MachineGod

Well, It seems that some are presenting the idea that the size, or fierceness, of the flood is a factor as to whether or not the ship could withstand the event.

Moderators may derail the thread, especially since this will stray from “creation / evolution�. (If it even started out in the right category. Seems like it should have started out is “science/skepticism�)

Nonetheless, I’ll continue…

First off, in order to really discuss this issue you would have to assume that God exists. If not, then the whole idea of discussing this is pointless. You’ll need to go to EOG.
It’s written that God told Noah to build it, so if you don’t want to assume that God exists then we can stop right there. Then of course if you assume God exists, then you would have to assume God had a helping hand (unexplainable phenomenon) in a number of matters.

Nevertheless,
It never really mentioned that there were raging swells, or that there was a hurricane going on. That is just speculation. There is also the idea that, being in a massive body of water, any swells would have been larger whereas the boat may have been the equivalent to a toothpick on a lake. There is nothing to assume that swells capped from every direction like in a hurricane.

This was the bibles indication of “pitch�. Only for sake of argument, here is the exact definition of the word “pitch�. [Any of various thick, dark, sticky substances obtained from the distillation residue of coal tar, wood tar, or petroleum and used for waterproofing, roofing, caulking, and paving.]

Although this again assumes that the waters were raging swells of unforgiving torture that isn’t really specified in the story. But to say it didn’t have a prayer kind of contradicts even having this discussion as I mentioned from the first.

I would say that it is reasonable also, but would also be reasonable to think, assuming God exists and told him to build it, that he would have told him much greater detail of “how� to build it, other than the vague descriptions written. Even if you don’t consider that, other things, such as rivets shouldn't be that complicated for them. (Make a hole insert a rod of metal (which they could have had at the time) and smash both ends with a hammer.) as opposed to lashes.

True, but the problem is that this statement, “would have to be the wildest�, is also speculation. Therefore saying, “none of them sound� because of it, doesn’t make much sense.

I agree, mainly due to the unsaid idea that a global flood would require a global rainfall. Yet even though that could be possible, assuming God exists and orchestrated the event, I still see a lot of room to say that the bible doesn’t claim global flood or all animals on the face of the globe. It may appear to be so from a simple reading, but the implications of flawed translation are ever present.

Such as the word “mountains�, could also be translated as “hills� (i.e. all the high hills were covered) in which it is in some versions of the bible. It states that after a while, land could be seen. Well, where did he start off from? How far did he float? Is it written from the perspective of the inhabitants of the boat? And so on.


It says the boat came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, not necessarily “the� Mt. Ararat. Has the height of mountains increased since then through the moving of tectonic plates or other forces of nature?

I think the flood was not to destroy 100% of mankind even from the other side of the globe. The reason for this is because it states that the Sons of God came to the daughters of men and they bare children. Now this of course begs the assumption that God and the angels exist since the Sons of God are angels (any scholar will tell you this), and apparently very wicked angels. The “infestation� of these angels is what I think God was set on destroying, seeing as how it was mentioned right before the story of Noah took place. However, the regions of “infestation� are left to speculation. Yet, you must also keep in mind that the entire bible was written in reference to the Jews in which the bloodline of Christ was to come through. (That’s the purpose of all the lengthy spill of generations of: this person begat that one and that one begat the next and so on.) It may have been to protect that blood line.

Good question. I think to answer it logically I would have to consider whether or not the species taken on board were indigenous to that part of the world and other things to that nature. Not to mention knowing exactly how wide spread it was.

While the flood may not have been global, it was certainly wide spread. They would have had to undergo an extremely long pilgrimage to another part of the world. At which time it might be unlikely that they return, replenishing the land that was flooded.

I image he could, but then your asking for a second creation. Only one be needed. I’m not going to start going into the specifics of Genesis chapter one, but I don’t believe that nailing it down to a day, as we know it, would be proper. After all, time is relative. It was a day relative to what or where?

My bad, gopher wood is “said� to be very strong.

