• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noah's Ark

thatguywhojuggles

Graduate Poster
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
1,335
I was reading about the amusement park Answers in Genesis is planning to build which will include a wooden replica of Noah's Ark. The images they show of the planned ark show it sitting on the ground. Does anyone here know what the size limit of an all wooden boat would be? By limit I mean how big can the thing be before it's own weight causes it to break in half when in the water.

Maybe we should challenege the Answers in Genesis to build their big wooden boat, and show us that the thing can float. It would make their ark a lot more impressive imho.
 
The images they show of the planned ark show it sitting on the ground. Does anyone here know what the size limit of an all wooden boat would be?
Far as I know, a whole lot smaller than the Ark.
 
Actually, the calculation has been done (somewhere). I don't recall the exact number, but something in the order of 250 feet (sorry, work google does not give me accurate returns that I can check into) without resorting to some sort of metal reinforcement. Maybe someone with better google-fu than mine can turn up something reliable.
 
"First, the matter of the vessel's mass. A wooden vessel is not very strong as its size increases, so the builder must use timbers and planking that generally increase in cross-section as at least the square of the vessel's length. Most woods are rather dense and float pretty deeply, so an ark would have little of its unladen mass above the waterline. The ark as described was in the shape of a rectangular prism, so it had a lot of unnecessary material in order to make those square corners, as well as the bracing necessary to reinforce those fragile corners. It would therefore have a mass somewhat greater than the unladen mass of a modern vessel of roughly similar dimensions. The longest well-documented wooden ship ever built, the Wyoming, in 1909, had an unladen mass of 4000 tons: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(ship). Her hull was only about 2/3 as long as the ark and only about half as wide. So, multiplying the Wyoming's mass by 1.5 squared (2.25) for the thicker timbers and planks, and by 3 for the difference in size, the ark should mass nearly 7 times Wyoming's (she had 90 diagonal iron braces on each side, yet she "worked" so much she foundered). Allowing for additional wood to replace the much stronger and more rigid iron we can presume that the ark would have an unladen mass somewhere near 30,000 tons, equivalent to 937,500 cubic feet of seawater, about 3/5 of the total volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet (per Oelrich) submerged, leaving a maximum capacity of 581,250 cubic feet (at best, the equivalent of two 33,750 square-foot decks of the ark) for all purposes. I served in an aircraft carrier for some years: she had about 1.7 million square feet of deck space (about 50 times the deck space of the ark) yet could barely accommodate 6,000 men, and that only because we had replenishments of food about every two weeks and made our own water.

You can make a very sturdy small rowboat out of a couple sheets of plywood and a few 1X1s, but you cannot readily scale it up because the larger vessel requires many pieces that cannot span the lengths involved. So, you must use thousands of pieces that will "work" against one another, engendering leaks. Anybody who's worked on wooden boats will tell you that you can't just seal their seams with pitch but must painstakingly caulk (drive pitch-soaked yarn into) every external seam; they'll also tell you that joining the pieces of wood together takes skill and (in the Bronze Age rare and very expensive) metal fasteners, at least for non-trivial vessels. Consider that Wyoming foundered because the crew (larger than Noah's) couldn't keep up with the leaks, despite reportedly having steam-driven pumps. Consider that Wyoming's yellow pine is much stronger than acacia or any other readily-available wood in the Middle East. Even the fabled cedars of Lebanon are structurally poor compared to yellow pine. I discovered today that the NIV says it was cypress but admits that the meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain. The same problem obtains for cypress. Then multiply Wyoming's 6-inch planking and the underlying structure by a factor to allow for the weakness of local woods, considering that the local woods would have to be doubled and redoubled, making the interior capacity somewhat smaller than the gross, presumably external, measurements of the ark. Consider also that the ark would also have a shape making broaching unavoidable in even moderate seas. Wyoming could carry only 6720 tons of coal, but coal weighs about 88 pounds/cubic foot, about 1.4 times as dense as animals and a whole lot less trouble to carry. That means Wyoming's bunkers held a volume of just over 157,000 cubic feet. Assuming that the ark could carry any load at all, it would need cargo room at many times (see next paragraph) the volume of Wyoming's coal bunkers, not likely considering the inadequate volume before adding timbers required to provide even a modicum of structural stability."

http://www.skepdic.com/comments/noahcom.html
Just a quick search. I can't confirm any numbers, but the general reasoning is there. Just for reference the Wyoming was 450 ft and 2/3 the length of the arc. Making the acctual arc around 675 ft in length.
 
Last edited:
Didn't the Wyoming have iron bands and such that gave additional reinforcements (beyond just fastening)? Again, my searches aren't really turning up anything very reliable. :(
 
Yup, it was not nearly as big as the ark, and had metal reinforcements to keep it from breaking apart, yet it still leaked tremendously and required steam pumps to keep it from sinking. The reference, I believe, was to show that a ship that size would require at least reinforcements and the ark did not...

To that end I havent found a reference to a calculation showing how big a pure wooden ship could be, either.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the calculation has been done (somewhere). I don't recall the exact number, but something in the order of 250 feet (sorry, work google does not give me accurate returns that I can check into) without resorting to some sort of metal reinforcement. Maybe someone with better google-fu than mine can turn up something reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_largest_wooden_ships


If Noah had steel, 300ft or so looks about the limit, and without steel bracing more like 200-250ft.

That's at the the height of wooden boat building history, (sizewise anyhow) how much practice did ol' Noah get?

doesn't work out does it?
 
Actually, the calculation has been done (somewhere). I don't recall the exact number, but something in the order of 250 feet (sorry, work google does not give me accurate returns that I can check into) without resorting to some sort of metal reinforcement. Maybe someone with better google-fu than mine can turn up something reliable.

There is really no upper limit to the size of a wooden ship, only the construction methods. The Chinese have historically built bigger than the west. Although disputed, there is evidence of some Junks getting up 370 feet long. Interestingly, their cargo capacity was well below western vessels. But if the stories are correct, were well constructed for ocean going voyages

I believe even the Romans occasionally built well over 250feet. The largest theoretical size for a ship with a reasonable life span though is consided around 340 feet. This was approached by the British in the mid 19th century.
 
Here are a couple of good articles on the subject.
SS Great WesternWP
SS Great BritainWP
The chief advantage of the iron hull however, was its much greater structural strength. The practical limit on the length of a wooden-hulled ship is about 300 feet, after which the phenomenon of hogging—the flexing of the hull as waves pass beneath it—becomes too great. Iron hulls are far less subject to hogging, so that the potential size of an iron-hulled ship is much greater.[5]

I think the Great Western was about the biggest wooden ship built. Some stats.

Type: Oak-hulled paddle-wheel steamship
Tonnage: 1,340 GRT, later 1,700 GRT
Displacement: 2300 ton
Length: 71.6 m (234.91 ft), later 76.8 m (251.97 ft) long
Beam: 17.59 m (57.71 ft) across wheel


Yes, you might be able to build a longer ship, if you were confined to calm waters. However if you built a ship for a world wide flood you would expect storms, so a large wooden ship would not work.
 
There is really no upper limit to the size of a wooden ship, only the construction methods. The Chinese have historically built bigger than the west. Although disputed, there is evidence of some Junks getting up 370 feet long. Interestingly, their cargo capacity was well below western vessels. But if the stories are correct, were well constructed for ocean going voyages

I believe even the Romans occasionally built well over 250feet. The largest theoretical size for a ship with a reasonable life span though is consided around 340 feet. This was approached by the British in the mid 19th century.

Actually their warships were a lot lighter than ships like Great Western
Hellenistic-era_warshipsWP
According to Polybius, at the Battle of Ecnomus the Roman quinqueremes carried a total crew of 420, 300 of whom were rowers, and the rest marines.[38] Leaving aside a deck crew of ca. 20, and accepting the 2–2–1 pattern of oarsmen, the quinquereme would have 90 oars in each side, and 30-strong files of oarsmen.[34] The fully-decked quinquereme could also carry a marine detachment of 70 to 120, giving a total complement of about 400.[13] A "five" would be ca. 45 m long, displace around 100 tonnes, be some 5 m wide at water level, and have its deck standing ca. 3 m above the sea.[13]


My next question is how was Noah's Ark powered? It did not have the crew for big sails, let alone oars.
 
It gets even worse. My copy of the Bible translates it not as being made of wood, but as only being made of reeds with wood ribs, and the same ancient Hebrew word is only used elsewhere to indicate reed vessels or maybe wood-reinforced reed vessels at most, like the basket that Moses was set afloat in, rafts, and small local lake/river fishing boats.
 
Why would it be powered? It was only intended to float!

Then if Noah sees land he can go to it rather than waiting for all the water leaving the earth. Imagine if he had ended up in the middle of the ocean.

He would also have to go around the world leaving special animals in special places, like the kangaroo in Australia.
 
With all the ad hoc involved in trying to explain away problems with a literal global Flood, I think whether the building AiG builds could actually float or not is the least of their problems.
 
Stories of giant Chinese and Roman ships are all very well, but without any other evidence they are stories just like the Ark.
 
Will they also fill it with 2 of every animal? Heck, even simple cardboard copies would do.

I can't wait for the idiots to build themselves and ark and try to show how you can shove 2 elephants, 2 girafes, 2 cows, 2 horses, 2 camels etc

All in a single structure based on the biblical standards
 
Will they also fill it with 2 of every animal? Heck, even simple cardboard copies would do.

I can't wait for the idiots to build themselves and ark and try to show how you can shove 2 elephants, 2 girafes, 2 cows, 2 horses, 2 camels etc

All in a single structure based on the biblical standards

They'll probably fill it with "Original Biblically Created Kinds"TM. You can see an example in the Creation Museum where they have a pair of "horse kind" You can see a photo of them in this article.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/horse-fossils
 
we had replenishments of food about every two weeks and made our own water.

I make my own water too. It's easy! :)

Nice post though. I hadn't thought about the structural problems of making the ark before, because all the other issues with a global flood story already make it a non-flyer.


It gets even worse. My copy of the Bible translates it not as being made of wood, but as only being made of reeds with wood ribs, and the same ancient Hebrew word is only used elsewhere to indicate reed vessels or maybe wood-reinforced reed vessels at most, like the basket that Moses was set afloat in, rafts, and small local lake/river fishing boats.

Have you got a reference for that Delvo? Thor Hyerdahl made a reed boat (The Ra expedition I think) which he took out to sea before it sank. I'm not sure what time period of Egypt he was referencing for his design but wouldn't it have been around the time of, or more recent and so more advanced than the boat building techniques at the time the flood account was written? So I think it's reasonable that the bible writer would have thought a reed boat style construction would have been the way to go. Would be nice to know for sure that's what the writer said though.

I can't remember why the Ra expedition failed but I'm sure that a reed based construction of something the size of the ark would definitely fail, placing the story firmly in the fantasy category.
 

Back
Top Bottom