Noah's Ark an engineering masterpiece!

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:17 am

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...

QED · Post by **QED** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:10 am

kiwimac wrote: Genesis is NOT a scientific account of how the world came into being, it is a story about why.

Alan Richardson wrote:..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...

These two statements seem to be to be at odds with each other. The "why" is well within the purview of cosmology so there can be a profound difference.

kiwimac wrote:It deals with matter beyond the scope of science:

With all respect I can't see how anyone can accurately identify matters that are outside the scope of science. It is not the trivial matter that it's often made out to be.

kiwimac wrote: 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.

Without taking this off-topic I'd like to point out that there are good reasons for people to understand spirits like compassion in mathematical and scientific terms accessible to measurement -- Just so you know that what you are saying is far from obvious.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:20 pm

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.

I am truly, truly sorry, but I find this statement to be nothing less than bizarre. Please elaborate because, as a debater, you have left yourself wide open in a manner I do not think you meant.

kiwimac · Post by **kiwimac** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:37 pm

Cmass wrote:

I am truly, truly sorry, but I find this statement to be nothing less than bizarre. Please elaborate because, as a debater, you have left yourself wide open in a manner I do not think you meant.

What I am saying is that IMO Genesis is a parable. It does not, indeed is not intended to explain the HOW of the cosmos but rather the WHY. All story-telling is a vehicle for a message, whether that message is as simple as "Don't go walking in the woods by yourself" or as complex as "this is why everything is as it is."

As such myth or story carry truths which are not necessarily facts because, unlike a fact, they cannot be measured scientifically. Perhaps the truth might be "prejudice is unacceptable" How do you measure that, how do you weigh it? Is there universally set measure (as there is for example, for the Meter) of where unpleasent personal belief stops and prejudice starts?

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:57 pm

What I am saying is that IMO Genesis is a parable. It does not, indeed is not intended to explain the HOW of the cosmos but rather the WHY. All story-telling is a vehicle for a message, whether that message is as simple as "Don't go walking in the woods by yourself" or as complex as "this is why everything is as it is."

As such myth or story carry truths which are not necessarily facts because, unlike a fact, they cannot be measured scientifically. Perhaps the truth might be "prejudice is unacceptable" How do you measure that, how do you weigh it? Is there universally set measure (as there is for example, for the Meter) of where unpleasent personal belief stops and prejudice starts?

Well done. I'll buy all of this - and give you 10 tokens for it.
However, please think about how your statement might apply directly to my OP. What I THINK you are saying is that it does not matter whether or not the story makes sense; it is the message that the story conveys that is important. No?

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:27 am

kiwimac wrote: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.

I don't require it to be a scientific account. Just a true account and not a myth. The key word in your entire text was STORY. In regards to your example: compassion enobles a human being: this is not truth. This is assumptions. One pesons compassion, may be anothers torture. It is very subjective, not objective so not fact/truth. Compassion can't be weighed, etc because it is subjective.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:02 am

I don't require it to be a scientific account. Just a true account and not a myth.

As is often the case Confused, your prose confounds your screen name. Bravo!

Back to my OP: How many laws of physics have to be broken for this ship to float and does this list affect the beliefs of those who are biblical literalists?

Kiwimac, you sound like JJG I just answered in another post: You have a very liberal view of Christianity. This is less dangerous to the world than fundamentalism and thus I pat you on the virtual back. However, it does often breed flaky, shifting arguments.

kiwimac · Post by **kiwimac** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:55 am

Confused,

Will you nor nil you, it is myth. The problem you seem to be having is that you expect Myth to equal falsehood. It does not. In sociological / anthropological usage myth is the vehicle all societies use to inculturate their young, to pass on the 'truths' of the tribe. Myth is the vehicle for ultimate truth, by which I mean truth about God and humanity's relationship with God. This is not an area science can deal with.

To put it another way science cannot articulate truth about the why of our existence while being able to handily deal with the how. I am not, in saying this, attacking science -- simply pointing out that scientific truth and existential truth are different beasts and it is undoubtedly subjective but so what? Mere subjectivety does not invalidate a truth.

As for your comments about compassion, I think not.

Cmass,

I don't want to seem ungrateful but please I do not need your condescension. I am a liberal, in the opinion of some and moderate in the opinion of others.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:02 am

I don't want to seem ungrateful but please I do not need your condescension.

Yes, you do. It gets your blood boiling which helps you think.

myth is the vehicle all societies use to inculturate their young, to pass on the 'truths' of the tribe.

OK. I'll buy this if you keep it this narrow. Any story true or not can be used to teach things that are true. Good.
But, as I mentioned in your condenscention, this is not a fundamentalists view of the bible. You could use any story biblical or not to teach truths to kids. Religion is not needed for that. In fact, the biblical stories are not nearly as clear (and often far more violent) than modern non-religious childrens books.

Myth is the vehicle for ultimate truth, by which I mean truth about God and humanity's relationship with God.

That is an opinion.

This is not an area science can deal with.

I'm assuming you meant "can't" deal with? Science can help us determine if the story actually happened. It can also help determine what the authors probably actually meant based upon studies of language and culture of the time. Science can also lend a hand in understanding what the human need is for religion and religious stories. As far as dealing with "ultimate truths" you are correct, science by it's very nature does not pretend to know such things. Ultimate truths are in the minds of people who have an opinion as to what they are. They are made up opinions that ignore cultural diversity.

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:45 am

kiwimac wrote:Confused,

Will you nor nil you, it is myth. The problem you seem to be having is that you expect Myth to equal falsehood. It does not. In sociological / anthropological usage myth is the vehicle all societies use to inculturate their young, to pass on the 'truths' of the tribe. Myth is the vehicle for ultimate truth, by which I mean truth about God and humanity's relationship with God. This is not an area science can deal with.

To put it another way science cannot articulate truth about the why of our existence while being able to handily deal with the how. I am not, in saying this, attacking science -- simply pointing out that scientific truth and existential truth are different beasts and it is undoubtedly subjective but so what? Mere subjectivety does not invalidate a truth.

As for your comments about compassion, I think not.

Cmass,

I don't want to seem ungrateful but please I do not need your condescension. I am a liberal, in the opinion of some and moderate in the opinion of others.

I understand what you are saying, Behind every myth, there is some truth. Sure. But the fact that one part is truth doens't mean it is all truth. Who exactly gets to decide what is truth and what isnt'. If the ultimate truth exists, it doesn't need to be clouded in myth/parables, etc.... Just come out and say it without contradictions and without prejudice.

methylatedghosts · Post by **methylatedghosts** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:03 am

I've always thought the Noah's ark story had basis in fact, and there has been evidence that a large flood occured at around the time Noah was around.

There is some evidence that the black sea used to be a fresh water lake - much smaller of course - and that there were villages in the area. Apparantly, something happened to cause the barrier between the medditerranian(sp?) and what is now the black sea to give way and flooded the area. Could this have been the great flood? Maybe the people of the time perceived the world to flood.

During the Ice Age, Ryan and Pitman argue, the Black Sea was an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland.

• About 12,000 years ago, toward the end of the Ice Age, Earth began growing warmer. Vast sheets of ice that sprawled over the Northern Hemisphere began to melt. Oceans and seas grew deeper as a result.

• About 7,000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled. Seawater pushed northward, slicing through what is now Turkey.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/black ... frame.html

This would imply that maybe it wasn't on such a large scale as is portrayed - and that the number of animal species that were on board.

Also, a question: How many of each animal did Noah take aboard the ark?
two?

Wrong. What was one of the first thing Noah did upon getting to dry land?
He sacrificed at least one (sheep maybe? not sure) animal. So then he would've made sheep extinct if there were only two (provided it doesn't state that in the bible - I can't remember). Just thought I'd bring that up, because many people do not actually realise this![/url]