Noah's Ark Replica

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Johan's Ark: Noah's Ark Replica Crashes Into Moored Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel, Officials Say
The crash occurred in Oslo, Norway, Friday. A military patrol boat and the 230-foot long replica created by Dutch carpenter Johan Huibers, who reportedly used the Bible's measurements, were damaged.




Two of every species of animal in the entire world and all of the food necessary to feed and maintain them all for months was going to fit into that? REALLY?

Does anyone foresee any problems here?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 22 by JehovahsWitness]

Here are some more interesting articles "to chew on"

Feasibility Studies.
http://www.creationconcepts.org/resources/ARK.pdf
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/ ... rk-in-a-se...

Thanks JW, those were also an interesting read.

So it seems feasible that an ark as described in the Bible could float, carry a reasonable amount of cargo, and maybe even be stable enough to survive normal seas.

Yes, that does indeed seem to be the scientific concensus. Indeed my understanding is that the rectangle shape (in the proportions described) would have made the vessel extremely stable.


NOTE The ark is estimated to have been able to support a maximum weight of 50 million kilos.
https://physicsworld.com/a/how-much-wei ... k-support/

[JehovahsWitness]

how they would have been able to actually have 2 of each species (or kind - things start to get slippery here especially if evolution is not on the table) on the ship.

It's a common misconception that in the bible God told Noah to assemble "two of every animal"; it neither says that, nor does it say "every species" that word is not mentioned once in scripture. What the bible does say is "kind". What is a biblical "kind"? We don't know exactly but the Genesis account spoke of animals reproducing "according to their kind". It seems reasonable then to view a "kind" as a type of group or catatory "family" group (for example, a wolf, a dog and a fox are all essentially from the same "family group" or "kind").

#QUESTION: Was the ark big enough for all the animals? Absolutely! Estimates, based on a breakdown of the groups along the lines provided by the Encylopedia Americana (1077 Vol 1 pp 859 - 873) have some 5, 000 mamals (including whales and propoises which of course would have remained outside the ark) or according some more concervative estimates of 290 speciels of land mamals larger than sheep and about 1, 350 small than rats, the ark could easily have accomodated a pair of all these animals (The Deluge Story in Stone by BC Nelson P. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A M Rehwinkel p 69).

NOTE: It is commonly believed that the huge dinosaurs died out long before humans entered the world scene.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

how they would have been able to actually have 2 of each species (or kind - things start to get slippery here especially if evolution is not on the table) on the ship.

It's a common misconception that in the bible God told Noah to assemble "two of every animal"; it neither says that, nor does it say "every species" that word is not mentioned once in scripture. What the bible does say is "kind". What is a biblical "kind"? We don't know exactly but the Genesis account spoke of animals reproducing "according to their kind". It seems reasonable then to view a "kind" as a type of group or catatory "family" group (for example, a wolf, a dog and a fox are all essentially from the same "family group" or "kind").

#QUESTION: Was the ark big enough for all the animals? Absolutely! Estimates, based on a breakdown of the groups along the lines provided by the Encylopedia Americana (1077 Vol 1 pp 859 - 873) have some 5, 000 mamals (including whales and propoises which of course would have remained outside the ark) or according some more concervative estimates of 290 speciels of land mamals larger than sheep and about 1, 350 small than rats, the ark could easily have accomodated a pair of all these animals (The Deluge Story in Stone by BC Nelson P. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A M Rehwinkel p 69).

NOTE: It is commonly believed that the huge dinosaurs died out long before humans entered the world scene.

Reference.com
Q:
How many species of reptiles are there?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
As of 2015, three are over 10,000 reptile species in the world. This number is steadily increasing as scientists identify, describe and document more species. A reptile is an animal that has a backbone, breathes with lungs and is covered in scales. Most reptiles lay eggs and are cold-blooded.
https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/ ... 186ad9f543

Even if we exclude the dinosaurs, there are still an awful lot of reptiles also to be considered. Some are aquatic by nature, but most are not. That boat is getting awfully crowded.

[JehovahsWitness]

Reference.com
Q:
How many species of reptiles are there?.

You might of missed the part where I said that a biblical "kind" is not a species, the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account. Evidently a biblical kind is much broader than the scientific classification you are refering to, so it is believed that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark.

"The Biblical kind seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between kinds is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

In recent years, the term specieshas been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word kind. The basic meaning of species is a sort; kind; variety. In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis kinds. - Bible Encylopedia Insight on the Scriptures Vol II p. 152

JW

[Zzyzx]

.

Evidently a biblical kind is much broader than the scientific classification you are refering to, so it is believed that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark.

Okay JW, taking you at your word -- 2000 animals (1000 "kinds", male and female of each) aboard the ark (disregarding the seven of some "clean animals").

From those 1000 pairs how the heck did the extreme diversity develop that we now know exists?

[JehovahsWitness]

Okay JW, taking you at your word -- 2000 animals (1000 "kinds", male and female of each) aboard the ark (disregarding the seven of some "clean animals")

#QUESTION: Was the ark big enough for all the animals?

The ark could have easily accommodated 2000 animals (which is an estmate, some suggest much less), indeed it could have comfortably accommodated ten times that number. Remember many animals are quite small, for example, looking at mammals, one writer notes "concervative estimates [have some] 290 speciels of land mamals larger than sheep and about 1, 350 smaller than rats, the ark could easily have easily accomodated a pair of all these animals" -- The Deluge Story in Stone by BC Nelson P. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A M Rehwinkel p 69


QUESTION: How big was the Ark? The size of the ark was 300 cubits long , 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm the ark measured 133.5 by 22.3m by 13.4m this gave the ark approx. 400, 000 cu meters (1, 400, 000 cu Ft) in gross volume. With an estmated displacement nearly equal to that of the might 883 ft of the Titanic*, it was less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.
* NOTE: There were 2228 people on board of the Titanic (plus food, supplies ect)

One of the sites earlier mentioned states:

"Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry ... 50,000 animals, filling only 37percent of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people."
www1.cbn.com/biblestudy/what-did-noah%27s-ark-look-like%3F

[Willum]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

You know, the biggest problem with this is that Noah was based on a Greek Comedy, Deucalion, and or a Sumerian Children's Fable.

So, cubits of this and two of every that, really doesn't mean anything if the story was stolen by the Israeli from a Greek comedy.

Am I wrong?

(And I am kinda tired of providing references for this, look up Deucalion and Utnapishtim, yourself.)

As I am fond of recollecting, when Greece met Judaism:

Can you imagine the pious Jew describing the somber events of the Flood, and the Greeks laughing in exactly the wrong spots, because it was a comedy, perhaps written by a distant relation of his? It couldn't turn out well, in fact, didn't.

[PghPanther]

Okay JW, taking you at your word -- 2000 animals (1000 "kinds", male and female of each) aboard the ark (disregarding the seven of some "clean animals")

#QUESTION: Was the ark big enough for all the animals?

The ark could have easily accommodated 2000 animals (which is an estmate, some suggest much less), indeed it could have comfortably accommodated ten times that number. Remember many animals are quite small, for example, looking at mammals, one writer notes "concervative estimates [have some] 290 speciels of land mamals larger than sheep and about 1, 350 smaller than rats, the ark could easily have easily accomodated a pair of all these animals" -- The Deluge Story in Stone by BC Nelson P. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A M Rehwinkel p 69


QUESTION: How big was the Ark? The size of the ark was 300 cubits long , 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm the ark measured 133.5 by 22.3m by 13.4m this gave the ark approx. 400, 000 cu meters (1, 400, 000 cu Ft) in gross volume. With an estmated displacement nearly equal to that of the might 883 ft of the Titanic*, it was less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.
* NOTE: There were 2228 people on board of the Titanic (plus food, supplies ect)

One of the sites earlier mentioned states:

"Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry ... 50,000 animals, filling only 37percent of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people."
www1.cbn.com/biblestudy/what-did-noah%27s-ark-look-like%3F

If the waters covered all the mountain peaks world wide there would have been an ocean level at an altitude of 29K above the sea level we have now...........at that height the air would be too thin and the temperature would be well below freezing.......no place for survival of anything that would have been on a boat.

Why do we even waste time on a subject like this?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 36 by JehovahsWitness]

I don't see how increasing the number from 2,000 to 50,000 helps, it is still orders of magnitude lower than the number extant animals species. That massive rate of change compressed into 6000 years period would be beyond anything we can observed today. If you can believe 50,000 kinds turning into millions of animal species in 6000 years, surely one kind turning to millions of species over 3 billion years doesn't seem so far fetched?

[Bust Nak]

If the waters covered all the mountain peaks world wide there would have been an ocean level at an altitude of 29K above the sea level we have now...........at that height the air would be too thin and the temperature would be well below freezing.......no place for survival of anything that would have been on a boat.

Objection! As the water rises, so would sea level. The Ark, supposedly floating on the water surface would always be at sea level, even when all the mountain were covered. The actual change in air pressure (force over area) would be insignificant as an increase of 29k ft in the Earth's radius would only lead to a mere 0.2% increase in its surface area, with a similar force pushing down from air above.