Without addressing any specific issue regarding the ark of Noah, it is utterly clear without any doubt that the task of building a 450 foot wooden ship, longer than any wooden ship ever built, would have represented an extreme technical challenge not just for that period, but for any period, including this one.
Wouldn't that depend on the wood being used? This wood, I think: hardwood Is a wood so hard that you wear out drill bits trying to drill through it. It also is heavy and would sit lower in the water increasing stability. I don't know if it was possible that Noah had access to wood like this.
I also saw a show where they took a model of the ark, and compared to a model of a super tanker, and put them through scale storms. The ark held up better than the supertanker, and would not roll, or sink. The only way it could flip is end over end. They used the testing tank used to test ocean going ships designs.
Also, Noah's ark had no heavy guns, and may not have been top heavy at all with the heavier animals in the bottom.
Then it wasn't Ebony, the name escapes me at the moment, I have a piece of it in my basement, but there is no name on it. It's as hard as a rock, but I think it comes from Africa, and Noah wouldn't have had access to it.
There was no such knowledge that Noah could have drawn upon for a ship the size of the Ark.
The story clearly states that Noah got his building information from God Himself, why are you debating how well it would have been made?
The dimensions and details of the ark provided by God are pretty sparse. Did it have a prow? A rudder? A means for facing it into waves so it couldn't be tipped?
I wondered the asme thing. It looked like the typical ark you see in most renderings. I do not know where those images or likenesses come from.
What would the testing of such a model tell them about the stability of the actual Wasa? Obviously, not a thing.
The testing would either show that the way they thought it was, is either good, or no good.
The whole test could have very well been BS.
And what "naval engineers" did Noah use?
I do not necessarily agree with that web-site.
I have been around boats my whole life. I worked on the water and was trained by a tug boat captain. I owned my own dock building business, and built a boat with a wooden crane on it that could lift 4000 pounds. The 2 booms were 2x12's and in no way should they have been able to lift that much, but they did, for 3 years straight. I also used the booms to break through ten miles of ice, 2"-3" think. If you saw the boat, you would laugh, and not think it possible. But this boat amazed many people around here. Too bad I couldn't make enough money doing it, because I loved it.
I am not just some land lubber with no sea experience. I have owned 9 boats in my life. I just came from my boat. But I am not an engineer, so I am open to all conversations about the ark. However, I still think it is possible to have built such a vessel, especially if God provided the plans.
And, of course, here in the science forums we don't entertain "Goddidit" arguments.
Any discussion about the ark is a goddidit discussion.
God may have just told Noah everything he needed to know, implying that what made it into the Bible is just an outline, but "Goddidit" arguments aren't permitted in the science forums.
I don't think for a second that Noah had the knowledge to build the ark himself, without God's advice. That seems a little extreme. It would be about a billion to one chance of it being sucessful.
But if someone makes a scale model of the ark, and applies sclae forces to it, and it survives, doesn't that just say that it was possible? Isn't that all we are trying to find out, if it was at all possible?
The ark would spring leaks all over, pitch or no pitch.
It seems to me that just about the worst thing you could do under these circumstances is put a door in the side of the boat. It just gives you an additional place for the ark to spring leaks and will really undermine the stability of that side.
Didn't God seal the door for him?
You also have a boat with no steerage drifting around in global rainstorm for 40 days and nights. Enough water would come in the window to sink the ark nearly as fast as it would sink from leaking at the seams. Remember that even a mere thousand feet of global rain requires it to rain a foot an hour the entire time.
Well the rain is another story. It could have come up from the ground. I think we know that God must have provided all that water, because there is not enough water on the earth for it to happen.
And it would have been fairly simple to make windows with an overhang, and a self bailing deck.
EvC Forum exists to examine Creationism's claim to be science alongside evolution. This claim is shown false once you resort to "Goddidit" arguments.
I will be honest with you, I don't get it.
Isn't creationism using scientific evidence to show that God exists, and He created the world? Isn't any proof towards finding God helpful to creationists?
What difference does it make where Noah got the plans? Aren't we trying to see if it was even possible?
If we can show that it can be done, that is s tep in the right direction towards proving that the ark could have existed.
When you are examining things the way you are, using the evolution of ship building to explain the construction of the ark, you take God right out of it, when according to the story it was clearly God that showed Noah how to build the ark. What are we trying to prove here?
When we look at the description of how the ark was built according to the bible, it was obviously a very vague description. So, it either never really happened, or Noah did know how to do it, and decided not to write it down, or God just told him how to do it, and still Noah didn't write it down, the exact way it was done.
Even for purposes of the topic, it doesn't matter how Noah got the design.
What was the ark constructed of?
Given it's dimensions would it have been seaworthy?
How would such a vessel release the signiificant waste of the animals it contained?
We are not discussing how Naoh achieved the knowledge of how to build the ark, just whether it was possible or not.
If we prove that it was possible, and tomorrow we find the remains of the ark, and there was no ship building skills of that day, that would have allowed Noah to have the knowledge, thne God must have gave him the plans, just like the story implies.
So the first step is proving that it was possible.
BTW I am not a creationist, or an evolutionist, I just believe in God, and like science.
First you said it would rather pitch than roll? Now you say it would rather roll than pitch?
I said that it would not roll. The only way it could possibly flip would be end over end. That doesn't mean that it would do that. According to the show.
I am not sticking up for the validity of the experiment, only expressing exactly what I saw. I have proven that I am capable of doing that already. It was a TV show, not a college course in ship building.
Ok, I understand now. I guess I was blurring creationism, with creation science.
Do all creation scientists take the bible as inherrant, or do they just look to prove creation?
Are they trying to prove God existed, and think that he didn't intervine?
It seems pretty obvious to me, that most of these stories are not possible without some intervention from God.
Just like I mentioned before, in another thrad, about the olive leaf. According to the story, every living thing was wiped out, yet when the dove went out, there was only 7 days between there being a leaf to be had, and no leaf to be had.
But arguing that the Ark was possible because God did whatever was necessary to make it possible, or that Noah got his design from God himself, etc., are not valid in this thread because, having no evidence, they aren't scientific arguments.
It's like I don't even want to discuss it then. I mean what is the point of building an ark anyway? The whole story is tied together. What is the point of debating where Noah got the knowledge from, if God wasn't the one who told him to build it?
It's like your asking the question, could the ark have been possible without God? I would think the answer would be a resounding no. Why would some nut case named Noah make an ark and try to cram all those animals in it anyway?
If we found the ark tomorrow sitting 15,000ft on top of Mt.Ararat, for certain some things about science would have to change. It would be the most important discovery in the history of mankind. Wouldn't in a sense prove God's existance? How else would Noah have known that the world was going to be flooded?
Funny, I just saw a special on it last night, on the History channel.
I am not sure what the TV show said about that, but I think it was, in order for the ark to flip end over end, it would have taken a wave larger than the length of the boat, 450ft.
It is also possible about the rolling, they may have said the ark was self righting. It was about 5 years ago I saw that special, and it was on a Christian channel, so take it for what it is worth. But they did have actual models of both boats, and it was a scientific research lab where they design and test ocean going ship designs, with wave machine and all.
Re: I am not an engineer but i think a 450 foot wooden
The ark may have been a box(barge), not a boat, designed to be run under power with hydrodynamics involved.
A heavy box sitting two thirds of the way in the water, may not pitch and roll that much. Plus we are also assuming there were waves. TO me if God told him to do all that, and it was done, I would think God would have protected him during the flood.
According to the story, the flood did not happen by rain alone. The water rose up from the ground as well. So it could have been a calmer event than what everyone is picturing.
Creationism is a ligitimate science. It's maybe the people practicing it, that aren't legitimate.
Tell me, what is the difference between coming up with a theory that a tomb exists in Egypt somewhere, and searching for it, and coming with a theory that the earth and everything in it was created by a God, and searching for the proof?
Your saying that Theological Creationism is not science?