Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
44 online now:
dwise1, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (8 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,656 Year: 1,404/23,288 Month: 1,404/1,851 Week: 44/484 Day: 44/93 Hour: 4/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist experiment to prove the possibility of Noah's ark
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2897 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 38 of 115 (544394)
01-25-2010 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by menes777
01-25-2010 5:37 PM


Water, water everywhere!
Hmm. I never thought of the Ark problem this way.

I know that I've demonstrated my incompotence with math before, but what are the consequences of the basic need for water? Essentially, is it possible for any creature to drink less that its own body volume in water over the course of a year? How much does it really need?

For the sake of argument, let's take humans for a test case, and in true physics style, let's simplify the problem. Instead of trying to account for the irregularities of the human figure, let's just approximate by positing a cylinder with the dimensions of the average human being. That works out to 5'9" (175cm) height and 1'6" (46cm) diameter. Plug it in to the formula V= π r2h and rounding, we get 290686cc or 291 liters or 77 gallons.

Someone please check my math!

Can a human being last an entire year on just 77 gallons of water? If the minimum daily requirements to maintain some semblance of health is about 2 quarts, I would say no. Looks like you need about twice the volume of water for the volume taken up by every person you have on hand.

Does that translate out to the same sort of thing for every "kind" of animal? In other words, for every creature you have on board, do you need at least twice its body volume of water just to keep it alive? I dunno, but that certainly looks like a lot of water to account for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by menes777, posted 01-25-2010 5:37 PM menes777 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by hooah212002, posted 01-25-2010 10:52 PM ZenMonkey has responded
 Message 41 by lyx2no, posted 01-25-2010 11:36 PM ZenMonkey has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2897 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 40 of 115 (544399)
01-25-2010 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by hooah212002
01-25-2010 10:52 PM


Re: Water, water everywhere!
I remember that thread. The theory was that you could build the Ark out of reeds and that water would just flow *through* the reeds, making it impossible for it to sink.

I loved that one.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by hooah212002, posted 01-25-2010 10:52 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2897 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 42 of 115 (544402)
01-26-2010 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by lyx2no
01-25-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Too Much Water, Water Everywhere!
The problem appears to be that I was confusing the amount of storage space that you'd need for an animal with the actual volume of the animal itself. A person (or any other animal) is going to need some sort of storage space around it, however minimal. So packing them in cylinders sorta represents that. Given the choice, hexagonal chambers would probably be optimal, but I'll let someone else tackle the math for that.

What I've got is two separate problems: storage space for an animal, in this case a person, and the storage space for the water it's going to need to survive.

The storage space works out to what I figured. The average height (175cm) is all right, and we can take the maximum width at the shoulders as the diameter for the whole cylinder. So what we get is a big hot water heater in which a person standing up with his or her head touching the inside of the lid would be just able to turn around. That cylinder's volume is still going to be something like 77 gallons. There's quite a bit of empty space in that cylinder when compared to just the volume of the person, but not very much living space. If we really wanted to be minimal, I suppose we could pack people in oblong coffin-sized boxes, retaining the same height and width, and making the depth about 24cm measuring from the back of the head to the tip of the nose. That gives us a box that comes out to about 178 liters in volume (48 gallons), if you're packing everyone in with essentially no room whatever in which to move around.

Turning now at the volume of water for that person to live on, I should have done it the easy way. If he or she needs at minimum 2 quarts of water a day to live, then that's 182.5 gallons consumed by a single person over the course of a year.

I think that the point, however much I've flailed around getting to it, is that even if you pack in your critters stacked up in boxes without any living space whatever, you still have to account for the room taken up by the water they're going to need as well, which looks like it's something like three or four times that.

How much room do you have on that Ark again?


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by lyx2no, posted 01-25-2010 11:36 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2897 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 56 of 115 (549416)
03-07-2010 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by lyx2no
03-06-2010 11:39 AM


Re: Maybe They…
lyx2no writes:

Maybe they had food replicators.

