The Ark has crashed

[Zzyzx]

.
The Ark has crashed

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... so-harbour

[rikuoamero]

Oh look, a wooden ship, while in calm waters, struck something hard and got seriously damaged, threatening the lives of anyone or anything that might have been inside.

Now, creationists, take a look at the photo in that news article. Now pretend that that is the 'real' Ark. Explain how the 'real' Ark is seaworthy, especially in a GLOBAL storm?

I'm not scientific proof creationist. However, since we are noting differences between this situation and what one would expect in the biblical flood, how many three story metal coast guard ship would one expect the ark to have run into in the time of Noach?

Notice in my post I didn't specify what the 'something hard' was. The only criteria there is that it be...well hard. Now imagine the 'real' Ark in stormy weather. Surely you can imagine it being struck by something hard, possibly going at speed. Is the Ark still somehow seaworthy in your eyes?

[bluethread]

Notice in my post I didn't specify what the 'something hard' was. The only criteria there is that it be...well hard. Now imagine the 'real' Ark in stormy weather. Surely you can imagine it being struck by something hard, possibly going at speed. Is the Ark still somehow seaworthy in your eyes?

As I said, I'm not a scientific proof creationist. However, the trend of this thread was becoming very apparent. 'Something hard' is hardly the same as a three story metal coast guard ship. The vagary of the critical evidence, combined with the strong objection to my pointing an important detail, that doesn't fit the narrative, definitely supports the OP's decision to post this in the general chat forum. So, as I said to Zz, proceed with the one sided evaluation. Knock yourself out.

[Zzyzx]

.

As I said, I'm not a scientific proof creationist. However, the trend of this thread was becoming very apparent. 'Something hard' is hardly the same as a three story metal coast guard ship. The vagary of the critical evidence, combined with the strong objection to my pointing an important detail, that doesn't fit the narrative, definitely supports the OP's decision to post this in the general chat forum. So, as I said to Zz, proceed with the one sided evaluation. Knock yourself out.

Many of our debates become one-sided when Theistic claims and stories cannot be supported with verifiable evidence -- when all that is offered is conjecture based on supposition based on unverifiable ancient tales.

The supposed ark would have had the opportunity to encounter MANY hard objects far larger than a Coast Guard Ship -- such as mountains (many greater than the height of a one thousand story building).

Unless the ark was built on the peak of the highest mountain (in 100 years by a 500 year old man), when water started to rise (according to the story) it would have floated. When it did there would have been higher elevations that were not yet flooded.

There is no mention of provision for propulsion or navigation -- and a crew of eight could not be expected to maneuver a boat larger than any wooden boat ever constructed (and presumably manned by many experienced sailors). A 450 foot long boat is equal to the length of "Liberty Ships" of WWII -- that carried a crew of sixty. Picture eight people trying to maneuver a ship that size without modern equipment and no known means of propulsion.

Yes, the discussion of the ark and the flood gets one-sided because NOTHING of the tale makes sense or squares with what is known of the real world.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
The Ark has crashed

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... so-harbour

I guess it's lucky for the survival of our species, and every land dwelling species on the planet, that Noah was not Norwegian.

[Kenisaw]

Notice in my post I didn't specify what the 'something hard' was. The only criteria there is that it be...well hard. Now imagine the 'real' Ark in stormy weather. Surely you can imagine it being struck by something hard, possibly going at speed. Is the Ark still somehow seaworthy in your eyes?

As I said, I'm not a scientific proof creationist. However, the trend of this thread was becoming very apparent. 'Something hard' is hardly the same as a three story metal coast guard ship. The vagary of the critical evidence, combined with the strong objection to my pointing an important detail, that doesn't fit the narrative, definitely supports the OP's decision to post this in the general chat forum. So, as I said to Zz, proceed with the one sided evaluation. Knock yourself out.

And the ark would definite have been moving at speed, given the calculations at ICR. You need water with velocity to remove all that sediment on the continents and place it globe wide for all the sediment layers to happen. So the ark, a steerless vessel, with all those trees floating around, would have been running into stuff all the time while moving at a substantial clip.

Al the more reason to consider the biblical flood tale to be a preposterous notion...

[bluethread]

.

As I said, I'm not a scientific proof creationist. However, the trend of this thread was becoming very apparent. 'Something hard' is hardly the same as a three story metal coast guard ship. The vagary of the critical evidence, combined with the strong objection to my pointing an important detail, that doesn't fit the narrative, definitely supports the OP's decision to post this in the general chat forum. So, as I said to Zz, proceed with the one sided evaluation. Knock yourself out.

Many of our debates become one-sided when Theistic claims and stories cannot be supported with verifiable evidence -- when all that is offered is conjecture based on supposition based on unverifiable ancient tales.

The supposed ark would have had the opportunity to encounter MANY hard objects far larger than a Coast Guard Ship -- such as mountains (many greater than the height of a one thousand story building).

Unless the ark was built on the peak of the highest mountain (in 100 years by a 500 year old man), when water started to rise (according to the story) it would have floated. When it did there would have been higher elevations that were not yet flooded.

There is no mention of provision for propulsion or navigation -- and a crew of eight could not be expected to maneuver a boat larger than any wooden boat ever constructed (and presumably manned by many experienced sailors). A 450 foot long boat is equal to the length of "Liberty Ships" of WWII -- that carried a crew of sixty. Picture eight people trying to maneuver a ship that size without modern equipment and no known means of propulsion.

Yes, the discussion of the ark and the flood gets one-sided because NOTHING of the tale makes sense or squares with what is known of the real world.

None of this is known. Sure all of these things do occur, but the certainty of them happening to one ship in the vast expanse of the current oceans, let alone a larger expanse, is like arguing that the foil thin lunar lander or even the metal of the Apollo space ship could not have survived the moon landing because there are planets and asteroids out there. You are arguing probabilities, not facts. Sure, if multiple arks had been built in a variety of places, statistically, it is likely that such an accident would have occurred. However, probability is useless when one is looking at a singular incident.

If one does not wish to believe the ark story, that is fine. However, this argument is merely speculation supported by a misuse of probability, based on an anecdotal incident. As you have eluded to, those on your side give no quarter to this kind of speculation from the other side.

[Zzyzx]

.

None of this is known.

Agreed. NONE of the story is known. It is just a tale told by ancient storytellers and religion promoters.

The story CLAIMS a certain size for the ark and the number of crewmen (four men and four women).

You are arguing probabilities, not facts.

Correction: I am arguing that

1) No wooden ship of that size has ever been known to have been constructed, even in relatively modern times using iron supports,

2) The largest known wooden ships, though not as large, were considered NOT seaworthy.

3) There would have been many “hard objects� subject to collision between the time the ark lifted off and the maximum flooding (“to the tops of mountains� supposedly forty days later),

4) with no known means of propulsion or steering the ark could not have been steered away from mountains,

5) A worldwide sea would be extremely violent – and make the present infamous “Roaring Forties� near Antarctica mild by comparison.

Sure, if multiple arks had been built in a variety of places, statistically, it is likely that such an accident would have occurred. However, probability is useless when one is looking at a singular incident.

Is this assuming that the ONLY hard object with which the ark might have collided would be another ark? Surely you jest.

If one does not wish to believe the ark story, that is fine. However, this argument is merely speculation supported by a misuse of probability, based on an anecdotal incident. As you have eluded to, those on your side give no quarter to this kind of speculation from the other side.

If we are to speak of probabilities let's consider the probability of a 500 year old man building a boat larger than any known wooden craft ever constructed, taking 100 years, loading aboard all “kinds� of animals, and sailing said craft for many months on an endless sea with a crew of eight.

I do not speak for anyone else, but I would consider myself extremely naïve, gullible and out of touch with reality if I accepted that unverified tale as literal truth, or anything other than a myth, which is evidently what it was regarded by Babylonian culture (and many others) long before it was adopted by Hebrew tribesmen and presented as though truthful as part of their “creation� story.

