Home > FreeHovind > Content > Discussion: Noah's Ark
Noah's Ark
23 Comments - 40056 Views
Why the math doesn't work.
Submitted By ben on 09/02/18
Ninny 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bad0d3c8a5fb8d8b?q=+%22torpedo+ye+arke%22+group%3Atalk.origins+author%3APat+author%3AJames&start=10&hl=en&lr&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&rnum=17&pli=1
 
He addresses the ark on many levels. There are a great number of reasons why this is physically impossible and here are several.

» Reply to Comment
I've seen this easily debunked on Hovind's seminar
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/18 - 4:23 GMT
I've seen this easily debunked on Hovind's seminar. Maybe I'll check it out tomorrow evening. 9tails probably knows more about it than I do.
» Reply to Comment
Since when has Kent Hovind ever debunked anyt
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/18 - 4:42 GMT
Since when has Kent Hovind ever debunked anything?
» Reply to Comment
There's no real evidence for an old earth just spe
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/18 - 15:34 GMT
There's no real evidence for an old earth just speculation.
» Reply to Comment
No real evidence for young earth
10 hours - 500v
Posted 2009/02/18 - 18:03 GMT
There's no real evidence for a young earth,  just lies.
» Reply to Comment
Except evidence in the fields of Geology, Cos
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/02/18 - 20:50 GMT
Except evidence in the fields of Geology, Cosmology, Biology, Dendochronology and probably every other -ology out there. Try doing some real reserch instead of using the old creationist method "LALALAL I CANT HEAR YOU!!"
 
And hovinds "debunking" was nothing but saying, "well God could have made it physically possible!" Which proves nothing but wishful thinking on his part.
» Reply to Comment
Real evidence would contain historic writings if m
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/18 - 22:24 GMT
Real evidence would contain historic writings if man was really here 80,000 to 1 million years ago. All we have are writings dated to the 3rd century B.C.
» Reply to Comment
So if we had writings before the advent of wr
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/18 - 22:35 GMT
So if we had writings before the advent of writing?
 
We have the Vinca signs from 9000 years ago.
 
We have the Tartaria tables from 7000 years ago.
 
We won't find airplanes before the development of powered flight either.
» Reply to Comment
Real evidence would contain hist
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 8:09 GMT
Real evidence would contain historic writings if man was really here 80,000 to 1 million years ago.
 
Not really... there is ample evidence that human beings didn't develop written communication until much later.
 
All we have are writings dated to the 3rd century B.C.
 
More like the 4th millennium B.C. (Summerian cuneiform script).
» Reply to Comment
There's no real evidence for an
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 8:00 GMT
There's no real evidence for an old earth just speculation.
 
Sure... as long as you ignore geology, paleontology, and cosmology.
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 4:08 GMT
Reasons for arc and why the flood is a feasible story:
 
1) Every culture in the world (that have been historically isolated) shares stories about a worldwide flood and 1 man and his family sitting it out on an arc with kinds of animals.
 
http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html
 
2) Oceanic fossils on mountains and high elevations suggest significantly high levels of global waters.
 
http://unmaskingevolution.com/18-flood.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html
 
3) Stories of Dragons, like the flood, is shared with the entire world. That just so happen to look the same and are illustrated the same. It is reflected through "Dinosaur" bones found in the dirt today. History and evidence would suggest that dragons or "great lizards" were dinosaurs, but stubborn evolutionists maintain that dinosaurs went extinct "a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away" and did so cause due to their own flatulence.
 
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-dragon1.html
http://creationwiki.org/Dragons
 
4) Not only is the arc's size and volume sensible and tenable, but an aspect of creationism is ancient man being giant and long living (thus increasing the cubit).
 
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark
 
So, the arc's size is tenable. The global flood is tenable. Dragons being dinosaurs is tenable.
 
Our evolutionist friends say, "no way, Jose'".
Why?
"Dinosaurs went extinct trillions and trillions of years ago."
.....right...
 
