Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
30 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, GDR, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (7 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,997 Year: 22,033/19,786 Month: 596/1,834 Week: 96/500 Day: 54/42 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Ark volume calculation
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 404
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 271 of 347 (497055)
02-01-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by prophet
01-31-2009 7:40 PM


Re: standards?
Because we are engaged in a discussion for discovery.

No we are not. We are engaged in an ongoing process of letting people like you demonstrate that creation science is an oxymoron. Thanks for helping.

Capt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 7:40 PM prophet has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19077
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 272 of 347 (497084)
02-01-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by prophet
01-31-2009 4:16 PM


Re: standards?
prophet writes:

No - Percy... My paranoid side is not showing... I have NO problem dismissing "religions."

Well, now you're just displaying more confusion. Your paranoid side is showing because you believe scientists are out to get your religion, which is what you said inMessage 250, that "Scientists have an agenda: to prove it can't happen." Scientists have no such agenda, which is why your paranoid side is showing.

I again suggest you just stick to the topic about whether Noah's ark was big enough to get the job done.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 4:16 PM prophet has not yet responded

prophet
Member (Idle past 3868 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 273 of 347 (497114)
02-01-2009 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Granny Magda
01-31-2009 6:58 PM


Re: standards?
You know, but you cannot explain how in any objective sense. This is like saying "I have an astonishing proof in this box, but I'm afraid I can't open it up and show you.".

Yes, I do know... And, I could explain... but I do not have to. The proof is not in a box and I'm not afraid to show it. Be reasonable, would you show such a thing to people like I encounter in this forum?

Teaching religious dogma in schools as if it were science is explicitly banned, so creationists who want to teach flood mythology or a six-thousand year-old Earth must present their views as science.

Religion is not what I would wish in school.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2009 6:58 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

prophet
Member (Idle past 3868 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 274 of 347 (497116)
02-01-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Granny Magda
01-31-2009 6:58 PM


Re: standards?
You know, but you cannot explain how in any objective sense. This is like saying "I have an astonishing proof in this box, but I'm afraid I can't open it up and show you.".

Yes, I do know... And, I could explain... but I'm not required to. The proof is not in a box and I'm not afraid to show it. Be reasonable, would you show such a thing to people like I encounter in this forum?

Teaching religious dogma in schools as if it were science is explicitly banned, so creationists who want to teach flood mythology or a six-thousand year-old Earth must present their views as science.

Religion is not what I would wish in school. Nor do I wish for the myth of evolution to be taught.

Unless you are interested in pushing Flood classes in schools, you simply have no need to twist the science to fit the Flood. Just accept that it was a miracle and be honest about it.

I have not bothered to address whether the flood was of "nature" or a miracle. I am attempting to discover whether or not the Ark could have sustained the animals of the world for the duration by its own accord...via the size/structure. I have no problem, if God needed to use miracles not written in scripture. But I would like to see a comprehensive study without all the prejudiced tirades.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2009 6:58 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2009 9:11 PM prophet has not yet responded
 Message 276 by Granny Magda, posted 02-01-2009 9:41 PM prophet has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 275 of 347 (497131)
02-01-2009 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by prophet
02-01-2009 8:32 PM


Re: standards?
Religion is not what I would wish in school. Nor do I wish for the myth of evolution to be taught.

On the first we agree. On the second, evolution is not a myth--it is evidence backed. But that is a subject for another thread.

Pertinent to this thread is that volume calculations make it most likely that the ark story is the one that is a myth. And that is but one line of reasoning suggesting the biblical account of the flood is not a literal account of an actual event.

Staying on topic--do you have any specific rebuttals to the posts dealing with volume and space usage on the purported ark? Do you have any thoughts on how such an unlikely scenario could have happened? Or would you ascribe it all to a miracle?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by prophet, posted 02-01-2009 8:32 PM prophet has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 276 of 347 (497137)
02-01-2009 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by prophet
02-01-2009 8:32 PM


Miracle or Bust
Thanks for your reply prophet, indeed, thanks for both of them! Just so as you're aware, if you want to change what you have posted, you can edit your posts. When you are logged in, you will see an "Edit" button in the bottom right corner of each of your posts. Using this means you won't need to double post if you want to adjust what you've said.

quote:
Yes, I do know... And, I could explain... but I'm not required to. The proof is not in a box and I'm not afraid to show it. Be reasonable, would you show such a thing to people like I encounter in this forum?

Umm... yeah.