[bluethread]

.

None of this is known.

Agreed. NONE of the story is known. It is just a tale told by ancient storytellers and religion promoters.

The story CLAIMS a certain size for the ark and the number of crewmen (four men and four women).

That is a given in the OP, so that is not in question by definition. I was talking about those things that you insist must have occurred.

You are arguing probabilities, not facts.

Correction: I am arguing that

1) No wooden ship of that size has ever been known to have been constructed, even in relatively modern times using iron supports,

2) The largest known wooden ships, though not as large, were considered NOT seaworthy.

3) There would have been many “hard objects� subject to collision between the time the ark lifted off and the maximum flooding (“to the tops of mountains� supposedly forty days later),

4) with no known means of propulsion or steering the ark could not have been steered away from mountains,

5) A worldwide sea would be extremely violent – and make the present infamous “Roaring Forties� near Antarctica mild by comparison.

I was not responding to 1 & 2 since they were not in evidence in the OP. To 3, if it were built in a vast plain, with it's lumber removed in constructing the ark, the objects need not be that dense in that location. To 4 & 5, the violent nature of the seas makes propulsion and steering useless anyway, so 4 is moot. In violent waters a sealed rectangular prism appears to be able to handle the waves. (http://www.businessinsider.com/scientis ... ble-2014-4)

Sure, if multiple arks had been built in a variety of places, statistically, it is likely that such an accident would have occurred. However, probability is useless when one is looking at a singular incident.

Is this assuming that the ONLY hard object with which the ark might have collided would be another ark? Surely you jest.

No, I am contesting the density of objects in the vastness of the oceans. The more arks, the more likely an occurrence like the one in the OP.

If one does not wish to believe the ark story, that is fine. However, this argument is merely speculation supported by a misuse of probability, based on an anecdotal incident. As you have eluded to, those on your side give no quarter to this kind of speculation from the other side.

If we are to speak of probabilities let's consider the probability of a 500 year old man building a boat larger than any known wooden craft ever constructed, taking 100 years, loading aboard all “kinds� of animals, and sailing said craft for many months on an endless sea with a crew of eight.

I do not speak for anyone else, but I would consider myself extremely naïve, gullible and out of touch with reality if I accepted that unverified tale as literal truth, or anything other than a myth, which is evidently what it was regarded by Babylonian culture (and many others) long before it was adopted by Hebrew tribesmen and presented as though truthful as part of their “creation� story.

That was is not the point of the OP, or my point for that matter. Expanding the argument does not prove the argument.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 18 by bluethread]


BT, I truly appreciate all valiant attempts by Apologists to defend the flood tale – and demonstrate to readers what it takes to try to “explain� the story as literal truth. I trust that readers understand the validity of what I present even though Apologists may not – and may seek to evade, excuse, obfuscate, speculate . . .


.

The story CLAIMS a certain size for the ark and the number of crewmen (four men and four women).

That is a given in the OP, so that is not in question by definition. I was talking about those things that you insist must have occurred.

Are those “things� such as: 1) rising waters after floating of the “ark�? 2) elevations higher than the supposed building location? 3) a world full of hard objects for the “ark� to encounter? 4) apparent lack of propulsion and steering?

The area surrounding the Mediterranean Sea (where the “ark� would presumably have been built according to the tale) is close to sea level. The topography of the land surrounding the Mediterranean Sea is varied and there is an extremely rugged coastline in is northern areas. http://geography.about.com/od/specificp ... graphy.htm

If the “ark� floated as the flood began (according to the story) there would have been MANY areas above water level – many of which are tens of thousands of feet high. Mt. Ararat (where the “ark� supposedly landed is about 16,000 feet).

Another source of hard objects would be icebergs. Since all continental ice would float as water levels increased there should be plenty. Remember the Titanic.

How, exactly, could the “ark� NOT be exposed to many hard objects as the water rose? Remember that it was supposedly afloat much or all the 40 days of increasing water depth.

