Summations Only

If creationists could spend a hundred million dollars to build a museum, why not spend the money on an experiment to prove that it was entirely possible for Noah and his family to take care of that many animal in an isolated system like the ark?

Seems pretty simple to me. Have a little less than a dozen good christian volunteers. Build a replica of the ark based on the specs from the bible. Put in it 2 animal of each "kind" and as much food and water as the replica ark could hold. Lock it up. Wait for a year and then open it up to see if anything is still alive.

PS We've been having some pretty far fetched reality tv shows lately. I'd pay real money to see such an experiment being done.

I can't help but feel I've seen this topic before, but I can't track it down.

Regardless, I don't see this as a debatable topic. It looks mostly as a place for a bunch of wise-ass remarks.

Adminnemooseus votes "rejected".

Adminnemooseus

This could be a fun way to explore a popular topic here, the feasibility of the Noah's ark story. I'd be particularly intrigued if when you say that a dozen Christian volunteers should build an ark based on specs from the Bible that we add to it that using period tools they also have to chop down their own trees and hew their own lumber while at the same time building the ark, producing enough food for themselves during construction and for the animals and themselves during the voyage, and gathering all the animals.

This *would* absolutely make a great reality show. One can imagine during the loading of the ark Shem saying to Noah, "The wolves are refusing to eat the hay we provided and ate the sheep again, we have to find more bloody sheep."

I'll promote this topic, but will add Adminnemooseus's proviso that this thread not be used as vehicle for mockery and mayhem. Closing a thread is even easier than promoting one.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Put in it 2 animal of each "kind"

It was only two of each kind of unclean animal, the clean animals numbered 14 of each 'kind', and 14 of each 'fowls of the air'.

Genesis 7:1-3 (KJV)

And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

The volunteers should also have only 7 days in which to collect all these animals.

Genesis 7:4

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

There are a few 'unknowns' that would affect the experiment, for example, we do not know how many people were employed in the building of the Ark.

Also, there are two Flood stories merged into one account, so which one do they go with?

Brian writes: The volunteers should also have only 7 days in which to collect all these animals.

Just a little correction to your theology.

The volunteers would not have to collect any animal.
Noah did not have to collect any animals.
They showed up when it was boarding time.
They also loaded themselves.

Gene 6:20 (KJV) Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. Gene 7:9 (KJV) There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

The animals showed up and went in.

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I don't particularly see this as being helpful, though. To me, it seems like the failure of the experiment would only lead people to the conclusion that Noah's Ark was miraculous.

I think the only way to disprove the Ark is through geological and anthropological evidence, such as Coyote continues to assert. Aside from that, no experiment is really going to have any impact on any Christians' faith or belief system, nor will really change scientists' views on the subject, so I can understand why the ID movement isn't very interested in this sort of thing.

Although, it would make a fun reality TV show: maybe the only one I'd ever watch beyond the first episode.

---

Darwin loves you.

Bluejay writes: I don't particularly see this as being helpful, though. To me, it seems like the failure of the experiment would only lead people to the conclusion that Noah's Ark was miraculous.

That's the point. For years, the creos have been arguing that the flood and the noah's ark thing were not miracles and therefore should be taught in the science classroom.

I think the only way to disprove the Ark is through geological and anthropological evidence, such as Coyote continues to assert. Aside from that, no experiment is really going to have any impact on any Christians' faith or belief system, nor will really change scientists' views on the subject, so I can understand why the ID movement isn't very interested in this sort of thing.

I'd have to disagree with you here. Most christians... most people in general aren't educated enough to understand geological and anthropological evidence that you speak of. Heck, I don't understand the geological and anthropological evidence that you speak of. Geology and anthropology just ain't my thing. But an experiment in a form of a tv reality series. Now, THAT is good evidence that EVERYONE could understand.

Added by edit.

I vaguely remember someone on this board suggested that to solve the fresh water supply problem Noah had to drill a hole or two right below the water line. Yes, I know, only a creationist would suggest drilling a hole in your boat below the water line. Anyway, I was thinking that we could also put the replica ark on water and drill a hole or two in it right below the water line and put it on water to see how long it would stay afloat. This should be interesting.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

I recall something on TV within the past year or so showing someone actually building an ark.

Sorry for not remembering any more details, or even the country (I think the US), but perhaps some creative googling could scare up the details.

Hi, Taz.

Taz writes: ...most people in general aren't educated enough to understand geological and anthropological evidence that you speak of... But an experiment in a form of a tv reality series. Now, THAT is good evidence that EVERYONE could understand.

I guess you do have a good point: the masses could relate better to reality TV than to science (scary thought, that). Still, the people who can't understand the scientific evidence and who would rely on reality TV for "proof" are still, the way I see it, the people who are likely to shrug at the failure of the experiment and say, "Then it was a miracle." So, I'm not so certain it's important to reach them with this evidence, except in relation to popular votes and court decisions about ID in science classrooms.

