earlier time period
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.
Do you know how small this space is? That's the total sq. ft. of the Denver REI store. I can tell you right now it would be impossible to house and feed all the living world's species on the ark for one year. That is, unless you completely ignore reality and let god magically do everything. Good thing this is a mythical story that didn't actually happen, huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
For example, oceanographic studies indicate that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge may have crossed that ocean above the surface. Please provide some evidence of this claim (remember this has hold true for the Noaichian time frame as I'm sure you are not talking about Pangaea).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Then why have YECs tried to include dinosaurs in their ark models?
I agree, dinosaurs lived a long time ago. They died out 65 million years ago. Humans (homo sapiens) did not appear until about 250,000 years ago. The flood model simply does not make sense with what we know about the geological and biological history of the earth. Among various other fields that it badly collides with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
i have no idea why anyone would try to include dinosaurs in the story of noah
there is no reason to do so, the bible does not mention dinosaurs because they were not existing when it was written
kuresu writes: The flood model simply does not make sense with what we know about the geological and biological history of the earth. im sure there is still a lot about the earths early history that we may never come to understand...everything we conclude about the earth as it is today is only based on our current knowledge. It will probably change in few decades and then it will change again a few decades after that. So for now, nothing is impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 4993 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
So far I've learned the approximate size of the arc is:
1,518,000 cu.ft.Bible Study - You Have Questions. The Bible Has Answers! 1,396,000 cu.ft.Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat 1,518,000 cubic feet 1,400,000 cu ft If we take an average (mean) we have 1,458,000 cu ft. I have not had an answer, though, as to how many animals were on the ark. Can someone please give me a formula to calculate how many animals were on the ark, and the apporximate size of "each kind" or species, or whatever you want to call it. Thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Look up the number of taxonomical families, as that tends to be where creationists define "kind".
Although sometimes it's genus, and occasionally species (men and all other primates are two separate kinds, for example). Look only within the animal kingdom, as I don't think god commanded noah to take plants on board. Also, do not include any sea organisms (like whales and jellyfish). Then, assume that all organisms were young, but old enough to have been weened. Keep in mind, if the ark had 96k sq.ft, as one creo just argued in this thread, you're talking about a space that is smaller than your average super wal-mart. Or, 1.6 american football fields of room. Good luck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
I have not had an answer, though, as to how many animals were on the ark. Can someone please give me a formula to calculate how many animals were on the ark, and the apporximate size of "each kind" or species, or whatever you want to call it. I am not a believer in the Biblical flood. Rather I see the Biblical flood as being derived from a host of older dilivuian myths i.e. Epic of Gilgamesh and others, that are present in ancient Mesopatamium literature. However, for the sake of exploring the science and logic of the Noah flood I have done a little bit of research as shown below: The Bible does not define the word "kind". However the original Hebrew word miyn translates into english "kind", but literally it means "to portion out" or "to sort". According to Stephen Caesar, a staff member of the Associates for Biblical Research and graduate of Harvard with an M.A. in Anthropology and Archaeology:
Stephen Caesar writes: Genesis 1:11 and 1:21 state that God created animals and plants “according to [their] kind.” “Kind” is miyn in Hebrew; the Latin Vulgate translates miyn as genus. Charles Linnaeus, the scientist who formulated the genus/species system of nomenclature for animals and plants, used the Bible as the source of his formula. When he saw the word genus in his Latin Bible”the Hebrew miyn”he chose that as the designation not for an individual species, but for the wider genus to which it belonged. Let's say this is true, that the Biblical word "kind" scientifically translates to the biological classification of genus (I know that is a stretch but lets just go with that for now). This may actually make a little sense, since many animals of close species may not had many distincly visible differences distinguishable to the Early Bronze age people, however animals of different genus and family biological categories most certainly would have had certain distinguishable visible physical differences which they could interpret as "kinds" of animals. For example the family Felidae, can be broken down into the following genera (plural form of genus): Acinonyx (cheetah), Panthera (lion, tiger), Neofelis (clouded leopard) and Felis (domestic cats). Therefore lets go with the kinds=genus hypothesis. How many genera categories of animals are there? I would venture that Noah (if he existed) would have only carried only the genera of land and air animals. So discounting microrganisms, plants, fungi, insects, worms, small marine animals, fish, amphibians, reptiles (many are aquatic) etc this leaves us with birds and mammals (yes I know some mammals and birds are aquatic i.e. whales, dophins, etc but we will disregard this for the sake of simplicity i.e. was this a global or local flood). The class Mammalia (mammals) contains 1117 genera (4629 species) and Aves (birds) contain 2050 genera (9,648 species). This gives us a grand total of 3167 "types" of creeping, crawling, walking and flying terrestrial creatures. This sort of matches up with the figures I found from the "Life history on Earth" model developed by the the Niehls Bohr Institute's Center for Models of Life which stated that out of about 36,000 genera of life that have existed, 31,363 are extinct and 4637 genera still exist. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
So in other words, a little over 6300 animals (ignoring the 7 pairs of clean beasts).
If we use peq's figure of 96,000 sq.ft, that gives us 15.23 sq.ft. per animal. That's not quite a 4x4 foot enclosure. Per animal. And food for a year has to be stored as well, right? Yeah, I honestly don't see how creationists could accept that. Far fewer kinds would have been brought onto the ark. That, or the ark was much, much bigger than as described in the bible. Bit since the word of god is infallible, that's not an acceptable path. Perhaps we should just find all the mammalia and aves genera that are native to the middle east?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Also realize that 8 people would have to take of those 6300+ animals.
I agree that it would make more sense if this was a local not a global flood and Noah/Gilgamesh only took those animals from the local area. You then could probably get it down to 200-400 animals, possibly. Who knows, this is mere speculation, though I think we should submit this idea to Mythbusters. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Also realize that 8 people would have to take of those 6300+ animals. I agree that it would make more sense if this was a local not a global flood and Noah/Gilgamesh only took those animals from the local area. You then could probably get it down to 200-400 animals, possibly. That makes a lot more sense then a global flood and 6300+ animals. The 8 people would probably be dead from exhaustion the first day. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 4993 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
quote: Thanks DevilsAdvocate - I think one fundamental principle (and I'd like to be corrected by a creationist if I'm wrong) that you're missing is that *every* one of those extinct species (since the flood) would need to have a spot on the Ark, not just the one's that exist today. Remember living organisms, according to creationism, do not have a common ancestor, so they must have existed on the Ark and died later. So it would be 4637 + all kinds that have become extinct since. Is that a reasonable assumption? Edited by killinghurts, : Spelling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
What about aquatic animals?
After all, many of them can't survive salinity and heat changes. And what about animals with very specific diets, like Koalas and Pandas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 4993 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
So does 6300+ animals sound right, or is it more like 4637?
Remember it must include all animals that have become extinct, since the flood. Once we have the number of animals we can then determine how much food, and therefore the volume of food required to keep that many animals alive for an entire year. I'd prefer to have an answer from somewhere in the bible, if possible! Thanks!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024