Noah's Ark volume calculation

I would venture that what you mean is you want to find a way to rationalize the problem. To find a "what if" story that will allow you to continue in your belief.There have been a lot of posts to this thread and the preponderance of the evidence says that the ark simply could not have functioned as a vast floating zoo.Have you ever even thought of entertaining the possibility that somehow maybe the ark story is not a literal chronicle of actual events? That as our great story teller, Tolkein, one wrote: "The tale grew in the telling."Would this somehow present an insurmountable problem for you?

---

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

No - Percy... My paranoid side is not showing... I have NO problem dismissing "religions." Edited by prophet, : bad spelling

---

It is the underlying agenda of which I refer, often done by the aspects left out. Example: How much of the excrement of an Elephant is not-digested? How much of that; if cleansed by water could be recycled? Leave this out and food requirements are larger than actual necessary amounts. [f I remember right 50% of the elephants dung is un-digested.]

---

The sea, consider the large amount of salt water being diluited and capable of sustaining life thought to be required on the Ark. Or that even in the ocean there easily could have been pockets of salt and fresh water. The use of; "easily could have been" is not something readily dismissed, just as there are pockets of warm and cold water.When you consider the language barrier involving the descriptionjs of the animals to be put on the Ark... If you include Blue Whales and they are considerewd "clean" than the Ark could not possibly hold them... not to mention that the Ark would have had to been filled with water! So we would have to consider it without dinos, whales and most likely a vast amount of sea life able to survive without being on the Ark.Actural time on the Ark... must be addressed. And though these animals lived on the Ark how long were they able to roam around off the Ark on dry land before it was available that they could just leave all together?Certainly, food as a divider between animals that require division is a method of providing separation without fixed pens. Much of the birds could fly freely and require only a perch to roost.Food requirements diminish as the animal's activity diminishes. This also diminishes waste disposal.Was the reason for 7 pairs of "clean" animals as food provisions for the meat eaters? Most of the males could impregnate the females then be used for food. Animals with a gestation period of a year or more (possibly even less) could even have been brought to the Ark pregnanat, IF, they were full grown.Natural parasite problem remedies... Birds are often used by larger animals to clean parasite from them. How many other "natural" forms of parasite control occurs in nature?Waste and waste fume problems do require addressing and may require more information. Animals could have been used to provide necessary power to greatly improve waste management, but these animals would require more food.And the biggest question: What other ways could have been implemented to provide validity of this quest, allowed a smaller Ark, less food and more animals? Lets us discuss this and then move to the next level.

First: To prevent me from continuing in my belief [Belief ] is not even remotely available. BUT, Im trying to debate this under the guise of science and with the limitations of science.My question [After considering certain involvements by God... the animals arriving w/o people bringing them... Right number of pairs and tame attitude as a given and such...] is; if through scienctific principals [as known today] the Ark could have accomplished it's goal.For us to be able to figure out whether or not SCIENCE can justify the Ark or not, given its size, is the question right? For us to attempt this issue requires reason. Not; whether or not the Ark actually existed and did what it actually did.If we were to contend that Science proves, or has proven, or proved, without doubt... the Ark could not have completed it's goals within the limitations of science, then exactly why is this thread started... unless the Ark was bigger on the inside that it was on the outside? _ Which of course, not only takes us back to one of my original posts, but displays the reason I posted it to begin with. And do noty wish to go there again.... Unless, I can make my boat BIGGER on the inside than it is on the outside.This thread (I'm assuming) was started because conclusive resolve has yet to be obtained. Conclusive scientific understanding remains breeched by concepts not given proper authority or investagation even from within scientific perspectives. So the rational and logical method of descernment is to understand the varibles and test to see if they apply?If this were but a thread to prove the Ark incapable of fulfilling its goal without assistance from God in a manner best described as a miracle... Then, it neither proves or disprovers the Ark and the investigation's futile. The "what ifs" must not only be allowed and investigated but are required and mandatory, as long as they fit in a scientific manner, or conclusive scientific resolve will never be obtained.

---

As a matter of fact... yes, and not just an insurmountable problem for me, but for you as well.

Hi prophet,

quote:

---

First: To prevent me from continuing in my belief [Belief ] is not even remotely available. BUT, Im trying to debate this under the guise of science and with the limitations of science.

---

Well you've fallen at the first fence then. In admitting that you have already made up your mind and will not change it under any circumstances, you have placed yourself a long way outside the realm of science.In science, as in all forms of reasonable and honest enquiry, doubt is your friend.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

Ahhh, yes. You mean the kind of variations that cause weather? You know, the windy stuff that makes waves? Would it not be helpful to make your new ad hoc rationalizations at least somewhat congruent with your previous ad hoc rationalizations?Capt.

[qs]Well you've fallen at the first fence then. In admitting that you have already made up your mind and will not change it under any circumstances, you have placed yourself a long way outside the realm of science{/qsBecause I know {not only without doubt - but with an understanding you cannot comprehend that God is real and the Ark was... Does not conclude that I know its prupose could have been done within the limitations of science. Whether or not the Ark could have achieved its goal via physical dimensions and from a scientific standpoint is the topic. And this, is the something I do not know.

