Answering Questions

[joelr]

I have begun a search in locating Dr. Seok Won Hong, to get verification of that experiment.

But suffice it to say… The combined evidences are overwhelming! I don’t rely on just one.

I guess you feel it necessary to resort to Ad homs. Doesn’t say much for the strength of your argument.

First, learn what the Bible says about the Account. Some of the arguments presented are straw men, and I’m tired of repeating myself.
From now on, I’ll only debate and reason with those who display a knowledge of the Bible’s description of the Event…. Because I’m pretty sure that everything else, disputation that is, has already been addressed throughout the thread.

Elucidate yourselves.

I found this information on Dr. Seok Won Hong. Doesn't look like they actually built an ark as stated in Genesis. So this argument is debunked, as are world floods. Although again, people DID KNOW HOW TO BUILD BOATS? Doesn't make myths true? So there is no argument. We even can demonstrate where the story was sourced from. These are myths.


I started by attempting to look up Dr. Seon Hong’s credentials online, but was unsuccessful, although a scientist of his seniority is usually quite easy to find online. I found a creation.com article that purportedly describes engineering studies undertaken by staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon (including S.W. Hong and S.Y. Hong) and supported by the Korea Association of Creation Research, Taejon. Presumably this is the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, Daejeon.

The Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering would not have committed serious resources to studying a very general description of a biblical boat, so this presumably was a homework assignment for the authors as associates of the Korea Association of Creation Research. They state:

• They know little about the hull form and the structure of the Ark
• Because little is known about the shape and form of the Ark’s hull, they relied on descriptions of remains supposedly found on Mt Ararat by several explorers.
• They know the hull material as given in the Bible
  They are alone in this, as numerous biblical scholars and others have sought unsuccessfully to establish what “gopher wood” is, with some suggesting cypress and others suggesting reeds. The JewishEncyclopedia.com was certainly unable to help.
• Based on Genesis 7:20, they assumed the draught of the Ark to be half the depth of the Ark
  This assumes they correctly understood Genesis 7:20 to refer to the draught of the Ark, but that is unclear.
• They calculated displaced tonnage of the Ark as 21,016 tonnes on the assumption of the density of sea water.
  They do not explain why they used the density of sea water for a fresh-water flood.
• they used 1/50 scaled models to confirm their theoretical analysis

From this I establish that more of the parameters for the ship consist of speculation and guesswork than the authors were prepared to say: hull form and structure; hull material (cypress, reeds or other); inappropriate and unscientific reliance on descriptions of remains supposedly found on Mt Ararat; an interpretation of Genesis 7:20. Within those limitations the authors may well have established that a ship as simulated by them was superior to the control options, but their various assumptions mean this can not be transferred to a biblical Ark.


Modern Flood Geology RULES OUT WORLD FLOOD

Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.[5][6][7][8][9] Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying these principles, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. They study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide Earth's history into eons, eras, periods, epochs, and faunal stages characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record (see Geologic time scale).[110][111] In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.[112]

Erosion
The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly.

Geochronology
Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.

Paleontology
If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.[84] Creationists argue that evidence for the geological column is fragmentary, and all the complex layers of chalk occurred in the approach to the 150th day of Noah's flood.[114][115] However, the entire geologic column is found in several places, and shows multiple features, including evidence of erosion and burrowing through older layers, which are inexplicable on a short timescale. Carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition that are not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.[7]

Geochemistry
Proponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.

Sedimentary rock features
Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." These include continental basalts, terrestrial tracks of animals, and marine communities preserving multiple in-situ generations included in the rocks of most or all Phanerozoic periods, and the basalt even in the younger Precambrian rocks. Others, occurring in rocks of several geologic periods, include lake deposits and eolian (wind) deposits. Using their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval.[117] A single flood could also not account for such features as unconformities, in which lower rock layers are tilted while higher rock layers were laid down horizontally on top.
Flood geology - Wikipedia

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, there are similarities…. But not between just those two; rather, between 100’s of the Flood legends!

