ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags crypto-archaeology , Noah's Ark

Reply
Old 28th April 2010, 04:15 PM   #241
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol View Post
We need a rival arkaeologist to tell us this is a fake?
The Argo hunters are more likely to succeed. At least the Argo could have been real..
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 04:24 PM   #242
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
Originally Posted by Michael Redman View Post
The dispersal of the animals from the ark to the four corners of the earth (it had four corners back then, of course) has such an obvious explanation that it should hardly need expounding: Pangaea.

I would think that an Australian, of all people, would understand that. How else do you explain the presence of English speaking people on your continent? Did they walk across the sea? The marsupials and the hedgehog were settled down as neighbors, just as the Australian and English did. Then they drifted.

The period of time between the landing of the ark and reliable historical records must have been a really amazing time to be alive. Not only were animals evolving before your very eyes, the continents were drifting so fast you could see it happen. A unicorn rancher in Atlantis goes to bed one night only to wake up the next day and find himself herding yaks in a Tibetan monastery. Such times!


And some people say parody and sarcasm is dead.
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 04:33 PM   #243
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,364
Over here, I'm trying to find out what's behind this group, Media Evangelism. They are one of the folks who run the Noah's Ark theme park, here (a pathetic and unknown place, evidently, as everyone I point it out to says, "Whaaa? You're joking, right!")

I suspect the video they produce for this, after those wonderful folks at The History Channel air it in their annual Easter Religious Fervor Festival next year, will be on display with their stuffed animals.

What I'm trying to determine is just how much of a scam they're running. They've evidently set up a "Foundation" called the Rainbow Foundation, which takes donations to help the unerprivileged. But you have to dig deeper to find out what they're assisting these underprivileged in achieving. Why, they're giving them free trips to Noah's Ark Theme Park.

The wording on the Foundation site and the Theme Park site is equally cloudy. No mention of JC or BigSkyDaddy or a hint at the G word at all. Just all sorts of fuzziness about making life meaningful. Tracking a foundation is not that easy in HK. I'm working on it. It looks like they're trying to collect money generically, but funneling it into tickets to their own park.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 04:36 PM   #244
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
Originally Posted by Questioninggeller View Post
According to one of the men involved, this is all faked. Randall Price, who has a history of looking for the Ark, explains:
Quote:
I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site.

... our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.
Full Source
This from me, yesterday. Do I win an internet?
Quote:
The fundies have been "finding" the ark on Mt Ararat for decades now. Funnily enough, whenever they are short of a bit of ready cash in the coffers, suddenly...! One of them finds "evidence" of the ark.

The next step will be to solicit funds from their gullible sheeple for yet another "scientific expedition" by their leadership to Turkey to follow up on this momentous find. That they happen to have to go there via some of the best tourist destinations in Europe - Greek islands, Turkish Adriatic coast, etc - staying at the best resorts, is entirely irrelevant.

L. Ron Hubbard showed them the way in milking the flock...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=87

Last edited by Zep; 28th April 2010 at 04:38 PM.
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:06 PM   #245
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
TalkOrigins disagrees: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH508.html

To date no one has been able to build an all wooden boat anywhere near as large as the ark. Given the number of fundamentalist Christian millionaires, one wonders why they haven't built an ark to the dimensions in the Bible to show that it would hold up against the twisting and bending forces that would occur on a vessel that large.
They can't get any gopherwood.

Some have been built but AFAIK they're all on land for some reason. Must be waiting for rain.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:28 PM   #246
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,172
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has yet mentioned a 1973 Ark Hoax by a guy in Los Angeles:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html

IIRC, he eventually confessed to making a "piece" of the Ark by soaking some scrap wood in soy sauce and baking it in an oven for a few hours. It looked suitably old, and since everyone knows carbon dating is unreliable, it wouldn't matter if if failed a test...
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:34 PM   #247
154
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,887
It would be just like God, in fact, I expect it, that He would again reveal something to the world that makes His Truth clear to all, and those that wish to deliberately and stubbornly reject despite will have no valid excuse even to themselves.
154 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:39 PM   #248
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,353
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
It would be just like God, in fact, I expect it, that He would again reveal something to the world that makes His Truth clear to all, and those that wish to deliberately and stubbornly reject despite will have no valid excuse even to themselves.
I was kind of hoping you could help Him make the truth of the prophecies of Daniel more clear to me, but you seem to have abandoned that thread, just as it was getting interesting. Here were a group of people who said that if they saw a sign, they might believe, and you complained that we turned away from your sign when it was presented. Then, a couple of us took up the cause, and you scampered away to your next sign.

