Noah's Ark

[kedo1981]

Remember though, if the flood is BS, the rest of the bible can be also

 

[davefoc]

I bow to your greater knowledge, Master Splinter.

It looks like you might have missed Vortigern's memo on taking this topic seriously.

 

[Vortigern99]

I never meant to shut down comic asides! Given that my name is Noah, I do find it amusing to see the words "naked wino" attached to it, especially since I was the first to do so in this thread.

It's not the funny remarks I take issue with. Take those away, ban Akhenaten or Monketey Ghost and we would have a very dry and uninteresting forum indeed.

No, what I meant to do was re-direct things back toward scientific inquiry into the story of the Ark. I meant to do so light-heartedly -- with winking smilies and everything! -- but that appears to have backfired. Oh well, woe is me.

I guess I'll go get drunk. And naked. Then I will have earned my name.

 

[davefoc]

I never meant to shut down comic asides! Given that my name is Noah, I do find it amusing to see the words "naked wino" attached to it, especially since I was the first to do so in this thread.

It's not the funny remarks I take issue with. Take those away, ban Akhenaten or Monketey Ghost and we would have a very dry and uninteresting forum indeed.

No, what I meant to do was re-direct things back toward scientific inquiry into the story of the Ark. I meant to do so light-heartedly -- with winking smilies and everything! -- but that appears to have backfired. Oh well, woe is me.

I guess I'll go get drunk. And naked. Then I will have earned my name.

Perhaps it is my posts that were problematic. I enjoyed your posts and didn't take any offense. My jibes were meant to be humorous, but don't let me get in the way of your drunken, nakedness. Perhaps you should warn your children though, so you won't find yourself needing to condemn a grandchild and his descendants into slavery.

 

[Akhenaten]

I never meant to shut down comic asides! Given that my name is Noah, I do find it amusing to see the words "naked wino" attached to it, especially since I was the first to do so in this thread.

That gave me a chuckle as well.

It's not the funny remarks I take issue with. Take those away, ban Akhenaten or Monketey Ghost and we would have a very dry and uninteresting forum indeed.

Thank you.

No, what I meant to do was re-direct things back toward scientific inquiry into the story of the Ark. I meant to do so light-heartedly -- with winking smilies and everything! -- but that appears to have backfired. Oh well, woe is me.

Not at all, mate. I need reminding from time to time that this particular ark thread is in SMM&T. Nothing wrong with a bit of steerage.*

I guess I'll go get drunk. And naked. Then I will have earned my name.

Pics or it didn't happen.



* Yeah, I know. I can't help myself.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Pics or it didn't happen.

Some things can't be unseen. I'd be inclined to take his word for it!

 

[shadron]

I just had a discussion about dinosaur fossils just last week. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think there are only four camps.

-God put them there to test our faith.
-The devil put them there to lead us astray.
-Before the flood many animals grew much, much bigger than they do today; so those are the bones of ordinary animals.
-Those are dragon bones. How do we know that dragons existed? The Bible says so.

I think the mainline thought (or at least that of Hamm, AiG and the Tennessee museum, Ian Juby, Carl Baugh and a host of others) is that dinosaurs lived along with humans (they only ate veggies) up to the Fall (or somewhat thereafter?), when they turned cross and mean. They were wiped out in the flood along with the rest of evility, leaving us only fossils in the sediments to look at.

 

[Delvo]

They were wiped out in the flood along with the rest of evility

So when the Bible says God told Noah to collect samples of every kind of animal, it lies! God actually must have told him only to collect samples of the non-evil species.

 

[shadron]

So when the Bible says God told Noah to collect samples of every kind of animal, it lies! God actually must have told him only to collect samples of the non-evil species.

Yes. I have a copy of a Wylie cartoon that I love, but is unfortunately copyrighted. It shows two huge sperm whales with roughly dog-like hind quarters sitting on the shore, as the ark goes wafting off in the breeze, storm clouds gathering on the horizon, and the one says to the other, "And so after apologizing for not making it big enough for us to fit, he suggested that we learn to swim." The title of the cartoon is "The Intelligent Design of Whales".

 

[ksfrogman]

Ah. I missed that in my googling.

Beyond being built on barges, it also has a steel frame. I think those two facts are plenty to scupper the idea that this is a replica of the biblical ark, even ignoring the fact that the new one is still not made of gopherwood (Swedish Pine instead) and that it hasn't floated yet.

I still wish fundies would do better research before making these claims.

Wow, so much defensiveness and animosity.

Coincidentally, Johan Huibers "new boat" made recent news around the time I stumbled upon this forum. Hence, my reference to it, which in no way was intended to support or refute creationism.