But why does the Bible have the only account, where the Ark’s given ratios — 30:5:3 — are ideal for the job? It has been scientifically approved, as per the links I’ve provided.

You do realize that people knew how to build boats when the story was written?

Then why doesn’t the Epic of Gilgamesh provide workable dimensions? 90 cubits sq. x 120 cubits high? Really?
That is not feasible at all.

Based on its accuracy, the Genesis description is obviously an entirely separate account, with no ties to EofG. They are simply relating the same event, from different perspectives. The description given in Genesis reflects more accuracy.
Which is an indication of the later account, Genesis, having divine inspiration.
The Epic was from man’s recollection and embellished.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Dr. Seok Won Hong.

…versus…

Dr. Seon Hong’s credentials

These aren’t the same…. I found no relevant credentials for a “Seon”, but I did for “Seok”.

The rest of your post dealing with geology, has no bearing on a Flood scenario based on an old Earth.

I’ve already written on this topic enough; linking the two topics together is a straw man.

 

[Triumph]

Yes, there are similarities…. But not between just those two; rather, between 100’s of the Flood legends!

But why does the Bible have the only account, where the Ark’s given ratios — 30:5:3 — are ideal for the job? It has been scientifically approved, as per the links I’ve provided.



Then why doesn’t the Epic of Gilgamesh provide workable dimensions? 90 cubits sq. x 120 cubits high? Really?
That is not feasible at all.

Based on its accuracy, the Genesis description is obviously an entirely separate account, with no ties to EofG. They are simply relating the same event, from different perspectives. The description given in Genesis reflects more accuracy.
Which is an indication of the later account, Genesis, having divine inspiration.
The Epic was from man’s recollection and embellished.

There are approximately 1.5 million, 5.5 million and 7 million SPECIES of beetles, insects, and terrestrial arthropods respectively on Earth today and not one on the ark. Not one termite in the whole ark and creation is finished and everything not on the ark died in the flood. There are 6.5 million species of animals on Earth so that would be a minimum 13 million animals on the ark so no wonder they had no room for insects. But wait, there's more, 2 rabbits would not last 2 minutes after those ark doors opened and those predators that have not eaten for 80 days are released.
ALL sharks get to live but only 2 platypuses? Nothing fair about that. Bet those sharks are still talking about the historical 40 days of the great hysterical feast and they lament where all that extra water went as they were kicked out of their oceanic Eden where they got to swim on top of Mt Everest. And what about plague, no black death on the Ark? An epic flood story with no epidemics in it?
The Noah & ark story is a parable with meaning but not a literal event.

 

[joelr]

Yes, there are similarities…. But not between just those two; rather, between 100’s of the Flood legends!

But why does the Bible have the only account, where the Ark’s given ratios — 30:5:3 — are ideal for the job? It has been scientifically approved, as per the links I’ve provided.

Are you serious with this? The Israelites did extensive trading with several nations BY SEA, including South India. Does Solomon ring a bell? They knew how to build boats. Genesis was written and re-written until the OT was canonized in the 2nd Temple Period, 5 B.C. So they had time to at least get a few boat dimensions correct. Also Noah has the most similarities with Gilamesh.

Bob Lazar has some pretty accurate physics in his lecture on the recovered UFO craft he "worked on" at Area 51. Does that make it true?

Then why doesn’t the Epic of Gilgamesh provide workable dimensions? 90 cubits sq. x 120 cubits high? Really?
That is not feasible at all.

Um, the Gilamesh story is a fantasy poem. Noah is a re-working of that for Israelite myths. It also claims all animals evolved from Mt Ararat 6 thousand years ago. It's fiction? Most Christians no longer believe Genesis is a literal tale?

On the fifth day I laid out her exterior.
It was a field in area,
its walls were each 10 times 12 cubits in height,
the sides of its top were of equal length, 10 times It cubits each.
I laid out its (interior) structure and drew a picture of it (?).
I provided it with six decks,
thus dividing it into seven (levels).
The inside of it I divided into nine (compartments).
I drove plugs (to keep out) water in its middle part.
I saw to the punting poles and laid in what was necessary.
Three times 3,600 (units) of raw bitumen I poured into the
bitumen kiln,
three times 3,600 (units of) pitch …into it,
there were three times 3,600 porters of casks who carried (vege-
table) oil,
apart from the 3,600 (units of) oil which they consumed (!)
and two times 3,600 (units of) oil which the boatman stored
away.

