Noah's Ark volume calculation

As I said to you in another thread, The argument, "You could be wrong ," is one that can be applied by all sides in all discussions and so has no effective validity. It just draws the retort, "So could you," and then what?The answer is evidence. Discussions like this should be anchored in evidence. In other words, you should be talking about facts that bear on the topic, which happens to be about the volume of Noah's ark.--Percy

The subdiscussion begun by Killinghurts referenced a website that assumed that the number of cubic feet required for keeping sheep alive for 9 months on the ark is the same as that for a sheep transport vehical. As Nosy's numbers make clear, a sheep can live for a day or two in a few cubic feet of space, but not for 9 months.And as Bluescat points out, the volume of food consumed by an animal in 9 months is far greater than the volume of the animal, so you need much more floor space for that, though certainly food can be stacked and stored much more efficiently than animals.And you need additional floor space for passageways, bulkheads, equipment and supplies (rope, harnesses, prods, extra cages, wheelbarrows, spare parts and so forth), a shop for making repairs and creating contrivances as needed, and human living quarters.Earlier someone mentioned the area needed by zoos, which are more spread out than would be the case on a ship, but they give a much more real-world idea of the space required than sheep transport trucks where sheep spend only a day or two.A visit to the zoo is informative in other ways, too. Just visit the reptile and amphibian sections, usually housed in their own buildings, and look at all the specialized environments that have to be maintained, including temperature and humidity. Makes one wonder just how Noah kept his Amazon basin frogs alive for 9 months, not to mention how he acquired them in the first place.Anyway, if you're only arguing that all the animals could fit within the volume of ark, then there's no argument, you're right. And all the members of my family could fit comfortably in my hall closet, so why don't I save a bundle and trade in my house for a tiny shed? Your ark scenario has such crowed conditions that many animals wouldn't live a week, let alone 9 months.--Percy

So Noah left the small, inoffensive, plant-eating dinosaur othnielia (about 50 pounds) to drown while saving lions, tigers and grizzly bears?I share the same puzzlement as Brian about why you post what you post. I've bitten my tongue several times before and made no comment, but I'm not going to do that this time, so here goes:Before clicking on the submit button you might try giving your posts a read and asking yourself if they really make much sense, or even better, giving them a critical assessment as to their strengths and weaknesses so that you can anticipate what the responses might be and make edits and improvements. To this point the main effect of your posts has been to leave us all agog at the depth of your ignorance and the superficiality of your thinking. Sorry to be so personal, but it's like you're not even trying.By the way, I've been wondering about another contradiction. If you're not a Biblical literalist, why do you accept Noah's flood?--Percy

If you want to discuss faith, this is probably the wrong thread. But there's a discussion about faith going on right now over at Why so friggin' confident?.--Percy

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

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

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

Hi Overmind,You've now offered two conflicting definitions of "kind". First there was this from your Message 203: As Kuresu noted, this is the same as the definition of a sexually reproducing species.Then you offered this definition of kind in your Message 208: So let's look at the cat kind. Can housecats breed with lions? Of course not. So you've just contradicted your first definition where you described animals of the same kind as being able to produce offspring (presumably fertile offspring, but you weren't specific).So which definition are you going to go with?--Percy

Hi Homonculus,Lions and housecats have different numbers of chromosomes, so interfertility is very unlikely. You can breed housecats with other types of cats that are more closely related (the Bengal housecat is 1/16 Asian leopard cat, the Savannah housecat is 1/8 Serval), but even using artificial insemination you can't breed housecats with lions.So if your criteria for a kind is interfertility, then lions and housecats are not the same kind, and both would have required representation on the ark.There's a secondary problem that's not the topic of this thread, but if the ark carried only broad classifications of animals by some definition we'll call "kind" then hyper-evolution after the flood would have been necessary to produce all the species. Oh, and hyper-migration, too.--Percy

If you'd like an answer to your question about why three diodes don't function as a transistor then ask it in the [forum=-14]. Include a diagram of how you think the diodes should be wired up, because I don't know why you think you need a third diode since a transistor is schematically just two diodes back to back.More generally about what you perceive as the miraculous nature of science, Arthur C. Clarke once wrote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." It therefore follows that any sufficiently profound ignorance will make almost any science seem miraculous.About average animal size, I believe you're correct that that issue has not been explored in this thread.--Percy

But because you don't understand how a transistor works it turns out not to be an example of the miraculous in science. It isn't even amazing. I grant that the less you know about science that the more miraculous some phenomena might seem, but it is no different than magic tricks which are amazing right up until they're explained.What we're examining in this thread is if, following known natural physical laws, Noah's ark was big enough for the job. No miracles.--Percy

If you want to discuss your negative feelings about science then please take it to a thread in the [forum=-11] forum. This thread is about whether it is scientifically possible for Noah's ark to have been big enough. If your distrust of science is such that you can't discuss things from a scientific perspective then you shouldn't be in the science forums, except for [forum=-11].--Percy

Hi Homunculus,There are a couple Forum Guidelines you need to pay attention to. About using links in your arguments:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

About accusations of lies:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

For example, I would be in violation of the guidelines were I to reply like this: --Percy

This isn't the thread for discussing the nature of science. If you're unsure what science is then I suggest avoiding the science forums except for [forum=-11]. Propose a thread to discuss the nature of science, or join a thread already in progress.We generally exclude arguments that are so broadly applicable that they can be used almost anywhere. In the science forums, criticisms of science itself fall into this category. Objections based upon criticisms of modern approaches to science could be used in cosmology, evolution, geology, radiometric dating, anthropology and abiogenesis, in other words, almost anywhere in the science forums. If we allowed this then one person with a complaint about science could turn one thread after another into a discussion of his complaint, and indeed this has happened in the past, which is why we're careful to keep it from happening.By the way, I can't imagine why you're surprised that I think you have negative views about science after you compared science with lies in Message 229.--Percy

Hi Homunculus,In the interest of full disclosure, I'm also the moderator known as Admin. Moderators are discouraged from taking moderator actions in threads in which they're participating, unless the offense is really egregious, but there are several other moderators available.The Forum Guidelines are there for everyone always. You agreed to follow them when you joined. It is not a case that you only have to follow them when you want to, or only under certain conditions. Participants are encouraged to post links. What is discouraged is posting only links. Post as many links as you like, just be sure to accompany them with explanations and arguments that put them in context and make clear your point. As the guideline says, make your points in your own words and only use links as supporting references.If you are having a problem in a thread, please post a description of the problem to Report discussion problems here: No.2.No replies to this message, please.--Percy