Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 2:14 PM
30 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, JonF, Lammy, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Taq, Theodoric (9 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,830 Year: 9,866/19,786 Month: 2,288/2,119 Week: 324/724 Day: 49/114 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

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

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

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 responded

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

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 responded

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

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 yet responded

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 responded

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

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 296 (53677)
09-03-2003 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by John
09-02-2003 11:37 PM



It would help if you could prove it existed but it isn't actually necessary. Any evidence for any of the events describes concerning the ark and the flood, would go a long way.

Again, that is not the topic of this discussion. Whether or not a global flood occurred is irrelevant to the structural feasibility of the Ark with the specific specification.


So if we cannot make a 450 foot boat, just downsize the ark and call it good? Maybe we should just go with 350? Or 300? But where do we put all the critters? The thing has got to be big to carry them all. 450 is not large enough. It doesn't help to make it smaller.

Ok. Lets try this and add in Yaro or Yabo's (non iron hinge) information.

1. There is evidence of a 400 foot boat existing (now it seems without metal hinges).

2. We believe the Ark to be 450 feet.

3. If we cannot reproduce today a 400 foot boat, which we know from evidence has existed, how would you like us to reproduce a 450 Ark ?

Simply put 'A' exists, and 'A' < 'B'. We cannot create 'A' because 'A' is too big, so how would an inability to produce 'B' disprove its existance ?


What you may also have missed is that 400 foot wooden boats leaked like sieves, required constant pumping, and iron or steel bracing to hold together. I am quite sure the massive Ming ships of Zheng Ho's fleet used such metal bracing. The chinese were fantastic metal workers and, according to one source which I have yet to verify, even armor plated some ships in the 13oo's.

No-one has managed to produce anything in modern times close to the 400 foot boat, so your speculation that it leaked like sieves is just speculation. As for Metal hinges, see Yabo's post... but I cant verify its accuracy.


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 ?

See. This is what I was talking about above. This BB and evolution stuff is your diversion, yet you are complaining about keeping to the topic. Make up your mind. Do you want to talk about the scientific method? Take it elsewhere.

I believe you suggested that Creationists were too afraid of actually building a 450 foot Ark, and that it clearly must be a Myth because else they would have done so.

"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." msg 25.

My response is saying that in the same way that it is impossible to reproduce a Big Bang and Macro Evolution, it would be impossible to recreate the Ark, thus it seems ironic that you choose to use a lack of 'recreatable proof' as your basis of dismissal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by John, posted 09-02-2003 11:37 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by John, posted 09-03-2003 12:52 PM Zealot has responded

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 296 (53732)
09-03-2003 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by John
09-03-2003 12:52 PM



Please, please, please read my posts before responding. I quote:

John post # 71 writes:
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.

I do read your posts, but lets take your entire quote into consideration, not just some parts.
The remainder of your quote, you chose to omit...

quote.(msg 71)

" 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. "

Yes, you are saying that a failed replica would not prove the story wrong, but you are convinced the reason Creationists dont build it, is because they know it would fail and be a great blow to the theory.

Rather sweeping statement considering the original took 120 years to complete and its a rather expensive expedition to build an ARK purely to prove it is possible. Not to mention that Creationists believe Noah to have received divine wisdom and guidance by God himself in creating it.

Yes, it would be humanly possible to try and replicate the Ark, but not even slighly feasible. Now my quest is that 1st Athiest should try build a 400 foot ship (which we know existed) and then once they have achieved that, they can ask Creationists to build one of 450 feet. If they cant even get to 400 feet, well then we know there is no point trying for 450 now is there..

cheers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by John, posted 09-03-2003 12:52 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by John, posted 09-03-2003 7:43 PM Zealot has responded

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 296 (53851)
09-04-2003 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by John
09-03-2003 7:43 PM



... a blow to creationism. That is because creationism is a mind game the success of which depends upon the creation and maintenance of illusions of plausibility.

No mind game. You might see it as a mind game, but the very basic principles of Christianity (for instance) is very opposed to any type of deceit. No point in believing in Christ and falsifying evidence...


I dispute this time-frame. I'd give him about half that time, based of the text. But tell me, Noah is 500 when God starts complaining and 600 when the Flood starts. What's with that extra 20?

120 years is the time from which God announced his intentions to flood the Earth to the time the flood happened. God does not start to complain when Noah is 500 Off topic again, but for arguments sake, we can even give a time frame of 60 years if you so choose. Still a pretty long time to construct an ark or a type of wood that could well have become extinct.


'
Yes, it would be humanly possible to try and replicate the Ark, but not even slighly feasible.
'
Think of the souls you could save!

Yeah, constructing a floating 450 foot Ark would make us all believers wouldn't it ?


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------Now my quest is that 1st Athiest should try build a 400 foot ship (which we know existed) and then once they have achieved that, they can ask Creationists to build one of 450 feet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Talk about shifting the burden!

If only building the Ark would make you a believer

Perhaps this might help...

Luke 6 vs24 (About a man in Hell)

He called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.' 25 But Abraham said, "Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.' 27 He said, "Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.' 29 Abraham replied, "They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.' 30 He said, "No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Building an Ark... wont convert anyone.


Actually, there would be. You can't just keep scaling up forever. The materials have limits. These limits for wooden ships are at about 300/350 feet, without using iron and steel.

We dont even know for sure the type of wood used, what it was constructed of, all we know is that the Great Designer was God himself ! Can we even today create a 400 foot wooden boat using the latest technologies ? Sheesh, if we can , we litterally have to extend that length by 8. 25 metres to reach the lenght of the ARK, yet that is impossible! Can you show evidence to support your claim that the Chinese that constructed the 400foot ship used metal works ?

[This message has been edited by Zealot, 09-04-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by John, posted 09-03-2003 7:43 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by John, posted 09-05-2003 5:20 PM Zealot has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019