Noah's Ark an engineering masterpiece!

[Cmass]

What assumptions must be made. Part 1:

What scientific and engineering assumptions must we make about the story of Noah's Ark that would render the story a true fact?
* Can we make assumptions that are based soundly in science that could render the story plausible?
* What gaps in the story must we fill in?
* Christians, what assumptions have you made about the flood story that has kept it alive for you over the years?

We could discuss the science of the flood - but I think it would help to concentrate on one thing at a time: In this case the ship itself and it's ability to contain all the animals 2 by 2 and deal with waves and being shipwrecked on a mountain etc...

[Cmass]

Quote:
I have seen that used as evidence. The reason animals hibernate today is because it is a throw back to when God had to put them all asleep in the Ark.


Are you serious? I have not heard that before. Laughing

Yes I have read it in some Creationist books.
More then twice.

OK then, I guess we will add that to the list!
Divinely induced hibernation for all animals.
------

he reason animals hibernate today is because it is a throw back to when God had to put them all asleep in the Ark.

What about animals that don't hibernate today?

[Cathar1950]

I just did a google hit on " Creationist hybernation flood" and got bacl over 379,000 hits.
I don't remember reading any of these. I read it in some books on creationism.

[Cathar1950]

Quote:
I have seen that used as evidence. The reason animals hibernate today is because it is a throw back to when God had to put them all asleep in the Ark.


Are you serious? I have not heard that before. Laughing

Yes I have read it in some Creationist books.
More then twice.

OK then, I guess we will add that to the list!
Divinely induced hibernation for all animals.
------

he reason animals hibernate today is because it is a throw back to when God had to put them all asleep in the Ark.

What about animals that don't hibernate today?

They had to feed them or knock them out.
Maybe they feed them some of the sleeping animal. Maybe he didn't bring them in two by two but that is what came out.

[Cathar1950]

You think God can't knock out a bunch of animals just because he could not provide a force field around each of the animals and people he wanted to save so he had Noah build a boat with plans?
Where is your faith in God's abilities?

[Confused]

What assumptions must be made. Part 1:

What scientific and engineering assumptions must we make about the story of Noah's Ark that would render the story a true fact?
* Can we make assumptions that are based soundly in science that could render the story plausible?
* What gaps in the story must we fill in?
* Christians, what assumptions have you made about the flood story that has kept it alive for you over the years?

We could discuss the science of the flood - but I think it would help to concentrate on one thing at a time: In this case the ship itself and it's ability to contain all the animals 2 by 2 and deal with waves and being shipwrecked on a mountain etc...

Ok, lets tackle this one at a time:
Here are the pros and cons I have found:

1) Unfortunately, the ark was made of cypress wood and pitch. A 450 ft long boat could hardly float under its own weight under calm waters let alone if we added the bulk to be carried on the ark and put it under extreme conditions. It would require iron reinforcement and constant pumping for it be effective (neither of witch existed back then). Also the pitch used wouldn't make it leak proof. Not to mention that any wooden vessel must be allowed to swell for a period of time in water before it would be considered sea worthy. The ark had no such time. http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/ ... Flood.html.

2) The intial size of the the ark was 450 ft long, 75 ft wide, and 45 ft high. According to calculations in The Genesis Flood, by Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, page 69, the Ark could hold the equivalent of 522 standard two-decked railroad stock cars. Now, it would be possible to hold the animals mentioned in Genesis if the animals god sent to Noah were not full grown. To carry the no more than 35,000 estimated individual vertebrate animals, the average size being that of a sheep, would require no more than 146 such railroad cars. So it might be possible to carry these animals. Also, it the animals were not full grown, they would require less feed. Westarkchurchof christ.org/library/noahsark.htm. Unfortunately there is the inconsitency of the amt of animals brought onto the ark, some quote a male and female of each species, while other say 7 pairs of each "clean animals" male and female, and for "unclean animals" only a male and female. Don't know what is considered clean vs unclean, but it could significantly effect the amount of animals on board.

3) Getting the animals on the ark: Fortunately for Noah, he did not have to search the world and capture them. God caused these animals and birds to come to Noah. (Gen. 6:20).

4) Not enough space for food and supplies. If we estimate that only 146 of the 522 standard two-deck railroad stock cars were required for animals, then it is easy to see that there is enough space for food.

