Jump to content


Photo

Ark Encounter Project: Ken Ham Holds Live Streaming Conference


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#1 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:21 PM

  • Major announcement about the Ark Encounter project.  
  • Myths dispelled about funding controversies.  
  • Myths dispelled about the Creation Museum attendance. 
 
Streaming Conference Video: Ark Encounter Update

 

 

Sure hope I can get out there some day.  Any of you live out in that area?  

 

It is amazing though all the false rumors that have been circulating about this.  Good to see none of them were true.  



#2 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:27 PM

Nope. Got to visit in 2011. Neat place.

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:36 PM

I'm only about 6 hours away. I hang my head in shame that I haven't been there yet. :(

#4 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:28 PM

I'm only about 6 hours away. I hang my head in shame that I haven't been there yet. sad.png

 

6 hours??  For shame!!



#5 Vegan

Vegan

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Chesterfield, Virginia

Posted 06 March 2014 - 03:21 PM

A steaming conference, eh? gigglesmile.gif

 

Instead of an amusement park attraction why not make this a science experiment? Build the ark to the exact dimensions of the one supposedly built by Noah and then fill it with two of every kind of animal and let's see what happens. 



#6 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 06 March 2014 - 04:11 PM

Instead of an amusement park attraction why not make this a science experiment? Build the ark to the exact dimensions of the one supposedly built by Noah and then fill it with two of every kind of animal and let's see what happens. 

Indeed.

 

In fact, there was a half-size ark built in the Netherlands that was claimed to be "seaworthy."  It sits on a barge.  Take that thing off the barge and let it ride out just one winter storm in the North Sea.  (Hint: Speaking as a navy veteran, there isn't enough money to get me to sail on that thing.)  Hull flexure in a wooden ship of that length is a real, serious, issue.



#7 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 06 March 2014 - 05:25 PM

Indeed.
 
In fact, there was a half-size ark built in the Netherlands that was claimed to be "seaworthy."  It sits on a barge.  Take that thing off the barge and let it ride out just one winter storm in the North Sea.  (Hint: Speaking as a navy veteran, there isn't enough money to get me to sail on that thing.)  Hull flexure in a wooden ship of that length is a real, serious, issue.


To be fair, nobody knows how the ark was built. Just the dimensions and some of the materials. Everything else would be speculation. This places the ark on the attraction (zip lines) rather than the science side. Even if tested, it would only be a speculation as the ark construction is not observable (in the sense that God didn't tell Moses to write down detailed schematics.)

#8 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:33 PM

A steaming conference, eh? gigglesmile.gif

 

Instead of an amusement park attraction why not make this a science experiment? Build the ark to the exact dimensions of the one supposedly built by Noah and then fill it with two of every kind of animal and let's see what happens. 

 

Just out of curiosity, if they were able to build a seaworthy ark, what would this prove to you? I actually believe it can be done, in fact, the one they are building is intended to be sea worthy.  You can view the details about that in the video below (starting watching at 16:50)

 

But I think the ancients could have done this, looking at the ships built by the Vikings and Greeks and Chinese, and looking at the ancient building technologies of the ancients in general.  Why not?  Would seem a lot easier than the Giza Pyramid. 

 

Skip to 16:50 for the construction section.  Apparently this technology was lost in more recent history.  



#9 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:48 PM

A steaming conference, eh? gigglesmile.gif

 
Title fixed. I didn't even notice the typo before. wink.png



#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 March 2014 - 03:52 PM

Just out of curiosity, if they were able to build a seaworthy ark, what would this prove to you? I actually believe it can be done, in fact, the one they are building is intended to be sea worthy.  You can view the details about that in the video below (starting watching at 16:50)

Well, it would prove a 450 foot long wood barge can be seaworthy.... something that can't be done, so far as we know today.

 

 

But I think the ancients could have done this, looking at the ships built by the Vikings and Greeks and Chinese, and looking at the ancient building technologies of the ancients in general.  Why not?  Would seem a lot easier than the Giza Pyramid. 

My research says the Vikings never built anything over 250 feet.  The Greeks never ventured into the open ocean.  The size of the Chinese treasure ships is in dispute.  The problem is hull flexure..... the bending and twisting of the hull as the ship passes through waves (or the waves pass by the ship). 

 

Building pyramids is much easier than building a long seaworthy wood ship.  In the case of the pyramids, all you do is stack stones.  The precision isn't that different from what is needed to build the ship.  However, the ship needs to remain water tight.  In addition, there is weathering of the wood.  If the construction took over 100 years, as claimed, the wood on the sunward side would dry out and warp.  For example, we must turn "Old Ironsides" every year to avoid this problem.

 

As for the seaworthiness issue.....  I was on a steel ship of about the same length claimed for Noah's ark.  We were coming out of a storm one day, barely making way (meaning just enough speed to be able to steer the ship) and took green water over the bridge.  That wave cracked the bow of our steel ship. 

 

If you expect the seaworthiness of this ark to be accepted, they will need to take it out into the open ocean and ride out a hurricane or two.  Based on my experience, there isn't enough money to get this old sailor on that thing in a storm.



#11 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 11 March 2014 - 09:02 PM

Building pyramids is much easier than building a long seaworthy wood ship. 

 

In the case of the pyramids, all you do is stack stones.  

 

Yeah, but wood planks aren't so heavy that you need a crane to lift them, and they'd be much easier to align to true north.  

 

And my guess is you wouldn't to be able to build a pyramid (even though it's just stacking stones) or 500 ft wooden boat (even though it's just sawing wood).  If building a giza pyramid out of stones was so easy, some museum would have made one by now.  My guess is, a seaworthy wood boat is much easier.  Did you check out the video?  I think they've already solved the problem.  

 

BTW, it wouldn't have to be all wood to be biblically accurate.  Cain's descendants were said to have mastered metal as well.  

 

But let's be honest, if they did prove a wood boat of this size could be seaworthy, you still wouldn't believe it.  For you, I don't think it's about the evidence.  



#12 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 March 2014 - 12:56 AM

Well, it would prove a 450 foot long wood barge can be seaworthy.... something that can't be done, so far as we know today.

 

 

It seems Nye and his followers don't look to the history books.....

 

"Incredibly, the largest ships in the fleet (called baoshan, or "treasure ships") were likely between 440 and 538 feet long by 210 feet wide. These 4-decked baoshan had an estimated displacement of 20-30,000 tons, roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the displacement of modern American aircraft carriers. Each had nine masts on its deck, rigged with square sails that could be adjusted in series to maximize efficiency in different wind conditions.

The Yongle Emperor ordered the construction of an amazing 62 or 63 such ships for Zheng He's first voyage, in 1405. Extant records show that another 48 were ordered in 1408, plus 41 more in 1419."

 

http://asianhistory....asure-Ships.htm

 

 

"Junk is a type of Chinese wooden boat with a flat bottom. The largest junk ship built in the history is Zheng He's treasure ship, measured 140 meters long with 9 masts. Its anchors were recorded half ton heavy each."

 

http://www.china-tra...-kong-junk.html

 

(140 metres is almost 460 feet)

 

 

 

My research says the Vikings never built anything over 250 feet.  The Greeks never ventured into the open ocean.  The size of the Chinese treasure ships is in dispute.  The problem is hull flexure..... the bending and twisting of the hull as the ship passes through waves (or the waves pass by the ship).

 

Why are they in dispute? Because all you have given here is an argument from personal incredulity, (a logical fallacy)... Keep in mind you are now arguing against recorded history....

 

Also keep in mind that if they were so bad why were so many made, (see first quote), and why were even more made later on.... Hmm.. Perhaps because they worked. ;)


  • Calminian likes this

#13 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 12 March 2014 - 09:49 AM

It seems Nye and his followers don't look to the history books.....

You know in many ways, naturalism in general is at war with history.  The Bible, in essence, is historical evidence (of course it's much more).  Corroborating flood legends are historical evidence.  Records of ancient superior ship building technology (and ancient building technology in general) is historical evidence.  Pictographs of dinosaurs, and legends of dragons and dragon slayers are historical evidence.  BTW I'm receiving the new Dinosaurs and Dragons DVD from AiG today.  I'm curious if it's any good.  

 

But yes, its not something naturalists like, I'm sure for a variety of reasons. Even from a secular mindset, the Bible is such an impeccable record of antiquity, it should be preferred among all others.  Nothing compares.  But it has elements that contradict naturalist dogmas so it's rejected, along with any other histories that corroborate it.  



#14 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 March 2014 - 12:19 AM

 

Yeah, but wood planks aren't so heavy that you need a crane to lift them, and they'd be much easier to align to true north.  

There are ways to move the stones other than cranes.  Also, wood weathers and deteriorates a lot faster than big stones. 

 

 

And my guess is you wouldn't to be able to build a pyramid (even though it's just stacking stones) or 500 ft wooden boat (even though it's just sawing wood).  If building a giza pyramid out of stones was so easy, some museum would have made one by now.  My guess is, a seaworthy wood boat is much easier.  Did you check out the video?  I think they've already solved the problem.  

Your GUESS ???  Quoting Gilbo: "... all you have given here is an argument from personal incredulity, (a logical fallacy).,," 

 

There's a good reason no museum has built a 450 foot pyramid.  Cost.  On the other hand, if a 450 foot long wood ship would have been profitable there would be no reason NOT to build it.  As it happens, the longest modern wood ships were around 300 feet and required steel reinforcement and constant pumping to keep them afloat.

 

Yes, I did watch the video and they do have an interesting approach.  As I pointed out before, based on the record of the modern wood ships, as well as my own experience on a steel ship, I'm highly skeptical.

 

 

BTW, it wouldn't have to be all wood to be biblically accurate.  Cain's descendants were said to have mastered metal as well.  

The flood would have been during the Bronze Age, so metal would have been availble.  The Bible makes no mention metal was used and as far as I know, metal wasn't used on ships at that time.

 

 

But let's be honest, if they did prove a wood boat of this size could be seaworthy, you still wouldn't believe it. 

I already told you what would convince me Noah's ark could be seaworthy.  I quote:

"If you expect the seaworthiness of this ark to be accepted, they will need to take it out into the open ocean and ride out a hurricane or two.  Based on my experience, there isn't enough money to get this old sailor on that thing in a storm."

 

I should make note, the hurricane should be at least a Category 4.  I guess my experience counts as an argument from incredulity.  If so, that's OK... I have different plans for my demise than riding out a major storm in a craft whose seaworthiness is questionable.   I'd much rather die of lead poisoning.... shot in bed at the age of 85 by the jealous husband of a 25 year old.  gigglesmile.gif

 

(Note:  The seaworthiness is questionable because all modern wood ships over 300 feet have had severe problems with hull flexure and watertight integrity.  For that reason, the ability of this ark to survive in the open ocean would need to be demonstrated.  Based on the opinions of naval architects it won't work.  But I guess that's an argument from authority.... maybe I should ask my 9th graders.  I'm sure their opinion on shipbuilding is just as valid as the guys who do it for a living.)

 

As for not believing it.... it's pretty hard to argue with success.  Let me know when that full size ark starts sea trials.

 

For you, I don't think it's about the evidence.  

You have it absolutely backward.  For me it's ALL about the evidence.  At this point, the evidence is that a 450 foot long wood boat will not survive a year in the open ocean.

 

I'll answer gilbo tomorrow.    putertired.gif



#15 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:45 PM

There are ways to move the stones other than cranes.  Also, wood weathers and deteriorates a lot faster than big stones. 

 

Indeed, the ancients proved large stones can be moved without cranes.  But that technology has been lost.  And the wood on the ark doesn't need to last 4,000 years.  

 

 Your GUESS ???  Quoting Gilbo: "... all you have given here is an argument from personal incredulity, (a logical fallacy).,," 

 

Saying you guess, is not a logical fallacy.  If you say, I guess therefore i know, then yes.  I was merely speculating about your speculation that you could build a pyramid.  My guess (strongly confident guess) is that you'd fail epically.  Sorry, no fallacy.  

 

There's a good reason no museum has built a 450 foot pyramid.  Cost. 

 

I'm just glad Ham didn't make excuses like that.  If someone wanted to build a Giza replica in the Nevada desert, people would definitely come to see it.  

 

The flood would have been during the Bronze Age, so metal would have been availble.  The Bible makes no mention metal was used and as far as I know, metal wasn't used on ships at that time.

 

Gen. 4:22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. 

 

If you trusted the Bible, you'd believe that the antediluvians had mastered metal long before the postdiluvians did.  Had Noah needed some metal parts, it would have been no problem. 

 

I already told you what would convince me Noah's ark could be seaworthy.  I quote:

"If you expect the seaworthiness of this ark to be accepted, they will need to take it out into the open ocean and ride out a hurricane or two.  Based on my experience, there isn't enough money to get this old sailor on that thing in a storm."

 

All I need is God's word.  Christ vouched for the books of Moses, and I trust him.  

 

  You have it absolutely backward.  For me it's ALL about the evidence.  

 

The Bible is evidence, but you don't except it.  That's the real issue.

 

I'm curious if you also reject the biblical testimony of the Resurrection.  That also has not been duplicated.  Bishop Spong is a very popular "christian leader" today that holds to theistic evolution, and also rejects biblical miracles, like the resurrection, as metaphors.  And he does it all based on the "evidence."  

 

The truth is, though, it's never about the evidence.  God has left you and Spong plenty of evidence.  The issue is always unbelief.


  • Bonedigger likes this

#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 March 2014 - 12:02 AM

It seems Nye and his followers don't look to the history books.....

I guess it depends on which history books you're talking about.  The history I've read says any wood ship over 300 feet long had serious issues with leakage; had to be reinforced with steel strapping; and had to constantly be pumped to keep stay afloat in the open sea.

 

 

"Incredibly, the largest ships in the fleet (called baoshan, or "treasure ships") were likely between 440 and 538 feet long by 210 feet wide. These 4-decked baoshan had an estimated displacement of 20-30,000 tons, roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the displacement of modern American aircraft carriers. Each had nine masts on its deck, rigged with square sails that could be adjusted in series to maximize efficiency in different wind conditions.

The Yongle Emperor ordered the construction of an amazing 62 or 63 such ships for Zheng He's first voyage, in 1405. Extant records show that another 48 were ordered in 1408, plus 41 more in 1419."

 

http://asianhistory....asure-Ships.htm

Your source is seriously out of date.  All American aircraft carriers built since 1975 are over 100,000 tons.

 

"Junk is a type of Chinese wooden boat with a flat bottom. The largest junk ship built in the history is Zheng He's treasure ship, measured 140 meters long with 9 masts. Its anchors were recorded half ton heavy each."

 

http://www.china-tra...-kong-junk.html

 

(140 metres is almost 460 feet)

A travel office?  Really ! ! !  

 

Oh yeah.... I forgot.  Citing engineers on these things is an "argument from authority" fallacy.  We all know tourist offices are much more likely to know the limitations of ship building than engineers.

 

 

Why are they in dispute? Because all you have given here is an argument from personal incredulity, (a logical fallacy)...

I told you why the long wood ships are in dispute.  Quoting what I said before:

"The problem is hull flexure..... the bending and twisting of the hull as the ship passes through waves (or the waves pass by the ship). "

 

I also pointed out that was based on my research.  Since the comment is based on research, it is not simply "an argument from personal incredulity."  I quote again what I said before:

"My research says the Vikings never built anything over 250 feet.  The Greeks never ventured into the open ocean.  The size of the Chinese treasure ships is in dispute. "

 

Now, if you want more about that research:

Scholars disagree about the factual accuracy and correct interpretation of accounts of the treasure ships. ... Treasure ships' dimensions are debated on practical engineering grounds, with some suggesting they were as short as 61–76 m (200–250 feet) or that they could only have been used on special occasions in the relative safety of the lower Yangtze River. .... The modern understanding of the ships derives from empirical and theoretical knowledge of the technical limitations of wooden sailing ships, historical Chinese records and accounts from European travelers who visited China around this time. However, there is debate amongst scholars about how these records should be interpreted. ....

