From the Australian Telegraph.
Excerpt:
The students from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Leicester who came to this conclusion used the dimensions for the boat that were given in the Bible.
In the book of Genesis, Noah is commanded to build an ark which is 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high to house himself, his family and two of every species of animal.
For the study, the students settled on a cubit being 48.2cm long and found the ark could support the weight of 2.5 million sheep. The university said that previous research suggested there were approximately 35,000 species of animals in Noah’s time.
The students said it was not clear if all the animals would actually be able to fit on board. But if they did, the boat would still float.
Student Thomas Morris, 22, said: “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. We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work.”
The full paper, The animals float two by two, hurrah!, was published in a peer-reviewed student journal.
Research lead Oliver Youle, 22, explained the science behind the study.
“Every object when immersed in a liquid has an upwards force acting against it — a buoyancy force; it also has a weight acting downwards — a downwards force, and in order for it to float, these two forces need to be equal.”
His colleague Benjamin Jordan added: “Using the dimensions of the ark and the density of the water, we were able to calculate its buoyancy force, which, according to Archimedes’ principle, is equal to the weight of the volume of fluid the object displaces. This meant we were then able to estimate the total mass the ark could support before the gravitational weight would overcome the buoyancy force, causing the ark to sink, which we calculated as 50.54x106kg.”
Good news for us who accept the flood story as historical, and I do. And it’s nice to see scientists taking a look at these things in the Bible to see if they are true. Most people these days seem to sort of assume that everything in the Bible is just figurative metaphors. Well, sometimes the genre is not historical… and sometimes it is. It depends on the book. One thing is for sure – if the Bible is not true, then it’s of no value. The point of it is not to read it for comfort or community. The purpose of it is to tell us who God is and what he’s done.
Please don’t get into a young-Earth vs Old-Earth dispute in the comments.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Fantastic! And, the spatial analysis would be interesting too. Most back-of-the-envelope estimates appear to show that the size of the ark is reasonable in space to hold all of the “kinds.” I wonder if there are any in-depth analyses that include the true space limitations plus the food, water, and waste requirements? Seems like that wouldn’t be too much more than a Master’s thesis at best, but it would involve a lot of repetitive-type calculations.
LikeLike
I knew you would like this post! :)
LikeLike
Here’s an analysis: Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe
http://www.goodreads.com/work/compare_prices/1225424?book=1236792
I’m not sure why it seems to be over $100 now. I think I payed < $30 a few years ago from ICR.
LikeLike
Thanks AirPierre!
LikeLike
Don’t forget separating predators as well.
LikeLike
Interesting, especially since I saw that movie Noah last night and saw the ark in action. That part of the movie was fascinating. But I don’t recommend the movie. I thought it would just be entertainment, I knew it wasn’t biblical. But it was the most boring ark soap opera I ever saw. However, my Bible-holic husband liked it because there were some authentic biblical parts. Who knew? My son died laughing when we came home and told him our respective verdicts. God bless you. Susan Fox http://www.christsfaithfulwitness.com
LikeLike
Well that is great.The problem is:The real issue never was The flood or the age of the Earth or slavery etc.The issue with unbelievers is that they are in rebellion against the God that they know.The issue is not with the evidence but how one interprets evidence.
LikeLike
True, but the job of the Christian evidentialist is precisely to show them that their interpretation is invalid. In other words, we are to keep them as intellectually “uncomfortable” as possible, drawing them into moments of vulnerability that can then be exploited the the persuasive and convicting power of the Holy Spirit Himself.
Besides, while there may be a whole bunch of ways to interpret the flood or creation, there are far fewer ways of interpreting a dead man absent from an empty tomb and the improbable tsunami movement that then hit the Roman empire.
LikeLike
Well said.
LikeLike
That is a good point.Keep in mind,I used to be an evidentialist,now I have moved to the presuppositionalism side of Apologetics.I do believe that Van til was correct when pointed all facts are interpreted facts,and we all interpret evidence from our presuppositions.The issue is that the unbeliever can’t account for the presuppositions at the foundational level & are stealing from the Christian worldview even to argue against it.See Greg Bahnsen.
