Jump to content


Photo

Technology Then---Technlogy Now


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 04 June 2016 - 11:24 AM

In view of the sophistication of todays technolog including the space station does Noah's ark seem more or less plausible?



#2 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 05 June 2016 - 02:40 AM

Less plausible. As technology seem to have a progressing trend, it seems unlikely that 8 unskilled workers were able to create a ship beyond our current understanding of technology.



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 June 2016 - 08:21 AM

Well, it's a bit of a myth that humans have went from dumb and rudimentary, to smart and sophisticated.

 

What would be even more absurd as an assumption, would be to state that God would ask someone to do something that they could not achieve, because they don't have the skills, given God's omniscience.

 

When God designed our individual destinies, He did so from omniscience. I think the probability of Noah having the natural proclivity and ingenuity to build things, is very high, personally.

 

I myself am very good at fixing things and finding solutions to problems where there seems to be no solution, Mike. This is just a natural talent. Not all things must come from technology that is based on experience, but sometimes original thinkers come up with ideas based on their talents and intelligence, rather than knowledge. That is how all things were invented, people with intelligence created them, and then technology was able to grow and improve those ideas.

 

My skills in understanding logic and creating solutions to riddles/problems, don't come from knowledge that I have, it just comes from a natural talent I didn't ever know I had. I only knew I was brainy at the age of 25, and I had not learnt anything, having always believed I was a stupid person. Ironically, I had just never used my brain.

 

When God made Noah, He knew Noah would be a righteous man that would walk with the Lord, and God invented Noah for the very purpose of building the ark. It was actually his destiny and he would have been given the ingenuity to do it with the Lord's guidance.

 

Once again the atheist can only make a statement that leaves the vital piece out of the equation. Fjuri speaks as though the flood was some natural event and God was either not present, or too dumb to give Noah the skills to achieve his destiny.

 

If we assume the global flood was real, and did happen, then it was caused by God, and if it was caused by God then we would assume that God would have the ability to see His purpose done. And if God had the ability to see His purpose done then He would have given Noah the right talents.

 

Example of a chain of conditionals:

 

If I was a race driver, then it would follow that I would have exceptional skills as a driver of cars. If I have exceptional skills as a handler of cars then I would be able to demonstrate this. And if I was able to demonstrate it, I would be able to show how superior I was to other drivers that were not race drivers.

 

If we assume the flood did happen, then since it was caused by God, God is the piece of the equation you can never leave out. 

 

Who taught the sea slug to eat the darts of anemones? Who taught the birds of the air to navigate as precisely as a satellite navigation system? Did they do it from knowledge they gained from studying at school? 

 

"shall He Who formed the eye, not see? Shall He Whom planted the ear, not hear?" (paraphrase) "I the Lord, do all these things."



#4 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 05 June 2016 - 08:50 AM

Well, it's a bit of a myth that humans have went from dumb and rudimentary, to smart and sophisticated.

Yet, that is how the human knowledge base grows. 

In the middle ages, humans could know everything that was know in the world (fact).

Every development is done by standing on the shoulders of the predecessors. 

 

What would be even more absurd as an assumption, would be to state that God would ask someone to do something that they could not achieve, because they don't have the skills, given God's omniscience.

 

When God designed our individual destinies, He did so from omniscience. I think the probability of Noah having the natural proclivity and ingenuity to build things, is very high, personally.

Begging the question fallacy. (see below)

 

I myself am very good at fixing things and finding solutions to problems where there seems to be no solution, Mike. This is just a natural talent. Not all things must come from technology that is based on experience, but sometimes original thinkers come up with ideas based on their talents and intelligence, rather than knowledge. That is how all things were invented, people with intelligence created them, and then technology was able to grow and improve those ideas.

No invention is done in a vacuum.

Quoting Newton:

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

 

When God made Noah, He knew Noah would be a righteous man that would walk with the Lord, and God invented Noah for the very purpose of building the ark. It was actually his destiny and he would have been given the ingenuity to do it with the Lord's guidance.

 

Once again the atheist can only make a statement that leaves the vital piece out of the equation. Fjuri speaks as though the flood was some natural event and God was either not present, or too dumb to give Noah the skills to achieve his destiny.

 

If we assume the global flood was real, and did happen, then it was caused by God, and if it was caused by God then we would assume that God would have the ability to see His purpose done. And if God had the ability to see His purpose done then He would have given Noah the right talents.

 

Example of a chain of conditionals:

 

If I was a race driver, then it would follow that I would have exceptional skills as a driver of cars. If I have exceptional skills as a handler of cars then I would be able to demonstrate this. And if I was able to demonstrate it, I would be able to show how superior I was to other drivers that were not race drivers.

 

If we assume the flood did happen, then since it was caused by God, God is the piece of the equation you can never leave out. 

If I was a race driver, then it would follow that I would have exceptional skills as a driver of cars.

Thus I conclude I am a race driver?

 

This is commonly known as a begging the question fallacy. Mike Summers asked this question:

In view of the sophistication of today's technology including the space station does Noah's ark seem more or less plausible?

I provided with an answer that took today's technology into account, including yesterdays technology, and the technology of the past 2000 years.
You have provided with an answer that assumes the existence of Noah's ark is true and thus you are committed to a begging the question fallacy.

 

Who taught the sea slug to eat the darts of anemones? Who taught the birds of the air to navigate as precisely as a satellite navigation system? Did they do it from knowledge they gained from studying at school? 

 

"shall He Who formed the eye, not see? Shall He Whom planted the ear, not hear?" (paraphrase) "I the Lord, do all these things."

Non sequitur. 

He Who build the first radio, did He not see radiowaves himself? Guglielmo Marconi didn't do that though.



#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 June 2016 - 09:45 AM

 

If I was a race driver, then it would follow that I would have exceptional skills as a driver of cars.

Thus I conclude I am a race driver?

 

This is commonly known as a begging the question fallacy

 

No, it's known as affirmation-of-the-consequent, and it isn't common knowledge, because most people aren't aware of logical technicalities/ formal fallacies.

 

I am not arguing that you can conclude he is a race-driver, you have misunderstood, I was only arguing that it would, "follow" that if he was a race driver that he would have race-driver skills.

 

It would, "follow" that if God is omniscient as the bible allows us to infer, that God would give Noah the ingenuity to build an ark. An ark wasn't a sophisticated boat either, it was a rudimentary barge. It was a barge, not a boat. It had no rudder. Basically it just had to be a big coffin. To assume Noah had no brains when God Himself gave him the basic instructions, is also an unreasonable assumption.

 

Don't forget, the measurement of the ark given in scripture for the cubits, has been tested to be extremely stable in violent waters, so as not to topple over. God also said to pitch it inside and out. This is, "overkill" in a way, because it is like creating TWO seals.

 

 

Fjuri: I provided with an answer that took today's technology into account, including yesterdays technology, and the technology of the past 2000 years.

You have provided with an answer that assumes the existence of Noah's ark is true and thus you are committed to a begging the question fallacy.

 

Today's standards of technology do not apply anyway, so it is a bit of a red-herring Mike innocently used. Noah didn't need a mobile phone and a dishwasher, he needed the ingenuity to build a barge with three decks.

 

Checkmate. :acigar:

 

 

 

Fjuri: Begging the question fallacy

 

I've told you before, don't wield my magical staff or you will only burn yourself. Mithrandir can handle the ere long uber-logics given to him by His master, and is a long practised hand. Do not run before you can walk. :P



#6 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 05 June 2016 - 10:54 AM

Today's standards of technology do not apply anyway, so it is a bit of a red-herring Mike innocently used. Noah didn't need a mobile phone and a dishwasher, he needed the ingenuity to build a barge with three decks.

 

Checkmate. :acigar:

So its Mike Summers fault?

I answered his question while you didn't. Checkmate. :acigar:



#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 05 June 2016 - 11:20 AM

What I meant to imply was that I thought todays technology was more advanced than yester year's needed to be for the task God gave Noha.

If the people of long ago were told an ark would be circling the earth with humans in it living and breathing in a weightless state, they most likely would have found it incredulous. Both Noha's Ark and the space station show what intlligence can do.

When the disciples were taken up in a vision it seemed a miracle and yet we have television tooday which is common place.

 

PS I accept all blame. Everything that is wrong is my fault!


  • mike the wiz likes this

#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 June 2016 - 01:38 PM

It's okay Mike, I see what you mean now. It seems Fjuri misunderstood your question. Obviously my focus was on addressing his post, and his immediate stance that Noah's ark couldn't have existed. In the book, "Noah's ark a feasibility study", most of the common atheist errors, pertaining to the ark, are BUSTED wide open.

 

I don't think the probability of Noah's ark being plausible would be predicated on today's technology in the way Fjuri thought that you meant, anyway as it wouldn't have much baring on the matter. Human beings have always had the same human abilities and those abilities aren't predicated on a timeline of technology. For example a human being in Noah's time would have had human intelligence, perhaps even more intelligence if we do not assume an evolutionary timeline, but a creation timeline, where in the past life-expectancy was much better because the earth had not long been created, we see mega reptiles/insects in the fossils indicating a flourishing pre-flood world. There is good reason to believe they might have even had more intelligence in the past, but simply lacked the benefit of the accumulation of technological evolution as we now have, which is basically the work of thousands and thousands of people, over centuries. 

 

So then if you had 100 Einsteins in Noah's day but only one Einstein in our day, the difference in modern times is that the one Einstein would have a head-start in the race to the top of Everest, of about 25,000 foot as a head start, but those 100 Einsteins in Noah's day, would start their race up Everest, from only 50 foot. Which can give a false impression that people weren't as smart in the past.

 

No doubt Fjuri still thinks Noah's ark is implausible because back then there wasn't as much technology. One thing to be taken into consideration is the sophistication of the pyramids. Okay, as buildings they are not as technologically sophisticated but they are still engineering marvels that were created at a time much closer to Noah's time and they are very cleverly made despite a lack of technology, and they still stand. 

 

:acigar:



#9 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 05 June 2016 - 11:53 PM

What I meant to imply was that I thought todays technology was more advanced than yester year's needed to be for the task God gave Noha.

If the people of long ago were told an ark would be circling the earth with humans in it living and breathing in a weightless state, they most likely would have found it incredulous. Both Noha's Ark and the space station show what intlligence can do.

When the disciples were taken up in a vision it seemed a miracle and yet we have television tooday which is common place.

 

PS I accept all blame. Everything that is wrong is my fault!

Arguments from incredulity were always a fallacy. They were in the past as they were now. The fact that some of those arguments have been proven wrong (by building incredible things) does not increase nor decrease the likelihood of another incredible thing to have happened.

The argument against the arc of Noah is not an argument of incredulity, but a conclusion based on the interpolation of technology advances over the ages. Mike the Wiz pointed out though that the uniformity principle should be abandoned when talking about things related to God, making previous conclusion invalid.

 

It's okay Mike, I see what you mean now. It seems Fjuri misunderstood your question. Obviously my focus was on addressing his post, and his immediate stance that Noah's ark couldn't have existed. In the book, "Noah's ark a feasibility study", most of the common atheist errors, pertaining to the ark, are BUSTED wide open.

 

I don't think the probability of Noah's ark being plausible would be predicated on today's technology in the way Fjuri thought that you meant, anyway as it wouldn't have much baring on the matter. Human beings have always had the same human abilities and those abilities aren't predicated on a timeline of technology. For example a human being in Noah's time would have had human intelligence, perhaps even more intelligence if we do not assume an evolutionary timeline, but a creation timeline, where in the past life-expectancy was much better because the earth had not long been created, we see mega reptiles/insects in the fossils indicating a flourishing pre-flood world. There is good reason to believe they might have even had more intelligence in the past, but simply lacked the benefit of the accumulation of technological evolution as we now have, which is basically the work of thousands and thousands of people, over centuries. 

So far we agree...

