Welcome to WeAreSMRT.com. Click here to register

Ark idiocy

Discussion on things related to the Institution for Creation Research

Ark idiocy

Postby shadowmouse » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:22 am

http://www.icr.org/article/students-sur ... k-feasible

Students Surprised to Find Noah's Ark Feasible
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Scripture › Accurate Data › Historical Accuracy › Biblical Data Are Historically Testable

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.

Creatures change within the boundaries of their own "kinds" or fundamental forms, so Noah certainly did not need to take on board all "species,"a modern term that seems to bear as many definitions as there are researchers who use it.

What about the biblical detail given in Genesis, which noted seven of each bird kind—probably meaning seven pairs of each bird kind—on board Noah's ark? If today's "species" were substituted for basic "kinds" here, then the total number of birds would probably have exceeded ark capacity. However, creation biologists have been combing the literature for breeding records that help them estimate which "species" likely belonged to a "kind."2 For example, breeding studies link sparrows and finches as within-kind creatures.3 Instead of over 1,000 sparrow or finch "species," perhaps as few as 14 sparrow-finch representatives were on the ark.

Applying this principle to all "species" would dramatically reduce Leicester University's student-estimated 70,000 animals. Creation researcher John Woodmorappe's book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated the number of ark kinds as the number of families of extant and extinct air-breathing, land-dwelling animals, totaling about 8,000 kinds or 16,000 individuals—including the sevens of birds and clean animals.4 That would require merely one third of the ark's volume, leaving plenty of space for provisions and people.

It's amazing what happens when the Bible's accuracy is put to the test. The Leicester University physics students "were astonished to find out that the Ark would have floated," according to The Telegraph.1 How much more astonished would they be to find that the Ark not only could have floated, but could have carried all its passengers and their provisions for a whole year, just as the Scriptures say? Since the Bible contains spiritual truths, discovering that the Bible also records historical truth turns out to be "more serious" than secularized students at first suspect.

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
Henigan, T. An Initial Estimate toward Identifying and Numbering the Ark Turtle and Crocodile Kinds. Answers Research Journal. 7 (2014): 1-10.
Lightner, J.K. 2010. Identification of a large sparrow-finch monobaramin in perching birds (Aves: Passeriformes). Journal of Creation. 24 (3): 117-121
Woodmorappe, J. 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on April 11, 2014.
"Get smart and I'll fuck you over -- sayeth The Lord."
-- Frank Zappa, re: Christianity's preference for perpetuation of ignorance

"I can literally tell you all to fuck off and you'll go awww." — Benedict Cumberbatch
User avatar
shadowmouse
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:03 pm

Re: Ark idiocy

Postby E-lad » Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:47 am

You don't need advanced physics students to figure out the displacement of water. High school physics students do those calculations in the first week of class. A vessel the size of the mythical ark would indeed displace a large amount of water. The weight of that water is the weight that the ark could hold.
And so where did they come up with 70,000 species? They pulled it out of their ass, that's where. There were millions of species 6,000 years ago and no way that 70,000 species species then change-o prest-o into the millions of species we see today. Elementary inspection of the fossil record shows this unequivocally.

And this was rather curious:

"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.


The paper that the students wrote states:
Furthermore in The Genesis Flood, Doctors Morris and Whitcomb claim that only 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark.
So they did indeed quote the source for the number, and anybody that works for AIG knows very well that The Genesis Flood is the foundation for everything they wrote about the Ark.

Finally, The students are quite clear about the fact that their study does not settle debate over the veracity of Noah’s story. “We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work,”

Oh gee, as if nobody else ever figured out the displacement of the supposed Ark. I've done it many years ago. It only shows that any vessel that size displaces a lot of water. Big fucking deal.
Life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.- Horace Walpole
User avatar
E-lad
 
Posts: 14772
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: Northwestern Pennsylvania

Re: Ark idiocy

Postby zilch » Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:22 am

Froggie said it. My calculations show that an Ark the size of Uranus could easily float the Earth and all her inhabitants on the surface of a neutron star.
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15234
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Ark idiocy

Postby BeamStalk » Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:02 pm

Still doesn't say how the boat would stay together when the waves rolled by...
The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head.
-Terry Pratchett, "Hogfather"
User avatar
BeamStalk
 
Posts: 6834
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:10 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Ark idiocy

Postby zilch » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:01 am

BeamStalk wrote:Still doesn't say how the boat would stay together when the waves rolled by...

Shhh.
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15234
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria


Return to Institute for Creation Research

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron