Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Ark volume calculation
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 241 of 347 (495871)
01-24-2009 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by homunculus
01-24-2009 5:52 PM


Re: Giant bones
See we have "Giants" even today, people being 7'" and on up.
Which is mostly do to hormonal (basically pituitary) imbalances, thus mutations, and therefore of evolutionary importance. It is the same reason there are dwarfs. Why would mutations be a "Creationist" idea?

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 239 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 5:52 PM homunculus has not replied

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


Message 242 of 347 (495888)
01-24-2009 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Percy
01-24-2009 3:00 PM


Re: standards?
OK, maybe I was too abrasive, and should have used the term "untruth" so hostility was not projected? While reading posts containing some valid information I also find deliberate lies attached like:
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.
That was given by: Iyx2no and is a pretty blatant lie and not the only example. If "science" members are really trying to approach this from a scientific perspective then try to use all the data instead of biased data.
I would actually like to understand how it was done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 01-24-2009 3:00 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by lyx2no, posted 01-24-2009 9:54 PM prophet has not replied
 Message 245 by prophet, posted 01-25-2009 8:34 PM prophet has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 243 of 347 (495892)
01-24-2009 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by prophet
01-24-2009 8:34 PM


It's Called Parody
That's my signature, not part of an answer to anything directly asked of me.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by prophet, posted 01-24-2009 8:34 PM prophet has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 244 of 347 (495936)
01-25-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by homunculus
01-24-2009 5:56 PM


Re: Giant bones
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.
I happen to believe that some of these photos may be credible. And of course, you failed to give the same guideline speech to everyone else that posted links before me.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 5:56 PM homunculus has not replied

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


Message 245 of 347 (496026)
01-25-2009 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by prophet
01-24-2009 8:34 PM


Re: standards?
I am posting this as a response to my own postso as not to offend anyone...
If I were to investigate the matter concerning the ability of Noah's Ark to house and feed the various animals of the Earth for the period necessary to validate the history of the Ark... I would begin as a scientist (at least the ones I know) would: Tally all the variables that can apply; Whether the animals are young or full grown.
(Young animals would grow as time progressed and the area would enlarge to support them as food provisions diminished.)
Consider whether the food provisions can provide separations between certain animals if needed. The over-head space availability given by shorter animals and the increased floor space because of it.
The understanding that each animal's required space is contingent on the amount of animals inside that enclosure... One cow may need "0" amount of space in an enclosed area, but 2 cows do not need double "0" if the enclosures are paired. Furthermore, 4 cows require less space than 2 times double "0." I know this because; I run a ranch.
The attempt to include dinosaures on the Ark as the term; "all breathing things" were given would also mean that blue whales must have been there. Are they clean? then... 7 pairs of bule whales? (If you accept scientific dating to support the idea that dinosaures were extinct. Of course, that is not feesible so... eliminate the blue whales and the dinosaurs and the 35 foot people rowing the boat... (although construction of the Ark would have been easier with 35 foot tall people!)
Re-consider the size of the average animal, as sheep are too big. As well consider that Animal pens (if needed) could be stacked. Consider that most flying birds could be loose and their enclosures kept to a minimum. Remember, that confined animals require much less food to maintan size than animals in the wild.
Consider the reason for 7 pairs of "clean" animals was possibly to feed the meat eaters and still have "clean" animals left. (Females could have been impregnated so they could deliver after the animals got off the Ark.)
In other words: Approach this matter in a comprehensive scientific method by compiling all the possibilities and variances rather than starting the argument prematurely.
I hope to provide this forum a more comprehensive approach and with more points of considerations, soon. Expedience on my part, is slow because I am the originator of my concepts and do not attempt to be percieved as someone I am not. I also have a ranch to maintain, animals to feed and no heat for my computer room. Oh yeah, I live on a ranch, on a boat with an apparent water allergy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by prophet, posted 01-24-2009 8:34 PM prophet has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-25-2009 11:08 PM prophet has replied
 Message 247 by Nighttrain, posted 01-26-2009 5:28 AM prophet has replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 246 of 347 (496047)
01-25-2009 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by prophet
01-25-2009 8:34 PM


Re: standards?
In other words: Approach this matter in a comprehensive scientific method by compiling all the possibilities and variances rather than starting the argument prematurely.
Prematurity seems an unlikely risk, what with this whole concept having become a bit passe in the century before last.
I hope to provide this forum a more comprehensive approach and with more points of considerations, soon. Expedience on my part, is slow because I am the originator of my concepts and do not attempt to be percieved as someone I am not. I also have a ranch to maintain, animals to feed and no heat for my computer room.
All admirable stuff, I'm sure. Is it your impression that it hasn't been done before? What do you find wanting in the many analyses that have already been done? What leads you to suspect you have any new concepts to add?
Oh yeah, I live on a ranch, on a boat with an apparent water allergy!
You should consider spending some time on the water with that boat. It would be instructive. Perhaps the funniest part of this whole debate for those of us with some experience in rough seas is the notion of any of the Rube Goldberg schemes for feeding, watering, cleaning, and so on, being carried out on an unpowered vessel in open ocean. And I mean really open ocean with unlimited fetch. Have you been on a large vessel in heavy seas? Have you tried to walk? Have you seen small, relatively agile animals like dogs thrown around helplessly? Puking. Can you imagine thousands of animals wedged close together, being slammed back and forth against their hard wooden confines? Puke, shit, and urine flying.
And I'm picturing a modern - ie. large - vessel, under power, and in seas that are encumbered in their development by continents getting in the way. A relatively small vessel like the ark, dead in the water on an infinite ocean and taking the seas on her beam would be an absolute nightmare.
Unless, of course, you want to invoke some miraculous intervention, but that of course leads straight to the fact that I myself created the universe last Thursday and so the discussion becomes moot.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by prophet, posted 01-25-2009 8:34 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by prophet, posted 01-30-2009 6:51 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 247 of 347 (496086)
01-26-2009 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by prophet
01-25-2009 8:34 PM


