Didn't they know?

[OldWiseGuy]

The History Channel and NatGeo are two of TV's showcases for science. In recent years they have presented several shows debunking the story of Noah's flood, focusing particularly on what they perceive as the fatal inability of the ark to withstand a flood of the magnitude described in the Genesis account. They do this by presenting idiotic designs using inappropriate materials and building methods. Do they not know that redwood trees, a species of cypress ('gopher' wood), grew in the region at that time, as well as the well-known Lebanon cedar, a wood widely used in ship building (even though the ark was not a 'ship')? Either of these species would yield rot-resistant material of great length and strength. The incredible intellectual dishonesty, as well as the total ignorance of ancient construction methods in these productions is appalling, and laughable. Even a grade-schooler should be insulted by these moronic presentations.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The History Channel and NatGeo are two of TV's showcases for science. In recent years they have presented several shows debunking the story of Noah's flood, focusing particularly on what they perceive as the fatal inability of the ark to withstand a flood of the magnitude described in the Genesis account. They do this by presenting idiotic designs using inappropriate materials and building methods. Do they not know that redwood trees, a species of cypress ('gopher' wood), grew in the region at that time, as well as the well-known Lebanon cedar, a wood widely used in ship building (even though the ark was not a 'ship')? Either of these species would yield rot-resistant material of great length and strength. The incredible intellectual dishonesty, as well as the total ignorance of ancient construction methods in these productions is appalling, and laughable. Even a grade-schooler should be insulted by these moronic presentations.

Can I see a source for this? I always believe that "gopher wood" was still a biblical mystery.

 

[juvenissun]

The History Channel and NatGeo are two of TV's showcases for science. In recent years they have presented several shows debunking the story of Noah's flood, focusing particularly on what they perceive as the fatal inability of the ark to withstand a flood of the magnitude described in the Genesis account. They do this by presenting idiotic designs using inappropriate materials and building methods. Do they not know that redwood trees, a species of cypress ('gopher' wood), grew in the region at that time, as well as the well-known Lebanon cedar, a wood widely used in ship building (even though the ark was not a 'ship')? Either of these species would yield rot-resistant material of great length and strength. The incredible intellectual dishonesty, as well as the total ignorance of ancient construction methods in these productions is appalling, and laughable. Even a grade-schooler should be insulted by these moronic presentations.

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.

I take their scientific data, but sort out their interpretations. By the way, why should the Ark be made of good wood? I think any wood could do the job.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Do they not know that redwood trees, a species of cypress ('gopher' wood), grew in the region at that time, as well as the well-known Lebanon cedar, a wood widely used in ship building (even though the ark was not a 'ship')?

How could they possibly know that redwood trees grew in the area since there is no evidence of giant redwoods ever having grown in this area? "Cypress" is a family of trees which include around 30 genera. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to infer that if "gopher wood" really meant "Cypress" it would be referring to the Mediterranean Cypress which is indigenous to the area?

Either of these species would yield rot-resistant material of great length and strength.

Hmmmm, as I recall only the heartwood of redwoods is all that decay-resistant and is pretty brittle which doesn't exactly bode well for a vessel that's going to have to deal with hogging and sagging from ocean swells.

The incredible intellectual dishonesty, as well as the total ignorance of ancient construction methods in these productions is appalling, and laughable. Even a grade-schooler should be insulted by these moronic presentations.

Didn't see the show, but I imagine that they were going on the techniques and materials available to people in the region at the time. . .could you perhaps be more specific?




Lurker

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How could they possibly know that redwood trees grew in the area since there is no evidence of giant redwoods ever having grown in this area? "Cypress" is a family of trees which include around 30 genera. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to infer that if "gopher wood" really meant "Cypress" it would be referring to the Mediterranean Cypress which is indigenous to the area?



Hmmmm, as I recall only the heartwood of redwoods is all that decay-resistant and is pretty brittle which doesn't exactly bode well for a vessel that's going to have to deal with hogging and sagging from ocean swells.



Didn't see the show, but I imagine that they were going on the techniques and materials available to people in the region at the time. . .could you perhaps be more specific?




Lurker

Redwoods grew around the earth in ancient times and were quite prolific (according to those who study Redwoods). 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, but redwood. Redwood is light in weight but strong enough for the long planking of the ark. 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. 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. Large waves and swells would have minimal effect, most rolling over the top of the ark. It was really a large submarine, stabilized by the water surrounding it. Recall that the ark was 'lifted up', not washed away, by the rising flood waters.

 

[AV1611VET]

The History Channel and NatGeo are two of TV's showcases for science. In recent years they have presented several shows debunking the story of Noah's flood, focusing particularly on what they perceive as the fatal inability of the ark to withstand a flood of the magnitude described in the Genesis account. They do this by presenting idiotic designs using inappropriate materials and building methods. Do they not know that redwood trees, a species of cypress ('gopher' wood), grew in the region at that time, as well as the well-known Lebanon cedar, a wood widely used in ship building (even though the ark was not a 'ship')? Either of these species would yield rot-resistant material of great length and strength. The incredible intellectual dishonesty, as well as the total ignorance of ancient construction methods in these productions is appalling, and laughable. Even a grade-schooler should be insulted by these moronic presentations.

