Wasn't there an actual ark?

[StAnastasia]

to tell a maritime architect that an 400’ wooden ship, with no steel bracing, won’t hog and break its keel and sink, is pathetic. simply ignoring the technical arguments or making a hand wave argument, as is done with every scientific objection, is even more pathetic.

Not to mention engineering the manure disposal problem…

When my son was about six he got a book on Noah’s Ark out of the Jewish Community Center library. It was illustrated with lovely woodcuts, and was a delight to read to him. When he came upon the illustration of Noah carefully putting pairs of insects into glass jars, he asked how much each glass jar weighed. I suggested maybe an average of five or six ounces. He said, “There are ten million species of insects, right? Bye-bye Ark!”

StAnastasia

 

[Wirraway]

Not to mention engineering the manure disposal problem…

When my son was about six he got a book on Noah’s Ark out of the Jewish Community Center library. It was illustrated with lovely woodcuts, and was a delight to read to him. When he came upon the illustration of Noah carefully putting pairs of insects into glass jars, he asked how much each glass jar weighed. I suggested maybe an average of five or six ounces. He said, “There are ten million species of insects, right? Bye-bye Ark!”

StAnastasia

but it was a special kind of glass.

 

[Wirraway]

NO I am not reinventing geology. I am merely:

1. pointing out that there has long been discussion of a super continent. If such a thing existed then at some point the earth did look different.

what happend to your claim that flood waters instead of magma poured out of the transform boudaries?

1. inviting others to consider other possibilities. Scientists with Naturalism and Uniformitarianism as part of their worldview posit that the flood could never have happened. Their worldview simply will not allow them to consider it. Francis Crick the co Nobel prize winner for the discovery of the double helix was told the current scientific age of the earth was less than 5 billion years. When told this he attributed life on earth to " Aliens"

I’ll consider a worldwide flood if you intelligently address the problem of heat relesed when water vapor turns to liquid. calculations cited elsewhere in this thread show that the amount of heat would turn the planet into an (albeit wet) cinder. try to do this without claming that water somehow replaced magma and emerged through transform boundaries.

 

[StAnastasia]

but it was a special kind of glass.

Polycarbonate, like what my reading glasses are made of? Was there perhaps a poycarbonate manufactury in Ur of the Chaldees? Noah could have put in an order for ten or twenty million such jars for the insects.

Don’t forget the weight of the glass and water for all the aquaria on board. There had to be aquaria for both the saltwater and the freshwater fish who could not survive for 150 days in brackish water. And also the heating and filtering equipment and aeration pumps, with their electric motors and the generators to power them.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

This stuff is all straight out of the “science” playbook of Protestant Fundamentalist Creationists. It has zero credibility as science, and therefore is worthless, and it has been definitively refuted countless times. If any of this stuff were even remotely true, we would see numerous panel discussions of Noans’ flood and its effects at professional meetings of biologists, geologists, and paleontologists. But it’s not discussed there, because it is total intellectual garbage. It is relegated to the backwater of the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and screenings of Expelled in church basements.

For us Catholics who are scientists and theologians, the point is rather to witness to the world that Catholic theology is not at cross purposes with science. Indeed, when properly understood and articulated science leads us to the creator of this ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe.

Prayerfully yours,
StAnastasia

I know this has no credibility with scientists but I thought this was neat:

The earth is Expanding

 

[Wirraway]

Polycarbonate, like what my reading glasses are made of? Was there perhaps a poycarbonate manufactury in Ur of the Chaldees? Noah could have put in an order for ten or twenty million such jars for the insects.

Don’t forget the weight of the glass and water for all the aquaria on board. There had to be aquaria for both the saltwater and the freshwater fish who could not survive for 150 days in brackish water. And also the heating and filtering equipment and aeration pumps, with their electric motors and the generators to power them.

StAnastasia

it was a special kind of polycarbonate.

simulation of arke life.

the purpose of this post is to demonstrate the logical error of special pleading

 

[StAnastasia]

it was a special kind of polycarbonate.
simulation of arke life.the purpose of this post is to demonstrate the logical error of special pleading

Does anyone know whether in John Woodmorappe’s feasibility study of the ark he looked into whether Noah might have installed composting or solar toilets? That would have solved the human waste problem, but not the thousands of pounds of animal manure per day.

Also, did the ark have sails, or a keel and rudder? I know it wasn’t meant to go anywhere in particular, but a rudder and rudimentary sails would have allowed it to head into the wind to avoid capsizing. Or am I taking this literalness too far?

StAnastasia

 

[Wirraway]

…

Also, did the ark have sails, or a keel and rudder? I know it wasn’t meant to go anywhere in particular, but a rudder and rudimentary sails would have allowed it to head into the wind to avoid capsizing. Or am I taking this literalness too far?

StAnastasia

of course not. ye arke would have to have a way of riding out waves, otherwise, she might roll over. noah could have used a drogue or sea anchor to keep one end or the other pointing into the waves. or he might have run with the wind under storm sails or even under bare poles or run and surfed if he had a responsive helm (unlikely).

so ye arke would need a keel, rudder, and, with its length, she was probably a five or six masted schooner rigged ship. since this is an ultra modern design, ye arke would probably have used a bulbous bow to reduce drag.

hope that helps.

 

[athenaluvsdoves]

1.When someone says that the ark is not a literal event are you also saying that Noah was not an actual person as well?

2.Also, what other miraculous events in the Old Testament would someone consider a myth and are those people non existent, too?

1. Does this myth concept transfer over to the New Testament as well? If so, what miracles in the New Testament are myths?
2. What about the miraculous events in the lives of the Saints?

 

[buffalo]

1.When someone says that the ark is not a literal event are you also saying that Noah was not an actual person as well?

2.Also, what other miraculous events in the Old Testament would someone consider a myth and are those people non existent, too?

1. Does this myth concept transfer over to the New Testament as well? If so, what miracles in the New Testament are myths?
2. What about the miraculous events in the lives of the Saints?

That is where it usually ends up.

 

[patg]

1.When someone says that the ark is not a literal event are you also saying that Noah was not an actual person as well?

We have no way of knowing that (and there is no dogmatic statement requiring you to believe in Noah or the ark). We do, however, know that it is very possible to teach truths using stories involving fictional characters.

2.Also, what other miraculous events in the Old Testament would someone consider a myth and are those people non existent, too?

If you analyze the literary form of the writings (as the Church instructs you to do), you will start to gain understanding in this matter. AND…saying something is a “myth” defines the genre of the writing, it does* not* in any way comment on the truth of the story.

1. Does this myth concept transfer over to the New Testament as well? If so, what miracles in the New Testament are myths?

Yes, you have to understand the literary form of the N.T. stories also. Just as in the O.T., the gospels contain a variety of literary forms and if you don’t understand the form you are reading, you are likely to miss something.

The writings about the miracles of Jesus don’t really tell you much about him except that the authors thought him to be a powerful Jewish “holy man”. The same stories are well documented in the lives of numerous others. The Church specifically states that the words and deeds attributed to Jesus in the gospels are not first hand or even second hand accounts and don’t necessarily reflect what he specifically said or did (see the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels).

1. What about the miraculous events in the lives of the Saints?

What about them? You are not dogmatically required to believe them either and they are purely matters of faith.

and*** yes***, this is where we usually end up…and the Church is just fine with that.

 

[William_inquire]

This stuff is all straight out of the “science” playbook of Protestant Fundamentalist Creationists. It has zero credibility as science, and therefore is worthless, and it has been definitively refuted countless times. If any of this stuff were even remotely true, we would see numerous panel discussions of Noans’ flood and its effects at professional meetings of biologists, geologists, and paleontologists. But it’s not discussed there, because it is total intellectual garbage. It is relegated to the backwater of the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and screenings of Expelled in church basements.

For us Catholics who are scientists and theologians, the point is rather to witness to the world that Catholic theology is not at cross purposes with science. Indeed, when properly understood and articulated science leads us to the creator of this ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe.

Prayerfully yours,
StAnastasia

If any were remotely true… Interesting that idea… because one of the sites you mention actually debunks a “sighting” of Noah’s Ark
and the article was first published in Sept of 1992 Here is an excerpt.
“Over the years, particularly in the mid-1980s, Wyatt repeatedly tried to interest other people in the site, such as former US astronaut Colonel James Irwin, and ICR scientist Dr John Morris. Neither of these men were convinced after on site inspections. In 1985 Wyatt was joined by former merchant marine officer David Fasold and geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner. Both men have since parted company with Wyatt, Fasold disagreeing with him over details, and Baumgardner, while originally being cautiously enthusiastic, is now adamant the site does not contain Noah’s Ark.”
It seems that it is often assumed that sites like these would do anything to promote such a sighting.
Second Point.
Ever heard the term “flat earther” ? It comes out of the Enlightenment. It is anti-christian propoganda. The church was said to be against Columbus going on the voyage because he would “fall off the edge.”
Actually the reason that people in the church were against Columbus’s voyage is because they knew the circumference of the earth. It had been known since Eratosthenes peered into a well at noon and came up with the diameter and circumference of our planet. The concern was that Columbus would run out of food and water.
This stuff has been around quite a long time.
Third point
I am well aware of “pseudo - science” and creationists are not the only ones guilty of it. T S Lyshenko premier scientist of the former Soviet Socialist Republics circa 1930 officially endorsed something other than Darwinistic Evolution. He didn’t have a so called “religious” bias after all he was an atheist in an atheist country.
Let me give you a bit of background: Marxism doesn’t endorse slow gradual change but rather change of a “revolutionary” nature .
So what did he make the philosophy du jour: Lamarkism. It just fit the Marxist worldview better. Had he been around later he probably would have liked Punctuated Equilibrium better( it seems to me anyway)
Fourth point.
You said that there would be numerous panel discussions, if it were remotely true. You make it a dichotomy.
I would state it this way:
If it were false OR if it were thought to be false OR if it was desired to be false, then there would be no panel discussions.

It looks the same under any of these conditions.
Herein lies the problem. You can find discussions on why Jesus “didn’t exist” or other variants of why to not believe. You can also find discussions on why the Roman Catholic Church “did stuff” that it never did. You can find discussions about why the bible “isn’t true”
There are abundant things that people say about Christianity and Jesus and the Bible in order to ignore the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Consider Aldous Huxley, John Dewey, Bultman… they attack because otherwise they would be confronted with the reality of God’s Glory.

 

[StAnastasia]

Second Point.
Ever heard the term “flat earther” ? It comes out of the Enlightenment. It is anti-christian propoganda. The church was said to be against Columbus going on the voyage because he would “fall off the edge.”

There are abundant things that people say about Christianity and Jesus and the Bible in order to ignore the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Consider Aldous Huxley, John Dewey, Bultman… they attack because otherwise they would be confronted with the reality of God’s Glory.

(1) I know – Washington Irving invented the myth of “heroic Columbus” and the “flat earth Church.”

(2) I have seen no serious discussions of Noah’s Ark at scholarly conferences.

(3) Yes, I know there is a lot of nonsense out there about questioning the existence of Jesus.

StAnastasia

 

[athenaluvsdoves]

PatG said:We have no way of knowing that (and there is no dogmatic statement requiring you to believe in Noah or the ark). We do, however, know that it is very possible to teach truths using stories involving fictional characters.

In light of this comment, does the Church then discourage us from asking for the intercession of the Old Testament Patriarchs and other important figures from that time?

 

[Wirraway]

If …ey, Bultman… they attack because otherwise they would be confronted with the reality of God’s Glory.

if you’d concede that ye arke could have possibly had an auxillary engine to help with steering and hoisting sail, I’m prepared, after very careful consideration, to join the arkoids.

 

[StAnastasia]

if you’d concede that ye arke could have possibly had an auxillary engine to help with steering and hoisting sail, I’m prepared, after very careful consideration, to join the arkoids.

Wirraway, I have often thought Noah could have used solar panels to power the propeller after the rain stopped. However, I will not subscribe to the arkoid belief system until they explain the room needed for two-to-seven pairs each of thirty million species. Also, don’t forget that Noah had to take on board a huge volume of plant material. Not many trees, bushes, or other plants wold have survived submersion in salt water for 150 days, so there must have been a considerable arboretum on top of the ark!

StAnastasia

 

[Wirraway]

Wirraway, I have often thought Noah could have used solar panels to power the propeller after the rain stopped. However, I will not subscribe to the arkoid belief system until they explain the room needed for two-to-seven pairs each of thirty million species. Also, don’t forget that Noah had to take on board a huge volume of plant material. Not many trees, bushes, or other plants wold have survived submersion in salt water for 150 days, so there must have been a considerable arboretum on top of the ark!

StAnastasia

the gearing would surely be something to Behold.

as you know, the laws of the physical universe were different in arken times. the sun radiated more intensely in a different part of the spectrum than it does in the modern Fallen days, allowing a more efficient solar collector at a fraction of the size.

 

[William_inquire]

as you know, the laws of the physical universe were different in arken times. the sun radiated more intensely in a different part of the spectrum than it does in the modern Fallen days, allowing a more efficient solar collector at a fraction of the size.

Righteo… You know as well as I do that the laws of physics worked just the same. You also know that the laws are consistent so that if conditions are different that you get different results.

About those Panels… you’d have to have some pretty dim bulbs on them IF the particpants wouldn’t realize that the point of the Flood was that God was judging men.

 

[buffalo]

Righteo… You know as well as I do that the laws of physics worked just the same. You also know that the laws are consistent so that if conditions are different that you get different results.

About those Panels… you’d have to have some pretty dim bulbs on them IF the particpants wouldn’t realize that the point of the Flood was that God was judging men.

As we know now the laws are not deterministic as once thought.

 

[William_inquire]

(1) I know – Washington Irving invented the myth of “heroic Columbus” and the “flat earth Church.”

(2) I have seen no serious discussions of Noah’s Ark at scholarly conferences.
(3) Yes, I know there is a lot of nonsense out there about questioning the existence of Jesus.

StAnastasia

Right and you won’t. Just imagine what that would entail if the entire academic community had to acknowledge the Ark. Since the story is about God’s judgement on people, to acknowledge it as a factual story would force people to deal with being sinful. IF only dealing with acknowleging sin was such a simple matter.

Vastly lesser consequences would be a change from Uniformitarianism to Catastrophism. (both operate on the idea that laws of physics are the same at all times.) Secondary consequences to that would be that this pillar of Darwinistic evolution would come under fire. You cannot have people with academic careers built on this take a change in course.

by the way there are seashells on Mt Everest at the summit, so the the question isn’t whether the land that there was covered with water, but only when and how those changes took place.
.