Noah's Ark volume calculation

tAZ,dOWNload e-sword concordances and "check it out". Only can mean nontheless. right? Nontheless Noah and them on the ark survived. right? If you prefer to believe only Noah survived and no other life survived how do you explain the olive branch, etc... God is not the author of confusion. right? etc...P.S. Only is inclusive but obviously not all life perished within the earth. right? No hoofed creatures native to Australia due no land bridge to Australia. All hoofed creatures perished in world flood that included Australia. right? The bible is still inerrant. right? thats why you have a concordance to clear the air, etc... Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Hang on a second, you are trying to make me decide between the word of god and your own opinion. Sounds like someone really really wants to go to hell now.

You seem to be quoting a satanic bible version and quoting it as if its Gods Word. The bible says when the Word is planted the devil comes along and takes away the Word. Basically too me your quoting a bible version that has taken away from the Word. right?++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Error 404 (Not Found)!!1Check your Bible and see if it is a counterfeit.http://www.av1611.org/kjv/counterfeit.html

well, this section comes from a KJV bible that is clearly not "counterfeit"Gen. 7:21-23:

quote:

---

[21] And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
[22] All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
[23] And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

---

So, you're still lying in the face of god.Oh, and the quote was from here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.htmlHard to deny this one, isn't it? Unless you want to claim the King James Bible was made by satan. I don;t think too many christians will agree with you on that.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hi Everyone,The recent discussion is off-topic. The diversion was initiated by Johnfolton, and he's doing this more and more often. Johnfolton is actually Whatever, who has been permanently suspended more than once but then rejoins under another alias, is eventually discovered and the alias merged into his original account, and sometimes he is allowed to stay, sometimes not.But board moderation really shouldn't exhibit this kind of lenience to a confirmed scofflaw, and so given the recent topic diversions I'm going to again suspend JohnFolton permanently. It is my intention that he never be unsuspended, and that when his new aliases are detected that they be merged with his permanently suspended account.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

So do we have a number on the animals yet?I'm going to say 6300 from the comments on this thread.Does any creationist have a problem with this?going once, going twice...

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!

Would everyone please reread Message 1.This topic is about whether the volume of the ark was sufficient to contain all the animals and their food and other supplies.Anyone who would like to discuss the plausibility of a global flood around 4500 years ago should take it to another thread. Some possibilities are:

• Could Erratic Blocks give Flood Plausibility?
  
• Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)
  
• The Grand Canyon Paradox
  
• Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood
  
• Was there a worldwide flood?

Or you can propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The plausiblity of the Flood is off-topic here, so I shouldn't point out the obvious flaws in your claims.If you think that any of these are good arguments (as presented, none of them are), please propose them as a seperate topic.

I'd suggest that you repost Message 127 to this thread:
Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)And delete it here for being so off topic.or create a new topic with it as PaulK suggests and we'll try to promote it quickly.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

ok so the next calculation I want is the amount of food it would take to feed an average animal for a year.Let's say a sheep is the average size of an animal and that it could survive on 1 bail of hay per week (yeah that's pushing it isn't it).One (small) bail of hay is approximately 2ft x 2ft x 2ft = 8ft352 weeks in a year -> 8 x 52 = 416 cu ft of food, per animal.Does anyone have a problem with this calculation?Edited by killinghurts, : corrected units

~2500000 cu ft and thus the food alone would not fit in the ark given the earlier dimensions from post # 1

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Just found an interesting one:Bible Study - You Have Questions. The Bible Has Answers!

quote:

---

Based on railroad industry figures a railroad stockcar can hold 240 sheep and each stock car has a capacity of 2670 ft3. Therefore each sheep requires 11.125 ft3. Most authorities on rabbit husbandry give the dimensions for a rabbit hutch as 3.0 ft3per animal. If the average animal size is indeed the size of a small rabbit the calculations shown below could be reduced by a factor of three.

​

The following calculations show the amount of the ark space that would be required to carry the stated number of animals, based on the average size of a sheep.

​

40,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 445,000 ft3 OR 445,000 ft 3 / 1,518,750 ft3 100 = 29% of the Ark's capacity

​

35,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 389,375 ft3 OR 389,375 ft3 / 1,518,750 ft3 100 = 25% of the Ark's capacity

​

16,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 178,000 ft3 OR
(kind = genus taxon) 178,000 ft3 / 1,518,750 ft3 100 = 11.7% of the Ark's capacity

​

2,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 22,250 ft3 OR
(kind = family taxon) 22,250 ft3 / 1,518,750 ft3 100 = 1.4% of the Ark's capacity

​

Summary

​

It is obvious that when all the facts of the Genesis account of the flood are examined that there is no reason to doubt that the ark could easily have carried its intended cargo. The biblical account is not a revision of a Babylonia myth. All the scientific evidence shows that the ark could easily have contained all of the animals that were used to repopulate the earth after the flood

---

What's wrong with calculation above?This is interesting, and to the layman, it looks like it's completely feasible...But if you reverse the formula (i.e basic algebra) you get, for the first approximation:1,518,750 ft3 / 40,000 animals = 37.5 ft3 per animal = 3ft x 3ft x 3ft per animal (not including food).Either my calculation is wrong or there's something very deceiving going on in the above quote - can anyone pick it?*getting confused here*Edited by killinghurts, : lengthen quote to include approximationsEdited by killinghurts, : added unitsEdited by killinghurts, : added 'not including food'Edited by killinghurts, : Updated quote to include '/' (otherwise it was confusing)

Here is an image of sheep being trucked:
http://www.agmates.com/...ontent/uploads/2008/04/sheep-2.jpgIt is one thing to transport animals for a day or two and another to keep them alive for a year. This site gives sq. footage for raising sheep (for example).
http://www.sheep101.info/201/housing.html

quote:

---

Recommended Housing Space (square feet per animal)

​

................' Confinement confinement
................' solid floors) (slotted floors)
Bred Ewe -------- 12-16 ------ 8-10 sq ft.
Ewe with lambs -- 16-20 -- - 10-12
Ram -------------- 20-30 ----- 14-20

​

Barns should not be heated or closed up. Good ventilation is an absolute necessity. Respiratory disease (e.g. pneumonia and bronchitis) can result from poor ventilation. If ammonia can be smelled in the barn, ventilation is inadequate. Ventilation can be accomplished by either natural or mechanical means, but usually natural ventilated cold housing is satisfactory for sheep. It is better to over-ventilate than under-ventilate. The only requirement is that sheep have a dry, draft-free pen for lambing.

---

if a sheep is given 3 feet of height it would need around 30 to 40 cubic feet -- not 11. The first number becomes unreasonable at that size as does the 2nd too I'd say.The rest become more shaking when other storage is included.They are calculating whatever works to give the desired answer not from what is actually needed.