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...

[Goat]

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]

There have been many 'flood' incidences.. there are villigages about the same timeframe at the bottom of the red sea too , if I remember correctly. ALso, there have been massive floods along the tigris too, and in iraq about the time that gilemesh was written. Civilizations tend to form around rivers, due to the source of water, and for transportation of good. Rivers flood every once ina while.

[Cathar1950]

I the Americas there were huge floods at the end of the last ice age. There were also people here and considering how big some of the floods were from glacial lakes I can see why they had stories of a flood too.
The People of Summer had stories and a hero that survived a flood because of one of the gods felt sorry for humans. The gods even regretted not helping after the fact.
The bible's story seems to have been borrowed and adapted.
The Ark does not seem feasible and there doesn't seem to be any evidence for a world wide flood. Yes myths do tell stories and were use to pass on teachings of their culture. But we still have people or groups that believe the myths are facts and try to force the evidence while ignoring others.

[Cmass]

But we still have people or groups that believe the myths are facts and try to force the evidence while ignoring others.

And THIS is where it gets dangerous. Especially when the most powerfull people on the planet use these fairy tales & myths to guide decisions that effect the entire planet.

[QED]

To put it another way science cannot articulate truth about the why of our existence while being able to handily deal with the how.

Why can't science articulate truth about the why of our existence? I've seen a great deal of progress towards this in the last 40 years.

I am not, in saying this, attacking science -- simply pointing out that scientific truth and existential truth are different beasts.

So you keep saying -- but why do you say it? I don't want to accuse you of using empty rhetoric, but I might have to if you continue to ignore my requests for an explanation of your assertions. You must be aware that there is a species of scientist called Cosmologists who are engaged in a concerted effort to discover the "Why".

[Cmass]

Why can't science articulate truth about the why of our existence? I've seen a great deal of progress towards this in the last 40 years.

This is a very good point QED. In fact it is looking at all sorts of "whys" in the universe and at home including how and "why" religion developed in the first place.

[Goat]

To put it another way science cannot articulate truth about the why of our existence while being able to handily deal with the how.

Why can't science articulate truth about the why of our existence? I've seen a great deal of progress towards this in the last 40 years.

I am not, in saying this, attacking science -- simply pointing out that scientific truth and existential truth are different beasts.

So you keep saying -- but why do you say it? I don't want to accuse you of using empty rhetoric, but I might have to if you continue to ignore my requests for an explanation of your assertions. You must be aware that there is a species of scientist called Cosmologists who are engaged in a concerted effort to discover the "Why".

What progress do you see about the question 'why is there something rather than nothing'?

[Confused]

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]

Actually, Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate. It is assumed that he took 7 pairs of each kind of clean animals and according to Genesis 8:20 then Noah built an altar to the Lord and takign some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. So there was No extinction. He only brought a single pair of each unclean animal.

[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...

Focus!!! We arn't debating the science of the flood in this thread. That is one to follow. Scientifically, it has been shown how the animals could have fit onto the ark, but how the ark itself couldn't have been sound enough to be seaworthy. The materials simply didn't exist then, nor did the technology. Unless someone can dispute this, then Cmass, I think it is time to move on to creating your next thread for the flood itself.

[methylatedghosts]

Well, If we go on my previous post about the black sea, there would be alot less animals needed to take on board the ark, considering how it was relatively localised. It would have been the animals from the area Noah lived, would it not?

Therefore, could the ark be more feasible if you didn't need to take animals from africa, europe, asia, the americas etc? Might it only be reffering to the animals that they used? a few sheep, cows, pigs, chickens etc.

Trying to put all the animals in the world on a single boat would be impossible back then - imaging trying to put a moa - NZ's extinct flightless bird - standing 4m (13ft) tall, and weighing 275kg (600lb), or even it's predator, the Haast eagle - Harpagornis moorei, the largest eagle ever known with a wing span of ten feet and talons as big as tiger's claws. That'd be horrible to keep aboard a boat for 40days and 40 nights, or however many it was!

[QED]

What progress do you see about the question 'why is there something rather than nothing'?

This is getting wildly off-topic so I'll just answer with a quote to demonstrate that I'm not just making this up . If you want to explore this further then can I suggest looking for another topic that's already debating this matter or start one afresh.

“Many philosophers past and present think that the question of why something exists rather than nothing is unscientific. Some have claimed that the question is meaningless because it could never, even in principle, be answered. Others have claimed that the question lies in the realm of metaphysics, forever beyond the reach of science.
Science has proved these philosophers wrong. Modern science has not ignored the question of why something exists rather than nothing. For the first time ever, the question has a possible scientific answer based on the idea that because nothingness is unstable, the universe necessarily exists. Why is there something rather than nothing? Ultimately, because something – the universe – necessarily exists”
[Daniel Kolak and Raymond Martin, Wisdom Without Answers: A Guide to the Experience of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1991, pp. 79-80.