The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness

We know the Egyptians (as well as other cultures) build tombs. We have observed them. Given that tombs are a known feature of human culture in general, one can hypothesize about their existence.Same goes for the old SETI argument. Humanity is one known example in the universe of a civilization with communications technology based around electromagnetism. There *might* be others, although the chances of finding them are very slim. Only a tiny fraction of available research budgets go anywhere near this field.No one, on the other hand, has ever observed God or intelligent design. Nor does any of the evidence gathered point to it.Now, one might argue (as Iano has) that we can use Human design as some kind of guide, but as we have no scientific evidence for God himself we have no grounds on which to make assumptions about his design methods.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This is a better example than what I gave, thank you.There is absolutely no evidence of aliens, only subjective, yet we search for them. According to calculations and odds, we shouldn't even exist in this universe. So, doesn't that make it bad science to waste time looking for aliens? I disagree, if you ever experienced what I have experienced from God, you would think differently. It may be subjective, but everything we view in life is through our subjective minds.The whole story of Noah and the ark comes from a subjective Holy Book. How can you even fathom the ark without contemplating God?How does the possibility of an ark being built even qualify as Creation science?

quote:

---

How does the possibility of an ark being built even qualify as Creation science?

---

It fits very well as creation science - it never happened but it's in the bible so it must be true and therefore scientific. See it's easy.

The same way I can fathom Aesop's fables without contemplating God.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This is probably a question you should ask Iano. He believes there's nothing complex about a ship like the Ark, and that Noah was sufficiently intelligent to design and construct whatever was required. You believe the Ark is so fantastic that it wouldn't be possible without God. You and Iano are at opposite ends of the spectrum.Anyone arguing for the scientific nature of creationism wants to avoid reference to God because it immediately loses the argument. The necessity for leaving God out of the equation is what has driven proposals like vapor canopies and runaway subduction - if it was just a matter of God doing it then such proposals wouldn't be necessary.So if you're advocating for creationism as science then insisting on God is a major faux paus. And if you're arguing against creationism as science then I guess I agree with you - most creationist scenarios make no sense as science and could only occur through divine intervention.--Percy

I posted a refutation of this comment before you even made it!!There IS evidence of intelligent life having arisen in the universe - humanity! As for odds, we cannot truly know given that we have a sample pool of exactly one. Looking for life out in the universe gives us a bigger sample and a means to properly answer such a question... Which is why science seeks to establish "objective reality" by means of repeatable experimentation carried out by a multitude of individuals.Your "subjective reality" doesn't, for example, change how a TV works! Well I haven't, so I won't.

But then you are involving God.

That is pretty much how I see it, based on what we currently know.But the name Creation science, means that something, or someone did the creating. I see wikipedia makes a reference to being created from nothing, I don't think that means no-one.So to me, theolgical creationism, and creation science are one and the same. I am having a hard time diferentiating between the two.Anyhone who thinks the ark was possible without Gods help is a few cards short of a full deck. That is a made-up thought, because the story clearly involves God. There is no way to even discuss it without involving God. Unless we are just totally disregarding the bible, and making up a story about an ark.

That is not a rebuttal to what I said. I said there is no proof of aliens. That means life foreign to our own.You don't have to go through all the rhetoric about it, I am a member of SETI@home and donate my computer time, I have been for over 5 years.The lack of evidence does not keep me from searching, or helping to search, or does it keep me from searching for God.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Since seaworthness is part of the topic, this is almost on topic.riVeRraT asks: Sorry riVeRraT but that is just silly. By definition the flood is moving water. Moving water will have waves. In addition, the alleged flood covered objects. By definition when moving water encounters objects there will be disturbances.No waves, no flood.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You did, in Message 134:

quote:

---

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.

---

Storms (and waves) are the subject of this conversation.Try to rein in those galloping goalposts, will ya? So you asked the producers of that TV show about the ark flipping end-over-end versus rolling over sideways? What was their answer?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

"Alien" is a relative term. SETI searches for extra-terrestrial *intelligence*. We are a (reasonably!) intelligent civilization. There may be others.There is, as yet, no real evidence for any "intelligent" civilization except ourselves, but our very existence demonstrates that it CAN exist. The SETI hypothesis has a clear foundation.God's very existence, on the other hand, has not been established.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

riVeRraT asks: Ever see a canal lock in operation, riVeRraT? Pretend for a moment that the canal lock is simulating the "fountains of the deep" that are spewing forth from the bowels of the ocean. Any estute boat operator will place fenders along side the hull to keep his boat from banging into the walls of the lock. Why? Because the force of the water rushing into the lock from the bottom water vents will give any unsecured boat a rough ride. I'm not including wind or rain. Just rushing water in a container that's maybe a 1000 feet long or so and 50+ feet wide. Now apply that concept to a global flood where Planet Earth is the lock and the fountains of the deep are the bottom vents. Still no waves? Really?BTW - Noah and his crew would be hard pressed to fend off the Ark from crashing into mountain walls as the Earth filled. Try to keep a boat the size and weight of the Ark from smashing itself to pieces with long poles and rope fenders. Remember. No oars or sweeps. No rudder. No Evinrude outboards. Nary a tugboat in sight.(:raig

I don't have any goalposts to gallop, that is where you are making the mistake. If one is of scientific mind, he will explore all posibilities, and have no absolutes.To jar mespo and ringo:I don' think I want to participate in this discussion anymore. I have stated that I do not think it was possible for this whole thing to happen, except by the will of God, and by the protection of God, and with God's help building the ark.God gave Noah the instructions, He sealed the door, He flooded the earth, and He brought it to rest on a mountain top. That is the way the story goes.To argue how this could have happened without God is just retarded, and all the points you have mentioned to me, please save them for the kindegarderners who have no clue what it is to be on the water.So since this forum does not entertain the concept of God as part of the discussion, then every post I made in this thread is OFF-TOPIC.

While I would have expressed it differently, I find I agree with the sentiments.--Percy