Dragon;
http://www.testriffic.com/resultfiles/14851red-dragon.jpg
 
Dinosaur;
http://www.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/papo_velociraptor_dinosaur_toys.jpg
 
(notice dinosaurs look 'reptilian' and 'textured', dragons look 'mystical' and 'cartoony')
 
"Yes children, Dragons are imagined by every isolated culture in the world. But 'Dinosaurs' are real, they look nothing like dragons, have nothing to do with dragons, no one has ever seen them and they died trillions and trillions of years ago by their own flatulence."
 
"The flood never happened as well"
Why?
"The evidence points otherwise"
 
http://2dkids.googlepages.com/NoahsArk.jpg
 
"Yes boys and girls, the flood never happened. no way, no how. Its only coincidence that every culture shares in the exact same story. Its also strict coincidence that oceanic fossils are on mountains, Geophysics suggests a global flood and the arc makes elaborate sense and gives ample provision for the biblical account."
» Reply to Comment
1) Every culture in the world (t
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 9:05 GMT
1) Every culture in the world (that have been historically isolated) shares stories about a worldwide flood and 1 man and his family sitting it out on an arc with kinds of animals.
 
Hardly conclusive. Massive floods are common in various mythologies - but many of them are only superficially-simliar to Biblical flood (E.g., the version told by Australian aboriginees involves a giant frog that swallowed all water in existence, before being tricked into laughing and releasing all the water - which caused a flood).
 
2) Oceanic fossils on mountains and high elevations suggest significantly high levels of global waters.
 
That's evidence of plate tectonics, not of the Biblical flood.
 
It's also thoroughly-debunked in the Talk Origins link you included.
 
3) Stories of Dragons, like the flood, is shared with the entire world. That just so happen to look the same and are illustrated the same.

That's an odd claim, considering that over a thousand separate species of dinosaurs have been identified in the fossil record - and they don't even look all that similar to one another.
 
but stubborn evolutionists maintain that dinosaurs went extinct "a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away" and did so cause due to their own flatulence.
 
You seriously believe that "flatulence" is the prevailing theory to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs?
 
"Dinosaurs went extinct trillions and trillions of years ago."
.....right...
 
Ah, there's your problem: you seem to have Paleontology confused with Scientology.
 
Fortunately, those of us who have a basic understanding of cosmology realize that "trillions and trillions of years ago" would have pre-dated the existence of the universe itself.
» Reply to Comment
You are suggesting that because cultures that
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 12:22 GMT
You are suggesting that because cultures that live along shorelines and in river valleys have flood myths there must have been a worldwide flood that left no evidence? Interesting leap of logic.
 
Wooden ships cannot be as long as described in Genesis. It is simply not physically possible to have a wooden ship that size that is seaworthy. It is much like how one cannot build a wood framed skyscraper.
 
As for giants, well we would hope to see evidence. The closest is the fake bones that Hovind has shown. There is a problem with that though. The cross section is too small for a bone that large. You can't keep the same proportions and simply upsize.
 
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/scaling.html
 
That should help you understand the physiology.
 
Dragons in different cultures look nothing alike either. To say that they are simply dinosaurs wouldn't we expect them to have different dragons for each of the dinosaurs?
» Reply to Comment
interesting resource
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 14:41 GMT
Interesting resource, rationalist. However, one key point your author is missing is the "enriched O2" factor.
 
A major aspect of the creationist 'pre-flood' environment theory, is that the biosphere had higher levels of oxygen. We already undestand that denser oxygen environments cause things to grow larger and more vividly. Per say, if the world had higher levels of oxygen in it before the flood, everything would grow to be bigger, no? Bugs, Animals, Humans ..... even reptiles (which never stop growing)?
 
Not to mention, there are lots of animals and plants that tower over mans size. Does that make them clumsy and akward?
» Reply to Comment
Insects would be larger because they would be
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 15:06 GMT
Insects would be larger because they would be able to still get enough oxygen. It would not make animals grow larger as there are other limits in place. Also I pointed out to you before how high levels of oxygen is detrimental to life.
 
There is a limit to how much stress a bone can take based upon the cross section. It is a limit set by physics. Ask a structural engineer.
 
Are you asking me if tall animals are awkward? Often times, yes they are. That is not why I am saying there were no giants. There are simply limits physically to how long a bone can be with a given cross section so that it can support a structure. Have you seen a 7 story building built of wood? There is a reason for that. If you double the length of bone you must increase the width 8 fold.
» Reply to Comment
Here is some help on insects. &nb
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 15:19 GMT
Here is some help on insects.
 
http://asunews.asu.edu/20071004_insects
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/201/8/1043
 
» Reply to Comment
Someone mentioned the cubit, but the Egyptian cubi
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 16:12 GMT
Someone mentioned the cubit, but the Egyptian cubit was and I think still is about 6 inches longer than today's standard. Peoplle grew bigger before the flood so they had a longer cubit from the elbow to the middle finger.
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 16:28 GMT
Yes bigdog, not only does that 'really' help to explain the pyramids (Some archeologists just can't seem to figure out how they built those silly things), but that explains everything in history. (I.E. even evolution teaches in "prehistoric" times everything was corpulent and large, go figure)
» Reply to Comment
Actually the largest animal to have ever exis
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 18:39 GMT
Actually the largest animal to have ever existed lives right now, the blue whale. So giant creatures can still exist, but as the dinosaurs went extinct, selection for smaller (reletively) land creatures came into play.
 
Also, ancient humans were much smaller than people today, according to all fossils and skeletons ever found.  The average hight of an ancient mesopotamian was a little over five feet, so are you just pulling these "facts" out of your hat?
» Reply to Comment
Someone mentioned the cubit, but
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 18:49 GMT
Someone mentioned the cubit, but the Egyptian cubit was and I think still is about 6 inches longer than today's standard.
 
The Royal Egyptian Cubit was the length of the arm from elbow to the tip of the middle finger plus the width of the hand of the pharaoh.
http://www.ncsli.org/misc/cubit.cfm
 
It wasn't that Egyptians were bigger than Mesopotamians. In fact by your logic the Mesopotamian cubit should be larger since they predate the Egyptians.
 
Peoplle grew bigger before the flood so they had a longer cubit from the elbow to the middle finger.
 
There is no evidence of a flood and no evidence of giants.
 
Yes bigdog, not only does that 'really' help to explain the pyramids
 
Just curious but how does the Egyptian cubit being larger explain the pyramids? I can't wait to read this.
 
(Some archeologists just can't seem to figure out how they built those silly things),
 
Oh really? They have a good understanding of the use of ramps. They are not sure if the pyramids all began as step pyramids and used multiple ramps along the edges or if the traditional view of having a single large ramp at 90 degrees.
 
http://www.touregypt.net/construction/
 
Then again why let facts get in the way.
 
but that explains everything in history. (I.E. even evolution teaches in "prehistoric" times everything was corpulent and large, go figure)
 
That explains everything in history? Such as why we have cities that have been continuously occupied since before the creation of the Earth (by Hebrew creation myth standards) and why so many structures are older than when the flood would have occurred.
 
I think you are getting your view of life on early Earth from comic books.
» Reply to Comment
Not to mention that ancient Egyptian and Chin
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 0:16 GMT
Not to mention that ancient Egyptian and Chinese societies somehow managed to repopulate their countries after the flood with their same religions, same rituals, and same architecture apparently within days of the flood.  And lets not forget that if the creationist model of post flood super-evolution is true, then there was a speciation even every 2 hours until the modern number of species was achieved...
» Reply to Comment
I believe that the earth is a maximum of 10,000 ye
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 3:59 GMT
I believe that the earth is a maximum of 10,000 years old, but again there are no historical records going back past 5,000 years. So even that may be too old. One hundred years ago there were only 1 billion people. Now there are 6.5 billion. Were populating to fast to have been here even 1 million years ago.
» Reply to Comment
How many people were here 100 years before th
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 12:37 GMT
How many people were here 100 years before that?
 
You are under the presumption that in the bronze age there was sanitation, refrigeration, chemical fertilizers, and medicine.
 
Perhaps you should read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
» Reply to Comment
I noticied that you haven't tried to explain
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 14:21 GMT
I noticied that you haven't tried to explain how a wooden ship that size could be seaworthy.


GenTime: 0.0342 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2019 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff