Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 1:16 AM
20 online now:
Coragyps, PaulK (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,628 Year: 3,665/19,786 Month: 660/1,087 Week: 29/221 Day: 0/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
24NextFF
Author Topic:   Noah's Ark volume calculation
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 3073 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 1 of 347 (489952)
11-30-2008 11:45 PM


I have two questions for creationists out there with regards to the size of the Ark (specifically volume).

The constants according to my understanding of The Bible (correct me if I'm wrong) are:

a) It has to be big enough to house two (male and female) of each of every single species that has ever existed on Earth, including the dinosaurs, and some error margin for any species we haven't actually discovered yet, or has become extinct since.<-- correction: it does not include dinosaurs or marine life.| correction: it now *does* include dinosaurs, according to http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-ark1.html

b) It must also contain enough food and water to last 40 days (40 days is right I think). <-- correction: according to the bible, it must be one whole year.

c) It must contain some form of separation between the animals, presumably so they wouldn't eat each other (i.e fences, cabins, etc).<-- correction, according to the bible, the animals boarded the Ark on their own accord in a civilized, ordered manner and therefore would not want to eat each other.

So my questions are:

a) Has anyone actually done this calculation? If not - can anyone tell me (approximately) how many different types of species have ever existed (that we know of) and their approximate size (in cubic centimeters). I'm going for an approximate here - perhaps dividing the different species into different volume brackets(e.g. < 1 cubic meter, 1 to 10 cubic meters, >10 cubic meters).

and

b) Does it fit with the measurements specified in The Bible?

****

Results:

Approximate size of the Ark is:

1,518,000 cu.ft.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html

1,396,000 cu.ft.
http://noahsarksearch.com/faq.htm

1,518,000 cubic feet

1,400,000 cu ft

If we take an average (mean) we have:
1,458,000 cu ft.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080309074912AAn1skP

http://animals.about.com/b/2007/08/13/how-many-species-on-earth.htm

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/types.html

http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.wolosz/howmanysp.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_dinosaur_species_were_there

Approximate number of animals (not including animals that may have become extinct since the flood, not including insects)

14,500 x 2 (one of each gender) = 29,000

Approximate average volume of food required for each animal for a whole year:

Based on the average size of an animal being the size of a sheep and it eating 1 bail (8ft cu) per week.

400 cu ft.

CALCULATION:

29,000 animals x 400 cu ft. of food = 11,600,000 cu ft

^ NOTE: This calculation is already larger than the approximate dimensions of the Ark, but let's press on with the calculation regardless...

VOLUME ON ARK FOR EACH ANIMAL, WITHOUT FOOD:

1,458,000 / 29,000 = 50 cu ft = 3.6ft x 3.6ft x 3.6ft

VOLUME FOR EACH ANIMAL, WITH FOOD: Does not fit.

Edited by killinghurts, : Spelling error

Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

Edited by killinghurts, : Updating WRT thread contents.

Edited by killinghurts, : Updating WRT thread.

Edited by killinghurts, : Updating WRT thread.

Edited by killinghurts, : Updating WRT thread

Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

Edited by killinghurts, : Added real life comparison

Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

Edited by killinghurts, : Adjusting number of animals by 2 (one of each gender)


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2008 8:32 AM killinghurts has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 12-01-2008 10:29 AM killinghurts has not yet responded
 Message 8 by earlejones, posted 12-01-2008 5:25 PM killinghurts has not yet responded
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 12-01-2008 8:57 PM killinghurts has not yet responded
 Message 184 by prophet, posted 01-19-2009 6:44 PM killinghurts has not yet responded
 Message 320 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 7:49 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 347 (489988)
12-01-2008 8:10 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 592 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 3 of 347 (489992)
12-01-2008 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
11-30-2008 11:45 PM


Don't forget the 7 pairs for the "clean" animals.

As to food, the entire thing lasted a year (flood waters receding) if I understand correctly.

