Noah's Ark volume calculation

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.

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? Yeah, what would be instructive about a boat at the bottom of the sea? Did I mention; it has a water allergy?

---

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 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. 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.

---

I see a problem too, and will require more investigation.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

Yes, I do know... And, I could explain... but I do not have to. The proof is not in a box and I'm not afraid to show it. Be reasonable, would you show such a thing to people like I encounter in this forum? Religion is not what I would wish in school.

Yes, I do know... And, I could explain... but I'm not required to. The proof is not in a box and I'm not afraid to show it. Be reasonable, would you show such a thing to people like I encounter in this forum? Religion is not what I would wish in school. Nor do I wish for the myth of evolution to be taught. I have not bothered to address whether the flood was of "nature" or a miracle. I am attempting to discover whether or not the Ark could have sustained the animals of the world for the duration by its own accord...via the size/structure. I have no problem, if God needed to use miracles not written in scripture. But I would like to see a comprehensive study without all the prejudiced tirades.

Your attempt to throw whatever and all catastrophic events at the Ark only shows your desire to sink it. Sinking the Ark would mean the amount of food needed would be reduced to what is necessarily to sustain them while it sinks. Since this topic was considering displacement required for food and animals to LAST the duration... I decided the way to continue was to understand that the Ark did not sink and so, now we know why you exist. [qs] 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

I C U really R lost in space.

And yet, with all the mischief at sea, we are gathered here to discuss the ability of the Ark to provide occupancy and food for the crew and animals.