Noah's Ark volume calculation

hi NN,my understanding is that the biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur. ie a cow and horse cannot breed hence they are different 'kinds'i dont know who or how the meaning of an animal 'kind' has been changed, can you give me an example?

i really dont know for sure but its something i'll certainly be looking into

i hear you saying there is no evidence of the flood, but what if scientists have found it yet interpret the evidence some other way.EG: orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. Is it possible that some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age?the theory of ice ages has changed at times...actually early on they found ice ages at every stage of the geologic history but when they've reexamined the evidence later they rejected many of these ice ages.
formations once identified as glacial moraines have been reinterpreted as beds laid down by mudflows, submarine landslides and turbidity currents: avalanches of turbid water that carry silt, sand and gravel out over the deep-ocean floorthe fossil record is another evidence... the sudden extinction of mammals ... all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. This could very well be evidence of a flood that evolutionists dont believe ever happenedso they interpret it another way. They could be wrong !Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Your totally right, its pretty pointless using a 'what if' as a basis for any sort of arguement... so i take it backso i'm going to offer some of the strange phenomenon that is found around the earth that makes the flood plausible1. Fish fossils on mountain ranges.
This tells us that at some time in the past, there WAS water covering much of the earth... from the dessert regions of Lebanon to the driest of places like Australia. In the outback in Australia there are desserts covered in marine fossils which tell us that there was water there... a lot of water. No webpage found at provided URL: http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/500/550/551/abisaad/2. The Pleistocene Extinction! Atlantisquest.comThe logical answer is that it came with the rapid change that occurred at the time of the Flood. With the removal of the insulating watery canopy, the polar regions were suddenly plunged into a deep freeze, trapping animals that then lived far north of their present habitat. The proof that this was a sudden event, and not something that occurred over a long period of time, is the fact that even the green grass they were eating was quickly deepfrozen in their mouths and stomachs, where it has been discovered in modern times.3. Creatures from the Jurassic Periods have been found with animals from Cretaceous.
You dont think its even remotely possible that perhaps scientists just might have their interpretations wrong on some things.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Gloucestershire | Ice-Age rhinoceros remains found4. Seamounts
There is an estimated 30,000 seamounts across the globe, but only a few have ever been studied. These are mountains under water.If the world was indeed flooded , then surely the fact that thousands of mountains are found under water, make the flood plausible.for me, someone who belives in the bible account, this is evidence of somethign greater...making the flood plausible and very possibleThe final fact for all christians to remember is that Jesus Christ himself spoke of the flood as a real historical event. He was with God and therefore would have witnessed it from the heavens...its not likely he would endorse a myth and teach it to people if he knew it wasnt true.

you really want to know how many animals were on the ark dont you!

Do you realize how large that vessel was? 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high1 cubit is between 44cm (17.4inch) - 60 cmIf we calculate according to the conservative estimate of 17.5 inches per cubit, the ark measured 437 feet 6 inches by 72 feet 11 inches by 43 feet 9 inches.As the ark was divided into three levels, it would have a total of more than 91,000 square feet of floor space and an overall capacity of 1.2 million cubic feet.That is enough space for 445 standard railroad boxcarsso can you imagine how many animals could you transport in 445 boxcars?

sure,it seems he's got something to sell lolI dont beleive there were any dinosaurs on the ark....unless you want to consider the lizards and scaley animals dinosaurs of course.

a) i dont agree with the above logic for the reason that dinosaur bones are regularly found in lower earth layers than are human bones, leading many to conclude that they belong to an earlier time period.2ndly, it would be rather odd that a all wise creator would allow such a destructive species to live with us. I believe they had a purpose for a time and when that purpose was filled, they were destroyed.b) i was being facetious. I dont know if they have anything to sell lol

their sheer size would make them destructivethere would be competition for food issues with other smaller animalsdo you really think we could live with a trex? Please tell me you dont believe that. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

no definitely not

they wouldnt ALL need to be big to be destructive Edited by Peg, : No reason given.