Noah's Ark volume calculation

Hello - I'm new here and so I have yet to figure these gizmos out properly. If using posting features incorrectly, please be patient and/or informative. Has anyone considered that our conception of time and space is different from God's? Could it be the ark was bigger on the inside than it was on the outside? Through God all things are possible.Edited by prophet, : No reason given.

abject humor? thought it would be a funny start!

I have noticed severe language dilemmas due to translations, time, or even slang. When the forum attempts to validate or invalidate creation or evolution using american english it is presented with language/time barriers. Maybe, imparting some wisdom thru humor could turn out to be a good thing? To listen to this more eloquently than anyone I have heard discuss this language issue, go to: (start it at the 2:28 minute period if you like to get right to it.)
Please, expect it to be funny and expect it to be accurate.
I spent quite some time before posting my opening reading previous posts, like the one about the green necked geese and long aligators, including surrounding posts. And the same problem arose, as much time is spent with language issues rather than facts and fiction.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

The Ark was designed with the same dimension ratio as modern day ship building a 6:1 ratio - if I remember right. This should be a curious matter since it reflects modern day science. It is "believed" to be situated on Mt. Arat in Turkey. It is located in the Igdir Province, near the NE corner of Turkey.The Turks and Kurds "believe" Mt Arat to be a holy mountain because the Ark is there. Although, Arabs have a different idea of who built the ark, their claim for its reason is similar. The name Arat means live mountain. It is very high, about16,900 ft. Eruptions have cooled the lava before it could congeal. This formed small bits of lava that would easily move underfoot - hence the word "live" and making it dangerous to traverse. I would think exploring the existence of the Ark paramount before any discussion to dismiss it as fiction.

---

Because I noticed the postings of previous "scientific forum members" eluding the facts with words from a song and match box size rationalism, I though it only appropriate to include understanding of a vocabulary dilemma.

Is not science a compilation of theories exercised to determine what science then considers fact, of course, only after success has been obtained? This means BELIEF must first be presented, examined and allowed.

"Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory";"

---

This definition of hypothesis presents a problem. "a tentative theory about the natural world" In this wording, the term "natural world" has no authority with things pertaining to the super-natural. Its descriptive wording leaves implied constraints to the natural word.With this understanding one cannot properly make a statement that the non-existance of God can be considered one's theory or even hypotthesis. This leaves them with their "belief" even in a scientific realm.You backed up your claim with "Actually what are first presented are ideas or hypotheses." - so you allowed the "liberal use of "hypothesis" yet corrected me for my liberal use of "belief"? Their use of the word "natural" and my use of the word "super-natural" or even the use of the word "un-natural" would have to provide an absolute meaning (one that either includes God or denies God) to be used correctly. If God is real then "natural word" could be correct terms for a scientist. But of course, that means the scientist has agreed to the existance of God.

---

There are but two ways then to approach this, Do not use scientific explanations to define ideas and beliefs or allow the liberal use of beliefs by believers and continue to use your liberal usages.
I hope this helps as well.

"Here we go again. What if? The point is that the Bible makes no reference to the interior of the ark have a greater volume than the ark itself. One could indefinitely continue with what if, maybe, could it be etc. and make the story out to say anything."

---

Maybe I was being a bit facetious. But, I see the same thing when introducing proof that others think they can dismiss by simply denying it. I see, it is noted within this forum that cynics theorize that the Ark does not exist. Even though it's location is roughly known. Just because one cannot go there should not constitute a valid argument that the Ark does not exist.

Ok, lets see, where exactly is the claim made that food provisions were needed and waste management necessary? The foundation is therefore assumption? If the entire math structure is built on "assumption," then no "absolute" could ever be obtained. The result is; at best conjecture.Ok, lets say; the animals needed no calorie intake and excreted no fecal matter or urine. Now we examine this problem with the existance of God. Does scripture allow any examples of people not eating ...for the benefit of a skeptic deciding to argue the wording in the Word... I add... or eating very little... and not starving? Yes, it does!Now, the match box idea: Even if the match box was bigger on the inside than it is on the outside... How would Noah get his foot into it? If God revealed himself to all man that no one could dismiss his existence then this entire subject would be non-existent and people would believe in God for the desire of spending eternity in heaven. This is the aspect of free-will that God maintains.This brings us to the understanding that the Ark should have been at least close to the size necessary for our limited capacity to understand and yet, it could be in-sufficient enough to ensure any argument's resolve.Because that path has been expressed I chose to engage in its discussion. Hopefully, the above information gives you insight on why my exploration lead down a slightly different path. Possibly there are some ideas you have perceived and shared that I have not yet read, that could narrow and qualify some of the variables?
I gotta go fer now...

I would reckon to say that response was one I had forgotten - touche'
Although the reference to Noah taking in food for himself and for them... "them" could have been limited to his family... I tend to believe you are correct - and I will stand corrected.

Throughout my life I have noticed many miracles of science. For instance to my antiquated knowledge the transistor still hasn't achieved full understanding of how it works. It is self-contained combination of three or more diodes (one-way electrical valves)joined together that amplifies the input signal. But if you take 3 diodes and arrange them the same way they will not do this. Gotts go - for now

I was actually referring to the amplifying transistor. The question was; why it(the transistor) will amplify, when the only difference between them are; 3 individual diodes are connected to function as a transistor (doesn't work - no amplification) or one transistor is made containing 3 diodes - (works - amplification). Which this topic was a bit off, but used to demonstrate a "scientific miracle." (Or at least it used to be considered a miracle or puzzling)

---

Anyway getting back to topic... I noticed no content giving validity to the average animal's size being that of a sheep. (Is sheep the plural of shape?) Having one "sheep" just don't sound right!I also noticed no debate presented to the size of the animal due to it's age. Though, I did see these references, did I miss something or were these answers/problems simply overlooked?

---

No,I was not interested in information on why or how a transistor works. It was merely an example.

This is yet another problem... "science will adjust"!
That is not what you expect to be able to do with truth, but rather what one expects to be capable of doing with a lie. Science like lies are malleable.

---

Even your use of "religion" is inappropriate. Simple truths attacked by complex issues with demanded instant gratification and desire stirred in, is the distractions from truth that gave birth to religions. Science like lies is malleable. It is not that science requests proof, it is that science demands yet another proof, NOW. The answer is; patience lad, patience, proof will be here soon enough.

Negative feeling towards science? I do not possess negative feelings toward science. I am trying to understand the various points of debate between science and its use in an attempt to dismiss God.
Would you say; Science is a study to discover truth?
Would you say science is malleable that it can be re-evaluted and re-shaped to conform to truth?
Would you say; Science has yet to embrace the entire truth?

OK, maybe I was too abrasive, and should have used the term "untruth" so hostility was not projected? While reading posts containing some valid information I also find deliberate lies attached like:
Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
That was given by: Iyx2no and is a pretty blatant lie and not the only example. If "science" members are really trying to approach this from a scientific perspective then try to use all the data instead of biased data.
I would actually like to understand how it was done.

I am posting this as a response to my own postso as not to offend anyone...If I were to investigate the matter concerning the ability of Noah's Ark to house and feed the various animals of the Earth for the period necessary to validate the history of the Ark... I would begin as a scientist (at least the ones I know) would: Tally all the variables that can apply; Whether the animals are young or full grown.
(Young animals would grow as time progressed and the area would enlarge to support them as food provisions diminished.)
Consider whether the food provisions can provide separations between certain animals if needed. The over-head space availability given by shorter animals and the increased floor space because of it.
The understanding that each animal's required space is contingent on the amount of animals inside that enclosure... One cow may need "0" amount of space in an enclosed area, but 2 cows do not need double "0" if the enclosures are paired. Furthermore, 4 cows require less space than 2 times double "0." I know this because; I run a ranch.The attempt to include dinosaures on the Ark as the term; "all breathing things" were given would also mean that blue whales must have been there. Are they clean? then... 7 pairs of bule whales? (If you accept scientific dating to support the idea that dinosaures were extinct. Of course, that is not feesible so... eliminate the blue whales and the dinosaurs and the 35 foot people rowing the boat... (although construction of the Ark would have been easier with 35 foot tall people!)Re-consider the size of the average animal, as sheep are too big. As well consider that Animal pens (if needed) could be stacked. Consider that most flying birds could be loose and their enclosures kept to a minimum. Remember, that confined animals require much less food to maintan size than animals in the wild.
Consider the reason for 7 pairs of "clean" animals was possibly to feed the meat eaters and still have "clean" animals left. (Females could have been impregnated so they could deliver after the animals got off the Ark.)
In other words: Approach this matter in a comprehensive scientific method by compiling all the possibilities and variances rather than starting the argument prematurely.
I hope to provide this forum a more comprehensive approach and with more points of considerations, soon. Expedience on my part, is slow because I am the originator of my concepts and do not attempt to be percieved as someone I am not. I also have a ranch to maintain, animals to feed and no heat for my computer room. Oh yeah, I live on a ranch, on a boat with an apparent water allergy!