Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Ark volume calculation
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 181 of 347 (494381)
01-15-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by killinghurts
01-11-2009 7:47 PM


Re: And again
And no unicorns either. Explain that.
The Unicorn Song
From: Songs of Ireland
words and music Shel Silverstein, new verse Andrew McKee
A long time ago, when the Earth was green
There was more kinds of animals than you've ever seen
They'd run around free while the Earth was being born
And the loveliest of all was the unicorn
There was green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born
The loveliest of all was the unicorn
The Lord seen some sinning and it gave Him pain
And He says, "Stand back, I'm going to make it rain"
He says, "Hey Noah, I'll tell you what to do
Build me a floating zoo,
and take some of those...
Green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born
Don't you forget My unicorns
Old Noah was there to answer the call
He finished up making the ark just as the rain started to fall
He marched the animals two by two
And he called out as they came through
Hey Lord,
I've got green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but Lord, I'm so forlorn
I just can't find no unicorns"
And Noah looked out through the driving rain
Them unicorns were hiding, playing silly games
Kicking and splashing while the rain was falling
Oh, them silly unicorns
There was green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Noah cried, "Close the door because the rain is falling
And we just can't wait for no unicorns"
The ark started moving, it drifted with the tide
The unicorns looked up from the rocks and they cried
And the waters came down and sort of floated them away
That's why you never see unicorns to this very day
You'll see green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born
You're never gonna see no unicorns
[New Lyrics]
Now you might think this is the ending to the song,
But I'll have to tell you friends that in fact you're wrong
You see, Unicorns are magical, so when the rain started pouring,
They grew themselves some wings and they took to soaring.
You'll see green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
But if you're looking for the unicorns, don't be forlorn,
The second star to the right and straight on until morning.
KEY C

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by killinghurts, posted 01-11-2009 7:47 PM killinghurts has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 182 of 347 (494723)
01-18-2009 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by mindquaker
01-11-2009 8:09 AM


Re: supremacy
If God fed 5000 men with 2 fish and 5 loaves what can limit him to fit a dinosaur in the Ark.
Why build the ark then, when a matchbox would have been enough? Or do you doubt god's ability to fit all the life forms into a matchbox?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by mindquaker, posted 01-11-2009 8:09 AM mindquaker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by mindquaker, posted 01-18-2009 7:17 AM fallacycop has not replied

mindquaker
Junior Member (Idle past 5547 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 01-11-2009


Message 183 of 347 (494735)
01-18-2009 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by fallacycop
01-18-2009 2:54 AM


Re: supremacy
a match box! i guess God's examination of noah's faith limited him to an ark!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by fallacycop, posted 01-18-2009 2:54 AM fallacycop has not replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 184 of 347 (494894)
01-19-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
11-30-2008 11:45 PM


Hello - I'm new here and so I have yet to figure these gizmos out properly. If using posting features incorrectly, please be patient and/or informative. Has anyone considered that our conception of time and space is different from God's? Could it be the ark was bigger on the inside than it was on the outside? Through God all things are possible.
Edited by prophet, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 11-30-2008 11:45 PM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by bluescat48, posted 01-19-2009 8:00 PM prophet has replied
 Message 186 by Granny Magda, posted 01-19-2009 8:15 PM prophet has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 185 of 347 (494898)
01-19-2009 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by prophet
01-19-2009 6:44 PM


The "What if?" syndrome
Has anyone considered that our conception of time and space is different from God's? Could it be the ark was bigger on the inside than it was on the outside? Through God all things are possible.
Here we go again. What if? The point is that the Bible makes no reference to the interior of the ark have a greater volume than the ark itself. One could indefinitely continue with what if, maybe, could it be etc. and make the story out to say anything.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by prophet, posted 01-19-2009 6:44 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by prophet, posted 01-19-2009 8:21 PM bluescat48 has not replied
 Message 193 by prophet, posted 01-20-2009 9:22 PM bluescat48 has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 186 of 347 (494900)
01-19-2009 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by prophet
01-19-2009 6:44 PM


Hi prophet and welcome to EvC!
There is a page of posting tips here. It will show you how to use the various dBCodes this site uses (you can use HTML as well).
You can also use the "peek" button in the bottom right corner of each post to see how any special features were done. Like quote boxes;
quote:
Could it be the ark was bigger on the inside than it was on the outside?
Are you serious? Are you really suggesting that the ark was a TARDIS? Is God a Time Lord? What would The Doctor do?
Joking aside, whilst that may seem like a good idea to you, this is a science forum and such fanciful speculation simply doesn't meet the standards expected for this forum's science threads. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, they should be backed up with some kind of evidence.
Nice try though.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by prophet, posted 01-19-2009 6:44 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by prophet, posted 01-19-2009 9:26 PM Granny Magda has not replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 187 of 347 (494902)
01-19-2009 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by bluescat48
01-19-2009 8:00 PM


Re: The "What if?" syndrome
abject humor? thought it would be a funny start!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by bluescat48, posted 01-19-2009 8:00 PM bluescat48 has not replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 188 of 347 (494909)
01-19-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Granny Magda
01-19-2009 8:15 PM


standards?
I have noticed severe language dilemmas due to translations, time, or even slang. When the forum attempts to validate or invalidate creation or evolution using american english it is presented with language/time barriers. Maybe, imparting some wisdom thru humor could turn out to be a good thing? To listen to this more eloquently than anyone I have heard discuss this language issue, go to:
(start it at the 2:28 minute period if you like to get right to it.)
Please, expect it to be funny and expect it to be accurate.
I spent quite some time before posting my opening reading previous posts, like the one about the green necked geese and long aligators, including surrounding posts. And the same problem arose, as much time is spent with language issues rather than facts and fiction.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Granny Magda, posted 01-19-2009 8:15 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2009 9:58 PM prophet has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 189 of 347 (494910)
01-19-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by prophet
01-19-2009 9:26 PM


Re: standards?
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by prophet, posted 01-19-2009 9:26 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by prophet, posted 01-20-2009 5:58 PM Coyote has replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 190 of 347 (495070)
01-20-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Coyote
01-19-2009 9:58 PM


Re: standards?
The Ark was designed with the same dimension ratio as modern day ship building a 6:1 ratio - if I remember right. This should be a curious matter since it reflects modern day science. It is "believed" to be situated on Mt. Arat in Turkey. It is located in the Igdir Province, near the NE corner of Turkey.
The Turks and Kurds "believe" Mt Arat to be a holy mountain because the Ark is there. Although, Arabs have a different idea of who built the ark, their claim for its reason is similar. The name Arat means live mountain. It is very high, about16,900 ft. Eruptions have cooled the lava before it could congeal. This formed small bits of lava that would easily move underfoot - hence the word "live" and making it dangerous to traverse. I would think exploring the existence of the Ark paramount before any discussion to dismiss it as fiction.



Because I noticed the postings of previous "scientific forum members" eluding the facts with words from a song and match box size rationalism, I though it only appropriate to include understanding of a vocabulary dilemma.

Is not science a compilation of theories exercised to determine what science then considers fact, of course, only after success has been obtained? This means BELIEF must first be presented, examined and allowed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2009 9:58 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Coyote, posted 01-20-2009 6:38 PM prophet has replied
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 01-21-2009 8:27 AM prophet has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 191 of 347 (495078)
01-20-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by prophet
01-20-2009 5:58 PM


Re: standards?
Is not science a compilation of theories exercised to determine what science then considers fact, of course, only after success has been obtained? This means BELIEF must first be presented, examined and allowed.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by prophet, posted 01-20-2009 5:58 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by prophet, posted 01-20-2009 8:46 PM Coyote has replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 192 of 347 (495101)
01-20-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Coyote
01-20-2009 6:38 PM


