Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Noah's Ark could have saved two of every creature, say physicists

397 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Apr 3, 2014, 5:00:41 PM4/3/14
to
This is embarrassing. But actually they seem to have proved
that a wooden box containing a certain number of animals -
and nothing else - will float, and not just sit on the ground
as the water piles up over it.

But I believe there are good reasons why real ships are not
that shape.

But I haven't read the paper. Well, I've read the newspaper.
Here. (It was also in the free "Metro" on the bus today.)

It's not on the BBC web site and I don't expect it to be.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Noah/story-20906512-detail/story.html#ixzz2xrArM0MT

Highlights in this telling:

Jumping on the bandwagon is a group of physics students
from the University of Leicester which set itself the
task of using science to support religion, and find out
whether Noah's Ark would have been capable of transport
all those animals two by two.

And their conclusion?

It was.

Physics student Thomas Morris, 22, said: "You don't think
of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source
of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we
discovered it would work."

They found research which suggested that there were about
35,000 species living at the time of Noah and approximated
their weight.

Research lead Oliver Youle, 22, said: "Our conclusions were
that the ark would support the weight of 2.15 million sheep
without sinking and that should be enough to support all of
the species that were around at the time."

--------

But what about the termites?

Here is the shorter telling that appeared in Metro:

NOAH DOUBT: Dimensions the Bible says were stipulated
by God when he ordered the building of the ark are
mathematically correct. The boat - 300 cubits long
(137m/450ft), 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high -
could have floated with Noah, his family and two of
each animal species on board, say University of
Leicester physicists.

--------

So much for the free press...

Mike Dworetsky

unread,
Apr 3, 2014, 5:08:43 PM4/3/14
to
I'd like a second opinion, from the Leicester U. nautical engineers.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Dai monie

unread,
Apr 3, 2014, 5:16:04 PM4/3/14
to
Physics students, not physicists.

The boat had a total volume of 4.9e4 m^3, so it should be able to hold some 4.9e7 kg of matter with bouyance forces (Since bouyancy is just the weight of the displaced water; Eureka!) . If they calculated 2.15 million sheep (2e6), they think sheep have a 5e7/2e6 = 2.5e1 = 25 kg mass on average. Well, that sounds real, but off by a factor of two. So say, a million sheep all herded onto a boat, neatly arrayed and so forth.

The clue here is that they thought there were some 35e3 species, so only 7e4 individual animals, on the boat. That would allow for some thousand kg per animal, tis true.

However, they haven't actually calculated the boat. They calculated bouyancy. And that makes the story nonsensical; as Bill Nye said in the debate with Ken Ham, the ship would just break due to forces acting on it (other than bouyancy).

Plus that the 35e3 species is an arbitrary number. Larger than AiG thinks, but still extremely small. That is still going to be some 15 species discovered a day!

James Beck

unread,
Apr 3, 2014, 6:51:31 PM4/3/14
to
Did they account for the properties of methane in an ungoing
thunderstorm?

jillery

unread,
Apr 3, 2014, 6:18:21 PM4/3/14
to
On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

Typical students, forgetting about practical things like food for a
year.

And then there's the number of each kind. The Bible says two of a
kind for unclean animals but seven pairs for clean animal and all
birds.

And then there's what qualifies as a Biblical kind.

Josh Miles

unread,
Apr 3, 2014, 6:22:43 PM4/3/14
to
On 4/3/2014 4:00 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> This is embarrassing. But actually they seem to have proved
> that a wooden box containing a certain number of animals -
> and nothing else - will float, and not just sit on the ground
> as the water piles up over it.
>
> But I believe there are good reasons why real ships are not
> that shape.
>
> But I haven't read the paper. Well, I've read the newspaper.
> Here. (It was also in the free "Metro" on the bus today.)
>
> It's not on the BBC web site and I don't expect it to be.
>
> http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Noah/story-20906512-detail/story.html#ixzz2xrArM0MT
>
> Highlights in this telling:
>
> Jumping on the bandwagon is a group of physics students

There's no reason to go on reading after that.

RonO

unread,
Apr 3, 2014, 6:26:57 PM4/3/14
to
On 4/3/2014 4:00 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
Someone likely read Woodmorappe. It might be a stretch to call it research.

>
> Research lead Oliver Youle, 22, said: "Our conclusions were
> that the ark would support the weight of 2.15 million sheep
> without sinking and that should be enough to support all of
> the species that were around at the time."

What would 2 million sheep eat for a year? How could the humans feed
and water them packed in like sardines? There were only 3 levels, and
the lower level was likely wading in urine and water leaking through the
hull. There were only 8 people to do all the work of pumping out the
waste water and shoveling out the manure. They had to take care of the
animals for a year on the ark.

Ron Okimoto

Melzzzzz

unread,
Apr 3, 2014, 7:12:53 PM4/3/14
to
On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> This is embarrassing. But actually they seem to have proved
> that a wooden box containing a certain number of animals -
> and nothing else - will float, and not just sit on the ground
> as the water piles up over it.
>
> But I believe there are good reasons why real ships are not
> that shape.
>
> But I haven't read the paper. Well, I've read the newspaper.
> Here. (It was also in the free "Metro" on the bus today.)
>
> It's not on the BBC web site and I don't expect it to be.
>
> http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Noah/story-20906512-detail/story.html#ixzz2xrArM0MT
>

Noah Ark is one illogical story of many illogical stories in Bible.
God could simply destroy all life and recreate new if that was the
point. Why flood? God could simply move animals and Noah's family
into some safe place or such...


--
Click OK to continue...

Jim T.

unread,
Apr 3, 2014, 9:39:13 PM4/3/14
to
On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>They found research which suggested that there were about
>35,000 species living at the time of Noah and approximated
>their weight.

I imagine you could "find research" that suggested anything you
wanted. I wonder how this "research" accounts for the fact that there
something like 400,000 known species of beetles alone today,

Mark Isaak

unread,
Apr 3, 2014, 9:42:49 PM4/3/14
to
The sheep is the really telling detail. Nobody but creationists ever
uses sheep to model ark capacity. Why? Because Whitcomb and Morris,
finding data on sheep in railroad boxcars, used them in an early model
(well, more like a handwaving than a model), and Woodmoreappe copied
them into his text (though he wisely did not base his model on them),
and everyone else picked them up from one of those two sources. There
really is no other reason to mention sheep, except for metaphorical
allusions.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

Paul J Gans

unread,
Apr 3, 2014, 10:40:17 PM4/3/14
to
I want to know where the figure of 35,000 species came from. There
must be that number of ant species alone... ;-)

--
--- Paul J. Gans

chris thompson

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 12:57:09 AM4/4/14
to
And 3 days later, 8 physics undergrads- still in the throes of the worst hangovers ever- sit scratching their heads and saying "Huh?" at the Liberty Univ. doctorates that came in today's mail.

Chris

Harry K

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 2:15:40 AM4/4/14
to
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 5:42:24 PM UTC-7, Jim T. wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> >They found research which suggested that there were about
> >35,000 species living at the time of Noah and approximated
> >their weight.

> I imagine you could "find research" that suggested anything you
> wanted. I wonder how this "research" accounts for the fact that there
> something like 400,000 known species of beetles alone today,

Bingo. I wondered if someone would bring up all the other forms of live, insects, arachnids, worms, moths, etc. etc. etc. and don't forget the poor fish. Even a baby whale ain't a gonna fit in the space of a sheep.

James Beck

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 3:28:43 AM4/4/14
to
If it wasn't accidental, it was excellent viral marketing. I wonder
whether Paramount paid them directly.

RonO

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 7:32:21 AM4/4/14
to
Didn't Woodmorappe claim that the median size of an animal on the ark
was the size of a sheep (common estimate from the web: Average mature
ewe weighs 80-100kg, rams 125-150kg). I do recall the Morris use of box
cars. The ark isn't described as being set up like box cars. The AIG
museum had a triple hull ark and a Comstock like square set timber
support system that limit things. They didn't get any of that from the
Bible. You'd also have to try to feed and water all those cramped cages
using only 8 people. They should try to take care of sheep crammed into
a multi tiered boxcar. Feed them water them and remove their waste.

Ron Okimoto

RonO

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 7:51:06 AM4/4/14
to
On 4/3/2014 8:39 PM, Jim T. wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> They found research which suggested that there were about
>> 35,000 species living at the time of Noah and approximated
>> their weight.
>
> I imagine you could "find research" that suggested anything you
> wanted. I wonder how this "research" accounts for the fact that there
> something like 400,000 known species of beetles alone today,

According to KSJJ the Bible was wrong when it claimed that everything
that creeps along the ground died in the flood. Animals like insects
and worms survived in the floating mats of vegetation. He tried to
claim that only the animals with the "breath of life" had to be on the
ark to survive. He couldn't tell anyone how Noah sustained the whale
tanks on the ark or how many whales were saved. They probably had to
share the tanks with the seals, manatees, penguins, plesiosaurs,
icthyosaurs, and those transitional whale creatures like ambulocetus.

Ron Okimoto

TomS

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 7:58:37 AM4/4/14
to
"On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:15:40 -0700 (PDT), in article
<df85366d-d3b2-42cd...@googlegroups.com>, Harry K stated..."
>
>On Thursday, April 3, 2014 5:42:24 PM UTC-7, Jim T. wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> >They found research which suggested that there were about
>> >35,000 species living at the time of Noah and approximated
>> >their weight.
>
>> I imagine you could "find research" that suggested anything you
>> wanted. I wonder how this "research" accounts for the fact that there
>> something like 400,000 known species of beetles alone today,
>
>Bingo. I wondered if someone would bring up all the other forms of live,
>insects, arachnids, worms, moths, etc. etc. etc. and don't forget the poor fish.
>Even a baby whale ain't a gonna fit in the space of a sheep.

I have heard, fairly often, that:
1) only air-breathing tetrapods (interpreting Gen 6:17 "wherein is
the breath of life") were taken
2) only samples of each "kind" (not species, something like family),
which would speciate after the Flood

I wouldn't be surprised that there are something like 35,000 families
of reptiles, mammals and birds.

>
>
>> >Research lead Oliver Youle, 22, said: "Our conclusions were
>> >that the ark would support the weight of 2.15 million sheep
>> >without sinking and that should be enough to support all of
>> >the species that were around at the time."
>
[...snip...]

Just as a physics problem, this treats it only as a matter of
*statics. What about the dynamics - how would it react to
water waves - and strength of materials - how would "gopher
wood" bear the load?


--
---Tom S.

TomS

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 9:03:02 AM4/4/14
to
"On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 06:32:21 -0500, in article <lhm588$u69$1...@dont-email.me>,
RonO stated..."
I remember the word "median". Rather than "mean" (the proper measure
of "average" in this context = total/number). I recall the joking about
that, such as "That's why they pack styrofoam peanuts with a heavy
object, to reduce the median weight".


--
---Tom S.

Greg Guarino

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 9:45:12 AM4/4/14
to
On 4/4/2014 7:58 AM, TomS wrote:
> "On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:15:40 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <df85366d-d3b2-42cd...@googlegroups.com>, Harry K stated..."
>>
>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 5:42:24 PM UTC-7, Jim T. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> They found research which suggested that there were about
>>>> 35,000 species living at the time of Noah and approximated
>>>> their weight.
>>
>>> I imagine you could "find research" that suggested anything you
>>> wanted. I wonder how this "research" accounts for the fact that there
>>> something like 400,000 known species of beetles alone today,
>>
>> Bingo. I wondered if someone would bring up all the other forms of live,
>> insects, arachnids, worms, moths, etc. etc. etc. and don't forget the poor fish.
>> Even a baby whale ain't a gonna fit in the space of a sheep.
>
> I have heard, fairly often, that:
> 1) only air-breathing tetrapods (interpreting Gen 6:17 "wherein is
> the breath of life") were taken
> 2) only samples of each "kind" (not species, something like family),
> which would speciate after the Flood
>
> I wouldn't be surprised that there are something like 35,000 families
> of reptiles, mammals and birds.

I looked it up once, but I can't remember the specifics. A modern
aircraft carrier, with the benefit of nuclear power for refrigeration,
ventilation and desalination, can support a few thousand human beings
for only a few months before returning to port to resupply.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

alias Ernest Major

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 12:09:14 PM4/4/14
to
On 04/04/2014 12:58, TomS wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised that there are something like 35,000 families
> of reptiles, mammals and birds.

100,000 species of Chordates. I wondered if they were counting only
tetrapods, but living tetrapod species only number ~27,500. I'd guess
that they are more than 7,500 known species of extinct tetrapods.

--
alias Ernest Major

Lorne Dmitruk

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 12:16:42 PM4/4/14
to
An interesting point on how difficult it is to support even a modern ship in modern times, let alone a floating wooden box with no hope of resupply on a water covered earth.

Oh well I imagine the believers can just point to god and say he provided them with manna or some such subsistence for all the critters. Come to think of it why didn't the deity just poof Noah and critters to some safe holding place in the firmament while he wasted everything else on the planet?

Cheers!

eridanus

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 12:24:14 PM4/4/14
to
You mean, "God could simply move animals and Noah's family into some safe
place or such..." like an UFO by example. Or to a dry place like the
heavens, with central heating, mostly because of the hight above sea level.

Eri

jillery

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 12:29:09 PM4/4/14
to
Of course. They were drowned and buried in the Flood, along with
unicorns:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EPsuOEH1fY&feature=kp>

Mark Isaak

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 12:29:47 PM4/4/14
to
Woodmorappe wrote (_Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study_, p. 13): "[T]he
median animal on the Ark would have been the size of a small rat (around
100 grams). It is obvious that Whitcomb and Morris (1961) have been
overly generous to their compromising-evangelical detractors when they
had suggested that the average animal on the Ark was the size of a sheep."

There are only two huge problems with that paragraph. First, nobody
gives a damn about the median size. Just include bacteria, and you can
make the median size microscopic, but that won't make your load any
lighter. Second, the average animal size, based on Woodmorappe's own
figures, was 345kg, which is significantly *larger* than any sheep.
W&M's detractors are vindicated.

Of course, the number one really wants is not the average either, but
the total. For this number, Woodmorappe's approach is actually
reasonable, dividing animals into size classes and summing up those.
Well, reasonable except for equating "kind" with genus, disregarding the
extra clean animals (which would be small in number but fairly large in
mass), not allowing for genera not yet discovered when he wrote
(especially now extinct genera), ignoring the inevitable food spoilage,
etc., etc. Even with his generous assumptions, Woodmorappe filled
nearly all of the space he had allotted for liveable conditions. Any
one of the above exceptions push his numbers over the edge.

As for the U. of Leicester physics students: I have no doubt that an
Ark-sized floating box could support the corpses of a very large number
of sheep. So what?

Mark Isaak

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 12:39:38 PM4/4/14
to
On 4/4/14 4:58 AM, TomS wrote:
> "On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:15:40 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <df85366d-d3b2-42cd...@googlegroups.com>, Harry K stated..."
>>
>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 5:42:24 PM UTC-7, Jim T. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> They found research which suggested that there were about
>>>> 35,000 species living at the time of Noah and approximated
>>>> their weight.
>>
>>> I imagine you could "find research" that suggested anything you
>>> wanted. I wonder how this "research" accounts for the fact that there
>>> something like 400,000 known species of beetles alone today,
>>
>> Bingo. I wondered if someone would bring up all the other forms of live,
>> insects, arachnids, worms, moths, etc. etc. etc. and don't forget the poor fish.
>> Even a baby whale ain't a gonna fit in the space of a sheep.
>
> I have heard, fairly often, that:
> 1) only air-breathing tetrapods (interpreting Gen 6:17 "wherein is
> the breath of life") were taken
> 2) only samples of each "kind" (not species, something like family),
> which would speciate after the Flood
>
> I wouldn't be surprised that there are something like 35,000 families
> of reptiles, mammals and birds.

Woodmorappe, using genus as his "kind", came up with 7873 kinds of
terrestrial vertebrates (15746 animals). That includes dinosaurs and
other extinct species. I would guess that the 35,000 number is a number
of extant and recently extinct species of known terrestrial vertebrates
pulled from a book somewhere.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 12:56:50 PM4/4/14
to
On 4/4/14 9:24 AM, eridanus wrote:
> El viernes, 4 de abril de 2014 00:12:53 UTC+1, Melzzzzz escribió:
>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
>> [...]
>> Noah Ark is one illogical story of many illogical stories in Bible.
>> God could simply destroy all life and recreate new if that was the
>> point. Why flood? God could simply move animals and Noah's family
>> into some safe place or such...
>
> You mean, "God could simply move animals and Noah's family into some safe
> place or such..." like an UFO by example. Or to a dry place like the
> heavens, with central heating, mostly because of the hight above sea level.

In fact, there is one medieval tradition that, for the duration of the
Flood, God magically raised the Holy Land (presumably deserted at the
time) above the water.

Greg Guarino

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 1:07:22 PM4/4/14
to
On 4/4/2014 12:16 PM, Lorne Dmitruk wrote:
> On Friday, 4 April 2014 07:45:12 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 4/4/2014 7:58 AM, TomS wrote:
>>
>>> "On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:15:40 -0700 (PDT), in article
>>
>>> <df85366d-d3b2-42cd...@googlegroups.com>, Harry K stated..."
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 5:42:24 PM UTC-7, Jim T. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I looked it up once, but I can't remember the specifics. A modern
>>
>> aircraft carrier, with the benefit of nuclear power for refrigeration,
>>
>> ventilation and desalination, can support a few thousand human beings
>>
>> for only a few months before returning to port to resupply.
>>
>
> An interesting point on how difficult it is to support even a modern ship in modern times, let alone a floating wooden box with no hope of resupply on a water covered earth.

Here's another, a mere 4000 people stranded on a ship with no power for
just a few days:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/us/passengers-face-2-more-days-of-foul-conditions-on-stranded-ship.html?_r=0

> Oh well I imagine the believers can just point to god and say he provided them with manna or some such subsistence for all the critters. Come to think of it why didn't the deity just poof Noah and critters to some safe holding place in the firmament while he wasted everything else on the planet?
>
> Cheers!
>


jillery

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 1:16:09 PM4/4/14
to
On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:56:50 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 4/4/14 9:24 AM, eridanus wrote:
>> El viernes, 4 de abril de 2014 00:12:53 UTC+1, Melzzzzz escribió:
>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
>>> [...]
>>> Noah Ark is one illogical story of many illogical stories in Bible.
>>> God could simply destroy all life and recreate new if that was the
>>> point. Why flood? God could simply move animals and Noah's family
>>> into some safe place or such...
>>
>> You mean, "God could simply move animals and Noah's family into some safe
>> place or such..." like an UFO by example. Or to a dry place like the
>> heavens, with central heating, mostly because of the hight above sea level.
>
>In fact, there is one medieval tradition that, for the duration of the
>Flood, God magically raised the Holy Land (presumably deserted at the
>time) above the water.


I hadn't heard that one before. I shouldn't be surprised at the
lengths apologists go through to rationalize their beliefs.

Melzzzzz

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 1:28:20 PM4/4/14
to
Yes. God is almighty, remember?

> Eri
>


TomS

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 1:36:59 PM4/4/14
to
"On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:39:38 -0700, in article <lhmn8c$aaj$1...@dont-email.me>,
Mark Isaak stated..."
Thank you (and others) for pointing out my gross overestimate of
tetrapod *families".


--
---Tom S.

Paul J Gans

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 2:21:20 PM4/4/14
to
I liked the fact that the movie made the ark round. Why? Because
it didn't need a prow or a stern since it wasn't really going
anywhere.

You can't make this stuff up.

TomS

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 3:22:34 PM4/4/14
to
"On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 18:21:20 +0000 (UTC), in article
<lhmt70$jkh$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
[...snip...]
>I liked the fact that the movie made the ark round. Why? Because
>it didn't need a prow or a stern since it wasn't really going
>anywhere.

I assume that it didn't have rudder, oars or sails either. But did
it have a keel, or any way to keep upright in some heavy seas?

>
>You can't make this stuff up.
>

Oh?


--
---Tom S.

Harry K

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 3:41:30 PM4/4/14
to
On Friday, April 4, 2014 9:56:50 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/4/14 9:24 AM, eridanus wrote:
> > El viernes, 4 de abril de 2014 00:12:53 UTC+1, Melzzzzz escribió:
> >> On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
> >> [...]
> >> Noah Ark is one illogical story of many illogical stories in Bible.
> >> God could simply destroy all life and recreate new if that was the
> >> point. Why flood? God could simply move animals and Noah's family
> >> into some safe place or such...

> > You mean, "God could simply move animals and Noah's family into some safe
> > place or such..." like an UFO by example. Or to a dry place like the
> > heavens, with central heating, mostly because of the hight above sea level.

> In fact, there is one medieval tradition that, for the duration of the
> Flood, God magically raised the Holy Land (presumably deserted at the
> time) above the water.

Aha!! that could explain the lack of water marks on the pyramids!

Harry K

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 5:12:52 PM4/4/14
to
On Thursday, 3 April 2014 22:00:41 UTC+1, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> But what about the termites?
>
> Here is the shorter telling that appeared in Metro:
>
> NOAH DOUBT: Dimensions the Bible says were stipulated
> by God when he ordered the building of the ark are
> mathematically correct. The boat - 300 cubits long
> (137m/450ft), 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high -
> could have floated with Noah, his family and two of
> each animal species on board, say University of
> Leicester physicists.
>
> --------
>
> So much for the free press...

Hullo: they printed a retraction! Here:

Our Minicosm article about the capacity of Noah's Ark
said it could have floated with Noah and two of every
species aboard. In fact, the University of Leicester
study found the Ark's capacity was 2.15 million sheep -
chosen as an average sized animal. There are an
estimated 1.5 million species on earth and Noah had
to take two of each. The researchers concluded:
'Noah would have to leave some behind.' The full
paper can be found at
<https://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/view/676/475>
[PDF file].

The sheep as the average mass specimen, and the figure of
35,000 different species, is indeed from _The Genesis Flood_;
they also note the 1.5 million, and Woodmorappe's 2,000.
The Leicester paper itself says:

"Regardless of which figure is correct, we believe the ark
to be of sufficient buoyancy. Of course, this does not conclude
whether logistically Noah's ark was possible, it remains to be
concluded if the size of the boat is sufficient to house all
the animals."

Shouldn't someone have told them to take out the word "conclude" -
both times? Anyway, what they /did/ conclude, the newspaper says
that they don't conclude any more.

And I found out some more about what's going on, from
<http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/physics/physics-special-topics> and
<http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/physics/physics-special-topics/about-the-journal>

"The Journal of Physics Special Topics forms a 10-credit module in
the final year of the four-year MPhys degree.

"The module provides scope for creativity, for group work in a
realistic context, and for the opportunity to revise some basic
physics. It also gives the students an important insight into
the formal process of submission, peer review and publishing.

"Of course, even in the most off-the-wall topics, the physics
must be correct and the approximations appropriate. Every paper
that is submitted to the journal is refereed by at least two
other students."

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 9:28:27 PM4/4/14
to
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 5:16:04 PM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:
> > Research lead Oliver Youle, 22, said: "Our conclusions were
>
> >
>
> > that the ark would support the weight of 2.15 million sheep
>
> >
>
> > without sinking and that should be enough to support all of
>
> >
>
> > the species that were around at the time."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --------
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > But what about the termites?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Here is the shorter telling that appeared in Metro:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > NOAH DOUBT: Dimensions the Bible says were stipulated
>
> >
>
> > by God when he ordered the building of the ark are
>
> >
>
> > mathematically correct. The boat - 300 cubits long
>
> >
>
> > (137m/450ft), 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high -
>
> >
>
> > could have floated with Noah, his family and two of
>
> >
>
> > each animal species on board, say University of
>
> >
>
> > Leicester physicists.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --------
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So much for the free press...
>
>
>
> Physics students, not physicists.
>
>
>
> The boat had a total volume of 4.9e4 m^3, so it should be able to hold some 4.9e7 kg of matter with bouyance forces (Since bouyancy is just the weight of the displaced water; Eureka!) . If they calculated 2.15 million sheep (2e6), they think sheep have a 5e7/2e6 = 2.5e1 = 25 kg mass on average. Well, that sounds real, but off by a factor of two. So say, a million sheep all herded onto a boat, neatly arrayed and so forth.
>
>
>
> The clue here is that they thought there were some 35e3 species, so only 7e4 individual animals, on the boat. That would allow for some thousand kg per animal, tis true.
>
>
>
> However, they haven't actually calculated the boat. They calculated bouyancy. And that makes the story nonsensical; as Bill Nye said in the debate with Ken Ham, the ship would just break due to forces acting on it (other than bouyancy).
>
>
>
> Plus that the 35e3 species is an arbitrary number. Larger than AiG thinks, but still extremely small. That is still going to be some 15 species discovered a day!

Bill Nye is comically clueless to be running his mouth like that. Lots of boats as big or bigger than the Ark were built out of wood and floated just fine. Why doesn't he know that before going on TV? Nero's famous boat has virtually identical volume and very similar shape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemi_ships

He isn't a scientist, he just makes things up because they sound right. Chinese ships were larger. Caligula's ship was so close to identical in volume, it may have been a copy of the Ark. The Torah was well known.


passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 9:34:59 PM4/4/14
to
All great extinctions exterminate almost all species. Why is that so hard to accept for the Flood story? Why would science be able to exterminate almost all species with their stories but not Genesis? Does the Hebrew really say it's all the species from before?

And since like most of Genesis, there are two rather different flood stories. That may be big news to some, but the Hebrews really study that stuff, Jew or Samaritan, so it clearly wasn't intended to be taken literally, or the two stories would have been combined and the contradictions removed.

Dai monie

unread,
Apr 4, 2014, 9:56:15 PM4/4/14
to
Your own link says those ships (Nemi) were only half as long as the measurements used in this particular article? (70m vs 137 m)

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 12:31:49 AM4/5/14
to
On Saturday, 5 April 2014 02:34:59 UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> All great extinctions exterminate almost all species. Why is that
> so hard to accept for the Flood story? Why would science be able
> to exterminate almost all species with their stories but not Genesis?
> Does the Hebrew really say it's all the species from before?

My impression is it's hard to tell what ancient Hebrew really
means, or to convert it into English, but looking it up at
<https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Genesis+6:11> :
"from all life, from all flesh, two from all you must bring."
Noah was told to take every living, um, kind. And the book
then tells us that he did what he was told, although he didn't
have to go out and collect them: God made them show up at the
Ark.

So, yes, every thing. Which makes forms of fossil life that
supposedly died in the Flood a bit of a problem. One Creationist
explanation is that Noah /did/ bring dinosaurs, but unfortunately
the Flood was followed immediately by an Ice Age (or maybe /the/
Ice Age) and they died out then.

Another idea that I think is obsolete in religion is that there's
a big gap in time not mentioned between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and
that God populated the Earth with animal and plant life, and then
exterminated it all, several times over, and ours is the latest
and last of several disconnected episodes of life on Earth.

> And since like most of Genesis, there are two rather different
> flood stories. That may be big news to some, but the Hebrews
> really study that stuff, Jew or Samaritan, so it clearly wasn't
> intended to be taken literally, or the two stories would have
> been combined and the contradictions removed.

But, the intermingled stories are Holy Writ - they can't be
changed now! Contradictions and all!

All that remains is creative translation, such as Genesis
chapter 2 where God creates Adam and then creates animals
to be companions for him - the opposite of Genesis 1.
The translator who wants to be helpful makes the bible say
here that these are the animals which God /had/ created
earlier.

I read about another case of odd belief, in Judaism, but it may
be a vicious parody or a misinterpreted joke. And I don't think
I've got the details exactly straight, but it goes something like
this: Rabbi 1 has declared that when the Messiah comes, all Jews
will be resurrected from their graves. Rabbi 2 declared that
when the Messiah comes, all Jews will be resurrected in Israel.
But it's a fact that many Jews have graves that aren't in
Israel. So, apparently /either/ at least one of the rabbis
spoke imprecisely, /or/ Jews outside Israel will be resurrected
underground and then whisked through tunnels underground
from each grave, around the globe (or through the globe),
and pop up for the first time in Israel.

You choose which of these interpretations to believe.

I also don't think I'm inventing the detail that, the less
virtuously you lived your life, the more bumpy the ride you'll
get through your tunnel.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 6:55:09 AM4/5/14
to
I don't know what that's about, perhaps the remnants. The size of the Nemi ships isn't exactly exotic knowledge, you know.

The two largest ships were about 250 feet long and 70 feet wide, nearly covering small Lake Nemi.
http://historybecauseitshere.weebly.com/roman-emperor-caligula-and-his-legendary-lake-nemi-ships.html

The larger of the Nemi Ships measured 240 feet in length and 79 feet in width and the smaller ones measured 230 feet by 66 feet
http://petergeekie.hubpages.com/hub/Roman-Emperor-Caligula-and-the-Nemi-Barges

And when you take the listed height, the volumes are the same within the margin of error.

walksalone

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 7:00:48 AM4/5/14
to
passer...@gmail.com wrote in
news:c990923a-58e0-4c7f...@googlegroups.com:

> All great extinctions exterminate almost all species. Why is that so
> hard to accept for the Flood story? Why would science be able to

Well, let's look at that.
Their god told Noah & co., LLC, to get with it & make an ark big enough to
accept not only two of every unclean animal, but seven of the good ones.
IIRC, that is in version 2 of ye olde floode, copy of the Gilgamesh flood.
Twisted to fit their wants of course.
So what we have is a claim for saving all life, just not very much of it.
Of course that would create a genetic bottleneck, which can't be found in
history.
So he did, at the age of what, 900 years?

> exterminate almost all species with their stories but not Genesis?
> Does the Hebrew really say it's all the species from before?

If one can read for comprehension, more than close enough for government
work, hand grenades, or B-52 strikes. I suspect i's close enough for Naval
Bombardments as well.


> And since like most of Genesis, there are two rather different flood
> stories. That may be big news to some, but the Hebrews really study

They study the torah, real history as well as science, not so much. That
has changed mind you, for those subjects have expanded the horizons of
humanity. But if it contradicts their Holy Writ, it is ignored or makes it
to the Talmud's. The Hebrew version of apologetics.
Which some of is downright interesting.
The Hebrews, along with the real political powers of the time, just didn't
do science as it is understood today. They had neither the tools, not clue
that science existed in spite of their gods.

> that stuff, Jew or Samaritan, so it clearly wasn't intended to be
> taken literally, or the two stories would have been combined and the
> contradictions removed.

You were there then? Actually, there is a more plausible excuse. The
story, like the Adam & Eve story, was so well known they couldn't take it
out in the great re-write of aprx. -545 gr.. Or just for you, the return
from the shortened Babylonian vacation. If only Korash had not sent them
home. Why Babylon would be the new Holy Land.

Now, should you expect this conversation will follow your lead & turn into
a dog & pony show, it won't with my assistance.
Should you welsh to hold a serious discussion, & provide supporting
evidence for this fantasy, then welcome to my very small corner of the
universe.

I will, in that case, make the presumption your reading on the subjects is
not limited top handouts printed in crayon from the local First
Uprightchous Church, nor approved by Sister Bertha Better Than You or
Brother Hyram Holier than thou from the Amen Pew. With thanks to Ray
Stevens for hitting that one on the head.

[1]

walksalone who does accept the fact that he can be in error. But after
four daughters, it takes more than someone just saying so.

Potential on line sources for more information?

http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/noahs_flood.htm
Don't have time to properly review it, but I suspect the OP won't
appreciate it.

Or better yet, duckduckgo.com, a secured search site, & ask away.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 7:12:51 AM4/5/14
to
I normally don't read segmented posts Robert, but you don't know that, so I'll make an exception this time since you typed so much. The interlinear Hebrew, for the Jewish Masoretic version, the Samaritan version and the DSS version are at...
https://sites.google.com/site/interlinearpentateuch/genesis-bereshit/chapter-6-16-22

There are 2 primary authors of Genesis and two different flood stories. In one, it's by twos, in the other, it's by sevens if a clean animal, and different duration etc. The strongest for it being all animals is 6:19, and it's not clear it's all animals on the face of the earth. It tends to suggest it though.

They recently applied their author software on it, and not surprisingly it showed two primary authors too, and agreed almost everywhere. The exception is Genesis 1 and 2. Different stories, but same author in that case.

Many Christians have no remote clue what's actually in the Bible, but Hebrews always have pored over every word, and with on story saying it's by sevens and the other by twos, it's never been taken dead literally.

The flood story probably is historical, it's the flooding of the Arabian Gulf 8k years ago. It was Eden.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 7:27:28 AM4/5/14
to
Ok, guys, last segmented post I respond to. For those that only do segmented posts, we aren't going to be communicating.

FALSE! Genesis is NOT a copy of Gilgamesh. You have no evidence whatsoever for that. Are they similar? Of course they are, Abraham was from Ur, where Gilgamesh comes from. They both may have gotten it from a third source or Gilgamesh may have gotten it from the Genesis story.

What it does is push the actual history part of the Torah back to 2000BCE. Abraham did come from Ur and so on.

I didn't mention anything about the Hebrews doing science. Not sure what that's about.

And looking at the Hebrew interlinear, (or if you can read Hebrew), it's obvious to you it's 100% of the animals on earth but it's sure not obvious to me, and my reading comprehension is just fine. Why do you think it's a reading comprehension fail in the Hebrew version? Surely you aren't referring to some arbitrary English word chosen by some translator?

I don't have to travel back in time to study history. That I wasn't there, doesn't mean anything in the study of history.



jillery

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 8:27:41 AM4/5/14
to
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 04:27:28 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>Ok, guys, last segmented post I respond to. For those that only do segmented posts, we aren't going to be communicating.


What the heck is a "segmented post"? Do you mean one with paragraphs
and formatting? What's wrong with that?

Roger Shrubber

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 8:46:19 AM4/5/14
to
It's the way usenet has been used since its inception.
Don't expect veterans of a forum to change things to
suit the whim of some newbie.

> FALSE! Genesis is NOT a copy of Gilgamesh. You have no evidence
> whatsoever for that. Are they similar? Of course they are, Abraham
> was from Ur, where Gilgamesh comes from. They both may have gotten it
> from a third source or Gilgamesh may have gotten it from the Genesis
> story.

None of your arguments makes an argument for _false_. You
do present an alternative possibility but that is distinct
from establishing that Genesis is not copied from Gilgamesh.

> What it does is push the actual history part of the Torah back to
> 2000BCE. Abraham did come from Ur and so on.
>
> I didn't mention anything about the Hebrews doing science. Not sure
> what that's about.

It's all about the clues as to how one should read a story,
especially with respect to whether or not one should treat
a story as the equivalent of a modern style historical
account or a modern style science textbook. Most specifically,
not every story that is written to describe events that
are described to have taken place in the past is meant
to be interpreted as accurately describing events that
occurred to real people in a real sequence. This is obvious
to people when one describes a story as a parable such as
those within the gospels. It is also obvious if one
recognizes that the very notion of attempting to tell a
literal history is generally seen to have arisen with
Heroditus which is after the early recording of Genesis.

The idea that religious stories of origins relate history
is refuted again and again. If you are not convinced,
consider that there are scores of mutually exclusive
accounts of creation from all over the world. They cannot
all be based upon historical facts. An inclination to read
or otherwise treat them as literal accounts is quite
simply a childish ignorance. And just as this goes for
historicity, it goes for scientific accuracy. It ignores
the purpose and nature of creation stories that is readily
revealed by observing multiple cultures.

> And looking at the Hebrew interlinear, (or if you can read Hebrew),
> it's obvious to you it's 100% of the animals on earth but it's sure
> not obvious to me, and my reading comprehension is just fine. Why do
> you think it's a reading comprehension fail in the Hebrew version?
> Surely you aren't referring to some arbitrary English word chosen by
> some translator?
>
> I don't have to travel back in time to study history. That I wasn't
> there, doesn't mean anything in the study of history.

And neither do creation stories.
http://dept.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_12.html
Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the
sky, upon which the Sky People lived. They lived quietly and happily. No
one ever died or was born or experienced sadness. However one day one of
the Sky Women realized she was going to give birth to twins. She told
her husband, who flew into a rage. In the center of the island there was
a tree which gave light to the entire island since the sun hadn't been
created yet. He tore up this tree, creating a huge hole in the middle of
the island. Curiously, the woman peered into the hole. Far below she
could see the waters that covered the earth. At that moment her husband
pushed her. She fell through the hole, tumbling towards the waters below.
Water animals already existed on the earth, so far below the floating
island two birds saw the Sky Woman fall. Just before she reached the
waters they caught her on their backs and brought her to the other
animals. Determined to help the woman they dove into the water to get
mud from the bottom of the seas. One after another the animals tried and
failed. Finally, Little Toad tried and when he reappeared his mouth was
full of mud. The animals took it and spread it on the back of Big
Turtle. The mud began to grow and grow and grow until it became the size
of North America.

Then the woman stepped onto the land. She sprinkled dust into the air
and created stars. Then she created the moon and sun.

The Sky Woman gave birth to twin sons. She named one Sapling. He grew to
be kind and gentle. She named the other Flint and his heart was as cold
as his name. They grew quickly and began filling the earth with their
creations.

Sapling created what is good. He made animals that are useful to humans.
He made rivers that went two ways and into these he put fish without
bones. He made plants that people could eat easily. If he was able to do
all the work himself there would be no suffering.

Flint destroyed much of Sapling's work and created all that is bad. He
made the rivers flow only in one direction. He put bones in fish and
thorns on berry bushes. He created winter, but Sapling gave it life so
that it could move to give way to Spring. He created monsters which his
brother drove beneath the Earth.

Eventually Sapling and Flint decided to fight till one conquered the
other. Neither was able to win at first, but finally Flint was beaten.
Because he was a god Flint could not die, so he was forced to live on
Big Turtle's back. Occasionally his anger is felt in the form of a volcano.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 10:03:26 AM4/5/14
to
I'm guessing that it's when I interrupt quoting what you
said, to put in what I want to say.

> What's wrong with that?

If it's what I think it is - usually not much wrong.
A writer is treating the previous text like a list of
questions, and putting in answers. It's how interviews
in print are often presented, and it's a lot easier
than reading all of my thoughts after reading all of
yours, and trying to join them up.

It can get complicated after several rounds, and it can
be done badly. I know one correspondent in another group
who puts in a break after every sentence of mine - or
anyone else - in order to insult me, or whoever, again.
If someone in another forum had a habit of doing that,
the style might be barred.

I do think that quoted text should be edited so that
points that you aren't referring to are removed.
Actually, not everyone agrees with that, either.
I've seen forums where the local style was to
quote everything, untouched.

And I'll just mention that this forum was created to
provide an audience of willing readers for people who
have something that they want to offer for discussion
in the area of creationism and related matters of
religious truth, instead of posting their message
where people /don't/ want to hear it.

So, we can tolerate today's new friend "passerby"
in their preferred style for writing and reading,
but they also should tolerate our style.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 11:45:41 AM4/5/14
to
A segmented post is where I would mindlessly read through someone else's post and make replies as I go, because I don't ant to do the heavy lifting of reading comprehension and composing an answer. I would be forcing the other person to do the reading comprehension. If they didn't it becomes a nested mess, particularly when the inevitable lies about what someone else said start showing up.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 11:47:26 AM4/5/14
to
Ok, Roger doesn't want to talk to me, that's ok. No one's fault, life goes on.

Burkhard

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 11:53:00 AM4/5/14
to
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 4:45:41 PM UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> A segmented post is where I would mindlessly read through someone else's post and make replies as I go, because I don't ant to do the heavy lifting of reading comprehension and composing an answer.

<snip>

Well, this composition style allows third parties to check immediately how a response relates
the the post it responds to - something that our top posting obfuscates. Top posting
is therefore (rightly in my opinion) frowned upon, whereas paragraph by paragraph rebuttals
are pretty much the norm.

Roger Shrubber

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 11:56:18 AM4/5/14
to
passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> A segmented post is where I would mindlessly read through someone
> else's post and make replies as I go, because I don't ant to do the
> heavy lifting of reading comprehension and composing an answer. I
> would be forcing the other person to do the reading comprehension. If
> they didn't it becomes a nested mess, particularly when the
> inevitable lies about what someone else said start showing up.

And this above is an example of "top posting".
You really ought to familiarize yourself with usenet, the
medium you are using. It helps prevent you from needlessly
making a complete ass of yourself. Of course, in some
cases, ignoring decades of convention and pretending
to know better than everybody else is a very effective
way to communicate something about an author. On this
account, I congratulate you on the economy of your
method.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 12:06:29 PM4/5/14
to
People can talk to who they choose, there are more people on the internet than we can talk to in a million lifetimes. Personally I choose not to do the reading comprehension thing for everyone or be faced with a nasty nested post as the inevitable strawman lies start. Some people know absolutely nothing else.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 12:08:27 PM4/5/14
to
I'm doing it on purpose, Roger. Just like you were doing segmented posts on purpose. No problem whatsoever not chatting here with you if that's the inevitable result.

Roger Shrubber

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 12:21:56 PM4/5/14
to
passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm doing it on purpose, Roger. Just like you were doing segmented
> posts on purpose. No problem whatsoever not chatting here with you if
> that's the inevitable result.

Indeed you are. And as I said, ignoring decades of convention
for how to communicate on usenet makes a point about you
very clearly. Similarly, my ignoring your complaint and
following standard style to address your posts is a
manner targeted toward specific points in situ says
something about me. I'm unconcerned by you threatening to
not respond to me. I was simply addressing your claims
publicly. Whether or not you chose to engage in a counter-
rebuttal remains your choice. It's always that way. It
does not bother me if you refuse to do so.

walksalone

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 1:37:30 PM4/5/14
to
passer...@gmail.com wrote in
news:523869f9-c08e-4e69...@googlegroups.com:
That will make life easier on those of us that learned to use usenet
back in the ninety's. How to respond, how to delete un-needed text,
etc. Can't say abut goggle groups version of the chat room. Nor, do I
assume that I am here to follow the lead of those that really might be
better off reading & not posting.

> FALSE! Genesis is NOT a copy of Gilgamesh. You have no evidence

Where did I say it was a copy? Or do you need some exercise for reasons
only you know?

> whatsoever for that. Are they similar? Of course they are, Abraham was

It is an extremely common trope, so common it is world wide. Summer was
around before the Hebrew Bible made its first claim.

> from Ur, where Gilgamesh comes from. They both may have gotten it from

Gilgamesh was from Ur? The hell you say. Maybe you need to contact
theses folks:
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/ & notify
them so they can thank you for bring that amusing claim to their
attention. That epic is based on a historical king from Sumer.

> a third source or Gilgamesh may have gotten it from the Genesis story.

No, it was not gotten from the Hebrew Bible, & those that are paid to
speak to others on the subject do no agree with you. Unless of course,
they are from the Creation Institute or one of its sister fable
marketers.

> What it does is push the actual history part of the Torah back to
> 2000BCE. Abraham did come from Ur and so on.

No, it does not. What it does is give professional apologetics reason
to say nonsense, like were you there. & whine when they are asked the
same question. The fact is, there is no reason to assume Abram, as
described in the Hebrew Bible, ever lived. Now I admit, the Talmudic
story's can be interesting, a requirement of good fiction & myth
writers.

> I didn't mention anything about the Hebrews doing science. Not sure
> what that's about.

Science is something they did not know of, & therefore were limited to
explaining what they saw in terms they could understand, or actually,
what that society's elite could understand.

> And looking at the Hebrew interlinear, (or if you can read Hebrew),

Masoratic or Hebrew. the two are not identical. Seems Hebrew went out
of vogue around 70gr., after the Romans got just a little pissed at
judeans wanting them to go away.

> it's obvious to you it's 100% of the animals on earth but it's sure
> not obvious to me, and my reading comprehension is just fine. Why do

I take it you haven't studied the culture then? I wouldn't have, but to
understand the myth & why it shows its ass as much as it does, I need
that POV.

> you think it's a reading comprehension fail in the Hebrew version?
> Surely you aren't referring to some arbitrary English word chosen by
> some translator?

Quite a few well paid linguists don't agree with your version of
unreality. Several of them are believers in one of the revealed gods of
the desert. Now, claims by AIG, ICR or ID reps, no, I don't. You see,
they fail to provide evidence that I can verify on my own.

> I don't have to travel back in time to study history. That I wasn't
> there, doesn't mean anything in the study of history.

To pretend to be the authority you are trying to convey yourself as, it
would have been better if whoever told/wrote genesis asked you for
advice. I can understand why they wouldn't. it appears you are
unfamiliar with the legends, as well as the regional history & the
insignificance of the Judean society in the region as well as the time.
But the whole setup is not based on fact, nor is there any reason to
assume that was not known by the original elite.

Not that I expect you to do any reading from the following list, but
others that are curious may enjoy it.

The Bible Unearthed.
Scribal Culture And The making Of the Hebrew Bible.
Misquoting Jesus

are three from the top of my head, & far from being complicated works.
They even have, dast I say it, references that you can pursue to further
your knowledge.

walksalone who is of a mind that 2 & 3 will not be needed. This one is
not here for discussion, but posturing. I know Thanatos is getting
tired. All those he has guided to the abyss, & no conversation worth
engaging in during all these years.

Unless you start a tendency to converse instead of playing prima donna,
I've better things to do. Even if the universe does not notice.

Jesus loves you - but then again, so does your dog.
Author unkown to me.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 1:45:28 PM4/5/14
to
By choice, you mean. Top-posting. Well, it's harder to
convert someone on formatting protocol than on religion.

jillery

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 1:46:26 PM4/5/14
to
So what he calls segmented, I call broken. I agree it's generally
rude to break up a line of reasoning for no good reason, but replying
to separate points at the place they are made is a good way to
maintain coherence.

Considering his top posting and unformatted lines, he's living in
glass house.

jillery

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 2:15:27 PM4/5/14
to
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 08:45:41 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>A segmented post is where I would mindlessly read through someone else's post and make replies as I go, because I don't ant to do the heavy lifting of reading comprehension and composing an answer. I would be forcing the other person to do the reading comprehension. If they didn't it becomes a nested mess, particularly when the inevitable lies about what someone else said start showing up.


I have no idea why you think "segmenting" your replies is "mindless"
or indicates a lack of reading comprehension. If anything, it shows
that they have read up to that point and are making a reply about that
point.

But feel free to try to change everybody else. With your top-posting
and unformatted lines, you're in no place to complain about their
habits.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 2:26:45 PM4/5/14
to
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> This is embarrassing. But actually they seem to have proved
> that a wooden box containing a certain number of animals -
> and nothing else - will float, and not just sit on the ground
> as the water piles up over it.
>
> But I believe there are good reasons why real ships are not
> that shape.
>
> But I haven't read the paper. Well, I've read the newspaper.
> Here. (It was also in the free "Metro" on the bus today.)
>
> It's not on the BBC web site and I don't expect it to be.
>
> http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Noah/story-20906512-detail/story.html#ixzz2x
rArM0MT

Published only two days late,

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 2:26:45 PM4/5/14
to
Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

> I'd like a second opinion, from the Leicester U. nautical engineers.

Don't they have a Department of Arkelogy there?

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 2:26:45 PM4/5/14
to
Dai monie <josko...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 3 April 2014 23:00:41 UTC+2, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > This is embarrassing. But actually they seem to have proved
> >
> > that a wooden box containing a certain number of animals -
> >
> > and nothing else - will float, and not just sit on the ground
> >
> > as the water piles up over it.
> >
> >
> >
> > But I believe there are good reasons why real ships are not
> >
> > that shape.
> >
> >
> >
> > But I haven't read the paper. Well, I've read the newspaper.
> >
> > Here. (It was also in the free "Metro" on the bus today.)
> >
> >
> >
> > It's not on the BBC web site and I don't expect it to be.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Noah/story-20906512-detail/story.html#ixzz
2xrArM0MT
> >
> >
> >
Spherical sheep, no doubt.

> The clue here is that they thought there were some 35e3 species, so only
> 7e4 individual animals, on the boat. That would allow for some thousand kg
> per animal, tis true.
>
> However, they haven't actually calculated the boat. They calculated
> bouyancy. And that makes the story nonsensical; as Bill Nye said in the
> debate with Ken Ham, the ship would just break due to forces acting on it
> (other than bouyancy).

Boyancy too kills it, for it acts as pressure on the bottom,
which it cannot withstand,

Jan

Roger Shrubber

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 3:39:10 PM4/5/14
to
Robert Carnegie wrote:
> This is embarrassing. But actually they seem to have proved
> that a wooden box containing a certain number of animals -
> and nothing else - will float, and not just sit on the ground
> as the water piles up over it.

I was waiting for someone else to make the point but ...
who ever disputed the ability of the Ark to float?
I don't think anybody did.
There seems to be some confusion over the observation that
the Ark could not withstand waves with the idea of it
not being buoyant. The point is that extremely large
wooden vessels cannot withstand the stresses that come
with a moving ocean, not if you can be buoyant if you
pack one fairly full with creatures that have a density
close to that of water.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 4:26:23 PM4/5/14
to
Now on the BBC web site. This is the relevant text in full.

--------

10 things we didn't know last week

7. The biblical dimensions of Noah's Ark were probably realistic.

Find out more (Daily Mail)

--------

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-26885952>

--------

"Send us a letter" (typed into this little box next to the page):
you bet I did. I said that real sea boats made of wood can't be
that big. I expect to have to defend this position. There's
one in the Netherlands but it's on a raft made of steel barges
or something.

Dai monie

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 5:54:25 PM4/5/14
to
Derp. Good point.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 6:59:55 PM4/5/14
to
On Saturday, 5 April 2014 19:26:45 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dai monie <josko...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > However, they haven't actually calculated the boat. They calculated
> > bouyancy. And that makes the story nonsensical; as Bill Nye said in the
> > debate with Ken Ham, the ship would just break due to forces acting on it
> > (other than bouyancy).
>
> Boyancy too kills it, for it acts as pressure on the bottom,
> which it cannot withstand,

Hey: (1) "buoyancy", and, (2) is this correct? Maybe we could
get the students stripped of the course credit they got for the
exercise, if they haven't been already by other third-party
criticism. Cruel but fair.

Also featured in "Journal of Physics Special Topics" was,
"What if the Moon was made of Wensleydale cheese?"

Apparently these authors imagined the Moon being transformed
into either the same volume, or the same mass, of three different
kinds of cheese, including Wensleydale. They found that
cheese is less dense than moon rock and so a cheese Moon
with the same mass would be visibly larger. On the other
hand, a cheese moon the same size as the real Moon would
cause smaller tides and stuff.

They did include figures, but I wonder if they considered
whether the holes in Swiss cheese would still be there
under the greater pressure below the Moon's surface.
So perhaps it would be more dense than they calculated.

But then, figuring out what would really happen may be
not the point of this exercise; it's about getting a paper
published, not about really adding to the sum of human
knowledge. This is also the case with the work of some
real scientists.

Mike Painter

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 7:54:17 PM4/5/14
to
Volume of ark with zero thick wall = 450 * 75 * 45 = 1,518,750 cubic
feet.
Assuming salt water at 64 pounds per cubic feet the displacement is
97,200,000. pounds and we assume the ark has no mass.
Sheep weight from 90 to 300 pounds.

90 * 2,150,000 = 193,500,000 or 96,300,000 more than needed to sink
the boat.

The beasts tend to float so if we just assume each one takes up one
cubic foot and pack them just right we see that they take up 631,250
cubic feet more than the volume of the ark.

Reminds me of Mark Twain's tunnel which stuck out both sides of a
mountain http://tiny.cc/lbbvdx

An engineer, a scientist, and a mathematician were tasked with
building an Ark...

Mike Painter

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 8:08:52 PM4/5/14
to
On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:16:04 -0700 (PDT), Dai monie
<josko...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>However, they haven't actually calculated the boat. They calculated bouyancy. And that makes the story nonsensical; as Bill Nye said in the debate with Ken Ham, the ship would just break due to forces acting on it (other than bouyancy).

The fairly recent (I think) switch from a boat to a flat bottom barge
shape gave the creationists a lot more space to play with and they
have just ignored the problems it causes.

A few years back I looked into the Mississippi River boat as it offers
a similar shape and worked quite well on calm water.
None came close to the Ark and one of the largest ran aground and
split lengthwise when the water level dropped some six inches.

What interested me about the whole thing is that there, in the heart
of the bible belt, is a "solution" to one of the major problems such a
barge would have.
That no creationist site has discovered it just seems to indicate how
little they really think about the subject.

Maybe I should buy a PhD in Marine design, get saved and collect money
to build a web site that reveals "How Noah Built The Ark."
Maybe I could get an endorsement and voice over from Bill Cosby.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bputeFGXEjA

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 9:32:00 PM4/5/14
to
Romans built wooden ships much larger than the Ark. This isn't the largest, but within the accuracy of the measurements, the volume is identical to the Ark...

Rome Length:341 ft.
God Length:450 ft.

Rome Width: 66 ft.
God Width: 75 ft.

Rome Height:60 ft.
God Height: 45 ft.

Fun with Math:
Volume of Rome's Ark = 341*66*60 = 1.4 million square feet
Volume of God's Ark = 450*75*45 = 1.5 million square feet

The Wiki link even discusses a larger ship, that crossed the Mediterranean, but no exact dimensions.

And that "Gopher wood" is acacia, and it's just about the toughest longest lasting wood on the planet. Much better than oak. Its' what the other Ark, the Ark of the covenant was made of too. We have 4000 year old acacia Egyptian chairs etc. that are still in perfect condition.

References:

Caligula's Giant Ship

...a length of between 95 and 104 metres (341 ft) and a beam of about 20.3 m (66 ft). It was 6 decks high, displaced a minimum of 7400 tons, and carried a crew of 700-800.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula's_Giant_Ship

....instructions for building the ark: it is to be of gopher wood, smeared inside and out with pitch, with three decks and internal compartments; it will be 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft); it will have a roof "finished to a cubit upward", and an entrance on the side.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 9:35:29 PM4/5/14
to
Why that pinhead, Bill Nye didn't know that and was put on television as some scientist expert eludes me.

Tim Norfolk

unread,
Apr 5, 2014, 11:29:08 PM4/5/14
to
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:32:00 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder about the effectiveness of your calculations, when you get volumes in 'square feet'.

jillery

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 12:06:40 AM4/6/14
to
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 18:32:00 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:
The article on Caligula's Giant Ship is the kind that helps to gives
Wikipedia a bad reputation. It offers only two external links,
neither of which provide any evidence that the ship ever sailed.

Harry K

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 12:27:34 AM4/6/14
to
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:06:29 AM UTC-7, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> People can talk to who they choose, there are more people on the internet than we can talk to in a million lifetimes. Personally I choose not to do the reading comprehension thing for everyone or be faced with a nasty nested post as the inevitable strawman lies start. Some people know absolutely nothing lse.


You will be taking much more seriously if you follow the usenet norm:

STOP TOP POSTING!

Harry K

solar penguin

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 4:10:25 AM4/6/14
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:08:27 -0700, passerby31416 wrote:

> I'm doing it on purpose, Roger.

How does that make it better? Top-posting by accident is forgiveable.
Top-posting on purpose is one of the worst offences possible on Usenet.
It's even worse than posting binaries to non-binary groups.

> Just like you were doing segmented posts
> on purpose.

Yes, Roger's doing it the right way on purpose. You're doing it totally
the wrong way on purpose. See the difference?

> No problem whatsoever not chatting here with you if that's
> the inevitable result.
>

If you keep on top-posting, no-one will want to chat with you.

solar penguin

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 4:22:11 AM4/6/14
to
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 08:47:26 -0700, passerby31416 wrote:

> Ok, Roger doesn't want to talk to me, that's ok. No one's fault, life
> goes on.
>

No-one's fault? If someone doesn't want to talk to top-posting scum,
it's the top-posting scum's fault simply for being top-posting scum in
the first place. (Not that it's applicable in this case, since Roger did
talk but you didn't want to listen.)

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 4:58:16 AM4/6/14
to
Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > This is embarrassing. But actually they seem to have proved
> > that a wooden box containing a certain number of animals -
> > and nothing else - will float, and not just sit on the ground
> > as the water piles up over it.
>
> I was waiting for someone else to make the point but ...
> who ever disputed the ability of the Ark to float?
> I don't think anybody did.

It has come up before in this forum.

> There seems to be some confusion over the observation that
> the Ark could not withstand waves with the idea of it
> not being buoyant. The point is that extremely large
> wooden vessels cannot withstand the stresses that come
> with a moving ocean, not if you can be buoyant if you
> pack one fairly full with creatures that have a density
> close to that of water.

For large wooden ships merely withstanding
the stresses of floating is a problem.
There is the problem of water pressure,
which demands a heavy construction to withstand it.
Even if it withstands the pressure it will leak,
and demand pumping.
(with pumps that were completely unheard of at the time)
In heavy weather a big sailing ship needed a crew at the pumps
on 24/7 basis.
Fide Wikipedia Victory in heavy weather
needed 150 men at the pumps
to get out 120 tons of water -per hour-.
She would have sunk in a matter of hours if not pumped.

Next, load distribution is a big problem.
(even when merely loading spherical sheep)
The ship will hump, or sag, if not loaded carefully.
It may even break while still in harbour.
(Liberty Ships were notoriously prone to this
despite being built in welded steel)
In Victory for example the guns had to be loaded carefully,
with the first officer keeping track
of the distortion of the ship.
At present Victory's guns are wooden mock-ups,
for the ship (while in dry dock and not floating)
cannot support their weight at all.

Building a big wooden ship on land, loading it while dry,
and hoping that it will float is optimistic in the extreme.

Wave action of course makes all of this much worse,
and adds still more problems.

Building big wooden ships is a craft
that took many centuries to learn,
through many painful mistakes.
You just can't build one from scratch,
load it, and expect it to float,

Jan


Josh Miles

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 6:18:13 AM4/6/14
to
It's called quoting. It's standard Usenet etiquette to quote the text
you're replying to. I don't know why Google Groups users have such a
hard time grasping this.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 6:36:58 AM4/6/14
to
The Chinese ships were even bigger. Very little in history has physical objects to measure. We have no Triremes but we know they existed.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 6:38:05 AM4/6/14
to
You don't tell me what to do, Harry. That ain't gonna' happen, what will happen is I will always top post.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 6:41:12 AM4/6/14
to
One of them even says
that the interpretation of the archeological remains
as Caligula's ship was a mistake,

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 6:41:12 AM4/6/14
to
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 5 April 2014 19:26:45 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Dai monie <josko...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > However, they haven't actually calculated the boat. They calculated
> > > bouyancy. And that makes the story nonsensical; as Bill Nye said in the
> > > debate with Ken Ham, the ship would just break due to forces acting on it
> > > (other than bouyancy).
> >
> > Boyancy too kills it, for it acts as pressure on the bottom,
> > which it cannot withstand,
>
> Hey: (1) "buoyancy", and, (2) is this correct? Maybe we could
> get the students stripped of the course credit they got for the
> exercise, if they haven't been already by other third-party
> criticism. Cruel but fair.

Yes, if ship-shaped, like traditional arks are.
It basically is a medieval Cog ship design,
scaled up, and with a barn added on top.

Water pressure of course depends on depth.
You can get away with it in a shallow draft/draught design,
little more than a raft, but then you loose all seaworthyness.

A raft is anyway a better idea if you want to survive a flood,
with family and some domestic animals,

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 6:54:12 AM4/6/14
to
Nonsense. We have the sheds they were stored in,
and the dimensions are accurately known.
The Olympias replica is at actual size,
(ą a few percent)

Jan

<http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/CSAD/Newsletters/Newsletter11/Newsletter11j.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympias_(trireme)>

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 7:36:00 AM4/6/14
to
I say we have none, you say that's nonsense and then agree we have none. I said we have none, I didn't say we didn't know a lot about them. That we know a lot about them was my point, you are agreeing with me. The shed doesn't describe the design, of course we know their size, we know their design too.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 7:49:22 AM4/6/14
to
<passer...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You don't tell me what to do, Harry. That ain't gonna' happen, what will
> happen is I will always top post.
>

Jan

--
(monospaced on)
[TROLL DETECTED] [TARGET AIMING] [TARGET LOCKED] [ FIRE!!! ]
.--------------. .-------------. .-------------. .-------------.
| o | | | | | \ o / | | \`. | .'/ |
| /( )\ | | -- + -- | | --(+)-- | |-- *PLONK* --|
|_____/_\______| | | | |_____/|\_____| |__/_'_|_'_\__|
'--------------' '-------------' '-------------' '-------------'




TomS

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 8:02:25 AM4/6/14
to
"On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 13:49:22 +0200, in article
<1ljoovf.1q0...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder stated..."
We now know why there was the obsession with being banned.


--
---Tom S.

jillery

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 8:15:03 AM4/6/14
to
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 10:58:16 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Building big wooden ships is a craft
>that took many centuries to learn,
>through many painful mistakes.
>You just can't build one from scratch,
>load it, and expect it to float,


It's just one more miracle for the Lord.

jillery

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 8:33:48 AM4/6/14
to
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 03:36:58 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:
What Chinese ships? More to the point, did the Chinese revoke the
laws of physics?

Your argumentation is incoherent. The question isn't if wooden ships
existed. The question isn't if very large wooden structures were
built. The question is if very large wooden structures actually
worked as ships, as opposed to being good for nothing more than an
over-engineered concrete form for a harbor's breakwater.

alias Ernest Major

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 8:51:33 AM4/6/14
to
He presumably means (or has a vague recollection of) this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_treasure_fleet


>
> Your argumentation is incoherent. The question isn't if wooden ships
> existed. The question isn't if very large wooden structures were
> built. The question is if very large wooden structures actually
> worked as ships, as opposed to being good for nothing more than an
> over-engineered concrete form for a harbor's breakwater.
>


--
alias Ernest Major

Nick Roberts

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 9:21:24 AM4/6/14
to
In message <523869f9-c08e-4e69...@googlegroups.com>
passer...@gmail.com wrote:


> Ok, guys, last segmented post I respond to.

Promise?

> For those that only do segmented posts, we aren't going to be
> communicating.

OK, that's potentially saved me a lot of bother.

*plonk*

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 10:32:48 AM4/6/14
to
We have no ark either, if you insist that 'having one'
means having an actual wreck.
In that sense we'll probably never have an actual trireme,
for the evidence suggests that even a rammed and waterlogged one
would still float, and would be towed away by the victors,

Jan

Harry K

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 10:45:59 AM4/6/14
to
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:38:05 AM UTC-7, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> You don't tell me what to do, Harry. That ain't gonna' happen, what will happen is I will always top post.

Enjoy posting stuff no one responds to then. We put up with a bit of assholish behavior but it gets old in a hurry.

Bye.

Harry K


passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 12:02:11 PM4/6/14
to
What "laws of physics" do you have in mind? Just make that up and don't have a remote clue about physics?

jillery

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 2:09:57 PM4/6/14
to
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 09:02:11 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> >The Chinese ships were even bigger. Very little in history has physical objects to measure. We have no Triremes but we know they existed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What Chinese ships? More to the point, did the Chinese revoke the
>>
>> laws of physics?
>>
>>
>>
>> Your argumentation is incoherent. The question isn't if wooden ships
>>
>> existed. The question isn't if very large wooden structures were
>>
>> built. The question is if very large wooden structures actually
>>
>> worked as ships, as opposed to being good for nothing more than an
>>
>> over-engineered concrete form for a harbor's breakwater.
>
>What "laws of physics" do you have in mind? Just make that up and don't have a remote clue about physics?


So you think the laws of physics are made up. Pick any one you want
that you think shows a wooden ship that large is going to stay in one
piece in open water.

eridanus

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 2:27:26 PM4/6/14
to
El sábado, 5 de abril de 2014 19:15:27 UTC+1, jillery escribió:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 08:45:41 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >A segmented post is where I would mindlessly read through someone else's post and make replies as I go, because I don't ant to do the heavy lifting of reading comprehension and composing an answer. I would be forcing the other person to do the reading comprehension. If they didn't it becomes a nested mess, particularly when the inevitable lies about what someone else said start showing up.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have no idea why you think "segmenting" your replies is "mindless"
>
> or indicates a lack of reading comprehension. If anything, it shows
>
> that they have read up to that point and are making a reply about that
>
> point.
>
>
>
> But feel free to try to change everybody else. With your top-posting
>
> and unformatted lines, you're in no place to complain about their
>
> habits.
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, April 5, 2014 8:27:41 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 04:27:28 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Ok, guys, last segmented post I respond to. For those that only do segmented posts, we aren't going to be communicating.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What the heck is a "segmented post"? Do you mean one with paragraphs
>
> >>
>
> >> and formatting? What's wrong with that?
>
> >

he is not arguing. He is giving us a sermon. Or just giving out his
religious speech and do not mind what other people can be saying. He
wants us to read his speech; that's all.
Eri

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 2:44:10 PM4/6/14
to
If it's miracles why not just lift them all above the waters?

Jan

jillery

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 2:55:33 PM4/6/14
to
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 20:44:10 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 10:58:16 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >Building big wooden ships is a craft
>> >that took many centuries to learn,
>> >through many painful mistakes.
>> >You just can't build one from scratch,
>> >load it, and expect it to float,
>>
>>
>> It's just one more miracle for the Lord.
>
>If it's miracles why not just lift them all above the waters?


That's why you aren't god. You don't know how to work in mysterious
ways.

Paul J Gans

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 3:28:09 PM4/6/14
to
The wooden ship limit for all practical purposes was
reached before the end of the 18th century. They
simply could not be built larger without taking
serious chances.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Paul J Gans

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 3:31:18 PM4/6/14
to
We have no idea of how large the Ark was. We've guessed at the
length of a "cubit" but there is no real information. Same for
the wood.

And you folks all are about as bad as creationists who very badly
want their fables to be "scientific". God can do anything, including
repealing the laws of nature if he wanted to. So there is no
problem with an ark much larger on the inside than on the outside.

What exactly is anyone trying to prove here? That the flood was
real? Good luck with that.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 3:45:13 PM4/6/14
to
There were some medieval Chinese ships purported to be around 450 feet
long (or longer) and much wider than the purported ark. It's
controversial among historians whether they were actually that big and,
if so, whether they were merely ceremonial, non-ocean-going ships:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_treasure_ship

Mitchell


Paul J Gans

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 3:44:41 PM4/6/14
to
J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
Exactly. Or give them all beer bellies and the ability to
breath through their belly buttons. Or whatever.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 5:48:18 PM4/6/14
to
No Jillery, that's your deliberate lie that I said the laws of physics are made up. And it's deliberate liars like you that's the reason I don't do segmented posts. Easy to point out now it's a deliberate lie, it would be tedious to point it out then. No doubt why you like them, makes your deliberate lies easier.

passer...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 5:51:40 PM4/6/14
to
False, we have lots of existing cubit rods to measure and they are the same size, a lot more accurate than the measurements in Genesis or Caligula.

Dai monie

unread,
Apr 6, 2014, 6:26:59 PM4/6/14
to
On Sunday, 6 April 2014 23:48:18 UTC+2, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> No Jillery, that's your deliberate lie that I said the laws of physics are made up. And it's deliberate liars like you that's the reason I don't do segmented posts. Easy to point out now it's a deliberate lie, it would be tedious to point it out then. No doubt why you like them, makes your deliberate lies easier.
>
> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 09:02:11 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>
>
> > >> >The Chinese ships were even bigger. Very little in history has physical objects to measure. We have no Triremes but we know they existed.
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
>
> > >> What Chinese ships? More to the point, did the Chinese revoke the
>
> >
> > >> laws of physics?
>
> >
> > >> Your argumentation is incoherent. The question isn't if wooden ships
>
>
> > >> existed. The question isn't if very large wooden structures were
>
>
> > >> built. The question is if very large wooden structures actually
>
> >
>
> > >> worked as ships, as opposed to being good for nothing more than an
>
> > >> over-engineered concrete form for a harbor's breakwater.
>
> > So you think the laws of physics are made up. Pick any one you want
>
> > that you think shows a wooden ship that large is going to stay in one
>
> > piece in open water.

Seriously, stop that. Jillery rightfully pointed out that the laws of physics, while not contesting the bouyancy of such a barge, would imply that such a barge would be impossible. That is, as has been pointed out throughout this topic, that the ship would be demolished by the forces acting upon it (stress).

Additionally, someone else also made a valid point about the volume of the sheep (if we continue using the sheep as a kind of average animal `kind' for size and weight). If we use the 60% water thing often used for humans, then sheep of +- 50 kg would have a 30L volume. seventy thousand sheep would then have 210 000 Litres of volume. The boat is 4.9e4 m^3 = 3.9e7 Litre. So seventy thousand sheep alone take up 2.1e5/3.9e7 ~= 0.5e-2 = 5e-3 of the volume of the barge.

A sheep can eat some 2 kg per day. So the food consumption over a year is 365.25 days * 2kg /day * seventy thousand sheep = 5.114e7 kg. Hay density is about 80kg/thousand Litre = 80e-3 = 8e-2 kg/L, so that we require about 6.4e8 Litre of hay for the sheep. Even if we compress that hay further (to 800 kg / thousand Litres) we still see that the volume of the hay for these sheep exceeds the volume of the barge.

I certainly hope it didn't storm during this flood.

Sheep facts: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/publications/A9_SheepFactSheet.pdf

Sheep intake:
http://www.sheep101.info/201/balanceration.html

Hay density:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-materials-d_1652.html

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages