Ken Ham's Ark

[Calm]

15 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Hmmm... every kind of creature that moves along the ground. Sounds like it would include insects and non-domesticated animals to me, but believe what you will. 

What about insects that never touch the ground?

[bcuzbcuz]

On 24 July 2016 at 2:02 AM, danielwoods said:

Ken Ham's goal wasn't to build an exact copy of the original Ark, rather to build a replica that emulates it in a few important ways (which makes it an interesting experience), but would actually serve as a functioning museum to spread the truth of God to people who wouldn't normally read his books. And yes there is evidence that Noah had access to metal and used it, not enough detail is given though to say exactly how. 

If you do a Google picture search of Ken Ham's ark you will find a number of pictures of a gigantic framework; what is known as a "plank on frame" construction, starting with a keel and building upwards. In fact, if you research the construction of modern wooden boats you will find the same thing; a framed hull, built up from a keel and then planking of various means mounted upon the frame.

But if you go back to Genesis, you will find no such description of Noah's ark. Genesis talks about the wood for planking and then skips right over to the length and size of the boat. Neither framing,nor hull, nor keel are mentioned. 

If you do a Wiki search, on Ancient Shipbuilding techniques, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_shipbuilding_techniques, you will find early boat construction of skins, then dug-outs, rafts, etc. And then, by following the order and time line in which boats have been found, the next great step was Shell First!!.

The first boats were Sewn and Lashed-planking. Many boats have been discovered, buried deep in river mud, from long in the past with each plank in its original position and each and every plank sewn and lashed to the plank next to it http://mmusg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DSC00980.jpg

https://www.google.se/search?q=picture+giza+temple+boat&prmd=imvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWls7-lo7OAhWC1SwKHRy9A3YQ_AUIBygB&biw=10

 

You even find one from the Sea of Galilee. 

Note by reading the texts, that the boats were sewn together and the framing is added afterwards to support the overall form of the boat.

This same construction form can still be observed in the small boat construction harbours in Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey.

BUT, and this is a huge BUT, the method of "plank on frame" construction method wasn't even invented until more than 2000 years after Noah. So Ken Ham has used a construction method unknown to Noah, or anyone of his time. Ken Ham might as well have made his ark out of recycled plastic bottles.

[danielwoods]

.

Edited July 25, 2016 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

NO! NO! NO!!!

You cannot dilute the salinity enough to allow fresh water creatures to live and still keep the salt water creatures alive. There is no magic in-between where everything survives. This is the problem with those who try to pseudo scientifically explain the circumstances of the flood. They just go with whatever random reasoning they come up with in the last without thinking it through at all or knowing enough to know if it would work.

If you want to believe in a literal global flood then believe there are things we do not understand or that God worked large-scale miracles to make it work or that the laws of the Universe have shifted. Do not throw out pseudoscience like this. It can be dangerous to the faith of others.

The dangerous thing is to doubt God's word. How he did things isn't exactly known or understood, and theorizing how it possibly could have happened is a healthy activity our mind. Claiming that this couldn't have ever happened. Or that couldn't have ever happened is far more dangerous. Because such claims aren't based in fact or observation but arrogance. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

The dangerous thing is to doubt God's word. How he did things isn't exactly known or understood, and theorizing how it possibly could have happened is a healthy activity our mind. Claiming that this couldn't have ever happened. Or that couldn't have ever happened is far more dangerous. Because such claims aren't based in fact or observation but arrogance. 

I did not claim it could not happen. I specifically said it could (though I doubt it) and threw provisos in there as to what would be needed.

Yes, it is good to figure things out but to present infantile speculations as scientific reasoning is bad. For example saying the Ten Tribes live under the ice caps is bad. It would not work absent miracles. This is the same thing. The problem is if your science is this egregiously bad then listeners may suspect that your religion is equally flawed. Coupling good doctrine with bad science is the quickest way to discredit the doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

If you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work. It isn't science, but it is religion.

Ps; 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?

Edited July 25, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[bcuzbcuz]

On 24 July 2016 at 2:02 AM, danielwoods said:

Ken Ham's goal wasn't to build an exact copy of the original Ark, rather to build a replica that emulates it in a few important ways (which makes it an interesting experience), but would actually serve as a functioning museum to spread the truth of God to people who wouldn't normally read his books. And yes there is evidence that Noah had access to metal and used it, not enough detail is given though to say exactly how. 

If you need more information about boats from ancient times, instead of trying to match a Biblical story to a never found ark of Noah, or matching a Biblical story to the over excited imagination of Ken Ham, please spend a few minutes examining the following: http://gei.aerobaticsweb.org/images/EGYPT/Egypt_2851_1536x1024.jpg or

MAke note of the lashings both at the bow and in the construction of the boat itself. Zoom in to get a closer look. This boat was buried beside Khufu (Cheops) pyramid, along with one other boat. They left one of the boats untouched. It is still buried as it laid down 2,500 years before Christ. This boat in the picture is 4,500 years old. We know how old the boat is because the Egyptians kept records of all the pharaohs, right down to numbers of years, weeks and days the pharaoh reigned. Compare that to the Bible that took giant leaps in time, jumping from one noteworthy person to another by leaps of 500, 600, and 900 years.

If you need more information about Khufu's boats, the techniques used, go to: Wikipedia: Khufu ship. The page has enormous amounts of information, how the boats were found, the condition they were in when found and the process of rebuilding one of the boats. One detail is that alongside the planks of the boat was found rounds of rope, the same rope used in the construction of the craft. This is rope that has survived for 4,500 years. So it leaves no question as to how the boat was made.

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work. It isn't science, but it is religion.

Ps; 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?

This is my problem with the miracle approach to explaining a global flood. It makes God seem deceptive. Now there may be other reasons it is less obvious but I have not found any. Then again if God did the reasoning I am not sure if I would be able to figure it out.

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is my problem with the miracle approach to explaining a global flood. It makes God seem deceptive. Now there may be other reasons it is less obvious but I have not found any. Then again if God did the reasoning I am not sure if I would be able to figure it out.

I don't have a problem with God. Just what some mortals claim he did.

[danielwoods]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

What about insects that never touch the ground?

I would think that, "20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." covers it under "every kind of animal..." 

 

[danielwoods]

9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

If you do a Google picture search of Ken Ham's ark you will find a number of pictures of a gigantic framework; what is known as a "plank on frame" construction, starting with a keel and building upwards. In fact, if you research the construction of modern wooden boats you will find the same thing; a framed hull, built up from a keel and then planking of various means mounted upon the frame.

But if you go back to Genesis, you will find no such description of Noah's ark. Genesis talks about the wood for planking and then skips right over to the length and size of the boat. Neither framing,nor hull, nor keel are mentioned. 

If you do a Wiki search, on Ancient Shipbuilding techniques, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_shipbuilding_techniques, you will find early boat construction of skins, then dug-outs, rafts, etc. And then, by following the order and time line in which boats have been found, the next great step was Shell First!!.

The first boats were Sewn and Lashed-planking. Many boats have been discovered, buried deep in river mud, from long in the past with each plank in its original position and each and every plank sewn and lashed to the plank next to it http://mmusg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DSC00980.jpg

https://www.google.se/search?q=picture+giza+temple+boat&prmd=imvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWls7-lo7OAhWC1SwKHRy9A3YQ_AUIBygB&biw=10

 

You even find one from the Sea of Galilee. 

Note by reading the texts, that the boats were sewn together and the framing is added afterwards to support the overall form of the boat.

This same construction form can still be observed in the small boat construction harbours in Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey.

BUT, and this is a huge BUT, the method of "plank on frame" construction method wasn't even invented until more than 2000 years after Noah. So Ken Ham has used a construction method unknown to Noah, or anyone of his time. Ken Ham might as well have made his ark out of recycled plastic bottles.

So in your opinion what was the construction methods used by Noah?

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

I would think that, "20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." covers it under "every kind of animal..." 

There are plenty of animals that can live only in caves.

[bcuzbcuz]

31 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

So in your opinion what was the construction methods used by Noah?

The easy answer is "we'll know that when we find the remains of the ark". So far, despite claims on the internet, no one has found any parts of Noah's boat.

What we do know about wooden boats, that have actually existed, is that even plank and frame constructions more than 100 meters long (roughly 300 feet) cannot withstand the forces of an ocean. The Wyoming,  329 feet long,  flexed in heavy seas, causing the long planks to twist and buckle. The boat leaked and needed constant pumping to stay afloat, but eventually sank.

Ken Ham's boat would sink in a calm pond. He hasn't even tried to make it seaworthy.

Boats made by people who sailed, traded and transported materials around the Mediterranean prior to  the birth of Christ used methods of sewing and binding planks to make boats. The boats were not very long. Long planks were only available in certain countries. Nails were not used. Plank and framing was not used. Palm trees are totally useless as building materials for boats.

Noah supposedly built his boat with the help of his sons, but Noah himself was 500 years old and it took him 100 years to build the boat. I've never seen a 500 year old person wield a hammer and saw. I'm 70 years old and I have trouble building a back porch to my house. The energy is simply not there.

I don't believe Noah built a boat as big as claimed. First of all, he wasn't the person who wrote the story. Stories tend to change as being re-told. The fish I caught last year with my grandchildren gets bigger and bigger every time I tell the story. 

Noah's story is a great story. But he wasn't the first to invent the story of a great flood and building a boat to carry all the animals of the earth. I have seen the first story of a great flood as it was originally written. I saw it on a clay tablet in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. It tells of Gilgamesh and the great flood. I suggest you read a translation.

Until someone finds a sliver of wooden remains of Noah's ark on  Mount Ararat I'll list myself as a skeptic.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have a problem with Noah being a prophet of God, and he and his sons building a boat that carried a few animals during a massive but regional flood. But it looked nothing like Mr. Ham's fanciful creation.

[TheSkepticChristian]

47 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't have a problem with Noah being a prophet of God, and he and his sons building a boat that carried a few animals during a massive but regional flood. 

but there are scientific problems with that too

1. there is no evidence of a massive regional flood from 3,000 BC to 1,000 BC, around the time of Noah. 

2. there is no evidence of a super massive regional flood capable of making a huge ship (as described in the Bible) float.  How did Noah's ship (with animals) float? We expect a ton of evidence for such a massive flood.  

3. Where is the Noah's ark? 

4. Noah's flood story seems to defy the laws of physics. 

It is best if you say the flood was simply a metaphor. I though the Bible was not literal.   

Bytheway, what do you mean by "few animals"? The bible says, "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,"  That sounds like many. 

Edited July 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[danielwoods]

It depends on ones world view. I see evidence for the flood every time I see sedimentary rock. 

If one says that Noah's flood is simply a metaphor then where does it stop? 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

It depends on ones world view. I see evidence for the flood every time I see sedimentary rock. 

Yes, but all interpretation of such are not created equal.

To use an extreme example, those people who believed the earth was flat based it on what they saw every time they walked out the door.  They interpreted that evidence wrongly because they used less accurate measuring devices and formulas, such that couldn't pick up on the curvature of the earth. 

So the question is which is the better formulation of what occurred with sedimentary rock?  What evidence exists around us that demonstrates that not only do particles of sand and dirt solidify into a very solid substance in thousands of years (or rather maybe just centuries or decades to allow for erosion and the evidence of incursions such as mining that took place long ago but after the sediment and other rock forms had harden into their current state), but also that much of the organic material with it will result in fossils?

[Calm]

daniel,

Any mining by mankind prior to the flood would likely have been covered up by flood debris, correct?

[danielwoods]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, but all interpretation of such are not created equal.

To use an extreme example, those people who believed the earth was flat based it on what they saw every time they walked out the door.  They interpreted that evidence wrongly because they used less accurate measuring devices and formulas, such that couldn't pick up on the curvature of the earth. 

So the question is which is the better formulation of what occurred with sedimentary rock?  What evidence exists around us that demonstrates that not only do particles of sand and dirt solidify into a very solid substance in thousands of years (or rather maybe just centuries or decades to allow for erosion and the evidence of incursions such as mining that took place long ago but after the sediment and other rock forms had harden into their current state), but also that much of the organic material with it will result in fossils?

Right, and getting those on the evolutionary side to even admit that they are interpreting the evidence is rather difficult. However, notice this first photo which shows that if millions of years had occurred, we should observe evidence of erosion between layers that are supposed to have been separated by millions of years. 

Or rather if it was soft when uplift happened, and all the layers were laid at once, what would we expect, but layers that act as pliable rather than brittle layers (second photo). 

Edited July 26, 2016 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

daniel,

Any mining by mankind prior to the flood would likely have been covered up by flood debris, correct?

Yes, much like how a tsunami destroys an area. 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but there are scientific problems with that too

1. there is no evidence of a massive regional flood from 3,000 BC to 1,000 BC, around the time of Noah. 

2. there is no evidence of a super massive regional flood capable of making a huge ship (as described in the Bible) float.  How did Noah's ship (with animals) float? We expect a ton of evidence for such a massive flood.  

3. Where is the Noah's ark? 

4. Noah's flood story seems to defy the laws of physics. 

It is best if you say the flood was simply a metaphor. I though the Bible was not literal.   

Bytheway, what do you mean by "few animals"? The bible says, "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,"  That sounds like many. 

1. True, I have my doubts that it was that massive.

2. It would only take two to three dozen feet of water to get such a boat floating if it was well built.

3. No idea. There are a lot of missing ships with no wrecks ever found made of presumably much more long-lasting material.

4. Yeah, but like the creation story makes some sense if it is written from a person's point of view on earth. I have no doubt it was embellished. I have doubts about the Israelite population numbers and the heights of giants so why wouldn't the "bigger is better" writers add a few cubits to the size of the ark?

As to the animals it sounds like they took seven pairs of the herd animals they can eat and a pair of all the animals they would not eat. If sticking to a literal view did they need one copy of every fungus, single-felled organism, and virus or take an extra one even if it is not needed for mating? What about seed for crops?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Yes, much like how a tsunami destroys an area. 

Then why are mines that have existed to before the flood not filled in by sediment?  Why weren't valleys all filled in?

Edited July 26, 2016 by Calm

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

1. True, I have my doubts that it was that massive.

There is evidence of great floods in the near east, such as the Black Sea deluge (5600 BC). Do you have evidence of Noah's flood?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

As to the animals it sounds like they took seven pairs of the herd animals they can eat and a pair of all the animals they would not eat. If sticking to a literal view did they need one copy of every fungus, single-felled organism, and virus or take an extra one even if it is not needed for mating? What about seed for crops?

Okay, let's assume they only took one dozen animals with them. So it was Noah's family, 12 animals, and their food for 40 days, that couldn't possibly be just a boat, they needed space, they needed a ship at least the size of two basketball courts. 

However, "Noah got specific instructions for the ark’s dimensions (300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high) and material (“gopher wood”). Gopher wood may refer to pine, cedar, or cypress wood"

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

2. It would only take two to three dozen feet of water to get such a boat floating if it was well built.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/?no-ist

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

4. Yeah, but like the creation story makes some sense if it is written from a person's point of view on earth.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know" - Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr 

I am not aware of any Hebrew scholar that believes that flood was regional. If I am wrong, please show me. I could be wrong, but I haven't found one. 

Edited July 26, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Right, and getting those on the evolutionary side to even admit that they are interpreting the evidence is rather difficult. However, notice this first photo which shows that if millions of years had occurred, we should observe evidence of erosion between layers that are supposed to have been separated by millions of years. 

Or rather if it was soft when uplift happened, and all the layers were laid at once, what would we expect, but layers that act as pliable rather than brittle layers (second photo). 

 

 

I have claimed that your responses to my posts display the lack of attention to the details, such that I doubt you read my posts. You have stated you find my responses "long-winded". Either way, whether boring, or too detailed to retain attention at your level, you obviously missed important details.

You begin your post stating: "However, notice this first photo which shows that if millions of years had occurred, we should observe evidence of erosion between layers that are supposed to have been separated by millions of years" 

 

I wrote to you, several pages back in time:

"The Redwall Limestone....again limestone must be, by definitionmore than 50% shells and corals...is a red cliff area that is 800 feet thick. This layer at its upper edge displays signs of erosion, meaning that back in the distant past, this layer lay open on the ground and was broken, decayed and eroded by wind and water, before the next layer was laid on top of it. This erosion is not a process that happens over a summer, or over a few n months. Wind and water erosion requires time, lots of time. Take a look again back at Bryce and see how little the valley changes due to water and wind erosion from year to year.

The Mauv Limestone layer is between 350 to 600 feet thick and shifts in colours from light grays to browns and light reds. There are obvious signs of erosion between the redwall limestone layers above and the mauv limestone layers below."

That means there are obvious evidences of erosion. 

You really need to make yourself better informed, or at least, try to read for comprehension. The site you quote above has either left out important information through ignorance, or they have omitted information purposefully in order to deceive. 

[danielwoods]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Then why are mines that have existed to before the flood not filled in by sediment?  Why weren't valleys all filled in?

It's my understanding that whole continents moved during the flood, so the idea that valleys weren't filled in or that pre-flood mines still exist would be difficult to prove or demonstrate and doubtful in my mind at least.