Noah's Ark

[OldWiseGuy]

What and they forgot all of the connected skills?

I'm sure Noah kept records of skills that would be needed after the flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

The video concludes with some wooden ship called the Wyoming succumbing to dynamic stresses on it, with the tragic loss of all hands on board (14 men).

I believe the point being made is that, if the Wyoming couldn't do it, the Ark couldn't do it either.

I can greatly simplify this erroneous thinking with a passage in the New Testament.

Matthew 14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Now you know how the Ark was able to remain seaworthy, while the Wyoming sank.

Mr. Nye speaks about the Wyoming being built by 'very, very skilled shipwrights in New England. These guys were the best in the world at wooden shipbuilding.'

Well ... as the saying goes:

Amateurs built the Ark; professionals built the Wyoming.

This concludes my critique of the video.

 

[lesliedellow]

Translation: those who want the Bible to be the Word of God yet disagree with what it says to a common reading, must concoct purported theologically profound excuses to force it to work. The very human parts of the Bible books just are not that profound. And to follow the story from the beginning, it was God who allowed a "crafty beast" to mislead the whole world so seems he would have drown that goof from the start?

So you can't see, or don't want to see, the very obvious parallel between Genesis 1.2 and the flood story. An inability to read authorial intent, without having it spelled out in words of one syllabe, is your problem alone.

 

[Goonie]

I'm sure Noah kept records of skills that would be needed after the flood.

i forgot to ask, what date do you believe the ark was built?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have already solved those problems. People in Noah's day had all the skills and technology needed to build and manage the ark. The ark was large enough to hold all the supplies needed for a year.

Another huge problem for you. If they supposedly had this technology why is there no sign of it? We can find signs of older cultures and tell what their level of technology was, yet there is no sign at all of this supposedly advanced culture. Again, this is an example of a lack of evidence being evidence against.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

i forgot to ask, what date do you believe the ark was built?

Not important to me at this time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Another huge problem for you. If they supposedly had this technology why is there no sign of it? We can find signs of older cultures and tell what their level of technology was, yet there is no sign at all of this supposedly advanced culture. Again, this is an example of a lack of evidence being evidence against.

As I said, it was a one-of-a-kind structure for a one-of-a-kind event. However, the watertight joinery used isn't high tech at all. Make the joints strong and tight and let the swelling of the wood do the rest. This is how watertight wooden structures, like boats, are still constructed. Simple technology has remained simple through the ages.

I myself was ignorant of this principle. I thought that water sloshing around in the bottom of the wooden boats I saw meant that they were leaking and in peril of sinking. I later learned that it was the very water inside the boats that kept them from sinking by ensuring that the planking was kept wet and thus swollen and watertight.

 

[Colter]

So you can't see, or don't want to see, the very obvious parallel between Genesis 1.2 and the flood story. An inability to read authorial intent, without having it spelled out in words of one syllabe, is your problem alone.

That's right Leslie, disagreeing with you about what you read between the lines must be my shortcoming. The flood story is quite literal and quite wrong.

The preist class wrote a comprehensive story of tradition for a common audience. They culled from existing Mesipotamian lore concerning some of the more prominent events of the distant past. It became the basis of ecclesiastical authority, hardened into a fetish, the Word of God for the Israelites.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, it was a one-of-a-kind structure for a one-of-a-kind event. However, the watertight joinery used isn't high tech at all. Make the joints strong and tight and let the swelling of the wood do the rest. This is how watertight wooden structures, like boats, are still constructed. Simple technology has remained simple through the ages.

I myself was ignorant of this principle. I thought that water sloshing around in the bottom of the wooden boats I saw meant that they were leaking and in peril of sinking. I later learned that it was the very water inside the boats that kept them from sinking by ensuring that the planking was kept wet and thus swollen and watertight.

A bit of water is fine in a small wooden boat is fine. But when you deal with a huge one then you start to run into the square cube law. And that would have been that boats demise.

Think of it this way. In a small boat you would have maybe an inch of water sloshing around. That is not really a problem. Let's say that was for a boat ten feet long. If you scale that up for a four hundred foot boat you would have forty inches of water sloshing around. It would also be forty times wider and forty times longer. You would have 64,000 times as much water as in the small boat. Worse yet the surface area of the boat, that holds it together is only 1,600 times as large. The mass and volume grow exponentially faster than the area does. Sooner or later the boat breaks under its own mass. The Wyoming tells us that it will be sooner.


You need to find a better way of keeping the inside wet.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Cool now go feed the 10000 animals, oh and there's a tonne of manure to shift through a small door.

In addition to the ventilation caused by the furnaces the wood ash was probably sprinkled over the manure/bedding to reduce odors. This is a common practice in outhouses the world over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not important to me at this time.

Then you really should not be making claims that you cannot support about the technology.

That none of the supposed technology survived is very telling. That older ones did survive, pre-technology sites, shows that we should have more modern sites.

Missing evidence can be evidence against if that evidence should be there.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's right Leslie, disagreeing with you about what you read between the lines must be my shortcoming. The flood story is quite literal and quite wrong.

The preist class wrote a comprehensive story of tradition for a common audience. They culled from existing Mesipotamian lore concerning some of the more prominent events of the distant past. It became the basis of ecclesiastical authority, hardened into a fetish, the Word of God for the Israelites.

Firstly the flood story in the Bible is sourced from both the J and P narratives. Secondly, like everything else in the Bible, it was composed with a theological purpose in mind.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A bit of water is fine in a small wooden boat is fine. But when you deal with a huge one then you start to run into the square cube law. And that would have been that boats demise.

Think of it this way. In a small boat you would have maybe an inch of water sloshing around. That is not really a problem. Let's say that was for a boat ten feet long. If you scale that up for a four hundred foot boat you would have forty inches of water sloshing around. It would also be forty times wider and forty times longer. You would have 64,000 times as much water as in the small boat. Worse yet the surface area of the boat, that holds it together is only 1,600 times as large. The mass and volume grow exponentially faster than the area does. Sooner or later the boat breaks under its own mass. The Wyoming tells us that it will be sooner.


You need to find a better way of keeping the inside wet.

My guess is that the wood was soaked prior to the pitch being applied inside and out, which would seal the moisture in and keep the planking from shrinking. An example of this is the dog sled construction of the Inuit. They fill the peg holes with water prior to inserting the pegs that hold the thing together. The water freezes and usually never thaws during the life of the sled.

The ark would have had little 'freeboard' and thus would not have been greatly affected by large waves or swells. In fact I believe large waves, if any, would have just passed over the ark with no effect. This is perhaps why there was only an observation window at the top of the ark. A good example of this is the great lakes ore ships that when filled are virtually submerged except for bow and stern towers. Surfers also dive under the incoming waves to escape their effects.

Noah and his family were 'baptized' in the flood, which would have required complete submerging under the water. One big swell would certainly accomplish that.

People need to get artist's rendering of the both the ark and the flood waters out of their heads and study the actual story.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What and they forgot all of the connected skills?

Didn't I cover that?

 

[SolomonVII]

Firstly the flood story in the Bible is sourced from both the J and P narratives. Secondly, like everything else in the Bible, it was composed with a theological purpose in mind.

It is very interesting to follow the numbers uses in the Flood narrative, and tie them back to the Creation narrative earlier on in Genesis.
From that it becomes very apparent that the Flood is a retelling of the Creation story, a recreation of the world, if you will, one that is harder, tougher, leaner, more capable of enduring the evil that man has wrought upon the ground through spilled blood.
Using the fullness of interpretive methods available to ancient Jewish sages, it becomes very apparent that the Flood story cannot be reduced to mere plot, which would be more befitting a children's story, or Disney animation than a deep theological read delving into the mystery of why we are here, and what our purpose for being here is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My guess is that the wood was soaked prior to the pitch being applied inside and out, which would seal the moisture in and keep the planking from shrinking. An example of this is the dog sled construction of the Inuit. They fill the peg holes with water prior to inserting the pegs that hold the thing together. The water freezes and usually never thaws during the life of the sled.

The ark would have had little 'freeboard' and thus would not have been greatly affected by large waves or swells. In fact I believe large waves, if any, would have just passed over the ark with no effect. This is perhaps why there was only an observation window at the top of the ark. A good example of this is the great lakes ore ships that when filled are virtually submerged except for bow and stern towers. Surfers also dive under the incoming waves to escape their effects.

Noah and his family were 'baptized' in the flood, which would have required complete submerging under the water. One big swell would certainly accomplish that.

People need to get artist's rendering of the both the ark and the flood waters out of their heads and study the actual story.

Handwaving does not make for good arguments. And that is all that you have. The fact that the Wyoming could not be kept afloat with modern technology sinks your claims until you can do better.

Meanwhile I mentioned the lesson of the Cheetah a long time ago.

Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah.

The fact that we need large numbers of donors to choose from for transplants tells us that there was no flood. Do you remember how I explained that we do not have the genetic diversity that a flood would predict? At no time in man's history have there been fewer than a thousand people. Here is a non-technical article on the most recent bottleneck in our history, please note that this was one where our population got down to a few THOUSAND individuals, and we can still see its effects today:

The human race once came dangerously close to dying out — here's how it changed us

And a slightly more technical one:

https://phys.org/news/2010-01-humans-endangered-species.html

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then you really should not be making claims that you cannot support about the technology.

That none of the supposed technology survived is very telling. That older ones did survive, pre-technology sites, shows that we should have more modern sites.

Missing evidence can be evidence against if that evidence should be there.

If preflood technology existed after the flood then it was on the ark with all else that survived.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Handwaving does not make for good arguments. And that is all that you have. The fact that the Wyoming could not be kept afloat with modern technology sinks your claims until you can do better.

Meanwhile I mentioned the lesson of the Cheetah a long time ago.

Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah.

The fact that we need large numbers of donors to choose from for transplants tells us that there was no flood. Do you remember how I explained that we do not have the genetic diversity that a flood would predict? At no time in man's history have there been fewer than a thousand people. Here is a non-technical article on the most recent bottleneck in our history, please note that this was one where our population got down to a few THOUSAND individuals, and we can still see its effects today:

The human race once came dangerously close to dying out — here's how it changed us

And a slightly more technical one:

https://phys.org/news/2010-01-humans-endangered-species.html

We aren't ready to move on to those arguments until you skeptics admit that most of our assertions are not only feasible but likely. We can start with fact that the ark was not a boat, or ship, or in any way resembled one. Why is it that we can't get past that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If preflood technology existed after the flood then it was on the ark with all else that survived.

But if it existed at all we would see signs of it. You do not seem to understand the consequences of your claims. We can see and estimate examples of older technology that would predate the flood. If we can see that you need to explain how examples of more modern technology cannot be found. Once again, this is an example of where a lack of evidence on your part is evidence against your claims. I could make up stories about interplanetary flight before the flood. But without evidence that is all that it is and the fact that no modern technology can be found is very strong evidence against that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We aren't ready to move on to those arguments until you skeptics admit that most of our assertions are not only feasible but likely. We can start with fact that the ark was not a boat, or ship, or in any way resembled one. Why is it that we can't get past that?

Sorry, but you have totally failed to support any of your claims. Nothing that you have said is "likely".