Here's the volume I found:
1,518,000 cu.ft.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html
1,396,000 cu.ft.
http://noahsarksearch.com/faq.htm

These are based on measurements given in the bible. Given that a diplodicus is roughly 35m long, and up to 18 tons in weight, two of those behemoths probably would have sunk the ark. Which is why I think creationists tend to remove dinosaurs from the ark list.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 11-30-2008 11:45 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 12-01-2008 8:37 AM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 12-01-2008 12:03 PM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 12-02-2008 6:09 AM kuresu has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3038 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 347 (489994)
12-01-2008 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by kuresu
12-01-2008 8:32 AM


Which is why I think creationists tend to remove dinosaurs from the ark list.

Or tend to take along teensy weensy baby dinos!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2008 8:32 AM kuresu has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 15 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 5 of 347 (489997)
12-01-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
11-30-2008 11:45 PM


It must also contain enough food and water to last 40 days (40 days is right I think).

That's just the part when it rained. It still took time for the water to disappear. It seems that I recall that Genesis says they were cooped up in the ark for about a year.


Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 11-30-2008 11:45 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 347 (490002)
12-01-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by kuresu
12-01-2008 8:32 AM


...two of those behemoths probably would have sunk the ark. Which is why I think creationists tend to remove dinosaurs from the ark list.

And that's not all!

Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus into the ark?

A. Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!

(Noah! Make them stop. I'm getting seasick!)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2008 8:32 AM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by onifre, posted 12-01-2008 12:54 PM Coyote has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 7 of 347 (490006)
12-01-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
12-01-2008 12:03 PM


Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus into the ark?

A. Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!

(Noah! Make them stop. I'm getting seasick!)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 12-01-2008 12:03 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
earlejones
Junior Member (Idle past 3675 days)
Posts: 4
From: Portola Valley CA US
Joined: 12-01-2008


Message 8 of 347 (490027)
12-01-2008 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
11-30-2008 11:45 PM


How many 'species' on the ark?
Creationists claim that two each of every 'kind' were put on the ark. They do not use the word 'species'. The unknown is this: What exactly is a 'kind'? They use the word 'baramin' and in fact there is a study called 'baraminology', which I think is the attempt to define what a 'baramin' actually is. Wikipedia says baramins are 'created kinds', that is, groups having no common ancestry.

They argue: One 'kind' might be what we would call today a thousand 'species'. For example, the dog 'kind' might include domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. The cat 'kind' would include, in addition to domestic cats, tigers, lions and hundreds of others.

I can't find any data on how kangaroos got from Mount Ararat all the way to Australia!

earle
*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 11-30-2008 11:45 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2008 6:24 PM earlejones has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Peg, posted 12-02-2008 5:04 AM earlejones has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 592 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 9 of 347 (490035)
12-01-2008 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by earlejones
12-01-2008 5:25 PM


Re: How many 'species' on the ark?
welcome to EvC!

The taxanomical equivalent of 'kind' I generally run across is that of family, but creationists play loose and fast with the definitions. All dogs, wolves, etc are one family, but humans and other primates are two separate families.

I've never heard of baramin defined as a group having no common ancestry with any other group. If that is the definition that creationists have at last settled on, then we can finally put to rest any notion that evolution only occurs within kinds, as there is pretty well documented evidence showing a common ancestry between plants, fungi, animals, bacteria, protists, and archaebacteria. Which means every single organism belongs to the same kind.

Of course, this means that their statement is technically true--evolution does only happen within the kind, but the kind has grown so large as to defeat their purpose, and so diluted as to have any use whatsoever as a term.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by earlejones, posted 12-01-2008 5:25 PM earlejones has not yet responded

  
earlejones
Junior Member (Idle past 3675 days)
Posts: 4
From: Portola Valley CA US
Joined: 12-01-2008


Message 10 of 347 (490040)
12-01-2008 8:24 PM


What did the carnivores eat?
If there were two of each 'kind' on the ark, what did the lions and tigers eat? Did they slip in a few extra antelopes or Zebras? Are there any real creationists in this group?

earle
*


  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 11 of 347 (490043)
12-01-2008 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
11-30-2008 11:45 PM


Re-Ark
Hi killinghurts,

killinghurts writes:

I have two questions for creationists out there with regards to the size of the Ark (specifically volume).

Minimun size was 450 feet long 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.