 

So then if you had 100 Einsteins in Noah's day but only one Einstein in our day, the difference in modern times is that the one Einstein would have a head-start in the race to the top of Everest, of about 25,000 foot as a head start, but those 100 Einsteins in Noah's day, would start their race up Everest, from only 50 foot. Which can give a false impression that people weren't as smart in the past.

This is falsefied not only by my second post I posted here, but also by your own second paragraph.

 

No doubt Fjuri still thinks Noah's ark is implausible because back then there wasn't as much technology. One thing to be taken into consideration is the sophistication of the pyramids. Okay, as buildings they are not as technologically sophisticated but they are still engineering marvels that were created at a time much closer to Noah's time and they are very cleverly made despite a lack of technology, and they still stand. 

So despite a lack of technological sophistication, pyramids are still a good example of technological sophistication? tsk tsk



#10 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 08 June 2016 - 10:36 AM

Less plausible. As technology seem to have a progressing trend, it seems unlikely that 8 unskilled workers were able to create a ship beyond our current understanding of technology.

Nye at his best again. But he makes too many assumptions:
- Genesis doesn't say that ONLY 8 people did built the ark. The job could have been contracted out to others as well

- What gives him the idea that the 8 or others were "unskilled"?

 

Nye makes a comparison to a modern they wooden(?) ship. Now the example he points at was designed to be ocean and maneuverable going made by people that would be building ocean going and maneuverable. There was no such requirement for the ark. That means one could have built it far more redundant and robust, since all it needed was to float and hold the animals plus 8 people. 

 

Noah is said to have been 600 years old, when he boarded the ark, he may have had time to build it for up to 100 years. 

 

Modern technological artifacts are build involving a very high degree of division of Labor. That actually means that the total labor is subdivided among a large number of specialists. They have specialized skills, meaning they know a lot about a tiny fraction of total knowledge required to build that artifact. Now that creates the perception that people actually know more then in earlier days. That may be true for the total sum of knowledge. But the single artisan may still have had more knowledge and skill then an artisan of today. 

 

Languages were more complex in former times as well. There seems to be trend among them to degenerate. 


  • Mike Summers and mike the wiz like this

#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 June 2016 - 12:34 PM

 

 

MarkForbes: Noah is said to have been 600 years old, when he boarded the ark, he may have had time to build it for up to 100 years. 

 

Genesis says the days of men would be 120 years, meaning he had 120 years to build this. People mistakenly believe (IMHO), that this refers to life-expectancy, but I believe it refers to how long men had left on the earth before the flood. 

 

 

 

Fjuri: So despite a lack of technological sophistication, pyramids are still a good example of technological sophistication? tsk tsk

 

Bandy words if you want, but I believe my point was that the pyramids were made closer to Noah's day, and had to be more sophisticated than Noah's barge. Since the argument is that Noah couldn't have built his basic barge, yet we see pyramids not too long after the flood, then that disproves the claim that it is implausible that an ark could have been created. Mankind has always came up with incredible things, and achieved things beyond the odds. The ancient greek computer they found was sophisticated despite a general lack of technology at that time.



#12 keysi

keysi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Zooloogy, Anthropology, Psychology, Books, Video Games, Martial Arts.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United Kingdom

Posted 09 June 2016 - 12:16 AM

Languages were more complex in former times as well. There seems to be trend among them to degenerate.


Can you elaborate and post some sources for this please? I've just finished a linguistics course (final exam was yesterday:D) and I never came across this information.

#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 June 2016 - 02:22 PM

 

 

Keysi: Can you elaborate and post some sources for this please? I've just finished a linguistics course (final exam was yesterday:D) and I never came across this information.

 

Do you mean the ancient greek computer?

 

https://en.wikipedia...thera_mechanism

 

It's called the antikythera mechanism. A very intelligent contraption that's for sure. 



#14 keysi

keysi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Zooloogy, Anthropology, Psychology, Books, Video Games, Martial Arts.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United Kingdom

Posted 09 June 2016 - 11:37 PM

Do you mean the ancient greek computer?

https://en.wikipedia...thera_mechanism

It's called the antikythera mechanism. A very intelligent contraption that's for sure.



No, I meant about languages being more complex in the past. It's a pretty much universally known concept in linguistics that there is no such thing as a simple "me tarzan, you Jane" style language usually attributed to stone age technology level tribes.
When a language is particularly complex in one area of grammar or syntax, it is usually compensated by simplicity in another.
And historical linguists having first centuries been trying as best they can to recreate ancient languages, such as proto Indo-European and they have come across no evidence to suggest it was more or less complex than languages of today.

And yup, I'm vaguely familiar with the antikythera mechanism, I did a fair bit of reading on them around.....ten years ago now, so also a bit fuzzy. Very interesting and good find.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#15 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 June 2016 - 07:44 PM

Bottom line to the OP.... our technological knowledge makes the story of Noah less likely.....

Bandy words if you want, but I believe my point was that the pyramids were made closer to Noah's day, and had to be more sophisticated than Noah's barge. Since the argument is that Noah couldn't have built his basic barge, yet we see pyramids not too long after the flood, then that disproves the claim that it is implausible that an ark could have been created. Mankind has always came up with incredible things, and achieved things beyond the odds. The ancient greek computer they found was sophisticated despite a general lack of technology at that time.

I would argue that design and construction of a 450 foot (140 meter) barge requires much more sophisticated technology than accurately cutting and stacking a pile of rocks.

 

The technological question is not whether or not a barge such as Noah's could be built.... though construction would need to be done in a relatively short time or would require a shed to cover the ark.  The question is whether or not the ark would survive a year on the open ocean.

 

I've heard claims there was a "seaworthy" half-scale replica of Noah's ark.  As it happens, it may have been involved in an accident...

 4096.jpg?w=700&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&f

A view of the damage to the replica of Noah’s ark after its run in with a coastguard ship. Photograph: Gorm Kallestad/EPA

 

According to the news article, the "Ark" apparently hit a crane on the moored coast guard ship as the ark was being maneuvered in the harbor.  That's a lot of damage for a "seaworthy" ship to take from a low speed accident.   Also note the wood structure of this "ark" does not seem to extend to the waterline.

 

I, for one, would not ride out a single North Sea winter storm on that "Ark."

 

 



#16 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 June 2016 - 04:50 AM

Piasan said:

Bottom line to the OP.... our technological knowledge makes the story of Noah less likely.....

mike the wiz, on 08 Jun 2016 - 2:34 PM, said:



Bandy words if you want, but I believe my point was that the pyramids were made closer to Noah's day, and had to be more sophisticated than Noah's barge. Since the argument is that Noah couldn't have built his basic barge, yet we see pyramids not too long after the flood, then that disproves the claim that it is implausible that an ark could have been created. Mankind has always came up with incredible things, and achieved things beyond the odds. The ancient greek computer they found was sophisticated despite a general lack of technology at that time.

I would argue that design and construction of a 450 foot (140 meter) barge requires much more sophisticated technology than accurately cutting and stacking a pile of rocks.



The technological question is not whether or not a barge such as Noah's could be built.... though construction would need to be done in a relatively short time or would require a shed to cover the ark. The question is whether or not the ark would survive a year on the open ocean.



I've heard claims there was a "seaworthy" half-scale replica of Noah's ark. As it happens, it may have been involved in an accident...

4096.jpg?w=700&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&f


A view of the damage to the replica of Noah’s ark after its run in with a coastguard ship. Photograph: Gorm Kallestad/EPA



According to the news article, the "Ark" apparently hit a crane on the moored coast guard ship as the ark was being maneuvered in the harbor. That's a lot of damage for a "seaworthy" ship to take from a low speed accident. Also note the wood structure of this "ark" does not seem to extend to the waterline.



I, for one, would not ride out a single North Sea winter storm on that "Ark."

I wouldn't underestimate God's engineering ability! We live on earth and it was designed by God!

