{{protectThe claim that the Chinese character for boat is flawed. The word 'boat' in Chinese is made up of three parts, 'boat', 'mouth' however the last part is not 'eight'. It is a radical which looks similar to 'eight' but in fact is not. It means table. Could this be changed?[[User:EvelynJ|MountainDew}}EvelynJ]]
"asswaged"?
I think ''kinds'' should be linked to [[Baraminology]] [[User:PrometheusX303|PrometheusX303]] 09:36, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
:Done! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
== cubit ==
I suggest the "design and construction" section note that there are different widely-used lengths of the cubit in ancient times (egyptian royal, sumerian nipur, roman, greek, arabic, and the potential that the cubit referred to in Genesis was different than all of them), so we don't really know what the size of the ark was in feet. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
: Do you by chance read [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/original-cubit Answers Magazine]? I agree. You might also want to include which cubit measurement was used in the current cited size, and also add more info to [[cubit]]. [[User:PrometheusX303|PrometheusX303]] 10:06, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:: Good to see you again, my friend:). The protection of creationism-oriented articles makes development very difficult without admins dedicated to discussing and making changes. Simple, commonsense edits like this one seem to just sit on talk pages and go nowhere:(. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
== Lets distinguish between articles ==
I feel that with this subject, there could be a lot of duplication between this one and the [[Great Flood]]. This article should be talking about the Ark as you would talk about any vessel. Another way we could look at this is, we shouldn't see any general flood criticisms in this article, but we might have criticisms of the ark as a vessel. Also, we don't need to talk about the life of Noah here, since it's about the vessel itself. Just some thoughts to keep in mind while we edit. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 20:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: I agree. And in the same vein, [[Great Flood]] is about flood accounts, not about [[Flood geology]], which has its own article.
== References ==
It's common in Bible study notes and the like to put scripture references inline, but in other publications, it's normal to put references as footnotes or the like. This being an encyclopaedia, I think we should put scripture references in as footnotes rather than inline, as they were before Ymmotrojam changed them.
Also, Ymmotrojam removed the explanatory footnote of the flood being a year long. The Bible doesn't spell out in so many words that it lasted a year, so as it's a (simple) deduction from what it does say, I feel that this footnote should have remained.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:57, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
==Depth of the Ark==
Is there a measurement for the depth of the Ark? The draft is the measurement from the keel to the waterline. It would be helpful to know the cubic meters for the Ark to understand its size.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:47, 8 December 2008 (EST)
: Did you see the footnote for the draft? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::No, I did not, thank you for pointing that out. Could we add the 30 cubits since most hull measurements include depth? I would add it but the page is locked.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:01, 8 December 2008 (EST)
==Responses to Criticisms==
I recently received my copy of Woodmorappe's Ark Feasibility Study and I see that it comprehensibly addresses all of the criticisms listed. I would like to address each criticism with a '''Response'''. Is there any chance of this article being unlocked? [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 12:27, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: I've unlocked it. It's been locked too long anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:00, 29 January 2009 (EST)
== problematic use of reference - the graph ==
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
apart from the general questionable character of the Noah's Ark article, I as a historian have to object to the graph presented. Obviously methods of ship construction evolved during the first millenium B.C., wherefor the equation of technolgy levels presented is inacceptable. The graph, whereever it may come from, is clearly not based on scientific grounds. The succession of "Roman era, Dark Ages, Renaissance" is clearly made up in regards to general history, history of technology and history of ship-building.
The presented "model" of the Ark is absurd at the least. If one feels the urge to present the Ark as anything other as an allegory, it should be done another way. I would suggest a whole fleet for the beginning...
With best regards,
J.F.H.
== Carnivores ==
How were carnivorous animals prevented from killing the other animals? The small number of humans on board wouldn't have been able to physically stop lions, tigers etc. from doing so - because they're much faster and stronger than humans. Even if they weren't hungry, they'd have killed out of instinct. How would they have got all the animals to queue up (as shown the picture)? Antelope, sheep etc. in a queue with lions and tigers? [[User:Zx|Zx]] ([[User talk:Zx|talk]]) 00:26, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:Have you not read the account of Daniel being in the lions den? Were there not cows and goats and chickens on board? Did you ever feed your dog or cat milk or eggs from the fridge? They even showed what both people and animals were eating in the Noah's ark scene from the 1965 film ''The Bible'' starring John Huston as Noah - a film you obviously seen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 01:28, 21 August 2017 (EDT)