There's no point in being deliberate and stubborn in rejection. You make it so easy that no stubbornness is necessary.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:43 PM   #249
154
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I was kind of hoping you could help Him make the truth of the prophecies of Daniel more clear to me, but you seem to have abandoned that thread, just as it was getting interesting. Here were a group of people who said that if they saw a sign, they might believe, and you complained that we turned away from your sign when it was presented. Then, a couple of us took up the cause, and you scampered away to your next sign.

There's no point in being deliberate and stubborn in rejection. You make it so easy that no stubbornness is necessary.
If you actually care, make the effort to research it for yourself. If you don't care more than that, neither do I.

I will make my brief points for my condemnations here. Nothing more again.

Last edited by 154; 28th April 2010 at 06:44 PM.
154 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:47 PM   #250
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
If you actually care, make the effort to research it for yourself. If you don't care more than that, neither do I.

I will make my brief points for my condemnations here. Nothing more again.
.
No, that's all right, we understand your problem.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:48 PM   #251
154
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by I Ratant View Post
.
No, that's all right, we understand your problem.
No problem here. I'm good.
154 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:48 PM   #252
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
TalkOrigins disagrees: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH508.html

To date no one has been able to build an all wooden boat anywhere near as large as the ark. Given the number of fundamentalist Christian millionaires, one wonders why they haven't built an ark to the dimensions in the Bible to show that it would hold up against the twisting and bending forces that would occur on a vessel that large.


Because there is no need to. The standard procedure is to buld a model. That's the way its done with airplanes as well when testing for design stabiliy. They place it in a wind tunnel and place the model under the equivalent stresses that the full version is expected to undergo. If it holds up-then the large version will also. According to the tersts done on the ark models built to equivalent specifications, it's seaworthy. My question is does anyone have the results of some other identical test but with negative resiults.?

BTW
One of the article points out that a ship was built which closely matched the arks dimensions and the designer was praised for his superb design.

Last edited by Radrook; 28th April 2010 at 06:54 PM.
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:50 PM   #253
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,629
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
If you actually care, make the effort to research it for yourself. If you don't care more than that, neither do I.

I will make my brief points for my condemnations here. Nothing more again.
Condemn away. It will make no difference to anyone here, but will make for good, and funny, reading.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:52 PM   #254
154
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Condemn away. It will make no difference to anyone here, but will make for good, and funny, reading.
I condemn no one, but I am roundly condemned here. Ask anyone, or just read the hostility.
154 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:53 PM   #255
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
It would be just like God, in fact, I expect it, that He would again reveal something to the world that makes His Truth clear to all, and those that wish to deliberately and stubbornly reject despite will have no valid excuse even to themselves.
There, that's better.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:54 PM   #256
154
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
There, that's better.
No it's not. Don't lie. It makes no difference to you.
154 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:56 PM   #257
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post


One of the article points out that a ship was built which closely matched the arks dimensions and the designer was praised for his superb design.
Praised by whom?
And did the ship have adequate accomodation and fodder storage for all the animals?
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 06:59 PM   #258
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by George152 View Post
There are a few problems with building a ship to the size of the supposed ark.
The strength of wood over such a large area.
Hogging and sagging.
Pumping the bilges.
Storing all that feed.
Mucking out.

The largest ships recovered from history are the Sun Barques from the boat burials at Khufu's Pyramid. Each around 120 feet long.


What I'm requesting are the results of a test identical to the ones which proved its seaworthiness but which proved the design unseaworthy. Can you provide that as a rebuttal against these other test results?
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:00 PM   #259
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
No it's not. Don't lie. It makes no difference to you.
Lie? What lie?
Pointing out that the 'again' made no sense is a lie?
If god had already revealed his truth (sic) to the world so that it was clear to all, doing it again is redundant. If god has not already made his truth clear (as clearly he has not since so many have failed to grasp it) then 'again' is redundant.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:03 PM   #260
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
A model built to the specs of the Ark, using materials scaled to suit, would have the same problems surviving tests in a water channel that the full-scale would have faced in the real world, were it possible (it wasn't) to have built such a structure with the technology of the times.
As mentioned, the boat is 4 times the length alone of the largest boats of the period, image appended, which were so flexibly constructed due to the lack of experience with naval architecture concerning larger vessels the only way they were even passably seaworthy was to place a large twisted fiber rope from bow to stern to keep the thing from breaking in half or hogging in a rough sea.
And this boat was built by those -with- experience building boats, not a bunch of herders and gardeners suddenly confronted with a need to construct a vessel that wouldn't be feasible for another 3000 years, at the very least, while using materials totally unsuited for the task, -and- to go to the corners of the earth, on foot, and collect breeding pairs of -all- the animals found, -and- bring these, and enough fodder/food (think eucalyptus and bamboo for the koala and panda, just for an example), -and- the eight people building the impossible boat and collecting the animals... it can't compute!
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:06 PM   #261
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
Praised by whom?
And did the ship have adequate accomodation and fodder storage for all the animals?

The answer to that is in the article which is asbout seaworthiness. I know already you disagree. Repeating it without providing supporting statistics based on a test serves no purpose. Do you have documentation of a test proving the ark design unseaworthy? If so why not make the article available? That would be more convincing.

Last edited by Radrook; 28th April 2010 at 07:09 PM.
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:07 PM   #262
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
I condemn no one, but I am roundly condemned here. Ask anyone, or just read the hostility.
I have seen some robust criticism, but not hostility.
Can you give a cite of something you interpret as hostility?
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:12 PM   #263
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
The answer to that is in the article which is asbout seaworthiness. I know already you disagree. Repeating it without providing supporting statistics based on a test serves no purpose. Do you have documentation of a test proving the ark design unseaworthy? If so why not make the article available? That would be more convincing.
Which article?
Of course I disagree. The whole idea of the ark is ludicrous and I am gobsmacked that anyone intelligent enough to operate a computer can even begin to believe that maybe it is true.
No I have no documentation that 'the ark design' is proven unseaworthy.
it is irrelevant, because such an ark could not have carried all the animals, and fodder, so whether it floated or sank makes no difference.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:21 PM   #264
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,353
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
If you actually care, make the effort to research it for yourself. If you don't care more than that, neither do I.
I already have, but a little bit more input is always welcome. There's so much to read that it's unlikely that I'm familiar with everything.

So it goes. You've lost interest. It always seems to happen when the details start coming out. Right now, there is a lot of interest in the Ark because there is absolutely no doubt that someone has found something made of wood, and made a video which they say comes from Mount Ararat.

Then, a bunch of crazy archeologists will come in and start saying a bunch of stuff about how it isn't actually a boat because they did some tests and blah, blah, blah, and all sorts of details that no one cares about..until the next ark comes around.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:29 PM   #265
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,629
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
I condemn no one, but I am roundly condemned here. Ask anyone, or just read the hostility.
I suggest you start communicating in clear English then because:

Quote:
I will make my brief points for my condemnations here.
Can be easily read as you making condemnations via brief points.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:31 PM   #266
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
Which article?
Of course I disagree. The whole idea of the ark is ludicrous and I am gobsmacked that anyone intelligent enough to operate a computer can even begin to believe that maybe it is true.
No I have no documentation that 'the ark design' is proven unseaworthy.
it is irrelevant, because such an ark could not have carried all the animals, and fodder, so whether it floated or sank makes no difference.
That's another subject altogether. I'm talking about seaworthiness test results that would refute the results proving it seaworthy. You say you have none. OK. Then, if I were you, I would not venture to vociferously proclaim the design unseaworthy until I acquired test results which at the very least contradicted the ones provided.


BTW
You ask which article. Both articles. Two independent tests I believe.
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:35 PM   #267
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
 
JoeyDonuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,536
I see a lot of "filling in the blanks" on the part of the fundies when it comes to the Ark design.

The bible lays out the dimensions of the thing as a whole, but doesn't say squat about its design layout or how they managed to account for stressess on a wooden vessel that large, which would be enormous.

They seem to want it both ways. They want you to believe that the Ark design is simultaneously scientifically valid and miraculously possible.

I call this "hedging" or "cowardice."
__________________
EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!
JoeyDonuts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:52 PM   #268
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I suggest you start communicating in clear English then because:



Can be easily read as you making condemnations via brief points.
That's the way I read it.
Are you saying it means something else?
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:54 PM   #269
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,629
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
That's the way I read it.
Are you saying it means something else?
Well he says he doesn't condemn anyone, so it seems it does mean something else.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 07:57 PM   #270
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
That's another subject altogether. I'm talking about seaworthiness test results that would refute the results proving it seaworthy. You say you have none. OK. Then, if I were you, I would not venture to vociferously proclaim the design unseaworthy until I acquired test results which at the very least contradicted the ones provided.


BTW
You ask which article. Both articles. Two independent tests I believe.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I made no proclamation on seaworthiness, vociferous or otherwise.
And the reason I asked 'which article' was I didn't know which article you referred to.
I asked who had praised the designer, and whether adequate provision was made for accomodation and fodder for all the animals.
So, again, which article should I be looking at?
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:18 PM   #271
Schrodinger's Cat
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,456
Radrock...

To your knowledge, have there ever been any tests which can demonstrate how a handful of people could gather the amount of resources needed to hold all the known animals and the ones we have yet to discover, minus the sea animals. And keep in mind they would have to be kept separate. And you would need each specific food for each animal and MANY animals can only eat a specific kind of food, like koalas with eucalyptice, as someone pointed out. And then with the carnivores, You would need to keep animals to feed them, and food to feed THOSE animals.And remember you'd need to keep all the freshwater fish on the ark too, how were they stored? What about bugs? Each bug would have it's own individual compartment. Think of how
Many bugs there are. And some of THOSE bugs are carnivorous, so you'd need to keep bugs to feed other bugs.

Has anyone demonstrated in a test how it is possible to gather the resources needed to build such a structure, in a short time period, by a small amount of people, and to stock it?

If the answer is, "God did it, it was a miracle." Then that is a matter of faith.

But if it's a matter of faith, then why bother testing the. Floatability of the ark and try and act like there's scientific evidence supporting it when whether or not it would foat isn't anywhere near as troublesome to me as the points I pose above.
Schrodinger's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:19 PM   #272
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
That's another subject altogether. I'm talking about seaworthiness test results that would refute the results proving it seaworthy. You say you have none. OK. Then, if I were you, I would not venture to vociferously proclaim the design unseaworthy until I acquired test results which at the very least contradicted the ones provided.


BTW
You ask which article. Both articles. Two independent tests I believe.
.
A reasonable history of water navigation.
The type of watercraft most likely to have been in common use in Mespotamia would be the coracle, a round lightweight boat, which could have been used as the floatation devices -underneath- a modestly sized and fenced platform on which Utnapishtism's ancestor collected his local animals and floated safely when the Black Sea flood occurred.
But large enough to suit the terms of Genesis... not possible.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Traditional_fishing_boats
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:24 PM   #273
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
I think you have me confused with someone else. I made no proclamation on seaworthiness, vociferous or otherwise.
And the reason I asked 'which article' was I didn't know which article you referred to.
I asked who had praised the designer, and whether adequate provision was made for accomodation and fodder for all the animals.
So, again, which article should I be looking at?
Both articles. I posted the links. Just click and read. I know the reference is in one of the articles. I'll look it up later so I can be more specific.

Last edited by Radrook; 28th April 2010 at 08:25 PM.
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:30 PM   #274
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
It would be just like God, in fact, I expect it, that He would again reveal something to the world that makes His Truth clear to all, and those that wish to deliberately and stubbornly reject despite will have no valid excuse even to themselves.

Try harder to not be delusional. Have you no shame?
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:33 PM   #275
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,364
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post

BTW
One of the article points out that a ship was built which closely matched the arks dimensions and the designer was praised for his superb design.

