Noah's Ark volume calculation

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

"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.

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.

In-effective methods or certain personalities in animals allow for your problem. Sometimes what is needed is a better solution. Like a dog that continues to pull hard on the leash. Often, people complian about this. Just take the leash, hook it to the collar and then wrap loosley around the mid-section of the dog. The pulling should be instantly abated. I am currently working those equasions and will display my findings soon. I'm having a bit of conflict as one post claims 127 different "types" another 29,000. One claims a sheep is an average size as given by a creation site, but that does in no way validae the average size animal. So, I wish to do a more rational approach than what I've seen illustrated.

My neighbor is going on a cruise to the Bahamas this weekend. She has extreme difficutly with walking and balance. Along with her, will be others of her developed years and arthritic conditions. She went on the same cruise before and in about the same condition. Imagine an entire ship of old people being tossed about, extremely angry because of the inflicted pains... eating each other because the galley is un-obtainable and don't work... and yet the liner makes money? That is to say; there are parts in your descriptions that err.I should tell her of the necessity for her to take boon dockers and strapping to keep her in the bed? Your claim is like nearly every other post ...an extremist's view. How do you expect to arrive close to a correct conclusion when you apply whatever extreme principals needed to reflect the outcome you wish?Remember, just because the Ark is found feesible does not mean it was true. And just because science cannot prove the Ark feesible does not mean it was not done. Keep this in mind, to discourage prejudiced research. :0

It is not my quest to rule out entirely, all the violence the Ark endures. It is the lack in understanding that this is not necessarily a constant turmoil for the duration, that you imply, of which I take exception. One claims the Ark is an extremely stable vessel, another claims it is extremely lacking stability. Cruise ships seem to do OK.

I am aware of this dilema ...I am also, avoiding it for the time being. The zoo provides more than adequate space for the express purpose of the visitors... us. So, this must also be reviewed. Fair enough, but... when, in the end, it is stated by a member that the Ark must be a story... (and this has been done numerous times) the issue of how science deals with this issue displays a point outside "its" [explained by you] boundaries that it has none-the-less projected to or through those members [at least here] of science. Actually, throughout this thread this train of thought has been offered many tims by many members. I simply stated it, to allow one to understand that I have not arrived at any conclusions.On the issue whether or not the Ark actually was a real vessel and the flood actually took place... whether or not science can prove or even IF it can dis-prove [for the time being]this event more than my belief - I know it happened... I know God is REAL, I know not jut because of my faith, any religion, or whatever...non-tangible ideas you may wish to iunclude... I know this, as well as you know how to add and subtract. Meaning, the question I ponder is again the feesibility of Noah's Ark through science.And... I'm geeting too cold...