I know that "hastily constructed" is how this is often explained, but for me, it's more a explanation that doesn't really match what it's trying to explain. I guess that phrase always is odd, as the speed at which an argument is made should have little to do with its validity. talk 03:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Very correct. I noticed this problem and changed the article to be more enlightening. Brianpansky (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Noah's ark as example of ad hoc (removed)
In theory, noah's ark could indeed float, based on scientific modelling and our current understanding of measurements.
In their study, students decided on an average length for their calculations: 48.2 centimeters. This means that, by their approximations, the ark would have been 144.6 meters long, 24.1 meters wide, and 14.46 meters tall—the size of a very small cargo ship. They went with cypress wood, though pine and cedar wood have similar densities. Using the density of cypress, they calculated the weight of this hypothetical ark: 1,200,000 kilograms (by comparison the Titanic weighed about 53,000,000 kilograms). Based on the density of sea water, they figured out that an empty box-shaped ark would float with it's hull only dipping 0.34 meters into the water.
- From the study itself;
"Therefore, regardless of which figure is correct, we believe the ark to be of sufficient buoyancy. Of course, this does not conclude whether logistically Noah’s ark was possible, it remains to be concluded if the size of the boat is sufficient to house all the animals."