Put simply, it's impossible from a scientific standpoint. This entire exercise is, if you will excuse the language, mental masturbation.We know the size. We know what it was supposed to do. And quite frankly, there is no way that does not go into the realm of magic that makes the ark possible.

Hi Captain, What are your ideas? You left out "the waters asswaged" a wind was made... not gentle wind nor gale force wind, simply wind. The waters asswaged allows us to better understand the water's state. I guess it could be taken as the waters after the wind and before the waters asswaged, that turmoil prevailed, but it is not stated, nor length of that duration is stated.

quote:

---

Because I know {not only without doubt - but with an understanding you cannot comprehend that God is real and the Ark was...

---

You know, but you cannot explain how in any objective sense. This is like saying "I have an astonishing proof in this box, but I'm afraid I can't open it up and show you.".

quote:

---

Does not conclude that I know its prupose could have been done within the limitations of science. Whether or not the Ark could have achieved its goal via physical dimensions and from a scientific standpoint is the topic. And this, is the something I do not know.

---

Fair enough. I respect your honesty there.Please bear in mind that there is only one reason why creationists try to present the Flood as being explainable through naturalistic science; religion cannot be taught in science classes.This is the bottom line in these debates and it is a major part of the reason why there are strict standards on this boards's science forums. Teaching religious dogma in schools as if it were science is explicitly banned, so creationists who want to teach flood mythology or a six-thousand year-old Earth must present their views as science. There is no other motivation.If you honestly enquire into the science that contradicts the Flood, you will soon realise that not just one, but many miracles are required if the Biblical account is to be considered true. That's fine for religious purposes (so long as you don't mind believing in a God who creates evidence that contradicts his works), but it has no place in schools.Unless you are interested in pushing Flood classes in schools, you simply have no need to twist the science to fit the Flood. Just accept that it was a miracle and be honest about it.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

Since I make no claim that such a thing is possible, why would I be expected to explain it? So we have God making a wind strong enough to dry up a world-wide flood, and your temperature and salinity variations keeping it kicked up the rest of the time. Sounds pretty relentless alright. How are you factoring the wild rolling of an unpowered vessel, for however many months of this very long trip, into your claims about the viability of the animal and human husbandry required. And please, don't ask me what I think again, or pretend that we're all hanging out kicking around ideas. This is your idea, most everyone else thinks it's idiotic, and your thinking to date appears not to extend past the immediate post to which you are responding. Try to put together a complete and consistent proposal that simultaneously supports your claims and answers all our objections.Capt.

Your perspective seems to have wandered into your needs, to prove me in error? Just because there is wind and even waves does not mean these conditions are too great for the Ark to sustain even in a gentle manner. spearation of salt from the water does not necesssarily involve harsh, severe, some extreme... water motion. Is it the understanding of "harsh or severe, dramatic... etc..." that YOU wish to impart at your descretion to conclude the intent of MY meaning?I tend to agree that most likely there were sufficient waves at certain times to allow some distress, possibly enough to cause concern. Think about this; I was in Hurricanes Charlie and Wilma... And I had NO concerns, even next to ground zero [20 miles inland] relaxing or sleeping through them as they caused distructiuon in our neighborhood. [Although, I didn't like being without eletricity for a week.]Are you familuar with the adobe indians and their mud huts? A fire for light could also provide air circulation to evacuate urine fumes and dung is flamable.

Because we are engaged in a discussion for discovery. Or are we in an investigation without possibilities and restricted by you leading nowhere? And it was included for other readers to engage in this aspect.

Average evaporation rates from the seas is about 4 feet per year. Requiring a depth of water one Mount Everest plus 15 cubits to be whisked off in 110 days is not going to be caused by anything gentle.The ark will also have to be big enough hold large numbers of veterinarians and trauma teams with experience in multiple crush injuries. Of course this is silly speculation, but so is anything other then a straight forward assessment of how much room would be required to hold just the children's story book version of "kinds": There's the rabbit kind; the turtle kind; the pig kind; the zebra kind . If a six year old can name it it's got to be a kind. The few score of animals known to children would overwhelm such a tiny vessel and crew. After you've calculated that, then start working on details of ventilation. Try it on a boat next time then it could apply. But if you truly had "NO concerns" as they caused distructiuon in your neighborhood then it might just indicate that you're not all there, and nothing can be said to you that's not so much blather.

---

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.

You clearly know nothing of weather and less of the behavior of unpowered boats.Your comment about an ark sized vessel behaving in a gentle manner suggests you should go to youtube and search "ship storm". See if you can find one where the ship is broadside to the waves and dead in the water and consider the effect that kind of motion would have on your organizational plans.Forget those additional winds you believe God added in. Forget the thermal and salinity effects you proposed. The difference in solar energy and temperature between the polar regions and the tropics alone would guarantee monstrous storms. It would also be interesting to know what kind of harmonics the tides would create without any land mass in the way. The currents around and over submerged continents and mountains would guarantee some real excitement. Dung fires (fresh, wet dung?) to ventilate and light a nearly sealed vessel the size of a large coastal ferry. Utilizing adobe ducting kept in good repair with bird crap, no doubt. The mind boggles.Capt.