Re-enactments of the Noah's Ark voyage?

I see, it's all about faith! Why didn't you say so and leave out all the silly engineering and scientific justifications.All anyone has been saying is that the ark could NOT have been built on an engineering and scientific basis. You seem to agree with that since you are giving up on this thread.The creationists (or most of them it seems) at AIG and ICR and Brown and Hovind et all are trying to suggest that the accepted science of pretty much everything is wrong and that they have better "science" that should be taught in school classrooms.I'm glad you realize that they are wrong. That only a faith based, miraculous solution is possible for the ark, flood and the rest. This you can stick to and leave in your church. Thanks for your time.

NosyNed, Noah was about faith and works, science only confirms the biblical account, sediments formed by the flood, the fossil record formed suddenly, the glaciers too formed suddenly within the massive
pleistocene fossils dating too near to the age of the flood, to not be evidence supporting the biblical flood, the sedimentary rock compressed by the flood waters, the ocean creatures found in the sediment rock, erosion of the grand canyon, the hudson canyon, amazon canyon, even the badlands testify of a massive flood, etc...
P.S. The students are being told a myth, that evolution answers origin, however, evolution has no proof that it answers origin, even them genes, chromosomes that double copy are still copies, the dog is simply evidence of Intelligent Design, meaning Noah only had like kind creatures, and didn't need to carry the insects, reptiles, fish, that would of survived within the flood waters, the boat was just right, and you really have to appreciate the effort Noah took, faith and works.[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-29-2003]

whatever writes:

quote:

---

science only confirms the biblical account

---

Incorrect. The exact opposite is true. Science only disproves the biblical account. There was no flood, the fossil record formed over time, the glaciers formed slowly, no Pleistocene fossils dating from 2250 BCE, absolutely no evidence to support a biblical flood and an overwhelming amount of evidence to conclude that it never happened.

quote:

---

The students are being told a myth, that evolution answers origin

---

Incorrect. Nobody who studies evolution comes away with the idea that evolution explains the origin of life. Evolution doesn't care how life began. Life could have started in any way imaginable: Chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extra-terrestrially from alien seeding or panspermia, interdimensionally through a rift in spacetime, or any other method you could care to imagine. Evolution is consistent with every single method. So long as life doesn't replicate perfectly from generation to generation, evolution is satisfied.

quote:

---

however, evolution has no proof that it answers origin

---

Nor does it try.Who told you that it did?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain, I actually feel most evolutionists are actually intelligent design people, for you all seem to talk about is micro-evolution, and you confessed you don't care about how it started, the intelligent design people leave it open, perhaps as it should be, for the child to be taught the truth that evolution doesn't explain origin, but that micro-evolution is simply how life diversifies, etc...P.S. It is interesting though how micro-evolution supports the generations of life since the biblical flood, how life naturally diversifies by the forces of natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, etc...

You guys, please stay on the main subject, which is what is necessary for re-enacting Noah's legendary voyage. And yes, I agree that some believers in it ought to try to re-enact it in some way.I've created a thread for the most recent exchange between "Rrhain" and "whatever": Always talking about micro-evolution?

How would the ark work?Let's assume that Noah has built his ark and it's started raining.Visibility will be poor - if it's raining at 6 inches per minute or whatever. So as far as he could see the flood covered all the earth.The ark would have had to have been on a plain, or it would have been carried downstream rapidly and destroyed in flood waters. All life on the plain would be destroyed in the floodTo re-enact the voyage of the ark, you would need a dry-dock (or similar) and then fill it. This should be simple to do.Constructing the ark should be straightforward for a shipwright. Woodworking joints can be fixed with pegs and wedges etc., possibly using metal nails (made from iron or copper) to reinforce them.The tricky bit, I would think, would be stop the animals eating each other, and, in the case of the rabbits, multiplying copiously.

However, those multiplying rabbits could supply fresh meat for the carnivores. But to keep those carnivores well-supplied with fresh rabbit, there would have to be about 10 times as much rabbit biomass as carnivore biomass aboard the Ark -- and all those rabbits would have to be kept well-fed for a year.

Having been raised in the Midwest and been through many rain storms I pose this question.
Assuming that the rainfall during the flood was say a nominal half inch per hour over 40 days. That would amount to a water canopy of some 40 feet. Consider that when a major rain storm comes through and over a period of time, say 24 hours, drops a mere 4 inches of rain and how does that affect the lighting? My experience in a major rain storm is the light is markedly reduced. Imagine what it would be like if the clouds overhead contained ten times as much water. The light would be so reduced that Noah would do his construction by candle light and would norish himself with mushrooms. What he could use for a candle or wood I leave to the Creationist to answer.
May I suggest that the creationism leaning obtain a copy of Noah's Flood by William Ryan and Walter Pitman. There really was a flood, but not a world wide one, it just seemed that way when the Noah was far out from shore and could not see land in any direction. Take an ocean cruise some day and about the second day see if you don't get that eerie feeling that the entire world isn't covered in water.

