djholmess Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 This was also interesting... http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/GiantShips.htmThe difference between Hellenistic ships and the ark of Noah is about 2000 years of naval architecture. It would be like the USS Nimitz floating around the 1st century Mediterranean.Ofcourse there is a diffrence but there is one way in which your USS Nimitz analogy falls down. The matertials used to construct the Hellenistic ships and the ark are much closer compared to Hellenistic ships and the Nimitz.I would find it much harder to believe that Noah could design and build such a ship when no one else was able to do so for 2000 more years. But the Bible tells us that God gave Noah instructions on how to build it so it's no surprise that it took so long for human technology to match anything the size of the ark.So I think the comparision between the ark and Hellenistic ships is intresting in that they used relativily similar materials - thus demonstrating the possibility of building a wooden ship of that size.
thesometimesaint Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?
bcuzbcuz Posted August 4, 2012 Author Posted August 4, 2012 Regarding the physics check out this linkhttp://www.answersin...s/tj/v8/n1/noahAnd for an interesting article about other large wooden ships this onehttp://www.answersin...cm/v22/n3/shipsI would hope you have familiarized yourself with Ken Ham and his cohorts at the http://www.answersingenesis.org/ site. You may want to view some of Ham's talks about how dinosaurs and humans co-existed prior to the ark. How can I state this appropriately.....????.Ham is a nut case. He plays free and loose with facts that need not bear any resemblance to reality.He starts out with "Little is known about the shape and form of the Ark’s hull.However, several explorers have each claimed that they have discovered the remains of the Ark at some sites on Mt. Ararat.8Based on their arguments and references,"Are you following this? It's like...I don't know the real details....but according to a friend of mine who was kidnapped by Martians...and he says...."In order to estimate the frequency of deckwetting and slamming, relative vertical motions at FP and at ST 3/20 need to be calculated from heave, pitch and roll responsesHere x, y are the longitudinal and transverse coordinates and X3, X4, X5 are the heave, roll and pitch displacements respectively. Following Ochi’s11 formula the number of deckwettings per hour Nw and that of the slammings per hour Ns. are given aswhere Trz. is the zero-upcrossing period of relative vertical motion, F is the effective free-board at the deck, d is the effective draft, mor is the area of spectrum of relative vertical motion, morv is the area of spectrum of relative vertical velocity, and Vcr is the threshold velocity for slamming."And this is all based on what????Sorry, you're going to have to do better than Ken Ham as your source.
ERayR Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 A simple question, just to nail down a detail. When did Noah's flood occur? I'm not looking for an exact date. I'll accept anything close, even a decade or a century, just to figure out a timeline. PLease don't come with multiple options if they are more than a century apart, unless you are talking about multiple events.I don't remember the year but it was that year we had all the heavy rain for days on end.
Ron Beron Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Ofcourse there is a diffrence but there is one way in which your USS Nimitz analogy falls down. The matertials used to construct the Hellenistic ships and the ark are much closer compared to Hellenistic ships and the Nimitz.Maybe and maybe not since the Bible account calls for gopher or gofer wood which identity is fairly unknown. There are a few translations for gofer among which are cedar, reeds, or other hard planned wood. Ancient vessels of the kind the ark is purported to be are more than likely very large barges made out of reed.
CASteinman Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 In both these cases I am satisfied to rely on the fact that the local native tribes still find these stories exceedingly humorous and love to repeat them over and over. A good story and a good story teller is highly prized around a campfire or while sitting next to a stove in the winter.So in other words, you are accept that they lie to others and tell you the truth. Good thing for you that gullible is not a real word found in the dictionary.
CASteinman Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Are you following this? It's like...I don't know the real details....but according to a friend of mine who was kidnapped by Martians...and he says....Why do you object when others do the same thing you do?
CASteinman Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 I've actually heard that one, too funny.Can you help out? Where did you hear that?
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 If we must keep the idea of a literal flood, I think something along the lines of Orson Scott Card's short-story version would be more plausible than many of the speculations in this thread.
CASteinman Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) Because the Sumerian story is from cuneiform which is datable to thousands of years before the account of Noah.Really. How do you know that? Really? There isn't a discernible people called HebrewDo they have to be called that for them to exist? Do you have to be aware of them for them to exist? Or could they exist even if you do not know anything about them, including what they called themselves?Where do you find this? It is called the Book of Moses, chapter 8, especially verse 24. But I would be surprised that you would accept this as a reasonable source of truth on the matter as it does not accord well with the conventional wisdom of secular science. Edited August 5, 2012 by CASteinman
Ron Beron Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 It is called the Book of Moses, chapter 8, especially verse 24. But I would be surprised that you would accept this as a reasonable source of truth on the matter as it does not accord well with the conventional wisdom of secular science.With the possible exception of the above I only have the following rejoinder from Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
Ron Beron Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 If we must keep the idea of a literal flood, I think something along the lines of Orson Scott Card's short-story version would be more plausible than many of the speculations in this thread.Not so short, but interesting.
CASteinman Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) CASteinman, why do you have to come across as uber confrontational? You are among fellow Mormons most of whom are in good standing. We are here to discuss Noah and the many theories about him and the flood not to debate to the death the truth of the gospel. :::sigh:::Where do you see me trying to debate the truth of the Gospel in this thread? Its not a valid accusation. But... at least you can say such false things about me and to me without being confrontational, eh? Edited August 5, 2012 by CASteinman
CASteinman Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) With the possible exception of the above I only have the following rejoinder from Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.Are you somehow trying to be insulting? Whether you are.. or whether you are not, I don't understand what you are getting at. Who do you suppose is foolish? You? Me? Joseph Smith? Someone else?Why so cryptic? Edited August 5, 2012 by CASteinman
bcuzbcuz Posted August 5, 2012 Author Posted August 5, 2012 So in other words, you are accept that they lie to others and tell you the truth. How right you are. But I know a good story when I hear one. My name, given to me by the Yekooche band of the Dakelth nation, was Dene Cho....which means "big man".....or with a slightly different pronunciation became "big idiot".Good thing for you that gullible is not a real word found in the dictionary.I heard that 'gullible' rhymes with chicken.
Ron Beron Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Are you somehow trying to be insulting? Whether you are.. or whether you are not, I don't understand what you are getting at. Who do you suppose is foolish? You? Me? Joseph Smith? Someone else?Why so cryptic?Not an insult, but an observation.
CASteinman Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 But I know a good story when I hear one. I agree, they are good stories.
CASteinman Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Not an insult, but an observation.An insulting observation then.
Calm Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) Can you help out? Where did you hear that?Don't remember. I remember calculating how long the breast would have to be to be able to do this.Apparently it is claimed not only for Canadian aborigines. Cameron Diaz makes the same claim. I would love to know if she actually saw it being done or just it was explained to her. I can imagine some women got tired about being asked about the size of their breasts:http://www.tvsmacktalk.com/cameron-diaz-explains-why-boobies-really-sag-wow-i-had-no-idea/I personally won't believe until I see a photo of it. Edited August 5, 2012 by calmoriah
shalamabobbi Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 Don't remember. I remember calculating how long the breast would have to be to be able to do this.Apparently it is claimed not only for Canadian aborigines. Cameron Diaz makes the same claim. I would love to know if she actually saw it being done or just it was explained to her. I can imagine some women got tired about being asked about the size of their breasts:http://www.tvsmackta...-i-had-no-idea/I personally won't believe until I see a photo of it.Moral of the story: If you're married with a newborn, don't let your wife work.. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 Put it in biodegradable paper bags and tossed it overboard?Sounds like some personal experience going on there! 1
mfbukowski Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 If we must keep the idea of a literal flood, I think something along the lines of Orson Scott Card's short-story version would be more plausible than many of the speculations in this thread.That idea has been around for a while- it is an interesting hypothesis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
bcuzbcuz Posted August 8, 2012 Author Posted August 8, 2012 So, your issue is not the wood, but rather the size.How much engineering analysis have you done on "gopher wood"?To re-visit the issue of the wood used in the ark, the notorious 'gopher wood', studies of durability and flexibility, tension and splitting can be done on any wood sort available at present time. For gopher wood to be a wood outside the known types it still would need to have grown somewhere on the earth. If it grew, then it had pollen. Do you have any proof from any readings of a type of pollen for a wood source that is not currently known?
thesometimesaint Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Don't you know that God transported the log whole from another planet. Edited August 8, 2012 by thesometimesaint
CASteinman Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 To re-visit the issue of the wood used in the ark, the notorious 'gopher wood', studies of durability and flexibility, tension and splitting can be done on any wood sort available at present time.How do you know that any wood available at present time is equal to it? Do you claim that Balsa and Walnut have such similar characteristics that they are functionally interchangeable?For gopher wood to be a wood outside the known types it still would need to have grown somewhere on the earth. If it grew, then it had pollen. Do you have any proof from any readings of a type of pollen for a wood source that is not currently known?You mean pollen from extinct plants? Have all of those been found, cataloged and the engineering characteristics of all of those various plants identified?
Recommended Posts