Noah's Ark volume calculation

Just another variable to add to the Deluge hypothsis. If seas are bad enough, the undulation of the waves is strong enough to bruise bodies, break bones and smash people (and in this case animals) into decks (floor), bulkheads (walls) and overheads (ceiling) especially in an unpowered vessel. Especially in the span of 6 months.In storms people are instructed to not lock there knees, to stand on the balls of there toes and to hold on to fixed structures of the ship to keep from getting hurt. In the strongest of storms, movement about the ship is secured (not allowed) and unless you are standing watch you are strapped into your rack (bed). When I would crawl into my rack I would put boondockers (my boots) underneath my mattress to help wedge me against the wall of my rack and would attach the strapps across the opening of the rack to keep me from falling out.
Can you please for the love of God, tell me how you are going to tell thousands of animals to follow these procedures?Also, a boat rocks back and forth and pitches up and down if propelled, and if not propelled there is no specific pattern to the rocking and rolling so can you please tell me how these animals could keep there footing when humans barely can? Or did they lie down the entire 6 months they were onboard?Oh, I forgot, it was a miracle, thus throwing all logic and reason out the window Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Actually, you are not even close. The kind of proof I possess is not subjective - though some may try to make it such. You are correct, in that it is of little use in a debate... It is like bringing tigers to a debate about whether or not tigers exists. Kinda, sorta well... destroys the debate. The proof "I feel, I have" it would still allow one to consider Noah's Ark required more than science. It would prove more than science was available. It is just not yet time for me to show this, but it will be here soon... Maybe they did and this is why there were 7 pairs of clean animals, the males were food. [after the females were pregnant. ] Of course, this dwindles the size of the food necessary and increases the amount given. It took man roughly 69 years to go from using a horse and buggy as main staple transportation to putting foot on the moon. I believe it pretentious to think that prior to the flood, knowledge was any less than as it is today, only different - maybe. We only "think" we know how the pyramids were built. Edward Leedskalin claimed to have unlocked the mystery, and his work makes one ponder. But he did not leave his knowledge readily available. Just because one claims the math doesn't work, does not meant one used the right figures in the equation. I have yet to see math results form variables I posted, or other posts such as the animals were young. The concepts were stated from a standpoint of: We are all knowing scientists of evolution, our logic is supreme.The TRUTH [here we go again] is to think your logic is capable of standing alone is so very superficial. The more you learn the more you should see how superficial you really are. That is not a flame. No validity was provided that the average size animal was a sheep, it was simply stated aa a fact without debate. Coinsidently, it was done for assistance in developing math to destroy the idea the Ark was. I've seen posts referring to others works and claims, but they are just as easily dismissed as I stated in an earlier post the work is pre-designed to give a certain outcome before the evaluation commences. It is wrong if the "creation scientists" do it and it is wrong if the "evolution scientists" do it! Edited by prophet, : musta mised tags

non sequitor. The topic is Noah's Ark Volume calculation. Where in the Noah Narrative does it say anything about the animals being young?Where does it say ?What ifs, maybes don't apply. Just whether the ark measurements are capable of applying to the story as it is without adding new info.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

quote:

---

The kind of proof I possess is not subjective - though some may try to make it such. You are correct, in that it is of little use in a debate... It is like bringing tigers to a debate about whether or not tigers exists. Kinda, sorta well... destroys the debate.

---

This might be a fair comparison if you brought an invisible tiger...

quote:

---

Maybe they did and this is why there were 7 pairs of clean animals, the males were food. [after the females were pregnant. ] Of course, this dwindles the size of the food necessary and increases the amount given.

---

Unfortunately it does absolutely nothing to explain why so many wild animals would refrain from, as I put it before, "trying to eat each other, fight each other, escape, run around, freak out, catch diseases, injure themselves and otherwise cause difficulties".How could regular wild animals behave in this extraordinary way without a miracle? The technology involved in the moon landing was developed over centuries, not in 69 years, so your example is a misleading one. Furthermore, you missed out a rather essential section my question; Exceeding such knowledge would require a vast system of scientific enquiry for which there is no evidence from the Bronze Age. In fact, the written records we have from back then, including the Bible, display a woeful lack of understanding of the natural world.The fact remains that gathering and caring for so many species of animal would be impossible today and it was impossible back then.

quote:

---

I have yet to see math results form variables I posted, or other posts such as the animals were young.

---

First of all, young animals provide no solution. getting all those animals together, all in infancy would be an incredible feat of logistics and I mean literally incredible. Invoking infant animals only increases Noah's workload. Besides, many animals need to be brought up by adults of their species, so this option is out of the question.As for maths, you have not provided any maths. You have mentioned that you are not happy with some of the assumptions in the OP, but you have provided no numbers of your own.If you want some maths, my advise is simple; do the maths. You have suggested, for instance, that sheep are too large to represent the average sized animal. So do the maths. Give us your idea of a fair average size and let's see the maths. Do not expect others to do the work for you.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

"My what ifs" I imply are as valid as the "what ifs" others imply. When instructed that the waters had to be in turmoil, though the bible does not make that contention, a what if is claimed. The what if, the Ark is large enough to house the animals does not dictate the size of the animals nor the average size and certainly does not validate a sheep as an average size.However, how docile the animals are reflect the youth of the critters and their youth can allow for size reduction which in turn allows for lees food requirements.If you start with the contention that if the Bible does not claim it, then it cannot be used... You would also have to allow that if the Bible claims it, it must be allowed.Then, all the animals were sent and chosen by God, sea sickness would not apply, the animals were tame and the seas had no turmoil. As far as Noah's time being one without technology doesn't fit as these people were so evil God had Noah build the Ark.The best way man has ever developed to dis-miss God is through man's intelligence and the venue of science. Of course, this science thing didn't work then and it doesn't work now. So if evil abounded then, so too is it likely that science abounded.Even the math of the evaporation given in this forum is not applicable when one considers the Earth's axis being turned that the polar ice-caps appear and assist in receeding the waters. The Ark being powered or not would not apply because it cannot be proven or dis-proven.This all leads to mis-cacultaions on the part of this forum in deciding the Ark's reality.

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.

Nothing regarding God sending the animals, but that Noah was to get the animals. What the F$#K has evil got to do with science?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Through science one attempts to dismiss creation, which is used to dismiss God, and that is evil.

I find it extremely difficult to believe ytou cannot answer this question yourself. You can put a fish in a small pond with a big gator... If that gator does not eat the fish soon enough it will adopt it as a friend. This is a frequency in nature. Also baby predators can easily be tempered to tolerate as friends, animals it would otherwise eat. Your response was to equte ancient people with tribeman like it has to be. There is nothing that proves they were not as "civilized" as we are tody. Even today we continue to discover abilities in the "old school" ways that though antiquated re-proved itself valuable. A recent one is an adaptation to an old school cooler for homes in florida where water from the canals are used in rqadiators to cool houses more effectively. My actual point concerned the prior 2000 years of advancement mankind had before the Ark AND we should also mention that because one lived so much longer they had a MUCH HIGHER opportunity to excell in technology. Having the ability to progress your ideas for several hundred years rather than a few decades should allow one much more refined achievements.

Wrong considering many scientists are theists, just rational. Dismissing creation in no way either dismisses or proves the existance of God. It is totally irrelevant to the existance of God.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

quote:

---

I find it extremely difficult to believe you cannot answer this question yourself.

---

I can. It's your answer I'm interested in and boy, it's a doozy.

quote:

---

You can put a fish in a small pond with a big gator... If that gator does not eat the fish soon enough it will adopt it as a friend. This is a frequency in nature. Also baby predators can easily be tempered to tolerate as friends, animals it would otherwise eat.