True, I’m just offering possibilities. Seeing as how nobody knows, it’s only speculation that these methods were not used. Wood always contains a grain direction much like metal does (non-forged or casted metals). A grain direction is extremely important in terms of positioning against known stress factors. For example if a part of a plane was made with the grain direction wrong or orientated incorrectly during installation, even a metal part would break in half from stress received in flight. (i.e. its easier to split a piece of wood along the grain than it is across it). Lamination effectively counter balances the strength regardless of a given stress direction. You say 20th century engineering, but that’s not all together true.

It is true that, concerning a blade, folding removes impurities. Yet it is not false that lamination provides strength through flexibility. Much of the JSF skin and other structural components are laminated expressly for this purpose. Don’t trust everything you read.

Not quite. The only reason the front edge of the blade is hardened is to hold the sharp edge and reduce the need for sharpening. The back is left softer because the sword would become relatively weak if the whole thing was tempered to more than 62 RW. The harder the material the easier it breaks. Glass for example. Also Tungsten Carbide which breaks almost like glass if dropped. The strength in a sword is kept from the softer and more flexible back edge.

You sound like your taking this topic a little too seriously. This is just casual conversation (I thought). I think I’m doing a pretty good job of “entertaining� the idea of a working ark, but if want me to jump on Catia and design you a virtual boat and then simulate it, I’m going to need some money up front.

Read:In Tooth & Claw

Just one question: Where does the Bible mention extraterrestrials?

Duvenoy

Great jumping, jingling Jesus, must I post the fucking Liepzig again?!!

Alright I will; pay attention:

And:

Now, tell me that a wooden ship of any kind, be it an ark or a rowboat would survive this sort of hydralic mining on a grand scale. Hell, the Abraham Lincoln would founder in it, even (especally?) with Bush aboard.

O'course, if anyone can refute it, I'm all ears.

Edited: I forgot to add the link:

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm

doov

jafosei

I said it earlier, but it seems to bear repeating: either the whole Noah story plays out according to God's natural laws, or else God violated His natural laws.

If God violated His own natural laws in order to make the whole scenario work, then speculating about it at all is entirely pointless. Anything can be answered with "God did it", and that's that. The only real question that remains is why God would choose such an awkward method for 'purifying' the earth. After all, he could have just made all the bad people 'disappear'; this would still unquestionably demonstrate his power, and it wouldn't be so messy. The usual answer, of course, is that we just can't understand God's will, so even discussing that becomes impossible.

If God didn't violate natural laws, then discussion and speculation are reasonable, and keeping it in the context of the limitations imposed by observed natural phenomena is also reasonable.

MachineGod

Duvenoy,

I know that quote wasn’t necessarily directed at me, but I guess I’m a schmucky infidel then. LoL.

I don’t agree with them that say it was completely global. (as I conveyed in my lat post)

I think you said it much better than I did on the last part you quoted me on. After you get past the assumption of his existence, you are right. Personally, (my opinion) I don’t think he would need to break his own laws of nature. Which is why I continued in my last post. I said what I said thinking about the knowledge Noah would have been given in order to build it.

Duvenoy

Ah, but the Bible claims that the flood covered the earth to some 15 cubits over the highest hills, if I have that right. Of course, who ever came up with this folderol might have believed that the earth was flat, albeit a little lumpy in places.

But who in their right mind would try to build such a thing as an ark for a local event that certainly did not pound down for forty ect, and stay for months before quietly draining away?

The whole thing is a flight of fancy from the lands that gave us hashish and opium.

doov

gravitybow

More correctly, it is speculation that they were used. No evidence.


Altogether, you are correct! While many of these techniques were developed in other centuries, I was really referring to how you, a 20th/21st century aero engineer, may be applying them: more on the tech, refined end rather than the lower end. Thinking Space Age, not Bronze Age. That's how I perceive your thinking about laminated materials, anyway, such as:
That kind of high-tech lamination was way beyond Noah's ability. Was lamination even around in the Bronze Age?


If I did that, I would still be a Christian.

