Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
88 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, nwr (4 members, 84 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,327 Year: 4,439/6,534 Month: 653/900 Week: 177/182 Day: 10/47 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 453 (520615)
08-22-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by iano
08-21-2009 1:12 PM


Re: Let's be resinable
Do me a favor: take a step away from the bible and into reality for one second and actually think about what you are proposing.

A 400+ft boat, WOVEN, SO AS TO TAKE ON WATER, able to withstand 40 days and 40 nights of rain, enough of which to cover all mountains by 15 meters.

Tel me with a straight face that seems plausible.......

It's woven because that is a relatively easy structure to construct with basic tools and techniques. It's woven because that offers flexibility. It's woven so that wind and water flow through the structure rather than exert load on the structure. It's not woven to take on water

I see far fewer problems here than I do with a ship and await something (technically) specific to support your ongoing sense of incredulity.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 1:12 PM iano has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 94 of 453 (520619)
08-22-2009 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Peg
08-22-2009 4:28 AM


Re: Not 300 ft boards! Doh!!
lets stick to pandions argument that the structual limits of wood is 300ft

the ark was a width of 50 cubits which translates to about 73 feet or 22 meters wide.

If noah laid the beams across the width of the boat rather then along the lenght, then the structural limits of the wood is nowhere near reached.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Peg, posted 08-22-2009 4:28 AM Peg has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 124 of 453 (520776)
08-23-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Peg
08-23-2009 10:00 PM


Re: Not 300 ft boards! Doh!!
...we have no way of knowing how Noah reinforced the ark, there are no details of how he laid any of the beams...if there were explicit details, then we'd be able to ascertain if its was a sound structure.

we can assume he did it the way that would cause the boat to break up, or we can assume he must have reinforced it in a way that kept it secure.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Peg, posted 08-23-2009 10:00 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by anglagard, posted 08-24-2009 12:16 AM Coyote has taken no action
 Message 145 by Peg, posted 08-25-2009 3:33 AM Coyote has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 190 of 453 (521155)
08-26-2009 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by ICANT
08-26-2009 9:03 AM


Re: What archeology shows for boat building technology
Just like everyone ignore's the fact all land mass was in one place in Genesis when the flood took place. Which would reduce the amount of water necessary to cover it.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 9:03 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 9:42 AM Coyote has taken no action
 Message 195 by AdminNosy, posted 08-26-2009 10:09 AM Coyote has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 231 of 453 (522223)
09-01-2009 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by greentwiga
09-01-2009 8:45 PM


Re: reed boats don't get waterlogged
I love you who claim that they get waterlogged without examining the archaeological, historical and scientific evidence.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by greentwiga, posted 09-01-2009 8:45 PM greentwiga has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 238 of 453 (522366)
09-02-2009 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by greentwiga
09-02-2009 9:41 AM


Re: reed boats don't get waterlogged
As for the posts that mention the Elephants, I am not arguing for elephants. Read my posts before you criticize.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by greentwiga, posted 09-02-2009 9:41 AM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by greentwiga, posted 09-04-2009 10:53 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 244 of 453 (522792)
09-04-2009 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by greentwiga
09-04-2009 10:53 PM


Re: reed boats don't get waterlogged
Sorry, it is only an interpretation of the Bible that puts all animals of the world in the Ark.

Those who interpret it this way defend their interpretation vehemently.

It is another and very doubtful interpretation that puts extinct animals on the ark.

Very doubtful indeed, as the dinosaurs were extinct some 65 million years earlier.

I have studied the passage, including the Hebrew and see that another valid interpretation is that it was a local flood and only the animals of that local region that were on the ark.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by greentwiga, posted 09-04-2009 10:53 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by greentwiga, posted 09-05-2009 12:13 PM Coyote has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 275 of 453 (562446)
05-28-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Granny Magda
05-28-2010 9:37 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
I wouldn't like to keep an elephant on one.

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, : speeling

Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Granny Magda, posted 05-28-2010 9:37 PM Granny Magda has seen this message

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 319 of 453 (564818)
06-12-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Jzyehoshua
06-12-2010 9:48 PM


Still don't float
A) The wood. As has already been pointed out, this was built of Gopher Wood, and possibly an ancient and strong wood. If the water canopy theory was correct, it may have affected tree growth. Nevertheless, it's a stretch to suggest this could have affected ship strength to much extent, but could've resulted in bigger or longer trees.

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."

B) The crew. Keep in mind that people beforehand lived hundreds upon hundreds of years. They went through a drastic change after the flood when God stated they would from then on live only 120 years. After the flood, human lives began dramatically declining. It is possible our 'missing links' are merely skeletons of human beings in this period of decline when their bodies were changing to shorter lives. At any rate, they may have been shorter and stouter, better able to singlehandedly man a large ship. Bear in mind also it talked about giants and men of extraordinary valor in those days (Genesis 6:4, 10:9) and the longer lives (and inferrably stronger bodies) may have had something to do with this. There were also likely fewer diseases then as well.

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.

C) The measurements. Keep in mind a cubit is based on forearm length. But as mentioned, human bodies before the flood were different. If shorter and stouter with shorter arms, then cubits would be smaller, and the ark smaller. If bigger and taller, the ark could be bigger than believed. At any rate, it's another factor at play here.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-12-2010 9:48 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 3:58 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 323 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 4:11 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 324 of 453 (564896)
06-13-2010 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 3:58 PM


Re: Still don't float
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 3:58 PM Jzyehoshua has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 325 of 453 (564899)
06-13-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 4:11 PM


Re: Still don't float
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 4:11 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 5:05 PM Coyote has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 327 of 453 (564902)
06-13-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 4:43 PM


Re: Quotes From Josh McDowell and Don Stewart
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 4:43 PM Jzyehoshua has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 376 of 453 (645306)
12-25-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Butterflytyrant
12-25-2011 1:49 AM


Re: specifics?
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.)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Butterflytyrant, posted 12-25-2011 1:49 AM Butterflytyrant has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 416 of 453 (664067)
05-28-2012 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 8:13 PM


Re: Waste and Caring for animals
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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 8:13 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 9:34 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 426 of 453 (664087)
05-28-2012 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 9:34 PM


Re: Waste and Caring for animals
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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 9:34 PM Jzyehoshua has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022