Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Ark volume calculation
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4994 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 151 of 347 (491002)
12-10-2008 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by onifre
12-10-2008 2:08 PM


Oh yes you are completely right.
Ill adjust the calculation on page 1 according to this.
Thankyou!
PS: nice avatar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by onifre, posted 12-10-2008 2:08 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by onifre, posted 12-13-2008 1:52 PM killinghurts has not replied
 Message 167 by Brian, posted 01-10-2009 10:47 AM killinghurts has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 152 of 347 (491259)
12-13-2008 12:00 AM


I don't understand why we are still talking about this. Christians donate billions of dollars each year to preachers and faith healers so people like Peter Popoff could live in a multi-million dollar mansion. Why not spend a fraction of that money and build an actual ark, put 2 animal of each "kind" on board, load it up with as much food and fresh water as possible, put a dozen or so christian volunteers in there, seal it up, and then open it after a year to see what's left? It's a relatively easy experiment to perform. I'm sure such a simple experiment will shut off the skeptics once and for all!

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 153 of 347 (491284)
12-13-2008 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by killinghurts
12-10-2008 6:42 PM


Oh yes you are completely right.
Ill adjust the calculation on page 1 according to this.
Looks like the glove don't fit...
I never did any of the calculating so thanks for taking the time out to do it.
PS: nice avatar.
Thanks...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by killinghurts, posted 12-10-2008 6:42 PM killinghurts has not replied

msurguy
Junior Member (Idle past 5559 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 01-07-2009


Message 154 of 347 (493277)
01-07-2009 11:29 PM


why not
can it be that animals (and maybe humans) were in state of hibernation for most of the time on the ark? Also, why can't it be that animals were not full grown adults ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2009 11:34 PM msurguy has not replied
 Message 156 by Brian, posted 01-08-2009 5:06 AM msurguy has not replied
 Message 160 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 1:31 PM msurguy has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 155 of 347 (493278)
01-07-2009 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by msurguy
01-07-2009 11:29 PM


Re: why not
can it be that animals (and maybe humans) were in state of hibernation for most of the time on the ark? Also, why can't it be that animals were not full grown adults ?
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by msurguy, posted 01-07-2009 11:29 PM msurguy has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 156 of 347 (493287)
01-08-2009 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by msurguy
01-07-2009 11:29 PM


Re: why not
Why can't it be that the whole story (or stories since there are 2 Flood accounts woven into 1) is a work of fiction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by msurguy, posted 01-07-2009 11:29 PM msurguy has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 157 of 347 (493302)
01-08-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by killinghurts
12-09-2008 8:56 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by killinghurts, posted 12-09-2008 8:56 PM killinghurts has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by killinghurts, posted 01-08-2009 7:53 PM Peg has replied

killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4994 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 158 of 347 (493435)
01-08-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Peg
01-08-2009 7:02 AM


Thanks Peg.
I am using the explanation found on that page:
quote:
The Bible does not list the names of every creature on the Ark. It does say that one set of every kind of air-breathing animal was on board (Genesis 6:19-20, 7:15-16). So, dinosaurs must have been included.
I a have two questions:
a) Do you agree with the above logic? If not, why not?
b) Are you suggesting that "chistiananswers.net" is stating this so that they can sell something? I'm interested to know your explanation of their ulterior motive.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Peg, posted 01-08-2009 7:02 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Peg, posted 01-09-2009 4:33 AM killinghurts has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 159 of 347 (493492)
01-09-2009 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by killinghurts
01-08-2009 7:53 PM


killinghurts writes:
I a have two questions:
a) Do you agree with the above logic? If not, why not?
b) Are you suggesting that "chistiananswers.net" is stating this so that they can sell something? I'm interested to know your explanation of their ulterior motive.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by killinghurts, posted 01-08-2009 7:53 PM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by lyx2no, posted 01-09-2009 1:38 PM Peg has replied
 Message 162 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 1:38 PM Peg has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 160 of 347 (493562)
01-09-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by msurguy
01-07-2009 11:29 PM


Re: why not
can it be that animals (and maybe humans) were in state of hibernation for most of the time on the ark? Also, why can't it be that animals were not full grown adults ?
Not all animals hibernate (actually very few do)
Many animals, even if they would have been babies when they came on the ark, would have been full grown or nearly full grown after the year or so on the ark. And that brings up another point - you do not just have to account for space for animals - you need to account for space for food also. Not to mention the labor needed to feed and water all of those animals and remove their waste. 8 people did this? I don't think so.
Also if young animals were chosen, why wasn't this mentioned in God's instructions to Noah? Seems like a fairly critical detail to go unmentioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by msurguy, posted 01-07-2009 11:29 PM msurguy has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 161 of 347 (493565)
01-09-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Peg
01-09-2009 4:33 AM


Locust
it would be rather odd that a all wise creator would allow such a destructive species to live with us.
What makes you think dinos were any more destructive then bunnies or weavels?

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Peg, posted 01-09-2009 4:33 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Peg, posted 01-10-2009 7:15 AM lyx2no has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 162 of 347 (493566)
01-09-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Peg
01-09-2009 4:33 AM


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.
So I take it you are not a literalist/young earth creationist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Peg, posted 01-09-2009 4:33 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Coyote, posted 01-09-2009 1:57 PM deerbreh has not replied
 Message 166 by Peg, posted 01-10-2009 7:16 AM deerbreh has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 163 of 347 (493568)
01-09-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by deerbreh
01-09-2009 1:38 PM


Superposition
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.
So I take it you are not a literalist/young earth creationist?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 1:38 PM deerbreh has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 164 of 347 (493570)
01-09-2009 2:01 PM


Geology is not the topic
Would everyone please not head off discussing geology here. Thanks.
However a discussion of superposition would make a fine topic of it's own.

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 165 of 347 (493665)
01-10-2009 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by lyx2no
01-09-2009 1:38 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by lyx2no, posted 01-09-2009 1:38 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Brian, posted 01-10-2009 10:54 AM Peg has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024