I understand your dilemma, at least somewhat. The kind of proof you feel you have is not available to others. It is subjective. Unfortunately, proof like that is of little use in debate and of no use to science, which demands objective independently verifiable evidence.

quote:
Religion is not what I would wish in school. Nor do I wish for the myth of evolution to be taught.

I have to ask. What would you like to see taught in biology lessons then? Don't answer here though. It's too far from the topic. The Forum Education and Creation/Evolution would be a good place, perhaps in the Neutral Education, or you might like to start a new thread to discuss it (or I could if you prefer).

quote:
I am attempting to discover whether or not the Ark could have sustained the animals of the world for the duration by its own accord...via the size/structure.

Fair enough.

The thing is that if you want to know whether the ark/flood was a naturalistic event or not, you don't need to go as far as analysing the volume of the ark. Ask yourself some simple questions;

Do wild animals normally up sticks and obligingly walk onto a boat at the behest of men?

Would a gazelle normally walk into the same boat as a lion?

And if the animals did not co-operate, could a single family of Bronze Age tribes-folk really have coerced a multitude of them into that boat?

Could thousands of normal wild animals be housed together without them trying to eat each other, fight each other, escape, run around, freak out, catch diseases, injure themselves and otherwise cause difficulties?

Could ancient tribesmen have had the knowledge necessary to look after all these animals, knowledge that would dwarf that of today's most experienced zoo keepers?

It doesn't require any calculations to know that the answer to all these questions is a resounding no. There is no way that people of any era, let alone the Bronze Age, could get all those animals, or even a handful thereof, onto any kind of boat. The whole idea is absurd, from a naturalistic viewpoint. Wild animals are simply too difficult to deal with.

The only way the feat could have been accomplished is by means of divine intervention or some other fantastical agency.

And that is before we get started on the volume (which has already been shown, from Message 1 onwards, to be insufficient), the construction problems, the logistical problems whilst at sea, the lack of sufficient water to flood the Earth and the whole zoo of other objections.

Face facts, it's miracle or bust for the ark.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by prophet, posted 02-01-2009 8:32 PM prophet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by prophet, posted 02-03-2009 5:37 PM Granny Magda has responded

prophet
Member (Idle past 3868 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 277 of 347 (497223)
02-02-2009 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Capt Stormfield
02-01-2009 10:14 AM


Re: standards?
Your comment about an ark sized vessel behaving in a gentle manner suggests you should go to youtube and search "ship storm". See if you can find one where the ship is broadside to the waves and dead in the water and consider the effect that kind of motion would have on your organizational plans.

Your attempt to throw whatever and all catastrophic events at the Ark only shows your desire to sink it. Sinking the Ark would mean the amount of food needed would be reduced to what is necessarily to sustain them while it sinks. Since this topic was considering displacement required for food and animals to LAST the duration... I decided the way to continue was to understand that the Ark did not sink and so, now we know why you exist.

[qs]
Dung fires (fresh, wet dung?) to ventilate and light a nearly sealed vessel the size of a large coastal ferry. Utilizing adobe ducting kept in good repair with bird crap, no doubt. The mind boggles


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Capt Stormfield, posted 02-01-2009 10:14 AM Capt Stormfield has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by kuresu, posted 02-02-2009 4:53 PM prophet has not yet responded
 Message 279 by Capt Stormfield, posted 02-02-2009 5:04 PM prophet has responded
 Message 280 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-02-2009 5:14 PM prophet has responded
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 02-02-2009 6:21 PM prophet has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 852 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 278 of 347 (497225)
02-02-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by prophet
02-02-2009 4:43 PM


Re: standards?
I'm sorry, you're not even making any sense at all. what does this mean?

Sinking the Ark would mean the amount of food needed would be reduced to what is necessarily to sustain them while it sinks.

We're not even concerned about whether it would float or sink. I don't know where you pulled that from. What we're concerned about is whether it would have simply been large enough to do the task given. And the answer to that, is no. The ark is not large enough for the task given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by prophet, posted 02-02-2009 4:43 PM prophet has not yet responded

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 404
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 279 of 347 (497227)
02-02-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by prophet
02-02-2009 4:43 PM


Re: standards?
Since this topic was considering displacement required for food and animals to LAST the duration... I decided the way to continue was to understand that the Ark did not sink and so, now we know why you exist.

Any attempt to hypothesize about the utilization of a space for the transportation of animals that does not consider the extemely violent circumstances in which such activities are taking place is at first (to be charitable) ignorant; by now, dishonest.

Capt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by prophet, posted 02-02-2009 4:43 PM prophet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by prophet, posted 02-05-2009 3:43 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1440 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 280 of 347 (497228)
02-02-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by prophet
02-02-2009 4:43 PM


Re: standards?
Your attempt to throw whatever and all catastrophic events at the Ark only shows your desire to sink it. Sinking the Ark would mean the amount of food needed would be reduced to what is necessarily to sustain them while it sinks. Since this topic was considering displacement required for food and animals to LAST the duration... I decided the way to continue was to understand that the Ark did not sink and so, now we know why you exist.

Being a Sailor myself with 16 years in the Navy and over 9 years of sea time on a ship, I can ASSURE you that an unpowered boat with no source of propulsion fares a lot worse than a powered vessel even in the fairest seas.

Sailors would get more sea sick if we lost power and propulsion or had to make bare steerageway (less than 5 knots) than when we are steaming ahead at 10+ knots due to the undulating nature of the waves. Even in the most placid seas and clear weather, the undulating, rocking back and forth like a cork in a bathtub can wreak havock onboard an ocean going vessel.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by prophet, posted 02-02-2009 4:43 PM prophet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by prophet, posted 02-02-2009 5:46 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

prophet
Member (Idle past 3868 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 281 of 347 (497234)
02-02-2009 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by lyx2no
01-31-2009 8:10 PM


Re: standards?
I C U really R lost in space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by lyx2no, posted 01-31-2009 8:10 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

prophet
Member (Idle past 3868 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 282 of 347 (497235)
02-02-2009 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by DevilsAdvocate
02-02-2009 5:14 PM


Re: standards?
And yet, with all the mischief at sea, we are gathered here to discuss the ability of the Ark to provide occupancy and food for the crew and animals. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-02-2009 5:14 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by kuresu, posted 02-02-2009 6:07 PM prophet has not yet responded
 Message 285 by Nighttrain, posted 02-02-2009 9:21 PM prophet has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 852 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 283 of 347 (497236)
02-02-2009 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by prophet
02-02-2009 5:46 PM


Re: standards?
Um, and in order to properly design the ark, you have to take into account the effects of the ocean on the ark. Hay bales as pens don't work out quite that well when the animals will just bowl over them, eh?

The structural interior then determines just how much the ark can hold, and how secure it is.

The ark story is magic, pure and simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by prophet, posted 02-02-2009 5:46 PM prophet has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-02-2009 9:43 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19077
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 284 of 347 (497237)
02-02-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by prophet
02-02-2009 4:43 PM


Re: standards?
The San Diego Zoo has 4000 animals (950 different species) and employs 1900 people. That's approximately 2 animals per person. If Noah's ark had 950 species then because of the extra pairs of clean animals 2000 animals would be a fair estimate. That's 250 animals per person, or more than 100 times the workload of employees at the San Diego Zoo. Granted Noah didn't have a payroll or scientists in residence or visitors and so forth, but you get the idea.

Trucks carrying supplies for the animals arrive every day at the San Diego Zoo. Noah's ark would have had to carry enough supplies for the entire 9-month voyage.

As discussed earlier in this thread using the example of sheep, because of the very narrow quarters and the stress from the noise and knocking about of transport, many animals will only survive for a short period of time such as a few days at most. After that mortality becomes an issue, so many animals on the ark would have required moving about space and very calm waters.

Animals when stressed or frightened will often hurt themselves and others. Noah would have needed a medical officer equally expert with pandas and people. :)

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by prophet, posted 02-02-2009 4:43 PM prophet has not yet responded

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2332 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 285 of 347 (497241)
02-02-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by prophet
02-02-2009 5:46 PM


Hull space
And yet, with all the mischief at sea, we are gathered here to discuss the ability of the Ark to provide occupancy and food for the crew and animals.

Just animals? I suppose the birds will have to roost for months? Can`t have them flying and crapping everywhere.

Don`t forget the pad-locked rooms for

1. The millions of species of bacteria. Can`t have them wandering around the ship. Maybe several rooms as I believe certain bacteria attack others.

2. Another room for viruses. Don`t want them left behind and exterminated. Do viruses survive immersion and flotation for months ?

3. Another big room for the fungi. With artificial lighting as I think some are photo-active.

Wow, this ship is getting packed.:-p


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by prophet, posted 02-02-2009 5:46 PM prophet 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 © 2019