Whatever, if you're still in the neighborhood, consider...After Captain Noah grounded his vessel and retired from seafaring, he gave up ALL the advantages and knowledge he had gained about iron metallurgy used in the Ark construction and settled for an ordinary Bronze Age existence. So he and his kin and offspring reverted to inferior copper and bronze technologies to build weapons and farm implements. This allowed the Hittites to rediscover the power of iron weaponry and beat the snot out of all they came across.Even Mr. Peabody in "Peabody's Improbable History (for you Rocky and Bullwinkle fans ) wouldn't have come up with a scenario like that.BTW - If the iron bolts and straps used in the Ark had rusted away as you suggested, they would have left nice little buried piles of iron oxide. And they were found where, exactly?(:raig

Whatever. You use two examples of large wooden ships as an argument for the Ark. Well, I have some small amount of experience in wooden vessel design and construction, so I thought I'd add some more info to your examples.
Both the schooner barge Pretoria and the ironclad U.S.S. Dunderberg were built with a lot of metal in their structure.
Here's more on the Pretoria."The schooner-barge Pretoria was one of the most colossal wooden vessels to sail the Great Lakes. It was 338 feet long - longer than a football field. It had a 44-foot beam and a depth of 23 feet. It reportedly had 11 hatches in its deck for loading cargo into the hold - each hatch was 7 feet by 26 feet. With a gross tonnage of 2,791 tons and a net tonnage of 2,715 tons, it could carry as much freight as 50 railroad cars.
"The Pretoria was built at the turn of the century in West Bay City, Michigan, by James Davidson, a ship-building marvel in his day. Davidson was well-known for building high-quality wooden vessels that could carry heavy cargoes. He also was regarded as one of the final holdouts in the wooden shipbuilding industry."The Saginaw (Michigan) Courier-Herald described the Pretoria's July 26, 1900, launching:
"The schooner Pretoria, the largest wooden boat ever built, was launched at Davidson's shipyard this afternoon, in the presence of a vast multitude."The Pretoria will carry 5,000 tons of iron ore, 175,000 bushels of wheat, or 300,000 bushels of oats. ... [S]he is very strong and substantially constructed in every way, has steel keelson plates, steel chords , steel arches , and is also diagonally strapped with steel. The vessel is supplied with three masts , each having a topmast , and these are all equipped with sails."The Pretoria when launched was ready for sea, and even her sails were bent and running gear all rove off when she went into the water. A large pony boiler is supplied, which is situated stockless anchors . The is built on the main deck , the same as a steamer , and this is entirely in hardwood, cabinet finish. The pilothouse is located aft , and the vessel is steered by the latest improved hydraulic steerer. A large deck hoist and combination pump is situated amidships for use of moving at the dock or hoisting sails or cargo, as well as for pumping the ship. Another large steam pump and steam syphons are situated forward. The Pretoria has a rating of A1 star in the Inland Lloyds Insurance Register, and also has the highest class in all the insurance registers of New York City and London."http://www.wisconsinshipwrecks.org/explore_pretoria_serv.cfmYou can see the her structure required a vast amount of worked steel for her to retain her shape and integrity. Gopher wood (what is gopher wood?) would not have the strength needed.Now, the Dunderberg. She was a casement ironclad, 377'4 LOA x72'9 beam x 21' draft. Of her length, 50 was a ram, so her actual LWL was most likely closer to 320'. Even though she was described as an ocean going ironclad, these vessels were known for their instability and low freeboard. Almost all U.S. Civil War ironclads stayed relatively close to the shore and ran for cover if the weather got dirty. She did make one transatlantic crossing when she was sold to the French. Though it is claimed that she was all wood, ship building of that time used a lot of iron in diagonals, needed for the hull to mainain its shape, as well as many iron fastenings. Also, the Dunderberg had no great access hatch cut into her side. Talk about your basic structural weak spot.
There is no evidence that Noah had iron working tech. Brass is NEVER used in a seagoing structure due to de-zincification when immersed in salt water. Bronze could have been used.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eta_Carinae:
Well, the Wright brothers flight really occurred.

​

If you do Noah's voyage then you might as well re-enact the flight of Icarus, Jack climbing the beanstalk and Jason seeking the Golden Fleece.

---

I just saw this. I have a book at home which describes a reenactment of the Voyage of Jason and the argonauts in search of the Golden Fleece. It is The Jason Voyage. I have linked to the site of the author, Tim Severin.Severin has done a number of such reenactments; building ships to an ancient model corresponding to legendary maratime exploits. Sinbad, St Brenden, Ulysses. He puts a great deal of trouble into reproducing the technologies involved, and likes to propose possible historical seeds to such things as, for example, a "Golden Fleece".Highly recommended adventure reading. Historical value uncertain, but he is serious about this. Tim Severin is an author and adventurer and film maker. He has won a number of prizes for his books, and has been honoured with an honourary Doctor of Letters from Trinity College, Dublin, for his acheivments.

Concidering the number of replica/reproduction vessels being built now, I don't see why CRS and AiG, with maybe some help from Dr. Dino, could raise the few million dollars from True Believers to build an Ark replica. I mean, if Carl Baugh were to have a telethon on his weekly show on TBN, I'm sure they could find financial support.
They would need to find 4 couples, one of them elderly, willing to build it with very basic instructions. Just use the info in the Bible. No moon pools, no ram pumps, etc.Use the instructions Bill Cosby related in one of his old routines, for example. Trees would be felled and dimentioned using basic hand tools, such as adz, axes and primitive saws. (all bronze) They should have no boatbuilding experience.
No modern technology. No epoxy to laminate the keel, no iron drifts, only copper and bronze fastenings and hardware. 120 years to build it without rot setting into the older wood.
Import 2 (or 7) of every critter and get them on the boat. It'll be tough to find plant eating lions, tigers, etc. Load all the vittles for man and beast.
Lauch her and let her just sit, say in the North Atlantic, for a year. Feed those animals, clean up after hundreds, thousands of seasick critters.
If money can be found to build replicas of East Indiamen, frigates, viking ships, Elizabethan colony ships, well, why not a replica of one of the most famous craft in "history"?[This message has been edited by Bonobojones, 01-29-2004]

If someone was actually going to build a replica of Noah's arked shaped boat, you would need to incorporate the side door with the moon pool, design the side door to go to a spiral ramp around the moon pool to the different levels above the wave base, this would make the side door leaking, a non factor, just a part of the moon pool, you could fill the lower part of the ark with water(separated from the moon pool), this would give needed ballast, and design overflow valves to maintain this water level at different levels(to adjust the ride), with a main overflow so it couldn't rise too high, to all flow to the moon pool, all leaks could be designed to flow to the moon pool, the ark would have to be designed to flow with the waves, so you would need an engineer to help design it to be ark shaped for in respect to fluid dynamics (water flowing around an ark) which would add stability, you would need to have giant sea anchors to reach below the wave base so the waves themselves would be responsible to continually keep the ark positioned in the waves, so the ark would never be pounded in the side by the waves, it would need to be designed to flow within the waves, the roof should be designed for water to wash off, to help stability as it drops and rises within the waves, so its cutting and defining, rather that being buffeted within the waves, with the moon pool its ballast could be adjusted to ride a bit lower in the waves, for a better ride, etc...P.S. With the simple check valve using a separate RAM pump they could have running water flushing waste continually to the moon pool, water for the animals, iron technologies were available pre-flood, so it could be used to support the ark design, iron, brass for check valves, valves, and sealing the entire ark with pitch within and without, to seal the ark, and to prevent it from dry rotting, preventing iron from rusting, so it will be seaworthy, then just park it out in the Pacific Ocean with a beacon, and see how it rises out storms, we could adjust these valves by computer, to adjust ride and monitor ballast water levels, the moon pool, air quality, air pressure, It would make an interesting documentary, like a live cam internet on line, so we all could monitor how its holding together, etc...With all these super computers it shouldn't be too difficult to build, the problem is the funds necessary, to build it, etc...

Whatever,Welcome back.I started a thread that provides compelling evidence of evolution, & demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that a global flood never occurred.http://EvC Forum: Evolution For Whatever, etc... This is exactly the sort of thing that got you suspended in the first place. Both Quetzal & I have pointed out the error of using the Pleistocene extinctionS. It records different events at different times on different continents. And I think you'll find the Australian & South American extinctions weren't particularly bothered with glaciation. Moreover, what logic compels you to accept that there was a mass extinction event at all? This is what I mean by being consistent. If you accept a Pleistocene extinction, then by the same logic you must accept the same evidence for all of the other extinctions, which incidentally dwarf the Pleistocene events. But somehow I doubt you can demonstrate such a level of logic.Prove me wrong, tell me why you accept the Pleistocene mass extinctions & reject the others? Please respond on the thread I link to, above.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-30-2004]

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-30-2004]