That would be 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Which would equal a train 5 1/2 miles long.

killinghurts writes:

a) It has to be big enough to house two (male and female) of each of every single species that has ever existed on Earth, including the dinosaurs, and some error margin for any species we haven't actually discovered yet, or has become extinct since.

Correction.

Only the ones that have been on earth since the flood some 4500 years ago.

killinghurts writes:

b) It must also contain enough food and water to last 40 days (40 days is right I think).

One year.

No storage for water was mentioned.

Food was mentioned in Genesis 6:21.

killinghurts writes:

c) It must contain some form of separation between the animals, presumably so they wouldn't eat each other (i.e fences, cabins, etc).

Why would that be necessary? They came and got on the ark by themselves.

killinghurts writes:

b) Does it fit with the measurements specified in The Bible?

I have no idea how many creatures there are today and how many have gone extinct in the last 4500 years.

I do know that you would have the storage space of a minimum of 569 stock railroad cars. They are double deckers. Using a larger cubic you could increase the space by more than 15%. Thats another 75 or so stock railroad cars.

For smaller animals you could have four or more floors per car thus doubling their capacity or even more.

Since God provided the animals He determined their size.

There is a problem with the ark as no provisions were made for water or sewage.

Since water and sewage was not part of Noah's job discription it was up to God to take care of those items. Just like He did with the animals so Noah did not have to go out and capture all the animals.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 11-30-2008 11:45 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by bluescat48, posted 12-01-2008 9:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 14 by onifre, posted 12-01-2008 9:45 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2269 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 12 of 347 (490044)
12-01-2008 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
12-01-2008 8:57 PM


Re: Re-Ark
Since water and sewage was not part of Noah's job discription it was up to God to take care of those items. Just like He did with the animals so Noah did not have to go out and capture all the animals.

O really! Obviously not since Noah & his family would have been overcome by all the ammonia in just one days worth of urine from the (however many) animals were in the so called ark.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 12-01-2008 8:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 13 of 347 (490046)
12-01-2008 9:29 PM


No flood
Since this is in the Science Forum, I'll venture a reply.

You folks are debating the fine points of the ark, and the animals it contains, as if there really was a global flood 4,500 years ago.

I agree it makes an interesting thought experiment, but until there is some evidence that there actually was a global flood about 4,500 years ago it makes as much sense to comment on the size and shape of Yorik's skull in Hamlet, and his reaction to it. Both have the same historical validity, i.e., none.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
onifre
Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 14 of 347 (490047)
12-01-2008 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
12-01-2008 8:57 PM


Re: Re-Ark
Hi ICANT,

I have to say, given that the OP makes no mention of whether the flood story is true or not, it is presumed to be true for the sake of this thread, I have to side with you in that most of the issues that would have seemed impossible to overcome would have to be taken care of by God. As you pointed out, He sent the animals to Noah. He took care of the planning. Noah just followed orders.

In fact, any of the so-called problems that Noah would have faced would have to be assumed that God fixed it for him. I almost find no point to argue against it. Any question that anyone would raise is easily answered by saying, God took care of it.

I think you might win this one, lol.

Take care,

Oni


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 12-01-2008 8:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3009 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 15 of 347 (490069)
12-02-2008 5:00 AM


great topic
Gen6:14-16 writes:

Make for yourself an ark out of wood of a resinous tree. You will make compartments in the ark, and you must cover it inside and outside with tar. 15 And this is how you will make it: three hundred cubits the length of the ark, fifty cubits its width, and thirty cubits its height. 16 You will make a tso′har [roof; or, window] for the ark, and you will complete it to the extent of a cubit upward, and the entrance of the ark you will put in its side; you will make it with a lower [story], a second [story] and a third [story].

The ark (Heb., te·vah′; Gr., ki·bo·tos′) was a rectangular chestlike vessel

In size the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2.
This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. (think of the Titanic, and thats about the size of it)

Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 12-02-2008 6:12 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 22 by killinghurts, posted 12-02-2008 7:16 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 171 by mindquaker, posted 01-11-2009 8:09 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 317 by DD2014, posted 02-19-2009 7:25 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
24NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019