Herman Hedning

It is one thing to be open minded, but quite another to open the mind so wide that all common sense falls out.

Roland98

Certainly. What I do not believe, however, is that any such knowledge could supersede the laws of nature.

Sven

It's not our problem that you can not accept that it was proven (not 100%, but beyond any reasonable doubt) by genetics and geology that a global flood never happened.

Perhaps you should open your mind to the possibility that Noah's ark is a myth like countless other flood stories.

Plognark

Of course....but at the same time we certainly do know a hell of a lot more about naval engineering than the shepherds of the bronze age today.

If using common sense and thousands of years of engineering experience to say "this is really just about 99.99% impossible" is being closed minded...well...I don't know what to say.

greenbear

Yes, I suppose that if one invokes supernatural powers and ETs anything is possible. This is not however a mindset that leads to the Mars rovers, medical advances, skyscrapers and a vast catalog of human achievement.

What you call thinking outside the box is nothing more than wishful thinking bolstered by nothing approaching credible evidence and predicated upon the exsistence of supernatural forces or little green men. This type of thinking outside the box lead the ancients to believe that lightning was hurled down from on high by angry gods and that burning bushes talked. Fortunately there were human beings with a curious nature and not satisfied with the explanation that "goddidit".

What we currently know is that there is no evidence that the laws of physics, the laws of seamanship and the limits of wood structures were any different in ancient times.

If your definition of free thought includes the supernatural then it is your definition that is flawed not ours.

Peez

The size of available timber is a limiting factor, of course, but the problem goes deeper than that. There is simply a limit on how big a wooden object may be built, based on the physical properties of wood. Think of it this way: it is easy to make a simple wooden box 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm (1" x1" x1") that you can drop from 100 m (328') onto concrete without breaking, but try doing the same with a similar box 3 m x 3 m x 3 m (10' x 10' x 10'). The latter box can survive just sitting on concrete, but try the same with a similar box 1000 m x 1000 m x 1000 m (3280' x 3280' x 3280'). I am no naval architect, but it is clear that building materials limit the size of the ship.
This could work in principle if each "section" is essentially an independant ship, and they are simply tied together. Such an arrangement would run into serious problems in anything other than dead calm water, but in any event the alleged arc of Noah is clearly not such an arrangement.A similar ship of wood would have broken up in a similar fashion with a much smaller wave, if it could somehow have even supported itself in the first place.Ignoring for the moment that there is no evidence that ancient people had technology that "still elludes our understanding," this is not a question of technology. It is a simple matter of material strength. Even ignoring the entirely ludicrous nature of the Noah myth, I cannot see how such a ship could ever be built on this planet.

Peez

MachineGod

Personally I have a reasonably open mind to the subject.

The things that run through my mind are…
Is there any treatment of wood that would make it stronger than just plain old wood?

What about the specifics of design? Could there be such a design that would have internal reinforcement that would make a ship of that size stronger? (accounting for material strength) and (knowing what the ship must endure, then designing and building accordingly)

Some concepts I have heard from science is that the ark could have been built kind of like a rectangular box, rather than the common eye shape, which has been theoretically tested, showing that design would be stronger than any ship we have today. (but that’s just what I’ve heard on the science channel)

Also, I’ve never read anything in the bible that I think should conclude that the flood covered the entire world. (the word “earth� or “world� in the bible could also be translated as “land� in Hebrew) (in which case the animals on board need only be those in that part of the world/earth/land)

And finally, I always look at the pyramids. Even today we are still astonished at how such “primitive� races could build such awesomely precise structures, both as individual pyramids and the layout of them across hundreds or thousands of miles.
Not too mention the shear ability and technology they must have had to move such large stones (not only along the ground but also up the side of the pyramid). I remember seeing a show once where thousands of men tried everything they could to just move these size stones with no modern technology (just their knowledge and whatever tools that were known to be available to the “primitives� at the time)…the modern men couldn’t do it.

All considered, I think someone is pissin’ in the wind if they think it’s not possible.

gravitybow

Many early pyramids failed because they were not precise. They failed because the ratios were wrong, or the sides developed twists, or weren't completed because other things went wrong. The point is, the spectacular successes of achievements like the Great Pyramids were the result of a learning curve based on failures and successes over many centuries, not to mention the enormous labor involved.

On the other hand...

We are to believe that Noah with an unknown work force built a gigantic wooden vessel without precedent that worked correctly the first time.


Thousands couldn't? I think you need to watch better programming:


Perhaps you do have a reasonably open mind, but it's not clear exactly what you considered in "All considered," except some questionable references to unnamed science programming or other mystery shows. And some of what you considered is demonstrably incorrect. Hence, your arguments here really don't leave the door open to this particular possibility. So, how do you justify such a derogatory conclusion?

Julian

It would have to cover the entire earth, no matter the biblical definition, since it clearly covered the mountains, including Mt. Ararat, where the ark came to rest. The whole 'local flood' argument simply doesn't agree with the bible story.

Julian

Peez

I believe that I do too. Sure, just "treat" it with molten steel. No doubt a solid block of wood of the appropriate size would float.A rectangular box would have a great deal less strength in a number of ways.Well, how does Genesis 6:7 make sense otherwise?and Genesis 6:17 is even clearer:(emphasis mine) Then Genesis 6:19-20 go on:(emphasis mine) Then there is Genesis 7:6:andThat sounds pretty much like a world-wide flood. After all, high mountains are covered, and all mankind is drowned.I would like to know how the waters of a local flood could stick around these high mountains for nine months if there were unflooded areas elsewhere. There is a lot more, but I will just add:It looks pretty conclusive to me.Speak for yourself. Not only do the pyramids contradict no physical laws, and not only could we build them today, but we know how people with the technology of the ancient Egyptians could have built them. They certainly are impressive feats of engineering, but there is nothing mysterious about the ability to build them.You are obviously impressed with the ingenuity and work that went into this, but this does not replace evidence.By all means provide a reference, but we don't know just how many blacksmiths performed their work: that does not mean that they had access to higher technology than we have today. It just means that we have not spent much time blacksmithing recently. The pyramids do not contradict any principles of engineering, physics, etc. This is an irrelevant example.You are welcome to your belief. The bottom line is that the problems with building an arc as described are minor, the fact is that there is no evidence of the alleged Biblical flood, and plenty of evidence against it. The problems with the arc itself are just ‘icing on the cake.'

Peez