Students Surprised to Find Noah's Ark Feasible

a reply to: Rocker2013

Yeah what about the animals native to AUS? did they swim there?.

So when did everyone forget the fact that this is in the Science Forum, talking about the Feasible, (not absolute possibility) of the Ark, not the Religious Forum, discussing the credibility of the flood?

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: randyvs


In my opinion, the reason behind all the hate, is people don't like the idea that they have to answer to a Creator.

They don't like His standards and don't want to live by them.

Don't be so narrow minded and arrogant. Your world view is but one of many.

I say to them "hey, whatever floats your boat".

But according to this article, our boat actually does float.

"There would be enough displacement from an arbitrary number of animals in an arbitrary volume to allow this hypothetical volume to float".

Real watertight case there, honey.

originally posted by: IndependentOpinion
So when did everyone forget the fact that this is in the Science Forum,

No, hence a lot of poster's disagreement that this thread should even be in this forum.

a reply to: IndependentOpinion

Okay.
Geology still has no evidence for a global flood.
The evidence points away from it.

A couple problems. First, here's the actual paper: physics.le.ac.uk...

They assumed the Ark was a box-shaped hollow vessel made of 0.2m thick cypress. They completely ignore any interior the weight of any interior structure necessary to make the Ark structurally sound, or to make functional space (you're not going to just dump all the animals into one big empty box together. That extra weight could easily exceed the weight of the hull. They also omit mass for the coating of pitch that God demanded.

Second, I don't know what Bible they're reading, but every translation I've read says that God commanded Noah to take seven pairs of all clean animals (many of the largest animals, like cattle are considered clean), and one pair of the unclean animals. That would significantly increase the number of animals aboard.

a reply to: GetHyped

It would sink. Rapidly.

Like your heart sank, when you read the Archimedes principal was used to show that the ark would float?

a reply to: dusty1

I'm not emotionally invested in myths, so no.

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: randyvs


Randyvs,


In my opinion, the reason behind all the hate, is people don't like the idea that they have to answer to a Creator.

They don't like His standards and don't want to live by them.


I say to them "hey, whatever floats your boat".

But according to this article, our boat actually does float.

And I must apologise to my Lord and bretheren for being true
to my human nature at every turn as I float the boat and gloat.
LOL. I am a terrible Christian but still I strive to be perfect clay.

this thread is utter bollox - lets kill it :

is a separate matter whether all of the animals would fit inside an ark of these dimensions – the physics students were simply calculating the buoyancy of the ark.

despite the fact that creationist fooktards get excited by such " studies "

the entire premise of the study // thread is fatally flawed

the alledged " study " dos not even address the 7 x " clean animals " - that tips the blances as all " clean animals " are some of the largest

and also - being largest - this affects thier food requirements

but i digress - read the quote carefully

it does not offer a seaworthy ark

itts premise is flawed

it does not address any of the implications of species distribution

so - get over it - this only demonstrates that a volume of calculated [ flawed ] size has the bouyancy to support a calculated [ flawed ] mass in water [ it doesnt even address the density of the alledged flood waters

conclusion - flawed

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Except there was no peer-review and no replication of results. Quit trying to paint this as some sort of scientific breakthrough.

They are students. Undergrads. It was an exercise in "can 70,000 volumes fit in 1 volume". That is all. At best, it's a humorous math puzzle.

Yet OP is spinning this fluff piece as "SCIENTISTS ANNOUNCE THAT THE ARK WAS PLAUSIBLE!". No, that is pure fantasy.

1. I'm not trying to spin it as a scientific breakthrough. People have been saying the ark was feasible (as a construction project, mind you) for a long time. Whether or not something of such and such a size could float and carry creatures is fairly easy to calculate. Like you said, a "humorous math puzzle."

2. The scientific method doesn't require replication of results or peer review. A scientist stranded by himself on a space station without any outsiders could follow it. The idea that undergraduates cannot use the scientific method is silly.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
You should then study the geological record.

I have and I do and there is no evidence for a global flood as described in the Noah/Gilgamesh myths.

There are plenty of major localised/regional floods preserved, but curiously, nothing on a global scale.

Slow multi-generational sea level rise is not the same phenomenon.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder


By observing the ocean and land it would be a easy assumption.

Just how quickly do you think sea levels rose at the end of the LGM?

The waters of the ocean now sit 120 meters plus higher than it was before some ancient cities were built around the world.

Exactly which ancient cities were built during the LGM and where were they built?

Much land was lost and the weather system was in chaos for hundreds of years due to the cold waters of the ice sheet melt off and periodic super volcanoes near the ring of fire that most likely blotted out the sun for some time.

Right, and weather systems were notorious for their stability prior to the end of the LGM weren't they? All that drought, lack of vegetation, expanding desert regions and 20x more dust in the air BEFORE sea levels rose sounds like a dream!

explain the cheshire plain salt beds - using YEC // flood " science "

a reply to: IndependentOpinion

So a man and his family building a ark and loading it up with 2 of every animal is feasible.........Does religion warp the mind to a point that simple truth can not be seen anymore......I believe it does.

There is Noah evidence for a global flood.

p.s.
Yes, I made that up. If you put that on a t-shirt or bumper sticker
I will track you down and sue you.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

its always been about fooling people. thats how you get their money for themeparks and other questionable expenditures.

Oh I see, Noahs ark makes me a con artist.
Great off topic arguement and so completely immature.
Perfect proof you can't accept the truth.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Timothy 4:3

indeed they will, once a week. but lets not get off topic here. spirituality has become a carnival of games, custom made to suit your choice mix of optimism and coincidence. they have even opened a themepark, as i understand it. a giant piece of propoganda used to lure potential investors. just like that ark which doesnt float. because its a myth.

a reply to: arpgme

Most animals can survive a month without food.

The waste could be collected an thrown over board and with no food well no waste.

Disease are resilient and live in you and me or in said animals. We are the ark of disease and bacteria...

How did indigenous people in the americas come to america? How did the chinese land in china? They walked like we did.
How we git to america according to some is we were following herds of animals over the bering straits. So the animals guided us here...........didnt see that one coming did yA!

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: arpgme

Most animals can survive a month without food.

No they can't. Plus they would need WATER. Not only that, but they were supposedly at sea for a YEAR.

The waste could be collected an thrown over board and with no food well no waste.

The only thing being thrown overboard would be the rotting carcasses of all the dead animals. So not only would 2 of each species be a failure for repopulation but if one of each gender dies then there would be no chance of offspring, let alone sustaining a population.

Disease are resilient and live in you and me or in said animals. We are the ark of disease and bacteria...

Disease alone would very likely wipe out most of the animals, even if they were fed and watered.

Noah's Ark is pure fantasy. Attempting to reconcile it with reality is just... dumb.

a reply to: GetHyped

Well for a month most species can survive. But you know what they could of brought food on the boat eith the weight being good and all.

Water can easily be used from all the rain collected in pots. Because it was raining remember.

Salt water is a great disinfectant.

Well i will keep trying to reconcile it with reality and you can call me dumb all you want it doesn't bother me.