Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 12:34 PM
27 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Hyroglyphx, JonF, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,606 Year: 6,643/19,786 Month: 1,184/1,581 Week: 6/393 Day: 6/30 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
13141516Next
Author Topic:   The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 166 of 231 (330722)
07-11-2006 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
07-10-2006 7:20 PM


EvC Forum exists to examine Creationism's claim to be science alongside evolution. This claim is shown false once you resort to "Goddidit" arguments.

--Percy

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 07-10-2006 7:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by CK, posted 07-11-2006 7:28 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 07-11-2006 8:29 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 167 of 231 (330725)
07-11-2006 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Nighttrain
07-10-2006 9:34 PM


Re: Building the beast
All good points, but remember Noah had about 100 years to build the ark.
Still might not have been enough time, unless he had help.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Nighttrain, posted 07-10-2006 9:34 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 168 of 231 (330726)
07-11-2006 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by ringo
07-10-2006 8:09 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by ringo, posted 07-10-2006 8:09 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by deerbreh, posted 07-11-2006 10:50 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 07-11-2006 12:09 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2262 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 169 of 231 (330729)
07-11-2006 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by riVeRraT
07-11-2006 6:41 AM


Creationism vs. Creation Science
quote:
creationism using scientific evidence

I know we use the terms in an interchangeable sense here because a)creationists using the terms in a interchangeable fashion and b) because generally at some stage most creationist scientists rely on "goddunit" as part of their answer, but I always think of Creationism and Creation science as two different and distinct things*.

Let's use Noah's ark to explore where I see the difference and we can see where the differences are and if you agree or disagree?

quote:
God flooded the earth and with a boat, Noah and his family and the animals were saved

Now to this - a skeptic might ask:

skeptic writes:

How come Noah was able to get all of the Animals into the ark and they didn't eat each other and fill the place with shit

Creationist writes:

Because it was God's will that Noah was able to collect the animals. The Grace of God protected them.

To what I consider a "proper" creationist - the fine details are irrelevant, God wanted something to happen - it happened, what more needs to be discussed?

I actually have no problem at all with this and in many respects is by far the most sensible scenario.

however a creation Scientist is likely to say:

creation scientist writes:

Well it's clear from the evidence that the kinds we had then were of a different type than today, far more robust and it's also clear that lion kinds did not require meat and were asleep for 23 out of the 24 hours of the day. This is evidenced by...

The Creation Scientist seems to say that, yes god created everything and the physical laws, but that the physical laws we currently have means that the ark story makes perfect sense without any special intervention on the part of the Almighty.

In short, the difference is that, in the creationist scenario, God is active in stages of the process. In the creation science, God creates the conditions and physical laws that enabled the ark sceanrio to work but his hand is not needed during the process.

So

Creationism = God the Doer

Creation Science = God the enabler

Am I making any sense?

* (Let me put a little qualificatio to this statement - there is of course a fuzzy overlap, which I suggests represents a continuum from Hard science God representing Creation science and "I can do anything how I please" soft science god representing the extremes of Creationism)

Edited by CK, : Fixing DB tag

Edited by CK, : Copyedit


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2006 6:41 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2006 7:38 AM CK has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 170 of 231 (330732)
07-11-2006 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by CK
07-11-2006 7:28 AM


Re: Creationism vs. Creation Science
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by CK, posted 07-11-2006 7:28 AM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Coragyps, posted 07-11-2006 7:50 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5386
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 171 of 231 (330734)
07-11-2006 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by riVeRraT
07-11-2006 7:38 AM


Re: Creationism vs. Creation Science
Do all creation scientists take the bible as inherrant, or do they just look to prove creation?

Apparently, all of them that don't take the Qur'an as inerrant do. I've been in a couple of discussions with YECs that begin by saying they aren't religiously motivated, but they always seem to let that facade slip after a while.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2006 7:38 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 172 of 231 (330751)
07-11-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by riVeRraT
07-11-2006 6:41 AM


Though CK and I probably differ somewhat on the exact definitions of creationism and creation science, for the most part I can only echo what he has already said. But maybe I can offer a little clarifying explanation.

First of all it must be understood that this thread is in a scientific forum, and that science requires evidence. That means that this thread is of a speculative nature because the existence of the Ark is not based upon evidence but upon a story from Genesis.

But though speculative, it is not unscientific to consider the question of whether the Ark as described in Genesis would have been possible in terms of both construction and seaworthiness, as long as the issues are considered in light of evidence.

Therefore, considering the evidence for and against the possibility of a 450 foot wooden boat 5000 years ago is valid in this thread.

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.

In other words, the debate centers around the assertion that such a boat as the Ark would not have been possible 5000 years ago, and would represent a stunning technical challenge even today.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2006 6:41 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by CK, posted 07-11-2006 9:01 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2006 6:54 AM Percy has responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2262 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 173 of 231 (330763)
07-11-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
07-11-2006 8:29 AM


well....
quote:
Though CK and I probably differ somewhat on the exact definitions of creationism and creation science

I suspect we differ because they are quite vague terms and therefore it's upto the individual to fill in the blanks.

However it's a nice starter for a thread isn't it? :)

(so give me a minute and I'll generate one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 07-11-2006 8:29 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1027 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 174 of 231 (330794)
07-11-2006 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by riVeRraT
07-11-2006 6:58 AM


I am not an engineer but i think a 450 foot wooden
ship would pitch AND roll. Particularly if it was built anything along the lines of how the illustrated bibles picture it. This guy in Frostburg Maryland is supposedly going to build full sized replica according to Bible specs and he has a drawing here....
http://www.godsark.org/html/the_construction.html

That sucker is going to roll. No stabilizers either. So in addition the shit piling up, there is puke everwhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2006 6:58 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 10:57 AM deerbreh has responded
 Message 180 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2006 7:05 AM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30941
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 175 of 231 (330797)
07-11-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by deerbreh
07-11-2006 10:50 AM


Re: I am not an engineer but i think a 450 foot wooden
That sucker is going to roll. No stabilizers either. So in addition the shit piling up, there is puke everwhere.

No it ain't. :P

That sucker will only pitch or roll in an earthquake. It ain't going nowhere.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by deerbreh, posted 07-11-2006 10:50 AM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by deerbreh, posted 07-11-2006 11:09 AM jar has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1027 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 176 of 231 (330798)
07-11-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by jar
07-11-2006 10:57 AM


Re: I am not an engineer but i think a 450 foot wooden
That sucker will only pitch or roll in an earthquake. It ain't going nowhere

Right. first of all, it will never get built. The steel superstructure is about as far as they are going to get, imo.
But I was think if it accurately depicts the Bible design in Genesis, if it were to be launched, it would roll and pitch.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 10:57 AM jar has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16443
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 177 of 231 (330810)
07-11-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by riVeRraT
07-11-2006 6:58 AM


riVeRraT writes:

I said that it would not roll. The only way it could possibly flip would be end over end.

That's what doesn't make sense to me: Why would it be more stable on the short axis than on the long axis?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2006 6:58 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2006 7:00 AM ringo has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 178 of 231 (331040)
07-12-2006 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
07-11-2006 8:29 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 07-11-2006 8:29 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 07-12-2006 9:09 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 179 of 231 (331042)
07-12-2006 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by ringo
07-11-2006 12:09 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 07-11-2006 12:09 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 07-12-2006 12:37 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 183 by DrJones*, posted 07-12-2006 3:01 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 180 of 231 (331044)
07-12-2006 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by deerbreh
07-11-2006 10:50 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by deerbreh, posted 07-11-2006 10:50 AM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
13141516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019