It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Students Surprised to Find Noah's Ark Feasible

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   
First off, I would like to state something. Someone will probably suggest that this thread is not fit for the Science Forum, but this was done by physics students, using science, and was published in Leicester University's Journal of Physics Special Topics.




Students Surprised to Find Noah's Ark Feasible



Advanced physics students at Leicester University were tasked with determining if the Biblical dimensions of Noah's ark—assuming it was properly constructed—could have supported the mass of 70,000 animals. Student Kayie Raymer told UK's The Telegraph that after other "more serious" assignments, this one was "something different."1 What did they find?

The students used 48.2cm (almost 19 inches) as the length of a cubit to estimate the total dimensions of the ark. Using the density of water and Archimedes' principle of buoyancy, they calculated the total mass the ark could contain without sinking.

"Previous research has suggested that there were approximately 35,000 species of animals which would have needed to be saved by Noah," according to The Telegraph, though they cited no source for this estimate. Doubling this number to account for a male and female of each species, the student group estimated that the ark needed to have held approximately 70,000 creatures. To the students' surprise, they found that this amount did not exceed the total mass the ark could contain. Physics student Thomas Morris told The Telegraph, "You don't think of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we discovered it would work." The students published their results in Leicester University's Journal of Physics Special Topics.

The students' results at the ark having 70,000 creatures actually exceed biblical expectations, giving further assurance that the ark could hold all that it needed—including food and even water.


References

Knapton, S. Noah's Ark would have floated...even with 70,000 animals. The Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk April 3, 2014, accessed April 3, 2014


www.icr.org...





Noah's Ark would have floated...even with 70,000 animals

Scientists at the University of Leicester have discovered that Noah's Ark could have carried 70,000 animals without sinking if built from the dimensions listed in The Bible.

Noah’s Ark would have floated even with two of every animal in the world packed inside, scientists have calculated.



Although researchers are unsure if all the creatures could have squeezed into the huge boat, they are confident it would have handled the weight of 70,000 creatures without sinking.

A group of master’s students from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Leicester University studied the exact dimensions of the Ark, set out in Genesis 6:13-22.

According to The Bible, God instructed Noah to build a boat which was 300 cubits long 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high – recommending gopher wood for the enormous lifeboat.

The students averaged out the Egyptian and Hebrew cubit measurement to come up with 48.2cm, making the Ark around 144 metres long – about 100 metres shorter than Ark Royal.




So many people have said that the bible is just a piece of historical text, but there is very little facts in that text. Many people have also determende that this text is in fact a few thousand years old. But this just shows that maybe we should change our thinking of the bible. Just the fact that it has been proven that the ark is feasible, should be a way of saying that maybe other thinks should also be tested in science. My personal view is that maybe someone can learn something from the biblical text, in a very scientific way.

I know that most of ATS will not agree with me on that, but we all have the chance to share our own views.
edit on 5-3-2015 by IndependentOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2015 by IndependentOpinion because: (no reason given)



+10 more 
posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: IndependentOpinion

How did he stop them from eating each other? Where was all the food? Where was their "waste" ? Did he bring diseases into the ark as well? How did those survive?

How did ge go all the way to China to get pandas and all the way to America to get buffulo. He would literally have to travel across the 7 oceans as well as seek out all of these animals across all the nations.
edit on 5-3-2015 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   
While it may have been able to float, it still would not have been able to support all the species of animals that were supposedly transported on the ark. How do you feed 35,000 different species of animals over 40 days? Even if Noah supposedly saved all the animals, how did the species have time to migrate to different parts of the world in a shorter period than humans have?


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   
This all assumes that every animal on the planet lived within walking distance of Noahs Ark.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: IndependentOpinionJust the fact that it has been proven that the ark is feasible, should be a way of saying that maybe other thinks should also be tested in science. My personal view is that maybe someone can learn something from the biblical text, in a very scientific way.


An enormous rotating teapot is feasible, doesn't mean there is one orbiting the sun. The physics of an ark is the least of the scientifically plausible problems.

Also note that this is not a scientific journal. It's a "practice" journal for the university's final year students. The peer-review is even undertaken by final year students, not actual scientists.
edit on 5-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   
How did they determine the weight of 70,000 creatures?

If it's in the linked article I missed it.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   
I'd like to know whose butt they pulled the 35,000 number out of. Modern estimates are of roughly 8.74 million unique species on our planet today (almost a million of insects alone). If one is to also assume the typical Christian view that discounts evolution, that would mean there would have been significantly more than 8.74 million species existing in the past. I think the difference between 35,000 and something approaching 10 million is just a little statistically significant.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   
i think a DNA bank for an ark story is a more feasable idea than this insane idea.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: arpgme


How did he stop them from eating each other?


They were probably kept in separate areas on the ark. Duh...


Where was all the food?


