Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 12:20 PM
131 online now:
ooh-child, PaulK, PurpleYouko, Stile, Tanypteryx (5 members, 126 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,428 Year: 3,465/19,786 Month: 460/1,087 Week: 50/212 Day: 11/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
pandion
Member (Idle past 1073 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(1)
Message 256 of 453 (529825)
10-10-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Blackwodin
10-09-2009 6:55 PM


Blackwodin writes:

You're probably not aware of the logical fallacy you've committed but thankfully I'm here to point it out to you.


Apparently you're not aware of the logical fallacy that you have committed, but since I am actually aware of what I said and what I meant, I'll point out your error. Out of context quote.

Depending on how you look at you've committed either an argument of incredulity or an argument from ignorance. If I may paraphrase, you are saying, "I/we don't know how this could be done so therefore it can't be don't."

It was nothing of the kind. In fact, what I said was quite the opposite of that. I pointed out the evidence upon which I based my rejection of the myth of Noah. I don't believe the ark myth as fact simply because there is no evidence that shows that it is in any way possible, and there is lots and lots of evidence that it is, in fact, wildly impossible. What I said was that I am quite sure that this can't be done because of the great volume of evidence that shows that the myth is just that, myth.

We have very little information about the Ark so it is difficult to judge Noah's construction.

Just one more reason why we should discount the myth for the oral tradition of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen that it is. In fact, it was actually taken from earlier myths of other civilizations of the region - Gilgamesh, for example.

Much has been written about the ship. You have cited some examples where engineers have struggled to build practical, large wooden ships. However, one problem with the examples you've cited is they were built for navigation including masts.

Tell me what that logical fallacy is, please. You assume that the laws of physics don't apply to big boxes without masts not meant for navigation. Explain why the missing masts makes the wood stronger.

This would have been an unnecessary feature on Noah's Ark and his ship would not have suffered for it.

Actually, if you don't count being up-side-down, you're correct. Without some means by which the ship could have been oriented to the waves (modern ships do it through engines and screws - sailing ships did it with masts and sails), it would turn broadside and would have capcized. I recounted the case of the three U.S. destroyers that were lost in the typhoon in 1944. They lost power, were turned sideway to the waves and rolled.

You have also failed to cite other examples such as Zheng He treasure ships which, according to some reports, were as long as the Ark.

You didn't read very much of the discussion did you. I did, in fact, specifically mention the Chinese ships. The problem is that they were made from a series of boxes that were then fastened together. As a result, the hogging and snaking didn't spring the hull. Unless you wish to reject the Bible and what it says, this is irrelevant to discussions of the mythical ark.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Blackwodin, posted 10-09-2009 6:55 PM Blackwodin has not yet responded

  
MFFJM2
Member (Idle past 1280 days)
Posts: 58
From: Washington, DC
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 257 of 453 (530014)
10-11-2009 6:53 PM


The myth of Noah's ark is silly, but it's amazing what mental corkscrews people will turn themselves into in order to make the story credible, at least to the credulous. The land masses haven't changed appreciably in the past 10,000 years, and we certainly have evidence that no water covered the Greenland ice sheet. Mount Everest would have been exactly 400 feet shorter than its present 28,000 feet. In order for water to cover this mountain in a global flood there would need to be more than five miles of water above the present level. If this water fell as rain in only 40 days that would mean rain fell at an average of 6 inches per minute, every minute of every hour. Where did this water come from, and where did it go..? The greatest 24 hour rainfall on record happened in Mumbai, India during the monsoon season where 37 inches fell in 24 hours on July 26, 2005, and that's only 1.54 inches an hour.

Edited by MFFJM2, : No reason given.


    
edge
Member
Posts: 4460
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 258 of 453 (530113)
10-12-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Blackwodin
10-09-2009 6:55 PM


Much has been written about this subject - far more than I can include here. But suffice it to say that your incredulity alone is not evidence that the Ark could not have been built.

That's odd.

If there is so much that has been written on the subject, why do we know nothing about it? And if there is something in that voluminous literature that refutes the OP, why don't you reproduce it here for us? You don't have to include everything...

We have very little information about the Ark so it is difficult to judge Noah's construction. Much has been written about the ship.

Please explain. Are you saying that a lot has been written that is unknown? Or is a lot that is written just wrong, and how do you know?

Judging by the contradictory nature of your statements, I'm not sure that you are the one to be lecturing us on logical fallacies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Blackwodin, posted 10-09-2009 6:55 PM Blackwodin has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 259 of 453 (530118)
10-12-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Blackwodin
10-09-2009 6:55 PM


Hello, and welcome to EvC

You have also failed to cite other examples such as Zheng He treasure ships which, according to some reports, were as long as the Ark.