But really, what do you mean by that? I have to wade through the Internet hopper same as the next guy to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, what did I say that led you to believe I was gullible? Did I present any information that was incorrect?

Don't trust everything I read? I may just as well turn that around and ask, "What have you read about the Ark that you do trust?"


Oh, quite.

Here is your analogy:
A) Laminating wood increases strength and flexibility the same way
B) folding steel for blades increases strength and flexibility.

Analogies depend on a similarity of B) to A) on some level in order to grasp the concept in A).
But as I've cited, B) is false. Therefore, the analogy is false. It is a bad analogy. A) can be true all day long, but it cannot be understood with reference to a false B). Unless of course, you also meant A) was false.


Uh, yeah, that's kinda' what I read already about katanas. But, so what? Irrelevant. It had nothing to do with the issue of "folding" that you used in your analogy.


Too seriously? Yeah, probably. Actually, I like that you're not getting bent out of shape about things. Casual is OK, then. But I do keep asking why you think an open mind is applicable to a topic that has more than enough problems to sink it. I'm pointing out that you, an educated and working engineer, have more than enough tools in your noggin to grasp the improbability of the Ark. Catia is unnecessary. After all, Noah didn't have CAD at his disposal. I mean, suppose Noah had a conversation with God something like:

Noah: "But, Lord, how shall I build the Ark? With what material? How will such a creation float?"
God: "If want me to jump on Catia and design you a virtual boat and then simulate it, I’m going to need some money up front."

Facetious? Sure!
All I'm saying is, it is a bit far fetched to apply CAD designs (as others have actually done!) of superior mystery woods with perfect angles and modern tolerances to an ancient hewn craft floating an indeterminate fauna ("kinds") and unknown supplies supposedly constructed by a poor goat herder and his kin. Essentially, that's what you would be doing. If that's what it takes to develop a successful craft, what does that say about Noah who had no such aids? What is the best Ark a Bronze Age guy could possibly build? Do you think that with a computer and some guesswork, a workable floating monstrosity of Biblical dimensions and capacity would be any more possible?

(BTW, if Arkists want to call Noah a Master Shipbuilder based on no evidence, than I can call him a poor goat herder based on the same evidence.)

Again, MachineGod, casual is fine. I'll put the slide rule away, and you can test whatever hypothesis you wish based on "For Entertainment Purposes Only." We likes our entertainment!

Sven

For a "proof by contradiction", we of course also have to assume God first. And then we go on and show that Noah's ark makes no sense, leaving us with the possibilities that (1) the story is false, but God exists or (2) the story is false and God don't exist. Either way, the story is a myth.

There's a difference between "speculation" and "educated guess". For a flood to have covered all mountains (or even only all high hills), the weather certainly would not have been very nice.

Of course. Including the supernatural, everything is possible. But nevertheless, it does not make sense. A countlesse number of miracles for the ark to survive another miracle (the flood itself) - why? Zapping all evil people out of existence would have been much, much easier. A (global) flood simply only makes sense for a god of bronze age goat herders, not for the omnipotent one of Christianity.

Then you have to be very creative with the verses Peez quoted. Why not only by less creative and say that the flood account is not to be taken literal, but only allegorical?

There is this ridiculous idea again. The height of mountains increases over millions of years, not over thousands. It's simply impossible for mountains to grow in such short times. Or do you want to add another miracle here? If yes, see above.

[snipped more creative interpretation]

The most logical interpretation of course would be that the story is a myth.

For an omnipotent being, it should be no difference to create the animals anew compared to put them on a boat and use countless more miracles to ensure that they repopulate the region afterwards. The latter version of course much more looks like a story which some bronze age goat herders made up. That's the point.

Yes, you make an ark look possible, but pointless.

Sven

Sorry, so much rain in only 40 days to cover "all high hills" (being generous and using your interpretation) most certainly breaks the laws of nature.

JonF

Sort of ... waterproof lamination wasn't. The oldest known plywood is circa 3,500 BCE. From Pyramids to the Present, Plywood Has Changed The Way We Build.