Bible vs. Science

megamanXplosion Wrote:



Oh, I see. If one does this critical thinking then one will obviously come to the same conclusion as you have! So, what you are actually saying is you are right and everyone that disagrees with this is wrong??

Actually, the concept of the rapture is supported by the Bible in my opinion. The word rapture is not in the Bible however. So, perhaps you need to do a little more extensive and comprehensive research????

The point is, you are saying that if anyone actually studied the Bible as you have (and apparently Timber by his post) then and only then they will have studied it extensively and comprehensively enough because they would no longer believe if they did? Unbelievable.

For those who are interested here's a site that explains rapture and the Biblical references. It's a conservative Christian site.

http://www.rapturechrist.com/rapture2.htm

By the way, are the folks who wrote this stuff doing critical thinking or just memorizing.

One does have to approach the Bible as not sacred and with critical thought, not any differently than judging a book, a movie, a play, et al. Out of four stars, I'd give it two-and-a-half for entertainment even if the plot is preposterous.

(Hey, wait, that could be a review of "The Da Vinci Code")

And reproach is what you'll get. If it is necessary to invoke that which is supernatural, you have left the realm of science. That's pretty much the point here.

Because you cannot sustain such a contention without reference to the supernaturl, you become particularist. Your scripture becomes meaningful only to those who adhere to a particular belief set--it is therefore inappropriate as a basis for law or even general custom in a pluralistic and secular state. Not only does it violate a principle of secularism, it is particularistically offensive to those who do not adhere to that belief set.

For whatever reason Xingu has for starting this thread, my reason to respond to it is to emphasize that the bobble is not an acceptable basis for a pluralistic and secular state.



There are those who might be called "common men" who do not subscribe to the belief set reliant upon a stipulation that the bobble is the literal, inerrant revealed truth. So long as that is so, it is an offense in this pluralistic and secular society to require of them that they accept appeals to that authority as a basis for law or social custom.

Exactly, which is why i object to the religious particularism of fundamentalists christians in the United States. When that dipsh!t in Alabama tried to put up a monument to the ten commandments in a courthouse, apparently he and his supporters were not even aware that there is more than one version of those ten commandments. Therefore, not only was that particularism an offense to those who do not subscribe to a biblically-based creed, it was an offense to those who do, but who hold that that text was in error.

So, once again, the point of objecting to the bobble as a basis for law or custom in a pluralistic, secular state is, among other equally as valid reason, that the particularism is not even common to all christians, let alone all citizens who are religiously convinced, let alone all citizens, period.

Are you saying that you are a Southern Baptist?

I suppose that is what you use when you refer to this bobble that you speak of.

This thread has become hilarious--you got Intrepid and Snood rushing in to drop off snotty remarks about other members who are involved in the discussion, without acutally discussing the topic themselves. That happens just before and immediately after they have mounted their high horses to ride around deploring the tone of other members.

You've got Rex wandering so far afield in his trademark maundering that he has stipuated for polytheism (good work Joe, satire reigns!). AM has wasted literally thousands of words to derail the thread (an effort at which she has been commendably successful) with the tedious reputation of "well, that's just what i believe," but then she truly puts her foot in it with the introduction of Jack Van Impe. Now that was sublimely hilarious.



Whoo Hoo ! ! ! You can't beat free entertainment like that.

Meanwhile, of course, Frank and Megaman stalk the wild religionists as only they know how.

It was worth reading every page of this nonsense.

Now that the all knowing and self appointed dictator of truth and justice has spoken, we can get back to what and why this thread was started. Or, maybe not.

It is, however, quite amusing that the king of sling sees in others what he cannot see in himself. Pity.

Now, Neo......

I've no doubt that Timber is smart... Probably you share that perception also.

Objective and dispassionate? Weeeeeeeeelllllllllll, no.

It's a pity that you cannot see the hilarious irony of calling for people to "get back to what and why this thread was started." You have done so little discussion of the topic as to have the character not only of someone who missed the bus, but who was hit and knocked to the pavement by said bus.

If you have contributions to make to the topic "Bible v. Science," by all means, regale us.

Say, let's see a show of hands, how many of you have Jack Van Impe as a home boy?

Rex, Neo, "real life," Intrepid, Snood?

Yes, if they think about the issues critically then they will come to the same conclusion as I have. Feel free to create an argument that overturns my claim that the Ten Commandments were derived from the Code of Hammurabi and Hindu Vedas, that overturns my claim that the name Jesus Christ was derived from Jezeus Krishna and that was derived from Horus KRST, that answers the symbolism of the repeated use of the number 12 throughout the Bible, that overturns my claim that Moses' childhood was based on Jezeus Krishna, and so on. I would love to see if you are actually capable of studying the Bible in a critical, unapologetically-honest, way.



Why is it unbelievable? Remember: the authority of the Bible has not been established so the authority argument will not work and the faith argument will not work because it is uncritical, apologetic, and biased. Present some hard evidence that justifies why such a claim is unbelievable.



I give it half a star for entertainment. There's only so much homophobia, baby-smashing, witch-killing, genocide, and incest that one can find entertaining before it loses its "appeal." It gets rather boring, rather quickly.



Don't talk about my dawg homey.

Every time I come in to town
Snood starts kickin' my dog around
It don't make no difference if he is a hound
He gotta stop kickin' my dog around . . .

First, I am glad to see you admit that the size is not an issue and I agree.

Your focus now seems to be on the proportions.

Henry Morris, a professor of hydrology and author of the Genesis Flood, has studied and written extensively on this, and doesn't share your opinion that the Ark would under no circumstance prove seaworthy.

Setanta, I don't doubt for a moment your knowledge of American sailing vessels.

But you assume that the Ark wasn't designed with the proper cross members to stabilize it, etc when all you really know about it is the outside dimensions.

You have no evidence regarding the interior construction (what it was or even what it was claimed to be, because those subjects were not addressed in the text). In short, you are guessing.

Hope you are having a great day.

I don't have homeboys of any description, sorry.

megamanXplosion Wrote:



And I would love to see if you are actually capable of getting your point across without throwing in a little jab?

Guess we'd both feel we would be disappointed in each other, huh?

Once one person decides they are right and the other is wrong, there's nothing left to discuss. You made it very clear from your very first .....extensive and comprehensive........statement.

I am also sorry to disappoint.

Trot out your boy's evidence in detail any time you would like to do so. I would be at pains to warn you though, that debunking Mr. Morris' hilarious claims has become a cottage industry, up to an including his claims of credientials as "a professor of hydrology." It is also significant that he is the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, which bills itself as a "Christ-focused Creation Ministry." Mr. Morris received a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Rice University in 1939--that does not equate to a claim that he is a "professor of hydrology." Mr. Morris' claims to expertise were based on "flood geology," and not naval architecture--and he has no demonstrable credentials in geology, either.

I've compared the vessel to American frigates because they represented extreme examples of wooden sailing vessels with high rations of length to breadth at the beam and draft at the load-waterline. The reason that i chose to do so--apart from the data for those vessels being readily available--is because they were exceptionally narrow vessels by the standards of their day, and yet were both seaworthy, and had exceptional bracing against the effects of hogging.

Any stipuations of internal bracing for "the Ark" are speculative, because there is not a scriptural basis for such stipulations--and this thread concerns itself specifically with the text of the bobble--so your boy Morris is, in fact, the one who is guessing. Furthermore, as i have pointed out many, many times, increasing the internal bracing adds to the weight of wood, and therfore the stress on the hull, and significantly decreases the the cargo capacity, which is a significant issue. It you want to claim that it was well-braced internally, i have no problem with that. I will point out, however, that you have no textual evidence, and point out to you that the more bracing there were internally, the less cargo space there were.

The dimensions show a vessel which is as 6:1, length to breadth at the beam (300:50). Constitution was less than 5:1, at 204 feet in lenght to 42.5 feet at the beam. Additionally, we have a vessel which is described as being 30 cubits in height. That is a clue right there, by the way, that the authors knew nothing of sailing vessels. The pertinent question is how much water does the vessel draw. If "the Ark," fully laden, drew two thirds of its height, it would draw 30 feet (based on an 18" cubit)--and that is a ratio of 2.5:1 in draft as compared to breadth at the beam. Constitution fully laden drew 22.5 feet--which is a ration just less than 2:1 in comparison to it's breadth at the beam.

Regardless of the dimension specified for a cubit, this is a description of a drastically, and very likely a fatally, unstable vessel. All ships at sea are subject to universal stress on support members--meaning that they are stressed in every direction thoughout 360 degees on a plane continguous with the surface of still water, and from above and below as well. An infinite series of lines of equal length drawn from any part of a support member would describe a sphere. This is because three types of motion affect the vessel and all of its support members. Vessels "pitch," which means that they rock back and forth along the centerline due to the motion of the waves as the vessel passes through the water (if the waves are passing the vessel as it lies in the water, it is doomed at the outset). The vessel also rocks from side to side, and that is known as "roll." Finally, the combined effect of pitch and roll produce "yaw," which means that the any point on the vessel describes a figure of eight relative to a stationary point immediately above it. If you were flying in a helicopter above a sailing vessel at night with a navigational light at the truck (the top plate) of the mast, you would see the light describe a figure of eight.

The narrower a vessel is, the more it is subject to roll, and the more endangered it becomes by swamping from the effects of yaw. The vessel described is extraordinarily narrow, narrower by far that Constitution and her sister ships, which were already the most extraordinarily narrow warships ever built. I have already pointed out that warships were much "sleeker," much narrower than cargo vessels, because hold space could be sacrified to performance.

The "Ark" which you wish to purport were real was essentially a cargo vessel, and which intended to ship an extraordinary amount of cargo, especially as its capacity is so small. The dimensions given, if referential to an 18" "cubit" yields just over 10,000 tons--not the 15,000 tons which Morris erroneously refers to (given that he lied constantly about geology in his "flood geology" thesis, i'm not surprised to find that he lies about this, as well). And that calculation does not consider whether or not there were internal bracing, which would further reduce the capacity of the vessel.

My point has been that the vessel were unseaworthy based on the dimension, because of performance. The internal bracing which would have been needed to reduce hogging, and prevent a fatal shipping of water from the starting to the hull planks was a separate issue. When Rex attempted to say that the geezers on board could have "stopped leaks" with coal tar (he wanted the word bitumen), i not only accepted that, i pointed out that the use of hemp fiber combined with coal tar produced oakum, which is what was used to caulk the vessel. My point in reference to that was that you've got four old geezer and their geezer wives to do all the caulking (a constant procedure, which wasn't a problem on a frigate--Constitution's complement numbered about 500 (it varied), which, exclusive of officers, midship, ship's boys, ship's specialists (such as the cook, carpenter, sail maker, rigger, etc.), and marines, still leaves more than 300 men, and at least 100 men available on any given watch--but is more than hilariously improbable for these eight superannuated landlubbers. They'd not have time and hands enough to keep up with the normal seepage in a vessel the size of Constitution, let alone a behemoth such as this is described as being. They also would have had all the other duties necessary to the living cargo, as well as handling the vessel.

And it it the performance of the vessel which becomes the issue here. The vessel is going to roll far more than a vessel with more sensible dimensions, which exacerbates hogging and other causes of the hull planks starting, which leads us back to seepage. The seepage means that the hull will constantly have to be caulked, and the water pumped or bailed. If bailed, you are sunk, because a crew the size of that on board Constitution would be hard pressed to bail rather than pump in heavy waters, when vessels ship water onboard over the deck.

There is no stipulation in the text for a motive power. Any ship, even modern ships built of steel, must move forward through the water to avoid broaching in even moderate seas, nevermind the heavy seas implied by forty days of storm. So, if this "Ark" is going to swim, it either needed sweeps or sails. So now you've got four old geezers, and their geezer wives, to feed the living cargo and heave the manure overboard (lest the smallest passenters--pathogens--start killing off the beasts), to caulk the hull planks when they inevitably start, to bail or pump out the water which seeps and which comes on board through normal pitch, roll and yaw through the waves, and to handle the sweeps (oh please, i'm busting a gut here), or the sails. Without sails or sweeps, she is doomed to founder in the first heavy seas she encounters.

The proportions of the vessel, without regard to internal bracing, are of a vessel which will roll extraordinarily, drastically increasing the effects of yaw. With internal bracing, the cargo space is drastically reduced, and the weight of wood putting stress on structural members (which would necessarily be proportionally smaller in such a narrow vessel), so that it's a toss-up whether the reduction of hogging would not have been negated by the additional stress to start the planks at the strakes. Without that internal bracing, hogging would have been fatal. Without significant motive power from sweeps or sails, she'd broach, roll over and sink like a stone.

You try to cherry-pick an issue. You refer to a man who has no credentials as a hydraulic engineer or a naval architect, and who habitually lies about his credentials and about geology. Why should i believe he knows anything about naval architecture?

Neo is at least honest enough to invoke supernatural aid. All of the considerations of this silly set of design specifications combined spell suicice at sea. That probably accounts for why Neo invokes supernatural aid. You need to do so, your efforts to sustain a contention that such a vessel could have safely swum for at least 197 days are going to fall flat. Stop the cherry-picking, by the way--address all of the issues of why i claim this is an absurdity, and not just one at a time. I know that is a favorite technique of yours, you've demonstrated it time and again. I'm not going to let you get away with it, though.