Even if we accept the largest estimates for the length of Zheng He's treasure ships, they were river boats. The Ark needed to withstand incredible storms with no land in sight, and nowhere to make repairs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Blackwodin, posted 10-09-2009 6:55 PM Blackwodin has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 260 of 453 (559865)
05-11-2010 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by DevilsAdvocate
08-19-2009 10:07 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
`These heavy stones would tear a wooden ship apart in heavy sea state conditions. The amount of shearing forces involved would be enormous as the wood would be pulled in all magnitudes and directions.`

I for one agree with you. And I still believe in the flood. The fact is, this question cannot be answered using the Biblical text.

It is an interesting point, and I think until the ark is found, and unearthed (supposing it exsists), we will never truely understand how a completely wooden box could have withstood the flood.

I would suppose (I know, I`m going there) that if God did flood the earth (which there is more evidence for than an ark), then I would think he would make sure not to kill the last of the life He wanted to preserve. Remember, Noah built the ark (in theory) having faith in God, that God would save him and his family because Noah was good in Gods eyes, and walked with God. So scientifically speaking, you have us on this one. I do have a feeling though that the boat at the base of Mount Ararat will be completely x-rayed within the next few years, and if the dimensions match those of the bible, could give us a glimmer of clues into the structure, support, and other capabilities of the ark.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-19-2009 10:07 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by greentwiga, posted 05-28-2010 10:40 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1500 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 261 of 453 (562387)
05-28-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by dennis780
05-11-2010 9:39 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Of course, if the Ark was built with reeds, as the Bible indicates, it doesn't matter if the Ark twists because it is the reeds that float, not open spaces as in wooden boats. All ocean going boats of 3,000 BC were reed boats, so this makes sense. When built right, they were very sturdy in rough weather. This would explain why it was called an Ark rather than a ship.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by dennis780, posted 05-11-2010 9:39 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Dr Jack, posted 05-28-2010 11:07 AM greentwiga has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 262 of 453 (562392)
05-28-2010 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by greentwiga
05-28-2010 10:40 AM


Re: anchor stones away ...
"Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."

- Genesis 6:14


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by greentwiga, posted 05-28-2010 10:40 AM greentwiga has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Modulous, posted 05-28-2010 11:15 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 264 by Granny Magda, posted 05-28-2010 11:27 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 263 of 453 (562394)
05-28-2010 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dr Jack
05-28-2010 11:07 AM


Re: anchor stones away ...
"Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."
- Genesis 6:14

What's gopher wood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dr Jack, posted 05-28-2010 11:07 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Iblis, posted 05-28-2010 11:29 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 264 of 453 (562395)
05-28-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dr Jack
05-28-2010 11:07 AM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Personally, I would emphasise this bit;

Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

Rooms? In a reed boat? Really? And doors and a window? Over three levels? Really? Really really? And big enough to hold animals of every kind? Wow.

I continue to be astonished at what some Christian apologists will come out with.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dr Jack, posted 05-28-2010 11:07 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by greentwiga, posted 05-28-2010 1:13 PM Granny Magda has responded
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-28-2010 1:31 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 265 of 453 (562396)
05-28-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Modulous
05-28-2010 11:15 AM


Re: anchor stones away ...
What's gopher wood?

Wood a woodchuck wouldn't chuck ...

. . .

Wood gathered by Noah's sons? From greater and greater distances?

"Shem! Ham! Japhet! Go fer some more wood!"

. . .

Wood characterized by being extremely hollow and porous, like giant reeds with special attributes, making a sort of "pump tree".

Message 127

Sadly, all the gopher wood in existence had to be used to make the boat. And that's why gophers don't live in trees like the other squirrels.

Just so, just so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Modulous, posted 05-28-2010 11:15 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1500 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 266 of 453 (562410)
05-28-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Granny Magda
05-28-2010 11:27 AM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Well, that word 'rooms' is actually a word that means erect and is a form of the word that means reeds. The word for wood is also translated stalks, and reeds fit the word stalks. Also, the only other floating craft called an ark was made of reeds. Furthermore, wood boats were only caulked at the seams with tar. The ancient reed boats and even modern reed objects of the area are coated inside and out with a mixture of tar and pitch. Rooms were built on top of the reeds. Large craft could have several stories. Thor Heyerdahl's, The Tigris Expedition, is a good book to read.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Granny Magda, posted 05-28-2010 11:27 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Dr Jack, posted 05-28-2010 2:58 PM greentwiga has responded
 Message 276 by Granny Magda, posted 05-28-2010 9:52 PM greentwiga has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 453 (562412)
05-28-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Granny Magda
05-28-2010 11:27 AM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Rooms? In a reed boat? Really? And doors and a window?

Not that a reed ark is possible, but you seem to be underestimating what people can do with reeds.

The Uros have built floating islands out of reeds on Lake Titicaca complete with houses n'everything. Check it out:

source

Image from the wiki linked above:

Pretty neat huh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Granny Magda, posted 05-28-2010 11:27 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Rahvin, posted 05-28-2010 2:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 274 by Granny Magda, posted 05-28-2010 9:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1259 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 268 of 453 (562415)
05-28-2010 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by New Cat's Eye
05-28-2010 1:31 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
That IS interesting, CS. In fact, I think it;'s an excellent example of why incredulity is a poor argument. Simply saying "that can't work" is as much an intellectual dead-end as "Goddidit" - you need an actual experiment to see whether things like reed-construction watercraft can be large enough to support rooms, rather than simply saying they can't because of personal incredulity.

Honestly I think that's the best reason not to debate the Flood along the lines of "that kind of boat couldn't float."

There are simply so many easier and more effective ways to test the Flood hypothesis that the amount of uncertainty typified by these sorts of arguments are just unnecessary.

The absolute strongest evidence with regards to the Flood myth are threefold:

1) If every species on Earth was suddenly reduces in population tpo the number of breeding couples described in teh Bible, we should see very obvious evidence of the genetic bottleneck that would be created by such a massive die-off. The botteleneck should be datable to around teh same time period for every non-water-dwelling species we ever find - we know that we can detect genetic bottlenecks in various species for various time periods older and younger than any suggested Flood dates, so this should be easy. Even a single species without evidence of such a bottleneck would falsify the Flood hypothesis, as a continuous large population of any land-dwelling species would be impossible under the conditions of a global year-long flood. The presence of such a universal bottleneck could only be explained by a massive global die-off, which a Flood would produce. It wouldn't be proof of the Flood (a mass die-off can be caused by other factors, of course), but it would at least be evidence that a cataclysmic event on the scale of the Flood described in Genesis did happen.

2) If the express purpose of the Flood was to wipe extant human civilization from the face of the Earth and leave only Noah and his family to rebuild, we should never ever find examples of cultures that existed before, during, and after the Flood event occurred, as all members of that culture should have died. For every suggested date for the Flood, if any archeological find demonstrates a culture that continued to exist through the supposed Flood, that date must be falsified. Again, if every cultural record we find suddenly stops around the date of the Flood, this would at least support a cataclysmic event on the same scale as what Genesis describes, even if it's not necessarily evidence specifically of a Flood.

3) If a global Flood were to have actually occurred, we should see geological evidence of it at every point on Earth dated to the same age. Since we can easily detect evidence of localized floods from much older time periods than any proposed Flood date, we should easily be able to detect such evidence in the form of a continuous sediment layer. Since we have found evidence of mass extinction events in teh past, we should also find evidence of such a mass die-off around the same time in the fossil record, and that evidence should be easily found at every location on Earth due to the global scope of the event. The lack of such evidence should serve as significant evidence that the Flood never occurred. The presence of such evidence, of course, would be extremely strong evidence for the Flood - especially if combined with the sudden death of all non-Abrahamic cultures coupled with a universal genetic bottleneck all dated to around the same time as the sediment layer. The presence of all three would make an extremely strong case for the Flood hypothesis.

These are all subjects for which there are a wealth of resources for debate. The actual, real-world evidence should very strongly support either the hypothesis that no Flood event occurred, or that the entire globe was Flooded at a point in its (relatively) recent history. The first two examples are scenarios that cannot be explained at all by a Flood hypothesis, but which are fully explained by the hypothesis that the Flood never happened. The third is less firm, but obviously the lack of any signs of flooding dated around the globe to around the same time is significantly better explained by the hypothesis that the Flood never happened than the reverse.

The simple question is, what does the evidence in the real world support more strongly?

The answer, according to biologists, archeologists, geologists and others, seems to be clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-28-2010 1:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 269 of 453 (562416)
05-28-2010 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by greentwiga
05-28-2010 1:13 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Yeah, but, er, no.

The words used is 'ets. It means wood, it is never used to mean reeds, and there are other words that mean reeds in hebrew. If they meant reeds they'd have written reeds, not wood.

See here for more, and I direct you to point 5, particularly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by greentwiga, posted 05-28-2010 1:13 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by greentwiga, posted 05-28-2010 3:38 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1500 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 270 of 453 (562417)
05-28-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Dr Jack
05-28-2010 2:58 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
The first line says gopher wood (Stalks) and the second line says reeds, a typical Hebrew method of writing things in two ways.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Dr Jack, posted 05-28-2010 2:58 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Percy, posted 05-28-2010 4:43 PM greentwiga has not yet responded
 Message 273 by Dr Jack, posted 05-28-2010 7:57 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019