Disproving the flood using math

[Shiloh17]

He got the math right, however the logic isn't

I read a bit of the Boatbuilder's Handbook from uscgboating.org. This is the US Coast Guard here. I read there that a boat 18'6" long has the capacity to carry 2513 pounds. This is the deck, propulsion system, sails, passengers...... well everything. The longest figures that I have seen of Noah's Ark is 515ft long. I did some calculations. The largest Noah's Ark can carry 69,954 pounds. The average weight of an African Savanna Elephant is 7.7 tons. This is the largest land animal alive today. Noah's Ark could carry only 4 and a half of them and no more. Genesis chapters 6-9 says Noah needs 1-7 pairs of each animal on the planet. Again Noah's Ark could only hold 4 and a half Savanna Elephants. This is not even including the three decks, the people, food and water for 40 days and nights of the actual flood, the 150 days of water receding, and the 40 or 50 days after the water receded. This is the total actual time spent on the Ark. 7 months and 17 days.

2513 lbs divided by 18.5 ft = 135.8378378378378 Lbs per foot, based on uscgboating.org, the example he used.

Now the length of Noahs Ark times the weight factor he used above.

515 ft times 135.8378378378378 = 69,954 Lbs max load

Based on that logic, all our aircraft carriers would sink as soon as they are put in the water.

A single F-14D's weight was 74,349 pounds. Just one aircraft.

Using his logic, he has also greatly erred on the length of the vessel.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Realm

[Rlyeh]

Alright...well first of all the water thing. It says here in Genesis 7:11 (KJV) "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Well, most people don't realize this, but the great deep is a gigantic wall of ice, suspended in space, too far away for humans to ever reach it, miles and miles...maybe thousands of miles thick. God broke it up and sent it to earth and that explains where the water came from.

Absolute garbage. Sorry but no evidence supports this water canopy theory.

[Rlyeh]

[Davros of Skaro]

Alright...well first of all the water thing. It says here in Genesis 7:11 (KJV) "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Well, most people don't realize this, but the great deep is a gigantic wall of ice, suspended in space, too far away for humans to ever reach it, miles and miles...maybe thousands of miles thick. God broke it up and sent it to earth and that explains where the water came from. And about all the animals...there was only one pair of each animal, male and female, on the ark except the sacrificial animals: lambs, rams, goats, etc., there were 7 of each of those. Now, if you've ever watched Doctor Who, you know about the TARDIS and how it's much bigger on the inside than on the outside. God was in control of the flood, so He could've made this happen. He is omnipotent and can do absolutely anything. He can go against all the laws of phyisics and everything. He created the universe so He's the only one allowed to do this. In this case, do you think it was that hard for him to expand the inside of the ark while keeping the outside the same size? No, it was like breaking a toothpick to him. And about the Polar bears, Tigers and all those carnivores. If God could expand the inside of the ark without changing the size of the inside, He could definately pacify all the animals for a while. He was the one who created them, He's in absolute control of them. So there, that's my opinion, and I hope some of you agree with me.

Finally someone that knows the true omnipotence of God.

Now why did the omnipotent, all knowing God did not put a fence around the Tree of the forbidden fruit, and muzzle up the Serpent in the Garden?

[ambelamba]

He got the math right, however the logic isn't

I read a bit of the Boatbuilder's Handbook from uscgboating.org. This is the US Coast Guard here. I read there that a boat 18'6" long has the capacity to carry 2513 pounds. This is the deck, propulsion system, sails, passengers...... well everything. The longest figures that I have seen of Noah's Ark is 515ft long. I did some calculations. The largest Noah's Ark can carry 69,954 pounds. The average weight of an African Savanna Elephant is 7.7 tons. This is the largest land animal alive today. Noah's Ark could carry only 4 and a half of them and no more. Genesis chapters 6-9 says Noah needs 1-7 pairs of each animal on the planet. Again Noah's Ark could only hold 4 and a half Savanna Elephants. This is not even including the three decks, the people, food and water for 40 days and nights of the actual flood, the 150 days of water receding, and the 40 or 50 days after the water receded. This is the total actual time spent on the Ark. 7 months and 17 days.

2513 lbs divided by 18.5 ft = 135.8378378378378 Lbs per foot, based on uscgboating.org, the example he used.

Now the length of Noahs Ark times the weight factor he used above.

515 ft times 135.8378378378378 = 69,954 Lbs max load

Based on that logic, all our aircraft carriers would sink as soon as they are put in the water.

A single F-14D's weight was 74,349 pounds. Just one aircraft.

Using his logic, he has also greatly erred on the length of the vessel.

You pointed out something that most people overlooked.

And the Flood story is an excellent example that Our Lord God sucks at precision targeting.

Edited January 27, 2014 by ambelamba

[Doug1029]

Absolute garbage. Sorry but no evidence supports this water canopy theory.

Did you really think he was serious? I though it was a funny.

Doug

[Whisperer]

Here's a scenario I concocted after years of research into fables, myths and legends to support a story idea.

The Bible itself seems to be a collection of those very myths etc...and one of the elements I latched onto was this, there was once a 'Firmament' which made the stars shine bigger and brighter and protected the world from the ravages of solar radiation, hence the reference to mild weather patterns and longevity...

Well, way back in the depths of mythology were civilizations that warred on a global scale with no real gains for either side, under the canopy of the firmament, which was held in position by two major pillars of ice and several subsidiary ones.

The moon back then was not the moon we see today but rather a smaller and top lumpy one which was used by one of the factions to smash the firmament with their own 'moon' and destroy the firmament utterly.

The societies back then of course knew the result would be massive flooding when the earth's gravity eventually pulled all that smashed ice down and so set about building survival mechanisms in each domain (not one Ark but several) and when the rains finally came, each launched their 'Arks' and sailed through the worst of the floods.

After millennia of story telling about the event we finally end up with the story of Noah's Ark and the subsequent arguments thereof.

holds more water than the Ark story...and would make a dam fine movie....

[Doug1029]

holds more water than the Ark story...and would make a dam fine movie....

Think there was a movie, but don't remember the name.

Several great big ships built in China. The world's poles shifted and there were huge tsunamis. Ships eventually landed in new places and everybody got to start over.

Doug

[Rlyeh]

Did you really think he was serious? I though it was a funny.

Doug

I've come across creationists who believe the same arguments he made.

[Doug1029]

I've come across creationists who believe the same arguments he made.

So have I. But I don't subscribe to make-believe.

Doug

[ambelamba]

So have I. But I don't subscribe to make-believe.

Doug

You don't have to live in Oklahoma to feel the frustration.

Last night I had a dream of hitting a jackpot on a slot machine. Well, that gives me hope. If I win tonight for Megamillions, I should move to either Colorado or Vermont ASAP, get a modest house and drown myself with cannabis extracts and local hotties. Heh, sometime some people earn debauchery through life of Hell.

[spacecowboy342]

Absolute garbage. Sorry but no evidence supports this water canopy theory.

Magic doesn't require evidence. This is why the whole concept of god is unfalsifiable, and the question of his existence is meaningless and irrelevant.

[holycheddar]

not only does the math back up that noahs ark as read in the bible was a very tall tale. but look at other flood myths. the story of noahs ark has been passed from generation to generation in human history using different names and gods. to believe that it actually happened is ignorance.

[Philangeli]

not only does the math back up that noahs ark as read in the bible was a very tall tale. but look at other flood myths. the story of noahs ark has been passed from generation to generation in human history using different names and gods. to believe that it actually happened is ignorance.

I agree with this.

At best, it's just a moral fable,

[reasonedfaith]

This is an old post so I doubt I will get a response but you may want to look at your math again or at least some of the figures. If my math is correct, the ark you describe has a surface area of 7.6 x10⁸ km² . The surface area of the earth is 5.1x10⁸ km² including water. So apparently the earth could not sustain its own population before the flood, especially since you only assumed two of each species.

[Doug1029]

Dear God that's a lot of POOP!

You sure went a long way around to prove that Noah's Flood didn't happen, but instead wound up proving that the biblical description is wrong. You still haven't disproven the Flood.

I think it really happened, but it was a lot smaller. As for those animals: just a few barnyard critters.

Doug

[Doug1029]

QUOTE (Doug1o29 @ May 12 2008, 01:27 PM)

Googul "Ultimate Tree Ring". T

he data set is called WM2. It's a table of numbers. Just find the years and look at the values for the listed years, compared to those on either side.

Growth reduction like this is usually the result either of extreme drought or extreme cold. Unfortunately, the dataset gives no indication of whether there were unseasonal frosts during those years (You would have to find the original cores and examine them under a microscope.). This type of pattern would be more indicative of a longer-than-normal winter and/or very cold summers.

Impossible to say whether this was continent-wide or not. There are only a few chronologies that go back this far and the few that there are don't give a clear picture.

Doug

Hi Doug,

I've found the following via the International Tree Ring Data Bank for the dates in question:

Bodensee 4 Archaeological (GER; 47N,9E; Billamboz,A.)

* QUSP (Ring Width, Standard)

Methuselah Walk (USA; 37N,118W; Graybill,D.A.)

* PILO (Ring Width, Standard)

Thorne Moors T70 (GBR; 53N,0W; Boswijk,G.)

* PISY (Ring Width, Standard)

White Mountains Master (USA; 37N,118W; Ferguson,C.W.;Schulman,E.;Fritts,H.C.)

* PILO (Ring Width, Standard)

Now - I may be reading these wrong (as Tree Rings aren't really my thing), but I don't see anything particularly stunning for the 2806 - 2802 BC data.

What I think I'm seeing is this:

CODE

2800 2801 2802 2803 2804 2805 2806 2807 2808 2809

White Mountains Master (USA) 1.052 1.266 1.302 1.240 1.222 0.940 1.346 1.338 0.791 1.241

Methuselah (USA) 0.888 1.110 1.115 1.245 1.163 0.755 1.331 1.309 0.601 1.263

Bodensee (Ger) 1.470 1.420 1.030 1.020 1.280 1.040 0.850 0.860 1.180 1.120

Thorne Moors (GBR) 1.440 1.310 0.880 0.570 0.420 0.540 0.740 1.060 1.350 1.510

For those of us who are unfamiliar with what these numbers mean - they're essentially unitless, and are in proportion to the average size tree ring (which is given a default vaue of 1.000)

If I'm right, then the Thorne Moors data (From Great Britain) seems to show a marked decrease in Growth during the 2802-2806 BC period, but none of the other samples seem to indicate that this was on a world-wide scale.

Sorry I didn't see this post earlier.

Those are ring thicknesses divided by the estimated ring thickness from the detrending model. By themselves they don't mean much, but compare them to the rings on either side of them.

You can see it in the White Mountain 2 dataset. The numbers for those years are smaller than anything on either side. There's also another group of narrow rings about a hundred years from this one that might indicate something.

I've thought about a study of this, but simply haven't had time.

Doug