Noah's Ark false comparison
mc...@sunset.net
ships have been proven not capable to the task."
False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
didn't have projecting keels.
El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
than one hull and used laminated wood?
False question. You have discerned accurately that you have been
defeated in your previous argument that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you wouldn't
have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
JM
JR Speights
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1146609954....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
El-ignoramus: Noah's ark could have survived the voyage.
Common Sense Individual: The world is 4.5 billion years old, so your
speculation about the stories of Genesis, the Flood, etc. is meaningless.
If you were smart enough, you would get that.
JR
Desertphile
> El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
El-skeptic: "Santa's sleigh cannot travel to every good child's
residence in one night because sleigh's don't fly."
Ken Shackleton
The first issue is only debunked if you can show that the Ark was in
fact constructed using modern materials [laminated wood, double hulls,
concrete?]....otherwise, it's just an ad-hoc response to a valid point.
Please demonstrate how the Ark could have possibly been constructed
with the technology of the day. Even with modern tools, constructing
such a boat using ancient materials would probably not be possible.
>
> JM
James Laurenson
>El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
>ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
>laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
>didn't have projecting keels.
A fair enough answer, assuming that you are correct regarding the
seaworthiness of such a ship.
>El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
>than one hull and used laminated wood?
>False question. You have discerned accurately that you have been
>defeated in your previous argument that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
>seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
>task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
>been double hulled and et cetera.
Wait? Because you were able to answer the first question that makes
you exempt from answering any other questions?
Especially when the second question relates to the validity of your
first answer?
>If you were smart enough you wouldn't
>have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
>ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
>the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
You do realise that you just made an ad hom against your own
hypothetical skeptic there, yes?
I am willing to play your game however:
*I* am smart enough not to say that the Ark couldn't have survived by
comparing it to more modern ships built for speed.
So... where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
Greg G.
McCreationist: Sleighs with single hulls, no laminated gopher wood, no
concrete, and no anchor stones can't fly.
--
Greg G.
The atom, being for all practical purposes the stable unit of the
physical plane, is a constantly changing vortex of reactions.
Dana Tweedy
> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>
> False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> didn't have projecting keels.
There is no evidence that "Noah's Ark" used a double hull, laminated wood,
concrete, or "anchorstones". There is also no evidence of "projecting
keels". Furthermore there is no evidence that use of the above features
would overcome the problems with a ship of that size. Double hulls,
concrete, and anchorstones would only make the ship too heavy for wooden
construction. "Laminated wood" requires waterproof glues, and does not
overcome the structural problems with using wood as buildiing material.
"Projecitng keels" provide no known advantage, and would only weaken the
structure.
Also note that McDoofus has given up his claims about "bitumen" as he has no
answer for how it could be there. He's added a claim of "concrete" with
no evidence, and apparently for no particular reason.
>
> El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
> than one hull and used laminated wood?
>
> False question.
Meaning it's one you can't answer.
> You have discerned accurately that you have been
> defeated in your previous argument
Wrong again, doofus. The previous argument stands, plus there is no
Biblical support for you claim of "laminated wood". That means it's an ad
hoc rationalization for a problem you can't resolve.
> that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
> seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
> task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
> been double hulled and et cetera.
No, it's pointing out that none of your rationalizations help your case.
> If you were smart enough you wouldn't
> have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
> ships that were designed for speed.
All ships are designed for "speed", as headway is necessary to remain
floating. Even barges which are roughly rectangular must make headway.
> It's fine that you wish to debate
> the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
The other issues are in addition to the impossibility of the large wooden
ship floating.
DJT
mc...@sunset.net
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> > ships have been proven not capable to the task."
> >
> > False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> > laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> > didn't have projecting keels.
> >
> > El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
> > than one hull and used laminated wood?
> >
> > False question. You have discerned accurately that you have been
> > defeated in your previous argument that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
> > seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
> > task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
> > been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you wouldn't
> > have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
> > ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
> > the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
>
> The first issue is only debunked if you can show that the Ark was in
> fact constructed using modern materials [laminated wood, double hulls,
> concrete?]....otherwise, it's just an ad-hoc response to a valid point.
Actually, it's not a valid point. For the reason that if modern ships
made of wood couldn't float because they were inadequately constructed,
then you can't make the claim that a large ship of wood could not
float.
If a poorly constructed computer couldn't function for 24 hours
therefore you can't make a computer that can function for 24 hours.
Bad logic.
JM
John Burton
> El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>
> False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> didn't have projecting keels.
>
You have two options:
(1) Build an ark and show us that it is seaworthy with the requisite load.
(2) Claim that God made it all happen with any necessary divine
intervention. Maybe his Personal Divine Force Field was between the "two
hulls".
(3) Shut up.
THREE choices, there are THREE...I'll start again...
John
mc...@sunset.net
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:1146609954....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> > ships have been proven not capable to the task."
> >
> > False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> > laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> > didn't have projecting keels.
>
> There is no evidence that "Noah's Ark" used a double hull, laminated wood,
> concrete, or "anchorstones".
Tweedy says, McCoy refuted the argument that large wooden ships can't
be built and survive oceans, because the the ships in question had
single hulls and didn't use laminated wood.
It's interesting in that in this web where the issue in the thread is
"false comparison" that you seek to debate whether the real Noah's Ark
had double hulls and other such qeustions of that sort.
JM
>
> DJT
Lee Oswald Ving
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> McCoy refuted the argument that large wooden ships can't
> be built and survive oceans, because the the ships in question had
> single hulls and didn't use laminated wood.
No, McCoy hasn't. McCoy has *claimed* this nonsense, and supported it with
nothing at all, which Tweedy keeps calling him on, and McCoy ignores,
hoping no one will notice.
We do, McCoy. You've failed miserably. Again.
<snip>
Bill Wayne
You can't claim that the Ark had double hulls, laminated wood, and
concrete just because the Ark was "adequately constructed". Where does
it specifically say that the Ark had these things?
> If a poorly constructed computer couldn't function for 24 hours
> therefore you can't make a computer that can function for 24 hours.
> Bad logic.
If a ship has concrete, double hulls, and laminated wood, then it is
adequately constructed.
The Ark was adequately constructed.
Therefore it had [...]
Worse logic.
> JM
>
>
>
> >
> > Please demonstrate how the Ark could have possibly been constructed
> > with the technology of the day. Even with modern tools, constructing
> > such a boat using ancient materials would probably not be possible.
Missed this point?
Bill
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1146614079.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>> news:1146609954....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> > El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
>> > ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>> >
>> > False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
>> > laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
>> > didn't have projecting keels.
>>
>> There is no evidence that "Noah's Ark" used a double hull, laminated
>> wood,
>> concrete, or "anchorstones".
>
> Tweedy says, McCoy refuted the argument that large wooden ships can't
> be built and survive oceans, because the the ships in question had
> single hulls and didn't use laminated wood.
Ad hoc rationializations are not refutations. You did not 'refute' the
argument, nor have you given any evidence to support your rationalizations.
>
> There is also no evidence of "projecting
>> keels". Furthermore there is no evidence that use of the above
>> features
>> would overcome the problems with a ship of that size. Double hulls,
>> concrete, and anchorstones would only make the ship too heavy for wooden
>> construction. "Laminated wood" requires waterproof glues, and does not
>> overcome the structural problems with using wood as buildiing material.
>> "Projecitng keels" provide no known advantage, and would only weaken the
>> structure.
No "refutation" given to these points.
>>
>> Also note that McDoofus has given up his claims about "bitumen" as he has
>> no
>> answer for how it could be there. He's added a claim of "concrete"
>> with
>> no evidence, and apparently for no particular reason.
No "refutation" given.
>>
>> >
>> > El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
>> > than one hull and used laminated wood?
>> >
>> > False question.
>>
>> Meaning it's one you can't answer.
No "refutation" here.
>>
>> > You have discerned accurately that you have been
>> > defeated in your previous argument
>>
>> Wrong again, doofus. The previous argument stands, plus there is no
>> Biblical support for you claim of "laminated wood". That means it's an
>> ad
>> hoc rationalization for a problem you can't resolve.
hmmm, no response here either.
>>
>> > that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
>> > seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
>> > task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
>> > been double hulled and et cetera.
>>
>> No, it's pointing out that none of your rationalizations help your case.
No response....
>>
>> > If you were smart enough you wouldn't
>> > have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
>> > ships that were designed for speed.
>>
>> All ships are designed for "speed", as headway is necessary to remain
>> floating. Even barges which are roughly rectangular must make headway.
No response....
>>
>> > It's fine that you wish to debate
>> > the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
>>
>> The other issues are in addition to the impossibility of the large wooden
>> ship floating.
At last, we have a response below, but it doesn't address any of the points
made above.
>
> It's interesting in that in this web where the issue in the thread is
> "false comparison" that you seek to debate whether the real Noah's Ark
> had double hulls and other such qeustions of that sort.
There was no "real" Noah's Ark. Nor is there any reason to suspect your
assertions of "double hull" and "anchorstones" would make this fictional
ship work. I'm not 'debating' the issue of whether or not the Ark( which
did not exist ) had features which would not help it float. I'm pointing
out that your assertions don't rescue the orginial claim that the boat
couldn't float.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1146612521.9...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snipping
>> The first issue is only debunked if you can show that the Ark was in
>> fact constructed using modern materials [laminated wood, double hulls,
>> concrete?]....otherwise, it's just an ad-hoc response to a valid point.
>
> Actually, it's not a valid point. For the reason that if modern ships
> made of wood couldn't float because they were inadequately constructed,
Wooden ships were quite adequately constructed, because the shipwrights knew
the limitations of the materials they were using. They knew that
overextending the wood is a sure recipie for disaster.
> then you can't make the claim that a large ship of wood could not
> float.
Because of the adequacy of shipwrights who used wood for centuries, we can
make that claim. It's up to you to show why those shipwrights are wrong,
and you, who is totally ignorant of ship building, is right. Appeals to
magical "laminated wood" and mythical "anchorstones" does not make you
correct.
>
> If a poorly constructed computer couldn't function for 24 hours
> therefore you can't make a computer that can function for 24 hours.
The wooden ships of antiquity were not poorly constructed. The were put
together by master craftsmen who were at the top of their field. These
wooden ships sailed all over the world. They survived major storms. They
carried tons of cargo, and millions of passengers, for many years. Hand
built wooden ships were crossing the North Atlantic by the late 900's.
The reason why ships of "Noah's Ark" size were not built was not the
incompetence of the shipbuilders, but the limitations of the materials they
had available to them.
>
> Bad logic.
Something you are a master of .
>
>>
>> Please demonstrate how the Ark could have possibly been constructed
>> with the technology of the day. Even with modern tools, constructing
>> such a boat using ancient materials would probably not be possible.
Note no attempt to answer this.
DJT
>>
>> >
>> > JM
>
Pfusand
> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
La-Skepta: "Noah's Ark cannot be built because there has never been a
tree large enough to make into a 300-cubit keel, there is no way four
(or eight) sane people could cut down such a tree (if one were to
exist) with Neolithic or Bronze Age tools, there is no way such a
theoretical tree could be felled without smashing it to splinters, and
there is no way to move such a log so that it could be shaped into a
keel."
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Geoff
news:1146609954....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>
> False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> didn't have projecting keels.
Please provide evidence that Noah use the above technologies (regardless of
their effectiveness in a deluge).
> El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
> than one hull and used laminated wood?
>
> False question. You have discerned accurately that you have been
> defeated in your previous argument that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
> seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
> task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
> been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you wouldn't
> have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
> ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
> the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
Good evasion. Not.
Deadrat
"Pfusand" <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote in message
news:1146617251.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
>> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>
> La-Skepta: "Noah's Ark cannot be built because there has never been a
> tree large enough to make into a 300-cubit keel, there is no way four
> (or eight) sane people could cut down such a tree (if one were to
> exist) with Neolithic or Bronze Age tools, there is no way such a
> theoretical tree could be felled without smashing it to splinters, and
> there is no way to move such a log so that it could be shaped into a
> keel."
Sure. But aside from that, couldn't the Ark have been built?
Deadrat
Wakboth
Deadrat kirjoitti:
> "Pfusand" <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote in message
> news:1146617251.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> >> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
> >
> > La-Skepta: "Noah's Ark cannot be built because there has never been a
> > tree large enough to make into a 300-cubit keel, there is no way four
> > (or eight) sane people could cut down such a tree (if one were to
> > exist) with Neolithic or Bronze Age tools, there is no way such a
> > theoretical tree could be felled without smashing it to splinters, and
> > there is no way to move such a log so that it could be shaped into a
> > keel."
>
> Sure. But aside from that, couldn't the Ark have been built?
I guess it could have been built. It wouldn't have been able to sail,
though, without leaking copiously, or breaking apart, in anything
except the mildest of waters, and it certainly couldn't have held a
representative sample of animal life, with food supplies, for any
length of time.
-- Wakboth
Josh Miles
El-skeptic: "McCoy, that tin-foil hat isn't going to protect you from
having your mind being read by the evil atheists. Hell, you don't even
have a mind to read."
McCoy: "You big stupid meanie evolutionist atheist! You don't know what
you're talking about! Are *you* reading my mind right now? What am I
thinking right now? Hah! You don't know 'cause I have this hat on! What
do you have to say now, el-skepto?"
LSR
sexing and collecting at least ten billion or more separate species.
Of course you'd need quite a few surplus animals to make the waterproof glue
for McCoy's plywood.
--
LSR
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
>ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>
>False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
>laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
>didn't have projecting keels.
None of which existed in the mid bronze age period.
>
>El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
>than one hull and used laminated wood?
>
>False question.
No - very valid question.
> You have discerned accurately that you have been
>defeated in your previous argument that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
>seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
>task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
>been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you wouldn't
>have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
>ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
>the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
You have NEVER managed to debun a SINGLE thing.
However, EVERY SINGLE ONE of your daft ideas have been blown out of
the water without much effort.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>Bad logic.
Yours always is.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>It's interesting in that in this web where the issue in the thread is
>"false comparison" that you seek to debate whether the real Noah's Ark
>had double hulls and other such qeustions of that sort.
>
>JM
There is no real noah's ark, it never existed, it is just myth.
You cannot find the ark, ever, because you cannot find something that
never existed.
We do know, from the experts, that a boat large enough to carry 2 of
each unclean animal, 7 of each clean animal, all the food necessary
for at least two or three years feeding, together with all the
matterials needed to keep the boat in good order, could not be made of
wood today. And if it cannot be made of wood today then it certainly
could not have been made in the mid bronze age.
--
Bob.
Klaus
<SNIP>
>
> All ships are designed for "speed", as headway is necessary to remain
> floating. Even barges which are roughly rectangular must make headway.
>
Dana, you should know better than this. Even McCoy should have no
trouble refuting this silly claim.
Klaus
James Laurenson
<snip>
>However, EVERY SINGLE ONE of your daft ideas have been blown out of
>the water without much effort.
Just like the Ark would have been!
John Bode
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
[yet more Ark nonsense]
Dude, seriously, lay off the booze. You have a problem. You need
professional help. Not that you were ever a paragon of rational
thinking, but you're getting less and less coherent as time goes by.
Wakboth
John Bode kirjoitti:
Reminds me of the way Nando and Ray Martinez are coming apart at the
seams before our very eyes...
-- Wakboth
chris.li...@gmail.com
Nah, this is nothing for McNameless. As a matter of fact, he's posted
all this already:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dce13c2e4ca12418?hl=en&
(and assocciated thread).
Soon he'll be back onto dowsing.
You might say he's back to that point on his mental arc....
Chris
Woland
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>
> False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> didn't have projecting keels.
>
> than one hull and used laminated wood?
>
> defeated in your previous argument that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
> seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
> task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
> been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you wouldn't
> have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
> ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
> the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
>
Bah, evryone knows that the real story is in The Epic of Gilgamesh. The
council of Gods is growing increasingly impatient with you...
Woland
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>
> False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> didn't have projecting keels.
>
> El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
> than one hull and used laminated wood?
>
> False question. You have discerned accurately that you have been
> defeated in your previous argument that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
> seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
> task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
> been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you wouldn't
> have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
> ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
> the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
>
> JM
Bah, everyone knows that the real story is in The Epic of Gilgamesh.
rmcbane
> El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>
> False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> didn't have projecting keels.
You can easily prove your point by providing the design specification
for such an ark, a structural analysis and computer simulations that
prove it could withstand the anticipated storms. Also provide the info
on the space and tonnage of the ship proving it can hold all the animal
kinds and food for the year. Don't forget to provide the design details
of the sewage system you've claimed could have existed on the ark. Show
us those things and I won't even ask to to actually build it prove your
point.
--
Richard McBane
Robert Weldon
> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>
> False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> didn't have projecting keels.
>
> than one hull and used laminated wood?
>
> False question. You have discerned accurately that you have been
> seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
> been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you wouldn't
> have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
> ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
> the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
>
> JM
Complete crap you posted there, and interesting illustration of your logic
processes, completely at odds with reality, and it does explain a lot. What
I am interested in is these anchorstones of yours. You have yet to explain
how a rock, normally used to anchor a ship, contributes to the ability of
your ark to float, please explain. The best I can determine, from your
other trainwreck of a post, is that you think that somehow buoyancy, which
will make the rock weigh slightly less, somehow magically makes the ark
itself lighter.
And while I am on the subject, you have not explained how this mythical
laminated wood and concrete helps your ark float. As far as I know, all a
double hull does is provide protection to a vessel from punctures, useful
for an oil tanker, submarine or a a warship, but of little use to your ark.
And again, I fail to see how this will help your ark float, please explain.
David H.
Amazing....
Can you get this many people to argue the fine technical points of the
Easter Bunny too?
The Biblical Ark and Harvey are interchangable as real things, you
see...
David H.
Woland
Hey, Harvey is real. He's sitting right here...
Alan Morgan
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>On 2 May 2006 15:45:54 -0700, mc...@sunset.net enriched this group
>when s/he wrote:
>
>>El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
>>ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>>
>>False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
>>laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
>>didn't have projecting keels.
>
>None of which existed in the mid bronze age period.
Some of them could have existed. The question is if they would have
helped or not. If they wouldn't have helped then it doesn't really
matter if Noah was a couple of millennium ahead of his time or not.
>>El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
>>than one hull and used laminated wood?
>>
>>False question.
>
>No - very valid question.
No, not. The Bible doesn't cover a lot of things about the ark. If it
had had a double hull the Bible might not have mentioned it. You can't
use the Bible to support the view that the ark *did* have a double hull,
but you certainly can't say that the Bible forbids it.
The main question, again, is whether or not it would have helped.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Ken Shackleton
> > > El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> > > ships have been proven not capable to the task."
> > >
> > > False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> > > laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> > > didn't have projecting keels.
> > >
> > > than one hull and used laminated wood?
> > >
> > > seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
> > > been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you wouldn't
> > > have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
> > > ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
> > > the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
> >
> > fact constructed using modern materials [laminated wood, double hulls,
> > concrete?]....otherwise, it's just an ad-hoc response to a valid point.
>
> Actually, it's not a valid point. For the reason that if modern ships
> made of wood couldn't float because they were inadequately constructed,
> float.
The point is that nobody has been able to figure out how it would be
*possible* to construct a wooden ship 450 feet long that is also
*seaworthy*....even with modern tools, materials, and construction
techniques.....much less using the technology and materials available
in Noah's day.....so show how he did it.
>
> If a poorly constructed computer couldn't function for 24 hours
> therefore you can't make a computer that can function for 24 hours.
>
> Bad logic.
>
> JM
>
>
>
> >
> > Please demonstrate how the Ark could have possibly been constructed
> > with the technology of the day. Even with modern tools, constructing
> > such a boat using ancient materials would probably not be possible.
> >
> > >
> > > JM
Jim Willemin
news:yv36g.112159$P01.3165@pd7tw3no:
I'n neither a naval architect nor an engineer, but: It seems to me that
if the inner and outer hulls of a double=hulled ship were rigidly
attached to the frame members one would gain signifcant structural
strength from the skin itself, similar to the idea of a box beam, or
monocoque construction. That being said, we note that the only type of
joints that are rigid enough for this to work are welds - bolts won't do
it, nails won't do it, even treenails won't do it. The skin needs to be
effectively one single piece (a unit body, if you will). This is simply
impossible using plank-on-frame construction. Further, I don't know
offhand of any material that could withstand the repeated bending and
torsional stresses imposed by any kind of wave action on a vessel of this
size - steel fatigues and fractures (witness the breakup and loss of
tankers off South Africa due to stesses imposed by long=wavelength
swells). The notion of concrete adding any strength is ludicrous -
unreinforced concrete has very low tensile strength (it breaks when you
bend it), and I think we have established that Noah really didn't have
access to rebar in the quantities necessary. Without the rebar, the
concrete would rapidly become so much gravel in the twisting and bending
of the hull. It seems to me as well that the addition of external keels
(I assume like a sailboat) would simply add to the structural problems by
introducing yet more shear stresses in the hull. Frankly, I think the
best solution is for McCoy to come up with an engineering study showing
that a wooden vessel of any construction and that size could withstand
even normal conditions on the open ocean.
Anyhow, I'll concede that McCoy might have a point IF gopher wood
actually means marine plywood in sheets 450 by 200 feet, and Noah & Co.
had the means to bend and shape it... which I kinda doubt.
--
Jim
"Value nothing but truth, compassion, and love"
TomS
<1146674710.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, Ken Shackleton
stated..."
You folks are being far too lenient on the ark-eologists.
If we're going to take the Noah story *literally*, Noah's Ark
was *not* a ship, but a big box. There is nothing ship-like about
the description in Genesis. It is described as a rectangular box.
No prow, no stern, no keel, no rudder, no means of propulsion, no
anchors. There is nothing to keep it on a steady course or to keep
it from rolling over. Structural integrity, I would dare say, a
relatively minor problem with a big box full of animals on a wild
world ocean, with storms violent enough to carve the Grand Canyon.
>
>
>>
>> If a poorly constructed computer couldn't function for 24 hours
>> therefore you can't make a computer that can function for 24 hours.
>>
>> Bad logic.
>>
>> JM
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Please demonstrate how the Ark could have possibly been constructed
>> > with the technology of the day. Even with modern tools, constructing
>> > such a boat using ancient materials would probably not be possible.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > JM
>
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
James Laurenson
<snip>
>>None of which existed in the mid bronze age period.
>Some of them could have existed. The question is if they would have
>helped or not. If they wouldn't have helped then it doesn't really
>matter if Noah was a couple of millennium ahead of his time or not.
We have dates for the earliest appearance of these materials/designs.
If you want to say that Noah had them, then you have to explain how he
somehow forgot them after he got off the Ark.
>>>El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
>>>than one hull and used laminated wood?
>>>False question.
>>No - very valid question.
>No, not. The Bible doesn't cover a lot of things about the ark. If it
>had had a double hull the Bible might not have mentioned it. You can't
>use the Bible to support the view that the ark *did* have a double hull,
>but you certainly can't say that the Bible forbids it.
Gen 6:14:16
"Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and
shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. "
"And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of
the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty
cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. "
"A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish
it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof;
[with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it. "
If God is going to describe the exact dimensions of the Ark, as well as
the number of internal stories that it shall contain, why not add that
it would be a good idea to make it double-hulled and use some of that
laminated wood.
When a book as abstract and metaphorical as the Bible starts talking
about specific length, breadth and height, you have to be mighty
suspicious that it leaves out things as vital (to the construction) as
double-hulling.
The only plausible reason why such details would have been omitted is
if the person writing the story did not know about them. And the
reason for that is that they did not exist.
Inez
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>
> False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> didn't have projecting keels.
You should claim magic pixies did it. No one can argue that magic
pixies can't make a boat stronger.
> El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
> than one hull and used laminated wood?
>
> False question. You have discerned accurately that you have been
> defeated in your previous argument that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
> seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
> task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
> been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you wouldn't
> have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
> ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
> the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
As I understand it, the problem with huge wooden boats is that the wood
would flex and form gaps for water to rush in. Two flexing leaking
hulls full of concrete would not seem to be a great deal better than
one flexing leaking hull without concrete.
EmGoFr
you're actually having this discussion of the finer points of wooden
ship construction. It's like the scene in Monty Python where they're
arguing about how the coconut shells got to England. It's hilarious.
Never mind if such a boat could really be built... the real elephant
in the middle of the room (excuse the pun) is the fact that bringing in
all those animals and keeping them safe for such a long time is
incredibly impossible.
Inez
A world-wide flood would have left a geological mark that we do not
see.
There is no evidence that 99.9999999% of all life was wiped out 4000
years ago.
There are written records going back through the supposed time of the
flood, and no one seemed to have noticed it.
The genetic diversity within current species would tend to preclude
them from all having descended from a single pair.
A bristlecone pine that was 4,900 years old was cut down in California
in 1964. It would have been killed by a year underwater.
T Pagano
wrote:
>The Noah's Ark story is stolen from Babylonian myth.
It is just as likely that the Babylonian story is borrowed from the
Genesis.
>
>A world-wide flood would have left a geological mark that we do not
>see.
Certainly the Noahic Flood would entail some empirical consequences
that can still be observable today. Inez of course fails to tell us
what geological mark would uniquely be entailed by the Noahic Flood.
>
>There is no evidence that 99.9999999% of all life was wiped out 4000
>years ago.
Again Inez fails to tell us what "traces" we would expect to see in
the geologic record if the Noahic Flood had wiped all of life. He
simply asserts that there were no traces.
>
>There are written records going back through the supposed time of the
>flood, and no one seemed to have noticed it.
There few if any documents which date back to the time period covering
the Noahic Flood.
>
>The genetic diversity within current species would tend to preclude
>them from all having descended from a single pair.
This is a tad presumptious since we don't have clue how the genetic
diversity is stored within the genome. It is still largely asserted
that 90 percent of the genome in humans is junk.
>
>A bristlecone pine that was 4,900 years old was cut down in California
>in 1964. It would have been killed by a year underwater.
Dating trees is as much an art as a science and depends heavily upon
being able to accurately determine environmental conditions during the
period of its conjectured life span. As such I could argue without
much fear of contradiction that the 4900 year age is about as
trustworthy as a condom full of holes.
Regards,
T Pagano
Inez
T Pagano wrote:
> On 3 May 2006 11:43:56 -0700, "Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The Noah's Ark story is stolen from Babylonian myth.
>
> It is just as likely that the Babylonian story is borrowed from the
> Genesis.
> >
> >A world-wide flood would have left a geological mark that we do not
> >see.
>
> Certainly the Noahic Flood would entail some empirical consequences
> that can still be observable today. Inez of course fails to tell us
> what geological mark would uniquely be entailed by the Noahic Flood.
That is true, I didn't.
> >
> >There is no evidence that 99.9999999% of all life was wiped out 4000
> >years ago.
>
> Again Inez fails to tell us what "traces" we would expect to see in
> the geologic record if the Noahic Flood had wiped all of life. He
> simply asserts that there were no trace.
A whole lot of animal skeletons caught in the process of trying to
build primitive rafts without the gift of opposable thumbs.
> >
> >There are written records going back through the supposed time of the
> >flood, and no one seemed to have noticed it.
>
> There few if any documents which date back to the time period covering
> the Noahic Flood.
How many do you require to disprove it?
> >
> >The genetic diversity within current species would tend to preclude
> >them from all having descended from a single pair.
>
> This is a tad presumptious since we don't have clue how the genetic
> diversity is stored within the genome.
Oh we don't, don't we?
> It is still largely asserted
> that 90 percent of the genome in humans is junk.
And this is exceedingly relevant?
> >A bristlecone pine that was 4,900 years old was cut down in California
> >in 1964. It would have been killed by a year underwater.
>
> Dating trees is as much an art as a science and depends heavily upon
> being able to accurately determine environmental conditions during the
> period of its conjectured life span.
No, it's pretty much down to counting tree rings.
> As such I could argue without
> much fear of contradiction that the 4900 year age is about as
> trustworthy as a condom full of holes.
>
You would be incorrect to do so, but you certainly could.
James Laurenson
<snip>
>>There are written records going back through the supposed time of the
>>flood, and no one seemed to have noticed it.
>There few if any documents which date back to the time period covering
>the Noahic Flood.
Few would be more than none. When did this flood occur by the way,
just so I know exactly what time period you are talking about?
If the flood killed off everyone but Noah and the others on the Ark,
and all the human race is descended from them, then *everyone* should
know about the flood. It's not the kind of story that you just forget.
I don't pretend to be qualified to respond to the Geological questions
so I'll leave answering them to someone else...
...I do have another question (or rather series of questions) for you
though:
Just what is a 'secular dating method'? The term implies that a
'religious dating method' exists. How does one employ a religious
dating method?
Deadrat
"James Laurenson" <James_L...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146678436....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Alan Morgan said:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>None of which existed in the mid bronze age period.
>
>
>>Some of them could have existed. The question is if they would have
>>helped or not. If they wouldn't have helped then it doesn't really
>>matter if Noah was a couple of millennium ahead of his time or not.
>
> We have dates for the earliest appearance of these materials/designs.
> If you want to say that Noah had them, then you have to explain how he
> somehow forgot them after he got off the Ark.
He got drunk. I forget a lot of things when I get drunk.
Deadrat
<snip>
mc...@sunset.net
> > > > El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> > > > ships have been proven not capable to the task."
> > > >
> > > > False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
> > > > laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> > > > didn't have projecting keels.
> > > >
> > > > than one hull and used laminated wood?
> > > >
> > > > False question. You have discerned accurately that you have been
> > > > defeated in your previous argument that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
> > > > seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
> > > > task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
> > > > been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you wouldn't
> > > > have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
> > > > ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
> > > > the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
> > >
> > > fact constructed using modern materials [laminated wood, double hulls,
> > > concrete?]....otherwise, it's just an ad-hoc response to a valid point.
> >
> > Actually, it's not a valid point. For the reason that if modern ships
> > made of wood couldn't float because they were inadequately constructed,
> > then you can't make the claim that a large ship of wood could not
> > float.
>
> concrete just because the Ark was "adequately constructed". Where does
> it specifically say that the Ark had these things?
The point is that one cannot make a large ship constructed of wood that
can survive the ocean. My point is that it can. The Bible doesn't tell
us how the Ark was constructed.
>
> > If a poorly constructed computer couldn't function for 24 hours
> > therefore you can't make a computer that can function for 24 hours.
> > Bad logic.
>
> If a ship has concrete, double hulls, and laminated wood, then it is
> adequately constructed.
> The Ark was adequately constructed.
> Therefore it had [...]
>
> Worse logic.
Not really. My point is that you can't base any argument based on past
ships. These ships didn't use laminated wood, concrete, double hulls
and any other possible construction techniques. These ships didn't use
the entire range of possible ship construction techniques.
JM
>
> > JM
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Please demonstrate how the Ark could have possibly been constructed
> > > with the technology of the day. Even with modern tools, constructing
> > > such a boat using ancient materials would probably not be possible.
>
> Missed this point?
>
> Bill
John Harshman
> On 3 May 2006 11:43:56 -0700, "Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The Noah's Ark story is stolen from Babylonian myth.
>
> It is just as likely that the Babylonian story is borrowed from the
> Genesis.
Yes, that's the common creationist copout. Of course our oldest known
copies of each story differ vastly in age, and guess which one has older
copies. I suppose it's possible that all original copies of the biblical
story were lost and only the corrupt ones, purely by chance, happened to
survive. Is that your position?
>>A world-wide flood would have left a geological mark that we do not
>>see.
>
> Certainly the Noahic Flood would entail some empirical consequences
> that can still be observable today. Inez of course fails to tell us
> what geological mark would uniquely be entailed by the Noahic Flood.
More to the point, so does Pagano.
>>There is no evidence that 99.9999999% of all life was wiped out 4000
>>years ago.
>
> Again Inez fails to tell us what "traces" we would expect to see in
> the geologic record if the Noahic Flood had wiped all of life. He
> simply asserts that there were no traces.
If you think there are such traces, feel free to point them out. How
about, for example, an extreme bottleneck in all species, detectable
through genetic variation, and all dating to the same period? Got any of
that?
>>There are written records going back through the supposed time of the
>>flood, and no one seemed to have noticed it.
>
> There few if any documents which date back to the time period covering
> the Noahic Flood.
What time period was that, exactly? Surely you can tell.
>>The genetic diversity within current species would tend to preclude
>>them from all having descended from a single pair.
>
> This is a tad presumptious since we don't have clue how the genetic
> diversity is stored within the genome. It is still largely asserted
> that 90 percent of the genome in humans is junk.
And indeed it is. But that has nothing to do with the claim. You
obviously have no idea what the term "genetic diversity" means.
>>A bristlecone pine that was 4,900 years old was cut down in California
>>in 1964. It would have been killed by a year underwater.
>
> Dating trees is as much an art as a science and depends heavily upon
> being able to accurately determine environmental conditions during the
> period of its conjectured life span. As such I could argue without
> much fear of contradiction that the 4900 year age is about as
> trustworthy as a condom full of holes.
You are certainly fearless with regard to contradiction. And your
courage in making dogmatic statements about things you know nothing
about is in some sense admirable, though in other senses merely pathetic.
So is the "mercy rule" still in operation? I've lost count.
Inez
> How does one employ a religious
> dating method?
Hey baby, why don't you come round and check out the size of my "ark."
mc...@sunset.net
> snipping
>
> >> The first issue is only debunked if you can show that the Ark was in
> >> fact constructed using modern materials [laminated wood, double hulls,
> >> concrete?]....otherwise, it's just an ad-hoc response to a valid point.
> >
> > Actually, it's not a valid point. For the reason that if modern ships
> > made of wood couldn't float because they were inadequately constructed,
>
> the limitations of the materials they were using. They knew that
> overextending the wood is a sure recipie for disaster.
This argument is full of errors. If shipwrights knew the limitations
of the materials that they were using they wouldn't have constructed
these ships! The fact is, they tried to practice standard ship building
schemes to these large ships. And they didn't work. For larger ships
they had to use double hulls and laminated wood, both of which they
never used. Lamination greatly increases the strength of wood.
Understand?
>
> > then you can't make the claim that a large ship of wood could not
> > float.
>
> Because of the adequacy of shipwrights who used wood for centuries, we can
> make that claim. It's up to you to show why those shipwrights are wrong,
> and you, who is totally ignorant of ship building, is right. Appeals to
> magical "laminated wood" and mythical "anchorstones" does not make you
> correct.
>
> >
> > If a poorly constructed computer couldn't function for 24 hours
> > therefore you can't make a computer that can function for 24 hours.
>
> The wooden ships of antiquity were not poorly constructed. The were put
> together by master craftsmen who were at the top of their field.
They were master craftsmen who built ships that didn't work. And found
out that they didn't work after they were tried. But they didn't use
laminated wood.
These
> wooden ships sailed all over the world. They survived major storms. They
> carried tons of cargo, and millions of passengers, for many years. Hand
> built wooden ships were crossing the North Atlantic by the late 900's.
> The reason why ships of "Noah's Ark" size were not built was not the
> incompetence of the shipbuilders, but the limitations of the materials they
> had available to them.
Sadly enough, if you took two boards and bolted them together with the
grains facing different directions you would increase the strength of
the wood.
JM
>
> >
> > Bad logic.
>
> Something you are a master of .
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> Please demonstrate how the Ark could have possibly been constructed
> >> with the technology of the day. Even with modern tools, constructing
> >> such a boat using ancient materials would probably not be possible.
>
>
> Note no attempt to answer this.
>
>
> DJT
>
>
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > JM
> >
rmcbane
<snip>
>
> The point is that one cannot make a large ship constructed of wood that
> can survive the ocean.
>
> JM
>
I'm glad to see that you've finally realized that one cannot make a
large ship constructed of wood that can survive the ocean.
--
Richard McBane
Kermit
James Laurenson wrote:
> On Wed, May 3 2006 8:27 pm, T Pagano wrote:
>
> <snip>
> ...I do have another question (or rather series of questions) for you
> though:
>
> Just what is a 'secular dating method'? The term implies that a
> 'religious dating method' exists. How does one employ a religious
> dating method?
Well, when I was thirteen I managed to get Bonnie, the cutest 12
year-old in Sunday School, to go out and get a milkshake with me. It
wasn't bad as dates between Baptists go, but I never did get the kiss
:(
Subsequent secular dates went better, but I don't have enough data
points to see a real trend.
Kermit
Ken Shackleton
Of course...by *large* you mean ark-sized.....or 450 feet in length. If
it is possible to build a boat of such size out of wood that is also
seaworthy....then please answer the following:
1. How does one do it?
2. Were the methods and materials available to Noah?
Unless both questions can be adequately answered....then the logical
conclusion is that no such boat was ever built.
Greg G.
If you had enough African swallows and string, they could have flown
the elephants from Africa to the middle of the room, not that African
swallows are migratory.
--
Greg G.
Recipe - Armadillo Fricasee:
First, check for cars....
Alan Morgan
Quite. I'm not claiming that there was an ark, a Noah, a global flood,
or any of that. There wasn't. It's a story. I think it is valid to
claim that Noah wouldn't have had access to the relevant technology
(although next to impossible to prove). It's perfectly reasonable to
point out that McCoy's technologies wouldn't have helped. It's not
reasonable to point out that the Bible, in its two paragraph description
of the ark, didn't mention them.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
James Laurenson
John Harshman wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
>
> > On 3 May 2006 11:43:56 -0700, "Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The Noah's Ark story is stolen from Babylonian myth.
> >
> > It is just as likely that the Babylonian story is borrowed from the
> > Genesis.
>
> Yes, that's the common creationist copout. Of course our oldest known
> copies of each story differ vastly in age, and guess which one has older
> copies. I suppose it's possible that all original copies of the biblical
> story were lost and only the corrupt ones, purely by chance, happened to
> survive. Is that your position?
Ah, but I bet you are using your 'secular dating methods' to find out
how old the Babylonian stories are, aren't you!
I'll also bet the reason why Noah and his descendents forgot they were
on the Ark is the same reason why they forgot how to make ships like
the Ark.
The only reasonable explenation has to be that Noah lost his
diary/sketchbook over the side during the flood. If only we could find
it, it would explain everything!
Lee Oswald Ving
> , why not add that
> it would be a good idea to make it double-hulled and use some of that
> laminated wood.
The Woo-Woos at Wyatt's organization claim that the root of the Aramaic
word "gopher" means "laminate."
Never mind that all the sources say "pitch".
Martin
> Bill Wayne wrote:
>> You can't claim that the Ark had double hulls, laminated wood, and
>> concrete just because the Ark was "adequately constructed". Where does
>> it specifically say that the Ark had these things?
>
> The point is that one cannot make a large ship constructed of wood that
> can survive the ocean. My point is that it can.
So produce a fucking design and stop arguing from ignorance. Come on, if
it can be done, it can be designred. So just do it stfu already!
Dana Tweedy
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-5nvh52p70q6im...@4ax.com...
> On 3 May 2006 11:43:56 -0700, "Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The Noah's Ark story is stolen from Babylonian myth.
>
> It is just as likely that the Babylonian story is borrowed from the
> Genesis.
No, the Babylonian myth predates the Hebrew one. It's found in writing
much earlier than the Bible.
>>
>>A world-wide flood would have left a geological mark that we do not
>>see.
>
> Certainly the Noahic Flood would entail some empirical consequences
> that can still be observable today. Inez of course fails to tell us
> what geological mark would uniquely be entailed by the Noahic Flood.
A single, very thick layer of silt occuring in the geologic column at the
same place throughout the world would be one. Fossils distributed in a
haphazard manner, with no faunal procession would be another.
>
>>
>>There is no evidence that 99.9999999% of all life was wiped out 4000
>>years ago.
>
> Again Inez fails to tell us what "traces" we would expect to see in
> the geologic record if the Noahic Flood had wiped all of life. He
> simply asserts that there were no traces.
I believe Inez is a she. Also the traces we'd expect to find would be a
period of absence of fossils, followed by huge number of mixed fossils, then
none until populations had increased enough to appear in the fossil record.
This is not what we actually find.
Furthermore, there would be an extreme population bottleneck in the genetic
record of all species, correlating to around the same time. Again, it's
something we don't find.
>>
>>There are written records going back through the supposed time of the
>>flood, and no one seemed to have noticed it.
>
> There few if any documents which date back to the time period covering
> the Noahic Flood.
Chinese, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian cultures all left record from that
supposed time period.
>>
>>The genetic diversity within current species would tend to preclude
>>them from all having descended from a single pair.
>
> This is a tad presumptious since we don't have clue how the genetic
> diversity is stored within the genome. It is still largely asserted
> that 90 percent of the genome in humans is junk.
But we still don't see a population bottleneck in every species.
>>
>>A bristlecone pine that was 4,900 years old was cut down in California
>>in 1964. It would have been killed by a year underwater.
>
> Dating trees is as much an art as a science and depends heavily upon
> being able to accurately determine environmental conditions during the
> period of its conjectured life span. As such I could argue without
> much fear of contradiction that the 4900 year age is about as
> trustworthy as a condom full of holes.
Considering that tree ring dating is no more complicated than being able to
count, I don't see where your assumption holds much more water than the
aforementioned vessel.
DJT
Pip R. Lagenta
wrote:
>> How does one employ a religious
>> dating method?
>
>Hey baby, why don't you come round and check out the size of my "ark."
That line has a 99% failure rate. However, since I am willing to use
it more than 100 times a night, I almost always have success with it.
It is slightly more useful than my original pick-up line: "Want to
Fuck?" That original line being too secular, I think.
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Inez
> >>There is no evidence that 99.9999999% of all life was wiped out 4000
> >>years ago.
> >
> > Again Inez fails to tell us what "traces" we would expect to see in
> > the geologic record if the Noahic Flood had wiped all of life. He
> > simply asserts that there were no traces.
>
> I believe Inez is a she.
I'm pleased that someone else thinks so. I'd hate to discover that I'd
been using the wrong restroom all my life.
> Also the traces we'd expect to find would be a
> period of absence of fossils, followed by huge number of mixed fossils, then
> none until populations had increased enough to appear in the fossil record.
> This is not what we actually find.
Do things fossilize that quickly? I'd expect no fossils at all, but a
lot of skeletons.
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1146686190....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
snipping
>>
>> You can't claim that the Ark had double hulls, laminated wood, and
>> concrete just because the Ark was "adequately constructed". Where does
>> it specifically say that the Ark had these things?
>
> The point is that one cannot make a large ship constructed of wood that
> can survive the ocean. My point is that it can. The Bible doesn't tell
> us how the Ark was constructed.
You still haven't explained how your ad hoc rationalizations would have made
any difference. Instead of a sinking single hulled, non laminated wooden
boat, you have a boat that would only sink faster, due to all the concrete,
and "anchorstones". Then the boat would be falling apart due to water
soluable glues in it's "laminated wood" breaking down on exposure to
seawater. With all that, you still have the problem of the thing being
overloaded, and unable to carry it's supposed cargo, which, even if they
could somehow be shoehorned in, would not survive the trip (if they didn't
sink) because there isn't enough food and water, and even if they did
overcome all those problems, then the problem of ventilation, waste
disposal, and lack of food and water distribution apparatus makes it
impossible.
>
>>
>> > If a poorly constructed computer couldn't function for 24 hours
>> > therefore you can't make a computer that can function for 24 hours.
>> > Bad logic.
>>
>> If a ship has concrete, double hulls, and laminated wood, then it is
>> adequately constructed.
>> The Ark was adequately constructed.
>> Therefore it had [...]
>>
>> Worse logic.
>
> Not really. My point is that you can't base any argument based on past
> ships.
The point is that "past ships" were built with practical limits, due to the
limits of the materials. The "solutions" you offer would only make things
worse.
> These ships didn't use laminated wood, concrete, double hulls
> and any other possible construction techniques.
For very good reasons. Those "possible" techniques (even if they were
possible) wouldn't have helped.
> These ships didn't use
> the entire range of possible ship construction techniques.
Because shipbuilders would know what would, or would not work. Do you
really think that over the centuries, different techniques hadn't been
tried? The ones that work were the ones that people continued to use.
snip
>> > >
>> > > Please demonstrate how the Ark could have possibly been constructed
>> > > with the technology of the day. Even with modern tools, constructing
>> > > such a boat using ancient materials would probably not be possible.
>>
>> Missed this point?
Still missed that point.
DJT
>>
>> Bill
>
John Wilkins
> On 3 May 2006 13:01:19 -0700, "Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> How does one employ a religious
>>> dating method?
>> Hey baby, why don't you come round and check out the size of my "ark."
>
> That line has a 99% failure rate. However, since I am willing to use
> it more than 100 times a night, I almost always have success with it.
> It is slightly more useful than my original pick-up line: "Want to
> Fuck?" That original line being too secular, I think.
Try "Come back to my place, and I'll put you in touch with God"...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos,
puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1146686573....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>> news:1146612521.9...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> snipping
>>
>> >> The first issue is only debunked if you can show that the Ark was in
>> >> fact constructed using modern materials [laminated wood, double hulls,
>> >> concrete?]....otherwise, it's just an ad-hoc response to a valid
>> >> point.
>> >
>> > Actually, it's not a valid point. For the reason that if modern ships
>> > made of wood couldn't float because they were inadequately constructed,
>>
>> Wooden ships were quite adequately constructed, because the shipwrights
>> knew
>> the limitations of the materials they were using. They knew that
>> overextending the wood is a sure recipie for disaster.
>
> This argument is full of errors.
Let's see if you can acutally point out any......
> If shipwrights knew the limitations
> of the materials that they were using they wouldn't have constructed
> these ships!
That makes no sense. They constructed ships that worked very well, because
they knew the limitations. That's why no one has ever constructed a wooden
ship the size of "Noah's Ark" was supposed to be.
> The fact is, they tried to practice standard ship building
> schemes to these large ships. And they didn't work.
They didn't build ships the size of "Noah's Ark". Because they knew it
wouldn't work.
> For larger ships
> they had to use double hulls and laminated wood,
Even with modern techniques, shipbuilders don't use laminated wood, or
double hulls in wooden ships to make them longer. They make larger ships
using steel, which is much stronger than wood.
>both of which they
> never used. Lamination greatly increases the strength of wood.
Only when the glue used for lamination is waterproof, and also it doesn't
increase the strenght enough to make a ship the size of "Noahs' Ark"
possible.
>
> Understand?
I understand that you are clueless, and unable to learn. If laminated
wood, and "double hulls" offered such an advantage, then we'd see wooden
ships being built that way exceeding the lenght of 450 feet. We don't see
that. Oil tankers and Ocean Liners are still built out of steel.
So, even though you claimed my argument was "full of holes" you could not
point out even one.
>
>
>>
>> > then you can't make the claim that a large ship of wood could not
>> > float.
>>
>> Because of the adequacy of shipwrights who used wood for centuries, we
>> can
>> make that claim. It's up to you to show why those shipwrights are
>> wrong,
>> and you, who is totally ignorant of ship building, is right. Appeals
>> to
>> magical "laminated wood" and mythical "anchorstones" does not make you
>> correct.
>>
>> >
>> > If a poorly constructed computer couldn't function for 24 hours
>> > therefore you can't make a computer that can function for 24 hours.
>>
>> The wooden ships of antiquity were not poorly constructed. The were put
>> together by master craftsmen who were at the top of their field.
>
> They were master craftsmen who built ships that didn't work.
The ships they built did work, doofus. They worked for thousands of
years.
> And found
> out that they didn't work after they were tried. But they didn't use
> laminated wood.
For the reason that waterproof glues weren't invented until the 20th
century. Even after waterproof glues were invented, wooden ships of
laminated wood were not built as big as "Noah's Ark".
>
>
> These
>> wooden ships sailed all over the world. They survived major storms.
>> They
>> carried tons of cargo, and millions of passengers, for many years. Hand
>> built wooden ships were crossing the North Atlantic by the late 900's.
>> The reason why ships of "Noah's Ark" size were not built was not the
>> incompetence of the shipbuilders, but the limitations of the materials
>> they
>> had available to them.
>
> Sadly enough, if you took two boards and bolted them together with the
> grains facing different directions you would increase the strength of
> the wood.
But not nearly enough to overcome the problems of building a wooden boat the
size of "Noah's Ark" is supposed to have been.
DJT
snex
John Wilkins wrote:
> Pip R. Lagenta wrote:
> > On 3 May 2006 13:01:19 -0700, "Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>> How does one employ a religious
> >>> dating method?
> >> Hey baby, why don't you come round and check out the size of my "ark."
> >
> > That line has a 99% failure rate. However, since I am willing to use
> > it more than 100 times a night, I almost always have success with it.
> > It is slightly more useful than my original pick-up line: "Want to
> > Fuck?" That original line being too secular, I think.
>
> Try "Come back to my place, and I'll put you in touch with God"...
i prefer "we atheists scream *your* name during sex."
Shane
>>>>There is no evidence that 99.9999999% of all life was wiped out 4000
>>>>years ago.
>>>
>>> Again Inez fails to tell us what "traces" we would expect to see in
>>> the geologic record if the Noahic Flood had wiped all of life. He
>>> simply asserts that there were no traces.
>>
>> I believe Inez is a she.
>
> I'm pleased that someone else thinks so.
Oh, I do too, especially after that 'chinese splits' post. I'd hate to
think I was dreaming of a bloke doing them.
Deadrat
"Alan Morgan" <amo...@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:e3b5m5$s1t$1...@xenon.Stanford.EDU...
Quite?
Did you really just post a serious reply? Are you going to make me explain
the joke about Noah getting drunk?
If you're drinking, stop. If you're not, mix yourself a double.
Deadrat
>
> Alan
> --
> Defendit numerus
>
John Harshman
It's a common misconception that "fossil" means something that's been
turned to stone, or whatever. But all it really refers to is age. Any
remains that are pre-Holocene (or pre-Pleistocene in some definitions)
are fossils, regardless of their state of preservation. Anything younger
is a subfossil. I'm not sure how you relate this to a 6000-year-old
world, but "fossilized" just means "preserved by some means or other",
including just being buried.
Alan Morgan
:-)
>Did you really just post a serious reply? Are you going to make me explain
>the joke about Noah getting drunk?
No, I get the joke. Explaining how/why Noah forgot these technologies
is really the least of McCoy's problems. He has yet to prove that they
work. For the time being I'm willing to entertain the idea that Noah
forgot about them because he drank too much Zinfandel. It's actually
the most reasonable step in this whole argument.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
Mercy rule protects Harshman until May 10th give or take a day.
Regards,
T Pagano
DJT
T Pagano wrote:
> On Wed, 03 May 2006 19:59:54 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Mercy rule protects Harshman until May 10th give or take a day.
Why do you think you need protection from John?
DJT
Pithecanthropus Erectus
> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>
>>El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
>>ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>>
>>False. The large ships in question were single hulled, didn't use
>>laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
>>didn't have projecting keels.
>>
>>El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
>>than one hull and used laminated wood?
>>
>>False question. You have discerned accurately that you have been
>>defeated in your previous argument that "Noah's Ark cannot survive the
>>seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to the
>>task" and are now looking to dispute whether or not the Ark could have
>>been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you wouldn't
>>have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the task based on
>>ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you wish to debate
>>the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
>
>
> The first issue is only debunked if you can show that the Ark was in
> fact constructed using modern materials [laminated wood, double hulls,
> concrete?]....otherwise, it's just an ad-hoc response to a valid point.
>
> Please demonstrate how the Ark could have possibly been constructed
> with the technology of the day. Even with modern tools, constructing
> such a boat using ancient materials would probably not be possible.
>
It was all miracles. The whole thing. Modern scientific scepticism on
the Ark is meaningless because there was no science back in Noah's day.
Noah wasn't constrained by the limits placed on arks by modern science
precisely because there was no one around to tell him it can't be done.
It is so easy, and we know it happened because the Bible says it
happened. McCoy is playing a stupid game by trying to come up
"evidence" when all he need to is to say it needn't be explained because
God took care of all the niggling details, such as whether or not iron
was used in the bronze age, whether or not the wood was laminated,
whether or not the size of the ship would have made it unstable on
wildly unstable seas.
He shouldn't waste his time trying to convince the heathen, all he needs
to say is that "God handled it and that settles it."
>
>>JM
>
>
--
Freeper:
"We need to change the law and make it legal to hunt liberals with dogs. "
Me:
I understand you are being flippant, but you are coming across as stupid.
Freeper:
I wasn't being flippant. I mean it.
Lee Oswald Ving
mfoi5217dt30iltvs...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 03 May 2006 19:59:54 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Mercy rule protects Harshman until May 10th give or take a day.
There is no mercy here, Pagano. You're still running your mouth, and it's
still nothing but crap.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
>
>>>>There is no evidence that 99.9999999% of all life was wiped out 4000
>>>>years ago.
>>>
>>>Again Inez fails to tell us what "traces" we would expect to see in
>>>the geologic record if the Noahic Flood had wiped all of life. He
>>>simply asserts that there were no traces.
>>
>>I believe Inez is a she.
>
>
> I'm pleased that someone else thinks so. I'd hate to discover that I'd
> been using the wrong restroom all my life.
If you were a male, you wouldn't hate such a discovery.
>
>
>>Also the traces we'd expect to find would be a
>>period of absence of fossils, followed by huge number of mixed fossils, then
>>none until populations had increased enough to appear in the fossil record.
>>This is not what we actually find.
>
>
> Do things fossilize that quickly? I'd expect no fossils at all, but a
> lot of skeletons.
>
Mike Painter
> "Pfusand" <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote in message
> news:1146617251.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
>>> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
>>
>> tree large enough to make into a 300-cubit keel, there is no way four
>> (or eight) sane people could cut down such a tree (if one were to
>> exist) with Neolithic or Bronze Age tools, there is no way such a
>> theoretical tree could be felled without smashing it to splinters,
>> and there is no way to move such a log so that it could be shaped
>> into a keel."
>
> Sure. But aside from that, couldn't the Ark have been built?
>
> Deadrat
Probably. There are techniques that the fundies haven't mentioned that
allowed the building of large essentially wood only vessels, some coming
close to the size of the ark. Trouble is they tended to break in half
longitudinally under conditions that did not approach what a rough sea would
offer, much less a sea with a fetch of 25,000 miles.
The solution to the hogging problem is what allowed the building.
Hint: Sam ran one as a youth.
Faux_Pseudo
> The point is that nobody has been able to figure out how it would be
> *possible* to construct a wooden ship 450 feet long that is also
> *seaworthy*....even with modern tools, materials, and construction
> techniques.....much less using the technology and materials available
> in Noah's day.....so show how he did it.
The Chinese are reported to have come close. If the reports are correct
then it had a quarter of the tonnage that the Ark is said to have had.
From a project of mine:
| |
| + -\_+'\ | _
+-\ _-\.' \ \+' |__ _.-\
|\ |' \ | | | || |
\ | | | | | | | \ |
L|_| | | | | | |__|
___ \____|_______|--_________
| `---.___________/ |
\ /
`-______________________./
|- 400? feet - 10,000 T--|
:F_P:#################################Tue Feb 14 2006#################
Zheng He
Zheng He was a Chinese merchant of the 15th century. He built a fleet
like no other for the time. All of which were wooden ships that had all
the perks of 15th century construction. Some reports put he larger ships
in his fleet just a bit shorter than the Ark but with one quarter the
displacment. The key words there are 'some reports'. Not everyone agrees
on the length so it may have been smaller. Built in the 15th C they
still can't make a 450 foot ship with all the know how of the Chinese
masters of the sea and all the advantages of being past the Iron
Age. This is, at the very least, 4000 years after Noah built his
Ark. Oh, and it had sails.
The whole series with obscene amounts of ascii art:
The rest of the ships I compared it to at:
http://faux-pseudo.livejournal.com/73574.html
Crew and Cargo of the BS Ark and an addendum to to the previous part:
http://faux-pseudo.livejournal.com/74166.html
After the Flood:
http://faux-pseudo.livejournal.com/74633.html
--
=()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
\ \ \ \ \ \ ASCII artist
:F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O-
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Wombat
Jim Willemin wrote:
> Robert Weldon <rweldon....@jrpspamblock.ca> wrote in
> news:yv36g.112159$P01.3165@pd7tw3no:
>
> >
> > <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:1146609954....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >> El-skepto: "Noah's Ark cannot survive the seas because large wooden
> >> ships have been proven not capable to the task."
> >>
> >> laminated wood, didn't use concrete, didn't use anchorstones and
> >> didn't have projecting keels.
> >>
> >> El-skepto: Where in the Bible does it says that Noah's Ark had more
> >> than one hull and used laminated wood?
> >>
> >> False question. You have discerned accurately that you have been
> >> the seas because large wooden ships have been proven not capable to
> >> have been double hulled and et cetera. If you were smart enough you
> >> wouldn't have said that large wooden ships can't be capable to the
> >> task based on ships that were designed for speed. It's fine that you
> >> wish to debate the other issues but your first issue was debunked.
> >>
> >
> > Complete crap you posted there, and interesting illustration of your
> > logic processes, completely at odds with reality, and it does explain
> > a lot. What I am interested in is these anchorstones of yours. You
> > have yet to explain how a rock, normally used to anchor a ship,
> > contributes to the ability of your ark to float, please explain. The
> > best I can determine, from your other trainwreck of a post, is that
> > you think that somehow buoyancy, which will make the rock weigh
> > slightly less, somehow magically makes the ark itself lighter.
> >
> > And while I am on the subject, you have not explained how this
> > mythical laminated wood and concrete helps your ark float. As far as
> > I know, all a double hull does is provide protection to a vessel from
> > punctures, useful for an oil tanker, submarine or a a warship, but of
> > little use to your ark. And again, I fail to see how this will help
> > your ark float, please explain.
> >
>
> I'n neither a naval architect nor an engineer, but: It seems to me that
> if the inner and outer hulls of a double=hulled ship were rigidly
> attached to the frame members one would gain signifcant structural
> strength from the skin itself, similar to the idea of a box beam, or
> monocoque construction. That being said, we note that the only type of
> joints that are rigid enough for this to work are welds - bolts won't do
> it, nails won't do it, even treenails won't do it. The skin needs to be
> effectively one single piece (a unit body, if you will). This is simply
> impossible using plank-on-frame construction. Further, I don't know
> offhand of any material that could withstand the repeated bending and
> torsional stresses imposed by any kind of wave action on a vessel of this
> size - steel fatigues and fractures (witness the breakup and loss of
> tankers off South Africa due to stesses imposed by long=wavelength
> swells). The notion of concrete adding any strength is ludicrous -
> unreinforced concrete has very low tensile strength (it breaks when you
> bend it), and I think we have established that Noah really didn't have
> access to rebar in the quantities necessary. Without the rebar, the
> concrete would rapidly become so much gravel in the twisting and bending
> of the hull. It seems to me as well that the addition of external keels
> (I assume like a sailboat) would simply add to the structural problems by
> introducing yet more shear stresses in the hull.
When I read his ramblings regarding external keels I immediately
thought of bilge keels, used in HM battleships to reduce rolling: see
http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/battleship/hms-orion.html and scroll to the
bottom.
Wombat
>Frankly, I think the
> best solution is for McCoy to come up with an engineering study showing
> that a wooden vessel of any construction and that size could withstand
> even normal conditions on the open ocean.
>
> Anyhow, I'll concede that McCoy might have a point IF gopher wood
> actually means marine plywood in sheets 450 by 200 feet, and Noah & Co.
> had the means to bend and shape it... which I kinda doubt.
>
> --
>
> Jim
> "Value nothing but truth, compassion, and love"
Peter Barber
> No, I get the joke. Explaining how/why Noah forgot these technologies
> is really the least of McCoy's problems. He has yet to prove that they
> work. For the time being I'm willing to entertain the idea that Noah
> forgot about them because he drank too much Zinfandel. It's actually
> the most reasonable step in this whole argument.
Ah, but where did the alcohol come from? If Noah had such a drink habit
that he could erase his memory of an entire set of advanced marine
technologies, and alcohol was available to him before the Deluge, then
he would never have got round to designing the Ark, much less building
the thing, so we wouldn't have the story.
If Noah's ruin-in-a-glass (well, earthenware vessel) was manufactured
on board as a reaction to the stress of the voyage and the incessant
work looking after thousands of animals, then he would have jeopardised
the mission, whether by failing to look after the animals properly,
falling overboard, or choking on his vomit, not to mention by wasting
valuable animal fodder. We certainly wouldn't have the story of the
ark. In fact, if you believe creationists, none of us would be here if
the ark had foundered, since everyone else had already drowned.
If the beverage was produced on landfall as a celebration, then from
what would he have distllied it? Either seaweed (and I am not aware of
any alcoholic drink made from seaweed), or the gopherwood - in which
case he would have got methanol poisoning and died. And you'd think
*that* would appear in the Bible as a cautionary tale, wouldn't you?
QED (sort of)
--
Peter Barber
Peter Barber
<James_L...@hotmail.com> said:
> I'll also bet the reason why Noah and his descendents forgot they were
> on the Ark is the same reason why they forgot how to make ships like
> the Ark.
>
> The only reasonable explenation has to be that Noah lost his
> diary/sketchbook over the side during the flood. If only we could find
> it, it would explain everything!
What, Noah had waterproof ink as well as waterproof glue? The man was a genius!
--
Peter Barber
James Laurenson
> > Ah, but where did the alcohol come from? If Noah had such a drink habit
> that he could erase his memory of an entire set of advanced marine
> technologies, and alcohol was available to him before the Deluge, then
> he would never have got round to designing the Ark, much less building
> the thing, so we wouldn't have the story.
Gentlemen, I think we are getting closer to the solution.
We all know that alcohol, when consumend in excessive quantities, leads
to seemingly impossible results on regaining conciousness with no trace
in memory as to how they occured.
Clearly what happened is that Noah went on the most incredible bender
in human history.
When he woke up: Ark.
No. Idea. How. It. Got. There.
His wife must have given him hell about it, lucky the next day it
started raining, eh?
Wakboth
Mike Painter kirjoitti:
> Deadrat wrote:
> > "Pfusand" <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote in message
> > news:1146617251.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> La-Skepta: "Noah's Ark cannot be built because there has never been a
> >> tree large enough to make into a 300-cubit keel, there is no way four
> >> (or eight) sane people could cut down such a tree (if one were to
> >> exist) with Neolithic or Bronze Age tools, there is no way such a
> >> theoretical tree could be felled without smashing it to splinters,
> >> and there is no way to move such a log so that it could be shaped
> >> into a keel."
> >
> > Sure. But aside from that, couldn't the Ark have been built?
> >
> > Deadrat
>
> Probably. There are techniques that the fundies haven't mentioned that
> allowed the building of large essentially wood only vessels, some coming
> close to the size of the ark. Trouble is they tended to break in half
> longitudinally under conditions that did not approach what a rough sea would
> offer, much less a sea with a fetch of 25,000 miles.
>
> The solution to the hogging problem is what allowed the building.
>
> Hint: Sam ran one as a youth.
Mississippi riverboats and barges?
-- Wakboth
Tom McDonald
Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
> Inez wrote:
>
> >
> >>>>There is no evidence that 99.9999999% of all life was wiped out 4000
> >>>>years ago.
> >>>
> >>>Again Inez fails to tell us what "traces" we would expect to see in
> >>>the geologic record if the Noahic Flood had wiped all of life. He
> >>>simply asserts that there were no traces.
> >>
> >>I believe Inez is a she.
> >
> >
> > I'm pleased that someone else thinks so. I'd hate to discover that I'd
> > been using the wrong restroom all my life.
>
> If you were a male, you wouldn't hate such a discovery.
Having done more than my share of janitoral work, I disagree. Women's
public restrooms are places women don't have to worry about who's going
to clean up after them; so they don't. <shudder> It ain't pretty,
folks.
<snip>
Tom McDonald
Well, you demonstrated *something*! Whether it was the 'it is' we're
after is another thing, though.
Turns out our Noah planted vinyards _after_ Ye Flood, and partook of
the fruit of the fruit of the vine somewhat later. I guess when you've
been the savior of the whole damned world, and you're no longer needed
for that, the come-down is pretty precipitous.
But what's this about poor old Ham seeing his daddy starkers? His
brothers covered the old man, and Ham got the shaft; but if Ham hadn't
told Shem and the other punter about Daddio's nudiousity, one of them
would have gotten the curse.
Of course, I am not sure why they had to cover him; did they think he'd
wake up and start nudistising all over the Near East?
Hmm.
Inez
You are right, of course. Let's get back to this very serious
discussion about whether a Bronze Age gentleman hand built a ship
larger than a football field using primitive tools all by himself (or
did he subcontract amongst the evil?). But wait! Not only was he
hacking down small forests and hand sawing planks for this enormous
vessel, but he was apparently creating veneer for the whole thing and
gluing it on, and for not just one hull but two. While this was going
on, his wife was forging iron nails that wouldn't rust in a year's time
on the open sea.
In his many spare moments he was gathering animals in twos and sevens,
many of which had to come from far across the ocean and he'd never
heard of. Don't forget the ocelots Noah! And hurry back so that the
polar bears haven't eaten the wombats before you return! Feeding them
all must have been interesting with all those other things to do, and
how frustrating when one of your penguins dies and it's back to the
pole for you.
The whole story is quite believable, and not at all like other myths
Christians don't believe in. However, I'm concerned with the moral
implications of God drowning everyone and the theological implications
of God having created a world that got so out of whack with his wishes.
Windy
Inez wrote:
> > Mercy rule protects Harshman until May 10th give or take a day.
>
> discussion about whether a Bronze Age gentleman hand built a ship
> larger than a football field using primitive tools all by himself (or
> did he subcontract amongst the evil?). But wait! Not only was he
> hacking down small forests and hand sawing planks for this enormous
> vessel, but he was apparently creating veneer for the whole thing and
> gluing it on, and for not just one hull but two.
And boiled enough wood tar to seal the ship! Wow, that Noah & Sons must
have been one busy operation.
neverbetter
James Laurenson wrote:
> Alan Morgan said:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>None of which existed in the mid bronze age period.
>
>
> >Some of them could have existed. The question is if they would have
> >helped or not. If they wouldn't have helped then it doesn't really
> >matter if Noah was a couple of millennium ahead of his time or not.
>
> We have dates for the earliest appearance of these materials/designs.
> If you want to say that Noah had them, then you have to explain how he
> somehow forgot them after he got off the Ark.
That's the easy part. Specialization. There were a lot of smiths and
carpenters and other handy craftsmen around in the pre-flood world, and
Noah simply hired some of them to help with the building. He was a
zookeeper and a vineyard owner and wasn't much of a shipbuilder as
such. Then, when the ark was ready, he told the handymen he'd pay next
week and then they drowned.
Deadrat
"neverbetter" <never...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146751221.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
A literal translation of the Hebrew says that Noah told the handymen that
Noah and Sons was having a short-term "liquidity" problem for which a
solution would be had in the next few days. There's a pun on "liquid" and
"solution" in the original that's hard to capture in translation.
Deadrat
Deadrat
>
John Harshman
> On Wed, 03 May 2006 19:59:54 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Mercy rule protects Harshman until May 10th give or take a day.
The whole thing about Inez just shows how little you know or understand.
"Mercy, mercy", by the way, is a fine song by Joe Zawinul, written when
he was with Cannonball Adderley.
Which one of us was the rule protecting again?
mc...@sunset.net
Actually they built ships that were too large and didn't work. And
these unwieldy ships are the sorts that you are using to compare with
Noah's Ark. But it's an unfair comparison because there is no record on
hand to even remotely suggest that these craftsmen that you like to
talk about even bothered to experiment with new methods and
technologies. You can't simply blame everything on wood.
>
> > The fact is, they tried to practice standard ship building
> > schemes to these large ships. And they didn't work.
>
> They didn't build ships the size of "Noah's Ark". Because they knew it
> wouldn't work.
Not so. They KNEW that their large ships wouldn't work and didn't want
to invest large sums of money in discovering new techniques and
methods. It's just that simple.
>
> > For larger ships
> > they had to use double hulls and laminated wood,
>
> Even with modern techniques, shipbuilders don't use laminated wood, or
> double hulls in wooden ships to make them longer. They make larger ships
> using steel, which is much stronger than wood.
Actually one could argue that it was a matter of convenience that
produced these ships. But I guess you don't know the whole story. The
first steel ships weren't as stable as the modern wooden ships. They
weren't as strong. And hence they decided to build them with double
hulls! They could have done the same with Noah's Ark!
>
> >both of which they
> > never used. Lamination greatly increases the strength of wood.
>
> Only when the glue used for lamination is waterproof, and also it doesn't
> increase the strenght enough to make a ship the size of "Noahs' Ark"
> possible.
Well, there are different ways to make glues. They could have made
casein glue, or something else. Where there's a will there's a way.
JM
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1146789611.1...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snipping
>> > If shipwrights knew the limitations
>> > of the materials that they were using they wouldn't have constructed
>> > these ships!
>>
>> That makes no sense. They constructed ships that worked very well,
>> because
>> they knew the limitations. That's why no one has ever constructed a
>> wooden
>> ship the size of "Noah's Ark" was supposed to be.
>
> Actually they built ships that were too large and didn't work.
The vast majority of shipping thoughout history was wooden vessels that did
work. Any attempt to build a ship as large as "Noah's Ark" would have
failed, due to the limits of the materials. That's why they didn't build
ships that length.
> And
> these unwieldy ships are the sorts that you are using to compare with
> Noah's Ark.
There were no wooden ships the size of 'Noah's Ark', because shipbuilders
knew better than to build them that size. Ships that size didn't get built
until they had steel and iron support, and then all in steel and iron.
> But it's an unfair comparison because there is no record on
> hand to even remotely suggest that these craftsmen that you like to
> talk about even bothered to experiment with new methods and
> technologies. You can't simply blame everything on wood.
Those craftmen knew what they were doing. Building a wooden ship is a
large investment in time, materials, and labor. Any techniques which
would have made the construction studier, or faster would have been used.
Profits from a voyage would have been much larger for anyone who could have
made a larger wooden ship. If there had been a way to make wooden ships
the size of "Noah's Ark" the shipbuilders of antiquity would have used them.
These were not guys who scraped by with a D- in shop class, making a cutting
board for their mommies. These were people who were intimately familiar
with the properties of wood, and the strengths and limits of the medium.
>
>
>>
>> > The fact is, they tried to practice standard ship building
>> > schemes to these large ships. And they didn't work.
>>
>> They didn't build ships the size of "Noah's Ark". Because they knew it
>> wouldn't work.
>
> Not so. They KNEW that their large ships wouldn't work and didn't want
> to invest large sums of money in discovering new techniques and
> methods. It's just that simple.
As you have already stated, lamination is not a new technique. It's been
known for a very long time. Don't you think that if it would have provided
the kind of advantage you claim, it would have been used in shipbuilding?
If lamination and "double hulls" were the answer to building large wooden
boats, don't you think we'd find evidence that those techniques were used
over and over again?
>
>
>>
>> > For larger ships
>> > they had to use double hulls and laminated wood,
>>
>> Even with modern techniques, shipbuilders don't use laminated wood, or
>> double hulls in wooden ships to make them longer. They make larger
>> ships
>> using steel, which is much stronger than wood.
>
> Actually one could argue that it was a matter of convenience that
> produced these ships. But I guess you don't know the whole story. The
> first steel ships weren't as stable as the modern wooden ships.
Where did you get that idea?
>They
> weren't as strong. And hence they decided to build them with double
> hulls! They could have done the same with Noah's Ark!
What makes you think steel ships were built with "double hulls"?
>
>
>
>>
>> >both of which they
>> > never used. Lamination greatly increases the strength of wood.
>>
>> Only when the glue used for lamination is waterproof, and also it doesn't
>> increase the strenght enough to make a ship the size of "Noahs' Ark"
>> possible.
>
> Well, there are different ways to make glues.
Yes, but all of them before the 1930's produced glues that were soluable in
water.
> They could have made
> casein glue, or something else. Where there's a will there's a way.
Casein glue is water soluible. So are hide glues, plant resins, or
anything else that would have been avialable.
DJT
Lee Oswald Ving
news:1146789611.1...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That would be news to Joshua Humphreys.
> You can't simply blame everything on wood.
You mean, *you* cannot dimiss wood's low tensile strength by handwaving,
though you're flapping your arms like a madman.
>> > The fact is, they tried to practice standard ship building
>> > schemes to these large ships. And they didn't work.
>>
>> They didn't build ships the size of "Noah's Ark". Because they
>> knew it wouldn't work.
>
> Not so. They KNEW that their large ships wouldn't work and didn't want
> to invest large sums of money in discovering new techniques and
> methods. It's just that simple.
No, McCoy. The Clipper was the culmination of thousands of years of
progressive wooden ship design, which developed into a science around the
1600s.
You could learn something from this page:
http://www.greatgridlock.net/Sqrigg/squrig2.html
...were you not a four-star loony.
>> > For larger ships
>> > they had to use double hulls and laminated wood,
>>
>> Even with modern techniques, shipbuilders don't use laminated wood,
>> or double hulls in wooden ships to make them longer. They make
>> larger ships using steel, which is much stronger than wood.
>
> Actually one could argue that it was a matter of convenience that
> produced these ships.
The "inconvenience" being that no wood has a tensile strength anywhere
near iron or steel.
> But I guess you don't know the whole story. The
> first steel ships weren't as stable as the modern wooden ships. They
> weren't as strong. And hence they decided to build them with double
> hulls!
Then again, folks like Donald McKay designed wooden ships with double
hulls.
They just couldn't build them as large as the iron and steel ships.
Because wood isn't strong enough.
While we're on it, the first all-iron steamer (Aaron Manby) was single-
hulled, so you're worng there, too.
> They could have done the same with Noah's Ark!
If they wanted to watch it's back break at the first wave trough, sure.
>> >both of which they
>> > never used. Lamination greatly increases the strength of wood.
>>
>> Only when the glue used for lamination is waterproof, and also it
>> doesn't increase the strenght enough to make a ship the size of
>> "Noahs' Ark" possible.
>
> Well, there are different ways to make glues. They could have made
> casein glue,
'Cause Elmer's Glue is such a *wonderful* shipbuilding material.
Plywood manufacturers told the public Casein glue was waterproof in the
20's. They were lying, and it cost them.
> or something else.
Emphasis on "something else."
In this case, a something else that wouldn't be available for several
thousand years, after vacuum technology and airtight containers were
made.
> Where there's a will there's a way.
...of comitting suicide, apparently.
Lee Oswald Ving
@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> The
> first steel ships weren't as stable as the modern wooden ships. They
> weren't as strong. And hence they decided to build them with double
> hulls!
And BTW - the first double-hulled iron ship was the _Great Britain_, built
over twenty years into the iron ship revolution.
And, just so's you know - steel is stronger than iron.
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
[snip his usual rubbish]
>
>Well, there are different ways to make glues. They could have made
>casein glue, or something else. Where there's a will there's a way.
Do try to look up things before posting - if you had researched casein
glue before posting you would not have suggested it.
>
>JM
>
Abuse report filed for wasting bandwidth.
--
Bob.
Inez
Really? What were the names of some of those ships? How do you know
the object that you believe to be Noah's Ark is not one of them?
> And
> these unwieldy ships are the sorts that you are using to compare with
> Noah's Ark. But it's an unfair comparison because there is no record on
> hand to even remotely suggest that these craftsmen that you like to
> talk about even bothered to experiment with new methods and
> technologies.
So...if they didn't like to experiment with new technologies and
methods, then what were the shipwrights doing when they built the
non-functional ships you mention above? I truly am curious.
>You can't simply blame everything on wood.
>
True. Many things are the fault of Repulicans, for example.
>
> >
> > > The fact is, they tried to practice standard ship building
> > > schemes to these large ships. And they didn't work.
> >
> > They didn't build ships the size of "Noah's Ark". Because they knew it
> > wouldn't work.
>
> Not so. They KNEW that their large ships wouldn't work and didn't want
> to invest large sums of money in discovering new techniques and
> methods. It's just that simple.
>
How is that different than the point you were responding to?
>
> >
> > > For larger ships
> > > they had to use double hulls and laminated wood,
> >
> > Even with modern techniques, shipbuilders don't use laminated wood, or
> > double hulls in wooden ships to make them longer. They make larger ships
> > using steel, which is much stronger than wood.
>
> Actually one could argue that it was a matter of convenience that
> produced these ships. But I guess you don't know the whole story. The
> first steel ships weren't as stable as the modern wooden ships. They
> weren't as strong. And hence they decided to build them with double
> hulls! They could have done the same with Noah's Ark!
>
Are you claming that Noah's ark was a double hulled steel ship?
>
> >
> > >both of which they
> > > never used. Lamination greatly increases the strength of wood.
> >
> > Only when the glue used for lamination is waterproof, and also it doesn't
> > increase the strenght enough to make a ship the size of "Noahs' Ark"
> > possible.
>
> Well, there are different ways to make glues. They could have made
> casein glue, or something else. Where there's a will there's a way.
>
Poor Noah! I can just see him trying to saw a whole forest of trees
into 1/8th in thick sheets with a bronze hand saw. He must have been a
fearsome arm wrestler.
That strength must have really come in handy when he was searching the
Himalayas for two snow leopards, and hooking electric eels out of the
Amazon. No, really, the story is just so plausible once you add in the
concept of ancient plywood.
Robert Weldon
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146852096....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> > <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>> > news:1146686573....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > >
>> > > Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> > >> <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>> > >> news:1146612521.9...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > >> snipping
>> > >>
> Poor Noah! I can just see him trying to saw a whole forest of trees
> into 1/8th in thick sheets with a bronze hand saw. He must have been a
> fearsome arm wrestler.
> That strength must have really come in handy when he was searching the
> Himalayas for two snow leopards, and hooking electric eels out of the
> Amazon. No, really, the story is just so plausible once you add in the
> concept of ancient plywood.
>
LOL, I love the mental picture this generated. But come on now Inez, no need
to humiliate the poor boy with sarcasm. He does a fine job of that on his
own, and you know damn well that he doesn't understand sarcasm anyway.
Inez
Oh no! Am I getting too mean? I have that trouble from time to time.
I made a car mechanic cry once, and I'm still not sure I'm sorry.
It just seems a little funny when an argument over the Noah's Ark story
gets refined down to whether or not ancient people had access to
waterproof glue to create their plywood with. Let's say they did.
The story is still manifestly a fairy tale on every level.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>
>> LOL, I love the mental picture this generated. But come on now Inez, no
>> need
>> to humiliate the poor boy with sarcasm. He does a fine job of that on
>> his
>> own, and you know damn well that he doesn't understand sarcasm anyway.
>
> Oh no! Am I getting too mean? I have that trouble from time to time.
> I made a car mechanic cry once, and I'm still not sure I'm sorry.
Hey, I'd say you can come over and make me cry, but my wife would probably
object to that....
>
> It just seems a little funny when an argument over the Noah's Ark story
> gets refined down to whether or not ancient people had access to
> waterproof glue to create their plywood with. Let's say they did.
> The story is still manifestly a fairy tale on every level.
It's always fun to watch McDoofus come up with another lame rationalization
though....
DJT
>
Inez
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1146858913.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> snipping
>
> >>
> >> LOL, I love the mental picture this generated. But come on now Inez, no
> >> need
> >> to humiliate the poor boy with sarcasm. He does a fine job of that on
> >> his
> >> own, and you know damn well that he doesn't understand sarcasm anyway.
> >
> > Oh no! Am I getting too mean? I have that trouble from time to time.
> > I made a car mechanic cry once, and I'm still not sure I'm sorry.
>
> Hey, I'd say you can come over and make me cry, but my wife would probably
> object to that....
I pay all that money for thigh length leather boots, and I just never
get to wear them.
> > It just seems a little funny when an argument over the Noah's Ark story
> > gets refined down to whether or not ancient people had access to
> > waterproof glue to create their plywood with. Let's say they did.
> > The story is still manifestly a fairy tale on every level.
>
> It's always fun to watch McDoofus come up with another lame rationalization
> though....
>
I used to think that until I saw his line about Noah being able to
invent power tools. Either he is in seriously crazy or I need to pull
a fish hook out of my mouth.
Robert Weldon
Of course, that's what makes it amusing. And it is ever so much fun to poke
McMoron with sticks (figuratively, of course) to see what silliness he is
going to dream up next.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146858913.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> snipping
>>
>> >>
>> >> LOL, I love the mental picture this generated. But come on now Inez, no
>> >> need
>> >> to humiliate the poor boy with sarcasm. He does a fine job of that on
>> >> his
>> >> own, and you know damn well that he doesn't understand sarcasm anyway.
>> >
>> > Oh no! Am I getting too mean? I have that trouble from time to time.
>> > I made a car mechanic cry once, and I'm still not sure I'm sorry.
>>
>> Hey, I'd say you can come over and make me cry, but my wife would probably
>> object to that....
>
>
>I pay all that money for thigh length leather boots, and I just never
>get to wear them.
There is an age-old saying on usenet which suits this: GIF! GIF! GIF!
Or to update it: hi-res JPEG please :)
>
>
>> > It just seems a little funny when an argument over the Noah's Ark story
>> > gets refined down to whether or not ancient people had access to
>> > waterproof glue to create their plywood with. Let's say they did.
>> > The story is still manifestly a fairy tale on every level.
>>
>> It's always fun to watch McDoofus come up with another lame rationalization
>> though....
>>
>I used to think that until I saw his line about Noah being able to
>invent power tools. Either he is in seriously crazy or I need to pull
>a fish hook out of my mouth.
No, he really is THAT crazy.
--
Bob.