Summations Only

Thor Heyerdahl tried an ocean voyage in a reed boat (the Ra). It was only marginally successful. But then, think of all the fun he could have had if he was traveling with two elephants, a brontosaurus or two, and all the rest of the critters.

Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus into the ark?

​

A. Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!

​

(Noah! Make them stop. I'm getting seasick! And they're tearing a hole in the boat!)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

OK, so you have beams across the width.Its still wood front to back, some 300 feet, so you haven't changed the problem whatsoever.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

But since the entire story is myth in the first place, we might as well conjecture on how Harry Potter does his magic tricks.Each has about the same relationship to reality; i.e., none.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So in addition to fantastic claims about Noah's boat building expertise, you are now adding a fantasy about all the world's lands masses quickly sailing about to their current positions following the flood, just 4,350 years ago.Two questions:

--How do you account for the vast geological changes that would have had to be compressed into a dozen or so centuries instead of millions of years?

​

--What geological mechanism made the land masses suddenly slow to their current speed now that we're watching and measuring?

In your efforts to support your belief system, you are piling fantasy on fantasy. You'll probably be trying to convince us everything we know about radiometric and other forms of dating are all wrong next.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Any idea of the effects of elephant feet on reed bundles? For a year? (Don't forget elephant urine and feces.)And, as some claim, we have to leave room for brontosaurus also. Two of them. And Tyrannosaurus and the rest of the big guys also.Doesn't this whole scenario start to look the least bit ridiculous to you?Or are you just going to keep coming up with "what ifs," each more outlandish than the previous, to support your a priori religious beliefs?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Its not important what you argue for.The mythical ark would have had elephants and a lot of other critters stomping around for a year. And, according to some, the critter list would have included dinosaurs. How would that material stand up to that for a year?What effect would it have had on the papyrus or reeds when two brontosauruses got amorous? ("Noah! Make them stop! I'm getting seasick.")If you ignore that, and a host of other factors (food and waterstorage, waste removal, ventilation, etc.), you're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.Face it, the ark story as written is a myth. Switching from wood to reeds doesn't even begin to bail it out.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Those who interpret it this way defend their interpretation vehemently. Very doubtful indeed, as the dinosaurs were extinct some 65 million years earlier. I can see how this could have been the case. And then, in the words of Tolkein, "The tale grew in the telling."

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

An elephant? That's no problem.But what about the dinosaurs we are assured by some that cavorted about with Noah & co.?

Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus into the ark?

​

A. Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!

​

(Noah! Make them stop. I'm getting seasick!)

Edited by Coyote, : speelingEdited by Coyote, : No reason given.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

There is no evidence of a global flood in historic times (or ever for that matter). There is no evidence of some ancient super wood. There is no evidence for a water canopy. These are nothing but "what ifs." There is no evidence for humans living hundreds and hundreds of years. Our "missing links" (a newspaper term, not a scientific term) are dated millions of years ago. The flood is claimed by biblical scholars to have been about 4,350 years ago. There is no evidence that humans were significantly different in height or strength, for a worldwide average, during historic times than now. Certainly not different enough to back up your claim. Again, there is no evidence for a global flood during historic times. And humans were much the same average dimensions (worldwide) then as now.These "what ifs" you are coming up with are not evidence, and they don't negate empirical evidence no matter how much you might want them to. They are simply your way of pretending that the flood occurred as described in the bible when the empirical evidence is clear and overwhelming that it did not. You seem to think that you can negate all scientific evidence by a simple "what if." Sorry, it doesn't work that way.Why don't you follow the empirical evidence and see where that leads?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The fact that you can cite myths concerning floods is the weakest evidence imaginable.Contrast that with, for example, archaeological evidence (just one of many different lines of evidence).Archaeological evidence shows no global flood about 4,350 years ago. I have personally tested over 100 sites containing deposits spanning that time period, and there was no evidence of a flood (massive erosion or deposition).Rather, there was continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, mtDNA, and deposition. These results are found by archaeologists all over the world.How can you even try to contrast that kind of evidence against non-specific myths?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

None of this is meaningful evidence.A) Pangaea is placed about 250 million years ago. Noah's flood is about 4,350 years ago according to biblical scholars. Doesn't this several hundred million year gap bother you at all?B) So?C) So?D) Again you are citing something from 250 million years ago to explain a mythical event that supposedly took place 4,350 years ago.And fossils have nothing to do with this at all. At 4,350 years ago you are dealing with soils and bones, not rocks and fossils.Can't you come up with something that consistently agrees with scientific evidence? You are pulling bits and pieces from the scientific literature (more likely from creationist websites) that you think support your point, but you make no effort to have those bits and pieces form a cohesive whole.One can only conclude that you don't have any significant scientific evidence that supports your claims.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You have not addressed my point in a previous post that fossils have nothing to do with the supposed global flood 4,350 years ago.At that time period we are dealing with soils, not geological formations. And we are dealing with bones, not fossils.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant brontosaurus in the ark?A. Getting a brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!(Noah! Make them stop! I'm getting seasick.)

Animal care, eh?If you think that AIG method is practical, you're nuts.AIG is imagining methods of animal care that aren't done today, even with the technology we have.Think of Noah's problems. For example: No pumps to feed water to the piping AIG imagines they had for watering all those guys. No fresh water! No place to store a year's worth of food. Some animals require a good deal of poop-scooping--often more than once a day if they are confined. ("Noah! I've had it! I'm not scooping up after those elephants one more day!")You believe AIG's nonsense about 16,000 animals, eh? I suspect you've never cared for large animals, or if you have, you have no grasp of mathematics. (Want to learn something? Want to see how much waste four horses can generate a day? And how long it takes to scoop it? Let me know--we can certainly help you out.)If Noah and his kin worked 24/7, that would be caring for 1.39 animals per minute for a full year.If they slept and otherwise wasted their time for 8 hours a day, they would have to care for over 2.08 animals per minute for a full year.No, just for these reasons alone it wasn't doable.Face it, the Noah myth is a myth. It didn't really happen. Get over it.

Sorry, that's nonsense.You can come up with all the "what ifs" you want, but the simple fact is that the Noah story doesn't add up.As the title of this thread reads, "That boat don't float."Why is it so important to you to try and make that myth plausible? Folks trying to say it all happened as written have to go to such extremes as to be laughable! Why can't you just realize it is an ancient tribal myth and move on?And by the way, I still have four horses that could help you understand the magnitude of the feeding/scooping problem. Let me know when you're available for a few days.