Didn't they know?

[Nathan Poe]

Hey, guys?

Question:

What makes you think Noah even lived in Mesopotamia at the time he built the Ark?

Didn't the Ark end its journey there?

Question: How far was the Ark meant to travel?

 

[AV1611VET]

Silly me. I thought Genesis 2 was talking about events prior to Genesis 7&8.

Frumious, do you even understand the question I'm asking?

It sounds like you don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Question: How far was the Ark meant to travel?

From where it was built -- (and you know where I think it was built) -- to the mountains of Ararat.

I'd say a distance of about 2000 miles.

 

[Nathan Poe]

From where it was built -- (and you know where I think it was built) -- to the mountains of Ararat.

I'd say a distance of about 2000 miles.

You're saying that's what it was designed to do? It was a sailing vessel, and not merely meant to float?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're saying that's what it was designed to do? It was a sailing vessel, and not merely meant to float?

Negative.

It is a containment vessel -- nothing more.

Meant only to float.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Negative.

It is a containment vessel -- nothing more.

Meant only to float.

Well then it wasn't meant to travel at all -- much less 2000 miles.

You should really try reading my questions before answering them.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Frumious, do you even understand the question I'm asking?

It sounds like you don't.

I understand that you add your own weird interpretation to the Bible that you supposedly take literally whenever it suits you to do so.

 

[Naraoia]

Redwoods grew around the earth in ancient times and were quite prolific (according to those who study Redwoods).

Such as?

There is still a grove of 'Dawn Redwoods' growing in China. The Redwood is a member of the Cypress family. The words 'gopher' wood and 'cypress' occur only once each in scripture, and are distinct from each other. Thus I conclude that gopher wood is not cypress...

... a perfectly valid conclusion, I suppose,

... but redwood.

Based on what?

Redwood is light in weight but strong enough for the long planking of the ark.

Frumious seems to disagree with the "strong enough" part. In any case, you basically believe that gopher wood means redwood because it fits the story you want to tell? Excuse me if I remain sceptical.

Stronger woods could have been used for other parts of the superstructure. Another reason that I believe redwood was used extensively was that God instructed Noah to cover both the outside and inside with pitch. This inner layer of pitch would have protected the passengers from the strong and possibly unhealthy outgassing of the aromatic oils from some cedars and redwood.

By your own words, this doesn't mean it had to be redwood (could also have been cedar).

Besides, pitch was widely used to waterproof wooden ships, so there's little reason to conclude that God's command about pitching the ark indicates anything special about the wood.

It is possible that oak and cypress were also used. Different woods have different properties, but the main wood was to be 'gopher', a species of 'cypress' but not called by that name. Regarding the 'seaworthiness' of the ark, it's great weight would have caused it to barely float.

As you said, redwood is pretty light, so by default nothing made of redwood, no matter how heavy, would be a submarine (buoyancy is determined by density, not weight). For something to "barely float", by which I assume stay at the surface but not protrude too much, it would need a density equal to or slightly smaller than that of the liquid it has to float in. Would there be enough heavy stuff on the ark to achieve that?

 

[Delphiki]

I did not bother to watch them. But I am sure that they assume the flood included violent flow of huge amount of water, giant waves, etc. But most likely, in most places of the world, the flood would be a fast but gradual rising of water. A small rowboat could save a few people in that case.

Which gives way to the morbid, yet humorous image of millions of people wading in mere inches of water, as it takes 40 days to rise.

"Look, honey! Our table is starting to lift off the floor! Let's get on that... or at least seek higher ground."
"Shut up woman. Just stand here and wade -- the water will go back down."

*3 days later*

"Honey, the rain isn't letting up and the water is up to our necks. Doesn't Carl have a small boat? Why don't we swim over there? It's only next door."
"Shut up woman! Where's my breakfast?"


Sometimes I think the Physical & Life Sciences forum should just be changed to "Global Flood debunking forum"

 

[AV1611VET]

Which gives way to the morbid, yet humorous image of millions of people wading in mere inches of water, as it takes 40 days to rise.

Do you really think trading jocularity for understanding is a fair trade?

You guys harp so much that we need to be educated.

Please consider the beam, before you harp on the mote.

The mirror hurts.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you really think trading jocularity for understanding is a fair trade?

Understanding what? I see this thead as joke for joke.

 

[Delphiki]

Well if the water didn't come gushing, splashing, and crashing about, does that mean everyone simply sat by and let the water rise over their heads? The ark was the first boat? First thing on earth that could float on earth at all? Nobody bothered to hop on their furniture, logs, any other thing that can help then survive in a calmly rising water?

I told the point I made in a humorous manner, because the notion is actually quite humorous.

 

[AV1611VET]

I told the point I made in a humorous manner, because the notion is actually quite humorous.

I take it you've never been in a world-wide flood?

 

[Delphiki]

No. Nor do I think anyone ever has (not world-wide, anyway). But it is comforting to know that if it ever becomes possible, I will be given plenty of time to plan and carryout what I need for survival. Back then, they at least had boats, but at least today we have that lets us take to the skies.

As you describe it, it shouldn't be too different than the time my water heater in the basement of my old apartment sprung a leak. It happened hours before I woke up in the morning -- but I was able to brave the flood (about 1/2" of water or so) and shut off the main water valve before my wife and I drowned to death in our 2nd story bedroom. It was a close shave. Had I not reacted within 40 days, we woulda been goners.



See, i think you're missing the point. The OP is insinuating that the water gradually rose (as even juve was able to point out).

 

[Delphiki]

Interesting. I said 'region' and you changed it to 'area', which is most often much smaller. This is a good, but intellectually dishonest, debating technique. It borders on a fabricated 'strawman' arguement. So while there may not have been redwoods growing at that time in the 'area' of Mesopotamia, it is entirely probable that they did grow somewhere in the greater 'region' of the middle East, and would have been available to Noah (but he could have imported finished redwood timbers from China). The producers of these shows have no interest in facts. Their purpose is to debunk the bible story.

Nice try, but the redwood, or Sequoia genus of trees only currently exists in the western, North American continent. There are some fossils of the most recently extinct redwoods in eastern Asia. Neither of these locations are the same 'region' nor 'area' as the fertile crescent, which spans the Middle East. So you're attempt at falsifying someones argument by pointing out an imagined error in semantics is rendered pointless.

To find worldwide redwood, you have to go as far back as the mesozoic era, which was about 250 million years ago to about 67 million years ago. This is roughly the same time, give or take a few million years, as the Triassic and Cretaceous periods -- when the dinosaurs existed.

Now lets consider the logistic dillemas of shipping massive amounts of redwood from China for a guy who everyone, except for his immediate family thought was insane, to the Middle east. The boats required to move all this would have been more than adequate to carry other people through the big flood, don't you think? I mean if they can carry enough wood for the ark before the flood, then why wouldn't they hold even one other immediate family of people?

Yet there's no mention of God zapping all other boats out of existence.

By land, then? Through the mountains of middle Asia? Did he has some biblical equivalent to several Humvees with trailer hitches or did he actually have mules pull the massive trees over and through treacherous mountains?

It's shocking to me that there are still grown adults in the world who simply don't notice the absurdity of the great flood. What is there to define the boundaries between a story like Humpty Dumpty and a man who is hundreds of years old, moving massive trees from China, to build a big boat that can fit more animals, food, and people on it than it's own size would even allow, let alone to remain bouyant?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The ark was not a ship, it was a large box with a superstrong honeycomb structure that gave it enormous strength. With it's load, perhaps including ballast, it was very heavy and floated low in the water, thus not subject to the same stresses encountered by a 'ship'. It's probable location, on a slope above the plain, meant that the flood waters would be rising relatively slowly when they reached it, and even slower as it was propelled up the slope of the mountains of Ararat. It traveled approximately 500 miles before coming to rest. It's construction would have been known through the entire civilized world, much like the pyramids of Egypt. Thousands would have been employed in it's construction under the direction of Noah as general contractor. Materials, artisans, and laborers would have been brought from all over the region. Like in Egypt cities would have sprung up at the ark's building site to house and provide for the living needs of the workers, who would be on the job for decades, as well as perhaps their children. Of course the bible doesn't tells us all this. We have to fill in the blanks with reasonable assumptions. If we don't do this we (you) cannot understand anything fully.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

From where it was built -- (and you know where I think it was built) -- to the mountains of Ararat.

I'd say a distance of about 2000 miles.

Does anyone know what modern country the mountains of Ararat lie?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does anyone know what modern country the mountains of Ararat lie?

I would say 'yes' -- but I don't know who.

I think it's Turkey.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The ark was not a ship, it was a large box with a superstrong honeycomb structure that gave it enormous strength. With it's load, perhaps including ballast, it was very heavy and floated low in the water, thus not subject to the same stresses encountered by a 'ship'. It's probable location, on a slope above the plain, meant that the flood waters would be rising relatively slowly when they reached it, and even slower as it was propelled up the slope of the mountains of Ararat. It traveled approximately 500 miles before coming to rest. It's construction would have been known through the entire civilized world, much like the pyramids of Egypt. Thousands would have been employed in it's construction under the direction of Noah as general contractor. Materials, artisans, and laborers would have been brought from all over the region. Like in Egypt cities would have sprung up at the ark's building site to house and provide for the living needs of the workers, who would be on the job for decades, as well as perhaps their children. Of course the bible doesn't tells us all this. We have to fill in the blanks with reasonable assumptions. If we don't do this we (you) cannot understand anything fully.

Wow, sounds like you really believe this. Good on ya'.

I'm always amused when people construct these fantastic stories without one shred of evidence, and then actually believe it.

 

[Naraoia]

I would say 'yes' -- but I don't know who.

I think it's Turkey.

Correct.