• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noah's Ark found?

We don't know if the Ark had a keel. We don't know if it was flat-bottomed. We don't know if it was a goddamned sleek trimarian wing-in-ground effect design.

The only information given out in the Bible is its overall dimensions, the fact that it was finished above one window "to a cubit", it had a door in the side, and it had three decks.
 
JoeyDonuts said:
We don't know if the Ark had a keel. We don't know if it was flat-bottomed. We don't know if it was a goddamned sleek trimarian wing-in-ground effect design.

The only information given out in the Bible is its overall dimensions, the fact that it was finished above one window "to a cubit", it had a door in the side, and it had three decks.
Click to expand...

Actually we don't really know the dimensions because no one knows how how many inches* there are in a cubit.

*insert unit of choice
 
tsig said:
Actually we don't really know the dimensions because no one knows how how many inches* there are in a cubit.

*insert unit of choice
Click to expand...


And let's not forget that we're discussing the dimensions of an imaginary structure.
 
JoeyDonuts said:
We don't know if the Ark had a keel. We don't know if it was flat-bottomed. We don't know if it was a goddamned sleek trimarian wing-in-ground effect design.

The only information given out in the Bible is its overall dimensions, the fact that it was finished above one window "to a cubit", it had a door in the side, and it had three decks.
Click to expand...
...of cards? What else was there to do for 40 continuous nights of rain except get drunk and play cards.
 
Michael Redman said:
Really what? I didn't say they were based on nothing, I said your link didn't provide their basis. We can't respond to analysis that is only hinted at. You asked for response to the ventilation solution. So, where is that solution? Not in the link you provided.
Click to expand...

When I read it the author went into detail about how the proposed ark under discussion could be adequately ventilated. Is that the hint you are referring to?
 
Last edited:
kerikiwi said:
Here's a response that is adequately detailed and relevant.
The 'Feasability Study' is bollocks.
16,000 animals? Dinosaurs?
Primeval mindless endless chanting? I suppose a fair description of belief in the ark story.
Click to expand...

That's because you ignore the fine details. Such as that the animals need not have been full grown. You probably imagine full-sized elephants on board. You say that 16,000 animal capacity is bullocks as if just by saying it you prove otherwise. Unfortunately that proves NOTHING. It only proves you disagree and are unwilling to respond to that claim with some type of beliievable argument. In short, you aren't here intelligently counter anything at all but just to blow off fanatical atheistic steam by constanly heckling and jeckling to your heart's content. Not on my screen!


Ah! The tranquilty of a less cluttered view!
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
That's because you ignore the fine details. Such as that the animals need not have been full grown. You probably imagine full-sized elephants on board. You say that 16,000 animal capacity is bullocks as if just by saying it you prove otherwise. Unfortunately that proves NOTHING. It only proves you disagree and are unwilling to respond to that claim with some type of beliievable argument. In short, you aren't here intelligently counter anything at all but just to blow off fanatical atheistic steam by constanly heckling and jeckling to your heart's content. Not on my screen!


Ah! The tranquilty of a less cluttered view!
Click to expand...

You misinterpreted just what the bollocks were:
16,000 animals is not enough.
And dinsoaurs were long gone, so didn't need a lifeboat.
And what, in the name of Peppermint Patty, is heckling and jeckling?


PS You don't actually believe any of the tripe you are spouting, do you?
Were trolls included in the ark manifest?
 
tsig said:
Actually we don't really know the dimensions because no one knows how how many inches* there are in a cubit.

*insert unit of choice
Click to expand...


Not that I think anyone really gives a rat's ass, but my copy of Thomas Glover's Pocket Ref (3rd ed., 6th printing, 2003) lists 12 different conversions ranging from 18.0" (England) to 26.6" (Northern 3000 BC to 1800 AD).

The listings we might care about would probably be 21.8" (Bible), 20.6" (Egypt 2650 BC), or 20.9" (Babylon 1500 BC). Most of the others are in the same ballpark.

Hope that helps. :confused:

:D
 
I presume an "evolutionist" is a disparaging term for someone who accepts the fact of evolution. I can only presume an "evolutiionist" would be that persons clone, at least if Timothy Zahn's Thrawn trilogy is anything to go by.
 
Radrook said:
. It only proves you disagree and are unwilling to respond to that claim with some type of beliievable argument.
Click to expand...

Come up with a believable claim, as the burden of proof is on YOU as the claimant.

I, for instance, could believe the claim that the tale is an allegory.

The more you prance about and claim that any of the "studies," "tests," or what have you are even the least bit valid, the more you set the bar higher for yourself to be taken seriously.

Let us know when YHWH faxes you some more talking points, or a new batch of creationist internet 'evidence.'
 
Radrook said:
That's because you ignore the fine details. Such as that the animals need not have been full grown. You probably imagine full-sized elephants on board. You say that 16,000 animal capacity is bullocks as if just by saying it you prove otherwise. Unfortunately that proves NOTHING. It only proves you disagree and are unwilling to respond to that claim with some type of beliievable argument. In short, you aren't here intelligently counter anything at all but just to blow off fanatical atheistic steam by constanly heckling and jeckling to your heart's content. Not on my screen!


Ah! The tranquilty of a less cluttered view!
Click to expand...
This is at best disingenuous and at worst an intentional deception. I lean toward the latter, but no matter. I read the link because you, Radrook, kept insisting someone should.

Previous posters are correct: There is no argument there. The link has bare assertions without any demonstration of fact, calculation, or analysis. It is an advertisement for a book. There is nothing to refute.

Perhaps you want us to read the book? Then say so, but before you expect us to do so, quote from it. Show an example of a central calculation and/or analysis.

Frankly, I doubt you have read the book yourself. If you have, then show me wrong.
 
Radrook said:
You mean like the oxymoron "objective evolutiionist."
Click to expand...

Yes, there are evangelical archaeologists, such as those who went to what was then Palestine searching for proof of Joshua's conquest. What they found was that there was no way to reconcile the archaeology of the Bronze Age with Book of Joshua. It was quite devastating for most of them.

There is also Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, an evangelical Christian who is also a good archaeologist. Notably, one of the things he has never been involved in, afaik, is looking for Noah's ark. Of course, there are plenty of evolutionists who are quite objective.

Now, if we can step back from sarcasm and trading barbs, perhaps Radrook can answer the question I asked about tracing patterns of genetic drift back to Armenia. He can also let me know why he's defending the idea of Noah's ark so zealously if, as he has said, his belief in an intelligent designer doesn't depend of biblical inerrancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom