|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: That boat don't float | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3448 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
They had thousands of years to perfect their reed boat building. We have done it about 10 times with a variety of successes and failures. Some have pointed out that we can't build a reed boat that long. We can't even build a reed boat big enough to hold what their bills of lading said they held. Nor have we shown that we can build one that would last long enough to grow moderate sized barnacles on them, but we have the evidence that the boats stayed in the water long enough to grow them. We haven't even found out how to apply the tar or why, yet the ancients felt it necessary and give the recipe. a version of the recipe was used when Heyerdahl visited, and a simple form of the recipe is in the Bible. What we can't do doesn't prove anything about what they did. Furthermore, if this was a regional flood, mainly in the Sumerian swamps, a huge river raft that did not need to stand up to the rigors of sea travel could have been what was built.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
greentwiga writes: Furthermore, if this was a regional flood, mainly in the Sumerian swamps, a huge river raft that did not need to stand up to the rigors of sea travel could have been what was built. If you're dropping the claim of a multi-deck reed boat loaded with representatives of the entire world's species then the plausibility goes way up. It becomes something that could have happened and is such an innocuous claim that there's little point to debating whether the evidence supports that it actually happened. But you now have a different problem: convincing Biblical literalists. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
According to the Scofield reference notes on this subject:
quote: In looking for the cuneiform mention, I found the Epic of Gilgamesh which states it as 360 cubits long. 360 is the same length as many of the longest wooden boats ever recorded, of which Wikipedia has a detailed list. At any rate, some points to be made: A) The wood. As has already been pointed out, this was built of Gopher Wood, and possibly an ancient and strong wood. If the water canopy theory was correct, it may have affected tree growth. Nevertheless, it's a stretch to suggest this could have affected ship strength to much extent, but could've resulted in bigger or longer trees. B) The crew. Keep in mind that people beforehand lived hundreds upon hundreds of years. They went through a drastic change after the flood when God stated they would from then on live only 120 years. After the flood, human lives began dramatically declining. It is possible our 'missing links' are merely skeletons of human beings in this period of decline when their bodies were changing to shorter lives. At any rate, they may have been shorter and stouter, better able to singlehandedly man a large ship. Bear in mind also it talked about giants and men of extraordinary valor in those days (Genesis 6:4, 10:9) and the longer lives (and inferrably stronger bodies) may have had something to do with this. There were also likely fewer diseases then as well. C) The measurements. Keep in mind a cubit is based on forearm length. But as mentioned, human bodies before the flood were different. If shorter and stouter with shorter arms, then cubits would be smaller, and the ark smaller. If bigger and taller, the ark could be bigger than believed. At any rate, it's another factor at play here. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : links
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
A) The wood. As has already been pointed out, this was built of Gopher Wood, and possibly an ancient and strong wood. If the water canopy theory was correct, it may have affected tree growth. Nevertheless, it's a stretch to suggest this could have affected ship strength to much extent, but could've resulted in bigger or longer trees.
There is no evidence of a global flood in historic times (or ever for that matter). There is no evidence of some ancient super wood. There is no evidence for a water canopy. These are nothing but "what ifs."
B) The crew. Keep in mind that people beforehand lived hundreds upon hundreds of years. They went through a drastic change after the flood when God stated they would from then on live only 120 years. After the flood, human lives began dramatically declining. It is possible our 'missing links' are merely skeletons of human beings in this period of decline when their bodies were changing to shorter lives. At any rate, they may have been shorter and stouter, better able to singlehandedly man a large ship. Bear in mind also it talked about giants and men of extraordinary valor in those days (Genesis 6:4, 10:9) and the longer lives (and inferrably stronger bodies) may have had something to do with this. There were also likely fewer diseases then as well. There is no evidence for humans living hundreds and hundreds of years. Our "missing links" (a newspaper term, not a scientific term) are dated millions of years ago. The flood is claimed by biblical scholars to have been about 4,350 years ago. There is no evidence that humans were significantly different in height or strength, for a worldwide average, during historic times than now. Certainly not different enough to back up your claim.
C) The measurements. Keep in mind a cubit is based on forearm length. But as mentioned, human bodies before the flood were different. If shorter and stouter with shorter arms, then cubits would be smaller, and the ark smaller. If bigger and taller, the ark could be bigger than believed. At any rate, it's another factor at play here. Again, there is no evidence for a global flood during historic times. And humans were much the same average dimensions (worldwide) then as now. These "what ifs" you are coming up with are not evidence, and they don't negate empirical evidence no matter how much you might want them to. They are simply your way of pretending that the flood occurred as described in the bible when the empirical evidence is clear and overwhelming that it did not. You seem to think that you can negate all scientific evidence by a simple "what if." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Why don't you follow the empirical evidence and see where that leads? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
...possibly an ancient and strong wood. If the water canopy theory was correct.... It is possible... If shorter and stouter... If bigger and taller... If all the animals that lived before the flud had wings and could live on air alone, then they wouldn't need an ark at all. Gosh, it's easy to explain anything if you're allowed limitless speculation without the need to produce one iota of evidence. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: This at least is incorrect. There are numerous ancient flood legends worldwide bearing resemblance to that of the Bible. There are numerous Native American flood legends seen at firstpeople.us which have similarities to the Biblical flood legend: * Acoma: According to the Acoma Creation of Summer and Winterp myth, "The oldest tradition of the people of Acoma and Laguna indicates that they lived on some island; that their homes were destroyed by tidal waves, earthquakes, and red-hot stones from the sky. They fled and landed on a low, swampy coast. From here they migrated to the Northwest, and wherever they made a long stay they built a 'White City' (Kush-kut-ret)." * Algonquin: Flood legend describes world flood with raven sent to find soil before sending a muskrat. Earth then repopulated. Their legend, 'The Great Flood', mentions a canoe filled with many animals and birds used to escape a huge flood sent after the prophet. A beaver sent out for earth was unsuccessful but the muskrat sent next succeeded. A raven was sent to fly over as dry land appeared, and the earth was then repeopled. * Apache: Apache Creation Legend tells about people surviving a flood in a tree covered with pinion gum and a flood receding in 12 days. It also says the flood changed plains into mountains, hills, valleys, and rivers. Interestingly, says the sky was made during the time of the flood. The Jicarilla Genesis also tells of great storms and waters with people sending out a polecat and raven to find dry land, and of many dead creatures lying about afterward. * Blackfoot: The Making of the Earth legend tells of a flood with 'old man' sitting on the highest mountain sending an otter, beaver, muskrat, and then duck to bring back earth. Similar stories to those in Genesis also exist about how the earth was created (see Abenaki Creation Story & The Importance of Dreaming, Achomawi Creation Myth, Apache Creation Legend, the Jicarilla Genesis, Blackfoot Creation Story). As seen from the search results, there are more than 50 results for flood on the site. I only looked at the A-B ones, and not thoroughly either. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
This at least is incorrect. There are numerous ancient flood legends worldwide bearing resemblance to that of the Bible. There are numerous Native American flood legends seen at firstpeople.us which have similarities either to the flood: So legends constitute evidence? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: This statement is also at odds with current scientific discoveries (the following largely repeated from my posts on this topic): A) The world's ancient marine life was simultaneously extinguished by an underwater volcanic eruption near China. This is interesting since in Genesis it talks about 'the fountains of the deep breaking up' which to me has always been suggestive of underwater volcanic activity. Such a flood has always seemed to me a plausible possibility for the breaking up of Pangaea, and it's a shame scientists have refused to consider that or even mention its possibility.Sources: New York Times, Bloomberg.com, ScienceDaily, National Geographic B) The inner earth may hold more water than the seas.Source: National Geographic C) Huge ocean discovered inside the earth recently.Source: LiveScience, PhysOrg D) It is recognized from the 'Permian Triassic Extinction Event' that a large extinction did in fact wipe out much of the earth's life by at least 70-95%. The debate is not on whether it happened, but when it happened. Additionally, there is the mere act of fossilization, which requires covering something so fast bacteria can't destroy it. Sinking down gradually into swamps doesn't allow for this. And how do you fossilize footprints if not covering them rapidly from above? Josh McDowell in his book 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity' addressed these points as well as others, including the mixing of fossil deposits worldwide from different strata (one example given is a quote by Wilfred Francis about the Amber beds of East Prussia, "Within the lumps of amber are found insects, snails, coral and small portions of plant life. These are of modern type that are now found in both tropical and cold temperature regions. Pine leaves are present, of the types now growing in Japan and North America..."). Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The fact that you can cite myths concerning floods is the weakest evidence imaginable.