5) Water: well, if it rained enough, it would be easy to dilute the salt water to make it drinkable for the ark occupants, also it is possible to collect the water needed during the rain.

6) caring for animals: once again, if they were not full grown, then we don't have the worries of aggression, especially related to when they go into heat, and if god can calm the seas, why not animals as well. There is also the possibility that natural sedatives could have been given, but for all these animals to be caged up for the 40 days of rain/flood and then the 150 days it took for the waters to recede, I fail to see how noah, his wife, his three sons, and his three sons wives could have cared for them all.

7) Also, the close quarters increases the likelihood of disease. It would have spread quite quickly. How this could have been prevented would require more safety measures than Noah had available.

8) Genesis says that once god started the rains, he sealed noah and the animals etc in the boat, but after the waters receded, somehow Noah, and Noah alone supposedly opened this alone. Not possible for a single man.

9) Genesis implies it took 7 days to load all the animals, the food, and people. I am not sure even with the help of divinity this would be possible.


These are examples of both pros and cons. While it is possible to rectify the animal situation, the ark itself cannot be scientifically built with the resources available then and still be sea worthy.

[Cmass]

Confused,
This is awesome work!!
A+ and 10 tokens for you!

[kiwimac]

The thing about Genesis is that it is not science, it is parable. Genesis springs out of the thoughts and meditations of the authors and redactors of the book.

To insist that in order for it to be TRUTH it must be FACT is to ignore parable / myth as a vehicle for those truths which are too deep for fact.

IMO

Kiwimac

[Confused]

The thing about Genesis is that it is not science, it is parable. Genesis springs out of the thoughts and meditations of the authors and redactors of the book.

To insist that in order for it to be TRUTH it must be FACT is to ignore parable / myth as a vehicle for those truths which are too deep for fact.

IMO

Kiwimac

So what exactly are you saying here? I don't recall hearing anything like "the parable of Noah" or the "parable of the Ark". I recall, "noahs account of the flood". So did noah just meditate about the flood? I have no clue where you are going here.

Now, in order for something to be true, it must be a fact. A parable/myth is neither truth nor fact. It is analogies. None of that is to deep for fact. If anything, it is to open to interpretation, therefore subjective. Not objective.

[Confused]

Hybernation guys.
I have seen that used as evidence. The reason animals hybernate today is because it is a throw back to when God had to put them all asleep in the Ark. It is all so clear. Hbernation means no food needed or clean up because you would have a bunch of fat sleeping animals. And you can stack them.

I should write for a Christian think-tank.

Nowhere does it say anything about hybernation. As a matter of fact, there would be no need to stock supplies for them because feed wouldn't be needed. But regardless, you couldn't use science to bridge the gap here if you are claiming divine intervention.

[kiwimac]

Confused writes:

So what exactly are you saying here? I don't recall hearing anything like "the parable of Noah" or the "parable of the Ark". I recall, "noahs account of the flood". So did noah just meditate about the flood? I have no clue where you are going here.

Now, in order for something to be true, it must be a fact. A parable/myth is neither truth nor fact. It is analogies. None of that is to deep for fact. If anything, it is to open to interpretation, therefore subjective. Not objective

Genesis is NOT a scientific account of how the world came into being, it is a story about why. It deals with matter beyond the scope of science: it's theme is humanity's awareness of their existence in the presence of God, their dependence upon and responsibilities towards God.

The authors / redactors of Genesis deal with this topic in religious symbols, using parables and metaphors. Truth is not summed up solely in facts, an example, "Compassion enobles a human-being", this is a truth, it cannot be a fact. Compassion cannot be weighed, cannot be measured underneath a microscope or seen with even the best optical instruments but almost all of us KNOW when it is absent in someone's make-up.

Let me quote

" ... Men still go to war or make love from the same motives and with the same passions as in the days of old; they marry and give in marriage as in the days of Noah. That is why the ancient dramatists, prophets and poets can tell us just as much about our real human existence as can the modern ones -- and it makes no difference at all whether they believe in a Ptolemaic or a Copernican or an Einsteinian cosmology... A great tragedy, a prophetic insight, a profound philosophy, opens a window upon truth which the passage of time will never darken..."

Richardson, Alan. Genesis I-XI: Introduction and Commentary. SCM Press, 1953, pp. 37-38.