@SkepticThinker , you think that’s funny? What’s funny?
It doesn’t take churning water to cause people to drown. If you think so, that’s funny.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
It doesn’t take churning water to cause people to drown. If you think so, that’s funny.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So it just rained nice and gently for 40 days and 40 nights? Was it just a light drizzle that covered the entire planet and killed every living thing on it?
Come on, man.
Science of different fields cannot explain the facts as discovered. There’s no consensus. Why? Because the causes go beyond materialistic explanations....it’s no fault of mine that science chooses to only consider those interpretations. They’ll never find the satisfactory answers.
Wow! ”The springs of the vast watery deep burst forth.” — Genesis 7:11
Those were not from the ‘waters above’.
And BTW, screaming is by using capital letters.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
And don't forget, the earth was covered entirely in water for about a year, so there was nothing to stop wind and waves. Then on top of that, apparently you had entire tectonic plates and continents jetting around the globe, rising, falling, and generally going crazy.
But the surface waters were nice and calm.
EDIT: And don't forget, all the impact craters around the globe today that aren't covered in "flood deposits" must have occurred around the time of the flood too. And volcanic mountains were being formed and rising above the flood waters.....
Gee, it's almost like there are very good logical reasons why, over two centuries ago, European Christian geologists rejected the Biblical flood as a real event.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So they "burst forth" all nice and gently and calmly, did they?
Not sure how this helps your case.
Pardon me?
The ark as described if constructed is not seaworthy, Being able to float does not make it seaworthy. Read the whole article, and you will wfind that it did not conclude that it was Seaworthy.
The article also brought up the fact that there are many problems with the the story that would make it virtually impossible to be true.
Another strawman. Where did I say, ‘nice and calm’? You just need to twist my words, I guess. If you had so much faith in your POV, you wouldn’t resort to such tactics.And don't forget, the earth was covered entirely in water for about a year, so there was nothing to stop wind and waves. Then on top of that, apparently you had entire tectonic plates and continents jetting around the globe, rising, falling, and generally going crazy.
But the surface waters were nice and calm.
I said the event didn’t “have to be real violent.”
The Ark Seaworthiness Studies stated the Ark’s dimensions were ideal in aiding the vessel to stay buoyant in waves exceeding 100 ft.
Don’t twist it...debunk it.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
This is what you said: "Did the event have to be real violent? No."
No twisting going on here.
Which to be honest, is just plain stupid. Again, a planet entirely covered in water would have massive waves just from the unobstructed winds that circled it. Throw in rapidly moving tectonic plates and continents and well......again, the idea that the surface waters would be anything but utter chaos is absurd.
Already been done. You've just ignored and blown off most of what's been posted to you.
“5.4 Structural safety index Contents
The structural safety indices of the Ark were obtained by comparing the required wood volumes for the various hull forms. The structural safety index (SSI) was defined by normalizing the required wood volume, using the maximum and minimum required wood volume, using the maximum and minimum required wood volumes as follows:
where V is the required wood volume for each hull form.
The structural indices for the severe condition (11 metre wave height and 180 entrance angle) are shown in Figure 4, which indicates that the structural safety indices were most sensitive to the variation of ship length and ship depth. The Ark’s index (OR) was small, so that it had high structural safety.
——————————
When we took the weighted average including overturning stability, such as seakeeping safety 4, structural safety 4 and overturning safety 2, we derived the total safety index as shown in Figure 9. These results also showed that the Ark had superior safety compared to the other hull forms.
Figure 9. Total safety index Case 2
In conclusion, the Ark as a drifting ship, is thus believed to have had a reasonable-beam-draft ratio for the safety of the hull, crew and cargo in the high winds and waves imposed on it by the Genesis Flood.
The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated from modern passenger ships' criteria reveals that it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 metres.“
Excerpts from a study performed by:
S.W. Hong, S. S. Na, B. S. Hyun, S. Y. Hong, D. S. Gong, K. J. Kang, S. H. Suh, K. H. Lee and Y. G. Je are all on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon. This paper was originally published in Korean and English in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Creation Research, Korea Association of Creation Research, Taejon, 1993, pp. 105–137. This English translation is published with the permission of the Korea Association of Creation Research and the authors.
(Dr. Seon Won Hong was Director of South Korea’s KRISO Institute. In May 2005 Dr. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI (formerly KRISO). Dr. Hong earned a B.S. degree in naval architecture from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.)
Source:
WWF: Korean Safety Paper
You did twist my meaning. But...
...this is a fair point. But in reading the Genesis Flood account, any person recognizes it states that Jehovah was the Cause, using available natural resources. If the readers are honest enough, they’ll conclude that God also exerted His power during and after the Event.
To think otherwise, that God left the rest to chance, is kind of ludicrous.
...this is a fair point. But in reading the Genesis Flood account, any person recognizes it states that Jehovah was the Cause, using available natural resources. If the readers are honest enough, they’ll conclude that God also exerted His power during and after the Event.
To think otherwise, that God left the rest to chance, is kind of ludicrous.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
“5.4 Structural safety index Contents
The structural safety indices of the Ark were obtained by comparing the required wood volumes for the various hull forms. The structural safety index (SSI) was defined by normalizing the required wood volume, using the maximum and minimum required wood volume, using the maximum and minimum required wood volumes as follows:
where V is the required wood volume for each hull form.
The structural indices for the severe condition (11 metre wave height and 180 entrance angle) are shown in Figure 4, which indicates that the structural safety indices were most sensitive to the variation of ship length and ship depth. The Ark’s index (OR) was small, so that it had high structural safety.
——————————
When we took the weighted average including overturning stability, such as seakeeping safety 4, structural safety 4 and overturning safety 2, we derived the total safety index as shown in Figure 9. These results also showed that the Ark had superior safety compared to the other hull forms.
Figure 9. Total safety index Case 2
In conclusion, the Ark as a drifting ship, is thus believed to have had a reasonable-beam-draft ratio for the safety of the hull, crew and cargo in the high winds and waves imposed on it by the Genesis Flood.
The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated from modern passenger ships' criteria reveals that it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 metres.“
Excerpts from a study performed by:
S.W. Hong, S. S. Na, B. S. Hyun, S. Y. Hong, D. S. Gong, K. J. Kang, S. H. Suh, K. H. Lee and Y. G. Je are all on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon. This paper was originally published in Korean and English in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Creation Research, Korea Association of Creation Research, Taejon, 1993, pp. 105–137. This English translation is published with the permission of the Korea Association of Creation Research and the authors.
(Dr. Seon Won Hong was Director of South Korea’s KRISO Institute. In May 2005 Dr. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI (formerly KRISO). Dr. Hong earned a B.S. degree in naval architecture from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.)
Source:
WWF: Korean Safety Paper
This is a bogus Answers in Genesis sham! I need an actual independent evaluation by engineers that DO NOT have a religious agenda. The Korea Association of Korean research is NOT a reliable source.
With all the technology available today no one has managed to construct a sea worthy ark. Why not?!?!?! The following describes why.
From: Noah's Ark: Sea Trials
Today we're going to have a bit of fun and shine the light of science on an ancient story. It is said that a gigantic wooden ship once carried a family and two of every kind of animal to safety, when the entire world was flooded. Noah's Ark sailed for five months, then rested aground, sheltering its multitudinous crew for more than a year.
The elephant in the room here is that it's virtually impossible to do an episode on this subject without having it sound like an attack on Christianity. I argue that it's not at all; the majority of Christians, when you combine the numerous denominations, don't insist that the Noah story is a literal true account. And, as has been pointed out many times, the Bible is hardly the only place where various versions of the Noah story are found. The most famous parallel, of course, is the Epic of Gilgamesh, wherein one of the many Babylonian gods charged the man Utnapishtim to build an ark, in a story that parallels Noah's in all the major details and most of the minor ones. It is perfectly plausible that all such stories stem from an actual event, the details of which are lost to history, but that might well account for the stories we have today of a boat and a flood. But regardless, in this episode I'm not going to address any issues of faith, but only of science. We want to look at the engineering plausibility of Noah's great ship.
Noah's Ark was a great rectangular box of gopherwood, or perhaps some combination of other woods colloquially referred to as gopherwood. Its dimensions are given as 137 meters long, 23 meters wide, and 14 meters high. This is very, very big; it would have been the longest wooden ship ever built. These dimensions rank it as one of history's greatest engineering achievements; but they also mark the start of our sea trials, our test of whether or not it's possible for this ship to have ever sailed, or indeed, been built at all.
Would it have been possible to find enough material to build Noah's Ark? When another early supership was built, the Great Michael (completed in Scotland in 1511) it was said to have consumed "all the woods of Fife". Fife was a county in Scotland famous for its shipbuilding. The Great Michael's timber had to be purchased and imported not only from other parts of Scotland, but also from France, the Baltic Sea, and from a large number of cargo ships from Norway. Yet at 73 meters, she was only about half the length of Noah's Ark. Clearly a ship twice the length of the Great Michael, and larger in all other dimensions, would have required many times as much timber. It's never been clearly stated exactly where Noah's Ark is said to have been built, but it would have been somewhere in Mesopotamia, probably along either the Tigris or Euphrates rivers. This area is now Iraq, which has never been known for its abundance of shipbuilding timber.
In 2003, a doctoral candidate at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Jose Solis, created a proposal to build the Ark for Noah based on sound naval architecture. He proposed a dead weight — the weight of the wooden structure alone minus cargo and ballast — as 3,676 tons. Fully loaded, it would have displaced 13,000 tons, as compared to the Great Michael's 1,000 that consumed "all the wood of Fife". Where would all that wood have come from? In his proposal, Solis simply skipped this detail, and assumed the wood was commercially available at a cost of $16,472,040 in 2003 dollars. Tens of thousands of massive timber-quality trees would have to have been imported into the middle of what's now Iraq. Did Noah have the resources to import from France, Norway, or anywhere else?
But if the Ark did get built, it would be necessary to overcome its extraordinary fragility. If you pick up a toy Hot Wheels car, you can squeeze it as hard as you want but you can't break it. However, if you were a giant and reached down to pick up a normal passenger car, your fingers would crush it before creating sufficient friction to lift it. If you even lifted it by one corner, you would warp its structure noticeably. When we extend this to even larger vessels, their fragility is magnified. Recall that when the Titanic sank, that massive steel structure tore completely in half simply because one end was heavier than the other. Just that difference in weight was sufficient to tear open many decks of reinforced steel that had been engineered to the day's toughest standards. Were Titanic a wooden box instead of rigid steel, you (as a giant) could destroy it just by swishing your finger in the water next to it.
Allow me to explain. What's known as the square-cube law is pretty familiar: increase an object's dimensions, and its surface area increases by the square of the multiplier, and its weight increases by the cube of the multiplier. But one extension of this law is less familiar. When we scale up an object — take a wooden structural beam as an example — the strength of the beam does not increase as fast as its weight. Applied mechanics and material sciences give us all the tools we need to compute this. In summary, the tensile strength of a beam is a function of its moment and its section modulus. No need to go into the complicated details here — you can look up beam theory on Wikipedia if you want to learn the equations. Scale up a simple wooden beam large enough, the weight will exceed its strength, and it will break from its own weight alone. Scaled up to the immense size of Noah's Ark, a stout wooden box would be unspeakably fragile.
If there was even the gentlest of currents, sufficient pressure would be put on the hull to open its seams. Currents are not a complete, perfectly even flow. They consist of eddies and slow-moving turbulence. This puts uneven pressure on the hull, and Noah's Ark would bend with those eddies like a snake. Even if the water itself was perfectly still, wind would expose the flat-sided Ark's tremendous windage, exerting a shearing force that might well crumple it.