The workload
I also have a ranch to maintain, animals to feed and no heat for my computer room
If you really run a ranch, consider the Ark builders workload:
a.Food to be grown not only for Noah and Co.during construction, but for the future feeding of all--humans, diversified livestock, birds, insects, critters of all varieties and appetities. Carnivorous, herbivorous, insectivorous, etc, etc, etc. Live food eaters have their specialties rounded up, caged and fed daily.
b. Trees to be felled, dragged to worksite, sawn by hand, shaped, fitted, fastened, and preserved in some way.Someone has to take the wagons and find or trade pitch. If metals are needed for bracing or pegging the hull, someone has to find the minerals or metals, refine, forge, fashion the pieces needed. Simultaneously, the chores still have to be done, food crops weeded, pests deterred, fertilised (at least as the herd grows, that won`t be a problem re supply). Neighbour rubber-neckers have to be talked to, borrowed from, persuaded it`s just a whim on Noah`s part.
c. Roundup and corraling of species across the world. Only a couple of family members can be spared for this as remainder have hands full either cropping, or daily feeding and nurturing as herd grows. Time for chores, boat-building and crop-tending head for the back-burner.
d.The big day arrives. Boat built, crops harvested and stowed (had to neglect the herd, chores, preservation of human food). Water supplies toted aboard. Assorted creatures herded to stalls, bedded down, fed, watered, soothed if fractious in confined spaces. (tho` the spiders took to it straightaway). Single gangway becomes a stinking mess as days progress, not helped by a fore-runner of rain. At nightfall, no rest as nocturnals have to be fed, watered, etc. (you get the picture)
e. At daybreak, the feeding, watering, mucking-out continues with no time for a coffee break as more critters await loading, feeding, watering, etc.
f. By loading`s end, Noah and Co. collapse from exhaustion and malnutrition.After all, there is just so much eight people can do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by prophet, posted 01-25-2009 8:34 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by prophet, posted 01-29-2009 10:02 PM Nighttrain has replied

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


Message 248 of 347 (496673)
01-29-2009 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Nighttrain
01-26-2009 5:28 AM


Re: The workload
Hi Nightrain,
What I was interested seeing posted was simple ideas... The ability to use food to separate the animals that required it. The possibility that younger animals were boarded and as they got bigger, the food provisions got smaller so, the space enlarged, thus accommodating the growing animals.
The ability to provide sufficient food for an animal's survival in less active state would be substantially less. The waste management would be simpler because of the diminished food required. In the first 40 days - The ability of rain to provide sufficient cleansing for urine and waste. the ability of gravity to provide direction for the water, sending it down to the lowest deck, and cleaning as it went.
Properly set up, the waste management system could easily be localized, but would require some work to lift it high enough to set it out to sea. And that work could be assisted by some of the animals. Since you have displayed such aptitude, lets see it... provide us with much of, or all the other possibilities that should have been laid out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Nighttrain, posted 01-26-2009 5:28 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Coyote, posted 01-29-2009 10:25 PM prophet has not replied
 Message 251 by Nighttrain, posted 01-31-2009 4:10 AM prophet has not replied

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


Message 249 of 347 (496675)
01-29-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by prophet
01-29-2009 10:02 PM


Re: The workload
Prophet, you are busy rearranging the deck chairs on the HMS Ark when the overwhelming mountains of scientific evidence show that the global flood event did not happen as described.
Don't you think you should show that such a global flood actually happened before you start arranging the feeding and waste disposal schedules?
{It sure seems to me that Prophet is on-topic and Coyote is heading off-topic. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by prophet, posted 01-29-2009 10:02 PM prophet has not replied

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


Message 250 of 347 (496808)
01-30-2009 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Capt Stormfield
01-25-2009 11:08 PM


Re: standards?
All admirable stuff, I'm sure. Is it your impression that it hasn't been done before?
Each time these questions are examined it seems to be done with prejudice motives. Scientists have an agenda; to prove it can't happen. The "Religious" researchers have an agenda; to prove it did happen. Prejudice it seems, takes precedence. When has a joint aventure transpired with the goal being discovery first?
You should consider spending some time on the water with that boat. It would be instructive.
Yeah, what would be instructive about a boat at the bottom of the sea? Did I mention; it has a water allergy?