Some scholars argue that it is highly unlikely that Zheng He's ship was 140 metres (460 ft) in length, some estimating that it was 110–124 m (390–408 feet) long and 49–51 m (160–166 feet) wide instead [11] while others put them as 61–76 m (200–250 feet) in length,[13][14] since in later historical periods ships approaching the extreme sizes claimed for the treasure ships (such as HMS Orlando and the schooner Wyoming) were unwieldy and visibly undulated with the waves, even with steel braces.

 

Sources referenced:

11.  When China Ruled the Seas, Louise Levathes, p.80

13.  Zheng He : An investigation into the plausibility of 450 ft (140 m) treasure ships , Sally K. Church.

14.   14Xin Yuanou: Guanyu Zheng He baochuan chidu de jishu fenxi (A Technical Analysis of the Size of Zheng He's Ships). Shanghai 2002, p.814.

(Link:  http://en.wikipedia....hip#cite_ref-13 )

 

Then there is this.....

Not long ago, it was an oft-repeated statistic on the part of Chinese
scholars  that the dimensions of He's flagships were  138.4 meters long and
56 m wide. These numbers were lowered somewhat later; for example, the
respected historian F. Mote, whom I cite in my book, and took his numbers as
authoritative, says that He's flagship was 120-5 m long and about 50 m wide
(1999). Chinese scholars have also lowered the estimates, particularly as
they started considering the practical implications of building a replica of
He's main ship for the 580th and 600th anniversaries of He's voyages (in
1985 and 2000 respectively).  Ship-building experts adviced  against
building a 450ft ship, saying "it seems pointless to insist that we must use
modern shipbuilding knowledge and techniques to reconstruct a ship of an
impossibly large size, spending endless amounts of money and effort on it"
(as cited in Sally Church's "The Colossal Ships of Zheng He: Image or
Reality?").  In 2001, Xin Yuanou's proposed the modest measurements of 59.1
meters in length by 14 m in width), as the actual size of the ships -- in
others words, he reduced their size to less than half of what they were
formerly thought to be. ....
as early as 1947, when the
overestimations were accepted in the main, one Chinese scholar, Guan
Jincheng, "called the size of the ships into question", and proposed instead
the figures of 62m long by 8.5 m wide.....

(Link: http://h-net.msu.edu...AEembHaVhcr81KQ )

That should be sufficient to establish there is a dispute with regard to the size of Zheng He's ships.... as I claimed.

 

As for the problems of long wood ships, they are well documented at http://en.wikipedia....st_wooden_ships .  (Pay particular attention to ships over 300 feet long.)

 

 

 Keep in mind you are now arguing against recorded history....

We also have a history with wood ships over 300 feet long, so you're arguing against recorded history too.... as well as maritime engineering.  One difference is that the history I'm presenting is modern and much better documented.

 

Let's say your a historian in early 1400's China.  Most likely, your employer is the emperor or possibly Zheng He.  You're told to record the length of the ships as 440  feet.  What happens if you don't?

 

 

Also keep in mind that if they were so bad why were so many made, (see first quote), and why were even more made later on.... Hmm.. Perhaps because they worked. wink.png

This is similar to when I warn students not to cheat on the final exam.  As an example, I point out a student who had an "A" in English and got caught turning the "A" to a "C."  The class often asks: "Gee, if he had an "A," why would he cheat."  I point out that maybe he cheated on the exam because  he cheated his way to the "A" in the first place.

 

Maybe they made a lot of them because they didn't work and it was necessary to keep replacing them.  It probably wouldn't have been the first time in history a bad design was retained.... and it certainly wasn't the last.



#17 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 March 2014 - 01:39 AM

 

Indeed, the ancients proved large stones can be moved without cranes.  But that technology has been lost.  And the wood on the ark doesn't need to last 4,000 years.  

The technology of moving large stones hasn't been lost.  We've used wood rollers to do it successfully. 

 

The wood on the ark wouldn't need to last 4,000 years, but it would need to last over 100.  Weathering would be a major problem during construction.  We need to turn "Old Ironsides" every year to prevent (or at least even out) weathering on the ship.  I guess a huge shed could be constructed, but there is no mention of that and it would be a considerable undertaking.

 

 

I'm just glad Ham didn't make excuses like that.  If someone wanted to build a Giza replica in the Nevada desert, people would definitely come to see it.  

I'm sure the attached casino has nothing to do with that.  Nor do the dozen or so other landmark attractions in the same area.  Probably the fact the city in which it's located is also known as "Sin City" is irrelevant also.  Yeah....  people go to Vegas just to look at that pyramid.

 

As for Ham..... what he's building is a "mock-up" not the real deal.  I won't dispute a wood structure the size of the Ark can be built.  The question is whether or not that structure would be seaworthy.   Oh yeah .... he still has less than half the money needed to complete the Ark.  My prediction is that it will never be completed.  (This is one of those times I hope I'm wrong.)

 

 

If you trusted the Bible, you'd believe that the antediluvians had mastered metal long before the postdiluvians did.  Had Noah needed some metal parts, it would have been no problem. 

I didn't say Noah couldn't get metal parts.  In fact, I clearly pointed out the Flood would have been during the Bronze Age and Noah would have has at least some access to metal.  What I said was that:

1)  The Biblical account makes no mention of metal.... to which I think you agree.

2)  It was not normal at that time to make extensive use of metal in shipbuilding.

 

 

All I need is God's word.  Christ vouched for the books of Moses, and I trust him.  

Let's see.  Is that:

1)  The Bible says it, I believe it, end of discussion.

2)  Anything in conflict with (your) interpretation of the Bible is invlaid by definition. or

3) Both (1) and (2)

 

 

The Bible is evidence, but you don't except it.  That's the real issue.

I will freely admit that I do not accept every word of the Bible as literally true.  Further, I will concede that I examine the evidence with no precondition that evidence in conflict with my interpretation of the Bible is invalid by definition.  Finally, I see the situation as "truth cannot contradict truth."  The Bible, and its interpretation are much more subject to human fallibility than the kind of evidence I examine to form my conclusions.

 

 

I'm curious if you also reject the biblical testimony of the Resurrection.   That also has not been duplicated.

No.

 

The uniqueness of the flood isn't my issue with it.  In fact, I don't even get close to the ark before there are serious problems.  For example, every single one of the creationist proposals for a source of water for the flood involves so much heat it would sterilize the planet.  Now, if you want to claim God performed a series of miracles for the flood, there wouldn't be much for me to argue with.  On the other hand, if you attempt a scientific explanation, that's a different story entirely.

 

 

Bishop Spong is a very popular "christian leader" today that holds to theistic evolution, and also rejects biblical miracles, like the resurrection, as metaphors.  And he does it all based on the "evidence."  

 

The truth is, though, it's never about the evidence.  God has left you and Spong plenty of evidence.  The issue is always unbelief.

I really couldn't care less about Sprong.  The issue is a conflict between the observable universe and a literal reading of Genesis.



#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 March 2014 - 04:21 AM

The technology of moving large stones hasn't been lost.  We've used wood rollers to do it successfully. 

 

Consider the weight of the blocks used in the pyramids.... Do you think wood would bear such pressure?



#19 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 19 March 2014 - 05:11 AM

I really couldn't care less about Sprong.  The issue is a conflict between the observable universe and a literal reading of Genesis.

 
Pi, what observable universe are you referring to? The one that requires that 2/3 of it be made up of UNOBSERVABLE "dark energy"?



#20 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 March 2014 - 12:31 PM

 

Consider the weight of the blocks used in the pyramids.... Do you think wood would bear such pressure?

Sure.  When truckers have overweight loads all they do is add more axles.  Why should this be any different?  Also, the rollers could be clad in metal much like a wagon wheel.  This would greatly increase the load bearing ability of each log.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users