The order of fossils in the geological column

[Armoured]

Don't forget my TARDIS booth explanation, either.

Please add that to your misrepresentations too.

I understand.

What misrepresentations?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why are stipulating this?

To convey a proper image of, and probable construction of, the ark. If the ark is thought of as a 'ship' it cannot be thought of as a sturdy building. A 'ship' that big probably wouldn't survive the flood, but a structure like a large box would.

I'm also trying to stipulate that the flood was not a tsunami-like event, at least in regard to the survivability of the ark.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, well aware people claim the ark could float, some people still claim that flu shots will give you autism, just because people claim it doesn't make it true.

That door swings both ways.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Assuming the writers of the account were familiar with maritime terminology.

The term 'ships' was used three times by the writer(s) of the Pentateuch as distinct from the term 'ark'.

1.Genesis 49:13
Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea; and he shall be for an haven of ships; and his border shall be unto Zidon.

2.Numbers 24:24
And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish for ever.

3.Deuteronomy 28:68
And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee.........

The term 'ship' is never used to describe the ark.

 

[[serious]]

Genesis 7:11a In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up,

I'll tell you what:

Go stand atop Old Faithful for awhile and see what happens.

Of course, the force required to launch a clam 8,848 m would just destroy the clam. According to my quick math, you would need an initial velocity of 173420.8 m/s discounting air resistance or horizontal travel. A clam shell can apparently sustain about 2000 N before failing. Assuming a mass of 0.045 kg, and a very generous 1 second of initial acceleration, we've got over 7000 N force on poor mister clam.

Keep in mind, we are still ignoring wind resistance. "But wait!" you say, "we've only got fragments up there!" Well, that only makes the velocity requirements higher when you factor in air resistance. Pumpkin launchers face exactly this problem too. once the pumpkin fails, it limits it's distance.

So yeah, flying clams can take a hike.

 

[Dizredux]

To convey a proper image of, and probable construction of, the ark. If the ark is thought of as a 'ship' it cannot be thought of as a sturdy building. A 'ship' that big probably wouldn't survive the flood, but a structure like a large box would.

Just picking this subject up but how you think about the ark has nothing to do with its survivability. It is physics that determine this not the words we choose to describe it.

Dizredux

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Just picking this subject up but how you think about the ark has nothing to do with its survivability. It is physics that determine this not the words we choose to describe it.

Dizredux

Granted that.

Structural integrity of the ark + hydrologic elements of the flood = survivability (or not).

If one imagines a very violent flood occurred then the ark would not survive. However, the flood as described in the story was certainly survivable.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Absurd. The reality is that you do not know many things about the ark. Therefore dreaming up one that cannot float properly is your own invention.

The reality is that we know the composition and dimensions of the ark, and that, absent magical thinking complete with a hatful of undocumented miracles on demand, a loaded craft fitting its description would not be seaworthy.

These are facts -- feel free to ignore them and blather on.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Granted that.

Structural integrity of the ark + hydrologic elements of the flood = survivability (or not).

If one imagines a very violent flood occurred then the ark would not survive. However, the flood as described in the story was certainly survivable.

A kinder, gentler, lazy summer afternoon omnicide?

Remember, Flood apologists credit it for such "non-violent" events such as the carving of the grand canyon...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A kinder, gentler, lazy summer afternoon omnicide?

The flood came and went slowly, like the tides; so yes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The flood came and went slowly, like the tides; so yes.

Give or take a grand canyon or two

 

[AV1611VET]

So yeah, flying clams can take a hike.

Not until you tell me where Mt Ararat was before Pangaea was split up into five continents.

Your Newtons and resistance and all that other techno stuff sounds pretty convincing, but without a launch point and height of geysering, you have zip.

 

[dad]

The reality is that we know the composition and dimensions of the ark, and that, absent magical thinking complete with a hatful of undocumented miracles on demand, a loaded craft fitting its description would not be seaworthy.

Why not?

 

[dad]

The flood came and went slowly, like the tides; so yes.

Matt 24: 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left


So as fast as a woman in the field is taken and one left that is how fast it was!

 

[dad]

The study is not a negative for creationists, at least...that is all. It is significant that the boat was sized by God to be of the right order for the number of creatures it was intended to carry.

I guess it was a good job that the boat wasn't tiny.

The assumptions made are not huge.

That depends...do these assumptions include buoyancy?

 

[dad]

As PsychoSarah said:



And you responded with:



Then we're all in agreement. I (and others) can continue to point out the absurdities of this story, you (and other) can continue to rationalize them by claiming supernatural intervention, whereupon I (and others) will continue to remain unconvinced by your god of the gaps.

Nope. The only gaps arise from ignorance of the exact design of the craft, materials used, and laws that determined how it floated!

But, since you quoted me twice...

I never argued that it couldn't float. The Wyoming, which I compared it too, could float just fine. I argued that a wooden structure of that size wouldn't survive a tsunami, which is something I can evaluate simply knowing the size of it.

Oh? Now let's evaluate what cause huge waves! Then we can ask if any stabilizers were incorporated in the ark? Then we can look at the GPS it used, and the remote control operator! The ark was where the waters were safest! You think wild wunder waves went over every spot on the planet at once?? Think about it.

 

[Queller]

The bible reveals a slow moving flood that took 40 days from the time it started to reach and float the ark.

Perhaps you can quote the verse that says the water took 40 days to reach the ark?

The Bible does not, in any way, shape, or form, describe a slow moving flood. I'm not sure that a slow moving flood is even possible. Once water escapes whatever is serving as its boundary, it tends to find its level pretty quickly.

And before you try and claim it again, the tides are not floods.

 

[Queller]

Gen 6:16 describes a building, not a ship or barge.

"A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it."

Ships use the terms portholes, hatches, and decks. Buildings use the terms windows, doors, and stories.
The ark was a building.

That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard. MODERN language uses the terms portholes, hatches, and decks. There is no reason that the KJV translators had to use those terms.

BTW, an ARK, when used in terms of water, is a boat. See Exodus 2:3.

 

[Queller]

To convey a proper image of, and probable construction of, the ark. If the ark is thought of as a 'ship' it cannot be thought of as a sturdy building. A 'ship' that big probably wouldn't survive the flood, but a structure like a large box would.

The image I posted WAS of a large box and said that was wrong.

I'm also trying to stipulate that the flood was not a tsunami-like event, at least in regard to the survivability of the ark.

Unfortunately that stipulation is impossible both from a Biblical standpoint and a scientific one.

ETA: Are you ever going to answer my question about why the global span of the flood should not be considered poetic language?

 

[[serious]]

Not until you tell me where Mt Ararat was before Pangaea was split up into five continents.

Your Newtons and resistance and all that other techno stuff sounds pretty convincing, but without a launch point and height of geysering, you have zip.

Source (biblical or otherwise) for God shuffling around the continents during the flood? If you are just appealing to magic because your explanation fails, why not just say God teleported the clams up mountains for no apparent reason? It's just as plausible as God teleporting around mountains for no apparent reason.

It doesn't really matter anyway, the location isn't the issue, the height is. Also, you just switched what mountain you are talking about. You said Everest first, now you are saying Ararat. Also doesn't matter since it wouldn't work with either mountain.