The thing about humans beings is that when we give ourselves a goal,
we find a way to achieve it. Consider how hot it was in our homes in the summer in Texas and Florida. No one had comfort cooling systems in the days before 1900. Sommeone figured out how to cool buildngs and they did it against all odds.
It's estimated that the population of our southern states would be 30% less were it not for A/C.

'Where there is a will, there is a way".
  • mike the wiz likes this

#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 June 2016 - 05:55 AM

Piasan, logically that is a false comparison unless you can show that the ship you photographed was constructed of gopher wood and was pitched inside and out. The example you have chosen, appears to be the crudest possible example, out of many attempted replicas, or scaled down replicas.

 

 

 

CMI: For at least one thousand years, the pitch-making industry in Europe flourished. It was the pitch from this industry which assisted in the construction of those great wooden sailing ships which figured so prominently in European history. 

 

 

 

 

CMI: The difference in size has a big effect; Huibers’ first, smaller ark was built using 1200 trees, while the new one requires 12,000 Swedish pine trees. (Huibers says that some translations of the Bible say that God ordered it to be built of ‘resin wood’ which he thinks was pine.

http://creation.com/...-size-dutch-ark

 

Piasan, I think that photo you shown is a pretty crude effort. We are not sure what gopher-wood was, or how the pitch helped to strengthen it. Nor do I think that other ships or rocks would have struck Noah's ark unless God's favour was not with Noah, but it says God was with Noah, and even God Himself, "shut him in". Shut him in knowing the ark would be obliterated? So then is God not omniscient in your opinion?

 

I think this is a pretty good example of a smaller version of what it might have looked like; (the article explains how he made it)

 

[attachment=1403:lil ark.jpg]

 

This following article explains how the pitch might have reinforced the boat and added strength. (before Wibble accuses me of only citing CMI articles, I am only linking to these because I specifically remember reading this article about the pitch a fairly long time ago)

 

http://creation.com/noahs-ark-pitch


  • Mike Summers likes this

#18 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 11 June 2016 - 11:55 AM

Nice article. And they plan to go to Brazil with it during the olympic games. Interesting to follow that voyage.

 

If it gets there, that would make the arc story more likely. Would you say that if it doesn't, the story would be less likely, Mike?



#19 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 June 2016 - 12:27 PM

 

 

Fjuri: If it gets there, that would make the arc story more likely. Would you say that if it doesn't, the story would be less likely, Mike?

 

Well to draw a comparison there are a number of factors we must observe. What was "pitch" for one. What was, "gopher wood".

 

The article that shown that a structure can be reinforced and strengthened if coated in a protective layer of some sort, pretty much does show that the pitch would have strengthened the wood, or we can at least assume it would add some strength since Noah's ark was pitched both on the outside and the inside.

 

As for the wood, was pine wood used for Noah's ark? Is he right that it was pine wood? I guess it is open for debate. There is a chance at least, that God chose gopher wood for a reason. It is interesting to me that God told Noah the specific wood to use. I think it is reasonable to assume that it would have been the strongest wood available at that time. "Make yourself an ark of gopherwood". 



#20 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 11 June 2016 - 01:38 PM

Languages were more complex in former times as well. There seems to be trend among them to degenerate.


Can you elaborate and post some sources for this please? I've just finished a linguistics course (final exam was yesterday:D) and I never came across this information.

This would more refer to the Philology department. 

Take a look at ancient Greek, Latin, Celtic, Old-Saxon, Norse language. Their grammar tends to be more complex and the vocabulary more rich.

Martin Heidegger demonstrated this e.g. in "Einfuehrung in die Metaphysik" - Introduction to Metaphysics. 

He demonstrates that the word Being had first many different words used for it, which is demonstrated with the various forms of the word (am, are, is - was, were, will be, etc. ) and in German (bin, bist, ist, sind seid) he contrasts to the word Greek word of Physics. The conclusion is that the present Indogermanic languages are a refragmentation of an earlier, far more complex Proto-Indogermanic language who lost many words and nuances of grammar after the people distributed (or did they distribute they had their Logos (Word thinking) confounded as well?).
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users