Re: standards?
"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";"


This definition of hypothesis presents a problem. "a tentative theory about the natural world" In this wording, the term "natural world" has no authority with things pertaining to the super-natural. Its descriptive wording leaves implied constraints to the natural word.
With this understanding one cannot properly make a statement that the non-existance of God can be considered one's theory or even hypotthesis. This leaves them with their "belief" even in a scientific realm.
You backed up your claim with "Actually what are first presented are ideas or hypotheses." - so you allowed the "liberal use of "hypothesis" yet corrected me for my liberal use of "belief"? Their use of the word "natural" and my use of the word "super-natural" or even the use of the word "un-natural" would have to provide an absolute meaning (one that either includes God or denies God) to be used correctly. If God is real then "natural word" could be correct terms for a scientist. But of course, that means the scientist has agreed to the existance of God.


There are but two ways then to approach this, Do not use scientific explanations to define ideas and beliefs or allow the liberal use of beliefs by believers and continue to use your liberal usages.
I hope this helps as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Coyote, posted 01-20-2009 6:38 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Coyote, posted 01-20-2009 9:35 PM prophet has replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 193 of 347 (495109)
01-20-2009 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by bluescat48
01-19-2009 8:00 PM


Re: The "What if?" syndrome
"Here we go again. What if? The point is that the Bible makes no reference to the interior of the ark have a greater volume than the ark itself. One could indefinitely continue with what if, maybe, could it be etc. and make the story out to say anything."


Maybe I was being a bit facetious. But, I see the same thing when introducing proof that others think they can dismiss by simply denying it. I see, it is noted within this forum that cynics theorize that the Ark does not exist. Even though it's location is roughly known. Just because one cannot go there should not constitute a valid argument that the Ark does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by bluescat48, posted 01-19-2009 8:00 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by bluescat48, posted 01-20-2009 9:42 PM prophet has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 194 of 347 (495114)
01-20-2009 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by prophet
01-20-2009 8:46 PM


Re: standards?
"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";"


This definition of hypothesis presents a problem. "a tentative theory about the natural world" In this wording, the term "natural world" has no authority with things pertaining to the super-natural. Its descriptive wording leaves implied constraints to the natural word.
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?
With this understanding one cannot properly make a statement that the non-existance of God can be considered one's theory or even hypotthesis. This leaves them with their "belief" even in a scientific realm.
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.
You backed up your claim with "Actually what are first presented are ideas or hypotheses." - so you allowed the "liberal use of "hypothesis" yet corrected me for my liberal use of "belief"? Their use of the word "natural" and my use of the word "super-natural" or even the use of the word "un-natural" would have to provide an absolute meaning (one that either includes God or denies God) to be used correctly. If God is real then "natural word" could be correct terms for a scientist. But of course, that means the scientist has agreed to the existance of God.
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.
There are but two ways then to approach this, Do not use scientific explanations to define ideas and beliefs or allow the liberal use of beliefs by believers and continue to use your liberal usages.
I hope this helps as well.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by prophet, posted 01-20-2009 8:46 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by prophet, posted 01-23-2009 4:01 PM Coyote has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 195 of 347 (495115)
01-20-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by prophet
01-20-2009 9:22 PM


Re: The "What if?" syndrome
Just because one cannot go there should not constitute a valid argument that the Ark does not exist.
Whether what may exist on Mt Ararat is a boat or not has no real bearing on whether that is Noah's Ark or whether there was a global flood. If the so called ark had the dimensions as listed, it could not have held 2 of each animal species + the 8 people + all the food necessary for the trip + any contrivances needed in the feeding, removing wastes etc. That is what this topic is "Noah's Ark Volume calculation" not whether the ark & flood existed.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by prophet, posted 01-20-2009 9:22 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by prophet, posted 01-21-2009 5:38 PM bluescat48 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