Badfish

Michael, maybe it was divine wood, maybe God specially treated the wood.

Also it is possible to build such an ark with wood. Maybe God was the engineer.

Vorkosigan

Nit. Hogging is when a ship breaks apart in the middle due to dipping on either end as a large wave passes under its center, lifting it up.

"<a href="http://www.ansys.com/customer_stories/case_studies/other_meyer.htm" target="_blank">A fundamental concern of naval architects is storms and the extreme stress they put on a ship's structure</a>. Each time a big wave passes under the middle of a ship its center section rises and the bow and stern dip--a condition called hogging. Conversely, when a ship is in the trough between two big waves, it tends to sag."

<a href="http://www.tricoastal.com/woodship.html" target="_blank">Wooden ships suffer from hogging even in the gentlest seas</a>.

"Until the 1920's a large percentage of the world's shipping consisted of large wooden ships and their plague, after plain old rot, was "hog". A ship floatinig quietly in still water is subjected to external forces. These are the weight of the vessel on its cargo (downwards) and the buoyancy force (upwards). Archimedes showed us that for a floating vessel, these two forces must be equal in magnitude. For a floating rectangular piece of wood, they are also equal in distribution. For most normally shaped ships, the distribution is not equal. For example, when an empty ship has more weight (relatively heavy structure, engines and equipment) in the ends, and more buoyancy in the middle. This "excess" of buoyancy in the middle cause the middle to rise up and the ends to bend down -- a hog in profile. The opposite condition is sagging. For old wooden ships, this resulted in a long term, plastic deformation. The total curvature could be a meter or more in larger vessels. Some vessels like the Wapama hogged so much that they nearly broke in two. Hogging is no longer the problem it was in the 1920's when it threatened the nation's merchant fleet -- because those ships have sunk!"

You scared me there, 'dorth. I thought for a minute you were arguing for the Flood.

Vorkosigan

Garbles18

I just spent two hours reading this entire thread and I just don't understand why Amie ever claimed to have proof of Flood Geology. You would think that after nine pages of posts something would have been presented that amounted to proof since that was the point of the thread. I understand that she is very busy, but come on. What is the point of participating in a thread that involves trying to diffuse several great arguments every single day if you don't have time to do it? Not to mention the fact that she readily admits that supernatural answers are okay.

I really wish I could contribute to the thread but all the great arguments against Flood Geology have already been presented. Now it is just a matter of Amie coming back and making me look like a fool by proving all those arguments wrong. And by "proving" I don't mean by supernatural means.

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Garbles18 ]</p>

David Bowden

In lieu of stating her own complete case, perhaps Amie could refer us to one presented in a book or somewhere online, that comes close to representing her own understanding. She might note where she disagrees with her recommended source, if that's the case.

This would, I believe, basically answer HelenM's original question, which might be reworded:

"If Amie is convinced that belief in Noah's ark is justified, then could she expose us to the argument(s) which persuaded her to adopt this belief?"

Or if I've arrived too late, and Amie's changed her mind, perhaps somebody else who believes in Noah's ark could re-ignite the discussion...

-David

PS - I'm still trying to figure out how humans could develop such diverse appearances just a few thousand years after the gene pool was cut down to only a handful of reproducing couples.

Evidence from the last couple of thousand years (artwork from East and South Asia, and the Middle East; written descriptions in Greek and Roman historians and other documents) demonstrates that "racial characteristics" have remained fairly constant since recorded history began, implying that human looks don't change rapidly. Yet they must have diversified in very short order from the look of Noah and his family, if the flood occured within the span indicated by traditional Bible timelines.

So, to the pro-Noah camp: What color was Noah? How many years ago did the global flood happen? When (and why) did the various different "looks" of humanity start to appear? Does your answer to the latter question line up with the archaeological record?