Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8960 total)
39 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,751 Year: 1,499/23,288 Month: 1,499/1,851 Week: 139/484 Day: 62/77 Hour: 4/23


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2898 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 314 of 453 (564291)
06-09-2010 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by greentwiga
06-09-2010 1:24 AM


Re: izatso?
The Ra II, the reed boat Thor Heyerdahl used to cross the Atlantic, was also 12 meters long and was only at sea for 2 months. Here she is:

Figuring a cubit to be about half a meter, that would make your 150 meter Ark about 12 times longer than the Ra II. It would also make your Ark nearly 2000 times more massive (mass depending on volume, and volume increasing by the cube of the increase in length, I believe).* I'll let lyx2no do the actual displacement calculations.

Regardless, just because a 12 meter reed boat was seaworthy for a couple of months**, that doesn't mean that a reed boat with 2000 times the mass could last for a year, even assuming that you could build such a thing. Floating a 1 oz. boat made of newspaper down a creek doesn't make me believe that I could take a paper boat the size of a battleship across the Atlantic.

That boat don't float.

*I'm fudging a little bit here, as the Ra II had different proportions than the supposed Ark would have, tapering at bow and stern. Given that the Ark is described as pretty much box-like, it would actually be even more massive than a scaled-up Ra II

**I didn't take the time to go back and see how long the Ra II lasted after the trip. So sue me.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2010 1:24 AM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2010 5:50 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2898 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 328 of 453 (564904)
06-13-2010 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 4:43 PM


Re: Quotes From Josh McDowell and Don Stewart
That fossilization is rare doesn't mean that it's impossible. Besides, as Coyote rightly points out, fossils have nothing to do with the Flood legend anyway. In fact, how can there be fossils at all, if the Earth is only 6000 years old? When last I checked, it takes at least 10,000 years or so for a fossil to form.

Regardless, the topic of this thread is the total lack of sea-worthiness of the Ark as described in the Bible. Other aspects of the Ark story that involve their own glaring impossibilities belong on different threads.

And will you please learn something instead of doing cut-n-pastes from creationist websites?


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 4:43 PM Jzyehoshua 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 © 2020