The Ark has crashed

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:43 pm

.
The Ark has crashed

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

Kenisaw · Post by **Kenisaw** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:02 pm

I didn't know they could vulcanize rubber back in the day so they could make tires to use as buoys on the side. How many cubits is a tire anyways?

OnceConvinced · Post by **OnceConvinced** » Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:36 pm

Rubber tires? Sheesh.

Is that a metal base? And are those glass windows?

What a joke to say this is in any way a replica of the bible ark.

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:50 am

[Replying to post 3 by OnceConvinced]

Slightly high standards there. You can buy a model replica of almost anything and does anyone complain about what is missing or added?

Kenisaw · Post by **Kenisaw** » Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:10 pm

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 3 by OnceConvinced]

Slightly high standards there. You can buy a model replica of almost anything and does anyone complain about what is missing or added?

If it has missing or added things then it isn't a replica, right? I bet the inside has a steel support structure too...

OnceConvinced · Post by **OnceConvinced** » Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:56 pm

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 3 by OnceConvinced]

Slightly high standards there. You can buy a model replica of almost anything and does anyone complain about what is missing or added?

It's supposed to be proving the bible story true. In which case it must make use of the tools and resources that the bible tale used. Otherwise how can it prove it?

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Fri Jun 17, 2016 7:26 am

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?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:49 am

rikuoamero wrote: 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?

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:15 pm

.

bluethread wrote: 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?

Is a "three story metal coast guard ship" the ONLY hard object that the storied ark could encounter in a worldwide flood it supposedly navigated?

Would mountains be above the water after the ark would have lifted off (floated) from wherever it was supposedly constructed (presumably not a mountain top)?

How would the ark navigate / propel to avoid exposed peaks?

The supposed craft would not only be without means of propulsion and navigation, it would also likely be rotten. If it took 100 years to build (by a 500 year old man) the first timbers laid would have a century to decay. Was the wood magically immune to rotting after being exposed to weather for a hundred years?

Does it not make more sense to regard the tale as a myth rather than literal truth?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:48 pm

Zzyzx wrote: .
bluethread wrote: 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?
Is a "three story metal coast guard ship" the ONLY hard object that the storied ark could encounter in a worldwide flood it supposedly navigated?

Would mountains be above the water after the ark would have lifted off (floated) from wherever it was supposedly constructed (presumably not a mountain top)?

How would the ark navigate / propel to avoid exposed peaks?

The supposed craft would not only be without means of propulsion and navigation, it would also likely be rotten. If it took 100 years to build (by a 500 year old man) the first timbers laid would have a century to decay. Was the wood magically immune to rotting after being exposed to weather for a hundred years?

Does it not make more sense to regard the tale as a myth rather than literal truth?

As I said, I'm not a scientific proof creationist. I hope you can forgive me for presenting a consideration that does not fit the popular narrative on this thread. Proceed with the one sided evaluation, no need to point out anything that might in any way bring prospective.