Noah's Ark Would Have Broken in Half

[Dale]

Creationists keep trying to tell us that Noah's Flood, the Deluge, is a perfectly sensible idea. Most criticism focuses on plants, animals, water and mountains but there is another problem. Noah's Ark is not feasible. Artists usually picture the Ark as a large ship but as described in Genesis it is simply a large box. It was a barge, not a ship. It turns out that a box is a bad design even if a wooden ship that size was practical.

How much wood would it take to build a barge that size? Competent people have done the calculation. Noah's Ark would take 3,676 tons of wood to build, and would weigh that much when finished. That's 7,352,000 pounds of wood. Is there that much wood in the Middle East? Genesis says that the Ark was made of gopher wood but even if we aren't particular about what kind of wood, is there that much wood in the Middle East?

Noah would have been up against a basic principle of physics. Suppose that you take a small beam and make it larger. The weight of the beam increases faster than the strength of the beam. This is known as the square-cube law. In other words, the force causing the beam to bend, or break, increases faster than the strength of the beam with increasing size.


"The 102 meter British warships HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey had such bad structural problems that they were scrapped in 1871 and 1875 after only a few years in service."

and

"Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter Pretoria in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking."


These ships were only about 3/4 the size of Noah's Ark, and better designed. There is a practical limit to the size of wooden ships and Noah's Ark is well over the limit.


None of this matters if the story of Noah and the Flood is understood as a parable about the kind of obedience that God wants, which is how I see it.


Source: Skeptoid: Noah's Ark: Sea Trials
Link:
Noah's Ark: Sea Trials

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

How much wood would it take to build a barge that size? Competent people have done the calculation. Noah's Ark would take 3,676 tons of wood to build, and would weigh that much when finished. That's 7,352,000 pounds of wood. Is there that much wood in the Middle East? Genesis says that the Ark was made of gopher wood but even if we aren't particular about what kind of wood, is there that much wood in the Middle East?

Obviously there was, or how would he have built it?

Noah would have been up against a basic principle of physics. Suppose that you take a small beam and make it larger. The weight of the beam increases faster than the strength of the beam. This is known as the square-cube law. In other words, the force causing the beam to bend, or break, increases faster than the strength of the beam with increasing size.

"The 102 meter British warships HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey had such bad structural problems that they were scrapped in 1871 and 1875 after only a few years in service."

The ark didn't need to float that long. And it didn't need to sail, nor go to war - just float.

"Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter Pretoria in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking."

Perhaps that is what the pitch was for?

These ships were only about 3/4 the size of Noah's Ark, and better designed. There is a practical limit to the size of wooden ships and Noah's Ark is well over the limit.

Ships are for sailing. Noah's Ark was for saving. For saving from flood, the ark's size was quite practical.

None of this matters if the story of Noah and the Flood is understood as a parable about the kind of obedience that God wants, which is how I see it.

The historical account of Noah's Ark is not meant as a parable.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Tolworth John]

Noah's Ark is not feasible

Why does a 'Christian' trust a skeptics site over what fellow Christians say?

The Ark was feasible as research shows:-
WWF: Hull Form

 

[Dale]

Why does a 'Christian' trust a skeptics site over what fellow Christians say?

The Ark was feasible as research shows:-
WWF: Hull Form

I have read many articles from that site and I have not found any of them to be anti-religious.
Most Christians do believe in evolution and in an old earth.

 

[Tolworth John]

I have read many articles from that site and I have not found any of them to be anti-religious.
Most Christians do believe in evolution and in an old earth.

Yet your quotes from that site mocks Christianity saying that the bible as interpreted by bible believing Christians is untrue.
This is particularly bad when the information quoted is incorrect.

 

[KWCrazy]

Most Christians do believe in evolution and in an old earth.

What did Christ believe and teach?

 

[miamited]

Hi dale,

It always amazes me how so many of the people of God deny the power of God. If you look at the natural properties of water you'll also know that the crossing of the sea couldn't have happened. Jesus couldn't have been born in the nature of the account as the Scriptures tell us. The sun couldn't have stood still in the sky nor gone backwards so as a shadow on a set of steps would back up ten steps.

Practically every single time that God steps in and does something, you'd have to deny it happened, if our rule of possibility is what we know is the natural properties of things.

As far as whether or not there is that much wood in the area in which the ark was built? Well, since we don't really know exactly where the ark was built we couldn't possibly answer that question, but nearly every part of the world has some forests reasonably accessible even today. I imagine that it was even greater then. We don't even know what the topography and foliage of the middle east was 4,500 years ago.

I just don't understand people who tell us all the things in the Scriptures that God couldn't have done, yet they have no problem believing that a woman 2,000 years ago could be pregnant with child without ever having 'been' with a man, as Mary proclaims of herself. How is it that our great and awesome God can impregnate a woman, but can't keep a wooden structure afloat? Did the ax head not float?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

I have read many articles from that site and I have not found any of them to be anti-religious.
Most Christians do believe in evolution and in an old earth.

Hi dale,

When Jesus said that the way to destruction was broad and many there be on it, but the way of salvation was narrow and few there be that find it. Then when he also told his disciples of the day of his Father's judgment that 'many' christians, after all, these were people who, while living on the earth did great things in the name of Jesus, would be turned back. One must consider that when one's consideration of proof rests partially on their belief that 'many' christians believe in evolution and old earth, it needs to be considered whether the first 'many' christians might also comprise the second 'many' christians.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It turns out that a box is a bad design even if a wooden ship that size was practical.

YHWH says totally otherwise. Sorry somebody human or demon lied to you.

 

[Speedwell]

Hi dale,

It always amazes me how so many of the people of God deny the power of God. If you look at the natural properties of water you'll also know that the crossing of the sea couldn't have happened. Jesus couldn't have been born in the nature of the account as the Scriptures tell us. The sun couldn't have stood still in the sky nor gone backwards so as a shadow on a set of steps would back up ten steps.

Practically every single time that God steps in and does something, you'd have to deny it happened, if our rule of possibility is what we know is the natural properties of things.

As far as whether or not there is that much wood in the area in which the ark was built? Well, since we don't really know exactly where the ark was built we couldn't possibly answer that question, but nearly every part of the world has some forests reasonably accessible even today. I imagine that it was even greater then. We don't even know what the topography and foliage of the middle east was 4,500 years ago.

I just don't understand people who tell us all the things in the Scriptures that God couldn't have done, yet they have no problem believing that a woman 2,000 years ago could be pregnant with child without ever having 'been' with a man, as Mary proclaims of herself. How is it that our great and awesome God can impregnate a woman, but can't keep a wooden structure afloat? Did the ax head not float?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

The short answer is,
It's not that we believe God couldn't have done it, we don't believe that God "said" that He did.

 

[Speedwell]

YHWH says totally otherwise. Sorry somebody human or demon lied to you.

It's interesting that no creation "scientist," a group which includes a number of engineers, has ever done the structural calculations. It's also interesting that among the replicas of the Ark which have been built, no attempt has been made to use materials and building techniques current at the purported time of Noah.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's interesting that no creation "scientist," a group which includes a number of engineers, has ever done the structural calculations. It's also interesting that among the replicas of the Ark which have been built, no attempt has been made to use materials and building techniques current at the purported time of Noah.

It is even more revealing that you have not bothered seeking the truth long enough to find it.
It's out there.
Keep looking.

 

[Tayla]

The ark didn't need to float that long.

The ark was nearly the exact dimensions as the largest of Seattle's ferries. I don't know if you've ever been on one of these but they are stunningly huge, built of steel. Wood does not have the structural properties necessary. This is why they can't build skyscrapers out of wood.

Another factor: The flood would have caused wave action and turbulence greater than any tsunami. Even the Titanic couldn't survive hitting an iceberg. The ark would have been upside down and smashed into huge boulders many times over, shattered like breaking a popsicle stick.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Grant R. Jeffrey - ‎2013 - 256 pages - Religion
A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and ... According to shipbuilders, the ark's design was perfect for surviving a yearlong voyage.
... The Bible records that Noah used gopher wood to construct the ark.

 

[KWCrazy]

The short answer is,
It's not that we believe God couldn't have done it, we don't believe that God "said" that He did.

So you don't believe the Bible is the word of God.
Jesus did.
Which of you are wrong?

 

[KWCrazy]

It's also interesting that among the replicas of the Ark which have been built, no attempt has been made to use materials and building techniques current at the purported time of Noah.

How do you know what existed then?
As for the building techniques, God was the engineer.

 

[Dale]

Yet your quotes from that site mocks Christianity saying that the bible as interpreted by bible believing Christians is untrue.
This is particularly bad when the information quoted is incorrect.

Citing the experience of the largest wooden ships ever built is not mocking Christianity.

John, you assume that creationists are "bible believing Christians." Yet creationists have misled me, and others, about what is in the Bible. See my thread

Creationists False on Key Point
In particular, see post #6.

In churches that teach creationism, people are taught that Christianity is creationism, they are one and the same. It is specifically taught that there is creationism and atheism, and nothing in between. Liberal Christianity and nonliteral interpretation are myths. I don't have to go very far to find churches that are examples of this. There is one within walking distance of my home.

The result is that many people grow up as creationists, find out that creationism doesn't work, and become atheists. I have talked to a couple of them on CF. I have talked to at least one person in this position who escaped becoming an atheist only after a year-long religious crisis.

Do creationist pastors want their members to become atheists if they can't believe in creationism? Apparently they do. I don't.

 

[Speedwell]

So you don't believe the Bible is the word of God.
Jesus did.
Which of you are wrong?

LOL! It could be you. In particular, you are wrong when you say that I don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God.

 

[Tolworth John]

Citing the experience of the largest wooden ships ever built is not mocking Christianity.

When it is used as aparent proof that the ark could not have worked and that evidence is false( ships quoted are real etc ) as shown in the link I supplied.
Then it is mocking Christianity.

As for your statement that some pastors give false information, add to the bible. I'm sure that happens, but that is not what we are talking about.
The bible discribes a global flood that lasted for over a year and that destroyed the world.

The evidence of that is seen in the tectonic plates, great sea depths, enormous layers of sedimentary rock, of planation of large areas of the earths surface.

That many pastors do a poor job of teaching about the triths in the bible and do not prepare young Christians for the harsh realities of a god hating world is very wrong.

May I challenge you to investigate what the bible teaches, yes I'm sure you think this unneccessary, the bible is the word of God, read it as such with as far as you can no outside ideas of what it says, either creationist ideas or any other ideas, see what you find.

 

[miamited]

Hi dale,

You wrote:

It turns out that a box is a bad design even if a wooden ship that size was practical.

Let me address this singular claim. Then if you are interested, you could put other claims to the same test. The Scriptures don't say that the design was a box. The Scriptures give the dimensions of the craft just as today's ship builders give the dimensions of their ships. In the dimensions of modern day ships we aren't told that it is so many feet wide and then tapers off to a bow. It gives the width dimension as the widest part of the ship. We know that it likely tapers into a bow because we've seen ships. So, the first problem with your claim is that you seem to believe that because only a single width is given in the Scriptures, then the design must have been a box, despite the fact that even today we give ship measurements in the same way and yet they are not complete boxes. Although, if you cut off the bow, even today's ships are boxes. They just have a point added to the front.

Secondly, ships today are designed to go places. So they have a bow so that they can cut through the water and be directed by a rudder to carry men and machines all around the world. There is no indication that the ark was to be guided in any way other than by the wind and the waves. There is no mention of a rudder even being included in the design of the ark. It was just a big floating craft subject to the wind and the waves for direction, but designed to save some of God's creative work in creating this realm. The ark didn't have an engine or sails so far as we know, so how one would expect it to be guided is beyond me. A ship without an engine or sails won't go anywhere even if you do have a rudder. You can't turn a ship around without some force of energy such is provided through an engine or the capture of wind in sails.

So, the bottom line here is that instead of trusting God's word to tell you the truth, you want to take the current wisdom of man in ship building and say that it just isn't possible that the ark would have survived its voyage. The basic truth about boats and ships is that so long as they displace enough water to make up for their weight, they will float. As others have said, this idea that Noah didn't have any proper tools with which to build such a massive structure is all conjecture. We don't know what Noah had on hand. We do know that he likely had 3 sons as helpers. Despite what the movie shows that Noah was always at odds with his family in his crazy scheme to build the ark, we don't have any evidence from the Scriptures or any other historical narrative that would support such an idea. That's merely cinematic license. We don't know that Noah fought with people as he was building the ark. That's also cinematic license. Sadly, many people find their truth in movies rather than in the source of truth.

Finally, my point is that even if Noah had built the ark out of toothpicks, if the Lord wanted it to float in order that some of His creation could be saved from the death and destruction that the flood was created by God to bring upon the people and all living things upon the ground, then it would float. Just like that ax head floated to the surface by the power of God. Just like the sun stood still in the sky by the power of God. Just as there was light in Goshen, but no light in all of Egypt for three whole days by the power of God. Just like a young woman who had never had sexual relations with a man was found to be with child by the power of God.

However, each is free to believe what they have purposed in their heart is the truth. They can believe '666' the number of man, or they can believe God. For me, I'm going with God. I have no problem understanding that even if a ship design as proven by men couldn't float, that if God's word said it floated...then it floated. Just as '666' will show you all kinds of proof that a woman cannot possibly be with child without male sperm having been introduced in some way to her egg. If God's word says that a woman who had never had relations with a man became pregnant...then she was pregnant.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted