Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About that Boat - Noah's Ark
Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 296 (53274)
09-01-2003 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by John
09-01-2003 2:28 PM


Re: first calculations
Actually, I think that "gopher wood" was a mistranslation. Careful reading will show not a discription of the wood type, but what Noah must have been telling his sons for a hundred years.
GO FER WOOD!
Over and over and over and....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by John, posted 09-01-2003 2:28 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Brian, posted 09-01-2003 5:07 PM Bonobojones has not replied
 Message 63 by John, posted 09-01-2003 8:54 PM Bonobojones has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 62 of 296 (53277)
09-01-2003 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Bonobojones
09-01-2003 4:54 PM


Re: first calculations
Do you remember this 'Gopher'?
Scooter, the 'gopher' for the Muppets, ah memories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Bonobojones, posted 09-01-2003 4:54 PM Bonobojones has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 296 (53327)
09-01-2003 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Bonobojones
09-01-2003 4:54 PM


Re: first calculations
Ya know... You may be right.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Bonobojones, posted 09-01-2003 4:54 PM Bonobojones has not replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 296 (53482)
09-02-2003 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by John
08-28-2003 11:44 AM


I'm sure you are right. The hardcore would have excuses. I do think such a project would be huge blow to the creationist movement, though. And I think they know that.
In exactly the same way evolutionists cant recreate the big bang. That the chinese could create a ship that no shipbuilder today could recreate should tell you that no creationist would be able to recreate the ark today. Pretty simple really.
Funny how you guys like to point to the 'signs' of cosmic evolution and the big bang, yet when you cannot reproduce it, it is irrelevant to its truth. However you seem surprised at the difficulty of creationists recreating a ship indeed specified by God. Are you all missing the point ? What would possible stop GOD from preventing massive tidal waves from affecting the Ark ? He can make it rain and cover the entire Earth with water, but ofcourse He'll have no control over how rough the sea is around the ark.
Discussing the feasibility of the Ark floating is one thing, especially if its suppose to be a myth, however trying to disprove its existance based on the obvious abundance of Tsunami's that had to be around is really futile.
[This message has been edited by Zealot, 09-02-2003]
[This message has been edited by Zealot, 09-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John, posted 08-28-2003 11:44 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by John, posted 09-02-2003 11:07 AM Zealot has replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 296 (53494)
09-02-2003 10:52 AM


Found an interesting site.
Vente de Maillot de Foot Pas Cher 2022 2023
It is generally accepted by most serious biblical scholars that the flood tale originated during the Babylonian Captivity. This site covers some of the Mesopotamian sources for the story.
An N.A told me that any wooden vessel over 200' would need to have diagonals to prevent hull distortion. Old Ironsides was designed with them and kept her shape until the mid-late 20th cent. when they were removed for restoration. They were reinstalled after the ship began to hog. The U.S.S. Consellation was buit without them and hogged severely, allowing her to leak like a seive. Data seems to point to the impossibility of anyone, now or then, building a 450' wooden boat that could survive. (unless magic is invoked).
Anyone who has ever worked on wooden structures, marine or otherwise, can look at the scantlings posted and figure out if 5 Bronze Age men could build such a structure.

John
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 296 (53496)
09-02-2003 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Zealot
09-02-2003 9:56 AM


quote:
In exactly the same way evolutionists cant recreate the big bang.
There is evidence suggesting such an event. To keep this on topic, I would be happy with evidence suggesting the ark or suggesting associated events. There isn't any.
quote:
That the chinese could create a ship that no shipbuilder today could recreate should tell you that no creationist would be able to recreate the ark today. Pretty simple really.
Not really. After all, the creationists have the divine word of God as a guide. Those poor chinese weren't so lucky.
Besides, this is intended as evidence of what exactly? "We can't build the ship" just means you can't build the ship. It isn't support FOR the ark.
quote:
Funny how you guys like to point to the 'signs' of cosmic evolution and the big bang, yet when you cannot reproduce it, it is irrelevant to its truth.
What is it with you people and 'evolution'? Evolution concerns living organisms, not the universe or the BB.
Because we cannot reproduce an event means all the evidence pointing towards it is irrelevant? Guess how many people are in jail based on irrelevant information? All of them. Crimes can't be reproduced, only simulated.
quote:
However you seem surprised at the difficulty of creationists recreating a ship indeed specified by God.
No. I'm surprised that no one has recreated the ship seeing as how God's plans are right there in Genesis. I mean, he TELLS you how to build it. What's the problem? Think of the souls that could be saved.
quote:
Are you all missing the point ? What would possible stop GOD from preventing massive tidal waves from affecting the Ark ? He can make it rain and cover the entire Earth with water, but ofcourse He'll have no control over how rough the sea is around the ark.
Ah... yes... magic! I, or anyone else, can invoke magic to 'prove' anything at all. That is why it doesn't count as evidence.
quote:
Discussing the feasibility of the Ark floating is one thing, especially if its suppose to be a myth, however trying to disprove its existance based on the obvious abundance of Tsunami's that had to be around is really futile.
It is not futile to discuss the ark floating in still water, but it is futile to discuss it floating in rough seas? That makes no sense. Why not just say that God magically made it float no matter how un-sea-worthy it was? Problem solved.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Zealot, posted 09-02-2003 9:56 AM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Zealot, posted 09-02-2003 1:52 PM John has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 296 (53509)
09-02-2003 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by John
09-02-2003 11:07 AM


Nope, difference is that you choose to claim that the Ark must have been a myth because its not structurally possible (or so we believe) to recreate the Ark TODAY,or atleast because no-one has managed to do so.
My reply is that its not possible to recreate Big Bang today either, infact it cannot be recreated, not even on a small scale, but that is a entirely different topic. Or if you choose to use an example of evolution, recreate the evolution of a Horse!
Cant ? Well.. must be a myth then ?
If you want to use the argument of 'there is no proof of the Ark' , feel free, but that is not the topic. The topic is the structural feasibility of the Ark, read the first post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the chinese could create a ship that no shipbuilder today could recreate should tell you that no creationist would be able to recreate the ark today. Pretty simple really.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. After all, the creationists have the divine word of God as a guide. Those poor chinese weren't so lucky.
Hmm, all of todays scientists and NA's cant figure out how a 400foot wooden boat could float, yet
you're surprised that a 450 foot boat (whatever) can ?
Besides, this is intended as evidence of what exactly? "We can't build the ship" just means you can't build the ship. It isn't support FOR the ark.
Urm precisely, yet you chose to call it a myth because todays Creationists haven't replicated the Ark.
Because we cannot reproduce an event means all the evidence pointing towards it is irrelevant? Guess how many people are in jail based on irrelevant information? All of them. Crimes can't be reproduced, only simulated.
Well, in 3 lines you managed to sum up your daft statement of Creationists reproducing the Ark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by John, posted 09-02-2003 11:07 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Yaro, posted 09-02-2003 3:24 PM Zealot has replied
 Message 71 by John, posted 09-02-2003 7:24 PM Zealot has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 68 of 296 (53522)
09-02-2003 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Zealot
09-02-2003 1:52 PM


I think the point is, when concerning the Chinese boat, is that the Chinese were an advanced seafaring nation, with knowledge of iron working, and sailmaking. The boats in question were built in chinese shipyards by hundreds of men, years of shipbuilding experience, a long tradition of seamanship, and not to mention that these boats were built thousands of years after noah.
Now, Noah is supposed to have built that boat with the aid of only 8 guys, on short notice, in a culture with no history of advanced seamanship, no knowledge of metalworking, no likely experience as a sailor, no budget on the scale of an entire empire. This is highly unlikely (read: impossible)
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Zealot, posted 09-02-2003 1:52 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Zealot, posted 09-02-2003 7:01 PM Yaro has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 296 (53551)
09-02-2003 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Yaro
09-02-2003 3:24 PM


I think the point is, when concerning the Chinese boat, is that the Chinese were an advanced seafaring nation, with knowledge of iron working, and sailmaking. The boats in question were built in chinese shipyards by hundreds of men, years of shipbuilding experience, a long tradition of seamanship, and not to mention that these boats were built thousands of years after noah.
No Yaro, I think you are missing the point here. The entire topic was about how it was possible for the Ark to have existed with its specifications.
The Chinese boat was constructed only 50 feet shorter than the Ark. Some people ahve claimed that it is impossible for the Ark to have been built AT ALL, and at that be seaworthy, given the specifications. In fact a 400 foot boat of wood, was considered impossible, however there is proof that it had been done, however even with todays technology it cannot be replicated.
Now, Noah is supposed to have built that boat with the aid of only 8 guys, on short notice, in a culture with no history of advanced seamanship, no knowledge of metalworking, no likely experience as a sailor, no budget on the scale of an entire empire. This is highly unlikely (read: impossible)
Noah had something like 100-120 years to build the Ark. He had the help of 8 Men and he had God's specific guidance. He did not require a degree in shipbuilding.
I think you misunderstand Christianity. The reason the Great Flood is written in the Bible is because it was a clearly a MASSIVE event in the Christian faith. The world was destroyed by water, but the next time it is destroyed, it will be by fire. Why God chooses to do things the way He does is beyond us. He can do anything He wants to do, yet he chooses to flood the Entire Earth. Perhaps this is symbolic to being baptised. Point is that God doesn't NEED to function to the laws of nature and man. He could have infact simply put the Ark there overnight had He chose to do that, but He didn't.
This is not about how likely Noah could have constructed such a great ship, its about whether such a ship would have (by man's standards) been able to stay afloat. I think it has pretty much been answered, thats why the new angle is to attack the amount of food the Ark had to store and not its sea-worthyness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Yaro, posted 09-02-2003 3:24 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 7:07 PM Zealot has replied
 Message 75 by Yaro, posted 09-02-2003 10:18 PM Zealot has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 296 (53552)
09-02-2003 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Zealot
09-02-2003 7:01 PM


The reason the Great Flood is written in the Bible is because it was a clearly a MASSIVE event in the Christian faith. The world was destroyed by water, but the next time it is destroyed, it will be by fire. Why God chooses to do things the way He does is beyond us. He can do anything He wants to do, yet he chooses to flood the Entire Earth. Perhaps this is symbolic to being baptised.
But isn't all that still very valid even if the flood didn't actually happen? I mean, the flood is clearly a very important lesson in the bible, but does it actually have to be a historical account to be a valid source of inspiration and learning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Zealot, posted 09-02-2003 7:01 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Zealot, posted 09-02-2003 7:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 296 (53559)
09-02-2003 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Zealot
09-02-2003 1:52 PM


quote:
Nope, difference is that you choose to claim that the Ark must have been a myth because its not structurally possible (or so we believe) to recreate the Ark TODAY,or atleast because no-one has managed to do so.
It is more a matter of not accepting an extraordinary claim without evidence. There is an endless variety of things that appear in mythology which we can't reproduce. That fact isn't evidence that any of those thing were real. They are stories. For them to move into the realm of fact there has to be evidence.
quote:
My reply is that its not possible to recreate Big Bang today either, infact it cannot be recreated, not even on a small scale, but that is a entirely different topic. Or if you choose to use an example of evolution, recreate the evolution of a Horse!
This is absurd. There is evidence for the BB and for evolution. The first paragraph of my previous post was:
There is evidence suggesting such an event. To keep this on topic, I would be happy with evidence suggesting the ark or suggesting associated events. There isn't any.
I wouldn't have to see an ark to believe the story, if there were sufficient evidence. There is zero evidence. The story is implausible on every level. The structure of the ark is only one problem.
The idea that creationists actually build an ark is something of a side issue. However, no amount of calculation could invalidate a real live functional ark. It may defy all the figures and physics of ship building, but if it works, no one can deny it. But rather than cut to the chase and build the damn thing, I just see more fairy telling-- like your own, god kept the waves away from the ark.
quote:
Cant ? Well.. must be a myth then ?
This is your straw man. Beat the heck-fire out of it.
quote:
If you want to use the argument of 'there is no proof of the Ark' , feel free, but that is not the topic. The topic is the structural feasibility of the Ark, read the first post.
Thanks, but I know what the topic concerns. This is, agter all, your tangent.
Proof of structural feasibility would be a form of proof. That is the point.
quote:
Hmm, all of todays scientists and NA's cant figure out how a 400foot wooden boat could float, yet
you're surprised that a 450 foot boat (whatever) can ?

Can you translate that?
quote:
Urm precisely, yet you chose to call it a myth because todays Creationists haven't replicated the Ark.
Nope. I call it a myth because there is ZERO evidence in its favor. A working replica would prove me wrong. A failed replica would not prove the story wrong but it would be a psychological blow to creationism. This latter, I am convinced is the reason that no one has attempted to build an ark despite the many voices claiming the ark to be perfectly reasonable and well designed.
quote:
Well, in 3 lines you managed to sum up your daft statement of Creationists reproducing the Ark.
What are you talking about? Maybe you should reread what I wrote.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Zealot, posted 09-02-2003 1:52 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Zealot, posted 09-02-2003 8:04 PM John has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 296 (53566)
09-02-2003 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
09-02-2003 7:07 PM


But isn't all that still very valid even if the flood didn't actually happen? I mean, the flood is clearly a very important lesson in the bible, but does it actually have to be a historical account to be a valid source of inspiration and learning?
good try crashfrog... set the trap. Either way I will step in it for you and await your reply.
A flood (worldwide) clearly had to happen historically. However THIS topic deals with the actuall Ark and its structural feasibility.
If you care to discuss evidence that a worldwide flood did or did not happen, I think its another topic. See the one about Food in the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 7:07 PM crashfrog has not replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 296 (53572)
09-02-2003 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by John
09-02-2003 7:24 PM


It is more a matter of not accepting an extraordinary claim without evidence. There is an endless variety of things that appear in mythology which we can't reproduce. That fact isn't evidence that any of those thing were real. They are stories. For them to move into the realm of fact there has to be evidence.
Nope, I think the topic is about the Ark. Specificially trying to refute the possibility of a structure of that size being able to stay afloat for 110 days (not a year) as some seem to believe.
This is absurd. There is evidence for the BB and for evolution. The first paragraph of my previous post was:
YOU chose to only believe the ARK to be structually possibly IF you could SEE it with your own eyes. Irrespective of the fact that another wooden craft had been constructed only 50 feet shorter than the ark.
Again the topic is NOT about whether the ARK actually existed, or whether there was a global flood, but IF it would have been possible to construct a craft of such magnitude and managed to keep it afloat.
That is precisely how you are trying to disprove that the Flood 'myth' in Genesis is accurate, by proving that the boat would have been structurally impossible. I think that has (in theory) been shown to be rather possible in this thread.
You then chose to call it a 'myth' because today it coudln't be reproduced. Well I tell you what. We know that there existed a 400 foot boat, so why not try created that first, and if possible, surely
then if they cannot create a 450 foot boat, it would throw some suspicion on the measurements of the ARK ?
I wouldn't have to see an ark to believe the story, if there were sufficient evidence. There is zero evidence. The story is implausible on every level. The structure of the ark is only one problem...[cut out text]... But rather than cut to the chase and build the damn thing, I just see more fairy telling-- like your own, god kept the waves away from the ark.
You want me to prove that a 5 000 year old ship existed ? You dont need to see it with your own eyes, but yet you criticise Creationists for not 'cutting to the chase and building it' to prove it could have existed ?
Ok, well taking about cutting to the chase ... how about some lab tests trying to reproduce a mini 'big bang' or a mosquito mutating eventually into a bat like creature ? Something I can see with my own eyes ? Funny because there is SO MUCH evidence it happened, but just no way of actively replicating the entire process. I can tell you right now, if scientists can show how the offspring of a frog eventually results in some form of massive aligator from some lab experiments, there REALLY wont be much of a discussion anymore
Infact while you're at it, please start off with abiogenesis to show exactly how the first life evolved, because we all know plants and animals dont share common ancestors , but then again I forget Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution, so we all have to assume that 'somewhere' life began and then it evolved.
How pray tell would you like to see evidence of the Ark ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by John, posted 09-02-2003 7:24 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by John, posted 09-02-2003 11:37 PM Zealot has replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 296 (53588)
09-02-2003 10:18 PM


Huge junks
I read the links on the 400'+ Chinese ships, but they just mentioned legends of the huge trading ships, but no evidence that they existed, except for one "rudder post" discovered by researchers. All the archaeological evidence points to Chinese shipbuilders having technology not beyond the norm. Could the legend of a 400' ship be just that? A legend? The Chinese are as adept at hyperbole as anyone else. "Look how great we were! We once built a ship to dwarf all the ships of the barbarians!"
I still see no evidence that a 450' ship was ever built by Bronze Age people. Or could have been.
------------------
Reunite Gondwana!

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 75 of 296 (53589)
09-02-2003 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Zealot
09-02-2003 7:01 PM


The topic may be about the fesability of such a craft, but such a craft has been pointed out time and time again to not be fesable at all in this thread.
The Chinese boat employed iron to hold in it's sides as well as cross beems. The technology employed was hundreds of years in the making. Advanced mathmatics, engeneering, and experience went into those ships. We aren't talking about 120 years, we are talking about thousands of years! Of an entire empire, with an incredibly long history. Do you realize that China had mechanical clocks by the time that boat was built? They were an incredibly advanced culture that were ages ahead of the rest of the world.
Noah couldn't dream of building such a vessel if he had 800 years! Not to mention the fact that Noah's vessel had to withstand raging seas (don't say god held it off, becuase you bring magic into this, fessability of the craft is a moot point). It just simply coulden't have been done, It would be the equivilant of asking Noah to build a PowerMac G5 or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Zealot, posted 09-02-2003 7:01 PM Zealot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by John, posted 09-02-2003 11:38 PM Yaro has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024