Of course, the failure of your Ark experiment would be a fatal blow to Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavour. On the other hand, the success of the experiment would lend some credence to non-religious ID, so it could have interesting implications for the whole genre of creation-style sciences.

---

Darwin loves you.

coyote writes: I recall something on TV within the past year or so showing someone actually building an ark.

You can find a 1/5 replica Here

I don't think it would be a replica as it is built to navigate with.

Noah would have build a rectangle barge type. He wasn't going anywhere.

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

hmmm, lock 10 Christians away for a year and see if they die?

I appreciate where you're going with this but I foresee some difficult legal complications.

j/k my theist friends!

Deftil writes: hmmm, lock 10 Christians away for a year and see if they die?

Not just 10 christians. Lock 10 christians up with 2 of every animal on Earth. I'd like to see the miracle that will keep them all alive for a year in that death trap.

Added by edit.

Now, don't get me wrong. Christians have been saying to me for years that it's possible for 10 people to take care of that many animal in a closed environment like the ark for a year... not to mention all the food and fresh water they're suppose to carry on that (what I would describe as) death trap to last the whole group for a year. Prove me wrong, people. Prove me wrong.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Hi Gang,

By all means, push the Reality TV bit. It would be a fascinating experiment in human interaction and survival. A bunch of humans and a boatload (literally) of animals, cooped up for a year. Throw in three judges to spice it up. ("I'm sorry Jason, but half the animals in your care have starved or been eaten. Over the side you go.").

You can't fake your way out of Gawd-awful human behavior.

(:raig

Here's a little something I wrote some years ago.

In 1909 the schooner Wyoming was launched from the Percy & Small shipyard in Bath, Maine. She was state-of-the art in wooden hulled shipbuilding. She was a six masted schooner and, at 329 ft., the longest ship with an all wood keel and hull ever built. She was the last of nine wooden hulled, six-masted schooners built between 1900 and 1909, and one of seven built by Percy & Small. All were 300 ft. or more in length. They were all state-of-the art. The Wyoming had 90 steel cross-braces. Even while she was yet on the drawing boards the marine engineers who designed and built her knew from experience with shorter ships that the length of the Wyoming would exceed the structural limits of wood. For this reason they attempted to defeat, or at least support, the laws of physics and the principles of marine engineering with steel. It was to no avail. Not even the steel bracing could prevent the flexing and twisting that resulted in the separation of the hull planking. The Wyoming required constant pumping, as did her sister ships. The Wyoming leaked from the day she hit the water until the day, 14 years later, when she foundered and broke up off of Monomoy Island while riding out a storm at anchor. It is said that she could be seen to snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to the midships) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to the midships) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any caulking that could be devised. The Wyoming and her sisters were used, for the most part, for short, close-in coastal hauls, generally in sight of land. At the first sign if inclement weather, they could run for port. The Wyoming served for several years as a coal hauler, as did several of her sisters. I have always had a great love for windjammers. I have some very expensive books that deal with the minutia of their construction and for years my hobby was to build full rigged wooden models. I spent hours climbing over the decks of the U.S.S. Constitution in Charleston Navy Yard, admiring her construction. The Wyoming must have been a beautiful vessel. But she was a beautiful anachronism. At about 300 ft. the structural capabilities of wood were exceeded beyond the abilities of engineering and design to remedy Few other ships of this size were built of wood. One exception was the four-masted medium clipper barque, Great Republic built in 1853. She is sometimes reported as the longest wooden ship ever build with a length of 334 feet, but more usually it is claimed that she was 325 feet. The Great Republic also had 90 steel cross braces, 4 inches wide, 1 inch thick, and 36 feet long. Nevertheless, she sprung her hull in a storm off of Bermuda. She was abandoned when the water in the hold reached 15 feet. And yet, creationists want me to believe that a 450 ft. (minimum) vessel of ALL wood construction was able to withstand a storm of 40 days and then remain at sea for almost a year, manned by only eight people, without the efficient pumps of the turn of the century, caulked with nothing more than "pitch inside and out". Not to mention the overwhelming necessity of the limited crew to feed and water thousands of animals and to muck out thousands of pens (and then carry the result of the mucking up two decks in order to throw it overboard). When was there time for pumping (24 hours a day if the above is any indication) and the constant recaulking in a futile attempt to stem the flow. You may perceive this as an argument from incredulity similar to those that are so typical of creationists, but I just can't believe such a fairy tale. Experience with real wooden ships sailing in real oceans indicates that Noah's ark would not have survived many days of the 40 day storm. My opinion of Noah's ark is that that boat don't float.

One might also consider the air quality three decks down in that big wooden box. Consider the fumes given off by the pitch that covered the inside of the hull - that black, oozy, sticky stuff used for caulking. There would also be the fumes given off from the breakdown of all of that urine that had soaked into the wood decks. Also, the methane produced from the various digestive tracks. Not only would the air have been unpleasant, it would have been lethal.