Had different details and was the link I was originally looking for, so I posted it. Relax 'dude'
Had different details and was the link I was originally looking for, so I posted it. Relax 'dude'
I believe that something happened, but it was most likely regional.
Post 2000 took long enough:shocked:
Post 2000 took long enough:shocked:
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
And how did all the marsupials know to follow one another and set up shop on the same island after they got off the ark somewhere in the middle east?
For that matter, how did they make it all they way to Australia on their own at all? AFAIK, koalas aren't transcontinental swimmers.
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: sandorski
Wrong Ark.
:laugh:
you mean noahs ark didnt melt nazi faces? bummer, because that would have been wicked awesome.
Oh you don't say? Do you even understand the difference between fact and belief?
And on another note, if this delusion were somehow true just imagine what this event did to the gene pool of each species. A pair of species would mean iteration upon iteration of inbreeding. Does god condone inbreeding? Nature would suggest otherwise
dennilfloss
Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Yeah, I mentioned something like that. The stresses on a ship of that size on a very stormy sea would be immense. And it doesn't look like it has much of anything on it to stabilize it and prevent a good old fashioned barrel roll.
Umm...no. Take a look at the all-wooden ship that Shackleford used for his expedition to Antarctica. That thing was a TANK, and it took weeks of continuous crushing from Antarctic icebergs to finally break it. It was much more than a match for the worst that the ocean itself had to offer, and the Southern Ocean is probably the wildest and roughest on the planet.
The construction of the ark itself, and its seaworthiness, is the weakest argument that you can possibly make against the story. That part is quite plausible (although obviously there would have to be many people involved in the building process). Now, the idea of a global flood, or of every single species being represented on the ark...that is a bit more questionable.
ZzZGuy
Golden Member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 1,855
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Yeah, I mentioned something like that. The stresses on a ship of that size on a very stormy sea would be immense. And it doesn't look like it has much of anything on it to stabilize it and prevent a good old fashioned barrel roll.
Umm...no. Take a look at the all-wooden ship that Shackleford used for his expedition to Antarctica. That thing was a TANK, and it took weeks of continuous crushing from Antarctic icebergs to finally break it. It was much more than a match for the worst that the ocean itself had to offer, and the Southern Ocean is probably the wildest and roughest on the planet.
The construction of the ark itself, and its seaworthiness, is the weakest argument that you can possibly make against the story. That part is quite plausible (although obviously there would have to be many people involved in the building process). Now, the idea of a global flood, or of every single species being represented on the ark...that is a bit more questionable.
Is it possible for a ant to be the size of a bus? The answer is no because it's outer shell would be too thick and heavy for it to even move in order to just prevent it from crushing itself.
Just because something works on a small scale does not mean you can make something 100x bigger and expect it to work just the same. Perhaps a engineer could explain this in detail.
Of course this is totally ignoring how it would have to be designed to hold as many animals/plants/insects/birds/reptiles/sea life/fungus/dinosaurs as is claimed in the story.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,904
- 31,431
- 146
Holy crap. glad I kept out of this thread, sorta...
you seem to be one of the most uneducated nimcompoops to ever slum his way out of our public school system.
You honestly believe that such myths don't exist, have not existed for millenia, and are not as relevant to the understanding of a common geological occurrence that both scientific evidence and human literary recordings support? They are recorded, they are dated, and they are real.
Holy hell, you are denser than a stack of lead, or you're simply trolling.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,904
- 31,431
- 146
Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Yeah, I mentioned something like that. The stresses on a ship of that size on a very stormy sea would be immense. And it doesn't look like it has much of anything on it to stabilize it and prevent a good old fashioned barrel roll.
Umm...no. Take a look at the all-wooden ship that Shackleford used for his expedition to Antarctica. That thing was a TANK, and it took weeks of continuous crushing from Antarctic icebergs to finally break it. It was much more than a match for the worst that the ocean itself had to offer, and the Southern Ocean is probably the wildest and roughest on the planet.
The construction of the ark itself, and its seaworthiness, is the weakest argument that you can possibly make against the story. That part is quite plausible (although obviously there would have to be many people involved in the building process). Now, the idea of a global flood, or of every single species being represented on the ark...that is a bit more questionable.
Is it possible for a ant to be the size of a bus? The answer is no because it's outer shell would be too thick and heavy for it to even move in order to just prevent it from crushing itself.
Just because something works on a small scale does not mean you can make something 100x bigger and expect it to work just the same. Perhaps a engineer could explain this in detail.
Of course this is totally ignoring how it would have to be designed to hold as many animals/plants/insects/birds/reptiles/sea life/fungus/dinosaurs as is claimed in the story.
most insects, arachnids especially, could exist on much larger scales (as they very well did), were the climate more suitable to their physiological makeup.
An exoskeleton and open-ended respiratory system is limited by the atmospheric composition. Gigantic bear-eating spiders and sea scorpions did exist on this planet billions of years ago. So long as the proper ingredients are there....it can happen
Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Yeah, I mentioned something like that. The stresses on a ship of that size on a very stormy sea would be immense. And it doesn't look like it has much of anything on it to stabilize it and prevent a good old fashioned barrel roll.
Umm...no. Take a look at the all-wooden ship that Shackleford used for his expedition to Antarctica. That thing was a TANK, and it took weeks of continuous crushing from Antarctic icebergs to finally break it. It was much more than a match for the worst that the ocean itself had to offer, and the Southern Ocean is probably the wildest and roughest on the planet.
The construction of the ark itself, and its seaworthiness, is the weakest argument that you can possibly make against the story. That part is quite plausible (although obviously there would have to be many people involved in the building process). Now, the idea of a global flood, or of every single species being represented on the ark...that is a bit more questionable.
Is it possible for a ant to be the size of a bus? The answer is no because it's outer shell would be too thick and heavy for it to even move in order to just prevent it from crushing itself.
Just because something works on a small scale does not mean you can make something 100x bigger and expect it to work just the same. Perhaps a engineer could explain this in detail.
Of course this is totally ignoring how it would have to be designed to hold as many animals/plants/insects/birds/reptiles/sea life/fungus/dinosaurs as is claimed in the story.
I hold an engineering degree.
The ark, as described in the Bible, isn't that big, and while it stretches the material's abilities, it's certainly possible to make a wooden ship of that size which would hold up to the ocean. Mind you, I tend to make some allowance for exaggeration, as is likely to be the case with any story from antiquity. However, even if you take the dimensions literally, a boat that big HAS been built entirely out of wood: The American schooner Wyoming. It had a few design issues, but it was a moneymaker which lasted about 14 1/2 years before foundering in heavy seas.
As for the second part, try reading my post before you reply: My claim is that it would be possible to build a boat that size, not that you could actually get the animals on there, and not that a global flood ever occurred.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,904
- 31,431
- 146
Denithor
Diamond Member
- Apr 11, 2004
- 6,298
- 23
- 81
Not only did Noah have to re-deliver each pair of beasties back to its original location throughout the world, he also had to gather them from those locations before the flood occurred - meaning he had absolutely no way to collect them initially. I mean, HTF was he supposed to have gotten mating pairs of everything from South America for example before the earth was flooded and he could travel there?
It's such a mind-boggling mental stretch to believe this tale is literal truth. Unfortunately my parents are prime examples of people who do exactly that, for some reason I cannot fathom. My father's favorite books are about how the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.
All from an ancient text written by the rulers of the day to maintain control over their people. Which has been selectively edited numerous times over the ensuing centuries by self-serving heads of the "church" tailoring the message to suit their needs of the day. Not to mention the translations-of-translations that have probably changed the message in innumerable small ways.
I am so glad the brainwashing in my youth didn't stick.
SphinxnihpS
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,368
- 25
- 91
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
That's not how science works. Word of mouth is not a reason to believe something is real. Once actual evidence proves something is real, hearsay is useful in understanding how people reacted to phenomenon. If you think anecdotes count as evidence, you don't actually understand science.
Why are you guys trying to prove/disprove religion with science? That's like arguing about whether or not Pinocchio was a robot.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter