Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-21-2019 10:53 AM
34 online now:
CosmicChimp, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (7 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,678 Year: 6,715/19,786 Month: 1,256/1,581 Week: 78/393 Day: 11/50 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness
CK
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 1 of 231 (327047)
06-28-2006 3:16 AM


This is a thread for the off-topic debate in The Flood - Animals and their minimum food requirement about the construction and seaworthness of the ark.

What was the ark constructed of?

Given it's dimensions would it have been seaworthy?

How would such a vessel release the signiificant waste of the animals it contained?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by deerbreh, posted 06-28-2006 9:53 AM CK has not yet responded
 Message 4 by iano, posted 06-28-2006 10:17 AM CK has not yet responded
 Message 5 by jar, posted 06-28-2006 10:53 AM CK has not yet responded
 Message 6 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-28-2006 11:09 AM CK has responded
 Message 80 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 07-01-2006 8:45 PM CK has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 7 of 231 (327144)
06-28-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-28-2006 11:09 AM


Re: Does it matter?
It doesn't matter to an extent - I just wanted a place to get rid of all the OT material off my original thread!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-28-2006 11:09 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 131 of 231 (328922)
07-05-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by riVeRraT
07-05-2006 10:46 AM


Once you get into that sort of reasoning - why do you even NEED an ark - why doesn't God just POOF all the evildoers away or just transform the world into it's post-flood state with just Noah, his family and his Dinos, dodos and other required Kindas*

* "kinda" = Well it's Kinda like a handwaving term.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by riVeRraT, posted 07-05-2006 10:46 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 155 of 231 (330327)
07-10-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by johnfolton
07-10-2006 11:06 AM


Re: Baltic Amber (Pitch from Noah's Flood ?)
"time hardened"

How much time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by johnfolton, posted 07-10-2006 11:06 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 169 of 231 (330729)
07-11-2006 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by riVeRraT
07-11-2006 6:41 AM


Creationism vs. Creation Science
quote:
creationism using scientific evidence

I know we use the terms in an interchangeable sense here because a)creationists using the terms in a interchangeable fashion and b) because generally at some stage most creationist scientists rely on "goddunit" as part of their answer, but I always think of Creationism and Creation science as two different and distinct things*.

Let's use Noah's ark to explore where I see the difference and we can see where the differences are and if you agree or disagree?

quote:
God flooded the earth and with a boat, Noah and his family and the animals were saved

Now to this - a skeptic might ask:

skeptic writes:

How come Noah was able to get all of the Animals into the ark and they didn't eat each other and fill the place with shit

Creationist writes:

Because it was God's will that Noah was able to collect the animals. The Grace of God protected them.

To what I consider a "proper" creationist - the fine details are irrelevant, God wanted something to happen - it happened, what more needs to be discussed?

I actually have no problem at all with this and in many respects is by far the most sensible scenario.

however a creation Scientist is likely to say:

creation scientist writes:

Well it's clear from the evidence that the kinds we had then were of a different type than today, far more robust and it's also clear that lion kinds did not require meat and were asleep for 23 out of the 24 hours of the day. This is evidenced by...

The Creation Scientist seems to say that, yes god created everything and the physical laws, but that the physical laws we currently have means that the ark story makes perfect sense without any special intervention on the part of the Almighty.

In short, the difference is that, in the creationist scenario, God is active in stages of the process. In the creation science, God creates the conditions and physical laws that enabled the ark sceanrio to work but his hand is not needed during the process.

So

Creationism = God the Doer

Creation Science = God the enabler

Am I making any sense?

* (Let me put a little qualificatio to this statement - there is of course a fuzzy overlap, which I suggests represents a continuum from Hard science God representing Creation science and "I can do anything how I please" soft science god representing the extremes of Creationism)

Edited by CK, : Fixing DB tag

Edited by CK, : Copyedit


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 170 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2006 7:38 AM CK has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 173 of 231 (330763)
07-11-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
07-11-2006 8:29 AM


well....
quote:
Though CK and I probably differ somewhat on the exact definitions of creationism and creation science

I suspect we differ because they are quite vague terms and therefore it's upto the individual to fill in the blanks.

However it's a nice starter for a thread isn't it? :)

(so give me a minute and I'll generate one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 07-11-2006 8:29 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 200 of 231 (331260)
07-12-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by iano
07-12-2006 6:20 PM


Iano writes:

My, you are getting desparate...

Seems a perfectly sensible question when you make statements like:

quote:
Thus for every animal (approximate density the same as water) you need to excavate twice the animals volume out of the wood in order to maintain the animal filled ark half in/half out of the water

So how many animals were on the ark? - if I remember correctly 12,000 is the figure that most of the creationist organizations seem to go for. what figure do you go for?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by iano, posted 07-12-2006 6:20 PM iano has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 213 of 231 (331390)
07-13-2006 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by riVeRraT
07-13-2006 7:31 AM


quote:
How does the possibility of an ark being built even qualify as Creation science?

It fits very well as creation science - it never happened but it's in the bible so it must be true and therefore scientific. See it's easy.


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 217 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 10:00 AM CK 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 © 2019