Based on its accuracy, the Genesis description is obviously an entirely separate account, with no ties to EofG. They are simply relating the same event, from different perspectives. The description given in Genesis reflects more accuracy.
Which is an indication of the later account, Genesis, having divine inspiration.
The Epic was from man’s recollection and embellished.

Sorry, your beliefs do not reflect reality, the accuracy found is the fact that it's an accurate copy of older stories. Literary and boat similarities. It's not something that is debated. Your argument here is denial and a weird special pleading that if an ancient story mentions a boat that can float then it can only be divine? Bizarre?

- The most striking similarity is the near-identical deck areas of the three arks: 14,400 cubits2, 14,400 cubits2, and 15,000 cubits2 for Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, and Noah, only 4% different. Professor Finkel concluded, "the iconic story of the Flood, Noah, and the Ark as we know it today certainly originated in the landscape of ancient Mesopotamia, modern Iraq."[21]

-For well over a century, scholars have recognized that the Bible's story of Noah's Ark is based on older Mesopotamian models.[


--The version closest to the biblical story of Noah, as well as its most likely source, is that of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh.


- The parallels between Noah's Ark and the arks of Babylonian flood heroes Atrahasis and Utnapishtim have often been noted. Atrahasis' Ark was circular, resembling an enormous quffa, with one or two decks.[20] Utnapishtim's ark was a cube with six decks of seven compartments, each divided into nine subcompartments (63 subcompartments per deck, 378 total). Noah's Ark was rectangular with three decks. A progression is believed to exist from a circular to a cubic or square to rectangular.

-Linguistic parallels between Noah's and Atrahasis' arks have also been noted. The word used for "pitch" (sealing tar or resin) in Genesis is not the normal Hebrew word, but is closely related to the word used in the Babylonian story.[22] Likewise, the Hebrew word for "ark" (tevah) is nearly identical to the Babylonian word for an oblong boat (ṭubbû), especially given that "v" and "b" are the same letter in Hebrew: bet (ב).[21]
Noah's Ark - Wikipedia


Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned.


Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;


Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.


Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood


Gilamesh - ‘For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

 

[joelr]

…versus…

These aren’t the same…. I found no relevant credentials for a “Seon”, but I did for “Seok”.

That was my spelling mistake, the scientist you posted, there is no ark study to find.

You need to know a great deal more than the length, width and height to assess stability and there is no "best" ration for boats. There are actually many factors, despite what apologetics tells you.
A few small measurements are not an indication a ship would work for it's purpose. So you are way off even with that.


USN Ship Types -- World War I Cargo Ships -- with One Smokestack and Three or Four Single Masts

The rest of your post dealing with geology, has no bearing on a Flood scenario based on an old Earth.

I’ve already written on this topic enough; linking the two topics together is a straw man.

I don't know what that even means. There are not different Earths. There is no Middle Earth. There is no flat Earth. There is just one Earth. Were there a world flood it would show up in many ways to geologists. It is not possible. But there is no reason to argue for a flood because no one is suggesting there was a flood outside of a small group of Bible literalists.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You need to know a great deal more than the length, width and height to assess stability and there is no "best" ration for boats. There are actually many factors, despite what apologetics tells you.
A few small measurements are not an indication a ship would work for it's purpose. So you are way off even with that.

It is from what the University of Leicester Physics Department discovered!
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...l/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479

Please try to access the full, peer-reviewed paper, I couldn’t. All I got to load was part of the URL, “physics.le.ac.uk”.

I don't know what that even means. There are not different Earths. There is no Middle Earth. There is no flat Earth. There is just one Earth. Were there a world flood it would show up in many ways to geologists. It is not possible. But there is no reason to argue for a flood because no one is suggesting there was a flood outside of a small group of Bible literalists.

