Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 303 (104115)
04-30-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by jar
04-30-2004 12:01 AM


Re: More bad ideas
jar. If you are talking about the Med sailors of antiquity, well Dr. Ballard can tell you. Lots of them ended up om the bottom. Storms in the Med can get quite hairy,

Reunite Gondwana!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 04-30-2004 12:01 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 04-30-2004 10:13 AM Bonobojones has not replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 303 (104116)
04-30-2004 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by johnfolton
04-30-2004 12:48 AM


Re:
Whatever. It would not be a matter of just shoveling the waste overboard. They would have had to shovel it into buckets, haul it up 1, 2, 3 levels, cross the deck in gale winds (remember the fetch) and heave it over the lee rail. Hopefully, the lee rail.
There was no moon pool. A hole in the bottom of a wooden vessel weakens the structure. By trying to install one, you sever her backbone.
Anyway, there was no Deluge.
BTW have you ever pumped the bilges of even a small boat, say 40', with leaky seams?

Reunite Gondwana!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by johnfolton, posted 04-30-2004 12:48 AM johnfolton has not replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 303 (104122)
04-30-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by johnfolton
04-30-2004 1:19 AM


Re:
Whatever. Big stones are not sea anchors, no matter how many times you state that thy are. I believe that at one point, somewhare, someone posted a photo of a boat streaming a sea anchor.
Could you please show a link to your 1000's of dead animals in ice and mats of trees, etc, post flood?
Thanks.

Reunite Gondwana!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by johnfolton, posted 04-30-2004 1:19 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by johnfolton, posted 04-30-2004 10:39 AM Bonobojones has not replied
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2004 10:59 AM Bonobojones has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 184 of 303 (104126)
04-30-2004 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Bonobojones
04-30-2004 9:50 AM


Re: More bad ideas
Them's the ones as well as all of the other boats everywhere else.
As a Christian, one of the strongest inducements for me to see the Bible as simply a collection of stories, parables and guidelines with only incidental historic significance, is the Flood Myth.
Here we have a vessel, of absolutely horrid design, built by someone with no experience, sailed by someone of no experience, trying to fill an absurd function that supposedly rides out this massive deluge. Yet at the time, there were folk saling already. There were experienced sailors and boat builders. There were existing vessels manned by experienced crews that sailed the Med and other seas and were successful enough that it was reasonable to support commerce. Yet supposedly not one of those vessels, not one of those crews, made it through.
Frankly, a dug out canoe, or a papyrus raft would have been far more sea worthy than the Ark. In addition, it would have possible to build a flotilla of rafts with far less effort in far less time that would have carred a far greater mass or quantity of animals than would have ever been possible with the Ark.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Bonobojones, posted 04-30-2004 9:50 AM Bonobojones has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 185 of 303 (104133)
04-30-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Bonobojones
04-30-2004 10:04 AM


Watch Rons video to see the anchor stones
Bonobojones, There is a video that you can watch to see why these stones are considered evidences that the Ark is likely the site Ron Wyatt wanted to excavate, etc...What other purpose for these large stones to be strewn over 12 miles area, in the very location the bible says the ark came to rest, etc...
Noah's Ark Overview, Part II
P.S. The bible says the ark had a roof, after the tusami destroyed life on the lowland along the sea, the water then started to rise on the surface of the earth causing the ark to start to rise, so no reason the waves or hurricane winds to be problematic, to shoveling the wastes out the side of the ark, etc...
Reposted the link for you, where paleontologists suggests an enormous tidal wave raged over the land, etc...
Atlantisquest.com
The evidence immediately suggests an enormous tidal wave which raged over the land, tumbling animals and vegetation within its mass, which was then quick-frozen (Sanderson, 1960). But the extinction is not limited to the Arctic.
[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Bonobojones, posted 04-30-2004 10:04 AM Bonobojones has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 186 of 303 (104143)
04-30-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Bonobojones
04-30-2004 10:04 AM


Re: sea anchor
here it is again (bow up to ride over waves):
versus (bow down to plow through waves?):
ropes long enough for the stones to hit the hull?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Bonobojones, posted 04-30-2004 10:04 AM Bonobojones has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by johnfolton, posted 04-30-2004 9:10 PM RAZD has replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 187 of 303 (104195)
04-30-2004 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by johnfolton
04-30-2004 1:19 AM


Arctic Muck
In Message 180 of 183 , whatever wrote:
"Atlantisquest.com
The evidence of the violence of nature combined with stench of
rotting carcasses was staggering. The ice fields containing
these remains stretched for hundred of miles in every
direction (Hibben, 1946). Trees and animals, layers of peat
and mosses, twisted and mangled together like some giant
mixer had jumbled them some 10,000 years ago, and then froze
them into a solid mass. The evidence immediately suggests
an enormous tidal wave which raged over the land, tumbling
animals and vegetation within its mass, which was then
quick-frozen (Sanderson, 1960). But the extinction is not
limited to the Arctic."
Unfortunately, what Sanderson (1960) and Hibben (1946) stated above, along with similar claims by Ted Holden and other catastrophists, consists entirely of, as described by another geologist, "geopoetry" that exists only in their imagination. Since Hibben (1946) and Sanderson (1960) published their interpretations, additional detailed study of the so-called thick blanket of "muck deposits" claimed to cover the majority of the of the Arctic landscape, have shown that these deposits; the "Trees and animals, layers of peat and mosses, twisted and mangled together..."; and other evidence of catastrophism described by both authors are nonexistent and are nothing more than fiction generated by careless to nonexistent field fieldwork, sloppy reasoning, and vivid imaginations on their part.
Instead of being evidence of any tsunami, the above web page is a classic example of how remarkably ill-infomed the authors of the "Paleontological Testimony" web page are of Pleistocene geology and paleontology. Had the person(s), who wrote the web page, bothered to consult publications describing the Quaternary geology of Alaska and Siberia published in the **44 years** since Sanderson (1960) published his article in the Saturday Evening Post and **58 years** since Hibben (1946) published his paper, the Pleistocene strata, on which both authors based their interpretations, have been studied and described in great detail by numerous geologists, i.e. Pewe (1955, 1975a, 1975b, 1989), Pewe et al. (1997), Ukraintseva (1993) Westgate et al. (1990), and many others. If a person would read these papers, along those comprising all of volume 60, issue 1 of the 2003 "Quaternary Research" and collected in Edwards et al. (1997), they find that the evidence used by Sanderson (1960), Hibben (1946), and the "The Paleontological Testimony" to make their arguments for a tsunami is either imaginary or grossly misrepresented or misinterpreted to fit a preconceived idea of what they believed happened.
For example, the surficial deposits of Alaska, which Hibben (1946) described as "muck" consists of seven well-defined and mappable layers that, in total, are only 10 to 20 m thick at most as shown in figures 20 and 27 of Pewe (1975a), figure 4 of Pewe et al. (1997), and the measured sections of Westgate et al. (1990). These layers include the Ready Bullion Formation, Engineer Loess, Goldstream Formation, Gold Hill Loess, and the Fairbanks Loess, which consist of either wind-blown silt called "loess"; colluvium moved down-hill by slopewash; or solifluction deposits as discussed in detail by Pewe (1955, 1975a, 1975b, 1989), Pewe et al. (1997), and Westgate et al. (1990). None of these beds, contrary to the refuted interpretations of Sanderson (1960) and Hibben (1946), contain any evidence, i.e. the "twisted and mangled" remains of plants and animals, of them having been deposited by either tsunami or any other catastrophic process. Other layers, i.e. the Dawson Cut and Eva Formations, contain in place forest beds with upright rooted stumps that also lack any evidence of having been either deposited or buried by catastrophic processes of any sort as discussed by Pewe et al. (1997).
The so-called "muck" that Hibben (1946) observed consist only of **thin** deposits created by landslides and solifluction processes as the result of the melting of permafrost and the collapse of oversteepened slopes. These sediments are churned and the tree and plants found in them are twisted and mangled. However, the churning, mangling, and twisting are the result of processes that a person can see happening every year if they would only open their eyes and carefully examined what they are looking at with an open mind as Sanderson (1960) and Hibben (1946) both failed to do. At most, these deposits are only a few inches to a couple of feet thick and typically are only surface veneers covering undisturbed sediments and bedrock.
References Cited:
Edwards, M. E., Sher, A. V., and Guthrie, R. d., eds., 1997, Terrestrial
Paleoenvironmental Studies in Beringia. The Alaska Quaternary Center,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Hibben, Frank, 1946, The Lost Americans," Thomas & Crowell Co., New York.
Pewe, T. L., 1955, Origin of the upland silt near Fairbanks, Alaska.
Geological Society of America Bulletin. vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 699-724.
Pewe, T. L., 1975a, Quaternary Geology of Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 835, 145 pp.
Pewe, T. L., 1975b, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Central
Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, 32 pp.
Pewe, T. L., 1989, Quaternary stratigraphy of the Fairbanks area, Alaska.
in Late Cenozoic History of the Interior Basins of Alaska and the Yukon.
U.S. Geological Survey Circular no. 1026, pp. 72-77.
Pewe, T. L., Berger, G. W., Westgate, J. A., Brown, P. A., and Leavitt,
S. W., 1997, Eva Interglacial Forest Bed, Unglaciated East-Central
Alaska. Geological Society of America Special Paper no. 319, 54 pp.
Sanderson, Ivan T., "Riddle of the Frozen Giants," Saturday Evening
Post , No. 39, January 16, 1960.
Ukraintseva, V. V. (1993) Vegetation Cover and Environment of the
"Mammoth Epoch" in Siberia. The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs of South
Dakota, 1800 Highway 18-Truck Route, Hot Springs, SD. 57747-0606,
309 pp.
Westgate, J. A., Stemper, B. A., and Pewe, T. L., 1990, A 3 m.y. record
of Pliocene-Pleistocene loess in interior Alaska. Geology. vol. 18,
no. 9, p. 858-861.
The table of contents for vol 60, issue 1 of "Quaternary Research" can be found by going to:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00335894
On that web page, issue 1 can be found by clicking the "Volume 60" link.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by johnfolton, posted 04-30-2004 1:19 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Bonobojones, posted 04-30-2004 5:37 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 303 (104318)
04-30-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Bill Birkeland
04-30-2004 12:47 PM


Re: Arctic Muck
Thank you Bill.

Reunite Gondwana!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-30-2004 12:47 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 189 of 303 (104427)
04-30-2004 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
04-30-2004 10:59 AM


Re: sea anchor
Raz, I not partial to your parachute like sea anchors, and the short ropes attached to the sea anchor stones (would not short ropes with stone in your senerio bash holes into the ark), not sure how deep a wave base goes, but with longer ropes, if the ark was anchored below the wave base it would of acted like a brake, looks to me that your parachutes anchors keep the boat pointed with the waves, but wouldn't act as a brake, not that there was much wind, but whatever waves would of pushed the ark, however with sea anchors anchored below the wave, would of acted like a brake, keeping the ark from being blown out into the Pacific ocean, where the waters would of been salt (a big problem to watering the animals on the ark), not freshwater like over the continents, etc...
P.S. With all this global warming, perhaps the Paleontologist fossils are no longer stinking, just found it interesting that one of your own said it appeared to be a monster wave, supporting your contention that any square like wave tusami happened, and mine that it happened before the waters started rising up covering the entire earth, though the oceans are the evidence that there is more than enough water in the oceans themselves, for the flood waters to of covered the entire earth over 1/2 mile in water, supporting the highest mountains before the rose higher in height were covered by 30 cubits of water, etc...
P.S. With longer ropes, likely why the ark got snagged by the mountains of Ararat, and not washing out to the Oceans as the waters flowed by the mountain to the sea (kjv psalm 104).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2004 10:59 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2004 2:44 AM johnfolton has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 190 of 303 (104430)
04-30-2004 9:17 PM


Whatever.
The stone anchors simply cannot work. Forget about how long the ropes are, it just doesn't matter.
The problem is that as waves approach you WANT the bow to rise. Anchors like the stones, no matter how they are used or attached will pull the bow down and cause the wave to break over the vessel. One wave and the ARK with the anchor stones sinks. Period.
I cannot imagine how any Christian can take the Flood story as anything more than myth and fable.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by johnfolton, posted 04-30-2004 9:37 PM jar has replied
 Message 192 by Bonobojones, posted 04-30-2004 9:45 PM jar has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 191 of 303 (104434)
04-30-2004 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by jar
04-30-2004 9:17 PM


Jar, I have no idea for sure the anchor stone were attached to the bow, but it makes sense to me, for if they were anchored below the wave base, would not the bow face into the wave, if so the anchor stones would not be bashing the boat, and this would be preventing the ropes from getting all tangled up too, etc...
P.S. I'm kinda wingin it, but if the waves were not too great, and they were flowing over the waters below the wave base, wouldn't sea anchors keep the bow pointed into the waves. Your all assuming the waves were excessive, it probably wasn't the case and the sea anchors would of kept the bow pointed into the wave, its the ballast that would of pulled the bow under the waves which given the height of the boat seems unlikely, and the sea anchors would of been in front of the bow acting like a sea brake, its the same principle as the trout facing into the stream, you all seem to be having the trout anchored by its tail, perhaps with a boat as light as a sail boat you have to run and hope your sea anchor will slow you, but would think it more in keeping with the reason God told Noah to build an ark, was based off the design he used to design the creatures of the sea, the trout always faces into the current, wiggles a little bit to maintain position, think your all trying to put the cart ahead of the horse, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by jar, posted 04-30-2004 9:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by jar, posted 04-30-2004 9:53 PM johnfolton has not replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 303 (104436)
04-30-2004 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by jar
04-30-2004 9:17 PM


jar. He just doesn't get it. He can't seem to understand anything about surviving the sea. And doesn't wish to learn. Notice he just does not buy the sea droge, but prefers the rocks. I guess all the sailors through history were doing it wrong. Maybe the Hiscocks, Joshua Slocum, the Pardys and others should have taken note of the "proper" way.

Reunite Gondwana!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by jar, posted 04-30-2004 9:17 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by SRO2, posted 04-30-2004 9:55 PM Bonobojones has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 193 of 303 (104437)
04-30-2004 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by johnfolton
04-30-2004 9:37 PM


It ain't the direction. It is that it will hold the bow down so the wave breaks over the bow and swamps the boat, which is how you make a boat founder.
It just won't work.
Whatever.
The technology for boats and rafts goes back to the stone age. By the time Noah came along people had been using boats for hundreds of thousands of years. So there were lots of people out there that knew how to build and sail boats. There were lots of boats and rafts around that certainly would have weathered the deluge far better than the ARK.
But the description of the ARK just makes no sense. It is not stable, it would break in half, it could not be built using the materials mentioned and if it was built it couldn't hold the cargo claimed.
There is no physical record anywhere of a global flood, no way to explain the mechanics of how it happened or where the water went after the fact.
It does not explain how animals that are unique to a given location ever got there. No way to explain how animals got to Australia or how Noah gathered them in the first place.
If GOD exists, and I believe he does, he will still exist once folk stop trying to make a really neat story appear true. If overnight all Christians, Jews and Muslems suddenly woke up to find that the Flood story is not fact but simply Myth, it would still say absolutely nothing about whether or not GOD exists.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by johnfolton, posted 04-30-2004 9:37 PM johnfolton has not replied

SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 303 (104438)
04-30-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Bonobojones
04-30-2004 9:45 PM


My vast experience in sailing and boating (canoes and tiny sunfish sailboats)...tells me that stringing a bunch of rocks under anything of the sort will make it unsteerable. Current alone could drag on the "Ballast" and could bring a vessel broadways to the wind and waves (a very, very bad thing).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Bonobojones, posted 04-30-2004 9:45 PM Bonobojones has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by johnfolton, posted 04-30-2004 10:10 PM SRO2 has replied
 Message 197 by johnfolton, posted 04-30-2004 10:22 PM SRO2 has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 195 of 303 (104441)
04-30-2004 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by SRO2
04-30-2004 9:55 PM


Raz, The anchor stones would of kept the bow pointing into the waves, the ark was approximately 54 feet high, so the wave would of flowed around the arked design, it would make the ride extremely stable, the anchor stones would of stayed ahead of the bow, acting as a brake, kinda opposite like how you supposed it all happened, etc...
P.S. Ron Wyatt really must of had someone quite knowledgeable to come up with the anchor stones on the bow (quite interesting), I would of thought they would of been on the tail, but it all makes sense when one considers the trout, always facing into the stream without hardly a wiggle, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by SRO2, posted 04-30-2004 9:55 PM SRO2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 04-30-2004 10:17 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 208 by SRO2, posted 05-01-2004 10:36 AM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024