My goodness! Someone not paying attention to details might just think you're making it up as you go along. Since you stated "both" in a subsequent post, would you please point out to me the exact text in BOTH of those links that specifically mentions:
1. That someone BUILT a model of the ark.
2. The praise he/she received for it.

Neither of those articles says anything of the kind.

And the two articles tend to contradict each other in a few points. The more devious of the two being the Korean Creationist study that takes such liberties and leaps of faith that it makes me want to heave! I paraphrase:
"We don't know what the profile of the ark looked like, but several (liars) parties have claimed to have found the ark so we'll go by their comments..."
Yeah? Now there's a legitimate scientific source. Several parties who all argue about having found the one true ark have made assumptions that are required in order for their findings to be even remotely possible, so we'll just base an engineering study on it.

They also have a really great line about the timber where they say, (and again I parphrase), "Mebbe conditions were different in the area at the time and it's possible that trees grew higher than 10 metres". There is no reason to even mention this in their study (considering that the damned vessel was going to require some sort of joints regardless of 9 m trees or 11 m trees). Ergo, they're just filling space with blah blah so that they sound like they did some research.

More important, though, is your direct fabrication. Neither of those two reports cites anyone having built an ark, to scale or to actual size, and neither of them praises him/her for(not having) done it. Further, if you find someone "praising" a model elsewhere, please make sure it's an independt marine surveyor or naval architecht(this side of Heiwa, of course, as I have reason to believe even his ship design claim is fraudulent), because "praise" from a publication whose primary mission is Praisin' The Big Sky Daddy is not considered peer review where I come from.

I go with my first option. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:34 PM   #276
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
No problem here. I'm good.

That's the problem. You're not good.

Your beliefs are ridiculous, you lack integrity, and your moral system is so skewed that it has become evil.

The damage that your beliefs have done to this world are unforgivable.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:34 PM   #277
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
Both articles. I posted the links. Just click and read. I know the reference is in one of the articles. I'll look it up later so I can be more specific.

You seem not only to be confusing me with someone else, but also referring me to articles which have nothing to do with what I asked.
I clicked and read the first link I could find from you, and the article said nothing about any designer being praised(not even god) and made no mention at all of the provisions made for accommodating and feeding animals.
So, which article?
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:35 PM   #278
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat View Post
Radrock...

To your knowledge, have there ever been any tests which can demonstrate how a handful of people could gather the amount of resources needed to hold all the known animals and the ones we have yet to discover, minus the sea animals. And keep in mind they would have to be kept separate. And you would need each specific food for each animal and MANY animals can only eat a specific kind of food, like koalas with eucalyptice, as someone pointed out. And then with the carnivores, You would need to keep animals to feed them, and food to feed THOSE animals.And remember you'd need to keep all the freshwater fish on the ark too, how were they stored? What about bugs? Each bug would have it's own individual compartment. Think of how
Many bugs there are. And some of THOSE bugs are carnivorous, so you'd need to keep bugs to feed other bugs.

Has anyone demonstrated in a test how it is possible to gather the resources needed to build such a structure, in a short time period, by a small amount of people, and to stock it?

If the answer is, "God did it, it was a miracle." Then that is a matter of faith.

But if it's a matter of faith, then why bother testing the. Floatability of the ark and try and act like there's scientific evidence supporting it when whether or not it would foat isn't anywhere near as troublesome to me as the points I pose above.
Here is an article that addresses many of your questions.

Caring for the animals in the Ark
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...or-the-animals
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:35 PM   #279
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
I condemn no one, but I am roundly condemned here. Ask anyone, or just read the hostility.

Roundly and justly condemned.

I think you've been getting off easy.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:36 PM   #280
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,364
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
Both articles. I posted the links. Just click and read. I know the reference is in one of the articles. I'll look it up later so I can be more specific.
Oh, good. You posted this as I was preparing my screed. Great! So you're repeating this nonsense.

I call you! Show your cards. I've got a measly pair, but mine's the pair that you provided and said had these words of praise FOR SOMEONE WHO BUILT AN ARK. Please show us the exact words. None of this I'm Too Busy crap.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.