I thought I was pretty clear: I was referring to Earth’s age …an OEC view vs. a YEC view..
If it wasn’t clear, I apologize.

 

[Sheldon]

It is from what the University of Leicester Physics Department discovered!
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...l/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479

Please try to access the full, peer-reviewed paper, I couldn’t. All I got to load was part of the URL, “physics.le.ac.uk”.

It has already been explained to you that the students paper you linked, did not have any design for any boat, they merely guessed the total weight from estimates of animals, and calculated the required displacement only, you do know what displacement is right? I have a soap dish in my bathroom that floats, if you think that means it's a seaworthy design, then I really don't know what else to say to you. This student's paper does not remotely evidence the biblical flood myth. It's a catchy headline you clearly Googled, and apparently don't even understand.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

it's (Genesis is) an accurate copy of older stories

Yeah sure, you need to believe that. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence to support that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah sure, you need to believe that. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence to support that.

He mentioned evidence for it. The epic of Gilgamesh is older than the Noah's ark myth.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

He mentioned evidence for it. The epic of Gilgamesh is older than the Noah's ark myth.

That’s not the issue.

The Genesis account has dimension ratios of the Ark that work. The EofG doesn’t. Nowhere near.

Therefore, the Genesis account did not derive from the EofG.

They are completely separate accounts, describing the same event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s not the issue.

The Genesis account has dimension ratios of the Ark that work. The EofG doesn’t. Nowhere near.

Therefore, the Genesis account did not derive from the EofG.

They are completely separate accounts, describing the same event.

No. They only "work" if one ignores the food and water needed for a year. And if one takes too few animals on the ark as well.

And your logic is flawed. Just because they have a bigger boat does not mean that it did not come from the Epic of Gilgamesh. You should see how Bible scholars can show the Epic of Gilgamesh to be older.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And your logic is flawed. Just because they have a bigger boat does not mean that it did not come from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

“A bigger boat”?
Please, that’s not it at all. You are fond of straw men, aren’t you.
How many times do I need to repeat it? You’re not that dense.

It’s the ratios of the dimensions — 30:5:3. They work ideally!

Very few, would work. The EofG’s sure doesn’t!

No more straw men, please...resorting to such, makes your argument look weak.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“A bigger boat”?
Please, that’s not it at all. You are fond of straw men, aren’t you.
How many times do I need to repeat it? You’re not that dense.

It’s the ratios of the dimensions — 30:5:3. They work ideally!

Very few, would work. The EofG’s sure doesn’t!

No more straw men, please...resorting to such, makes your argument look weak.

How many times do I need to repeat this. That was never shown to be the case. There is only a fake paper out there that appears to have been commissioned by Ken Ham. It was not as claimed peer reviewed. It was just another Christian lying for Jesus.

LOL! And I never used strawman arguments. You unfortunately have to keep referring to known liars.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And I never used strawman arguments.

You just did. It’s not about “a bigger boat.” It’s not surprising that you wouldn’t admit it.

There is only a fake paper out there that appears to have been commissioned by Ken Ham. It was not as claimed peer reviewed. It was just another Christian lying for Jesus.

This is mostly what I have referred to. Are they lying?:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...l/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479

This is an excerpt:
“The full paper, The animals float two by two, hurrah!, was published in a peer-reviewed student journal.”

I can’t seem to access it. (Don’t know why for sure, but I have my suspicions )
Can you get it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just did. It’s not about “a bigger boat.” It’s not surprising that you wouldn’t admit it.



This is mostly what I have referred to. Are they lying?:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...l/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479

This is an excerpt:
“The full paper, The animals float two by two, hurrah!, was published in a peer-reviewed student journal.”

I can’t seem to access it. (Don’t know why for sure, but I have my suspicions )
Can you get it?

Please, watch the false accusations. They are not lying, But please note, They also did not say that the boat was seaworthy in any way at all. "it will float in a dead calm (okay they did not need to add the last two words but they might as well have) does not mean that it will survive any kind of storm. That article only states that a boat of the size of the one in the Noah's Ark myth would float, if it had too few animals on it and none of the food or water needed for over a year afloat. Please note, they could not have drank the water from the flood. It would have mixed with sea water and have been far too salty.

A boat without all that was needed for a year would float in a dead calm. So what? How would it handle the worst storm ever in the history of the Earth? Your Korean paper about the supposed geometry is the one that looks like it was written by a liar for Jesus.

 

[joelr]

It is from what the University of Leicester Physics Department discovered!
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...l/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479

Please try to access the full, peer-reviewed paper, I couldn’t. All I got to load was part of the URL, “physics.le.ac.uk”.

We don't need a student paper. Those dimensions may hypothetically create a boat that floats. We have been over this. First there are dozens more measurements and design hurdles that would be needed to build an arc with all the rooms needed and storage and 2 simple measurements cannot tell you if any of those were applied. Since it's just a fictional story it sounds like the writer just asked a boatman what standard dimensions would be. The Israelites had extensive sea trade, especially under Solomon.
That story was written with Genesis around 6B.C. The apologetic that it actually happened 6000 years ago and was re-told over and over is ridiculous because in all older flood stories no one ever mentioned any correct names, the correct God, a single God, different mountain, different reasons for the Gods to create a flood and kill all living things.

Building a Wooden Boat building a wooden boat is far more complex than 3 measurements.

I thought I was pretty clear: I was referring to Earth’s age …an OEC view vs. a YEC view..
If it wasn’t clear, I apologize.

That has no impact on a world flood. There would be signs we would see today if there had been a world flood. I provided the list of features that demonstrate a world flood did not happen over the last several millions of years.

 

[joelr]

Yeah sure, you need to believe that. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence to support that.

No I don't need to believe that? I think it would be nice if the Israelites had some really brilliant writer and they came up with a totally original creation story and flood story? Why not? Like Tolkien did with the Middle Earth creation story. It would still be myth either way?

No evidence LOL? Maybe there is no evidence in your church, Bible study group and apologetics you read?
All Biblical scholars who focus on historicity speak about the Mesopotamian and Babylonian influences on Genesis. All across the field. This stuff isn't up for debate in academia. It's the ONLY evidence. Here are quotes from 2 scholars:

-Nahum Mattathias Sarna was a modern biblical scholar who is best known for the study of Genesis and Exodus represented in his Understanding Genesis and in his contributions to the first two volumes of the JPS Torah Commentary.

-Wilfred George Lambert FBA was a historian and archaeologist, a specialist in Assyriology and Near Eastern Archaeology.

-It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology, emphasizing the Israelite people's belief in one God.
-Scholars do not consider Genesis to be historically accurate.
-Although tradition attributes Genesis to Moses, biblical scholars hold that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods.
-hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE
-Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[
-Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.
-Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath.
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia


Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.

KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,

As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

 

[Sheldon]

The Genesis account has dimension ratios of the Ark that work.

No they don't, all you have is a paper exercise by students involving a subjective assessment of the weight of animals involved, and a calculation of the displacement of a vessel of that size, and that it might have floated. No matter how many times you dishonestly misrepresent this, it is not evidence for any flood, global or otherwise, it is not evidence for the Noah myth at all, and it does not present objective evidence that the Ark described in the bible would work or was seaworthy.

That 9th commandment is getting a pasting here again.

 

[joelr]

“A bigger boat”?
Please, that’s not it at all. You are fond of straw men, aren’t you.
How many times do I need to repeat it? You’re not that dense.

It’s the ratios of the dimensions — 30:5:3. They work ideally!

Very few, would work. The EofG’s sure doesn’t!

No more straw men, please...resorting to such, makes your argument look weak.

Now you are actually lying. What was said was it would probably float. It didn't say "ideal"? You made that up. And you are calling someone else out on a strawman??? The ship surviving the journey or being sea-worthy is another issue that is not settled. The same students who wrote the paper on the arc:

"Could Noah's ark really have handled 8.7 million species? It seems unlikely, but biblical scholars and creationists have a workaround, arguing that the number of animals needed on the ark could be reduced to "kinds" instead of species and then suggesting that God introduced the possibility of endless hereditary variety into the genetic material of passengers and animals on the ark. Their estimates put Noah's cargo from around 2,000 to 50,000 animals. "

Modern animals did not evolve and branch out from 50,000 animals at Mt Ararat to the diversity we see today. That is impossible. The distribution of mammals alone makes this impossible. But all animals did not magically branch out from 20,000 "kinds" to 8.7 million species since the flood.


"Even if one could fit all the needed animals on the boat, and if those animals could survive the cramped cruise (the study made no estimates regarding the weight of the food or freshwater needed to sustain the ark population), building a seaworthy vessel is another factor.
A boat sunk to its max in the water while still staying afloat could easily take on water from any breaching waves. And according to Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, the strength of a wooden beam decreases with its size, so because when things get bigger they break more easily, the beams that held this huge ark together might have been extremely fragile. Else the beams were short, which would also introduce structural weaknesses due to the higher number of seams between wood planks.

The students are quite clear about the fact that their study does not settle debate over the veracity of Noah’s story. “We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work,” said Morris."
Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes | Science| Smithsonian Magazine.


So they didn't say "ideal", not even close. They said it would float.


But again, the Israelites had extensive ship trade with other cultures. Asking a boat builder for some reasonable dimensions would not be difficult. Only with denial can one ignore the obvious literary parallels between the Gilamesh flood story. It's accepted in academia that the story is a re-write, as are the creation narratives.
The similarities are vast, these are just a few:

Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned.


Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;


Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.


Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood


Gilamesh - ‘For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.




This is the conclusion of the paper. No conclusion if the animals would fit, definitely no conclusion on food and water supplies and no conclusion if the ship would make a journey without sinking. All this says is 3 models floated in saline and one sunk.

Discussion:

From the results above, it could be suggested that Noah’s ark floated. However, there was one model in specific which did not float at a volume (see the point in the Results on With Weight trial, model 2A at 10L). Since model 2A floated on all other trials, it is likely that this was due to the way the plastic tape was wrapped, since the water was found inside after the three times it was experimented on. The presence of water inside model 2A in the 10L trial suggests that the leak may have led to its sinking. Other models also had a similar problem but after a few rounds of troubleshoots, tended to resolve this specific problem. Model 2A’s 10L trial was cut short at three tries due to time constraint, so in the future, additional tries and troubleshoots could yield a different result.

Also, since this was a crude model of what the ark could have been, it may not represent an actual boat at the grander scale with the full weight, since the angles used to construct the ark models were all generally straight. Modern shipbuilding techniques on tankers (Tupper, Eric C 2013) were also taken into consideration, although the emphasis of this experiment was placed on the ark–a boxed typed large ship (Merriam-Webster 2020). In the future, possible experiments could answer the question of what would happen to buoyancy as one increases the size, as well as changing the water landscape. For example, this experiment was conducted solely on a flat surface inside the bucket. Adding sand and dirt can change the water landscape and may affect the buoyancy of the ark. Increasing the ark scale up to 1/300 can also affect how the ark holds up and carries the weight. Other factors that would be relevant to look into are causing artificial waves and/or changing hull types to a rounder angle. By combining a series of these scenarios (increasing the model size, changing the water landscape, causing artificial waves), one could better evaluate how this ark could have operated.

Although this experiment talked about the technicality of a floating ark, the implications it has for the modern world is much broader. As touched upon in the Introduction section, there are various controversies with ancient texts, especially ancient religious texts. This has led to conflicting worldviews among individuals and wider conflicts worldwide that stems from the difference of worldviews. (Koch and Yannis 2019) By tackling the said discrepancies from a scientific vantage, these kinds of conflicts can better be understood by opposing parties. (Tang and Xiangyu 2017) It would also better give light to archaeological studies focusing on the ancient ship-building techniques, transportation models, and climate change symptoms. Overall, this experiment not only dealt with the direct question of a feasible floating ark, but also with the mindset and historical implications it could have. Further experimentation could offer better insight on these topics.

Can Noah’s Ark Float? - Future Science Leaders