|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: That boat don't float | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
I already stated that these people do not remember the details of making ocean going boats. I just wanted you to see that reed buildings could be tall.
If you want a reference to ocean going reed boats, see; http://archaeology.about.com/od/hterms/g/h3sabiyah.htm This boat is dated to 5,000 BC They had 2,000 years to learn how to make them bigger and stronger. We have only tried to recreate them for 50 years, so we haven't been able to make them as big.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
That is not a reference to ocean going reed boats of the magnitude necessary for the famed biblical ark. It is a reference for a piece of tar that possibly came off of a reed structure that was submersed in sea water.
lame ass about.com writes: The boat is represented by a slab of bitumen tar, with reed impressions on the top and barnacles attached to the bottom You don't like providing actual evidence, do you? Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
see message 286
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
it references;
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...nal/118657921/abstract Here the tar found at Oman originated in N. Mesopotamia. They state that the pieces are thought to have been from boats. Where do you get the evidence that the tar is from some other reed structure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
They state that the pieces are thought to have been from boats. Yes, thought. That is the key word.
Where do you get the evidence that the tar is from some other reed structure? Where do you see solid evidence that it IS from massive hulking ark size reed ships? All this shows is a high possibillity that they were using bitumen tar for reed structures ~5000 BC. Whoopty friggin doo. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Greentwiga,
People aren't questioning the existence of reed boats or reed houses, and they do not doubt that people would have put pitch on reed boats. What they doubt is the possibility of extremely large multi-story structures built from reeds. Providing pictures of single-level dwellings and small boats is not supportive of that possibility. And since one would expect that ancient inscriptions would attempt to capture the most amazing structures of the day, inscriptions that do not portray anything more complex than single story reed dwellings would seem to be evidence against your position. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Also, the only other floating craft called an ark was made of reeds.
Was it? Do tell. quote: Exodus 2:3 That's the only other thing the Torah refers to as an 'Ark', and is probably what greentwiga's source was actually referring to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi greentwiga,
Re: anchor stones away ... You mention 7064 as being nest or compartments. Compare that to 7070 (strongs) where the similar word is reeds. They are not similar. 7064 is 'ets. 7070 is qaneh. What similarity am I supposed to see here? Even in Hebrew, they do not resemble each other. Besides, Gen 6:14 uses 'ets, not anything else, so the point is moot.
Strongs claims the word is from a different word, also meaning erect, but the Schocken Bible translates it as reeds, not rooms. Your English is awful. Which word? Are you talking about 'ets or qaneh? Or something else? Please try to be clear in your writing.
The relationship is close enough and the language is often from such ancient sources, that reed is also a reasonable interpretation. Or in other words "Ah screw it, close enough!" There is no relationship. You have demonstrated no similarity, nor any reason to think that 'ets means anything other than wood.
Google search for Iraqi marsh arab reed mosques. that is the closest I can come to modern examples of tall reed structures on reed rafts. I did, but all I found were pictures of buildings - buildings- not building/boats. I do not deny that one can make a boat of reeds. I do not deny that one can make a small building of reeds. What I deny is that one can combine the two. You have provided no evidence that this this is possible. on anything like the necessary scale.
Otherwise we would have to look at the giant greek and roman barges that had several stories above the boat part. Again, you are being very unclear. What Greek and Roman barges? Are you telling me that the Romans made multi-storey barges from reeds? Forgive me if I remain a little sceptical. All told, you have no evidence from the text, you have no archaeological evidence, you cannot point to any structure similar to what you are proposing and you are flat-out denying the actual text of the Bible. All for a theory that offers no more likelihood of accounting for all-the-worlds-animals-on-a-single-boat than a wooden ark. All a bit pointless really. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Ahh. Thanks Mod.
Of course, I really don't think that this has anything to do with Noah's Ark. The word essentially means "box". The Moses story seems to fit this definition very well. I don't think that comparing a single floating crib and a gigantic floating zoo is particularly useful. Also, it's probably worth noting that Exodus does not use the word 'ets to describe reeds, it uses suph. Nor does it use the same word for pitch as Gen 6:14, so the comparison really is pretty thin. Thanks. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
http://www.ce.memphis.edu/...Documents/Asphalt%20History.pdf
Marine Asphalt is an excellent waterproofing agent and was long used in ship building. Early on they coated papyrus reeds to bind them together and also to make them impervious to water and, incidentally, rotting. The small round boat called the gufa is an example and the asphalt would be applied in the form of ‘slime’. Later, when true ships were built using wood planking, the asphalt was mixed with fibrous material and packed into the joints between the planks, and called ‘pitch’. A document at hinduthought.googlepages.com/oldestboat.doc goes into much more detail about why scientists think the chips were from a boat and not some other structure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Cool story bra'. Now take all of that stuff you looked up and somehow try and marry it up with the biblical flood.
"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4804 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"All for a theory that offers no more likelihood of accounting for all-the-worlds-animals-on-a-single-boat than a wooden ark. All a bit pointless really."
Although I am not much of a boat expert, I am a logical man. And since you seem to proclaim to internet readers alike that believing in a boat made of wood carried every living thing on earth in it is more plausible than every thing on earth coming from a singularity that has never been found or discovered, and is supposedly made of nothing, that exploded and gave us light elements such as helium and hydrogen ONLY, that over billions of years formed clouds that collapsed down on themselves to form planets and stars (without any outside energy), that in turn incomplete chemicals travelled from the surface of earth to the vents of the ocean floor to create organisms with no genetic code of any kind, and could reproduce without any protiens (that are required for all of life today to orientate, reproduce and distribute oxygen). Now, like I said, I'm no boat expert. But a simple Google of the largest wooden ships in history tell me that the arguement for the boat that don't float is irrelevant without some design flaw in the ark itself. Tessarakonteres - 42058 ftThalamegos - 377.346 ft (2 storeys) Caligula's Giant Ship - 341 ft Many completely wooden ships were over 300 feet, and some documented even over 400. To assume that a boat that God asked Noah to build would not float makes no sense, unless the real discussion is if God exists at all. Since boats of this size have existed, there is no question that the boat COULD have floated. And if it is plausible, then the question is, is God real? Because if he is, then God would have known what the boat needed to be (strength, shape, and size) for it to survive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
Tessarakonteres:
Wiki writes: But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, Thalamegos: found as an unconfirmed or mythological ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_largest_wooden_ships#Unconfirmed_or_Mythological_large_wooden_ships Caligula's Giant Ship: Useless as a vessel and believed to have been used as a sort of pleasure barge. Hardly suitable for the weather that must have been present to flood the entire world in 40 days. It has already been pointed out that, while somewhat feasable, ships of this magnitude are worthless as seafaring craft. Try again dumbass. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
dennis780 writes: ...[Noah's ark] is more plausible than every thing on earth coming from a singularity that has never been found or discovered, and is supposedly made of nothing, that exploded and gave us light elements such as helium and hydrogen ONLY, that over billions of years formed clouds that collapsed down on themselves to form planets and stars (without any outside energy), that in turn incomplete chemicals travelled from the surface of earth to the vents of the ocean floor to create organisms with no genetic code of any kind, and could reproduce without any protiens (that are required for all of life today to orientate, reproduce and distribute oxygen). Let's keep the focus on the boat, but just in case you were serious I thought I'd point out that there's nothing in that paragraph that accurately represents any scientific views. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Dennis,
Although I am not much of a boat expert, I am a logical man. Uh-huh.
And since you seem to proclaim to internet readers alike that believing in a boat made of wood carried every living thing on earth in it is more plausible than every thing on earth coming from a singularity that has never been found or discovered... ...and could reproduce without any protiens (that are required for all of life today to orientate, reproduce and distribute oxygen). If you were as logical as you think you are, you might have noticed that you never finished this sentence. Since I supposedly think that, then... what exactly? On second thoughts, never mind. Your attempt to drag us off onto some digression about cosmology is irrelevant to the topic. For the record though, I don't find the idea of a wooden ark much more convincing than a reed one. A vessel that size simply could not support some preposterous floating zoo. It would be way beyond the capacities of the vessel and beyond the capabilities of such a small crew. Oh, and there never was any global flood, which kinda makes this whole discussion superfluous.
Now, like I said, I'm no boat expert. But a simple Google of the largest wooden ships in history tell me that the arguement for the boat that don't float is irrelevant without some design flaw in the ark itself. Tessarakonteres - 42058 ftThalamegos - 377.346 ft (2 storeys) Caligula's Giant Ship - 341 ft Yes, those are some very lovely unconfirmed or mythological ships. I notice that you left the ark off your list. Could that be because the ark is bigger than any of these?
To assume that a boat that God asked Noah to build would not float makes no sense, unless the real discussion is if God exists at all. Could you be any more ridiculous? It must be possible, because God said to do it? Is that honestly the best you can do? There never was any global flood. There was never a deluge and therefore no need for an ark. Whether God is real or not isn't relevant. Your God might well be real, but the story is still false. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the Bible account is the word of an infallible God and that is not an assumption that I am obliged to share. You can't confirm the veracity of a story by declaring one of its characters infallible. The only way to tell if the account is true or not, is to compare it to observable real-world evidence. And the flood myth fails this test.
Since boats of this size have existed, there is no question that the boat COULD have floated. But you haven't demonstrated that. You've shown that a few slightly smaller ships might have been built, thousands of years after the ark was meant to have been built. Nor would it be enough to prove that such a boat could merely float; it would have to be seaworthy, in rough weather, with an entire zoo aboard. Even if you could establish all this, which you can't, you would only have proved that the ark is plausible; You would still have to show evidence that it actually existed if you wanted to make the story believable.
And if it is plausible, then the question is, is God real? No, if the ark were plausible - which it's not - then the question would be "Is the ark real?". And since it's not plausible, and since there exists no evidence for it, nor any evidence of a global flood, I think we can conclude that it was almost certainly not real. Most people figure this out about the same time they realise that Santa doesn't really bring those presents.
Because if he is, then God would have known what the boat needed to be (strength, shape, and size) for it to survive. I agree. You'd think that God would know that. Odd then, that the authors of Genesis don't appear to have had a clue. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024