Noah's Ark Would Have Broken in Half

[Adstar]

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

Oh ye of little to no Faith....

 

[miamited]

Hi dale,

You opened this thread by stating:

Creationists keep trying to tell us that Noah's Flood, the Deluge, is a perfectly sensible idea.

I'm not convinced that any believers would agree that the flood was some 'perfectly sensible idea'. We just believe that the account of what God says He did...He did. Is it sensible? Well, if you're judging such a claim as making sense because it does or doesn't fit with the wisdom of man, I'd tell you, as one of those people that you call 'creationists' that no! It isn't sensible. I'd just say that it obviously is possible. But my sole purpose for making the claim that it is possible is that God has caused to be written in His revelation to us of the historical past, that it happened.

It really boils down to how one understands the power of God. Can He cause things to happen within His creation that are completely and utterly inexplicable to us as to how they happened? My answer is yes! Absolutely!! It's the real definition of a miracle. Jesus took jugs filled with water and within merely a few moments of their having been filled, the liquid poured out of those jugs was wine. There is not a scientist upon the earth who can show you how such a thing could be done. It absolutely goes against everything that we know about wine making. First of all, you can't make wine with just water. You can set a jug of water out for years and it will never become wine. Yet the Scriptures tell us that he did it and in front of a full wedding party of people. Can you feed 5,000 people with a couple of fish? You couldn't give 5,000 people a finger pinch of fish with the number of fish that the Scriptures tell us that Jesus had on hand. Yet, the Scriptures tell us that there was so much left over that they filled 12 baskets with the remaining pieces. Friend, you couldn't have filled 12 baskets with what they started with. Five loaves and two fish. Go ahead and ask your scientists how 5 loaves of bread that were likely pretty normal sized loaves being carried by a young boy for his lunch and two fish that were likely just some 12" fish or so that were also being carried by a young boy for his own lunch could feed 5,000 people.

Ask them to show you how a man could walk on water. Have them give you one example of a man just walking out from a shore somewhere today where they can walk on the top of the water. Even in the Dead Sea, which has the greatest bouncy of any body of water upon the earth because of all the salt content, a man cannot walk on the top of the water. It can't be done and there isn't a scientist in the world that can show you how it could be done. But, you want to believe that these same scientists can tell you whether or not a craft that God commanded to be built, could float or not.

Go figure! Come, let us reason together.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[mozo41]

but it did not

 

[Speedwell]

The bible discribes a global flood that lasted for over a year and that destroyed the world.

In the Bible, God tells us a story about a global flood that lasted for over a year and that destroyed the world. Whether that story has any determinable basis in actual events is unknown. It doesn't need one.

 

[mozo41]

In the Bible, God tells us a story about a global flood that lasted for over a year and that destroyed the world. Whether that story has any determinable basis in actual events is unknown. It doesn't need one.

yes it is known ...

 

[Speedwell]

yes it is known ...

How?

 

[mozo41]

How?

overwhelming evidence ...

 

[Tayla]

The result is that many people grow up as creationists, find out that creationism doesn't work, and become atheists.

This is a key point. Philosophy demonstrates the scientific method guarantees truth within its domain, that is, the physical material universe.

 

[disciple1]

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

Is there that much wood in the Middle East?

Where does it say it was built in the middle east.

 

[Segaz]

I mean, why believe that Christ had a virgin birth, there is no way for a woman to do that.

Genesis is the most contested book of the Bible and with reason: once you take that away, you turn it into a book of myths and fables that a good man once used to encourage people to be nicer.

If you can't trust God parting the dead sea or accomodating 2 of every land life in the ark, then how can you trust Him about salvation?

 

[Speedwell]

I mean, why believe that Christ had a virgin birth, there is no way for a woman to do that.

Genesis is the most contested book of the Bible and with reason: once you take that away, you turn it into a book of myths and fables that a good man once used to encourage people to be nicer.

If you can't trust God parting the dead sea or accomodating 2 of every land life in the ark, then how can you trust Him about salvation?

You mean, if I can't trust your interpretation of Genesis, my faith in Christ will not save me? Who are you?

 

[Segaz]

Ok this is trolling, I did not say how can you believe, I said how can you trust Him. Trust meaning how can we sure that God will be saving our bodies after death if we keep disbelieving every act that is impossible for us to recreate?

But I think you know what I meant.
And your final line of who are you belays your attitude towards newcomers who stand by Scriptural Canon.

And just to be clear, I don't think we are called to 'remain in a simple belief of Jesus'. Because you have to believe He is who was foretold in prophecy. Ordained by God the Father. It's like asking me do I think JWs are Christians. There is a deeper layer to belief in Jesus than just a literal basic understanding of the name being something good to save you, time and circumstances not withstanding, before you throw deathbed conversions or limited access to the Word or thief on the cross at me.

By your previous actions I expect you to isolate my 'no' in the third paragraph and respond on that alone telling me I have no right or o wasn't clear etc.

That's cool. Your prerogative..

 

[miamited]

Hi dale,

You posted earlier:

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.

You know, I'm sure you've heard that a few times. I've also heard people who have claimed to be christians say that when they came to read about all the death and destruction that was apparently brought about by God, they gave up on christianity also. Others have said that if God hates homosexuals they won't continue to follow God either. I remember sharing with an avid 'christian' golfer that if there wasn't golf in heaven, he didn't want to go either. There are plenty of excuses for those who have dabbled in the faith for turning back. This happened once that we're told of with Jesus. He then went to his disciples and asked them if they wanted to turn back also? But, they understood that even if there were things in the Scriptures that they didn't understand or couldn't seem to grasp and see as being 'good' about God, there was no place else to go. So, people as you describe have been around and among us since the beginning of our Lord building his church.