Whether a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark could be made seaworthy is in grave doubt. At 137 meters (450 feet), Noah's Ark would be the largest wooden vessel ever confirmed to have been built. In recorded history, some dozen or so wooden ships have been constructed over 90 meters; few have been successful. Even so, these wooden ships had a great advantage over Noah's Ark: their curved hull shapes. Stress loads are distributed much more efficiently over three dimensionally curved surfaces than they are over flat surfaces. But even with this advantage, real-world large wooden ships have had severe problems. The sailing ships the 100 meter Wyoming (sunk in 1924) and 99 meter Santiago (sunk in 1918) were so large that they flexed in the water, opening up seams in the hull and leaking. The 102 meter British warships HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey had such bad structural problems that they were scrapped in 1871 and 1875 after only a few years in service. Most of the largest wooden ships were, like Noah's Ark, unpowered barges. Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter Pretoria in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking.
Even in the world of legend, only two other ships are said to have approached the size claimed for Noah's Ark. One was the Greek trireme Tessarakonteres at 127 meters, the length and existence of which is known only by the accounts of Plutarch and Athenaeus. Plutarch said of her:
But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger.
The other example is the largest of the Chinese treasure ships built by the admiral Zheng He in the 15th century, matching Noah's 137 meters, but only in the highest estimates. Many believe the biggest ships Zheng took with him on his seven voyages were no bigger than half that size, and moreover, that they remained behind in rivers and were not suitably seaworthy for ocean travels.
The long and the short of it — no pun intended — is that there's no precedent for a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark being seaworthy, and plenty of naval engineering experience telling us that it wouldn't be expected to work. Even if pumps had been installed and all hands worked round the clock pumping, the Ark certainly would have leaked catastrophically, filled with water, and capsized.
Chance?!?!?! Please explain. There is absolutely no physical evidence that the flood ever occurred.
Are you arguing that God simply created the evidence as is without any evidence for the flood and he made the ark work despite as designed it is not sea worthy? Again, something that can float is NOT sea worthy.
SpiritualisT
New Member
If the animals came to Noah then is even more illogical than Noah bringing the animals to the ark. How had the animals knew about the flood and that Yahve will kill everything breathing on earth? Where did they know where is the ark? Have the animals been smart enough to realize this? The answer is ”No”. If tomorrow Yahve will bring another flood, no animal will realize this because animals are just animals and not smart enough to take such actions. And if you are still blindly believing that the Ark had the ideal sizes, let's do the counting
(let's consider 50 centimeters per cubit)
Length - 300 cubits = 150 meters = about 11.200 inches
Width - 50 cubits = 25 meters = about 1000 inches
Height - 30 cubits = 15 meters = about 600 inches
To calculate the surface, you will have 150 x 25 = 3750 x 3 (levels) = 11.250 square meters / 44.300 inches
If you put every pair of animals in a cell, you will split 11.250 meters to 35.000 species = 0,32 square meters per cell (12,5 inches).
This is ridiculous. You might say: "smaller species had smaller cells", but still, at this numbers is ridiculous to believe that you can fit a male and a female of 35.000 species of animals in a 11.250 square meters ark. It is also ridiculous to believe that a few thousands of years ago there were only 35.000 species of animals when now there are millions. Seems like the animals had incest just like Eve and repopulated the earth by only two individuals. And basically you have no proofs that there was 35.000 species on earth, you have no proof that Noah really existed, you have no proofs about the story itself. Even your biblical assumptions which are based on blind faith are ridiculous. How brainwashed and ignorant can be someone to believe this BS? Is like jews are calling Christians "stupid" in their face and they are agreeing with the jews.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Sheesh @shunyadragon and @SpiritualisT ....haven't you guys been paying attention? Every supposed "objection" you raise to @Hockeycowboy has a very obvious and simple resolution.....Jehovah did it.
So there's no real point to any of this, is there?
So there's no real point to any of this, is there?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my, another Christian that thinks the Ninth Commandment does not apply to him. You are the one that is either forgetful or lacks comprehension. It would take over five miles of water to cover Everest. You have not been able to refute one iota of geology.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your claims have been debunked. And please. learn what a strawman is. If you can't provide a proper hypothesis then you cannot complain about strawman arguments.