I was not responding to 1 & 2 since they were not in evidence in the OP. To 3, if it were built in a vast plain, with it's lumber removed in constructing the ark, the objects need not be that dense in that location.

Is this to propose that the “ark� stayed within a limited area? How is that possible with a worldwide sea, unhindered winds, no known means of propulsion or steering?

To 4 & 5, the violent nature of the seas makes propulsion and steering useless anyway, so 4 is moot. In violent waters a sealed rectangular prism appears to be able to handle the waves.

Let's keep in mind that under present conditions (with continents affecting winds) waves can reach sixty feet high and even modern ships are at risk (or sink). Of course, a magical “ark� could magically avoid all hazards.

No, I am contesting the density of objects in the vastness of the oceans. The more arks, the more likely an occurrence like the one in the OP.

Is this to ignore that mountains would be above water level as that level increased (for 40 days according to the tale) before reaching maximum

It also overlooks icebergs. If we cover our eyes and ears those things should be no problem. Right?

I do not speak for anyone else, but I would consider myself extremely naïve, gullible and out of touch with reality if I accepted that unverified tale as literal truth, or anything other than a myth, which is evidently what it was regarded by Babylonian culture (and many others) long before it was adopted by Hebrew tribesmen and presented as though truthful as part of their “creation� story.

That was is not the point of the OP, or my point for that matter. Expanding the argument does not prove the argument.

Do Apologists often wish that Bible writers had adopted a more rational flood story – or identified it as a metaphor (not literally true)?

[Kenisaw]

.

As I said, I'm not a scientific proof creationist. However, the trend of this thread was becoming very apparent. 'Something hard' is hardly the same as a three story metal coast guard ship. The vagary of the critical evidence, combined with the strong objection to my pointing an important detail, that doesn't fit the narrative, definitely supports the OP's decision to post this in the general chat forum. So, as I said to Zz, proceed with the one sided evaluation. Knock yourself out.

Many of our debates become one-sided when Theistic claims and stories cannot be supported with verifiable evidence -- when all that is offered is conjecture based on supposition based on unverifiable ancient tales.

The supposed ark would have had the opportunity to encounter MANY hard objects far larger than a Coast Guard Ship -- such as mountains (many greater than the height of a one thousand story building).

Unless the ark was built on the peak of the highest mountain (in 100 years by a 500 year old man), when water started to rise (according to the story) it would have floated. When it did there would have been higher elevations that were not yet flooded.

There is no mention of provision for propulsion or navigation -- and a crew of eight could not be expected to maneuver a boat larger than any wooden boat ever constructed (and presumably manned by many experienced sailors). A 450 foot long boat is equal to the length of "Liberty Ships" of WWII -- that carried a crew of sixty. Picture eight people trying to maneuver a ship that size without modern equipment and no known means of propulsion.

Yes, the discussion of the ark and the flood gets one-sided because NOTHING of the tale makes sense or squares with what is known of the real world.

None of this is known. Sure all of these things do occur, but the certainty of them happening to one ship in the vast expanse of the current oceans, let alone a larger expanse, is like arguing that the foil thin lunar lander or even the metal of the Apollo space ship could not have survived the moon landing because there are planets and asteroids out there. You are arguing probabilities, not facts. Sure, if multiple arks had been built in a variety of places, statistically, it is likely that such an accident would have occurred. However, probability is useless when one is looking at a singular incident.

If one does not wish to believe the ark story, that is fine. However, this argument is merely speculation supported by a misuse of probability, based on an anecdotal incident. As you have eluded to, those on your side give no quarter to this kind of speculation from the other side.

Mountains aren't your only concern. The low estimate of trees on Earth today is 400 billion. There were obviously more 4000 years ago. That's a lot of stuff floating around for the ark to run into. And given the Institute for Creation Research's claim that the waters were moving fast enough to strip all the sediment off the surface off the earth (so one flood could create hundreds of sediment layers, which is laughable but best saved for another thread), that means every single tree was uprooted and floating around. It would have been a tree trunk minefield for the ark...