Jesus told a parable about a farmer scattering seed. Notice that two of the explanations described people who did immediately believe the truth, but then when things got difficult for them or they couldn't take being so at odds with the world, they turned back. So, while I hear your complaint, my reply to those people is that they never got it. It isn't a matter of whether one understands all that God has told us or even whether they might, in their flesh, agree with all that God has done. But setting all that difficulty aside, if those who you propose understood the basic truth of God, then they are willfully setting themselves up to be eternally separated from God by turning back. These people think of religion as just something that people do to fill the hours of their lives and search for one that tickles their itching ears. They think that if God isn't like them and do things the way they would do them, then He's not worth the effort that true faith requires.

For people like you mention, it likely doesn't make any difference that they turn back. They weren't likely born again to begin with. They were just practicing religion and when it came up against their own personal understanding of how things should be, they just gave up on the effort. Jesus said that not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of God.

So, I'm always careful in saying that such and such a teaching is what turns people away from God, if it is a teaching of the Scriptures. For me, the Scriptures are quite clear. God describes six days of doing the work of His creating and describes each day as consisting of an evening and a morning. He then repeats quite clearly that in six days He made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. Jesus describes Adam as being the first man. God includes a fairly accurate genealogy, as far as we know, of the generations from that first man, Adam. Matthew follows that same genealogy from Abraham in explaining the line through which Jesus was born. Luke carries that genealogy all the way back to Adam. So we have two places in which God has said that He created all that is in this realm in six days and two places in which God has given us a genealogy by which we can fairly roughly estimate how far back those six days happened.

Now, who ever may, can deny that it's the truth. I'm not one of them. You may be. It isn't up to me to judge, but I think any born again believer understands that the Scriptures teach us that we should correct, teach and rebuke our brothers and sisters with the Scriptures. So, as long as I can back up what I believe through the Scriptures, then I have no problem telling a brother that I believe he's wrong. If I have to throw in a lot of, 'well, this is what man says' in supporting my position, then I'm likely not on as firm a foundation. Paul didn't write that it is by the wisdom of man that we should correct, rebuke and teach the truth.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Ok this is trolling, I did not say how can you believe, I said how can you trust Him. Trust meaning how can we sure that God will be saving our bodies after death if we keep disbelieving every act that is impossible for us to recreate?

But I think you know what I meant.
And your final line of who are you belays your attitude towards newcomers who stand by Scriptural Canon.

And just to be clear, I don't think we are called to 'remain in a simple belief of Jesus'. Because you have to believe He is who was foretold in prophecy. Ordained by God the Father. It's like asking me do I think JWs are Christians. There is a deeper layer to belief in Jesus than just a literal basic understanding of the name being something good to save you, time and circumstances not withstanding, before you throw deathbed conversions or limited access to the Word or thief on the cross at me.

So how much more is enough? I hold to the tenets of the Nicene Creed. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Is that not enough unless I also agree with your interpretation of Gensis 1-11? Since when?

 

[Segaz]

OK, to you are trying to get me to say you are not a Christian because you don't believe in genesis and you are unsaved because you don't believe God made the world in 7 days. That's not what I said. Not Called to remain ignorant is not the same as saying there is a point where you've learned enough to be saved.
But I don't see any point in continuing, since you just want to find me giving parameters l for being a Christian, catch me out on them and then justify open and continuous belief or denial in anything from the Bible.

So no, I don't know you and I can't ascertain if you are saved or not. I cannot say 100% any doubt in Genesis is evidence of a non Christian.
But then.... I never said that, and I explained more in subsequent posts. Argue with yourself.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, to you are trying to get me to say you are not a Christian because you don't believe in genesis and you are unsaved because you don't believe God made the world in 7 days. That's not what I said. Not Called to remain ignorant is not the same as saying there is a point where you've learned enough to be saved.
But I don't see any point in continuing, since you just want to find me giving parameters l for being a Christian, catch me out on them and then justify open and continuous belief or denial in anything from the Bible.

So no, I don't know you and I can't ascertain if you are saved or not. I cannot say 100% any doubt in Genesis is evidence of a non Christian.
But then.... I never said that, and I explained more in subsequent posts. Argue with yourself.

I wouldn't even be arguing with you if so many of your Bible-believing colleagues weren't pushing a political agenda. I don't care what you believe, I don't care if you evangelize for it, I just don't want to see it made public policy.

I don't even care if you think I'm a Christian or not, if you keep your opinion to yourself. When I lived in the Bible Belt I applied for a job in a machine shop. The boss asked me if I was a Christian and I told him I was. Later, when he found out I was an Anglican, he fired me for lying to him. I'm not interested in standing by and seeing the whole country run like that.

 

[KWCrazy]

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

"we don't believe that God "said" that He did."
How DARE I Believe what you wrote.
Now perhaps you can describe how you believe that the Bible is the word of God but we can't trust what is written because God didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Now perhaps you can describe how you believe that the Bible is the word of God but we can't trust what is written because God didn't have anything to do with it.

Maybe they think HE has a 'Ghost' Writer .......

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe they think HE has a 'Ghost' Writer .......

LOL! That would have to be a Holy Ghost writer.
But it is possible to revere Gen 1-11 as the inspired word of God without requiring it to be 100% accurate literal history. The authority of scripture derives from its divine provenance, not from its adherence to any particular literary genre.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The authority of scripture derives from its divine provenance

Well, if that means because it is from YHWH , BREATHED (Inspired) by HIM through the men He chose, and guarded by HIM all along, yes - HIS AUTHORITY.....
which
is also, (thank you by the way), why it is TRUTH.