Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8985 total)
38 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,742 Year: 9,490/23,288 Month: 505/1,544 Week: 219/561 Day: 7/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 95 of 231 (328347)
07-02-2006 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by iano
07-02-2006 5:15 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
I think you need to apply some standards. Your answers seem to be of the form, "If Noah needed a certain technology for the ark several thousand years ago, then if the technology is physically possible he must have had it." If that's the standard you're being permitted to apply then I would concede the discussion now.

Shouldn't your arguments for certain technologies be based upon evidence, in this case upon evidence for the existence of reciprocating pump technology about 5000 years ago? A quick Google reveals that the earliest pumps were the screw type, used in the first millenia BC in Babylonia, and described later by Archimedes. The more sophisticated reciprocating technology must have come later.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Improved wording.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by iano, posted 07-02-2006 5:15 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 5:50 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 101 of 231 (328478)
07-03-2006 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by iano
07-03-2006 5:50 AM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
iano writes:

And if they decided it is a problem then they can begin to figure out ways around it. And if the solutions do not require anything other than intelligence and simple materials then such solutions are eminantly possible.

You mean "eminently"?

Yes, this is about as I described. You're not interested in the evidence for when technologies became available, only if they're possible. You've thus made available to Noah all of technology throughout history (I assume you except modern technology such as radios and internal combustion engines and so forth). To your mind, if Noah needed a given technology, he had it, and no evidence is required.

"Man hadn't progressed this far" is a red-herring. It seeks to sidestep the fact that there is nothing at all stopping Noah by introducing general argument against the Ark (ie: the standard evo timeline for mans development)

I really think the discussion needs to be based upon evidence. The history of technology is one of continuous discovery, improvement and refinement, and earlier eras almost always had more primitive technologies available than later ones. The construction and seaworthiness of the ark using the technology of 5000 years ago would seem a task beyond the means of that time. If the discussion proceeds without evidence then it will take the form of you saying, "I think Noah could do it," and of others saying, "I don't think he could." This wouldn't normally be termed constructive discussion.

You mention the "evo timeline for man's development", referring to technology development, I assume. There's no such thing. Evolutionists have not developed their own private technology timeline. The only technology timeline I'm aware of was developed by historians and archeologists. If you're suggesting that creationists have an alternative technological timeline to that of mainstream history that is based upon evidence, then I think it would be a good idea to enter it into the discussion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 5:50 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 9:40 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 117 of 231 (328553)
07-03-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by iano
07-03-2006 9:40 AM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
iano writes:

There is nothing in the design that could not be extracted from plain observation of simple mechanical concepts such as buoyancy, levers , pivots etc.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, you still intend to argue that Noah had whatever technologies he needed, whether there is evidence for them 5000 years ago or not. This is a far cry from "some assumptions need to be made." Your approach doesn't involve making some basic non-controversial assumptions. It instead involves assuming whatever you need to support your argument.

I again point out that if the discussion is not based upon evidence then it just comes down to opinion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 9:40 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 3:48 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 118 of 231 (328554)
07-03-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by iano
07-03-2006 10:25 AM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
iano writes:

It did not need to be available. It needed to be thought up. And it is simple technology. Then everyone who has helped along the way dies. The technology dies with it. Now your left with a very few people who know the technology. It is their choice whether to propagate it or not. There is no particular reason why they should. Sure it makes life 'easier'. But as many who seek to escape from the technological world we have created have found out - technology is a double edged sword. Easier doesn't always mean good.

That Noah's family developed technologies for the ark that were abandoned after the flood is unsubstantiated speculation. I again encourage you to base your arguments upon evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 10:25 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 120 of 231 (328558)
07-03-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by RickJB
07-03-2006 12:59 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
RickJB writes:

Technology advances through the accumulation of knowledge, the raw materials alone don't demonstrate your case. Invention aside, one also needs a suitable social infrastructure to take on large, technically diffcult projects - manpower to build, to source materials and to feed workers, for example.

I hope someone with the right background expands this into an essay. The reason technology advances slowly and gradually is because new technologies are built upon existing technologies, and new ideas build upon existing ideas. Simple technologies may seem obvious from a modern perspective, but they are actually anything but.

James Burke had a series of TV programs (Connections) where he clearly indicated via numerous examples the way in which new technological developments are dependent not only on what went before, but also upon a whole host of interplays that could never have been anticipated.

If Noah and his sons needed pumps for the ark, then they took advantage of or improved modestly upon existing designs, the way of technological advances throughout history.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by RickJB, posted 07-03-2006 12:59 PM RickJB has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 126 of 231 (328628)
07-03-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by iano
07-03-2006 3:48 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
iano writes:

If I'm interpreting this correctly, you still intend to argue that Noah had whatever technologies he needed, whether there is evidence for them 5000 years ago or not

Whilst you might suggest "any technology at all" I do not. A boat (think float) is not hi-tech.

I'm not sure why you put a phrase I didn't say between quotes, but anyway, I again suggest that you argue from evidence. The design requirements for the ark were that it be able to carry representatives of all animal species for nearly a year in violent waters, and if you don't believe this imposed very sophisticated technology requirements for 5000 years ago, then you must do more than simply assert or assume it. Otherwise we're left with you saying, "Designing and building an ark is simple," and other's replying "No, it isn't." Not a very enlightening discussion.

A lever operating around a fulcrum is about as basic as it comes. Each element is so simple as to make silly argument that it absolutely must take millenia in order to connect a few of these ideas together. Every principle involved can observed in the normal goings on the world around at what might be reasonably be expected of that time.

The history of technology would seem to point in another direction. The lesson of history seems to be that new technologies build on existing technologies, and that new ideas build upon existing ideas. Technology development is primarily evolutionary and rarely revolutionary. To make your argument you need some examples of technological revolution, i.e., ideas and technologies that sprang forth almost out of thin air. From a modern perspective the technologies and applications you mention may seem obvious, but they are anything but.

quote:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

Reasoned argument? There is absolutely nothing going on here that requires millenia-evolved technology. Not one piece of it. Folk may say it is required but they cannot point to one element of the pump that requires it. Wood and intelligence (applied on a suck it and see basis) is all that is required and I am not being unreasonable in supposing those. Does one have to go proving people being capable of simple ideas? Seems so around here.

You quoted rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines. I wrote the Forum Guidelines. The reason for the "and/or" was just a nod to the fact that during a discussion some posts might contain evidence, some argument, and some both. It wasn't meant to imply that one could in any valid way just stake out a position absent of evidence.

I often advise members that we have worked hard to keep the Forum Guidelines down to 10, and that for that reason they should work to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the Forum Guidelines. Trust me, nothing in the Forum Guidelines was meant to imply that positions could be argued absent of evidence. This forum is one of the science forums, and evidence is a key requirement for any scientifically valid position.

If someone wants to point out practical difficulties that render such a pump inoperable and solutions required to circumvent those problems require a shift to higher level technology than can be reasonably expected then they are free to do so.

I think it would be a good idea if you would get more specific first. What kind of pump are you proposing? You seemed to proposing a piston style at one point, which was fairly sophistated for 1500 AD, let along 3000 BC. Then I saw mention of an Archimedes screw approach, but maybe that wasn't you. If you can be more specific then the evidence supporting the possibility of use of that technology 5000 years ago can be discussed.

Just don't go asking for "thermal analysis" and "calculus" and thermodynamics - that is a more a sign of desparation than anything else (and if you don't believe me, look at what the Romans achieved in the area of mechanics without a sniff of those skills). In return I promise I won't invoke "silicon chip" when it comes to timing the closure of a one way flap which would be required of such a pump!

You keep bringing this up in your replies to me, so I'm finally going to answer, but only to suggest that you raise this issue with the person who posted these arguments to you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 3:48 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 133 of 231 (328953)
07-05-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by jar
07-05-2006 11:17 AM


Anyone who's ever in Stockholm, do not fail to visit the Wasa.

The Wasa was a Swedish warship that sank leaving the Stockholm harbor while heading for its maiden shakedown cruise in 1628. About shipbuilding for the period, the pamphlet from my own visit says:

"In those days there was no such thing as drawings. Instead one used what was known as a ship's reckoning, which contains a fairly comprehensive digest of facts and figures on the ship's main dimensions and principal construction details. For the rest it was up to the professional skill of the shipwright himself to ensure that the vessel embodied the required from and lines."

The Wasa was located in 1956 and eventually raised for display in the Wasa Museum, all 200 feet of it, a very large ship for its day. The museum contains much more information about shipbuilding than the pamphlet. Shipbuilding was not a true science in those days. It was more an artform that progressed one small innovation at a time, a drawn out process of trial and error where hopefully the errors were not too great. In the main, attempted unsuccessful innovations resulted in ships that were difficult to maneuver or which sat too deep in the water or which couldn't carry the full complement of guns originally intended, small issues that only governed the type of tasks assigned the ship and that could be corrected in future shipbuilding. But some errors of innovation were disasters.

My pamphlet indicates that the admiral of the fleet performed stability testing by having 30 men run back and forth across the deck in unison, but after just three trips the test had to be halted because the ship was rolling so much it threatened to capsize. At the museum it told how as the day of the first voyage approached the ship's captain was so uncertain about the ships stability that he ordered many tons more ballast be added. This was all for naught, because as the ship emerged from the wind shadow of a harbor island a crosswind caught the sails, turning it over and sinking it with all hands in a matter of minutes.

The Wasa had two gun decks, not uncommon for the time, but the Swedish king wanted the Wasa to be one of the most powerful ships of its time, and so the upper gun deck had heavy guns instead of small ones. This was the greatest contribution to the ship's instability. Naturally the problems of stability with heavy guns on multiple gun decks was addressed better and better over time, as witness the later ships with three heavy gun decks, but the lessons had to be learned first, and the Wasa was a significant lesson.

Without addressing any specific issue regarding the ark of Noah, it is utterly clear without any doubt that the task of building a 450 foot wooden ship, longer than any wooden ship ever built, would have represented an extreme technical challenge not just for that period, but for any period, including this one.

--Percy

AbE - Turns out I have two pamphlets about the Wasa. This is from the other pamphlet:

"Instead, the reason for the disaster must be sought in the defective theoretical know-how of the period. Seventeenth-century shipbuilders were incapable of making construction drawings or mathematical calculations of stability. The only recourse of the shipbuilder was to a table of figures, the ship's reckoning, which recorded certain ship measurements. The reckoning was often a well-kept secret - something a father passed on to his son. thus, a new ship was often modelled on its predecessor.

But this ship was different. The Wasa was more massive, and had more heavy guns, than previous ships. The great, beautiful warship was too large and too strong; as a result, she was an experiment. It was not uncommon in olden days - nor, as we know, today - for bold innovations to fail.

Edited by Percy, : Add excerpt from other pamphlet.

Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 07-05-2006 11:17 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by riVeRraT, posted 07-05-2006 10:24 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 143 of 231 (329229)
07-06-2006 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by riVeRraT
07-05-2006 10:24 PM


riVeRraT writes:

Wouldn't that depend on the wood being used?
This wood, I think:
hardwood
Is a wood so hard that you wear out drill bits trying to drill through it. It also is heavy and would sit lower in the water increasing stability. I don't know if it was possible that Noah had access to wood like this.

Boy, talk about completely missing the point!

Using the example of the Swedish warship Wasa, I built upon Jar's point about the largest wooden ships to show how the art of shipbuilding progressed through the slow accumulation of information garnered from experience from actually building and sailing ships. Knowledge about choice of materials is part of what derives from that experience. There was no such knowledge that Noah could have drawn upon for a ship the size of the Ark.

Let's say your special wood were available to Noah, and that it's the wood God commanded Noah to use (the Hebrew word for that wood used in the Bible is unknown today, according to an annotation in my NIV Bible). Given that Noah wasn't a shipbuilder or even a sailor, and given that ships of the period were mere boats with the longest maybe 20 or 30 feet, how would Noah know how to construct his boat to make it both seaworthy and structurally sound?

The history of shipbuilding says that the art progressed by experience, meaning that the tables of information about boats that were 100 feet long were extrapolated to construct boats that were 110 feet long. And then experience and information about 110 boats was used to construct boats that were 120 feet long. The question posed by the history of shipbuilding is how Noah constructed a sound and seaworthy boat that was 450 feet long without a pre-existing storehouse of information about boats that size.

I also saw a show where they took a model of the ark,...

The dimensions and details of the ark provided by God are pretty sparse. Did it have a prow? A rudder? A means for facing it into waves so it couldn't be tipped?

...and compared to a model of a super tanker, and put them through scale storms. The ark held up better than the supertanker, and would not roll, or sink.

The Wasa was 155 feet long, 38 feet wide and 172 feet high from keel to top of the main mast with 2 gun decks and 64 guns. How much like the actual Wasa do you think a model would be that was constructed from only that information? There are so many degrees of freedom that depended on the choices of the person building the model, it could end up very stable (for a warship) or very unstable. What would the testing of such a model tell them about the stability of the actual Wasa? Obviously, not a thing.

So given all the unknown design choices in the construction of the ark, what would lead anyone to believe that the results from the model tested had anything to do with the ark? And, of course, a tiny model has none of the soundness of construction issues.

I don't know what show you saw, but take a look at this AIG article:

Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway

Here are some excerpts:

Information about the hull is of course available from the existing references to Noah’s Ark, and from the reasonable (common sense) assumptions of naval engineers.

And what "naval engineers" did Noah use?

For this purpose, 12 different hull forms with the same displacement were generated systemically by varying principal dimensions of the Ark.

As I said above, God's basic dimensions still leave an enormous amount unspecified. Do you really think Noah explored this design space just like AIG to arrive at the best final design?

Little is known about the shape and form of the Ark’s hull. However, several explorers have each claimed that they have discovered the remains of the Ark at some sites on Mt. Ararat.8 Based on their arguments and references,9 we estimated the form of the Ark’s hull as that of a barge-type ship.

Let me quote the first sentence again: "Little is known about the shape and form of the Ark’s hull." Then AIG goes on to say they used the results from explorers who claim to have found remains of the ark to conclude it was a "barge-type ship". I won't go into the highly questionable nature of relying upon any information from the "search for Noah's Ark" community.

The article even includes equations like these:

A little beyond Noah, don't you think?

Basically all they did was take the information from the Bible to design the best Ark they could using modern knowledge. If such a wooden boat were even possible, highly questionable given that no wooden boat of that size has ever been constructed, Noah would have had no idea how to build it unless he had all the necessary details from God, because there is no way he could have had them himself because they simply didn't exist at the time. And, of course, here in the science forums we don't entertain "Goddidit" arguments.

Moving on to the end of your post:

Also, Noah's ark had no heavy guns, and may not have been top heavy at all with the heavier animals in the bottom.

Of course the ark had no heavy guns. That wasn't the point. The point was how the art of shipbuilding progressed one small step at a time, incorporating what was learned from existing boats into new ones. You can't just skip from building a 100 foot boot to a 200 foot boat. You first have to have information from the experiences of those who have built the 110 foot boat, the 120 foot boat, etc.

A science-based approach seeks evidence. This thread is at heart very speculative because it is exploring whether a type of ship for which there is no evidence and for which we have only the sparsest of details could have floated for a year on a violent sea while full of animals. A consideration of this question based upon evidence indicates it is unlikely in the extreme. God may have just told Noah everything he needed to know, implying that what made it into the Bible is just an outline, but "Goddidit" arguments aren't permitted in the science forums.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by riVeRraT, posted 07-05-2006 10:24 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by riVeRraT, posted 07-10-2006 6:39 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 160 of 231 (330593)
07-10-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by riVeRraT
07-10-2006 6:39 PM


riVeRraT writes:

Any discussion about the ark is a goddidit discussion.

What part of "Here in the science forums we don't entertain Goddidit arguments" didn't you understand?

EvC Forum exists to examine Creationism's claim to be science alongside evolution. This claim is shown false once you resort to "Goddidit" arguments.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by riVeRraT, posted 07-10-2006 6:39 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2006 6:41 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 172 of 231 (330751)
07-11-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by riVeRraT
07-11-2006 6:41 AM


Though CK and I probably differ somewhat on the exact definitions of creationism and creation science, for the most part I can only echo what he has already said. But maybe I can offer a little clarifying explanation.

First of all it must be understood that this thread is in a scientific forum, and that science requires evidence. That means that this thread is of a speculative nature because the existence of the Ark is not based upon evidence but upon a story from Genesis.

But though speculative, it is not unscientific to consider the question of whether the Ark as described in Genesis would have been possible in terms of both construction and seaworthiness, as long as the issues are considered in light of evidence.

Therefore, considering the evidence for and against the possibility of a 450 foot wooden boat 5000 years ago is valid in this thread.

But arguing that the Ark was possible because God did whatever was necessary to make it possible, or that Noah got his design from God himself, etc., are not valid in this thread because, having no evidence, they aren't scientific arguments.

In other words, the debate centers around the assertion that such a boat as the Ark would not have been possible 5000 years ago, and would represent a stunning technical challenge even today.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2006 6:41 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by CK, posted 07-11-2006 9:01 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2006 6:54 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 181 of 231 (331080)
07-12-2006 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by riVeRraT
07-12-2006 6:54 AM


riVeRraT writes:

It's like I don't even want to discuss it then. I mean what is the point of building an ark anyway? The whole story is tied together.
What is the point of debating where Noah got the knowledge from, if God wasn't the one who told him to build it?

EvC Forum exists to examine creationism's claim to be science as much as any other field of science. If you believe the Genesis story to be impossible if not for divine intervention then you must reject the claim that creationism is legitimate science. The Theological Creationism and ID forum exists for those who take your position.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2006 6:54 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 6:18 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 189 of 231 (331209)
07-12-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by iano
07-12-2006 4:08 PM


Hi Iano,

Two points.

First, you have no evidence tying your speculations to the Ark.

Second, you have no evidence that your speculations are a successful way of making boats that don't sink. The world's ocean floors are littered with the hulls of wooden boats whose designers had every intention that they remain afloat.

As described several times in this thread, there are a large number of variables that have to be properly manipulated when building a boat, especially a large one, and the history of shipbuilding says that new boats can only be incrementally different from existing boats, else various undesirable characteristics will be introduced, such as a tendency to capsize or founder or leak or break up or any number of other problems.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by iano, posted 07-12-2006 4:08 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by iano, posted 07-12-2006 4:51 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 192 of 231 (331222)
07-12-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by iano
07-12-2006 4:51 PM


iano writes:

I persist as you persist.

Well, yes, you do persist, but you persist in the absence of evidence.

You talk technolgy as if anything here was super-complex going on here. Your appeal to the "history of the advance of technology" seeks to circumvent the fact that any old fool with a boat could see the principles involved.

As I just noted in my previous message, the floors of the world's oceans are littered with the hulls of wooden boats whose designers intended that they should remain afloat. Obviously the task of boat design is not as simple as you think.

Let me ask you Percy, if you were a kid with a plastic bucket and a sea at your disposal: how long would it take you to figure out that adding a couple of stones in the bottom of the bucket aids seaworthyness no end.

You're ignoring the foundering problem, and the added ballast requires additional strength of materials. Plus, if you have a bucket and no tub for testing, which is the case with the ark, then you cannot figure out how much ballast will provide the necessary balance between stability and resistance to foundering.

Strength of the ark is another issue. If the ark is held up by waves at each end, it must be able to resist cracking in two at the bottom. And if the ark is instead held up in the middle by a single wave, then it must be able to resist cracking in two at the top. Significant ballast severely worsens this concern.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by iano, posted 07-12-2006 4:51 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 194 of 231 (331225)
07-12-2006 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by iano
07-12-2006 4:59 PM


iano writes:

Noah was a little older and wiser by all accounts

As were the designers of all the boats now sitting on the bottom of the sea.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by iano, posted 07-12-2006 4:59 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by iano, posted 07-12-2006 5:17 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19845
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 215 of 231 (331418)
07-13-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by riVeRraT
07-13-2006 7:31 AM


riVeRraT writes:

How can you even fathom the ark without contemplating God?

This is probably a question you should ask Iano. He believes there's nothing complex about a ship like the Ark, and that Noah was sufficiently intelligent to design and construct whatever was required. You believe the Ark is so fantastic that it wouldn't be possible without God. You and Iano are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Anyone arguing for the scientific nature of creationism wants to avoid reference to God because it immediately loses the argument. The necessity for leaving God out of the equation is what has driven proposals like vapor canopies and runaway subduction - if it was just a matter of God doing it then such proposals wouldn't be necessary.

So if you're advocating for creationism as science then insisting on God is a major faux paus. And if you're arguing against creationism as science then I guess I agree with you - most creationist scenarios make no sense as science and could only occur through divine intervention.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 7:31 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 10:06 AM Percy 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