Didn't they know?

[Belk]

The ark wasn't a boat or ship. It was really a giant building that would float. The exact building methods would never be needed again. I work with wood all the time and often make special 'jigs' for cutting or drilling. They are used for that project and never again. In fact I can't remember all of them. How 'ludicrous' is that? Noah or those artisans would have to develop techniques and tools for cutting large mortise and tenon joints, tongue and groove or splined joints, as well as boring large holes, and shaping large dowel pegs. It would have been 'joinery' x10.

Unmitigated pap. A large ocean going vessel that survived for a year in some of the harshest conditions imaginable. Building techniques that could be used for many other purposes. Good grief, man, the masons just had the keystone and they are STILL in existence. You are talking about an unprecedented leap in technology that would of had a huge affect on the everyday lives of Noah and his decedents. Slightly different then you making 'jigs'. Yes, it is ludicrous.

 

[AV1611VET]

A large ocean going vessel that survived for a year in some of the harshest conditions imaginable.

In my opinion, the Ark survived those conditions the same way Daniel's three friends survived the furnace.

I love it when I see those childrens' stories that we all know and love come back and bite a chunk out of a scientist's clipboard.

 

[Delphiki]

Did Tubalcain show everybody how to keep iron nails from rusting in a global flood?

Does anyone care to answer my concern regarding 41,000 cubic meters vs 60,000+ animals?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did Tubalcain show everybody how to keep iron nails from rusting in a global flood?

Let's assume -- for the sake of arguing -- that he did use iron nails.

I contend that, when it comes to the Ark story, it's almost impossible to reconcile it with science.

What we can do though, is see how God may have orchestrated this, by simply reading the rest of the Bible and seeing how He handled basically the same conditions separately.

Example: How were all those animals fed?
Answer: Read 1 Kings 17.

Example: How did the Ark survive external pressures?
Answer: Read Daniel 3.

To answer your specific question --

Example: How did the nails keep from rusting?
Answer: Read Deuteronomy 29:5.

 

[Naraoia]

Naraoia, Lurker, and Belk; It is clear that you haven't seen these ridiculous shows. If you had even you would be appalled at the buffoonery of the presentation.

That might or might not be the case, but I asked you where you get your idea that they were out to ridicule the flood story, as opposed to honestly assessing its accuracy to the best of their ability.

Please answer that. The fact that you don't agree with their assessment does not imply that the makers of the show presented intentional distortions.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

My calculations have the water slowly rising up, not violently washing down, at only 8 feet per hour, very similiar to the speed of some ocean tides.

Only 8 feet per hour. That is hardly slow. Do you have any idea what flood water (not tide) rising that fast would be like. Have you ever seen a signifcant flood. I have and I say this is nonsense. Of course that will still leave you more than 20,000 feet short of the water you use to cover the highest mountains.

No hydrological study of that flood is possible as no one knows exactly where the waters came from.

I agree that you can't study something that didn't happen but you can figure out what the earth should look like if everything had been under water for a year and the earth is nothing like it should look if it had happened.

A 'rain only' model would have much different patterns from a 'tidal' flood (which this flood was). As water came onto the land from many directions much of the violent flows would be mitigated.

Water flowing in this fast from different directions would make eddy currents and whirlpools where the flows met not mitigate the violent flow. The water would be whirling and swirling around everything spinning the ark around like a top until it filled with water from all the leaks it sprang.

Thus the water would 'stand' upon the earth, not 'flow' violently around the earth, so the ark needn't have travelled very far. Strong swells and flows that meet and cancel each other out would have lessened the stress on the ark as well.

This makes no sense at all.

 

[Delphiki]

...no one knows exactly where the waters came from.

Wait, aren't you a literalist? It came from raining for 40 days, didn't it?

 

[Split Rock]

Wait, aren't you a literalist? It came from raining for 40 days, didn't it?

Don't forget the Fountains of the Deep.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In my opinion, the Ark survived those conditions the same way Daniel's three friends survived the furnace.

So why bother building it to any specifications?

Once you play the "goddidit" card -- as you inevitably do -- there's no further need for rationality.

I love it when I see those childrens' stories that we all know and love come back and bite a chunk out of a scientist's clipboard.

Well, at least you're calling it a children's story -- that's a sign of hope.

Maybe now you can offer a scientific explanation how those three bears managed to cook porridge?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wait, aren't you a literalist? It came from raining for 40 days, didn't it?

The 40 days of rain would have run downhill to the sea, as well as provide a good supply of fresh water for the ark, and serve to swell the wood of the ark itself, thus ensuring a good watertight seal between boards. We used to actually sink our sailboat (in shallow water of course) after we caulked it to swell all of the planking so it wouldn't leak. Worked like a charm. Imagine the seal one would get on the ark. The main flood came from the oceans. Perhaps the seafloor raised enough to flood the entire earth. It wouldn't have taken much to accomplish this.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Only 8 feet per hour. That is hardly slow. Do you have any idea what flood water (not tide) rising that fast would be like. Have you ever seen a signifcant flood. I have and I say this is nonsense. Of course that will still leave you more than 20,000 feet short of the water you use to cover the highest mountains.

