Agnostic.com

1 0

I'm new here and I don't know if anything like this a been posted here..................NOAH'S ARK OR NOAH'S FARCE.................... First let me say that, when I refer to fossils I mean all species of animal, reptile, bird,

insect and arachnid fossilized remains found.

I have read that, as of 2010, the number of species living today are;

Mammals ..... = 5,490 .......X 2......... = 10,980

Birds............. = 9,998 .......X 2......... = 19,996

Reptiles........ = 9,084 ........X 2......... = 18,168

Insects... = 1,000,000 ........X 2.... = 2,000,000

Arachnids.. = 102,248 .......X 2........= 204,496

              1,126,820 species           2,253,640 individual creatures on board the ark.

Okay....we have a fair idea of the number of species living today. Now, to save

tons of calculations, lets say that no matter the species size it can survive in 1/6 cubic

foot living space. As you can see I'm giving noah's ark a large benefit of the doubt. Because

an Elephant, even a baby elephant, is bigger than 1/6 cubic foot. Many times bigger.

A 1/6 cubic foot living space is about the size of a large grapefruit

Once again I'll give noah's ark a large benefit of the doubt and say the ark was shaped

like a rectangular box which gives the ark more volume than being boat shaped.

It's said the ark was 450 ft long, 75 ft wide and 45 ft tall. This equals 1,518,750 cubic ft.

So......

6 X 1,518,750 = 9,112,500 1/6 cubic foot living spaces. This should sound kinda

good to a theist because 9,112,500 1/6 cubic foot living spaces and only 2,253,640

individual creatures gives you a lot of room left.

Sorry, but we now get into the extinct creatures. It is said, in many places, that 99.9%

of all species, that ever existed, are now extinct (these were on the ark too).

Disregard \/

Once again we have to do some juggling because of the fossils found. There were

many more large creatures, that are extinct, than we have today.

With the larger creatures we must increase the size of the creatures living space by 3.

I will increase the size to 1/2 cubic foot (about the size of a shoe box). Just as an

example, a dragonfly that lived long ago had a 2 foot wing span. You'd be hard

pressed to put him in a shoe box.

With this we need to multiply 1,518,750 cubic feet by 2 which equals 3,037,500 1/2

cubic foot living spaces. Hmmmmm.... getting close to the spaces needed for our

present day creatures and I haven't figured in the extinct creatures yet.

Disregard /\

UPDATE 10/4/11......I just realized that I should not have increased the size of the

                              living spaces to 1/2 cubic foot. I'll leave it at 1/6 cubic foot.

As said earlier, 99.9% of all the creatures that lived are now extinct. I'll again give

noah the benefit of the doubt and say that 75% are extinct

That means that 3 times as many creatures have lived and became extinct than what we

have today.

On to the calculating;

The species living today times 2 equals(m/f).................2,253,640 (/2=) (25%)

The extinct species equals 3 times 2,253,640 equals....6,760,920 (/2=) (75%)

Total on the ark..........................................................9,014,560 (/2=) (100%)

Okay, lets compare the numbers.

9,014,560 creatures and 9,112,500 (1/6 cubic foot) living spaces. Hmmmm

9,112,500 - 9,014,560 = 97,940 (1/6 cubic foot) living spaces left.

Now lets find the cubic feet left..........97,940/6 = 16,323 cubic feet.

16,323 cubic feet is about the size of a 25 foot square box.

Then we have to figure in noah, his family, food (creatures and human) for, about 1 year.

"Houston, we have a problem"

I know most of these sizes and numbers I have used are funny but I just want you

to start thinking about size, volume and how much can you put into something with

a set volume.

Peace

Sardonicus 2 Nov 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Sardonicus, you can save an awful lot of energy by simply tackling the technical aspects of the vessel and the building thereof. The facts are that 1) the logistics involved make the project impossible, 2) the availability of materials required make it impossible, 3) the skill level and number of workers make it impossible, 4) the required tools and their maintenance make it impossible, and the list goes on. Then there's the basic engineering problem such a vessel represents. Although it would be possible to provide adequate girder strength for a static structure, the instant it became water borne it would begin to come apart. Structurally impossible. One doesn't even need to consider what it would have to carry.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:4943
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.