real life wrote:I do not know if supernatural intervention was required to keep the Ark afloat.
Neither do you.
I have a well-informed opinion that the dimensions specified for that vessel describe a vessel which was dangerously unseaworthy. If it were to remain afloat, it would need extraordinary motive power, either sweeps or sails. Since there were only eight crew members, and leaving aside their "geezerhood," it makes the probability that the "Ark" could have swum just about nil. We are exchanging opinions here, and mine is informed by an intimate knowledge (albeit and admittedly amateur) of naval architecture in wooden vessels. Your opinion is founded on a desire to "prove" that the bobble is inerrant. You've brought a paring knife to a gun fight.
Quote:That is my point. You are guessing regarding the Ark's construction and seaworthiness.
No, i'm relying upon the biblical text, to which you refer below. As to it's seaworthiness, that is the point of my constant references to the stipulated dimensions. It describes an almost fatally narrow and shallow vessel. For even well-founded large wooden ships to swim safely, they required large crews--12 to 20 men on a watch, with three rotations, at the least. You've got eight geezers, four of whom were women (the reference being that they were likely smaller and weaker) to handle a vessel larger than the largest wooden vessel ever built in historical times. You're cherry-picking again, and ignoring the totality of the argument i advance against this silly boat.
Quote:All we know from the text is the external dimensions, and that it had three decks.
You want me to answer your guesses point-by-point with guesses of my own, but that I won't do.
And as i have pointed out again and again, the ratio of the dimensions describe a vessel which will roll horribly, and which will be subject to the starting of the planks from hogging, which will be exacerbated in a vessel of that size.
Quote:Your guesses regarding the actual design of the ship, the number of animals, how it was caulked, the bracing of the ship, whether it had sweeps or sails, the conditions at sea, etc are based on air.
The "guess" about the design of the ship is based on the stipulated dimensions, and then compared to human experience with wooden ships. It is referential to the physics of hydrodynamic, which is not a matter of guessing. For such a vessel to swim, it needs sails or sweeps. Sails would require a crew of at least ten times the size of the crew stipulated, and would need crew members who were young, healthy and strong--not geezers alleged to be more than a half millenium old. If sweeps, you'd need an even larger crew. Of course, you could stipulate that Noah had a diesel enging (insert rolly-eyed emoticon here), in which case, half or more of the hold space would have been needed for fuel, further reducing the space for all the beasts and their fodder (keep in mind that the text does stipulate that food for the beasts was to be taken on board.
The number of animals is not a guess, either. The contentions of young earth creationists require you to have every species now known, plus all fossilized species known, on board. It is not a guess that the numbers for that run into the tens of thousands, exclusive of insects. The order
insecta adds more than a million examples of seven pairs of every species. You have attempted to dodge that by claiming that the definition of species is blurred, and that what scientist refer to as species is inexact, and could result from cross-breeding. That is scientifically false, which is germane to a discuss of "Bible v. Science." Additionally, another favorite dodge of yours, about hull bracing, serves to drastically reduce available hull space--which makes it even more implausible that the old geezer got seven pairs of "clean" beasts and two pairs of "unclean" beasts in the "Ark."
The point about bracing is not whether or not it could have been braced so as to reduce seepage from the hull planks starting. It refers to the available space in the cargo hold. I have referred to
Wyoming, the largest wooden veseel built in historical times, which is still smaller than the "Ark," given 18" for a cubit. If you specify a cubit which is smaller, you once again drastically reduce available hold space.
Wyoming had steel bracing internally to reduce hogging and the starting of the planks, but nevertheless, had such significant seepage that there was a steam pump on board to constantly pump water out of the bilge. Do you now wish to suggest that old Noah invented steam power, and had a pump constantly in operation? You've just reduced the hold space again by the amount of fuel which would have been necessary to operate the pump.
The conditions of the sea are informed by the scripture as well. It was raining for forty days and nights to cover the face of the earth. You'd need one hell of a constant storm to accomplish that in just forty days and nights. Additionally, once the earth was covered with water, you're going to have some monstrous ground swell (translation: constant gigantic waves). The "Southern Ocean" is a term used to describe the waters around Antarctica. In the Southern Ocean, the sea condistions are always very heavy. That is because a wave which starts east of Cape Horn runs completely around the globe until it reaches the west side of Cape Horn. If the earth were covered with water, waves would being running constantly around the globe, and the "Ark" can be reasonable said to have launched at or near Palestine--which puts it in a region of the globe much closer to the equator than the Southern Ocean, which means even more drastically gigantic waves. There can be no doubt that the "Ark" was swimming in dangerous waters based on the scripture. You can claim otherwise, but you'll have to deny science, which is the point of this thread.
There is no "air" in pointing out obvious flaws in the story. You continue to attempt to ignore the totality of the improbability. You've got a vessel which is dangerously narrow in relation to its length and draft. From that it is scientifically valid to infer very poor handling properties, and the absolute necessity of sails or sweeps to keep it alive at sea. You've only got eight geezers to handle the largest wooden vessel ever known (if, in fact, it ever were known). Additionally, you've only got slightly more than 10,000 tons of hull space for seven pairs of every "clean" beast and two pairs of every "unclean" beast, and all of their fodder. You've only got eight geezers to feed those beast, and remove the manure. Your references to hull bracing do not serve to prevent seepage, only to reduce it. Nevertheless, you've got eight geezers to bail or pump out the water in the bilge, while handling the vessel, and feeding all the beasts and removing the manure. Your objection about caulking is just silly--i was more than happy to stipulate Rex's speculation about caulking, because it was so close to what was done historically. You've got eight geezers to constantly renew the caulking, while bailing or pumping, while feeding all the beasts, and removing the manure (you surely don't want to suggest that these beasts did not sh!t, do you?), and while handling the vessel. That is why i object to your cherry-picking individual points of objection. The sum of all the objections is to remove the concept of these eight geezers building this vessel, handling the vessel at sea (even in calm waters, it needs to be "sailed" to avoid broaching and capsizing--and a vessel such as described would sink like a stone if it broached), bailing or pumping water out of the bilge, caulking the started planking, feeding all the beasts and removing the manure--i say removes the concept to the realm of the surreal and the silly. I'm not surprised that you object to answering all the charges against this fairy tale, to do so, you're going to be obliged to invoke the supernatural, very much to the point of this thread.
Quote:I will not pretend that my guesses carry the weight of scripture, just as you shouldn't pretend that your guesses invalidate it.
You want to make an airtight case that the Ark could not have been seaworthy under any circumstance.
No, you apparently missed my earlier reference to the Santa Claus thesis. It isn't necessary to prove that reindeer can't fly, or that there are no elves working in sweat shops at the North Pole, one can simply demonstrate that Santa Claus cannot possibly visit all of the Christian households in the northern hemisphere between sundown Christmas Eve to sunrise Christmas morning.
Applying the same principle here, i am asking the questions: how can eight geezers claimed to be more than a half millenium old be expected to build the vessel, collect and stow all the fodder for all the beasts (are you going to tell me know that tons of hay gathered itself for them?), round up all the beasts (remember, stipulating that your god made the beasts come to Noah invokes the supernatural), put to sea and handle the vessel, including handling sails or sweeps, bailing or pumping all of the water, caulking the planks which have started, feed all the beasts and remove all the manure? I don't have to "prove a negative"--all i have to do, and what i have been doing, is to point out the absurdity of the thesis that eight quincentenarians could have managed the task.
Quote:You are miles away from a convincing case, but you're welcome to keep trying to prove a negative, if you so desire.
I've already made a convincing case. I know that i would have miles to go to convince
you--but i'm not such a fool as to believe that you will ever stop desparately clinging to your "inerrant" bobble, so i don't care if you believe. I'm discussing the topic, "Bible v. Science," and the flood story is one that falls flat in such an arena. FM can tear you up on the geological evidence, even if you trot out your fraud, Mr. Morris (especially if you bring that fool in). I'm just doing the same thing from the point of view of naval architecture, hydordynamics and the realities of sailing wooden vessels.
Quote:Hope you are having a great day.
Marvelous, thank you--especially when i get to do this.