It is well known that then animals is transported in a boat, and in stormy conditions, they hibernate, so no food needed, or at least, not very much.


Where was their "waste" ?


In hibernation, they do not produce "waste".


How did ge go all the way to China to get pandas and all the way to America to get buffulo. He would literally have to travel across the 7 oceans as well as seek out all of these animals across all the nations.


You assume that that they lived where they live now. Camel remains have even been found in the arctic!


Please do some research, or sometimes thinking, before commenting. Google is a great tool to use....



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Do you think he built the ark in a day? Again, do research before commenting on something you know nothing about.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: IndependentOpinion
a reply to: arpgme

They were probably kept in separate areas on the ark. Duh...


And exactly how big where these areas? You can't just pack 70,000 animals into a tight space and not expect them to succumb to disease.




It is well known that then animals is transported in a boat, and in stormy conditions, they hibernate, so no food needed, or at least, not very much.


This is nonsense.



In hibernation, they do not produce "waste".


See above.




You assume that that they lived where they live now. Camel remains have even been found in the arctic!


3.4 million years ago when the Earth was a completely different climate.



Please do some research, or sometimes thinking, before commenting. Google is a great tool to use....


Heed your own advice. You've posted nothing of substance (a university student's musings... really??) and ignore a mountain of evidence and problems that completely sink the idea of the biblical account of Noah's ark.
edit on 5-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


The peer-review is even undertaken by final year students, not actual scientists.


They're more scientists that anyone that are not Advanced physics students.


Scientists at the University of Leicester


And I'm sure the professors did also review their findings. They are scientists.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: IndependentOpinion

They're university students, not scientists, no matter how hard you try and attach credibility to this unscientific fluff piece. It even says it in the source you quoted in your OP!

This is the sort of straw clasping creationists have to do to reconcile their faith with our modern scientific understanding of the natural world. Quoting the The Institute for Creation Research who in turn are quoting a student project. Sad, really.
edit on 5-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: IndependentOpinion
a reply to: Kryties

Do you think he built the ark in a day? Again, do research before commenting on something you know nothing about.


What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense in relation to my post.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Cheetah, puma, jaguar, leopard, lion, lynx, tiger, and domestic cats are all Feline.

Nowhere did anyone say that he took each of every sub-species.

Try naming all the 'kinds' in the world, like cat, dog, bird, rodent....., not cheetah, bulldog, parrot, hamster....



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   
It would be unfair to try and substantiate the story of Noah's Ark without acknowledging the story's earlier roots in Mesopotamia.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

It's sad to see how many ATS users does not take the time to investigate both sides of the argument.

And to which "mountains of evidence and problems" are you speaking about? You gave nothing.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: IndependentOpinion

You shouldn't take it too serious. It is more a mental exercise than anything else. Take the some volume and calculate how much mass it will displace. Use the average mass of an animal to come up with some number of animals.

It is a variant of the spherical cow metaphor (reducing a problem to its simplest form):

Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, "I have the solution, but it only works in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum".


Btw the practical limit on the length of a wooden-hulled ship is about 300 feet (90 meter), one of the reasons why we have switched to iron hullls at some point.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Star and flag just so I can follow the rapid tap dancing that has already begun.


+4 more 
posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: IndependentOpinion
a reply to: GetHyped

It's sad to see how many ATS users does not take the time to investigate both sides of the argument.


The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.


And to which "mountains of evidence and problems" are you speaking about? You gave nothing.


I'm not going to sit here debunking vague creationist talking points for the umpteenth time with someone who's idea of a credible source is the bible and the Institute of Creationist Research. We all know how this dance goes: a creationist makes a faith-based claim, the claim is debunked with evidence, the evidence is ignored and the cycle repeats. I'm sure you think you're bringing something new and novel to the table but you're not. Creationists are, if nothing else, entirely predictable. If you seriously think I'm going to sit here posting up sources for very obvious claims such as "the earth is not 6,000 years old" that anyone who went to school is familiar with only for you to ignore them and carry on, you've got to be joking. At least get on familiar terms with the scientific discoveries from the last 150 years first.

Now, back on to the specific claims of your OP:

1) They are not scientists, they are students. If you do not understand the difference then I suggest you do some homework yourself.

2) This was not published in a scientific journal

3) It only accounts for the possibility of 70,000 volumes of space sitting in another volume of space.

4) And then of course there's the inconvenient facts that:
a) There were FAR more than 35,000 species around at that time
b) Along with all of the other issues such as food, disease, breeding population sizes,
c) The fact that there's not any evidence for a global flood
d) The fact that there isn't even enough water for a global flood
e) The fact that a global flood would have resulted in a COMPLETELY different bio and geological landscape than there is now
f) And a whole host of other issues stemming from the unfounded claim that your biblical god exists

This post has no place in the Science & Technology forum. It's nothing more than weak fundamentalist padnering.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join