How the Ark was ventilated.

[Son of the King]

You just said a moment ago that the rains were combined with rising tides to make the flood. It really doesn't matter what latitude you're at - if the water rises enough to cover the entire planet in 40 days, it will be a violently churning watery hell pretty much everywhere. Little, if anything would survive it. In fact, I think that was supposed to be the intention of the flood in the story, isn't it? What kind of logic is it that the water gently rises to save the ark, but somehow it's too violent for all other living things and even OTHER BOATS to survive it?

Why is this elementary train of thought so difficult for some people?

Don't forget the God you dont believe in was involved.
Mark 4:39
And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Don't forget the God you dont believe in was involved.

Mark 4:39
And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

Wrong God -- the one in Mark was trying to stop a meteorological brouhaha -- the one in Genesis was too busy causing one.

Personally, I appreciate the idea that God was looking for a kinder, gentler omnicide -- Kind of like the gas chambers at Auschwitz having a minty-fresh scent.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

Don't forget the God you dont believe in was involved.....

That argument will work on the Christian-only creation and evolution forum. Here, its not worth anything.

Try again?

 

[Delphiki]

Don't forget the God you dont believe in was involved.

Again: They why not just attribute the whole thing to miracle? Why are flood-believers still trying to come up with physical explanations for ark when they know it's impossible? Just say it was made of popsicle sticks and God took care of the rest. Either go all the way or not at all.

If the God you believe in is omnipotent, then why even think about what the ark was made of, how it could float, or how it could fit everything it was supposed to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just say it was made of popsicle sticks and God took care of the rest.

Will gopher wood do?

That way, it'll give myopic scientists something to keep looking for; which is what they need to do, instead of arbitrarily saying this-and-that do-and-don't exist.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My 'horse latitude' is a response to those who place the ark on an ordinary ocean in ordinary conditions, and insist it would break up. If everything was 'ordinary' the ark could easily have been in calm seas for a prolonged period of time. That was my point. To insist that ALL ocean waters are violent and destructive ALL the time is the foundation of this false argument. The flood did not produce 'ordinary' conditions on the sea. Wave action, winds, currents would all be changed. Also, the more I study the event the more unmiraculous it seems. The miracle is that God knew it was going to happen (He caused the original catastrophy that send the continental plates banging into each other). He may well have arranged human events to coincide with a huge flood that was already on the way. With a nod to other believers; Christ predicted a large earthquake near Jerusalem in the end-time. He did not say that either he or God would 'cause' the quake at that time, but they know it will happen. So all the 'natural' laws are still in place, with God monitoring the 'groaning and travail' of the earth.....Additional thought..The earthquake that took several lives in the Korah incident is also interesting in that two destructive events occurred. One was 'the earth opening her mouth', and, 'the fire from the Lord' that killed the two hundred fifty. Moses knew an earthquake was going to happen. Whether he thought it was a special event caused by God at that time cannot be known. The whole event, including the placement of the tents of those that went down into the ground could have been orchestrated by God, who knew exactly where and when the earth would open up.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

My 'horse latitude' is a response to those who place the ark on an ordinary ocean in ordinary conditions, and insist it would break up.

The conditions in a global flood with huge amounts of rain falling and rushing from the fountains of the deep would be far worse than on an ordinary ocean.

If everything was 'ordinary' the ark could easily have been in calm seas for a prolonged period of time.

Even in relatively calm seas differential stress in the ark would cause it to leak and the seas would be anything but calm during much of the flood.

That was my point. To insist that ALL ocean waters are violent and destructive ALL the time is the foundation of this false argument.

We are not insisting that all ocean waters are violent, but to claim that a global flood can be produced without the waters being violent is clearly false.

The flood did not produce 'ordinary' conditions on the sea. Wave action, winds, currents would all be changed.

Yes, they would all be much worse than they are over most of the ocean today.

Also, the more I study the event the more unmiraculous it seems.

It was not miraculous because it didn't happen.

The miracle is that God knew it was going to happen (He caused the original catastrophy that send the continental plates banging into each other). He may well have arranged human events to coincide with a huge flood that was already on the way. With a nod to other believers; Christ predicted a large earthquake near Jerusalem in the end-time. He did not say that either he or God would 'cause' the quake at that time, but they know it will happen. So all the 'natural' laws are still in place, with God monitoring the 'groaning and travail' of the earth.

So God knew that it would repent him that he had made this botched creation and knew he was going to drown nearly everyone and everything in an attempt to fix it. How nice of Him.

 

[Delphiki]

You're still ignoring the fact that flooding the earth in 40 days would be far more violent than most, if not all of the worst oceanic storms.

You can't have calm water to support one argument (the ark staying in one piece), then violent water to support another (everything on earth drowning). Either it was violent or it wasn't.... Or the whole thing is just a story.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You're still ignoring the fact that flooding the earth in 40 days would be far more violent than most, if not all of the worst oceanic storms.

You can't have calm water to support one argument (the ark staying in one piece), then violent water to support another (everything on earth drowning). Either it was violent or it wasn't.... Or the whole thing is just a story.

You are still ignoring the elements of the story itself. The flood came in over a period of 150 days, not 40. We don't know how violent the rain was but it served its purpose and stopped as the seawater floated the ark. No flood, no matter how large, is consistantly violent, in fact the 'backwater' of flooding can be quite gentle. Just yesterday I heard of a family that woke up to a flooded house. They didn't hear or feel a thing during the night. Also, that the story has the ark surviving means that the waters that floated it on it's journey did not destroy it. Also, violent waters are not needed to drown someone. The whole thing is a story. You should actually read it sometime.

 

[Delphiki]

You are still ignoring the elements of the story itself. The flood came in over a period of 150 days, not 40. We don't know how violent the rain was but it served its purpose and stopped as the seawater floated the ark. No flood, no matter how large, is consistantly violent, in fact the 'backwater' of flooding can be quite gentle. Just yesterday I heard of a family that woke up to a flooded house. They didn't hear or feel a thing during the night. Also, that the story has the ark surviving means that the waters that floated it on it's journey did not destroy it. Also, violent waters are not needed to drown someone. The whole thing is a story. You should actually read it sometime.

I have read it, actually. That's why I know it's fiction.

Genesis 7:

17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

The flood built up over 40 days.. the water increased for 40 days. The flood itself is what lasted longer, not the flooding. So the water has to rise enough to cover everything on earth in 40 days. Do you get it?

20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Apparently, the tallest mountain is/was only about 7 meters tall. Well, we know this isn't true. But at least we can now say it took 40 days for the water to rise 15 cubits... but mountains aren't only 15 cubits tall.

Let's say our understanding of a "cubit" is wrong... then that still means the ark itself was twice as tall as the mountains:

Genesis 6:

15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits

Consistency, people... come on!


lol. Did you read the story?

 

[Belk]

Will gopher wood do?

That way, it'll give myopic scientists something to keep looking for; which is what they need to do, instead of arbitrarily saying this-and-that do-and-don't exist.

Why would they look for gopher wood? Will it still have the properties needed to create an ark or without God would it just be ordinary wood?

Better yet. How about creationist find it since they are the ones who believe in it and then you can stop trying to pawn the responsibility for supporting your arguments off on someone else. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

 

[Delphiki]

...and yes, I know it's commonly understood that the flood was 15 cubits above the mountains, but that's not what the bible actually says.


Mt Everest at 8848 meters tall, add another 7 meters to that, and you have the flood at 8855 meters deep... in 40 days. That's 29052 feet of water in 40 days. Think.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

...and yes, I know it's commonly understood that the flood was 15 cubits above the mountains, but that's not what the bible actually says.


Mt Everest at 8848 meters tall, add another 7 meters to that, and you have the flood at 8855 meters deep... in 40 days. That's 29052 feet of water in 40 days. Think.

They used gofer meters, which are a lot smaller.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why would they look for gopher wood? Will it still have the properties needed to create an ark or without God would it just be ordinary wood?

