Read:In Tooth & Claw

Just a bit more logic to throw in...

First of all how did Noah climb way out on the outriggings to cut the anchor stone ropes? Second, if he could cut the anchor stone ropes, and did cut the anchor stone ropes, he must have been pretty speedy and accurate in doing so because he cut them all in enough time to have them fall seemingly very close to eachother. How tall is Mt. Ararat and what are the chances that a massive vessel (probably neccesarily larger than the village of Kazan), dropping massive stones from that height (or through that depth rather) could possibly have been fortunate enough for 10 stones to have fallen within the presumably small area in which they have been found?

What are the chances that such stones would even be found after a world-wide flood receded? Think of how mucky the ground would be and how deep those rocks would have been submerged underneath the muddy floor of the ocean.

Even if people found these stones and hauled them to Kazan (which I doubt they would be able to find anyways due to submergence into the Earth and probable distance at which they would have been spread), what made Kazan the official "Ark anchor-stone repository"?

Too many holes to fill, no matter how good you are at taking leaps of faith...

gravitybow

(smacks Read's head) Think, McFly!

Noah didn't climb at all. He swam!
Look at this rendering of Wyatt's ark with the anchor stones attached:



As you can plainly seen, the lowest anchor stone beams form the lowest part of the ark. Now, it is commonly calculated that the ark, fully loaded, drafted half its height or about 20-22 feet of water, meaning that's how much of the ark rested below the waterline. If we are generous with Wyatt's version, which is 51 feet tall, and say it drafted only a third of its height, we get about 17 feet.

So you see, my dear R:IT&C, this 600-year-old man tied little anchor stonelets to his ankles, grabbed on to a giant inflatable sheep's bladder, stuck a Bowie knife in his mouth, belly-flopped over the side of the ark, swam down the 17 feet where his 600-year-old flabby arms expertly sawed through the massive water-soaked natural fiber cables that held 20,000 pound boulders for a solid year without rotting or fraying, all the while sucking on the bladder before losing consciousness, dropping anchor stonelets periodically to compensate for the loss of bouyancy from the ever-decreasing sheep's bladder while carefully balancing the need to saw through the fully-submerged cables before his air supply was exhausted, thus explaining how the anchor stones came to rest in a relatively small area.

Where's your precious logic now?

(And don't tell me that his sons helped. They were only in their 80's and 90's and were more than likely too young to swim.)

The only question left is: was it enough to win immunity, or will he face tribal council?

Heurismus

Gadzooks!!! Stone me gravitybow! The bloody harmonica is a drenched set of Barney Rubble windchimes after all. Music of the spheres indeed! No wonder the OT Philharmonica went the way of the Dioaspera!!!

Duvenoy

Nice pic. Thanks. I've saved it as a part of my slide-show screen saver. I love the gentle, calm and clear water the Ark is shown to be floating upon.

I further love the squirming the apologists do when explaining the Flood. Science fiction just can't compete with 'em.

doov

budgie

Hrmm...If Noah had placed the stone beams on a cantilevered construction he could have simply let loose the riggings that held the beams in place, thus ensuring that all the stones fell at one time without the need for getting his self wet.

Naahhh!

-jim

The illiteracy level of our children are appalling. GWB 23 Jan 2004 Washington, D.C.

gravitybow

It is a cool pic. The picture originally came from a site that appears defunct (arkfind.com) . But you forgot to add the word "lifeless" to the description, since the former ocean inhabitants are buried under sediment.

gravitybow

Uh-oh!
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noahsarkstones.htm


"The drilling process was not a simple straight shaft through the rock. One side was drilled a smaller diameter than the other. The holes were drilled at an upward angle as large ropes would be lifting the stones. The smaller side allowed a single rope to pass through. Next, a large knot was tied and allowed to fit snuggly in the larger opening on the other side. If these stones were lifted out of the water, the hole would break off at the top. It was only in the water that these stones could be lifted successfully."

Got that? Basically, the stones are not capable of supporting the force of their own weight. Says so right there. The buoyancy exerted by the water is enough to prevent the weight of the stone from snapping the eye off as the Ark is lifted by the slow-rising tide.

Problem:
This only makes sense (sort of, since these guys never put math to anything) if the ocean is relatively calm. Once you throw in dynamic forces, such as rolling waves, all bets are off. How come?

Imagine the Ark at the crest of a sizeable wave. The Ark then begins descent, along with the attached anchor stones, into the wave trough. The Ark and stones fall together. At the bottom of the trough, the Ark comes to a rest momentarily at the same time arresting the downward momentum of the falling stone. At that point, the eyes should break off since the force at the eye due to dynamic loading is greater than even a suspended resting stone on dry land. How much greater? Doesn't matter. Anything greater than the forces experienced on land are enough to cause failure. That's exactly what those guys are saying. The next rising wave is just as bad, rapidly raising the Ark that is working against the inertia of the stones now at rest. In just a few such cycles, all of the stones would be free of their ropes.

nermal

Color me stupid, but how much less does a non-porous rock weigh out of the water than in it?

Ed

gravitybow

You mean like a solid piece about 20,000 pounds? Oh, I'd say about 99% of what it weighs on dry land, but just enough, mind you.

Let me clarify, I'm not agreeing with these guys when I said: The buoyancy exerted by the water is enough to prevent the weight of the stone from snapping the eye off as the Ark is lifted by the slow-rising tide. I'm merely trying to explain what they're getting at, whether the expanation is ridiculous or not.

Heurismus

What a load of tosh; it's obvious that they are either marker stones or ancient signposts. And all the graffitti is merely an early form of 'Kilroy was here' as turned up everywhere during the Second World War.