Noah's Ark found?

[Radrook]

Praised by whom?
And did the ship have adequate accomodation and fodder storage for all the animals?

The answer to that is in the article which is asbout seaworthiness. I know already you disagree. Repeating it without providing supporting statistics based on a test serves no purpose. Do you have documentation of a test proving the ark design unseaworthy? If so why not make the article available? That would be more convincing.

 

[kerikiwi]

I condemn no one, but I am roundly condemned here. Ask anyone, or just read the hostility.

I have seen some robust criticism, but not hostility.
Can you give a cite of something you interpret as hostility?

 

[kerikiwi]

The answer to that is in the article which is asbout seaworthiness. I know already you disagree. Repeating it without providing supporting statistics based on a test serves no purpose. Do you have documentation of a test proving the ark design unseaworthy? If so why not make the article available? That would be more convincing.

Which article?
Of course I disagree. The whole idea of the ark is ludicrous and I am gobsmacked that anyone intelligent enough to operate a computer can even begin to believe that maybe it is true.
No I have no documentation that 'the ark design' is proven unseaworthy.
it is irrelevant, because such an ark could not have carried all the animals, and fodder, so whether it floated or sank makes no difference.

 

[Meadmaker]

If you actually care, make the effort to research it for yourself. If you don't care more than that, neither do I.

I already have, but a little bit more input is always welcome. There's so much to read that it's unlikely that I'm familiar with everything.

So it goes. You've lost interest. It always seems to happen when the details start coming out. Right now, there is a lot of interest in the Ark because there is absolutely no doubt that someone has found something made of wood, and made a video which they say comes from Mount Ararat.

Then, a bunch of crazy archeologists will come in and start saying a bunch of stuff about how it isn't actually a boat because they did some tests and blah, blah, blah, and all sorts of details that no one cares about..until the next ark comes around.

 

[lionking]

I condemn no one, but I am roundly condemned here. Ask anyone, or just read the hostility.

I suggest you start communicating in clear English then because:

I will make my brief points for my condemnations here.

Can be easily read as you making condemnations via brief points.

 

[Radrook]

Which article?
Of course I disagree. The whole idea of the ark is ludicrous and I am gobsmacked that anyone intelligent enough to operate a computer can even begin to believe that maybe it is true.
No I have no documentation that 'the ark design' is proven unseaworthy.
it is irrelevant, because such an ark could not have carried all the animals, and fodder, so whether it floated or sank makes no difference.

That's another subject altogether. I'm talking about seaworthiness test results that would refute the results proving it seaworthy. You say you have none. OK. Then, if I were you, I would not venture to vociferously proclaim the design unseaworthy until I acquired test results which at the very least contradicted the ones provided.


BTW
You ask which article. Both articles. Two independent tests I believe.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I see a lot of "filling in the blanks" on the part of the fundies when it comes to the Ark design.

The bible lays out the dimensions of the thing as a whole, but doesn't say squat about its design layout or how they managed to account for stressess on a wooden vessel that large, which would be enormous.

They seem to want it both ways. They want you to believe that the Ark design is simultaneously scientifically valid and miraculously possible.

I call this "hedging" or "cowardice."

 

[kerikiwi]

I suggest you start communicating in clear English then because:



Can be easily read as you making condemnations via brief points.

That's the way I read it.
Are you saying it means something else?

 

[lionking]

That's the way I read it.
Are you saying it means something else?

Well he says he doesn't condemn anyone, so it seems it does mean something else.

 

[kerikiwi]

That's another subject altogether. I'm talking about seaworthiness test results that would refute the results proving it seaworthy. You say you have none. OK. Then, if I were you, I would not venture to vociferously proclaim the design unseaworthy until I acquired test results which at the very least contradicted the ones provided.


BTW
You ask which article. Both articles. Two independent tests I believe.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I made no proclamation on seaworthiness, vociferous or otherwise.
And the reason I asked 'which article' was I didn't know which article you referred to.
I asked who had praised the designer, and whether adequate provision was made for accomodation and fodder for all the animals.
So, again, which article should I be looking at?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Radrock...

To your knowledge, have there ever been any tests which can demonstrate how a handful of people could gather the amount of resources needed to hold all the known animals and the ones we have yet to discover, minus the sea animals. And keep in mind they would have to be kept separate. And you would need each specific food for each animal and MANY animals can only eat a specific kind of food, like koalas with eucalyptice, as someone pointed out. And then with the carnivores, You would need to keep animals to feed them, and food to feed THOSE animals.And remember you'd need to keep all the freshwater fish on the ark too, how were they stored? What about bugs? Each bug would have it's own individual compartment. Think of how
Many bugs there are. And some of THOSE bugs are carnivorous, so you'd need to keep bugs to feed other bugs.

Has anyone demonstrated in a test how it is possible to gather the resources needed to build such a structure, in a short time period, by a small amount of people, and to stock it?

If the answer is, "God did it, it was a miracle." Then that is a matter of faith.

But if it's a matter of faith, then why bother testing the. Floatability of the ark and try and act like there's scientific evidence supporting it when whether or not it would foat isn't anywhere near as troublesome to me as the points I pose above.

 

[I Ratant]

That's another subject altogether. I'm talking about seaworthiness test results that would refute the results proving it seaworthy. You say you have none. OK. Then, if I were you, I would not venture to vociferously proclaim the design unseaworthy until I acquired test results which at the very least contradicted the ones provided.


BTW
You ask which article. Both articles. Two independent tests I believe.

.
A reasonable history of water navigation.
The type of watercraft most likely to have been in common use in Mespotamia would be the coracle, a round lightweight boat, which could have been used as the floatation devices -underneath- a modestly sized and fenced platform on which Utnapishtism's ancestor collected his local animals and floated safely when the Black Sea flood occurred.
But large enough to suit the terms of Genesis... not possible.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Traditional_fishing_boats

 

[Radrook]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I made no proclamation on seaworthiness, vociferous or otherwise.
And the reason I asked 'which article' was I didn't know which article you referred to.
I asked who had praised the designer, and whether adequate provision was made for accomodation and fodder for all the animals.
So, again, which article should I be looking at?

Both articles. I posted the links. Just click and read. I know the reference is in one of the articles. I'll look it up later so I can be more specific.

 

[Complexity]

It would be just like God, in fact, I expect it, that He would again reveal something to the world that makes His Truth clear to all, and those that wish to deliberately and stubbornly reject despite will have no valid excuse even to themselves.

Try harder to not be delusional. Have you no shame?

 

[Foolmewunz]

BTW
One of the article points out that a ship was built which closely matched the arks dimensions and the designer was praised for his superb design.

My goodness! Someone not paying attention to details might just think you're making it up as you go along. Since you stated "both" in a subsequent post, would you please point out to me the exact text in BOTH of those links that specifically mentions:
1. That someone BUILT a model of the ark.
2. The praise he/she received for it.

Neither of those articles says anything of the kind.

And the two articles tend to contradict each other in a few points. The more devious of the two being the Korean Creationist study that takes such liberties and leaps of faith that it makes me want to heave! I paraphrase:
"We don't know what the profile of the ark looked like, but several (liars) parties have claimed to have found the ark so we'll go by their comments..."
Yeah? Now there's a legitimate scientific source. Several parties who all argue about having found the one true ark have made assumptions that are required in order for their findings to be even remotely possible, so we'll just base an engineering study on it.

They also have a really great line about the timber where they say, (and again I parphrase), "Mebbe conditions were different in the area at the time and it's possible that trees grew higher than 10 metres". There is no reason to even mention this in their study (considering that the damned vessel was going to require some sort of joints regardless of 9 m trees or 11 m trees). Ergo, they're just filling space with blah blah so that they sound like they did some research.

More important, though, is your direct fabrication. Neither of those two reports cites anyone having built an ark, to scale or to actual size, and neither of them praises him/her for(not having) done it. Further, if you find someone "praising" a model elsewhere, please make sure it's an independt marine surveyor or naval architecht(this side of Heiwa, of course, as I have reason to believe even his ship design claim is fraudulent), because "praise" from a publication whose primary mission is Praisin' The Big Sky Daddy is not considered peer review where I come from.

I go with my first option. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?

 

[Complexity]

No problem here. I'm good.

That's the problem. You're not good.

Your beliefs are ridiculous, you lack integrity, and your moral system is so skewed that it has become evil.

The damage that your beliefs have done to this world are unforgivable.

 

[kerikiwi]

Both articles. I posted the links. Just click and read. I know the reference is in one of the articles. I'll look it up later so I can be more specific.

You seem not only to be confusing me with someone else, but also referring me to articles which have nothing to do with what I asked.
I clicked and read the first link I could find from you, and the article said nothing about any designer being praised(not even god) and made no mention at all of the provisions made for accommodating and feeding animals.
So, which article?

 

[Radrook]

Radrock...

To your knowledge, have there ever been any tests which can demonstrate how a handful of people could gather the amount of resources needed to hold all the known animals and the ones we have yet to discover, minus the sea animals. And keep in mind they would have to be kept separate. And you would need each specific food for each animal and MANY animals can only eat a specific kind of food, like koalas with eucalyptice, as someone pointed out. And then with the carnivores, You would need to keep animals to feed them, and food to feed THOSE animals.And remember you'd need to keep all the freshwater fish on the ark too, how were they stored? What about bugs? Each bug would have it's own individual compartment. Think of how
Many bugs there are. And some of THOSE bugs are carnivorous, so you'd need to keep bugs to feed other bugs.

Has anyone demonstrated in a test how it is possible to gather the resources needed to build such a structure, in a short time period, by a small amount of people, and to stock it?

If the answer is, "God did it, it was a miracle." Then that is a matter of faith.

But if it's a matter of faith, then why bother testing the. Floatability of the ark and try and act like there's scientific evidence supporting it when whether or not it would foat isn't anywhere near as troublesome to me as the points I pose above.

Here is an article that addresses many of your questions.

Caring for the animals in the Ark
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals

 

[Complexity]

I condemn no one, but I am roundly condemned here. Ask anyone, or just read the hostility.

Roundly and justly condemned.

I think you've been getting off easy.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Both articles. I posted the links. Just click and read. I know the reference is in one of the articles. I'll look it up later so I can be more specific.

Oh, good. You posted this as I was preparing my screed. Great! So you're repeating this nonsense.

I call you! Show your cards. I've got a measly pair, but mine's the pair that you provided and said had these words of praise FOR SOMEONE WHO BUILT AN ARK. Please show us the exact words. None of this I'm Too Busy crap.