Posted on 04/14/2014 8:43:16 AM PDT by fishtank
Students Surprised to Find Noah's Ark Feasible by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
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.
There are only 6? Which ones are they, and on what basis do you submit that they really are constant?
I have listened to the presentations of a couple of flood geologists and, frankly, they are spouting nonsense. Structural geology with its ties to plate tectonics gives a better understanding of the folds, faults, plutons, volcanos, etc. It also supports the age analysis radiometric dating gives us. The proof is in the use of this understanding in finding and exploiting oil, coal, gas and mineral deposits. In other words, it works.
6 constants - maybe you should google it for yourself - ehh?
How many constants do you think there are? Have you not considered that the radio-isotope decays rates all differ depending upon which father/daughter elements are used? Does that still qualify them as constants even when they differ from each other and carbon dating too?
Are you unaware of recent scientific disclosures of carbon-14 found in artifacts and fossils claimed to be millions of years old yet the presence of carbon-14 completely contradicts those ages too?
Growing weary and leary of answering questions w/o any responses in kind to my queries as well as statements I think you long age folks have not pondered before.
Majority opinion does not mean anything has to be right. The greatest scientific findings often go against the herd mentality and cause major paradigm shifts. just sayin...
I did. there are lots of links and references, and many more than 6.
I'm not going to play this game with you.
If you say there are only 6, you should be able to name them, and explain why those are constant and none of the other of the myriad of things described as "physical contants" in various reference books aren't really constant.
Have you not considered that the radio-isotope decays rates all differ depending upon which father/daughter elements are used?
Yes. And I've considered that the masses of the atoms of different elements are all different. It never occurred to me to try to twist that into an argument that it means that the masses of atoms of the same element can't be constant.
Just saying constant decay rate if truly constant should but do not give the same age for the fossils and artifacts. Maybe there are more than 6 but not including any age-dating methods - none of which agree we each other.
IOW, you don't really know what you're talking about, and are just making stuff up.
Putting words in my mouth are ya? I know much more than you’ll ever give me credit for. And I know you still have not answered the majority of my questions yet somehow think yours deserve priority.
Nope. Your own words:
the 6 constants of the physical universe
And I know you still have not answered the majority of my questions yet somehow think yours deserve priority.
I don't know how to answer questions that appear to be based on an irrational premise.
Just so
2 minutes to search:
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe/dp/0465036732
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/29/the-fundamental-constants-behind-our-universe/
I don’t care if it’s busted or plausible, as long as Kari does the story.
As long as it took the first time, probably? It's not as if this is a problem unique to Creationism. There will be one breeding pair at the head of any species under any explanation scientific or otherwise.
I found the second one when I searched earlier. It lists 26 constants. I found other referebces that listed even more constants.
I could not find any reference the reduces the universal physical constants to six.
The carnivores might get pretty hungry waiting for enough deer to repopulate for a supply of food. Also, a “favorable” mutation is not necessarily a “one of” event. The change may well take some time of interbreeding to “take”. When examined, none of the worldwide flood propositions hold up. The proof of just what happened is literally in the ground you walk on.
Seven pairs of clean animals.
Also, a “favorable” mutation is not necessarily a “one of” event.
Oh, so the duck-billed platypus arose in different locales independent of other populations of duck-billed platypus?
When examined, none of the worldwide flood propositions hold up.
On the contrary, over the course of my less-than-five-decades on this planet, geology has moved from near lock-step uniformitarian to increasingly catastrophic. There are evidences of massive flooding worldwide. There are legends among every people on earth of a massive flood. That is no accident.
The proof of just what happened is literally in the ground you walk on.
What happened? You say you have proof in the ground we walk on. Lay it out for me.
Yep, my bad. Sorry. What I get for trusting in some of the books / authors I’ve read.
I still have no regrets though from reading the Bible and trusting God’s Word.
so it was the books/authors fault that you claimed they purported 6 constants, when, at least with the Science Blog, there were clearly 26 presented? That's a problem with interpretation/comprehension - and why would that suddenly go away with your Bible?
Clean animals?
Of course the mutation my only occur within the species but it may be a common mutation which becomes favorable as climate changes.
Plate tectonics and specifically structural geology explain much of what we see in faults, folds, earthquakes, volcanos, etc. More is discovered, proven, disproven and observed as time goes by as is the case with science. In the presentations of flood geology, much is made of the discovery of fossil bearing sedimentary rock at the top of the Himalayan Mountains. Geology and plate collisions between the Eurasian and Indian plates will lead one to the conclusion that it would be surprising is there were not such sedimentary rocks on the peaks.
I’ve taken the time and watched some videos on flood geology. You should look at something on current geological thought. The flood geology videos encourage believers to confront and ridicule contemporary scientific theories. At least you should understand in some detail what you reject.
Also, flood geology is full of straw men and other logical fallacies. The definitions and premises that flood geologists attribute to contemporary geology and evolutionary biology often are total misrepresentation.
Just saying I have no regrets from reading and trusting the Bible. Conversely I often have regrets when putting my trust in man [and I include myself heavily in the latter category].
Why do you seem to want to make more out of this - esp. as a 3rd party?
Versus unclean. Edible. You know, Old Testament stuff. Kosher.
Regarding geology, I'll repeat what I stated before. Over the course of my less than fifty years, I've witnessed geology move from a uniformitarianism that verged upon orthodoxy, to an embrace of the very catastrophism that was once ridiculed, and that ridicule was in large part based upon a rejection of any remotely religious connotation. There is evidence of massive flooding worldwide. There are legends of massive flooding among every people on the face of the earth and that is no coincidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.