Contrast that with, for example, archaeological evidence (just one of many different lines of evidence). Archaeological evidence shows no global flood about 4,350 years ago. I have personally tested over 100 sites containing deposits spanning that time period, and there was no evidence of a flood (massive erosion or deposition). Rather, there was continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, mtDNA, and deposition. These results are found by archaeologists all over the world. How can you even try to contrast that kind of evidence against non-specific myths? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
None of this is meaningful evidence.
A) Pangaea is placed about 250 million years ago. Noah's flood is about 4,350 years ago according to biblical scholars. Doesn't this several hundred million year gap bother you at all? B) So? C) So? D) Again you are citing something from 250 million years ago to explain a mythical event that supposedly took place 4,350 years ago. And fossils have nothing to do with this at all. At 4,350 years ago you are dealing with soils and bones, not rocks and fossils. Can't you come up with something that consistently agrees with scientific evidence? You are pulling bits and pieces from the scientific literature (more likely from creationist websites) that you think support your point, but you make no effort to have those bits and pieces form a cohesive whole. One can only conclude that you don't have any significant scientific evidence that supports your claims. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Here are some quotes from Josh McDowell and Don Stewart about the flood as seen in 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity' (1981):
quote: Edited by Jzyehoshua, : fixed code
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You have not addressed my point in a previous post that fossils have nothing to do with the supposed global flood 4,350 years ago.
At that time period we are dealing with soils, not geological formations. And we are dealing with bones, not fossils. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4532 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
That fossilization is rare doesn't mean that it's impossible. Besides, as Coyote rightly points out, fossils have nothing to do with the Flood legend anyway. In fact, how can there be fossils at all, if the Earth is only 6000 years old? When last I checked, it takes at least 10,000 years or so for a fossil to form.
Regardless, the topic of this thread is the total lack of sea-worthiness of the Ark as described in the Bible. Other aspects of the Ark story that involve their own glaring impossibilities belong on different threads. And will you please learn something instead of doing cut-n-pastes from creationist websites? I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.-Steven Dutch
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
A) Ironically, that 250 million year estimate is based upon the concept of Uniformitarianism developed by Lyell. If not for this belief that slow changes in plate tectonics, deposition, and evolution caused everything, scientists would've believed instead in mass catastrophes changing things instead. As noted by Berkeley.edu,
quote: As seen there, it was Lyell's concept that influenced Darwin's beliefs on evolution. Furthermore, Lyell originally abandoned the concept of catastrophism because he didn't want it linked to Noah's flood. Yet now, scientists recognize that huge catastrophes did indeed play the role Lyell once argued occurred solely because of uniformitarianism. At any rate, my point is that we assume many of the factors on which dating methodologies, and thus the age of the earth, are based on, to be the way they are because of Uniformitarianism. Why has Carbon 14 decayed at the same rate? Because that's what it does now. We assume the concept of Uniformitarianism to be true, aka 'the present is the key to the past', and assume that such huge catastrophes - which not only fly in the face of Uniformitarianism but we've now been forced to recognize did actually occur - did not affect carbon levels and the atmosphere. Because if they did, then the dating methodologies would be thrown off. We have often heard that such dating methodologies are unreliable past 10,000 or 100,000 years. And yet, still they are used to reach these exorbitant dates. What happens when they are proven wrong? Oh just tack on a few million or billion more years - or subtract, whatever needs to be done. So obviously, the dating methodologies aren't working or so set in stone as evolutionists would have us believe, or this would not occur. Some examples: -Scientists question footprints in Mexican volcanic ash being 40,000 years old since it contradicts idea of when humans crossed BeringStrait 11,000 years ago. Upon further dating, another team decides it is 1.3 million years old. Slight discrepancy in dates. Source: LiveScience -Discovery of octopus fossils pushes back belief on origins tens of millions of years.Source: LiveScience -New discovery of amazingly complex early fossils push back earliest complex animals 40 million years.Source: WiredScience Naturally, it doesn't fill one with confidence when new discoveries result in these supposedly reliable dating theories being amended by "oh, let's tack on another few million years or so".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
They just fit the evidence to whatever works for their evolutionary theory worldviews, the exact same way they complain Creationists are doing. 40,000 years would not work for evolutionary theory, so it takes another team to get the result they want. Early life was too complex, so we need to take on another 40 million years to its start time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024