Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,047 Year: 5,304/9,624 Month: 329/323 Week: 173/160 Day: 9/38 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Ark volume calculation
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 429
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 246 of 347 (496047)
01-25-2009 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by prophet
01-25-2009 8:34 PM


Re: standards?
In other words: Approach this matter in a comprehensive scientific method by compiling all the possibilities and variances rather than starting the argument prematurely.
Prematurity seems an unlikely risk, what with this whole concept having become a bit passe in the century before last.
I hope to provide this forum a more comprehensive approach and with more points of considerations, soon. Expedience on my part, is slow because I am the originator of my concepts and do not attempt to be percieved as someone I am not. I also have a ranch to maintain, animals to feed and no heat for my computer room.
All admirable stuff, I'm sure. Is it your impression that it hasn't been done before? What do you find wanting in the many analyses that have already been done? What leads you to suspect you have any new concepts to add?
Oh yeah, I live on a ranch, on a boat with an apparent water allergy!
You should consider spending some time on the water with that boat. It would be instructive. Perhaps the funniest part of this whole debate for those of us with some experience in rough seas is the notion of any of the Rube Goldberg schemes for feeding, watering, cleaning, and so on, being carried out on an unpowered vessel in open ocean. And I mean really open ocean with unlimited fetch. Have you been on a large vessel in heavy seas? Have you tried to walk? Have you seen small, relatively agile animals like dogs thrown around helplessly? Puking. Can you imagine thousands of animals wedged close together, being slammed back and forth against their hard wooden confines? Puke, shit, and urine flying.
And I'm picturing a modern - ie. large - vessel, under power, and in seas that are encumbered in their development by continents getting in the way. A relatively small vessel like the ark, dead in the water on an infinite ocean and taking the seas on her beam would be an absolute nightmare.
Unless, of course, you want to invoke some miraculous intervention, but that of course leads straight to the fact that I myself created the universe last Thursday and so the discussion becomes moot.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by prophet, posted 01-25-2009 8:34 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by prophet, posted 01-30-2009 6:51 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 429
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 254 of 347 (496900)
01-31-2009 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by prophet
01-30-2009 6:51 PM


Re: standards?
Yeah, what would be instructive about a boat at the bottom of the sea? Did I mention; it has a water allergy?
Perhaps you could address the meat of the post. The ever more complex proposals for the interior of the ark must address the reality that neither man nor beast would be able to stand upright because of the incessant, violent motion. Nothing would remain in place, let alone stacked, unless firmly lashed in place. Water or other liquids would not remain in bowls or troughs.
Having recently spent time down in my own boat's Holy Place replacing a belt on one engine while underway in a bit of a sloppy sea, the picture I see here is not a pretty one. And I had someone above holding the boat's nose into the weather. You can't sit down a tool for a moment without it sliding away. One hand is always occupied keeping oneself from sliding away or falling over. Handling any object with significant mass becomes an exercise in learning about inertia. If you are imagining that life in an ark would in any way resemble life in a barn or zoo, you are sadly mistaken.
Additionally there is the issue of getting air and light into all the nooks and crannies of the ark. All these schemes for stacking things ever more efficiently have the effect of blocking ventilation and light. A single window (or even multiple windows) wouldn't be adequate due to the compartmentalization that is being proposed. As I understand it, open flames were the only lighting option in this era. How would that work?
Capt.
Edit: Just in case someone tries to propose that the seas were glassy calm, consider Genesis 8:1 - "...and God made a wind to pass over the earth..."
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : Add Genesis quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by prophet, posted 01-30-2009 6:51 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 3:53 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied
 Message 264 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 6:53 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 429
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 261 of 347 (496974)
01-31-2009 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by prophet
01-31-2009 4:59 PM


Re: standards?
Or that even in the ocean there easily could have been pockets of salt and fresh water. The use of; "easily could have been" is not something readily dismissed, just as there are pockets of warm and cold water.
Ahhh, yes. You mean the kind of variations that cause weather? You know, the windy stuff that makes waves? Would it not be helpful to make your new ad hoc rationalizations at least somewhat congruent with your previous ad hoc rationalizations?
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 4:59 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 7:24 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 429
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 266 of 347 (496988)
01-31-2009 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by prophet
01-31-2009 6:53 PM


Re: standards?
What are your ideas?
Since I make no claim that such a thing is possible, why would I be expected to explain it?
You left out "the waters asswaged" a wind was made... not gentle wind nor gale force wind, simply wind. The waters asswaged allows us to better understand the water's state. I guess it could be taken as the waters after the wind and before the waters asswaged, that turmoil prevailed, but it is not stated, nor length of that duration is stated.
So we have God making a wind strong enough to dry up a world-wide flood, and your temperature and salinity variations keeping it kicked up the rest of the time. Sounds pretty relentless alright. How are you factoring the wild rolling of an unpowered vessel, for however many months of this very long trip, into your claims about the viability of the animal and human husbandry required. And please, don't ask me what I think again, or pretend that we're all hanging out kicking around ideas. This is your idea, most everyone else thinks it's idiotic, and your thinking to date appears not to extend past the immediate post to which you are responding. Try to put together a complete and consistent proposal that simultaneously supports your claims and answers all our objections.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 6:53 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 7:40 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 429
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 270 of 347 (497053)
02-01-2009 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by prophet
01-31-2009 7:24 PM


Re: standards?
Just because there is wind and even waves does not mean these conditions are too great for the Ark to sustain even in a gentle manner. spearation of salt from the water does not necesssarily involve harsh, severe, some extreme... water motion. Is it the understanding of "harsh or severe, dramatic... etc..." that YOU wish to impart at your descretion to conclude the intent of MY meaning?
You clearly know nothing of weather and less of the behavior of unpowered boats.
Your comment about an ark sized vessel behaving in a gentle manner suggests you should go to youtube and search "ship storm". See if you can find one where the ship is broadside to the waves and dead in the water and consider the effect that kind of motion would have on your organizational plans.
Forget those additional winds you believe God added in. Forget the thermal and salinity effects you proposed. The difference in solar energy and temperature between the polar regions and the tropics alone would guarantee monstrous storms. It would also be interesting to know what kind of harmonics the tides would create without any land mass in the way. The currents around and over submerged continents and mountains would guarantee some real excitement.
Are you familuar with the adobe indians and their mud huts? A fire for light could also provide air circulation to evacuate urine fumes and dung is flamable.
Dung fires (fresh, wet dung?) to ventilate and light a nearly sealed vessel the size of a large coastal ferry. Utilizing adobe ducting kept in good repair with bird crap, no doubt. The mind boggles.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 7:24 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by prophet, posted 02-02-2009 4:43 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 429
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 271 of 347 (497055)
02-01-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by prophet
01-31-2009 7:40 PM


Re: standards?
Because we are engaged in a discussion for discovery.
No we are not. We are engaged in an ongoing process of letting people like you demonstrate that creation science is an oxymoron. Thanks for helping.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by prophet, posted 01-31-2009 7:40 PM prophet has not replied

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 429
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 279 of 347 (497227)
02-02-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by prophet
02-02-2009 4:43 PM


Re: standards?
Since this topic was considering displacement required for food and animals to LAST the duration... I decided the way to continue was to understand that the Ark did not sink and so, now we know why you exist.
Any attempt to hypothesize about the utilization of a space for the transportation of animals that does not consider the extemely violent circumstances in which such activities are taking place is at first (to be charitable) ignorant; by now, dishonest.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by prophet, posted 02-02-2009 4:43 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by prophet, posted 02-05-2009 3:43 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024