Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Enough Room in the Ark?


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 05:24 AM

Here's one for you guys to do a little homework on.
Should be easy peasy.

Let us state for the record, by todays standards, that a cubit is 18 inches.
That will prevent a lot of ridiculous and argumentative posting.

Question #1

What was the square footage (floorspace) of Noah's Ark?


Question #2

What was the volume in cubic feet?


hint
Spoiler for ...


Question #3

What is the square footage and volume of a standard American Freight car (rail car, box car)

Question #4

How many freight cars (internal area not external car) would fit in the ark?




I know these are easy ones but I will post spoilers if necessary in 48 hours.

Peace
  • 0

#2 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 07:23 PM

There is a problem with your assumption. If you assume that a "cubit" for Noah was the same as it was in the middle ages (which is the same as today), how do you explain Gen 7:20 - "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." Do you really think that every mountain on earth was less than 22.5 feet above sea level? If fifteen cubits covered every mountain, then Noah's cubits can't possibly be 18" or the length of a forearm.

EDITED: fixed a typo
  • 0

#3 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 07:39 PM

Following up my post - Assume that Mt. everest was still the highest point when Noah did his thing. There's only been - what - 6000 years since Noah? So in 6000 years of erosion, let's say it hasn't changed the world's highest point that much. Everest is 8820 Meters above sea level. Now to kill everyone off, it wouldn't need to cover the whole thing, even though it SAYS the whole thing was covered. So let's say it was just to where Everest Base camp is now. That's about 5340 meters and is as high as most people could live. So if 15 cubits covered to 5340 Meters, a "Cubit" must be at least 356 Meters long. So the arc was 300x50x30. That's a volume of over 160 MILLION meters cubed. At widest point, the standing surface would be about 5.3 Million square meters. That's about 2.5 square miles of walking space on one deck.
  • 0

#4 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 02:17 AM

There is a problem with your assumption. If you assume that a "cubit" for Noah was the same as it was in the middle ages (which is the same as today), how do you explain Gen 7:20 - "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." Do you really think that every mountain on earth was less than 22.5 feet above sea level? If fifteen cubits covered every mountain, then Noah's cubits can't possibly be 18" or the length of a forearm.

EDITED: fixed a typo



I stated that we were assuming a cubit was 18 inches to prevent this type of post. I you want to know what I personally believe Noah's cubit was, then I would liken it closer to 24-36".


Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail simply means that the highest point on earth was covered by a height of 15 cubits of water.

No I do not believe everest was anywhere near its current height. Read on to the division (great upheaval?) that happened 100 years later during the time of Peleg.

Personally I believe when the fountains of the deep broke loose we began to see tectonic plate movement and we now have mountains that were non-existant in Noah's time.

Again I chose an 18" cubit because it is the most conservative (ie.. shortest) cubit that I think Noah would have had.
  • 0

#5 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 02:26 AM

Following up my post - Assume that Mt. everest was still the highest point when Noah did his thing. There's only been - what - 6000 years since Noah? So in 6000 years of erosion, let's say it hasn't changed the world's highest point that much. Everest is 8820 Meters above sea level. Now to kill everyone off, it wouldn't need to cover the whole thing, even though it SAYS the whole thing was covered. So let's say it was just to where Everest Base camp is now. That's about 5340 meters and is as high as most people could live. So if 15 cubits covered to 5340 Meters, a "Cubit" must be at least 356 Meters long. So the arc was 300x50x30. That's a volume of over 160 MILLION meters cubed. At widest point, the standing surface would be about 5.3 Million square meters. That's about 2.5 square miles of walking space on one deck.



Well it seems that it has only been 6000 years since creation, more like 4500 years since the deluge (flood). Everest, just like many other great mountains is not getting lower, it is getting higher, due to tectonic plate movement. See previous post. Again 15 cubits was not the height above sea level. 15 cubits was the height above the highest point of land.

I will say 160 million meters cubed is incorrect. Lets go back and do the math with an 18" cubit please.

If I caused you any anger I apologize.

I hope you will revisit the original question with the given parameters because you are apparently VERY capable of doing the math.

Also I noted that you referenced Widest point. Are you assuming from the text that the Ark was to be built as anything other than a box shape? If so what is your reason for believing such?
Peace.
  • 0

#6 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 04:44 AM

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail simply means that the highest point on earth was covered by a height of 15 cubits of water.

I disagree with this and don't think that your construction is supportable from the context. But then that is my opinion.

I stated that we were assuming a cubit was 18 inches to prevent this type of post.

And I merely stated that I feel there is a problem with that assumption. The point of your original post is to compare Noah's ark with a modern box car. I just think it's fallacious to do so using an 18" cubit when that concept comes from the Egyptian rule of measure and there is no support anywhere to assume it was the same for Noah's time (assuming we take it as a given that this was a real event).

If I caused you any anger I apologize.

No anger here. I just like rational discussion and dialogue. It's ok if two people disagree.

Lets go back and do the math with an 18" cubit please.

I don't see the point. Again, I don't see this as a rational comparison. With that lacking, this just becomes a 7th grade math problem.

Also I noted that you referenced Widest point. Are you assuming from the text that the Ark was to be built as anything other than a box shape? If so what is your reason for believing such?

It is an assumption that the arc was built in anyshape. We just don't know. Here's my assumption: God told him how to build it. God would know the best way to build a ship. Two theories: 1)A ship without a keel and stem is very weak, or in other words, the strongest way to build a sea going vessel is with a keel and a stem. A keel and stem cannot be put on a boat that is a perfectly rectangular vessel.
2) If Noah built it sitting on the ground, then it started to rain, a box-like vessel would not be buoyant when filled with weight. The surface area to weight ratio is wrong. If you make it curved like modern boats though, the surface area to weight distribution would allow it to float freely. There is no evidence to support him building it on stilts.
  • 0

#7 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 04:58 AM

One item of support though for the 18" cubit: The heaviest rainfall recorded is about 15cm in 24 hours. If you don't assume major atmospheric changes, and the flood lasted 40 days then that's about 600 cm of rainfall or 236.22 inches of rainfall. Then figure all of the ice on earth would raise the seas by about 40-60 feet, that's another 480 inches or so. That would be 39 18" cubits. That's about double the amount of cubits quoted for the "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail" but with lower rainfall, the fifteen 18" cubits in 40 days is possible, where 5300 meters is not. Again, I just don't see that quote meaning anything but fifteen cubits from where the water started is where it ended up. Feel free to support your position otherwise. Maybe the earth was just a smooth ball of clay regardless of what science tells us.

Edit: My personal beliefs don't matter here as far as this discussion goes, but I don't believe that science and religion must be mutually exclusive even when they appear to be on the surface. If God is the sum of all knowledge, then the knowledge of God is the goal of science.
  • 0

#8 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 04:08 PM

Your last paragraph was very close to my opinion.

Edit: My personal beliefs don't matter here as far as this discussion goes, but I don't believe that science and religion must be mutually exclusive even when they appear to be on the surface. If God is the sum of all knowledge, then the knowledge of God is the goal of science.

I am convinced that religion and science can not be treated as mutually exclusive or the scientist will have some terrible hypothetical errors in his work.
I am not convinced that your personal beliefs do not matter, your beliefs are the sum of your own personal quest for understanding and wisdom, therefore we could not have this discussion without your beliefs. Regarding GOD being the sum of all knowledge, I don't think I am intelligent enough to debate/support/defend that statement. I do know that he is all knowing therefore all truth is from Him.

I have to go earn a little daily bread, so I will try to address points from your last two posts this evening if possible. I sincerely look forward to continuing this discussion, it is clear to me from all of your posts that God has gifted you with a staggeringly more profound intellect than my own. That in itself is reason enough for me to discuss the reality and relevance of the flood to its conclusion.

Peace
  • 0

#9 Martini

Martini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 770 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 05:19 PM

Off to "Others".
  • 0

#10 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 06:20 PM

off to others? pardon my ignorance in the world of forums. can you explain that to the uninitiated?

thank you
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users