Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 8:00 AM
32 online now:
JoeT, PaulK, Pressie, RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric (6 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,194 Year: 5,231/19,786 Month: 1,353/873 Week: 249/460 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
15161718
19
20Next
Author Topic:   About that Boat - Noah's Ark
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 296 (266373)
12-07-2005 12:26 PM


It's erroneous to apply 20th century logic to the ancient world when the environment was so drastically different then that it's impossible to compare the 2. There was little if any polution, wood was a lot newer because trees were newer and there were many more different tree genera than there are now!

Man still cannot explain how the first cells, molecules, atoms, etc. got here but they nevertheless exist. So just because man cannot understand the ancient world doesn't at all mean it didn't exist!


Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2005 12:31 PM Carico has not yet responded
 Message 273 by Coragyps, posted 12-07-2005 12:33 PM Carico has not yet responded
 Message 274 by Yaro, posted 12-07-2005 12:34 PM Carico has not yet responded
 Message 275 by ringo, posted 12-07-2005 1:00 PM Carico has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 296 (266377)
12-07-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Carico
12-07-2005 12:26 PM


It's erroneous to apply 20th century logic to the ancient world when the environment was so drastically different then that it's impossible to compare the 2.

The laws of physics didn't change, did they?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 12:26 PM Carico has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 273 of 296 (266379)
12-07-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Carico
12-07-2005 12:26 PM


wood was a lot newer because trees were newer and there were many more different tree genera than there are now!

Hi, Carico! Welcome!

This is a science forum - do you have any non-scriptural support for those assertions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 12:26 PM Carico has not yet responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4606 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 274 of 296 (266380)
12-07-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Carico
12-07-2005 12:26 PM


It's erroneous to apply 20th century logic to the ancient world when the environment was so drastically different then that it's impossible to compare the 2. There was little if any polution, wood was a lot newer because trees were newer and there were many more different tree genera than there are now!

Awsome, got any evidence to back that up?

Man still cannot explain how the first cells, molecules, atoms, etc. got here but they nevertheless exist. So just because man cannot understand the ancient world doesn't at all mean it didn't exist!

Well, there is evidence of atoms, cells, moleculles etc. Do you have evidence that everyone descended from 8 people on a boat about 3000 years ago?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 12:26 PM Carico has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 275 of 296 (266389)
12-07-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Carico
12-07-2005 12:26 PM


What's "new"?
Carico writes:

... wood was a lot newer because trees were newer....

What's that supposed to mean? Aren't all trees "new" when they're planted, even today? And isn't all wood "new", when the tree is cut down?

... there were many more different tree genera than there are now!

Hmm... I thought there were supposed to be fewer genera back then and that explosive "microevolution" expanded the number to what we have today.


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 12:26 PM Carico has not yet responded

NotSoBlindFaith
Inactive Junior Member


Message 276 of 296 (269561)
12-15-2005 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Bonobojones
02-23-2005 5:38 PM


Re: Ark Design
I've said it before. If their calculations are so good, I'm sure they can get AiG to cough up the cash to build a replica, 8 people using hand tools, and set it afloat in the North Atlantic for a year. After all, replica ships are being built all the time all over the world.

The first thing you should realize is, Noah probably had more then 8 people working on the ark. Although only 8 people choose to go on the ark, he could easily have hired workers from nearby towns to help him build it. Secondly, they don't need to build one. IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE!

Over seventy years ago an experimental vessel was built in Denmark to the same proportions as the Ark—but very much smaller—and of the same constructional style. This boat was thirty feet long, five feet wide, and three feet high from the flat base to the angle formed by the meeting of the two sloping sides. Tests carried out in the Baltic sea by the designer, a naval architect named Vogt, showed that the proportions of the vessel were ideal for maximum resistance to stresses set up by the force of the sea. The Copenhagen newspaper, Dagbladet, of 31st August, 1904, reporting these experiments, said, in part: "The Royal Shipbuilding yard has recently completed the construction of a remarkable vessel. It is 30 feet long, 5 feet wide, and 3 feet high, and with its slanting sides most resembles the roof of a house. It is a new Noah’s Ark, constructed after the design of Mr. Vogt, the engineer, the Carlsburg Fund bearing the expense of its production . . . The remarkable thing about the Bible measurements is that after thousands of years’ experience in the art of shipbuilding they must be confessed to be still the ideal proportions for the construction of a big ship . . . the Ark was not intended to sail, but to lie still on the water, and to give the best and quietest condition for the comfort of its inhabitants, and this is ensured by means of the triangular shape. In a storm the motion of the Ark would be reduced to a minimum . . . If the greatest living engineer in the world was given such a commission as this, to construct as large and strong a vessel as to lie still upon the sea, and as simply constructed as the Ark, he could not make a better vessel." According to another Copenhagen newspaper, Donnebrag, the vessel "drifted sideways with the tide, creating a belt of calm water to leeward, and the test proved conclusively that a vessel of this primitive make might be perfectly seaworthy for a long voyage."

Three hundred years earlier, in 1609, Peter Jansen, of Noorn, Holland, had embarked upon a much more ambitious project. He built a vessel to the proportions of the Ark, one hundred and twenty feet long, twenty wide, and twelve high. It was found to behave so steadily in the sea and to have such ample stowage in relation to its weight that a number of similar boats were built. They fell into disuse only because of the difficulty of arranging for motive power and steering.

So you see, the ark was an extremely seaworthy vessel. In fact, you can read a very technical explanation of why it is here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Bonobojones, posted 02-23-2005 5:38 PM Bonobojones has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Yaro, posted 12-15-2005 2:14 AM NotSoBlindFaith has responded
 Message 281 by Bonobojones, posted 12-15-2005 1:33 PM NotSoBlindFaith has not yet responded
 Message 283 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-15-2005 2:00 PM NotSoBlindFaith has not yet responded

Yaro
Member (Idle past 4606 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 277 of 296 (269564)
12-15-2005 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-15-2005 2:01 AM


Re: Ark Design
ABE: I like this experiment idea. I would love to see it!

First off, I wanna see this boat. Second off, I want to see someone cram 2-7 representatives of each of the millions of species on earth into the thing, with food, supplies, and provisions for a year. I'll even make it easy on you, all he has to do is place 2-7 representatives of each and every 'kind' in the world.

ABE: Another point, This individual would also need to travel solely on foot, horseback, and sail ship to gather the animals. He may take as long as needed to do so provided that 2-7 representatives of each kind he gathers survive the voyage intact.

The test subject, our "Noah", should also have no biological knowledge whatsoever. The experiment permits that he may have some engineering knowledge. Prefereabley, the individual should be from an agrerian background, with little education.

Once he has done that, assuming his cargo has survived, I want him to bring all the animals up to some mountain in the middle east (any mountain will do, heck, even a hill, or a valley!) and let them go. The place must be desolate however, remember the world had been destroyed, so the area should be desolate.

Then I want those animals tracked (using radio transmitters), to see if they instinctively migrate to their natural habitats without dying out along the way.

There is an experiment that would validate the plausibility of the ark story. So far, from AIG, i have read hearsay and seen a questionable bibliography.

This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-15-2005 02:33 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 2:01 AM NotSoBlindFaith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 4:14 AM Yaro has responded

NotSoBlindFaith
Inactive Junior Member


Message 278 of 296 (269574)
12-15-2005 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Yaro
12-15-2005 2:14 AM


Re: Ark Design
Ok, first, you only need a maximum of 16,000 animals on the ark. Although, that is the highest estimate biblical scholars gave, 2,000 is calculated to be a better number. Second, the bible says nothing about Noah ever gathering the animals. It says:

“Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.” Genesis 7:8-9

So, Noah didn’t go get them, they came on there own. Third, now, although Noah probably had no biological knowledge, he lived in a farming community, and farmers know how to take care of there animals. Fourth, when Noah, his Family, and the Animals all finally where able to leave the ark, many plants had already grown back, at least partially, so that there was plenty of food for the animals, especially since Noah most likely brought infant or juvenile members of the larger kinds on board. And Fifth, the animals who got off the ark where mostly different from the ones we have currently. There were two of all kinds when they got on, but some of the animals who where of breeding age probably had increased that number by the time they got off. So, say two medium sized medium length coated canines got off the ark. Now say afterwards then had lots and lots of puppies. Now, some puppies went north where it was cold, and the ones with genes for long thick fur grew long thick fur and survived, the others died. Now some went south, and the ones with genes for short fur lived, and the others died. Now, if you go like that for all the kinds, such as feline, equine, ursine, and others, you get a whole lot of animals spread out everywhere which don’t look that same as they did before. So you didn’t have tigers magically knowing to go to Asia and Lions magically knowing to go to Africa, they just went where there was food and space. But the cats are still cats and the dogs are still dogs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Yaro, posted 12-15-2005 2:14 AM Yaro has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Yaro, posted 12-15-2005 9:01 AM NotSoBlindFaith has not yet responded

Yaro
Member (Idle past 4606 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 279 of 296 (269604)
12-15-2005 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-15-2005 4:14 AM


Re: Ark Design
Ok, first, you only need a maximum of 16,000 animals on the ark. Although, that is the highest estimate biblical scholars gave, 2,000 is calculated to be a better number. Second, the bible says nothing about Noah ever gathering the animals. It says:

“Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.” Genesis 7:8-9

Ok, I'll make it even easier on you. Get 2000 animals, each group of 2-7 a member of a different 'kind'. I don't know what the heck a 'kind ' is, but supposing you figure it out, it should at least seem like the animals are enugh to create the variety we see today. Load them up on the wooden ship and set out to sea for a year.

Third, now, although Noah probably had no biological knowledge, he lived in a farming community, and farmers know how to take care of there animals.

.... that may qualify him to raise chickens or live stock, but certainly not the zoological/bilogical knowledge to keep, say, a giant panda alive for a year in a stuffy wooden boat full of other animals.

So, i'll even go this far with you. The test "Noah" can be a farmer.

Fourth, when Noah, his Family, and the Animals all finally where able to leave the ark, many plants had already grown back, at least partially, so that there was plenty of food for the animals,

Ok. I'll go this far with you. Our test Noah can let loose the 2000 BABY animals on a mountain in a fertile region of the middle east. How's that?

...especially since Noah most likely brought infant or juvenile members of the larger kinds on board.

Oh! This get's better! Ok... I wan't our test "Noah" to gather 2000 BABY animals and cram them into the boat and keep them alive for a year. I hate to tell ya, but you just made your job significantly harder!

Do you know the kind of special care babys take? You have got to be kidding me.

And Fifth, the animals who got off the ark where mostly different from the ones we have currently.

Right. Apperantly they were superbabies :rolleyes:

There were two of all kinds when they got on, but some of the animals who where of breeding age probably had increased that number by the time they got off.

Ok. I'll go this far with you. Let's say 500 of the animals (presumably the smaller ones) are breeding age. Put them on the stuffy, wooden boat. Set it at sea for a year with a farmer at the helm. A supperviser on board can take notes on the animals breeding behavior in such an uncomfortable environment.

Do you know how hard it is to get certain animals to breed in a zoo, let alone in the ocean!?

So, say two medium sized medium length coated canines got off the ark. Now say afterwards then had lots and lots of puppies. Now, some puppies went north where it was cold, and the ones with genes for long thick fur grew long thick fur and survived, the others died. Now some went south, and the ones with genes for short fur lived, and the others died.

Greta experiment! Lets get 7 "medium length coated canines", release them on a mountain in the middle east. Track them with radio transmitters and see how far they get and how much they change.

Now, if you go like that for all the kinds, such as feline, equine, ursine, and others, you get a whole lot of animals spread out everywhere which don’t look that same as they did before.

Could you tell me about the three-toed sloth. How did he get to the amazon forest in south america? That's the only place he lives ya know, and he is the only one of it's 'kind'. How you figure he crawled all the way from ararat at an average of a foot a minute without dying of predation or starvation along the way?

So you didn’t have tigers magically knowing to go to Asia and Lions magically knowing to go to Africa, they just went where there was food and space. But the cats are still cats and the dogs are still dogs

Ok. Let's talk about ring-tailed lemurs. Native only to madegascar. How you figure they got there from ararat without being eaten or dying from starvation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 4:14 AM NotSoBlindFaith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by babelfish, posted 12-15-2005 1:57 PM Yaro has not yet responded

Mespo
Member (Idle past 995 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 280 of 296 (269625)
12-15-2005 10:29 AM


That's called a LOG
NotSoBlindFaith writes:

This boat was thirty feet long, five feet wide, and three feet high from the flat base to the angle formed by the meeting of the two sloping sides.

I can take an old hollow log, seal the ends and, guess what? I've got a "model" of the Titanic. Or I can go down to my neighborhood undertaker, get a wooden coffin, seal the lid and, presto! I've got a "model" of the QE2.

A boat that is 30 x 5 x 3 is...guest what? A boat that is 30x5x3. It's not a model of anything. You can scale the size of a boat and call it a model, but you can't scale the ocean. Wave action against a 30 foot hull is not the same as against a hull that is 300 or 400 or 500 feet long. The stresses are entirely different. Read the first few pages at the beginning of this topic to bring yourself up to speed, NotSoBlind.

BTW - If I were a predator just getting off the Ark, I sure as heck wouldn't walk all the way back to Africa to get a meal. I'd just pounce on the first zebra or antelope coming out the door. And if Noah got in the way, I'd bite his ass, too.

(:raig


  
Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 296 (269679)
12-15-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-15-2005 2:01 AM


Re: Ark Design
Well, then. All those folks have built are models and have yet to do a full scale reproduction of the vessel, its cargo and the voyage.

My arguement still stands.


Reunite Gondwana!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 2:01 AM NotSoBlindFaith has not yet responded

babelfish
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 296 (269686)
12-15-2005 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Yaro
12-15-2005 9:01 AM


Re: Ark Design
quote:
Load them up on the wooden ship and set out to sea for a year.

Let's not forget that the first month plus of this year is during the worst storm conditions any man has ever seen. We are talking about the storm of storms, and it seems to me, this ship's configuration would be more like a cork, bobbing up and down. In these conditions, even if the ship survived, wouldn't everything inside it be beat to death? Like tumbling down a endless hill inside a big wooden barrel?

quote:
.... that may qualify him to raise chickens or live stock, but certainly not the zoological/bilogical knowledge to keep, say, a giant panda alive for a year in a stuffy wooden boat full of other animals.

Not to mention the fact that there is a severe shortage of man hours to care for the proposed 2,000 animals. Only 8 people on the boat with dietary needs, environmental conditions, and litterally tons of manure to be removed daily. Wouldn't the levels of ammonia in all the urine being expelled reach toxic levels very quickly in a sealed environment? This is just a guess on my part.

quote:
Do you know how hard it is to get certain animals to breed in a zoo, let alone in the ocean!?

And there is the problem of providing conditions favorable for the production of healthy offspring. It's not enough to huddle the newborns into a crate and stick them in a corner of the ship.

- Babelfish


The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babelfish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Yaro, posted 12-15-2005 9:01 AM Yaro has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Coragyps, posted 12-15-2005 3:43 PM babelfish has not yet responded
 Message 285 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2005 5:47 PM babelfish has not yet responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4133 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 283 of 296 (269687)
12-15-2005 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-15-2005 2:01 AM


plagiarism
Hi NotSoBlindFaith, and welcome to the forum.

But please be careful and make sure you quote and reference your sources!

Almost your entire post was cut-and-pasted from a website (here is one website that has the same word-for-word account), though your post made it seem as though you had written it, which is considered plagiarism.

Again, welcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 2:01 AM NotSoBlindFaith has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 284 of 296 (269699)
12-15-2005 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by babelfish
12-15-2005 1:57 PM


Re: Ark Design
Wouldn't the levels of ammonia in all the urine being expelled reach toxic levels very quickly in a sealed environment?

Hmmm....flashback to the poultry industry, ca. 1965....
Chicken houses, even with the 20,000 chickens removed to meet their fate, are chokingly strong in the ammonia department. And the houses have huge fans at the ends to keep them ventilated, not a single window at the top like Arks do. According to various web sources, the human nose doesn't even detect ammonia until its concentration is 5 to 17 parts per million. The US Permissible Exposure Limit is 50 parts per million, but most other countries use 25 ppm. 300 ppm is "immediately dangerous to life and health."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by babelfish, posted 12-15-2005 1:57 PM babelfish has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 296 (269736)
12-15-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by babelfish
12-15-2005 1:57 PM


Re: Ark Design
Wouldn't the levels of ammonia in all the urine being expelled reach toxic levels very quickly in a sealed environment? This is just a guess on my part.

They didn't pee in those days. Stop assuming uniformatism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by babelfish, posted 12-15-2005 1:57 PM babelfish has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 8:18 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
15161718
19
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019