Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 50 (9182 total)
 1 online now: Phat Newest Member: Wes Bailey Post Volume: Total: 918,348 Year: 5,605/9,624 Month: 11/619 Week: 0/47 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy

Noah's Ark volume calculation

Author Topic:   Noah's Ark volume calculation
Percy
Member
Posts: 22719
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9

 Message 196 of 347 (495140) 01-21-2009 8:27 AM Reply to: Message 190 by prophet01-20-2009 5:58 PM

Re: standards?
prophet writes:
The Ark was designed with the same dimension ratio as modern day ship building a 6:1 ratio - if I remember right.
You don't remember right. There's considerable variation in the ratio, but 6:1 would be rather short and broad for any modern ship of significant size. For example, the QE2 is 8.5:1. The now-defunct battleship class was around 6.3:1. A Nimitz class aircraft carrier is around 8.3:1. A typical U.S. destroyer is around 9.6:1.
And there is no ship of ark size constructed of wood anywhere in the world.
But this thread is about whether the volume of Noah's ark was sufficient for the cargo it was intended to carry. Even if the ark's 6:1 ratio were spot on for modern ships, it would be irrelevant to this thread's topic.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 190 by prophet, posted 01-20-2009 5:58 PM prophet has not replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5658 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009

 Message 197 of 347 (495232) 01-21-2009 5:38 PM Reply to: Message 195 by bluescat4801-20-2009 9:42 PM

Re: The "What if?" syndrome
Ok, lets see, where exactly is the claim made that food provisions were needed and waste management necessary? The foundation is therefore assumption? If the entire math structure is built on "assumption," then no "absolute" could ever be obtained. The result is; at best conjecture.
Ok, lets say; the animals needed no calorie intake and excreted no fecal matter or urine. Now we examine this problem with the existance of God. Does scripture allow any examples of people not eating ...for the benefit of a skeptic deciding to argue the wording in the Word... I add... or eating very little... and not starving? Yes, it does!
Now, the match box idea: Even if the match box was bigger on the inside than it is on the outside... How would Noah get his foot into it? If God revealed himself to all man that no one could dismiss his existence then this entire subject would be non-existent and people would believe in God for the desire of spending eternity in heaven. This is the aspect of free-will that God maintains.
This brings us to the understanding that the Ark should have been at least close to the size necessary for our limited capacity to understand and yet, it could be in-sufficient enough to ensure any argument's resolve.
Because that path has been expressed I chose to engage in its discussion. Hopefully, the above information gives you insight on why my exploration lead down a slightly different path. Possibly there are some ideas you have perceived and shared that I have not yet read, that could narrow and qualify some of the variables?
I gotta go fer now...

 This message is a reply to: Message 195 by bluescat48, posted 01-20-2009 9:42 PM bluescat48 has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 198 by kuresu, posted 01-21-2009 5:55 PM prophet has not replied Message 199 by Percy, posted 01-21-2009 8:02 PM prophet has replied Message 200 by bluescat48, posted 01-22-2009 7:39 AM prophet has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03-24-2006

 Message 198 of 347 (495233) 01-21-2009 5:55 PM Reply to: Message 197 by prophet01-21-2009 5:38 PM

Re: The "What if?" syndrome
so basically, anything goes in order to maintain that god is real and what happened in the Bible did actually happen.
There is a huge problem with that approach to determining the veracity of claims. You cannot, using this approach, determine that any one claim is more likely, or less likely, than others.
If you want to use this kind of magic to support your belief in your god, fine. But if you want us to accept your propositions as reasonable, then you are going to have to play a different game. One that is confined to the real world. And in the real world, organisms eat and produce waste. In the real world, match boxes are not bigger inside than out. In the real world, it is impossible to flood the mountains as they currently are (and would have been 4000 odd years ago) because there isn't enough water. And if there was, where did it all go?
So please, don't argue by 'what ifs' and sheer conjecture to protect your faith, and then expect us to take your position as reasonable.

 This message is a reply to: Message 197 by prophet, posted 01-21-2009 5:38 PM prophet has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22719
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9

 Message 199 of 347 (495255) 01-21-2009 8:02 PM Reply to: Message 197 by prophet01-21-2009 5:38 PM

Re: The "What if?" syndrome
If your argument is that it would take a miracle for that many animals to fit and survive nine months on the ark, we agree with you. It's miraculous and scientifically impossible.
And this is a science thread.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 197 by prophet, posted 01-21-2009 5:38 PM prophet has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 205 by prophet, posted 01-22-2009 4:30 PM Percy has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007

 Message 200 of 347 (495378) 01-22-2009 7:39 AM Reply to: Message 197 by prophet01-21-2009 5:38 PM

Re: The "What if?" syndrome
Ok, lets say; the animals needed no calorie intake and excreted no fecal matter or urine.
Gen 6:21 Take with you of all food that is eaten, and gather it to you; and it will be for food for you, and for them.
22 Thus Noah did. According to all that God commanded him, so he did.

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 197 by prophet, posted 01-21-2009 5:38 PM prophet has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 204 by prophet, posted 01-22-2009 4:21 PM bluescat48 has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 3021 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005

 Message 201 of 347 (495427) 01-22-2009 3:07 PM

Way off topic.
Just pointing out that the discussion has seriously veered off the topic of "Noah's Ark volume calculation" if anyone cares. Lots of metaphysical argument here but maybe a new thread should be started for that?

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5563 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009

 Message 202 of 347 (495431) 01-22-2009 3:58 PM

ah ahh!
the bible doesn't say that Noah, living hundreds of years old, brought every species on the ark with him. the bible says that Noah, living hundreds of years old, brought two animals of every 'KIND' on the ark with him. and as to the 'cubit', a cubit is length between elbow to fingertip. the bible says, "there were giants in the earth in those days" and there has been hundreds of giant bones found to reinforce this. so, their cubit was much larger than ours.

 Replies to this message: Message 207 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 4:47 PM homunculus has replied Message 213 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2009 8:20 PM homunculus has replied Message 225 by bluescat48, posted 01-23-2009 8:16 AM homunculus has not replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5563 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009

 Message 203 of 347 (495432) 01-22-2009 4:02 PM

kinds
a 'kind' is an older term, like used in the bible, and probably one that has survived, even in science, until the term 'species' came about and moved to replace 'kinds'. about that time, i imagine, the studies of biology, physical science and, quite a bit later, genetics began to surface as predominant fields of interests in science. science has outdated different terminologies, like 'kinds', and began to replace them with more fluidic and "impressive" words to describe the subject matter, like 'species'. both terms describe the same concepts of appreciations of subject matter concerning animals and animal groups, but sadly miscategorizes critical constructs of organization in identified groups. where 'speciation' focuses on and distinguishes between small physical similarities in animals, including the anomaly of DNA, and categorizes them according to such similarities. 'kinds' employs a more applicable categorization of animals and/or groups. 'kinds' is the categorization of animals based on limited factors of "bringing forth" or the production of offspring. meaning, animals that can produce offspring are of the same kind. obviously this is suggesting that two animals that can, naturally, produce offspring can vary in shape, size, color and likely share a common ancestor, one of the same kind as said animals. 'kinds' focuses on limiting factors and shuts out the possibility of common ancestry outside of common genetic production. evolution primarily suggests that every "living" or otherwise organic thing shares a common ancestor. in evolution, any scientific term to suggest the contrary must immediately be replaced and dismissed.

 Replies to this message: Message 206 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 4:40 PM homunculus has replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5658 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009

 Message 204 of 347 (495435) 01-22-2009 4:21 PM Reply to: Message 200 by bluescat4801-22-2009 7:39 AM

Re: The "What if?" syndrome
I would reckon to say that response was one I had forgotten - touche'
Although the reference to Noah taking in food for himself and for them... "them" could have been limited to his family... I tend to believe you are correct - and I will stand corrected.

 This message is a reply to: Message 200 by bluescat48, posted 01-22-2009 7:39 AM bluescat48 has not replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5658 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009

 Message 205 of 347 (495436) 01-22-2009 4:30 PM Reply to: Message 199 by Percy01-21-2009 8:02 PM

Re: The "What if?" syndrome
Throughout my life I have noticed many miracles of science. For instance to my antiquated knowledge the transistor still hasn't achieved full understanding of how it works. It is self-contained combination of three or more diodes (one-way electrical valves)joined together that amplifies the input signal. But if you take 3 diodes and arrange them the same way they will not do this. Gotts go - for now

 This message is a reply to: Message 199 by Percy, posted 01-21-2009 8:02 PM Percy has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 209 by Percy, posted 01-22-2009 4:56 PM prophet has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03-24-2006

 Message 206 of 347 (495437) 01-22-2009 4:40 PM Reply to: Message 203 by homunculus01-22-2009 4:02 PM

Re: kinds
'kinds' employs a more applicable categorization of animals and/or groups. 'kinds' is the categorization of animals based on limited factors of "bringing forth" or the production of offspring. meaning, animals that can produce offspring are of the same kind.
Well, wouldn't you know it, this is one of the definitions of species.
If you wish for this to be the definition of kind, then you must be aware that there are over 3 million kinds, right? And since evolution doesn't occur (or rather, only within kinds), the ark would have had to carry over 3 million different kinds.
That surely can't be right, or?

 This message is a reply to: Message 203 by homunculus, posted 01-22-2009 4:02 PM homunculus has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 208 by homunculus, posted 01-22-2009 4:55 PM kuresu has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03-24-2006

 Message 207 of 347 (495439) 01-22-2009 4:47 PM Reply to: Message 202 by homunculus01-22-2009 3:58 PM

Re: ah ahh!
How much larger would the cubit be?
And how would this new measurement affect all other uses of cubits in the bible?
See, this is a science thread. You can't just throw any haphazard suggestion out. You have to actually provide support. You say the cubit is larger, great, what's the actual size? You bring up the famous 'kind', but you don't define it in this post (and when you do, you define it in precisely the same way as biologists as regards sexually reproducing organisms). You mention hundreds of giant bones, but no references are given. Try again.

 This message is a reply to: Message 202 by homunculus, posted 01-22-2009 3:58 PM homunculus has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 210 by homunculus, posted 01-22-2009 5:03 PM kuresu has replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5563 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009

 Message 208 of 347 (495440) 01-22-2009 4:55 PM Reply to: Message 206 by kuresu01-22-2009 4:40 PM

Re: kinds
you forgot the limiting factors. species may employ genetic descension, but it doesn't only employ genetic descension. one 'kind' can affiliate hundreds to thousands of species. I'll list 10 popular 'kinds'.
dog, cat, deer, lizard, chicken, elephant, scavenger bird (crow), majestic bird (eagle), horse, giraffe.
each probably employing hundreds of species and each probably employed into larger families with hundreds of species. and they're only shared common ancestors are something of their same kind.

 This message is a reply to: Message 206 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 4:40 PM kuresu has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 211 by Percy, posted 01-22-2009 5:08 PM homunculus has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22719
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9

 Message 209 of 347 (495442) 01-22-2009 4:56 PM Reply to: Message 205 by prophet01-22-2009 4:30 PM

Re: The "What if?" syndrome
prophet writes:
For instance to my antiquated knowledge the transistor still hasn't achieved full understanding of how it works.
I wouldn't say we have a "full understanding," as you put it, of anything in science. Our knowledge will always remain incomplete and tentative.
The section in the Wikipedia article on transistors about How a transistor works doesn't really do a good job of explaining things, but it's a general article. Most transistors today are of a special type called the field-effect transistor, and the Wikipedia article on Field-effect Transistors looks pretty good. Give it and read and if you have any questions just start a thread in [forum=-14] and I and probably any number of other people can answer them.
But I'm wondering if perhaps what you're really thinking of is the tunnel diode, whose operation is based upon quantum effects. No mysteries or miracles here, either, but certainly much more exotic.
But getting back to the topic, though, if I understand you, you're claiming that science includes miracles? And that therefore you are within your rights to argue for miracles in a science thread?
If that's the case, this thread isn't the place for a discussion about the nature of science. If you want to argue about whether miracles are part of science then you should propose a new thread.
This thread is for discussing whether the story of the ark violates any scientific principles when it comes to the volume required for the animals, the people, and all the food and supplies.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 205 by prophet, posted 01-22-2009 4:30 PM prophet has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 215 by prophet, posted 01-22-2009 9:25 PM Percy has replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5563 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009

 Message 210 of 347 (495444) 01-22-2009 5:03 PM Reply to: Message 207 by kuresu01-22-2009 4:47 PM

Re: ah ahh!
im sorry, i thought this thread was "NOAH'S ARK VOLUME CALCULATION" drawn from the bible. so, using the bible i drew the assertion that THEY WERE BIGGER than we are today. and finally, "scientists" don't dictate how we build inclusive standpoints that is pulled from a immeasurable or invariable reference, like the bible. thanks.

 This message is a reply to: Message 207 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 4:47 PM kuresu has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 212 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 5:32 PM homunculus has replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
Newer Topic | Older Topic