Better yet. How about creationist find it since they are the ones who believe in it and then you can stop trying to pawn the responsibility for supporting your arguments off on someone else. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

That sounds way too much like personal responsibility without personal glory -- I'd love to meet a creationist who actually buys into that.

 

[Mike Elphick]

You are still ignoring the elements of the story itself. The flood came in over a period of 150 days, not 40. We don't know how violent the rain was but it served its purpose and stopped as the seawater floated the ark. No flood, no matter how large, is consistantly violent, in fact the 'backwater' of flooding can be quite gentle. Just yesterday I heard of a family that woke up to a flooded house. They didn't hear or feel a thing during the night. Also, that the story has the ark surviving means that the waters that floated it on it's journey did not destroy it. Also, violent waters are not needed to drown someone. The whole thing is a story. You should actually read it sometime.

It's confusing because there are two Flood stories woven together; one has it lasting 40+40+7 days and the other 355 (lunar year)+10 days.

Regarding the smoothness of the water, you're forgetting the mountain-building taking place (for creating oceans to contain the water) and continental drift.

You really should read the article History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth

As we have seen, the idea of a universal deluge was the settled interpretation of the church for nearly seventeen centuries, but that changed as a body of compelling evidence undercutting that interpretation gradually accumulated. The cumulative pressure of general revelation can be ignored only so long. Christians must always be ready to reexamine even settled interpretations when a wealth of external data call these interpretations into question. God may be trying to tell us something!

<...>

A large segment of the evangelical church has unfortunately locked itself into a biblical hermeneutic that requires a global flood and a recent six-day creation and that prevents it from dealing responsibly with God's creative work. I submit that there is something inherently flawed in any hermeneutic that prevents us from reading God's handiwork properly and that repeatedly puts us at odds with the established conclusions of a scientific community that is composed not just of opponents of Christianity but also of confessing Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would they look for gopher wood?

For the same reason they'd build a giant hoola-hoop and cause two Pb+'s to collide head-on in it to find out how the universe got started according to their computers?

Will it still have the properties needed to create an ark or without God would it just be ordinary wood?

With or without God, it would be gopher wood.

Better yet. How about creationist find it since they are the ones who believe in it and then you can stop trying to pawn the responsibility for supporting your arguments off on someone else.

We don't need to find it -- we already believe it by faith.

On the other hand, you guys need to see it, taste it, feel it, smell it, and/or hear it before you'll submit it to your computers for future misclassification, lack of definition, and everything else that's here-today-gone-tomorrow.

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

No

 

[OldWiseGuy]

lol. Did you read the story?

Yes, the WHOLE story.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's confusing because there are two Flood stories woven together; one has it lasting 40+40+7 days and the other 355 (lunar year)+10 days.

Regarding the smoothness of the water, you're forgetting the mountain-building taking place (for creating oceans to contain the water) and continental drift.

You really should read the article History of the Collapse of &quot;Flood Geology&quot; and a Young Earth

Many elements of stories contain frequent recapitulations by the author. It's a style of writing. Also, I'm an OEC, not a YEC. The mountains are ancient.

 

[Belk]

For the same reason they'd build a giant hoola-hoop and cause two Pb+'s to collide head-on in it to find out how the universe got started according to their computers?

Great, track some down and we will test it.

With or without God, it would be gopher wood.

So, ordinary wood then?

We don't need to find it -- we already believe it by faith.

Good for you. You want the rest of us to take you seriously then you need to supply some evidence.

On the other hand, you guys need to see it, taste it, feel it, smell it, and/or hear it before you'll submit it to your computers for future misclassification, lack of definition, and everything else that's here-today-gone-tomorrow.

No

So track it down. You are the one who believes it exists not us. I'm no more going to expend effort to track down gopher wood then I would a boojum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good for you. You want the rest of us to take you seriously then you need to supply some evidence.

So track it down. You are the one who believes it exists not us. I'm no more going to expend effort to track down gopher wood then I would a boojum.

You might want to track down my profile, while you're at it.

It says:

Free of scientific evidence, so please don't ask for any.