I agree that you can't study something that didn't happen but you can figure out what the earth should look like if everything had been under water for a year and the earth is nothing like it should look if it had happened.
Water flowing in this fast from different directions would make eddy currents and whirlpools where the flows met not mitigate the violent flow. The water would be whirling and swirling around everything spinning the ark around like a top until it filled with water from all the leaks it sprang.

This makes no sense at all.

I've watched the tide come into the Cook Inlet in Alaska. The very center of the bay is a raging torrent similiar to Class Five whitewater while the majority of the bay sees a gentle rise of water, not enough to disturb anything. Does this count as an example of a 'flood'?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I've watched the tide come into the Cook Inlet in Alaska. The very center of the bay is a raging torrent similiar to Class Five whitewater while the majority of the bay sees a gentle rise of water, not enough to disturb anything. Does this count as an example of a 'flood'?

Only if it were raining 8 feet an hour and you had water rushing down from the slopes behind you. What would happen if you were picked up by that tide as it went out. Wouldn't you end up in the raging torrent?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The 40 days of rain would have run downhill to the sea, as well as provide a good supply of fresh water for the ark, and serve to swell the wood of the ark itself, thus ensuring a good watertight seal between boards. We used to actually sink our sailboat (in shallow water of course) after we caulked it to swell all of the planking so it wouldn't leak. Worked like a charm. Imagine the seal one would get on the ark. The main flood came from the oceans..

Your sailboat is not 450 feet long.

Perhaps the seafloor raised enough to flood the entire earth. It wouldn't have taken much to accomplish this

Or perhaps the world wide flood story in Genesis was a Hebrew retelling of the Babylonian retelling of the Sumerian flood myth and has nothing to do with reality. This would explain why there is no evidence for the global flood and massive evidence against it without restorting to an endless stream of ad-hoc nonsense.
http://www.christianforums.com/t95378/

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your sailboat is not 450 feet long.
Or perhaps the world wide flood story in Genesis was a Hebrew retelling of the Babylonian retelling of the Sumerian flood myth and has nothing to do with reality. This would explain why there is no evidence for the global flood and massive evidence against it without restorting to an endless stream of ad-hoc nonsense.
http://www.christianforums.com/t95378/

Met by an endless stream of disrespectful retorts by you and others. Are you so starved intellectually that you must resort to debating the likes of us who cleave to 'ignorant superstition'. I'd call that 'intellectual slumming'.

 

[Delphiki]

Met by an endless stream of comment by you and others. Are you so starved intellectually that you must resort to debating the likes of us who cleave to 'ignorant superstition'. I'd call that 'intellectual slumming'.

I like how this rebuttal is in no way relevant to the post it quoted. Don't bother to address the issue -- just play the persecution card.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I like how this rebuttal is in no way relevant to the post it quoted. Don't bother to address the issue -- just play the persecution card.

You apparently haven't been reading our posts very carefully. One gets tired of presenting a case to someone who's only reply is, "Oh yeah, sez you."

 

[AV1611VET]

Met by an endless stream of disrespectful retorts by you and others. Are you so starved intellectually that you must resort to debating the likes of us who cleave to 'ignorant superstition'. I'd call that 'intellectual slumming'.

Ouch!

Can't say as I disagree here!

 

[Delphiki]

One of the heaviest rainfalls ever recorded was 73.6 inches of water in a 24 hour period on a small island off the coast of India. This was in March 1952.

Réunion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Keeping this in mind, when a state like Kentucky or Missouri experiences flooding rains, it's a pretty safe bet that the rain isn't exceeding the 6 feet per day - far less than 8 feet per hour.

Ever seen how violent these floods can be?

What makes you think 8 feet per hour isn't going to be a violent flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

One of the heaviest rainfalls ever recorded was 73.6 inches of water in a 24 hour period on a small island off the coast of India. This was in March 1952.

Assuming a depth of five miles, it rained & geysered @ the rate of about 7 feet per day for a total of five months over the entire earth the year of the Flood.

At the height of the Flood, as seen from space, the earth would have looked something like this:

​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

One of the heaviest rainfalls ever recorded was 73.6 inches of water in a 24 hour period on a small island off the coast of India. This was in March 1952.

Réunion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Keeping this in mind, when a state like Kentucky or Missouri experiences flooding rains, it's a pretty safe bet that the rain isn't exceeding the 6 feet per day - far less than 8 feet per hour.

Ever seen how violent these floods can be?

What makes you think 8 feet per hour isn't going to be a violent flood?

Of course it would be violent, in some places. But was it violent enough against the ark to damage or sink it at any time during the flood. I don't think so. As flooding occurs the very water itself slows the incoming water as it builds up in the low places. Water moving up a steep slope is hardly violent compared to screaming across fairly level ground. Based on the time it took for the floodwaters to reach the ark, and the topography of the area, the ark was probably above the flat plain. It was also 'lifted up', not 'washed away' by these waters which by now were 'creeping' up the mountainsides rather slowly. I have watched ocean tides come in quickly but almost imperceptably, as there was no violent inflow. The waters rise up with hardly a ripple. Of course in other areas they are quite violent with dangerous ripetides, etc. The topography determines, to a large extent, the destructiveness of floods.