Noah's Ark volume calculation

And I suppose your post is a prime example of the brilliance of faith? When you have something other than a temper tantrum and a taunt let us know.By the way, if you want to use one miracle as proof that another miracle happened, you need to do a couple of things. First, prove your miracle example (in this case, your fish and chips) happened. Yes, I know it says Christ did it the bible. Heracles supposedly became immortal by completing the twelve labors. That is, you need corroborating evidence that it happened. Once you've proven this, you need to show just what feeding 5000 people has to do with flood, outside of "it's god's magic". As it stands, it's like claiming that because I can run, that I can therefore write. It does not follow.So as said, when you have something substantive to say, come back.

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.

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?

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.

Which you must support. Where is the support for your contention that cubits were actually larger than what we know they used? To me this suggests that you want us to take noah's ark seriously, but you don't want us to examine it. I'm sorry, if you want the claims of the bible to be considered actual history, it will have to be put to the same rigors as any historical claim. If you want the claims of the bible to be considered actual science, those claims will be put to the same rigors as any scientific claim. Science and history don't rely upon assertion, but support. You can assert all day long that cubits are larger than we think they are, you can assert that the bones of giants have been found, you can assert that there really is such as thing as kinds, but until you support it with evidence and references, you have done nothing. And once you have done that, you will find that you are really quite wrong.

Ah, not at all. We are using the bible as the basis for the ark story. We use the size given by the bible to come up with the volume (supplied to us by creationist websites, no less).Since you all insist on using kinds, but have not defined it in any real manner (that is, the definition seems to shift from species all the way to family, depending on the organism, such that dogs are one kind, but all spiders are one kind, whereas dogs are one species and spiders are thousands of species spread across multiple genera). As a compromise, we went with the number of genera within the animal kingdom (reasoning that insects and fish weren't taken on board, although the bible does say everything not on the ark died, and that genus is essentially the midpoint within the multiple kind definitions). So we have 14,500 "kinds" on the ark. Two of each kind, and the ark has 29,000 organisms. Perhaps you have a different number for the kinds of organisms alive today? If so, great, we'll factor that in.The rest of the updated opening post is simply dealing with the logistics--the average size of animals, per creationist websites I believe, since the bible does not deal with the logistics (other than who to bring, and that they must be fed). Turns out, using the bible as our foundation, there is no way you can fit 29,000 individual organisms (14,500 genera, or for you, "kinds") with food for one year on the ark.Now tell me, where was I(rather, we) not biblical?

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.

I'm sorry, you're not even making any sense at all. what does this mean? We're not even concerned about whether it would float or sink. I don't know where you pulled that from. What we're concerned about is whether it would have simply been large enough to do the task given. And the answer to that, is no. The ark is not large enough for the task given.

Um, and in order to properly design the ark, you have to take into account the effects of the ocean on the ark. Hay bales as pens don't work out quite that well when the animals will just bowl over them, eh?The structural interior then determines just how much the ark can hold, and how secure it is.The ark story is magic, pure and simple.

Have you actually bothered reading the whole thread? You will find the justification for calculations spread out over the whole thread. I know, it's a long thread, but read it yourself, do the math yourself, and you'll see what we're talking about. Using the figures given by creationistsThe average size of the animal on the ark is a sheep per creationist sources (Bible Study - You Have Questions. The Bible Has Answers!). The math the site used is wrong, though, but they claim a sheep is the average size of the animal. To be more accurate, they use anywhere from a small rabbit to a sheep. At any rate, take the volume of the ark (given by creationists), divide by the number of animals present, and you can get a fair approximation of the average animal size. Or, 1,458,000/29,000=50 cubic feet per animal. That's about a 3.7x3.7x3.7 enclosure. Which you can technically squeeze a sheep into. And of course, this is not including food. Really, all the calculations in the OP are supported.

The (ir)rationality you are dealing is coming from creationist sources.The claim of 127 kinds came from Peg (http://EvC Forum: Noah's Ark volume calculation -->EvC Forum: Noah's Ark volume calculation).The number 29,000 is actually the total number of organisms, assuming two/kind, and that number is pulled from (http://EvC Forum: Noah's Ark volume calculation -->EvC Forum: Noah's Ark volume calculation)A third source gives 50,000 animals (http://EvC Forum: Noah's Ark volume calculation -->EvC Forum: Noah's Ark volume calculation)average size of animal is also from creationist sources, which has previously been explained. The justification is because you can squeeze a sheep into a 3.7^3 box (not that the creationist website realizes this is largely impossible for anything but a couple of days)
The same source also gives two different "kinds", one at 1,000 kinds and one at 8,000 kinds (I'm assuming they can at least multiply a number by 2, but if they actually meant 2,000 kinds, then it's obviously 4,000 animals. Hard to tell with them).So quite frankly, we've dealt with this as rationally as possible, since creationists themselves can't get their own story straight.