LikeLike
Yes, I understand where you are coming from, but your worldview as a presuppositionalist is the result of Van til taking a hard Calvinist position to its logical conclusion and developing what he believed was an apologetics that “fit” with Calvinism (or what is often referred to as classic Reformed Theology). That was what Van Til was trying to accomplish with his expounding of Presuppositionalism.
However, the validity of Presuppositionalism’s main premise (hard Calvinism) is questionable, and I as a Molinist ,therefore, have difficulty approaching things from that perspective.
I prefer to take historical precedent over raw philosophical reasoning (even if that reasoning makes an attempt to point to scripture as its springboard).
One can see multiple instances in scripture where both Jesus and the Apostles appeal to their audiences on the basis of evidence that they have presented. Rather than a pessimism about the capacity of their audience, they seemed to show an optimism for their message on the basis of that very evidence. While it is indeed true that there is an inclination on the part of the lost to close their eyes to the evidence that is presented, it is not a forgone conclusion that they must always remain in that condition without any possibility of eventual change If that were not the case, then what is the purpose of offering any evidence in the first place?
But that is exactly what they did.
LikeLike
Insightful, JMG. If our minds are totally depraved, how would we ever know it?
On the other hand, my mind was so closed prior to conversion that I took a fairly emotional path to Christianity. I was merely searching for the Unshakable Ground that I wasn’t sure existed, but felt that there was enough good reason to suppose it could be found in Christianity. As an engineer, I took the empirical approach, tried it out, and found it to be wholly validated (Biblically and otherwise) after the fact. Someone (perhaps WLC?) actually said that this is a perfectly valid approach to truth seeking, from a Christian perspective.
I consider myself an evidentialist, but I guess my experience was more presuppositional. I tend to be Molinist, but enjoy the high view of worship and reverence that Calvinists display. I do think that some (but not all) minds, like mine, are so closed that the only way to Christ for them is (initially) experiential. I also believe that God honors a sincere search for truth.
I did have some evidence however. I happened to be in a situation in which I was suddenly surrounded by authentic Christian families leading authentic Christian lives. Their lives appealed to me – strongly, logically, and emotionally. I wanted what they had, and I believe, at least, that I freely chose to pursue it. The transition from darkness into light was immediate and spectacular. The hard core evidence later proved to me that my experience had indeed been authentic.
Not sure where this fits in theologically, but I am open to suggestions.
LikeLike
Fantastic points my friend.I couldn’t agree more that the differences in apologetic methodology have their grounding in our particular views of theology.I believe Van til’s approach was specifically Reformed,but also Biblical(naturally,as I believe the Reformed doctrines are Biblical).I doubt that you would be surprised that I don’t think Molinism is Biblical(although I respect those that do believe it).
I also think that the use of evidences are good.The issue to me is the supposed neutrality in which evidence is presented.I don’t think Jesus,Paul or any other Biblical author was arguing for “the greater probability of theism”.I see them arguing for the God that “certainly exist” and has revealed Himself to His creation in such a way that they are “without excuse” for denying Him.
LikeLike
World gone crazy;
I think their is some misunderstanding of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity.The historical understanding does not state that man is as bad as he could be,only that every aspect of his being has been tainted by sin in such a way that he cannot convert himself or prepare himself for conversion apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.I also think that Scripture teaches in Romans 3 that “none seek for God”.While I don’t for a second question the genuineness of your “seeking”(I think every Christian experiences a true “seeking after God”)I think this must be understood as the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing you to “seek” for God
LikeLike
Hey Andy, sorry for my flippant mis-characterization of the doctrine of total depravity. I was having a little too much fun. :-( I take seriously the Reformed view of the role of the Holy Spirit in conversion and the question of irresistible grace. Thanks for the gentleness in your reply. I hope to learn from it.
Again, I have a tremendous respect for the Reformed position, especially as it would seem to inoculate against liberal theology (high view of man, low view of God).
On the issue of Molinism, what is your view of WLC’s position here? (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism)
When I read Reformed Statements of Faith, one of the things that both inspires and troubles me is that they seem to follow a “God does all, God does all, …, God does all, and oh, by the way, free will exists” sort of pattern. I’m not saying that such an emphasis is wrong theologically or from a reverence standpoint – just that it seems weird. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Also, when I read the RCA’s position on abortion, I was shocked to see that it was, or appeared to be, “nuanced.” I walked away from that thinking “Gosh, they are more certain of their doctrine of total depravity than they are of the total depravity of abortion.” Am I mis-reading something here?
Thanks for your help, Andy! Blessings.
LikeLike
Hi World Gone crazy.
Let me first say that I have the upmost respect for WLC.He is great at what he does and I do appreciate his contribution to Christian Apologetics.Ive actually never heard him lose a debate.
However,while I really appreciate the desire that Molinists have to explain both the freedom of man & Divine Sovereignty,I think that “middle knowledge” is an unbiblical concept as well as the view of the libertarian freedom of man. I think that the Reformed doctrine of compatablism is to be favored & I see evidence of it in places like Genesis 50,Isaiah 10 ,Acts 2 & 4.Keep in mind,I think this is a secondary issue & have no issue in joining in with Molinists & Arminians in proclaiming the Gospel,doing Apologetics or Worshipping the Triune God!I think James White does a good job in this video of explaining the problems with middle knowledge from a Reformed perspective.The article from James N Andersen is worth reading too.God bless!
http://www.proginosko.com/2014/01/the-fallible-god-of-molinism/
LikeLike
Thanks, Andy! I will give these a good lookover – I appreciate the education you are offering. The hard core Calvinist position makes me uncomfortable, but that does not make it untrue. (Hebrews 10:31) Sometime I do wonder if I am clinging to my Molinism in a futile attempt to retain (too much?) free will. Of course, the question might be: is this a free will clinging or not. :-) (Tongue-in-cheek joke)
On presuppositionalism, isn’t Plantinga one? And wasn’t Blaise Pascal one? Those are pretty good names, IMO, and I am definitely attracted to Pascal’s Wager and an edgy extension of it that I came up with. I do realize their limitations. I guess I have always thought of presuppositionalism as worldview apologetics or conversational apologetics, which I believe to be necessary. But, I am largely ignorant on these issues.
I’m also a big fan of the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, who was Reformed, I believe. And, of course, Norm Geisler. Perhaps I will investigate the differences between moderate Calvinism and Molinism. God Bless you, Andy!
Sorry for getting this off track, WK. Aren’t you a Molinist too?
LikeLike
I’m not knowledgable enough on the RCC position of abortion to comment on that part.Arbortion is one of the greatest evidences of the falleness of humanity.It should not only be illegal,it should be unthinkable.
LikeLike
WGC,
From what you mention here about your journey to Christ, I think it began with your tacit acknowledgement that it seemed that there is a God (possibly through what you saw in creation itself?). It would also seem that the Holy Spirit was at work directing you to the evidence for the fact that there was indeed such a God, and that He had spoken to man and this message was to be found in Christianity.
As for “trying it out”, the fact that you said you did this from and engineering perspective would seem to tell me that you “tried it out” not to see if you liked it or not, but that you “tried it out” (.i.e. tested it) to see if it was valid or not (engineers are concerned with sorting what is valid out from what is not, yes?).
I too have much respect for the accomplishements and good that our Calvinist brethren have produced even though I likewise have objections to some of the tenets upon which they base their belief system, and am most concerned when even further understanding and practices (Presuppositionalism, to be specific) is erected upon such a suspect foundation. I too think that experience plays a very big role in ones coming to Christ, and experience is closely related to evidence. It is only when evidence is seen and or heard (i.e. experienced) that it becomes effective. While your description of your closed mind tells me that you were skeptical, skepticism is a good thing. One should not be gullible, and you were not, because you didn’t just believe anything that came down the pike. The claims of Christianity invite skepticism, precisely because they are true and can well withstand it. Skeptics are welcome to examine Christianity’s truth claims, synics are not and don’t really want to be anyway.
I think your last paragraph is key. You said you did have evidence and you point to those Christians who you had contact with. Initial evidence does not have to be a 30 page argument for the empty tomb, Jesus’ deity, or the like. Initial evidence at its minimum can simply be the credibility of those who bear the message. I think that is precisely the way it was in the day of the Apostle’s. After all, even though they did present arguments (both scripturally and logically) for the resurrection, Christ’s atonement, etc., an essential component of the success of their evangelism was their own credibility toward those they addressed. Truly, there are no records of guided tours to the empty tomb, presentations of the shroud of Turin, etc. Rather, they underlined as first-hand eyewitnesses the fact that what they were saying was authentic truth precisely because they were ready to suffer and die for the sake of the message and the one with whom it was concerned. It is also very insightful on your part to say that later, the “hard core evidence” confirmed and served to even more fully buttress your belief. That, in my opinion, is a classic way that the whole thing takes place. One cannot choose to believe something without evidence and you had that in your credible messengers. However, such a belief is rudimentary (although truly salvific) but, if it is to be fully mature and steadfast, it must progress beyond that point with evidence that allows the belief to stand on its own without continued dependence only upon the credibility of the messenger.
That’s more than my two cents. That’s a full nickel’s worth. ;)
LikeLike
Once again, JMG, you have hit the nail on the head and placed this in, what I believe, is a solid theological-philosophical framework. Your words express better than mine the manner in which I view God’s conversion of me, my submission, etc. I “feel” like the Holy Spirit was knocking (often gently, sometimes pounding) on the door to get my attention for much (all?) of my life, and finally I listened enough to respond.
You are most correct that I responded as a validation exercise, not as a makes-me-feel-good experience (although that happened too!), especially when we consider that some of my favorite early Bible verses were John 16:33, John 15:18, etc. On the other hand, I would be lying if I did not admit that, despite my worldly successes, I was ready to turn my life over to One Who could run it far better than I. So, I WAS looking for a better here-and-now, provided that it was based on the Truth that corresponds to reality. Thanks much for your always insightful observations, JMG!
LikeLike
Andy,
Yes, again I understand precisely where you are coming from. The issue of the purpose in the Biblical accounts of people (Jesus, the apostles, etc.) presenting evidence does indeed swing around what one finds in scripture regarding the depravity of mankind.
It is truly here (although not only here when examining all the tenets TULIP of Reformed theology) that Presuppositionalists stumble over their tether to the Reformed understanding of what scripture has to say about depravity.
Sadly, the Reformed position tends to focus on particular verses which, when removed from their context, seem to support the idea that each human being is as depraved “in practice” as he will ever be from the moment of birth. The immediate context as well as the wider context indicate otherwise – (Romans 3 talks about seeking after God, not in terms of acknowledging his existence, but in terms of seeking to please him by conducting ones life in such a righteous manner that He will be pleased, note 3:12 “there is none that DOETH GOOD”) & (Romans 1 shows the influence of depravity, while beginning at birth, is actually a process that can become more pervasive with time and continued suppression of what truth is presented, note 1:21 “they BECAME vain in their imaginations”). When such a pivotal tenet of Reformed theology is based upon such a misunderstanding, its Presuppositional offspring which piggy-backs on the same tenet is equally questionable.
It is good to see that you do feel that there is some value in presenting evidence to support the truth of a divine claim, but even here the value that you ascribe to it is a bit dubious in light of the wider Reformed position. Is the continued and unrelenting presentation of evidence (Jesus’ miracles, his resurrection, etc.) on the part of God merely to add to the indictment of the lost? How many times must one indict a blind man for his lack of sight? or a deaf man for is lack of hearing? The mere fact that the lost suppress the truth before their eyes in creation is more than enough to demonstrate their guilt before God. The addition of more on top of this is quite superfluous if that is all that it is meant to do. Even more, the idea of evidence simply for the purpose of eliminating any excuse on the part of the lost for their continued “lostness” makes little sense when seen from the totality of the Reformed perspective. After all, Reformed theology advocates the position of limited atonement. That of course means that Christ died only for the elect, and that there is not even potential in his atonement for those who remain lost. So the idea that God is zealous to present piles of evidence to eliminate any excuse on the part of the lost for their unredeemed state, while at the same time providing them no possibility for that redemption in Christ’s atonement and thereby handing them a monumental excuse for their unbelief is quite contradictory on God’s part. The fact that God does not contradict himself makes simultaneously holding both these positions about His actions very problematic.
Having said this, I do wish to be sensitive to WK’s actual topic and not go TOO far afield into a full-blown discussion of the merits and problems resident in Reformed theology and its Presuppositional offshoot.
I think as long as the value of evidence in evangelism / conversion is the focus, then at least we can be relevant to the topic.
LikeLike
What about the clean animals, and the birds? Do they have an explanation for the part? Or did they include all 7 pairs? From the text above, it sounds like just one pair of each. Confused.
LikeLike