So....the Ark just porously floated atop the water? All 3-500ft of it? With thousands of animals inside?
Or was half underwater, but still lightweight enough to float so the other half was not underwater?
If Noah, some 4000 years ago, was able to build a ship of this magnitude, why did he NOT pass along the knowledge? Why can we not continue to build wooden ships like the Ark? Why are we stuck at the ~300ft mark when he easily surpassed that.......withOUT technology at his side?
I'll tell you why: god helped him. Gave him the strength of 600 men. (probably gave him 600 men too in the likes of slaves, which were immediately thrown overboard so as to maintain the "chosen" people's race). So there is NO good literal explanation for this.
Why not? Empty, a woven balsa vessel would barely 'dent' the surface of the water. As you load up it'd sink lower and lower into the water. A point would come when it sinks low enough to submerge the lowest stored animals (because the water level rises inside the ark). At which point you've reach max capacity.
You could improve things by weaving a more open structure above the waterline (to reduce weight) and increase density of weave below the waterline to increase buoyancy (and so increase animal storage capacity).
Really? SO how many animals in total are you supposing were aboard this Ark? Given that a good portion of the ship would be submerged due to your hypothesis, very little room would be left for the rest of the animals. Unless of course, you suppose very few animals were aboard to begin with. In which case, how are there so many now?
It would have been God-designed and Noah-built. Perhaps God likes us to discover things for ourselves. It's more fun for us that way.
This is a science forum. Stick to verifiable facts please.
Edited by hooah212002, : tryin to fix double quote
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : still getting quotes proper
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Removed the "crackbrain" in front of the "hypothesis". Don't do things like that.
Really? SO how many animals in total are you supposing were aboard this Ark? Given that a good portion of the ship would be submerged due to your crackbrain hypothesis, very little room would be left for the rest of the animals. Unless of course, you suppose very few animals were aboard to begin with. In which case, how are there so many now?
The OP's objection has to do with a vessel this size taking to water and that's what I'm addressing.
It is sufficient, I think, to note that a vessel this size, whose unladen form barely dents the surface of the water, could hold a significant number of (unspecified) animals. Indeed, were the designed-to-be-submerged volume fitted out with balsa wood then buoyancy would be further increased - increasing load carrying capacity still further
Ok, but to determine where you are coming from, we need to determine how many animals YOU think were aboard the ark. If you think only 5 were aboard, well then, this vessel can be as shoddy as you like. However, if there are a number similar to the number we see today, you have alot more explaining to do. Such as, in the event of a storm (assuming it did NOT storm the entire time, which it had to have), are more animals not drowning due to the storm swells? There goes the whole entire bottom deck. Possibly the second, depending on how far below the surface this woven ship is.
"A significant number" doesn't tell me anything. Significant to whom? Significant in relation to what? The cosmos? An ant hill?
Your "source" says 7 of each or 2 of each, depending where you look. Given how many animals there are today, your hypothesis is extremely flawed. You have yet to come up with an explanation for the number of different animals we see today.
Like this you mean?
yourself earlier writes:
I'll tell you why: god helped him. Gave him the strength of 600 men. (probably gave him 600 men too in the likes of slaves, which were immediately thrown overboard so as to maintain the "chosen" people
It is called sarcasm. I figured it was obvious enough for most to discern that.
I think I may go for a canoe ride in a wicker basket after work today.
Seems that there'd be room for a fair few animals to me..
So a fair few is.....how many? Specifically please. Ok, at least an estimate that is a number.
5? 100? 5000? 100,000?
how do insects not fall through the cracks in this woven monstrosity? How many other woven ships have you seen documented that would shed light on this hypothesis and support the fact that Noah knew how to weave, WEAVE a ship seaworthy for a year?
I'm not supposing anything I don't have to suppose. I'm told a large craft took to water and that it rained alot. I only need it to float and stay together sufficiently well on water to last for the duration.
But your model wouldn't. Go throw a wicker basket on a lake and see if it is still floating after even a week with maybe 1 rainy day.
Not to mention it says cover it with pitch, inside and out. If it is woven, and meant to take on water, why cover it with pitch?
It's like knitting, is weaving. You just keep going and the garment gets bigger and bigger.
That easy, eh? Gee, how come we haven't thought to build ships like this all along?
And the aim is more float than sea ..worthy
To say seaworthy, I mean to withstand the obvious weather that created, and sustained, said flood. It has already been proven, by MANY on this forum alone, that it was not a matter of 8 people on a big boat chilling with a BBQ on the 4th of July on a nice calm lake. The WHOLE ENTIRE EARTH BECAME DRENCHED WITH WATER. Not exactly a pleasant sea experience, you think? The physics of it do not allow it. So, yes, your ship most definitely needs to be "seaworthy".
In your hypothesis, sure. The thing is: IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE. SO you are purely speculating.
I, on the other hand, am going off of how every ship found in the history of finding shit (archeology)has been built, none of which are woven, all of which are built in the "typical" fashion.
So, sure, your ship "works" in your hypothesis because it's not been tested. Maybe it has, and failed, which is why ships aren't built that way. Feel free to come back from left field with a solid hypothesis.
Did you read the post earlier about the roaring 40's? Message 21
RAZD writes: Note that the size of waves are proportional to the reach of the winds as well as their strength. The "roaring 40's" are called that for a reason -- the reach there circles the globe. With a global flood this would be a universal condition. Wind and waves unimpeded as they circle the globe.
The waves that broke up the boats in your OP were peanuts by comparison.
That about answers it.
I just wanted to add to this by pointing out Jupiter and the Red Spot. Do you know why that storm has raged for so long? At least one theory is because there is no land mass to stop it. So, think for second about our earth with its Hurricanes, Typhoons, etc., unabated for a year.
I know you went on the related article on answersingenesis.org (I go on creation.com though, but it is the same article. I'm putthing the quote from Ussher here for those who didn't:
Answersingenesis...or any creationist website is NOT a valid source for any evidence as they have been proven to bolster evidence and distort facts/history time and time again. A simple perusal of this site alone will show you that.
It's akin to me proving the FSM exists by going to venganza.org, then telling you to prove He doesn't.
Do you have any contrary evidence that the Leontifera did not participate in this battle ?
What part of "You are making a claim and YOU need to verify it" don't you get?
It lies not on the shoulders of the defendant to prove why he did not do it.