RexRed wrote:Set, If you had 600 years to do nothing but build a boat don't you think you might have ironed out some of the kinks?
I have no reason to believe that any human has ever lived for six hundred years, and i don't. Apart from that, the text states that he was already six hundred (i was only accepting "real life's" contention that he had forty years to build it as a rhetorical courtesy, the text does not support that contention). Six hundred years to build a wooden vessel is even more hilarious--just how long do you think "gopher wood" can last in a functional configuration?
The point, which you obviously missed, is that a vessel of that dimensions is hydrodynamically unsound--there is no way to "work out some of the kinks," because the dimensions describe an unsound vessel.
Quote:It only had to float for roughly one month...
You are contradicted by the text. Also, you continue to miss the point. A vessel of those dimensions would not have lasted a week in heavy seas, never mind a month.
Quote:The difference in dates may be related to when it rained versus how long certain animals stayed on the boat, when the boat rested on dry land, when they could safely venture out. etc.
"May be" ain't good enough. I quoted the text. Unless you can allege a textual basis for this nonsense, it remains meaningless, like 99% of your "contributions."
Quote:Noah only needed to preserve the animals that were really necessary to his families immediate existence.
Sheep, cattle, goats, bees a few birds.
You are contradicted by the text.
Quote:Also it wasn't a storm it was a flood or slowly rising waters.
The text states that the "fountains of the deep" and the "windows of heaven" were opened. Forty days is pretty damned quick to put enough water on the surface of the earth to cover the highest mountains.
You are contradicted by the text.
Quote:The "water pouring out of the heavens" could have been water pouring into a valley from a higher elevation, say the mediterranean.
That's one of the most ridiculous things you've ever written--which is no mean feat. What sort of sudden idiocy lead you to suggest that the Med is at a higher elevation than the rest of the world?
Quote:No one knows how big a cubit really is so the boat did not have to be so big that it would not float but big enough to accommodate a sizeable zoo.
You continue to miss my point about hydrodynamics and this silly boat. The proportions describe a fatally unstable vessel, regardless of the dimensions. Above the size of a dory (and a dory of those proportions would be just as unstable), you wouldn't have a hope in Hell (or Heaven) that the vessel would swim. You ain't gonna get a lot of critters into a dory.
Quote:They may have had ways of using cut stone as steel and the keel could have been down in a trench.
Cut stone would have been even more fissible than cast iron--so that solves nothing. The point about bracing was the reduction in hull capacity--another point you must have missed. Putting the keel in a "trench" solves nothing--the point of hydraulic bouyancy is that it spread the stress of the weight in all directions. You're not going to get that with a trench on dry land. The fact that this dynamic applies to steel-hulled vessels ought to have clued you to the special circumstance.
Your objections are silly, and show that you know as little of the demands of naval architecture as the silly boys who wrote this story in the first place.
Quote:They could have used coal tar or even copper to plug water leaks.
I didn't say leaks, i said seepage--once again, i was being charitable, because, in fact, that naval abortion would have started the planking withing hours of being the water, and it would have flooding--not leakage or seepage. Coal tar would have been good, and in fact, the common caulking material in the age of sail was "oakum," which is waste fiber from rope making or frayed rope combined with coal tar. Once again, you've missed the point--you've got four geezers and their geezer wives who will have to deal with the seepage, or the actual flooding of the hull, while managing the vessel and the living cargo. This stuff just doesn't sink in with you, does it?
Copper--you propose that they could have attached copper plating while at sea, with all the other duties they'd have had? That would have entailed carrying literally tons of copper in the cargo hold, making the vessel ride even lower in the water (and therefore even more potentially unseaworthy), and drastically reducing the cargo capacity, which is a major objection to this silly boat in the first place.
Quote:They may have used rare wood with special buoyancy properties that are from trees which are extinct today.
You are contradicted by the text, which specifies the wood used. Especially bouyant woods are known, such as balsa. The more bouyant wood is, the less structural strength it has. Once again, you display a nearly complete ignorance of naval architecture in wooden ships (or any type of ships, for that matter).
Quote:Six hundred years is a long time to plan and build a boat.
You are contradicted by the text. He was already a geezer when Jehovah let the contract to him.
Quote:Also who said they could not have hired people to help build it?
You are contradicted by the text. This is hilarious though. "Say, Joshuah, i'm building this really big boat--i mean really big. It's gotta hold seven pairs of every clean beast and two pairs of every unclean beast. I'm in a real bind for labor, think you can help me out?"
"Uhm, maybe . . . say, why do you want this boat?"
"Er, uh . . . no particular reason, i just feel like building one. Hey i'm on a tight schedule here, i gotta have an answer now!"
Quote:Noah's ark is possible as wild and improbable as it may seem. Something of that nature may have really taken place 6000 years ago.
Many things which are improbable are at least putatively possible. The point is that the evidence of the text, apart from numerous contradictions and hilarious stipulations, describes a vessel the survival of which would necessarily defy the physics of hydrodynamics.
Quote:I tend to think it is really quite full of figures and inferences toward the worship of animals and monotheistic realization. But the story though improbable is not totally impossible.
And the figurative message is vital understanding to the spiritually interested.
Science today believes prolonged life is possible too.
Believing that "prolonged life is possible" does not authorize a contention that anyone ever lived to the age of 600 hundred, upon which said individual then built the largest wooden vessel ever built, which absurd dimension attaining to hydraulic suicide, and then packed in tens of thousands of critters (millions when you count
insecta, for a joy ride that lasted at least 197 days (read the text, Rex--that book is your baby not mine, if you decide to ignore what it reads, then you just make yourself look the bigger fool).
That the story is not entirely impossible does not constitute evidence that it ever occured. Improbability is heaped no improbabilty in this tale of amateur geezers building a boat which successfully defies the laws of physics for over six months, if not for over a year altogether.
Your objections are largely based on contradictions of the text of the Bobble. Are you familiar with the word "irony," Rex?
