• 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?

Broad conclusions based on nothing! Really? Astounding!
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.
 
Since none of the posts has been removed, it should be easy for you to give just one or two examples.
Oh and yes, I am serious, no I am not blind.

No one here, including me, wants me to quote the dozens of posts of pure vitriol toward me.

It does no good and serves no purpose.

If you so want to know, may I suggest you search.

Otherwise, drop it.
 
Regarding the seaworthiness of the Ark... I'd love to see some physics major jump in here. I'm curious if this would work:


1. Assume that gopher wood is nearly infinitely thin and indestructible. Also, it weighs the same as air.

2. Assume the ocean is perfectly calm, and any motion on the boat won't disturb things. Everything is perfectly balanced, and the boat won't capsize.

3. Assume the animals are like Bruce Willis from that movie Unbreakable - they can drown, but they can't be hurt. So you can pack them in as tight as you want.

4. Assume the Ark is whatever shape you can imagine that fits the sparse measurements in the bible. Due to #2 you don't need to worry about it being particularly boat-shaped, and due to #1 and #3, you can pretend there's no internal structures to worry about and treat the animals as a solid mass, using all available space.

5. Estimate the weight of the animals. Remember it's not just two of each. Now add in a reasonable weight for the food. You can round down somewhat for these calculations to be safe.

...

Is there any way, even with these impossible conditions, that the Ark can remain above water? I'm guessing no, though a lot of the material is naturally buoyant so I don't know how to do the math. Anyone feel like trying to do the calculations just for fun and to quote if this comes up again next times someone finds the One True Ark somewhere?
 
Last edited:
5. Now add in a reasonable weight for the food. You can round down somewhat for these calculations to be safe.

.

For what it is worth, I have seen some fundamentalist websites claim that God put the animals into some type of hibernation to reduce food and waste issues.
 
What about water? Assuming they aren't drinking sea water, the amount of water needed for a voyage of over a year would be many times the weight of the animals and the food.
 
I never once said that the two ships were the same material. Actually, neither did the author of the article.
.
No vessel the size of the Ark could have been designed and constructed at the alleged period in time.
The concept of such large vessels were 1000s of year in the future.
But I repeat myself.
 
What about my post #342?

...
How do you pick up the polar bears and the tropical animals in time?
...
.
Herding polar bears (and grizzlies)... more fun than herding cats.
And... "Move along there, you rattlesnakes and anacondas, Gila monsters... time's awastin'. Even the tree sloths move faster! "
 
If you find it appealing to worship a god that would commit such acts of prejudging and murder then you need to seek a mental health professional right away, you are probably a psychopath, and should be locked up.
Your (non) skills as an on-line mental health professional are noted. :p
You know what I'm really looking for? I'm looking for detailed relevant responses to the explanations provided for the livability of the ark. You know, like the ventilation solution. Anyone want to refute the solution that was provided? Now that would be interesting to read and not this constant monotonous prmieval mindleess and endless chanting.

Noah's Ark Feasabilty Study
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=402
As much fun as personal attacks are, I'd like to point back a few pages to I_Ratant's excellent post about ship building before the age of steel, in particular his point about how to maintain shape and function using line to stiffen and support the structure. Your ventilation problem is irrelevant to the ship maintaining its shape, and seakeeping qualities.

Were Noah to collect sufficient timbers and beams to build to stated dimensions, he's still got a couple of problems to solve with keel and hull and frame stiffness that wood and perfect jointing alone won't solve. (Note: in the age of sail, miles of line were used to support the masts). Comparisons to steel aged ships of a similar size are irrelevant, which I hope you'd think was obvious. We don't build skyscrapers out of wood, nor ships of the size of the ark. The material lacks some key strength and stiffness qualities. If you don't believe me, look into any undergraduate Strength of Materials text book, in the appendix for tensile strength of materials, from wood to aluminum to steel, and note the significant difference.

Look first at the ark's keel. Unlikely that he'd have a six hundred foot long timber handy for a single beam keel, Noah would be linking a series of beams/logs together. Regardless of how he does that, the middle of his structure is in need of a support, as it is the base of two different cantilevers, just for the simple two dimensional solutions. (See I Ratant's dimensions, about a third of the ark's stated dimensions).

One way to stiffen the keel that would be to add a series of linked beams, more near the center, none at the ends, to the point that you'd have something shaped like a long, skinny American football. The result is like doublers helping to carry the load. But that doesn't answer the mail on torsion and stiffness.

Look at the mast support example, and I propose a cat's cradle of line running athwartships, at various angles, to resist the twisting that results from actual loads of a ship in the water, be the seas calm or rough.

You end up with literally hundreds of sections of hemp line, from bow to stern, belowdecks, each of which has to be securely anchored at each end, so that the ark doesn't twist apart. Frames alone won't support the torsional loads.

With the flex of the timbers, regardless of how well the lines support the frames, beams and bulkheads, you cannot escape leakage. Water is supposed to be on the outside of the ark, not on the inside.

How to resolve that?

I suppose Noah could load all of the elephants into the hold, and into the bilges, with the task of dipping their trunks into the bilgewater, sucking up and blowing out water into whatever piping system Noah has added to drain the bilgewater overboard. He could also direct the monkeys to function as his bucket brigade, divided into three watches. No dog watch, of course, these are monkeys. They'd doubtless have fun clambering all over that three dimensional spider's web of hempen support belowdecks.

Whatever.

I'll further suggest another reason, beyond timber scavenging, that one would not likely find the ark. After all those days at sea, ("Where's the rum gone?") Noah and his folks would have salvaged all of the hemp ... and smoked it.

The ark falls apart for lack of internal support.

OK, sorry for the shaggy dog story, but at least the dog made it to the ark. :p

DR
 
Last edited:
What about water? Assuming they aren't drinking sea water, the amount of water needed for a voyage of over a year would be many times the weight of the animals and the food.

IIRC, the D & D spell table has purify water as a first or second level cleric spell. With Noah's ability to speak to God, odds are he's an adventurer cleric of at least third level, so he's got that sorted. :cool:
 
If you feel I’ve personally attacked you then by all means report me.
I’ll tell you what if you just answer these questions for me: I’ll will report my self and ask the MOD to ban me for however long they see fit.
1: How many unborn babies did God kill with the flood (of course you can’t know the number, did any die in utero)?
2: How does God prejudging these children generations before they were born fit with the teachings of Christ.
There two simple questions, I’ll need some kind of citation of course.
 
If you feel I’ve personally attacked you then by all means report me.
For what, simply being a vitriolic, anti-Christian bigot? The JREF forum management has already established that bigotry isn't a bannable offense. You'll note that most of the posters who engage productively on these forums don't resort to the pseudo-psychiatric tripe that you spit at Radrook.

FYI, banning on JREF forums is permanent, suspension is what varies in length of time. I've been suspended a few times, each one for, you guessed it, being rather nasty. I've not been banned ... else I'd not be having this discussion with you. ;)
Not sure if this question is for me, or Radrook, but I'll do what I can for you:
kedo1981 said:
I’ll tell you what if you just answer these questions for me: I’ll will report my self and ask the MOD to ban me for however long they see fit.
1: How many unborn babies did God kill with the flood (of course you can’t know the number, did any die in utero)?
All of them. Since the premise is that God intended to flush the entirety of mankind, less Noah and his family, the state of being "in the womb" is utterly irrelevant. (I've answered this question before, I think in this very thread. Maybe not, maybe it was a thread about abortion).
2: How does God prejudging these children generations before they were born fit with the teachings of Christ.
Why does that matter? In the timeline, Christ comes well after the Flood, and embodies a different phase of the relationship between God and Man. IIRC, Christ's teachings were directed toward Man, not toward God (which would be Himself).

If you feel that the disparity between Old Testament guidance and New Testament guidance is a fruitful topic, and many people like to discuss it on these forums, another thread may be a good place for that discussion. This one's mostly about the ark, which I suppose includes all of the bilgewater that has leaked into the discussion. :p

DR
 
Last edited:
The relevance is-as I understand it-in choosing the same dimensional ratios as the ark. The author is referring to the seaworethiness.

Then the author is comparing an iron, steam-driven ship designed by college-educated, professional engineers with a wooden, unpropelled barge built by a guy on a farm who'd never built so much as a canoe before.

That's like comparing the flightworthiness of the Wright flyer to an F-14 Tomcat.

The seaworthiness of a vessel is dependent on a lot of things; proportionality and dimensions are only a small part of the equation.
 
For the love of...something.

You cannot tell with any reasonable degree of certainty the seaworthiness of a vessel based ONLY on the information I posted above, which is the ONLY biblical reference for the ark's design. Was it flat-bottomed or keeled? Doesn't say. Did it have lateral/medial trusses to reduce stress? Doesn't say. How were the planks joined together? Doesn't say.

All we can do is make inferences about what it would take for a vessel of those dimensions to actually BE seaworthy, and the only reason we can do that is because we have the benefit of hundreds of years of ship design and sailing experience telling us what does and does not work. And none of these things were around during the time Noah is claimed to have built this thing.

Where the creationist and Biblical literalist FAIL are when they ASSUME that the craft had to have been constructed in such a manner as to make it scientifically viable, even though the assumption has no basis in fact - or even biblical fiction in this case. God's instructions for the design of the ark are exactly as I laid out, and assigning more information to them than was put out in the bible is ridiculous, and shows exactly how bad the confirmation bias is at work here.

The funny thing about confirmation bias, is that one usually has to find something.

This is exactly the same reasoning you see coming from the 9/11 Truth Movement, gasping and grasping at anything and everything, inventing technologies and physical properties to support their already-arrived at and ridiculous conclusion when the real world doesn't.

Yes it always amazes me how much they're willing to add to the bible so that it conforms to their idea of it.
 
My belief in an ID doesn't depend on biblical veracity.

Like Dio, I'm a bit puzzled by this response. You seem, in your posts on this thread, to have been supporting the story of the Noachian Deluge as historical fact. Ergo, the testing the genomes of many species of animals to sift for a pattern of genetic drift leading back to the region of Mt. Ararat would certainly apply. Yet, when I bring up the idea of this pass / fail test you respond that biblical veracity isnt all that important. Could you please clarify?
 
For the story of the ark to hold true, not only does the ark itself need to be seaworthy, it needs to be the most seaworthy vessel on the entire planet at the time.

This unwieldy ark, build and steered by a man with no prior boating skills, stocked with thousands upon thousands of animals, somehow outlasted every other boat on the planet. How does anyone explain experienced boatbuilders and sailors being unable to stay alive in their boats, while this random drunk guy was able to expertly keep his ship afloat, whilst managing to keep from being killed by the thousands of animals he'd crammed into the hull? Not only did they not need to eat or poop, they never even panicked as the ship crashed through the waves.

If any of these biblical literalists really want to prove something about the "truth" of this story, they'd make a scaled-down model of the ark, stock it with mere hundreds of predator and prey animals from around the planet, along with whatever food and water they think they'd need, and then see if they could last a year in the open sea. In reality, not one of them could keep two cows alive for a month.
 
Radrook, I really don't know why you're harping on the ratio so much in an attempt to prove that the numbers (the ratio alone) work. There are many criticisms of the flood story, and I don't believe I've ever heard a single person cry out, "The ratio is all wrong!"

You really are unaware that name-calling comes under the category of fallacious reasoning...

No, it isn't.
 
Presuming the planks used for the construction were a tad longer than 60 feet each, and 1 foot wide...
2 sides... 5063 planks. 450'x45'
bottom ... 4218 planks. 450'x75'
3 decks... 12656 planks .450'x75'
21937 planks.
.
8 planks in line for the stem to stern dimension.
75 across for the bottom and 3 decks.
45 up for the sides.
And all the seams on the bottom and sides would have to be caulked, the decks not so much, but there is that ton of water every hour hitting the upper deck..
.
And the 8 guys available did all the finding, gathering, cutting, assembling,
Lordy, they didn't get much sleep.. and STILL had to collect all those animules.
 
Yes it always amazes me how much they're willing to add to the bible so that it conforms to their idea of it.
.
It's also common to take the phrase "Vengeance is Mine", sayeth the Lord."..
upon themselves, as real world experience shows them that the hand of the lord can't be be depended on to smite the smite-worthy when smiting is really called for, and do the smiting themselves, while feeling really good about it.
 

Back
Top Bottom