The Deluge

[Malerin]

Still waiting to hear why the boat didn't leak or just fall apart.

I was curious too. Was googling: largest theoretical wooden ship size

and found this:

"Scientific Study Endorses Seaworthiness of Ark

The proportions of the Ark were found to carefully balance the conflicting demands of stability, comfort, and strength.
Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the world-class ship research center KRISO, based in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong’s team compared twelve hulls of different proportions to discover which design was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design. In fact, the Ark’s careful balance is easily lost if the proportions are modified, rendering the vessel either unstable, prone to fracture, or dangerously uncomfortable.

The research team found that the proportions of Noah’s Ark carefully balanced the conflicting demands of stability (resistance to capsizing), comfort (“seakeeping”), and strength. In fact, the Ark has the same proportions as a modern cargo ship.

The study also confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 100 ft (30 m)."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/thinking-outside-the-box

Dr. Seon Won Hong was principal research scientist when he headed up the Noah’s Ark investigation

Googling "Seon Won Hong" doesn't turn up much.

Hmm. My difficulity in trying to find Dr. Seon Won Hong is explained:
http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/hull_form/hull_optimization.htm
*Look at the letter head

Someone forgot to tell Dr. Seon Won Hong that his real name is actually Seok Won Hong.

 

[Hokulele]

"Scientific Study Endorses Seaworthiness of Ark

For some reason, this reminds me of people who write papers on the feasibility of building Star Trek photon torpedos.

 

[David Henson]

For some reason, this reminds me of people who write papers on the feasibility of building Star Trek photon torpedos.

Is it really even possible at all that science could conlude anything positive regarding the Bible to your satisfaction or is it more likely that no matter what science determines regarding the Bible you dismiss it as bad science unless it agrees with your belief?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Is it really even possible at all that science could conlude anything positive regarding the Bible to your satisfaction or is it more likely that no matter what science determines regarding the Bible you dismiss it as bad science unless it agrees with your belief?

Do you need more filling for you strawman?

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

Hello David Henson.

I would like to repeat several questions that I know many other posters have asked here. I've been following the thread but I may have missed one or two contributions, so please direct me to where the questions have been answered if I'm asking you to repeat yourself.

My questions are about the flood water - specifically: how much there was, where it came from, where it went, and how it came and went without leaving depositional or erosional features in the landscape.

If the flood was truly global, do you think that it reached a depth of more than 8 km, so as to cover the highest mountains? Or do you think that the planet's topography has been altered since the flood, being generally lower and easier to inundate before the event? I assume you know there are problems with both ideas, and I would like to know your explanations for them.

I suppose that the source and fate of the flood water are only problems if one assumes that the flood occurred over a landscape with the same variation in height as today's. But if one does assume that, then they're seriously big problems. If, on the other hand, one believes that the flood was caused simply by redistribution of the Earth's current water budget over a planet that had much more uniform relief and bathymetry, then one must explain not only why there is no evidence in the mountains, ocean basins, sediments, etc, for this drastic adjustment, but why there is evidence for the contrary.

I also do not recall having read your replies to other posters' questions about the logistics of the faunal diaspora from Turkey (or wherever you believe the ark grounded). Specifically, how did the biblical 'kinds' diversify so quickly into modern species defined by the ability to interbreed? How did the animals cross bodies of water and hostile climatic zones? What did they eat, and how were they protected from predation by the carnivorous refugees? Why was the population bottleneck not recorded in the survivor species' genetics?

Thanks for your attention.

Cosmic Roy

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Most of the questions I'd have about this have been asked (and not answered), but one more genetic one for you then. Since mitochondrial DNA is only transferred through women and its mutation rates are well know, why does the genetic record indicate that there were several thousand last common human female ancestors several hundred thousand years ago, rather than the 2 or 3 different females on the ark?
to be fair I don't know if Noah brought any servant girls, as his daughters would have their mothers DNA

 

[Nonpareil]

Is it really even possible at all that science could conlude anything positive regarding the Bible to your satisfaction or is it more likely that no matter what science determines regarding the Bible you dismiss it as bad science unless it agrees with your belief?

The first. Science has, for example, proven that Jericho and several other places mentioned by the Bible exist. It has also confirmed the existence of several historical figures which make appearances in the Bible. However, there is, as of yet, zero evidence in favor of the flood, and you have presented none. You have answered questions about the flood with nothing other than scripture, hence my "I think we're done here" comment earlier.
You see, the "canopy theory" that you brought up earlier is flat-out nonsense. It defies all known laws of physics. It defies geographical and other evidence. Yet you state it as fact simply because the Bible says it. There is no evidence outside of the Bible that this could be true. The only way that it could be possible is if your god used MAGIC! to make it work. And besides the fact that that's circular logic - you can't use MAGIC! as an explanation until you prove the existence of the wizard - it's useless. Once you use MAGIC! as an explanation for anything, everything, quite literally, goes. There is no way to convince you that the flood could not have happened, as it the discrepancies can be explained by MAGIC! When confronted with evidence, you can claim that "A wizard did it!"
There is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion, as you can literally not be convinced that the flood did not happen, and we will not be convinced by an explanation that falls back on a breaking of reality as its ultimate explanation.

 

[Athyrio]

Amen, brother.

 

[Paulhoff]

You need it to be false.

In my over 50 years of reading scientific articles, never once, not once have I read someone in these articles saying and I paraphrase, “We are going to use science to disprove the bible and everything in it”. Not once edge, they just go out into the field and report on what they find, and again not once have they found anything about any worldwide flood.

The only people that do are the ones like you that do have an agenda to prove the flood and will take anything that remotely looks like evidence. I beat that you don’t even check the dates of the layers thru a lab because you can in no way look at a layer and know its age.

Paul

 

[Foster Zygote]

Is it really even possible at all that science could conlude anything positive regarding the Bible to your satisfaction or is it more likely that no matter what science determines regarding the Bible you dismiss it as bad science unless it agrees with your belief?

So one controversial work by someone with a bias toward confirming the biblical flood account is to be taken over the preponderance of evidence from naval architecture? Who is dismissing science that doesn't agree with his belief?

 

[Cainkane1]

Is it really even possible at all that science could conlude anything positive regarding the Bible to your satisfaction or is it more likely that no matter what science determines regarding the Bible you dismiss it as bad science unless it agrees with your belief?

Creationists either gloss over science or dismiss it using pseudoscience. Its my guess based on the way I feel personally that scientists would be tickled pink if the biblical stories were true. I'd love to read a bronze age book of ancient stories that actually happened. Id love to see a snake walking around and talking. I'd love to meet a Nephilim and discuss why he got so enamored of human women that he left paradise for a roll in the hay wiith them. The bible lacks credibility. There are hugh holes in the Noahs ark story. Yet the story is pushed on us as true. It isn't.

 

[Cainkane1]

Is it really even possible at all that science could conlude anything positive regarding the Bible to your satisfaction or is it more likely that no matter what science determines regarding the Bible you dismiss it as bad science unless it agrees with your belief?

One final question and then I'm gone. If the Noahs ark story is true it proves God is a horrible diety. Lets look at what the bible says. Some angels in heaven decide the women on earth are so good looking that they just have to leave paradise to have sex with them. Ok did the human women have to power to say no to these horny angel men? What did the human men do? Could they protect the women from some large supernatural being? The women souund like victims to me. Ok so the angels father babies who grow up to be giants. Whats wrong with that? I've known some very large people and they were as good as anybody. What was their sin? Gay sex? Murder? Orgies? Well that goes on right now as we speak. Why drown a whole population of innocent men, wommen and children? Why not instead send some good angels down and round the bad ones up? That would have been more humane than exterminating (almost) the entire human race. If your right and we're wrong then God is one mean messed up ol Dude.

 

[Paulhoff]

And after the flood, this one little family repopulates the whole world in no time, starts all types of civilizations all with different cultures and languages, and also reestablishes all the races too, just like magic.

Paul

 

[Sledge]

Seriously, why are we asking David Henson anything? Is he an acclaimed Biblical scholar? A noted historian? Why, to cut to the chase, should we care what he thinks about the Biblical flood or anything else?

 

[ellindsey]

If every land animal is descended from one of a few hundred or thousand species of animals on the arc, each of which was represented by less than a dozen individuals, why have extensive genetic studies of animals not revealed evidence of this? It should be possible from genetic sequencing to group animals into well-defined groups all sharing a common recent genetic bottleneck, identify exactly how many individuals of which species were on the arc and which modern species descended from which arc-carried animals. The evidence of such a drastic genetic bottleneck would be obvious and unavoidable, but we see no trace of it whatsoever. Computational phylogenetics shows all land animals to be related in a branching tree structure rather than the series of small unrelated bushes which the flood model would predict.

 

[paximperium]

If every land animal is descended from one of a few hundred or thousand species of animals on the arc, each of which was represented by less than a dozen individuals, why have extensive genetic studies of animals not revealed evidence of this? It should be possible from genetic sequencing to group animals into well-defined groups all sharing a common recent genetic bottleneck, identify exactly how many individuals of which species were on the arc and which modern species descended from which arc-carried animals. The evidence of such a drastic genetic bottleneck would be obvious and unavoidable, but we see no trace of it whatsoever. Computational phylogenetics shows all land animals to be related in a branching tree structure rather than the series of small unrelated bushes which the flood model would predict.

The scientists are too stupid to see it. See how smart David is compared to all those dumb scientists?

 

[I Ratant]

Do you know what the terrain was like back then?
It's already proven if you bulldozed all the continents into all the oceans it would all be submerged.

.
I kinda expect you'd find at least one mountain.
And that one is pretty high right now.
17,000 feet.
Taller than any of the pyramids!
Imagine that!
And the pyramids predate any of the dates in the bible.
And they show no effects of any inundation.

 

[I Ratant]

So one controversial work by someone with a bias toward confirming the biblical flood account is to be taken over the preponderance of evidence from naval architecture? Who is dismissing science that doesn't agree with his belief?

.
The ark as described was at least an order of magnitude larger than any boat in that period.
Its construction would exceed the capabilities of the state of the art both in design and materials.
It was centuries after the putative date of the flood before large wooden ships were possible at all.

 

[Simon39759]

I was curious too. Was googling: largest theoretical wooden ship size

and found this:

"Scientific Study Endorses Seaworthiness of Ark

The proportions of the Ark were found to carefully balance the conflicting demands of stability, comfort, and strength.
Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the world-class ship research center KRISO, based in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong’s team compared twelve hulls of different proportions to discover which design was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design. In fact, the Ark’s careful balance is easily lost if the proportions are modified, rendering the vessel either unstable, prone to fracture, or dangerously uncomfortable.

The research team found that the proportions of Noah’s Ark carefully balanced the conflicting demands of stability (resistance to capsizing), comfort (“seakeeping”), and strength. In fact, the Ark has the same proportions as a modern cargo ship.

The study also confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 100 ft (30 m)."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/thinking-outside-the-box

Dr. Seon Won Hong was principal research scientist when he headed up the Noah’s Ark investigation

Googling "Seon Won Hong" doesn't turn up much.

Hmm. My difficulity in trying to find Dr. Seon Won Hong is explained:
http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/hull_form/hull_optimization.htm
*Look at the letter head

Someone forgot to tell Dr. Seon Won Hong that his real name is actually Seok Won Hong.

I am no naval architect but I have murked around with boats long enough to know that there is no "ideal shape" for a ship. It all depends of the use; sea conditions and building material.

Visiting this site seems to confirm it.
With ratio between length and width of hulls ranging from 5.8 to a little above 8 (and an average of about 7.5). Not too similar from the ark's alleged 5.7.
Then again, these ships are invariably made of steel.

That's what the real problem is with the construction of the ark, not the proportion themselves (the level of tolerance is much higher than liarsforjesus.com would have you believe) but the length you can get before the bending of the ship in the waves cause catastrophic failure.
The arks was (or so we are told) one third longer than the longest real ship recorded. And these ships had to be reinforced with steels so that not to break apart. Furthermore, even then, most of them had severe structural problems. Several did break apart, and many were leaking (which is not unusual for a big wooden ship, except that it was magnified in these cases).

That's the real problem with the mythical ark and that can not be addressed by a model.

 

[skip]

You know what, I think you may be on to something. I know nothing about the facts of history . . . I need a knowledgable fact finder like you who could help me out. Here is something I worked out a while back, maybe you can help me with it. You know . . . some constructive criticism . . .

I tell you what buddy. Lets do it this way. You do it. I will help you, of course, but you do it.

First step is to make sure you are aware of cardinal and ordinal numbers and how they differ. Cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3, 10, 100, etc) have full value but with ordinal numbers (3rd, 5th, 22nd, etc.) you have to subtract 1. So - for example the "18th year of Nebuchadrezzar" at Jeremiah 52:29 would actually be 17 full years and however many months, weeks or days elapsed from the end of the 17th year.

Also, when considering a number of years from B.C.E. to C.E. you have to keep in mind that from a date such as October 1, 1 B.C.E. to October 1, 1 C.E. is only 1 year, rather than 2. They are ordinal numbers. So, from October 1, 2 B.C.E. (about the time of Jesus' birth) to October 1 of 29 C.E. (about the time of his baptism) there is a total of 30 years. 1 full year plus 3 months in B.C.E. and 28 full years plus 9 months in the C.E.

Okay? <EDIT>

I have a question or two about your history here… If I could get an answer I would much appreciate it…

I read your whole post, I found it most interesting. I can’t speak to its accuracy, I’m not an historian. Let us assume for the moment that there was in fact a global flood that wiped out all humans, (with the exception of those on the arc) 5000 years ago. I presume God did this to clean the earth of evil and to set the human race on the right track. Kind of a do over.

The people on the arc are the ones that re populated the earth? If so.
Why is it after only a short time after the flood did all these other civilizations pop up and begin to worship other gods, and in the case of the Egyptians enslave the only “good” people left?

These people would only be a few generations removed from the survivors of the flood.

Was it only the Jews that remembered what happened?

This is a legitimate question so please respond if you have time.

Thanx
-Skip


.