Maybe they had Robots.

Maybe they had trained monkeys.

Maybe when they said "people" they only meant landed, Hebrew males over the age of 25.

I find the trained monkey hypothesis to be the most convincing. I like monkeys.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 11:39 AM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2897 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(2)
Message 61 of 115 (549520)
03-08-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Manifest
03-08-2010 11:51 AM


Re: Maybe They…
Rather than answer your assertions in detail, I simple offer the following alternative hypothesis: the Robot Monkey Flood Hypothesis.

1. Noah did not actually have to do most of the labor building the Ark. Robot monkeys are easily programmed to do basic construction work.

2. Likewise gathering all the animals two by two. Robot monkeys equipped with jet packs cound have traveled quickly around the globe to collect all necessary "kinds."

3. Robot monkeys doen't need to sleep, so they can take care of all the animals around the clock.

4. Robot monkeys can also use their jet packs to fly out to all the floating vegetation mats to tend to insects too.

5. If the Ark were also equipped with a Matter-Antimatter Transmutation Fabricator (which the Robot Monkeys would also be able to build), then it would be easy to recycle waste matter back into fresh, nutritious food.

6. Radiation leakage from a broken Robot Monkey Atomic Power Pack could also have affected atomic decay rates around the globe, rendering all radiometric dating techniques invalid. This indicates to me that at least one Robot Monkey did not survive the whole voyage.

7. Robot Monkeys could also have a combined data storage capacity big enough to contain all the information they'd need to retrain young animals that were raised on the Ark to return to life in the wild.

So I believe that the Robot Monkey Hypothesis is more than suffiient to answer all atheistical objections to the truth of the Flood story. And it doesn't say anywhere that Noah didn't have Robot Monkey helpers. So case closed.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 11:51 AM Manifest has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2010 2:21 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded
 Message 93 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-27-2011 1:23 AM ZenMonkey has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2897 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 68 of 115 (549575)
03-08-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Manifest
03-08-2010 6:30 PM


Re: Maybe They…
Manifest writes:

Seems some have slipped into cognitive dissonance. Are these the experts you're referring to Peepul.

Well, speaking for myself, I must admit that I am not an expert in Robot Monkeys and the technology behind them. However, I do have a basic layperson's understanding of how they work. And I contend that the Robot Monkey Flood Hypothesis is a valid one for explaining many of the discrepancies and apparent scientific impossibilities in the traditional Flood account. In fact, I believe that Robot Monkeys are a better explanation than the ones you've offered, such as insects on floating vegetation mats and the effect of water on radioactive decay rates.

I'd be glad to debate the matter with you in a separate thread. Or at least please offer me the evidence upon which you would deny the validity of the Robot Monkey Flood Hypothesis.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 6:30 PM Manifest has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2897 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 77 of 115 (549776)
03-10-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by hooah212002
03-10-2010 7:20 PM


Re: Why even build an Ark?
Not exactly. You'd just be keeping with a literal reading. It pretty clearly states that Noah built the Ark, but that God gathered the animals for him, or at least that they magically appeared on schedule. So no inconsistancy there. No mention of the Robot Monkeys, though.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 7:20 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 7:28 PM ZenMonkey has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2897 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 79 of 115 (549779)
03-10-2010 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by hooah212002
03-10-2010 7:28 PM


Re: Why even build an Ark?
You are correct. Here's Genesis 7:8-9

quote:
Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

Poof!


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 7:28 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2897 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 95 of 115 (613796)
04-27-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Minnemooseus
04-27-2011 1:23 AM


Re: The "robot monkey" hypothesis isn't needed
Considering the quality of Manifest's Ark apologetics (e.g in Message 59, to which I was replying), I still contend that the Flying Robot Monkey hypothesis is the more reasonable and parsimonious.

I'm just saying.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-27-2011 1:23 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-01-2011 12:23 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020