Noah's Ark volume calculation

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.
Bible Study - You Have Questions. The Bible Has Answers!
1,396,000 cu.ft.
Noah's Ark Search - Mount AraratThese 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.

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.

Do you know how small this space is? That's the total sq. ft. of the Denver REI store. I can tell you right now it would be impossible to house and feed all the living world's species on the ark for one year.That is, unless you completely ignore reality and let god magically do everything.Good thing this is a mythical story that didn't actually happen, huh?

Then why have YECs tried to include dinosaurs in their ark models?I agree, dinosaurs lived a long time ago. They died out 65 million years ago. Humans (homo sapiens) did not appear until about 250,000 years ago.The flood model simply does not make sense with what we know about the geological and biological history of the earth. Among various other fields that it badly collides with.

Look up the number of taxonomical families, as that tends to be where creationists define "kind".Although sometimes it's genus, and occasionally species (men and all other primates are two separate kinds, for example). Look only within the animal kingdom, as I don't think god commanded noah to take plants on board. Also, do not include any sea organisms (like whales and jellyfish).Then, assume that all organisms were young, but old enough to have been weened.Keep in mind, if the ark had 96k sq.ft, as one creo just argued in this thread, you're talking about a space that is smaller than your average super wal-mart. Or, 1.6 american football fields of room.Good luck.

So in other words, a little over 6300 animals (ignoring the 7 pairs of clean beasts).If we use peq's figure of 96,000 sq.ft, that gives us 15.23 sq.ft. per animal. That's not quite a 4x4 foot enclosure. Per animal.And food for a year has to be stored as well, right?Yeah, I honestly don't see how creationists could accept that. Far fewer kinds would have been brought onto the ark.That, or the ark was much, much bigger than as described in the bible. Bit since the word of god is infallible, that's not an acceptable path.Perhaps we should just find all the mammalia and aves genera that are native to the middle east?

Well, you see, there was this thing known as an ice age. Four thousand years ago Sweden and Norway did not exist. They were under a continental glacier. Canada did not exist, as it was under a glacier as well. In fact, a good chunk of the US was under ice as well.With all that ice, there was less water, so lower sea levels.There is no evidence of an overall higher sea floor, but rather, a lower sea level.As to the atlantic, there's something you should know. Basaltic rock is more dense than granitic, so it settles at a lower level. Given that geologic processes occur under water, it is to be expected that there are difference (plateaus, etc), but there is a fairly uniform oceanic depth of something like 3 miles.

I was assuming peq was right in his figures, because it was his argument.Using your figures, that comes out to 27 sq. ft. per organism on the ark.That is double the amount of room per organism, but it doesn't do you any good.Peq had each animal in a 4x4 enclosure. You have each animal in a 5.3x5.3 enclosure.Naturally, this is idealized, as not every organism is the same size, but given the food requirements, I still don't see how its going to happen.

And then, of course, in order to get the biological diversity present on earth today, you would need evolution to do it all in, what, four thousand years?You want 127 kinds to expand into 24,000 species, in 4 thousand years? Not even biologists propose an evolutionary period so intensly rapid.Of course, since god did it all, no problems, right?Why can't you guys just leave the flood as it is, a story? Why do you have to insist on making the impossible actual history?

Nationalities are artificial contructs created by humans to separate ourselves into groups.Tell me, what is the difference between a Swede and a Dane? An Iraqi from an Israeli? An Egyptian from a Lybian? An american from a brit? Their cultural heritage. They are all homo sapiens, and there is no substantive genetic difference.There are black people, for instance, who's DNA is closer to some white peoples' DNA than other white peoples' DNA.Further, the flood was supposedly 4,000 years ago, right? So all the evolution has to have occured in 4,000 years, not 7,000.Have you done the math? 127 kinds into 24,000 species, over 4,000 years? Off the top of my head, that's several speciation events per day.Of course, its worse than that. Not all kinds would have survived the flood. Most insects would have perished (if not all). 60% of the species on earth are insects. So you would have at most 10ish kinds having survived become 600,000 species in 4,000 years.Every generation would have to be a new species in the case of insects. Evolution does not work that fast. A mutation rate that great would kill life.Which is why you are stuck with god did it. So please, stop trying to scientifically legitimate the flood and ark. It simply isn't possible in the slightest degree.

Um, no. Perhaps you don't understand the term "nationality"? Nationality refers to which nation you come from. France? Germany? Japan? the US? Canada?You are talking about ethnicity, if nothing else. Ethnicity is also largely an artificial construct.The differences between humans is almost entirely phenotypic. Not genotypic. Some black people have DNA that is more closely related to white people than it is to other black people. Actually, we are 1 species of little genetic diversity. Largely thanks to a bottleneck near-extinction event 70,000 years ago. No, I wouldn't. But then, I'm not interested in 'kind'. The largest zoo seems to be the Berlin zoo. With 14,000 animals and 1,400 different species I'd say that's fairly accurate. But 1400 out of 1.3 million species is only .001% of all species on earth. Since 60% of all species are insects, and most insects I'm aware of require land, the zoo might have a slightly better representative group of organisms. Let's be generous and say that the Berlin zoo has .002% of all species. That is, 1400 of 650,000 species.Let's do some more number crunching. You said only about 127 kinds would be necessary to produce 24,000 species. That's .005% of the end number.If a zoo, which actually feeds and houses a huge number of animals (more than the city I grew up in!) only has a small number of species, then the ark and flood just gets even more silly.Humans have little genetic diversity after 70,000 years. And yet you need only 127 'kinds' to produce immense genetic diversity in 4,000 years?How daft to you think we are?

If you want to know how to build a wooden ship that big, I would take a look at the treasure ships used by Zheng He.While the size of these ships are most likely exaggerated:
Treasure ship - Wikipedia
Reportedly up to 450 ft long, 180 ft wide, four decks.I do believe that's ark-like.Of course, there is a vast difference between building a wooden ship of this size and a steel ship of this size. One can actually survive in the ocean--steel.

Let's see, when was the bronze age? For Noah's region of the world, it was from 3300 B.C.E. to 1200 B.C.E.The iron age was from 1300 B.C.E. to 600 B.C.E.Roughly speaking, of course. Now then, assuming the flood ocurred 4,000 years ago, that would be 2000 B.C.E. Which puts it squarely in the bronze age.Unless Noah was ahead of the rest of the region by 800 years, the ark would have been built without iron.Time issues aside, God commands Noah to build it out of gopher wood, right? No mention of metal supports. Further, even a wooden ship with steel supports is troublesome. Check out the HMS Orlando for a read on that. It is not as large as the ark is purported to be, being a mere 336 ft long. Given that it was a warship, I daresay that the weight strains on it were quite comparable to what the ark had to endure. The HMS Orlando would have destroyed itself without steel structural reinforcements.The ark, quite simply, would have collapsed in on itself without metal constructs. If god can tell noah what size to build the ark, and what wood to use, why wouldn't he say what metals as well?

450x180 is, if you actually read the article, most likely an exageration. It gives other sizes.Further, what of the HMS Orlando? The largest wooden ship ever built that we have confirmational evidence for (we cannot know if the ark was as large as claimed by the bible, nor can we know the true size of the treasure ships, as no plans or remants from which to make a guess on size exist).

Not the best article on the hypothesis, but it's the Lake Toba supervolcanic eruption.Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia.There's quite possibly a thread about this somewhere on the board, and it certainly has been discussed before. Look for those for more information.