That's Hollywood for you --

They probably consulted an evolutionist to help with the script.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Redwoods grew around the earth in ancient times and were quite prolific (according to those who study Redwoods). There is still a grove of 'Dawn Redwoods' growing in China.

I'm not familiar with large redwood trees growing in the fertile crescent, has anyone uncovered evidence of this in the area and from the required time period?

Stronger woods could have been used for other parts of the superstructure.

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.

And you were expecting the producers of these shows to know this. . .how exactly? As far as I know there is no evidence of these trees ever growing in the area and the whole issue of equating "gopher" with "redwood" is apparently springing solely from you imagination.



Lurker

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can I see a source for this? I always believe that "gopher wood" was still a biblical mystery.

It is clear to me that Noah would have known what 'gopher' wood was, and where to obtain it. I have deduced that it was redwood because the sheer size of the ark demanded wood members of great length. Noah had 100 years to complete the project, thus plenty of time to locate these trees and contract to have them shaped to his design specs. He made well have imported them from as far away as China. People who study redwoods say that they grew worldwide anciently. That's enough for me. If one is serious about understanding the bible some assumptions must be made.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not familiar with large redwood trees growing in the fertile crescent, has anyone uncovered evidence of this in the area and from the required time period?



And you were expecting the producers of these shows to know this. . .how exactly? As far as I know there is no evidence of these trees ever growing in the area and the whole issue of equating "gopher" with "redwood" is apparently springing solely from you imagination.



Lurker

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.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

The History Channel and NatGeo are two of TV's showcases for science. In recent years they have presented several shows debunking the story of Noah's flood, focusing particularly on what they perceive as the fatal inability of the ark to withstand a flood of the magnitude described in the Genesis account. They do this by presenting idiotic designs using inappropriate materials and building methods. Do they not know that redwood trees, a species of cypress ('gopher' wood), grew in the region at that time, as well as the well-known Lebanon cedar, a wood widely used in ship building (even though the ark was not a 'ship')? Either of these species would yield rot-resistant material of great length and strength. The incredible intellectual dishonesty, as well as the total ignorance of ancient construction methods in these productions is appalling, and laughable. Even a grade-schooler should be insulted by these moronic presentations.

In 1865, a ship called the Rochambeau was launched. It was the largest wooden ship ever constructed, at 115 meters (377.3 ft) long, and a 22.2 meter (72.8 ft) beam. Not only was it wooden, it also had numerous metal supports in order to increase its structural strength on the ocean.

This ship made precisely one voyage into the open seas. It was an utter disaster. The ship was simply too large. The ship bent and warped on the open ocean. The waves below it bent it and broke its back, and it very nearly sank.

This was with the most modern construction methods available in the mid-nineteenth century, the end of the heyday of wooden vessels. Even with its advanced construction and metal supports, it was almost entirely unseaworthy.

And then you compare that with the myth of Noah's ark, claimed to be even larger, at 137x23 meters (450 by 75 feet), built four thousand years ago, and made entirely of wood, and claim that it could survive on the open sea for months on end? I call bullfeces.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The History Channel and NatGeo are two of TV's showcases for science. In recent years they have presented several shows debunking the story of Noah's flood, focusing particularly on what they perceive as the fatal inability of the ark to withstand a flood of the magnitude described in the Genesis account. They do this by presenting idiotic designs using inappropriate materials and building methods. Do they not know that redwood trees, a species of cypress ('gopher' wood), grew in the region at that time, as well as the well-known Lebanon cedar, a wood widely used in ship building (even though the ark was not a 'ship')? Either of these species would yield rot-resistant material of great length and strength. The incredible intellectual dishonesty, as well as the total ignorance of ancient construction methods in these productions is appalling, and laughable. Even a grade-schooler should be insulted by these moronic presentations.

It doesn't matter what the wood was, even Redwood is not strong enough for a boat this big nor is any other wood. Any time the vessel is not sitting in still water the hull will be under load. The maximum deflection of a beam under load is proportional to the length of the beam to the 4th power if the load is uniformly distributed and to the 3rd power with a center load supported at both ends. Long Wooden beams will flex a lot even under lighter loads than what would be created on a giant boat in any kind of waves.
Stress and Deflections in Beams

A wooden boat more than 400 feet long would flex and bend and leak like a sieve no matter how much pitch was used even in relatively gentle seas let along on a global ocean with water pouring from the fountains of the deep and several meters of rain falling every hour.

Here is a list of the largest wooden ships ever built. Note the fates of the really big ones.
List of world's largest wooden ships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't see the programs but it might be "wise" investigate the facts a little more before you call people who seem to have basically had it right morons. Perhaps you could present us with a design for a boat that size made of wood using late bronze age or early iron tools and construction methods that would not flex, leak and sink in the first few days on the waves.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Interesting. I said 'region' and you changed it to 'area', which is most often much smaller.

Um. . .okay. . .then is there any evidence for redwoods have grown in the region during this time period?

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

Probable because. . .why exactly?

(but he could have imported finished redwood timbers from China).

If all you're basing this whole "redwood" thing on is the immense size of the trees then you may want to rethink your whole "imported from China" thing since the only species of redwood that grows there, while certainly a decent sized tree, really isn't all that big. Also, is there any evidence to support timber trade between China and the fertile crescent 4,350 years ago? I only mention this because it seems this is just another ad hoc explanation springing from your imagination that you can hardly fault the producers of these shows for not picking up when they ostensibly were supposed to scan your brain for information.

The producers of these shows have no interest in facts. Their purpose is to debunk the bible story.

What were they supposed to do? Mind-meld with you in order to figure out that Noah imported giant redwoods from China across notably absent timber trade routes? The things you seem to be criticizing them for not including in their programs are things that aren't supported by evidence and, to be quite honest, don't really seem to be supported by scripture either. They're just explanations you made up. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but you can't just assume everyone will automatically know and go along with them.




Lurker

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Um. . .okay. . .then is there any evidence for redwoods have grown in the region during this time period?



Probable because. . .why exactly?



If all you're basing this whole "redwood" thing on is the immense size of the trees then you may want to rethink your whole "imported from China" thing since the only species of redwood that grows there, while certainly a decent sized tree, really isn't all that big. Also, is there any evidence to support timber trade between China and the fertile crescent 4,350 years ago? I only mention this because it seems this is just another ad hoc explanation springing from your imagination that you can hardly fault the producers of these shows for not picking up when they ostensibly were supposed to scan your brain for information.

Even if they had giant redwoods they couldn't have built a ark that would stand even mild waves. Redwoods resist rot but their modulus of elasticity is about 8-9 GPa for old growth which is right in the range of many other woods so they would still flex. Hardwoods like oak are actually stronger as are Sitka spruce and Western Hemlock.

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1994/winan94a.pdf

I suppose you could make thicker beams but I don't see how you could contruct an actual ark that would hold all those animals using only giant single logs and even then they would flex. I also wonder how they could have worked with those giant trees to cut them down and make board you could use for an ark from them with bronze age wood working tools. I doubt if Noah had a sawmill.

What were they supposed to do? Mind-meld with you in order to figure out that Noah imported giant redwoods from China across notably absent timber trade routes? The things you seem to be criticizing them for not including in their programs are things that aren't supported by evidence and, to be quite honest, don't really seem to be supported by scripture either. They're just explanations you made up. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but you can't just assume everyone will automatically know and go along with them.

Lurker

They are not only not supported by evidence they wouldn't really make a difference to the argument.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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?

13: And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14: And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

This sounds like the Mesopotamia to me. Or did Noah move several thousand miles away to build the ark?

Added in edit: Since the ark would have sunk very soon after the water was deep enough to float it they must have started not very far from where they "landed" and it wouldn't have mattered in they lived near the largest grove of old growth redwoods that ever existed on earth when they started.

 

[AV1611VET]

13: And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14: And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

This sounds like the Mesopotamia to me. Or did Noah move several thousand miles away to build the ark?

Added in edit: Since the ark would have sunk very soon after the water was deep enough to float it they must have started not very far from where they "landed" and it wouldn't have mattered in they lived near the largest grove of old growth redwoods that ever existed on earth when they started.

#1: You're describing the place where the Ark ended its journey -- not started it.

#2: Since Jesus would have sunk also, but didn't, what's your point?

 

[Bushido216]

By the way, why should the Ark be made of good wood? I think any wood could do the job.

In case you're wondering why your posts go ignored, this is why.

Also, don't go into ship-building.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, don't go into ship-building.

That's actually good advice.

Anyone attempting to emulate what Noah did in Genesis 7 will -- (in my opinion) -- find themselves sent to Davy Jones' Locker.

This is because what Noah did wasn't science.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

#1: You're describing the place where the Ark ended its journey -- not started it.

#2: Since Jesus would have sunk also, but didn't, what's your point?

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

 

[Nathan Poe]

It is clear to me that Noah would have known what 'gopher' wood was, and where to obtain it.

Right -- nobody's saying that he wouldn't have known...

I have deduced that it was redwood because the sheer size of the ark demanded wood members of great length.

Right -- in other words, because the ark was a big project, you imagined that it needed the biggest trees available, so you just assumed that trees indiginous only to the west coast of North America were also in abundance in the Middle East.

Noah had 100 years to complete the project, thus plenty of time to locate these trees and contract to have them shaped to his design specs.

Contract? Contract whom? His sons?

He made well have imported them from as far away as China. People who study redwoods say that they grew worldwide anciently.

Source, please? How about the names of some of these Redwood students who say this?

That's enough for me. If one is serious about understanding the bible some assumptions must be made.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what happens when you "assume."