I myself created the universe last Thursday and so the discussion becomes moot.
Had you done this, you would not have fetched rube goldberg because we would not be in a debate against each other, and so, this WOULD indeed be moot!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-25-2009 11:08 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by bluescat48, posted 01-31-2009 7:37 AM prophet has replied
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 01-31-2009 8:16 AM prophet has replied
 Message 254 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-31-2009 11:42 AM prophet has replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 251 of 347 (496844)
01-31-2009 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by prophet
01-29-2009 10:02 PM


Re: The workload
Hi, Proph. Since you dodged the workload necessary to get the show on the road, I`ll give you my secret formula for Noah`s success. God gave him a really big freezer full of critters and told him not to open till he hit terra firma again. No need to collect, feed, water, transport, muck out, separate warring species---just stay away from the big white box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by prophet, posted 01-29-2009 10:02 PM prophet has not replied

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


Message 252 of 347 (496870)
01-31-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by prophet
01-30-2009 6:51 PM


Re: standards?
Scientists have an agenda; to prove it can't happen.
Scientists have no such agenda. If scientists are in involved into research on the idea of the the ark is not disprove it but to determine whether it is or isn't possible.

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 250 by prophet, posted 01-30-2009 6:51 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 4:59 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 253 of 347 (496876)
01-31-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by prophet
01-30-2009 6:51 PM


Re: standards?
prophet writes:
Each time these questions are examined it seems to be done with prejudice motives. Scientists have an agenda; to prove it can't happen. The "Religious" researchers have an agenda; to prove it did happen. Prejudice it seems, takes precedence. When has a joint aventure transpired with the goal being discovery first?
Your paranoid side is showing. Trust me, scientists are not out to disprove religion. No one is funding research proposals to disprove creation ex nihilo, a miraculous origin of life, Noah's flood, or the burning bush.
I know this site has a number of atheist members, but moderation of this site will not be antagonistic to religion, not if I have anything to say about it. I'm a deist myself and I run the joint.
This site exists to promote science education, specifically to promote the teaching of genuine science in science class. Why don't we just stick to the topic of whether Noah's ark was big enough to get the job done.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by prophet, posted 01-30-2009 6:51 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 4:16 PM Percy has replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 254 of 347 (496900)
01-31-2009 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by prophet
01-30-2009 6:51 PM


Re: standards?
Yeah, what would be instructive about a boat at the bottom of the sea? Did I mention; it has a water allergy?
Perhaps you could address the meat of the post. The ever more complex proposals for the interior of the ark must address the reality that neither man nor beast would be able to stand upright because of the incessant, violent motion. Nothing would remain in place, let alone stacked, unless firmly lashed in place. Water or other liquids would not remain in bowls or troughs.
Having recently spent time down in my own boat's Holy Place replacing a belt on one engine while underway in a bit of a sloppy sea, the picture I see here is not a pretty one. And I had someone above holding the boat's nose into the weather. You can't sit down a tool for a moment without it sliding away. One hand is always occupied keeping oneself from sliding away or falling over. Handling any object with significant mass becomes an exercise in learning about inertia. If you are imagining that life in an ark would in any way resemble life in a barn or zoo, you are sadly mistaken.
Additionally there is the issue of getting air and light into all the nooks and crannies of the ark. All these schemes for stacking things ever more efficiently have the effect of blocking ventilation and light. A single window (or even multiple windows) wouldn't be adequate due to the compartmentalization that is being proposed. As I understand it, open flames were the only lighting option in this era. How would that work?
Capt.
Edit: Just in case someone tries to propose that the seas were glassy calm, consider Genesis 8:1 - "...and God made a wind to pass over the earth..."
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : Add Genesis quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by prophet, posted 01-30-2009 6:51 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 3:53 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied
 Message 264 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 6:53 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

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


Message 255 of 347 (496928)
01-31-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Capt Stormfield
01-31-2009 11:42 AM


Re: standards?
The ever more complex proposals for the interior of the ark must address the reality that neither man nor beast would be able to stand upright because of the incessant, violent motion.
This doesn't sound like a pleasure cruise COULD EVER be done.
I agree that there could be some harsh periods but, incessant? Just because it is raining does not mean the seas are mean. I have lived on the sea long enough to know that.
One hand is always occupied keeping oneself from sliding away or falling over.
I agree; this is problematic, if only the boat motors knew better than to break down when you needed them most. How big a boat? Sure in open ocean the wave crests can be huge and yaw tremendous (what's the term for a boat yawing side to side while doing the same front to back? - OH yeah, I remember - Ra,Ra..RRAAALLPPH!!!),but to mean that is the way it is most of the time is to take all the pleasure out of pleasure cruise.

A single window (or even multiple windows) wouldn't be adequate due to the compartmentalization that is being proposed. As I understand it, open flames were the only lighting option in this era. How would that work?
I see a problem too, and will require more investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-31-2009 11:42 AM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Coyote, posted 01-31-2009 4:11 PM prophet 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