---

I'm having more than a little trouble believing that. Care to back it up with some evidence? Even if the gator bit were true, which I doubt very much, these gators were not in a pond. They were in a stall, in a boat. That is one unhappy gator which is going to bite just about anything that comes near, just out of general principle.This is not "a frequency in nature". That is a fantasy you have created. Lions cannot be raised to look on all other animals as "friends". Snakes eat rodents. It's in their nature. Pretending that they can be raised to do otherwise is laughable. If you want anyone to take this nonsense seriously, you must provide evidence that not just gators, but many predators, from all relevant groups, can be made to befriend their prey. You must also prove that the prey can be habituated into ignoring their predators. It's a non-starter.Further, this business of habituating the animals to one another only serves to make Noah's job even harder again. Even if it were possible, it would be a logistical impossibility to raise them all at the same time and habituate each animal to its eventual neighbours without taking so long that any of them grow to maturity. It's impossible. You would need a miracle.You claimed to be engaged in honest enquiry about whether the ark was miraculous or natural. Instead, you have wandered off into the realm of fantasy in an effort to rationalise a naturalistic ark story. Why not just accept the miracle?

quote:

---

Your response was to equte ancient people with tribeman like it has to be. There is nothing that proves they were not as "civilized" as we are tody.

---

Actually, I think that Bronze Age people were very clever and highly sophisticated in many ways. I just don't believe that they had zoological knowledge that dwarfs that of modern experts. If you want to make the extraordinary claim that they did, I can only ask you to provide some evidence to that effect.

quote:

---

Even today we continue to discover abilities in the "old school" ways that though antiquated re-proved itself valuable. A recent one is an adaptation to an old school cooler for homes in florida where water from the canals are used in rqadiators to cool houses more effectively.

---

I wasn't going to comment on this, because it is irrelevent, but one thing is worth mentioning.You put forward an example of an ancient technique being appropriated by modern people, but that is not what is needed. What you are suggesting, with Noah's amazing zoological expertise, is a case of ancient people displaying modern knowledge. That is what makes it unbelievable.

quote:

---

My actual point concerned the prior 2000 years of advancement mankind had before the Ark AND we should also mention that because one lived so much longer they had a MUCH HIGHER opportunity to excell in technology.

---

Much higher lifespans are something else for which you must provide evidence. If you have none, it is merely another piece of unbelievable supposition. It also sounds suspiciously like another miracle. Why not just accept the miracle? What harm could it do?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

That's nice.The problem is there is no scientific evidence for a global flood, nor an ark, nor a young earth, nor several hundred year life spans.They are all religious beliefs (myths) based on unverifiable claims. You can't base a scientific argument on a religious beliefs myths.

---

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

Gator's adopting fish as friends? Would it surprise you to learn that most people probably think you're making this up? I can't even get my cats, a brother and sister pair, to tolerate each other much of the time, let alone other tasty animals that they've been exposed to since kitten-hood. Noah must have kept the small rodents in some very secure cages. Even when the cats aren't hungry and just want to play, for the mouse it's usually fatal. Same for snakes, they really love snakes!Of course there's always the food chain. Mice are food for cats are food for fishers and foxes and coyotes are food for bobcats etc. It's not like the predators think, "Oh, he's a predator, too, I'll leave him alone." With a predator you've got a problem with every animal small enough to be considered prey.Here's a short excerpt from About.com about keeping big cats as pets (Big Cats: Should Tigers and Lions Be Kept as Pets?): So getting back on-topic about whether the volume of Noah's ark was sufficient, it sounds like the larger predators would have required considerable space, and that it would have had to have been provided in a way so as to keep them from preying on smaller animals.Can you go through for us the process of estimation and calculation you would use to calculate the required volume of the ark?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add missing close paren.

I was under the impression that the topic was about calculating the volume of Noah's Ark, not evil. Nevertheless, do you really intend to suggest that scientific inquiry and evil are correlated? I don't think you will get any support for that line of argument here. This is a SCIENCE forum, by the way. Why are you on it if you feel that way?Evil is no more likely to crop up in scientific endeavor than any other endeavor (and probably less likely than something like TV evangelism, imo).Also I would add that there is zero evidence that Noah's society was technologically advanced. And plenty of evidence it wasn't. Just read the specs for the ark. The ark would have been steel, not wood, for starters.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

Either you have proof of something or you don't. And if is the latter you can't claim you have objective proof. Sorry.