Google and/or Wikipedia are not indisputable scientific research tools. Huiber's second ark did make concessions to modernity (e.g., the use of Swedish pine instead of "gopher wood," and building the ark around a steel frame.

This negativity reminds me of the naysayers who said steel boats would never float. What makes me skeptical are those who are absolute about their opinions supported by their own intellectualized view to the exclusion of opinions of others.

I, for the record, am ambivalent about this issue.

 

[davefoc]

Welcome to the forum.

...

I, for the record, am ambivalent about this issue.

Which issue are you ambivalent about? Do you mean the issue of whether a boat the size of the ark made out of wood without even the use of steel fasteners is feasible? Or perhaps the issue of whether it is feasible that a boat of such a large size could have been built 4000 years ago or so by a few people?

 

[Dinwar]

Wow, so much defensiveness and animosity.

I come from a family of engineers. I'm the fourth generation involved somehow in construction. I grew up on stories of what happens when engineers make mistakes. We didn't sit around the campfire telling ghost stories, we sat around the campfire talking about bridges and buildings, and what all could go wrong.

PEOPLE DIE because of morons like the people building these "arks". Well, in fact people die from much, much smaller errors than are being committed by these fanatics. Actual human beings are killed. This deserves ridicule at minimum. I'd say it deserves a criminal trial.

This isn't defensiveness; this is a recognition that reality exists, and ignoring reality ends in death.

This negativity reminds me of the naysayers who said steel boats would never float. What makes me skeptical are those who are absolute about their opinions supported by their own intellectualized view to the exclusion of opinions of others.

What you're ignoring is that what's been said in this forum isn't mere opinion. These are simple facts. Hogging will destroy a boat like this built with period tools. The proof has been provided. This isn't about being open-minded or acknowledging the opinions of others--opinions simply don't matter.

If you can provide any facts to counter what's been said, great. Being proven wrong is part of science and skepticism. But opinions have no place in engineering discussions.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ah. I missed that in my googling.

Beyond being built on barges, it also has a steel frame. I think those two facts are plenty to scupper the idea that this is a replica of the biblical ark, even ignoring the fact that the new one is still not made of gopherwood (Swedish Pine instead) and that it hasn't floated yet.

I still wish fundies would do better research before making these claims.

Wow, so much defensiveness and animosity.

Can you be a little more specific? Perhaps requote the post with some highlighting because I'm just not seeing either of the things you've mentioned.

Coincidentally, Johan Huibers "new boat" made recent news around the time I stumbled upon this forum. Hence, my reference to it, which in no way was intended to support or refute creationism.

Cool. All those people who said it was or wasn't will have to take it back.

Who were they?

Google and/or Wikipedia are not indisputable scientific research tools. Huiber's second ark did make concessions to modernity (e.g., the use of Swedish pine instead of "gopher wood," and building the ark around a steel frame.

Google is simply a tool to find sources of information. If you want to dispute that Google actually provides links to really, truly web sites then fill your boots, but it won't end well.

And I have no idea why you're hatin' on Wikipedia. The link I provided and on which Garette was commenting was to an article in the New York Times.

Your second sentence is completely non sequitur to the first. All it appears to do is repeat exactly what Garette and myself already said. Is it "defensiveness and animosity" when you say the same things we did?

This negativity reminds me of the naysayers who said steel boats would never float. What makes me skeptical are those who are absolute about their opinions supported by their own intellectualized view to the exclusion of opinions of others.

The replica boat that we're talking about here is a steel-framed wooden shell floating on steel pontoons. Pointing out that this in no way replicates the ark as described in the Bible isn't negativity and it isn't opinion. It's a simple reporting of the facts.

If you are of the opinion that this replica ark is constructed in some way other than that which the New York Times, Garette and myself have described then now would be a good time to produce the evidence on which you base that opinion.

I, for the record, am ambivalent about this issue.

And this post is just your way of saying "Meh"?

How odd.

 

[Ladewig]

Which issue are you ambivalent about? Do you mean the issue of whether a boat the size of the ark made out of wood without even the use of steel fasteners is feasible? Or perhaps the issue of whether it is feasible that a boat of such a large size could have been built 4000 years ago or so by a few people?

+1 to list of people who want to know the answers to these questions.

 

[Akhenaten]

I just noticed this:

For all this intellectual analysis, the proof is in the pudding, or should I say water. Dutch contractor, Johan Huibers has built a Noah's Ark replica, and if you care to see how it floats in the water, simply Google "Noah's Ark Netherlands." My new status to these forums prohibits me from posting any external links or embedded URLs.

Google and/or Wikipedia are not indisputable scientific research tools.

You should try really hard to avoid these little contradictions because some pedantic bastard is bound to pick you up on them.


And since I'm already here . . .

Huiber's second ark did make concessions to modernity (e.g., the use of Swedish pine instead of "gopher wood," and building the ark around a steel frame.

These aren't "concessions to modernity".

Such a concession might be something like including flushing toilets or electric lighting but what this bloke has done is build a modern, multi-hulled barge and constructed something that looks superficially like the pictures of Noah's ark from a Children's Illustrated Bible on top of it.

It's as much of a replica as Sleeping Beauty Castle at Disneyland is a replica of Neuschwanstein Castle in Bavaria.

 

[Pup]

Huiber's second ark did make concessions to modernity (e.g., the use of Swedish pine instead of "gopher wood," and building the ark around a steel frame.

The thing in question is whether a wooden ark that size could be seaworthy.

An actual ark that size, built of wood today, which is seaworthy, would be a fascinating piece of evidence that would require taking a new look at other evidence which indicates a wooden ark wouldn't be seaworthy.

An ark built with a steel frame is irrelevant. We already know that steel-framed ships that size (and larger) are seaworthy.

 

[Garrette]

Wow, so much defensiveness and animosity.

Coincidentally, Johan Huibers "new boat" made recent news around the time I stumbled upon this forum. Hence, my reference to it, which in no way was intended to support or refute creationism.

Google and/or Wikipedia are not indisputable scientific research tools. Huiber's second ark did make concessions to modernity (e.g., the use of Swedish pine instead of "gopher wood," and building the ark around a steel frame.

This negativity reminds me of the naysayers who said steel boats would never float. What makes me skeptical are those who are absolute about their opinions supported by their own intellectualized view to the exclusion of opinions of others.

I, for the record, am ambivalent about this issue.

Others have responded, and I agree with what they have said, but as you addressed this to me I will chime in.

There is no defensiveness or animosity, save in your response to me. There is, of course, frustration in my post, but I am clear on why that is so. Your response serves only to increase that frustration because you miss or ignore obvious facts, not opinions and not defensiveness.

To be clear, your comments in post #77 in this thread are as follows:

For all this intellectual analysis, the proof is in the pudding, or should I say water. Dutch contractor, Johan Huibers has built a Noah's Ark replica, and if you care to see how it floats in the water, simply Google "Noah's Ark Netherlands." My new status to these forums prohibits me from posting any external links or embedded URLs.

When you said "Noah's Ark replica" I took you to mean that you considered it to actually replicate the boat described in the bible. If you did mean it that way, you were wrong. That isn't opinion; it is fact. The boat is not remotely the same as that described in the bible.

If, on the other hand, you did not mean replica in that fashion but rather something looser such as replicating external appearance only, then I have no issue with it, but it then has absolutely no bearing on whether the ark described in the bible can float.

You have proven my point, ksfrogman. Do your research before posting. Further, take responsibility for your own lack of research instead of criticizing those who point it out.

 

[EHocking]

PEOPLE DIE because of morons like the people building these "arks".

OK, I may not have picked up a bible for some time, but I'm pretty sure that was the reason for building the ark in the first place.

 

[caniswalensis]

PEOPLE DIE because of morons like the people building these "arks". Well, in fact people die from much, much smaller errors than are being committed by these fanatics. Actual human beings are killed. This deserves ridicule at minimum. I'd say it deserves a criminal trial.

Hi Dinwar,

So there have been actual ark-replica related deaths? Please tell us about them.

 

[ksfrogman]

My newbie status prohibits me from using html quotes?


"You have proven my point, ksfrogman. Do your research before posting. Further, take responsibility for your own lack of research instead of criticizing those who point it out."

For the issue regarding the presence of a steel frame I stand corrected.

Regarding the comment on "defensiveness and animosity....":

"I still wish fundies would do better research before making these claims."

I can appreciate your frustration. Be that as it may, I hope you can equally appreciate that I am new to the forum, and stumbled upon it with great intrigue and curiosity from many perspectives, whether that be from the viewpoint of a Christian, a secularist, or other fundamentalist (which I am certainly not). The term "fundie" is an insulting, mocking or derisive slang term at best that presupposes ones philosophical convictions, which is why I used the term "ambivalent" to describe my stance.

My intent was to interact and get feedback on a topic that has long waned in the back of my mind as a big question mark. This was done as I casually surfed the Internet during my brief time off to relax. My intent was not frustrate anyone or to create an air-tight argument to support or refute a scientific thesis for publication. Should the latter be a mandatory criterion for future posts, I shall simply read and not contribute.