I love this. This is all based on the assumption that the story is actually true. Would it even be possible for elderly man and his family to construct, not a boat, but an ARK, large enough too fit two of every species on the planet to hold and feed for an undetermined amount of time.
Not to mention the absurdity behind the claim that this event is what wiped out the dinosaurs.
Let me ask you, if this did wipe out the dinosaurs, what happened to the large marine reptiles?
Every early civilization has flood mythology. Every early civilization also either lived on a river, coast, or flood plain. In particular, Jerico would have been the civilization that influenced the Hebrews.
Other than that, physical evidence pretty much proves that there isn't enough water on the planet to completely flood it. Also, there is no fossil evidence to suggest the mass near extinction via water.
Lastly, all evidence has been tampered with by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yar!
Every river cannot overflow and cover the mountains.
Physical evidence proves that at one time there were no tall mountains and deep valleys. In fact much of US was under water. Explain that. There are sea shells on top of the mountains.
That's easy to explain: didn't happen. The water never covered the mountains. Not during human history anyway. Rivers flood frequently, and all early civilizations either lived near rivers or on flood plains, or had extended contact with a civilization that did.
Also, while seizmic activity takes a long time, aquatic life has been around for hundreds of millions of years. so IF there are seashells found on mountains (that aren't a hoax), then they've probably been there before humans existed.
Sea shells can found on the top of mountains due to the shift of tectonic plates which changed the shape of the continents and formed mountains. Those places were once under the sea. This transition, however, would have taken millions of years, not a miraculous overnight flooding. Thus, humans would not have been around at this point and so could not have build an ark. See 'Burgess Shale'.
The reason why you might find fossils of sealife on unlikely places such as tall mountains are because landmasses change over time. As the tectonic plates shift the land mass changes and what was once underwater is shifted up and onto land over a period of millions of years.
As for water levels actually reaching the tips of modern day mountains, the idea is completely impossible if not laughable.
Turkey's got metal in the ground, in a long shape? it must be a boat! Not just any boat, a boat which held two of every single animal on the planet and from which all species on earth today are descended, because an all wise and loving God decided to drown every living thing in a global flood which left no evidence cuz they were doing bad things like having butseks and bowing to gold cows instead of him. Pure science. AZsuperman got TOLD!(DNA and fossils are from teh devil)
Hate to put the damper on the lid CorndogMaker. Noah's Ark did not have to hold two of every single animal on the planet. The creationist "kind" mentioned in Genesis is close to the type "Family" and NOT species. For instance there are many species of chipmunks but on two chipmunks needed to be aboard the Ark.
Sorry. I didn't know you were going with the creationist Super Evolution. One kind of chipmunk can micro-evolve into more than 25 different species of chipmunk and spread all across the world in less than 4000 years and leave no fossil evidence of such an amazing event. Got me there.
Creationists do not believe in evolution as evolutionists believe it. Creationists believe in genetic variation and mixing. The original two animal kinds had all the characteristics that they could potentially have. Breeding allows for this variety.
That's funny. I did my own field study in Turkey and my videos I uploaded on Youtube. Hmm. Where's the cash? Secondly, why did atheist Ekrem Akurgal call it a ship (see video)? Why did Jim Irwin say there's a pattern of iron there? You can't fake radar results, so why do they have radar results? You shouldn't slander people you know.
Not slandering, and whether or not you did research in Turkey is irrelevant. The ark is impossible. You could have found anything, but it was not the ark. The ark is too large, and definitely not seaworthy That I assure you of.
I see your point, but we're looking at a boat shape. Atheist Ekrem Akurgal said it is a ship, it's shaped like a ship, and it's in the mountain regions near the Turkish, Iranian border. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
The problem is simple. the claimed ark is too large to be seaworthy. It would hog and sag due to the motion of the waves. This would cause leakage,and without modern pumps, the bilge could not be kept clear. If the ship did not break, it would sink over time from the water. there are other problems, but it would take longer to write.
Yes, a large wooden ship could hog and sag, but not if it's constructed of metal fittings. And the Durupinar site appears to have a double hull construction to it. We discovered a line of metal, as if it were a pipe or bar that ran continuously under the surface. So I'm quite convinced of it. It's Noah's Ark.
So noah had the ability to forge steel to reinforce the ark. I find this as a very far reaching idea, and as well if it is not done properly, it would still contain the same problems. And any reinforcement would still not solve other problems with the arks construction.
What qualifications does "atheist" Ekrem Akurgal have to claim that this is a ship. As he is an archaeologist I can only ask is he trained in the construction of ships. I am sure he can make the claim that something is there, but to say that it is a ship holds little water. And I can honestly say that radar results are of no value when the ark is impossible.
What is the problem? In order to know what ship looks like you merely find a real one and see where the bolts are planted. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand boats.
No not a rocket scientist, but there is much more to ships than meets the eye. I spent 4 years training in the construction and operation of ships, and several other working in the field. It isn't as simple as knowing where the "bolts are planted". Especially when he is just looking at a formation, and finding some sign of iron. Again I say he is qualified to say that you found something, but to say it is a ship is pure speculation.
Quedorf, there are photos online. Just do a search on old wooden ships. I've seen a number of them and you can easily see where the iron nails were once planted. They are similar to the ones on Noah's Ark. To know a ship takes only the time to see some pictures.
I have seen many wooden ships and worked on the construction of several as well in my career. Believe me I do understand ships, and I still tell you that iron nails would not be a very definitive evidence that it is a ship. Also Iron nails will make very little difference to the structural strength of the ship.
Metal reinforcing yes, but just using metal nails will affect very little. Of course metal will strengthen the ship, but that depends on its uses. Some use bands to reinforce the keel for example. Some use strapping running longitudinally. Some use steel cladding. etc. Many ways, but nails are not very effective.
This can all be simplified. Noahs ark was impossible. Pure and simple. To large to exist. These guys are simply looking for fairy tales, and hoping to cash in.
There is no proof of the Chinese treasure ships size. Only proof ever found was a rudder post, and it was found on shore in a shipyard. Many experts claim the ships were in the range of 250 feet. Of course when other vessels of the time were in the range of 60 feet these did appear quite large. Only record of the ships size are written documents by observers, or much later documents from word of mouth.
Quedorf, why do you question the written records of every single thing that ONLY supports the Bible? Did all these records conspire against atheism? Did a Christian become Chinese in order to prove Noah's Ark? Or did they actually build large ships as their records tell us?
I don't question only these. I am a marine Engineer, and know a thing or two about the construction of ships, and know that these large wooden ships are impossible. Also I know of ballasting problems, and pumping problems the ark would have. it is simply not possible
Being a marine Engineer doesn't quite cut it. When boats are built often times many are made that don't cut it. The engineers don't find out until it's built. And you know as I know that this assumption of wood limitations is built on the last few large wooden boats that were made, these weren't double hulled.
what background do you have in the construction of wooden ships? I am sure that you would like to take the word of the bible over the scientific facts, but that still doesn't change those facts. And I know for a fact that the ark will never be found due to it's non-existence. But all the power to you.
My background is that I spent many hours in the library reading the works of people who were experts in wood ships. And these authors said that the largest woodenships were improved by the use of metal brackets. But none of these ships had double hulls. Now a double hull changes things.
Well fill your boots. there is no point in debating with an "expert" on ship construction. I mean you did read as book or two. Well go on and have fun. Just hope you don't waste too much time and money on this useless endeavor. but just curious though did you bother to do any calculations on the stability factor of a double hull. It is all a give and take. Also still impossible.
Excuse me, it makes no difference if I'm an expert or not. The fact is you have no studies to cite that prove that double hulled wooden ships reinforced with iron fittings could not endure and survive the seas. Show me the studies and convince us.
Honestly I have no studies, because I need no studies. Simple as that. You are the ones who require that as obviously ship construction is not your field, and I understand that. But this does not change the fact that I have no interest in others calculations on something I can do myself. And as far as convincing you, I have a feeling that you do not wish this to be proven false, so you hold on to any flotsam.
Quedorf, an engineer takes the time to come up with contruction techniquest and may come up with several different plans. Each plan is then subjected to tests. The only real test possible is the actual contruction and use of the vessel on the water. That's the only test possible. As a matter of fact you haven't even drawn a plan on a paper. Thus you are trying to prove a negative. And the proof you give: "I am an engineer. Thus it is so."
Well you are wrong on many points. First there are several ways to test without building the actual vessel. The test depends on what you are testing for. Stability, structural, drag, etc. I am not saying that I am an engineer as a form of proof. It is only why i know that the ark is not possible. If you choose to believe me or not is of no consequence to me. I am not trying to be rude, but this is the only way I can say it.
Any engineer could calculate the viability of the ark.The results don't look good.Space ship one is a great example of sound engineering.The designer was so sure is would work,he flew it himself,all the way to space.You believe it would been so difficult to work out if a large wooden boat would float.
The problem is that "any engineer" has never produced any scientific study that proves that the Ark couldn't be feasible. Secondly the truth be told modern atheists base their ideas on wooden ships based on ships that were made of wood but were single hulled. Noah's Ark was double hulled.
"Doubling the hull would also cause additional problems of stress". That's absurd. You can test this on a micro level. What is stronger, laminated wood or plain wood?
Are you implying Noak was able to laminate wood?How exactly? Maybe he had the technology to built the machinery and source a good supply of glue.Double hulled does not mean laminated.Try laminating two wooden beams.And again how did he deal with the bilge problem.
Also I have done calculations for the ark (it isn't really a uncommon thing to do) many years back. Actually together with several other engineers (you really get bored at sea for long periods) did them for fun, and we came to the same conclusion. We tried everything, and always problems. And no one has come up with any new ideas since. We found we could do it, but not under Noahs technology.
You haven't done any calculations. There are multiple configurations and hundreds of possible configurations possible. And all engineers know that a real test is a real ship.
And don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be insulting, but I just cannot understand why people cannot accept facts, over a belief of something. It almost seems to be a fear of the actual truth.
Quedorf, in the past engineers discovered if their ideas worked when their boats were launched and tested. And today, if you're claiming that you can't build a large wooden boat, you're merely repeating what atheist Ian Plimer said, a man who was found to plagiarize alot. Let's not side track this however. The fact is you cannot provide any documentation that shows a double hull cannot work.
No I have no idea who this Pilmer is. i am repeating what I know. The double hull will still not allow it to be as large as claimed. But I it seems you do not want to know the facts, because they are not in line with what you want to believe. And you don't have to explain to me the ideas that have been dreamed up to make this ship possible. I have heard it all. Simply put the ark is possible today, but not under the conditions noah had. I am sure he didn't have a welder.
I am sorry, but I don't need a study by someone outside source. I don't require someone else to do the calculations for me. I think you seem to forget that I said earlier that I was a Marine Engineer, not someone who read a book or two. Spent years in the field. I do know what I am talking about. I know you seem to have a hard time believing this, and well that is your prerogative.
Quedorf, there are experts in every field of science who profer opinions thinking that status makes an opinion valid. And apparently you subscribe to that point of view because you are asking about my credentials. My argument is that status does not make a truth. The fact is your opinion is not valid because you have no study. Where's the study?
Let me ask you this. Why do I need a study to convince myself of something i already know, and can do myself. I do not say that my status makes my opinion valid. I say my opinion is valid because I possess the ability and the background to assess the ark and its feasibility myself, due to the fact that divine intervention or not it is still a ship. I do not claim to be an expert in geology, animal husbandry, or other fields. for these arguments I would require studies.
Your words "divine intervention" does not take away from the fact that you disavow any large ship, including claims made by ancient Chinese documents in relation to their large treasure ships. The Chinese do not make any claims about divine intervention in their ships, nor did they conspire to prove that Noah's Ark could be built and survive the seas.
The chinese ships have no more proof of being as large as they say, as the ark. Many of the claims of the ships being as large as they are came from Marco Polo. He was sailing a 60 foot ship. Next to that a 2 or 3 hundred foot ship would be huge. Exaggeration is not uncommon. I do not dispute the existence of those ships, just the claims of size. And again I dispute this from my knowledge of ship construction.
Anyone who described the pyramids to some one who has never seen them could be called exaggerating the facts. The Colossus of Rhodes has never been seen, nor the Hanging Gardens, yet you choose to focus in on the Chinese ships which were described in elaborate detail, for example how many masts, and all these factors force the ships to be large. Yes inspite of this you selectively tell us to doubt all this, yet not doubt some other historical facts that you haven't seen.
Funny you should mention the pyramids as they were built before the flood.Not only did the Egyptians survive but there continued with the lives as normal.
I love this. This is all based on the assumption that the story is actually true. Would it even be possible for elderly man and his family to construct, not a boat, but an ARK, large enough too fit two of every species on the planet to hold and feed for an undetermined amount of time.
Not to mention the absurdity behind the claim that this event is what wiped out the dinosaurs.
Let me ask you, if this did wipe out the dinosaurs, what happened to the large marine reptiles?
rba718 2 years ago
Every early civilization has flood mythology. Every early civilization also either lived on a river, coast, or flood plain. In particular, Jerico would have been the civilization that influenced the Hebrews.
Other than that, physical evidence pretty much proves that there isn't enough water on the planet to completely flood it. Also, there is no fossil evidence to suggest the mass near extinction via water.
Lastly, all evidence has been tampered with by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yar!
Verrimgard 3 years ago
Every civilization knew about the flood.
Every river cannot overflow and cover the mountains.
Physical evidence proves that at one time there were no tall mountains and deep valleys. In fact much of US was under water. Explain that. There are sea shells on top of the mountains.
VortexDelta 3 years ago
That's easy to explain: didn't happen. The water never covered the mountains. Not during human history anyway. Rivers flood frequently, and all early civilizations either lived near rivers or on flood plains, or had extended contact with a civilization that did.
Also, while seizmic activity takes a long time, aquatic life has been around for hundreds of millions of years. so IF there are seashells found on mountains (that aren't a hoax), then they've probably been there before humans existed.
Verrimgard 3 years ago
The flood water did cover the mountains, otherwise why is there so much oil in the earth? Think about it.
VortexDelta 3 years ago
Sea shells can found on the top of mountains due to the shift of tectonic plates which changed the shape of the continents and formed mountains. Those places were once under the sea. This transition, however, would have taken millions of years, not a miraculous overnight flooding. Thus, humans would not have been around at this point and so could not have build an ark. See 'Burgess Shale'.
Zdrazy 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VortexDelta "Explain that. There are sea shells on top of the mountains."
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Mountain_formation
swilson3d 1 year ago
@VortexDelta "Explain that. There are sea shells on top of the mountains."
Wiki : Mountain_formation
swilson3d 1 year ago
the flood was just caused by the Christian bitches killing pirates, causing global warming, causing rising sea levels
way to go Christians!
Gibsonites 3 years ago
The reason why you might find fossils of sealife on unlikely places such as tall mountains are because landmasses change over time. As the tectonic plates shift the land mass changes and what was once underwater is shifted up and onto land over a period of millions of years.
As for water levels actually reaching the tips of modern day mountains, the idea is completely impossible if not laughable.
rba718 2 years ago
Comment removed
seanfenrir 1 year ago
LOL
Elvisdogg 3 years ago
Why do you not should your face, conman. All bullshit!!!!
nogodscanuck 3 years ago
Turkey's got metal in the ground, in a long shape? it must be a boat! Not just any boat, a boat which held two of every single animal on the planet and from which all species on earth today are descended, because an all wise and loving God decided to drown every living thing in a global flood which left no evidence cuz they were doing bad things like having butseks and bowing to gold cows instead of him. Pure science. AZsuperman got TOLD!(DNA and fossils are from teh devil)
CorndogMaker 4 years ago
Hate to put the damper on the lid CorndogMaker. Noah's Ark did not have to hold two of every single animal on the planet. The creationist "kind" mentioned in Genesis is close to the type "Family" and NOT species. For instance there are many species of chipmunks but on two chipmunks needed to be aboard the Ark.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
Sorry. I didn't know you were going with the creationist Super Evolution. One kind of chipmunk can micro-evolve into more than 25 different species of chipmunk and spread all across the world in less than 4000 years and leave no fossil evidence of such an amazing event. Got me there.
CorndogMaker 4 years ago
Creationists do not believe in evolution as evolutionists believe it. Creationists believe in genetic variation and mixing. The original two animal kinds had all the characteristics that they could potentially have. Breeding allows for this variety.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
That's funny. I did my own field study in Turkey and my videos I uploaded on Youtube. Hmm. Where's the cash? Secondly, why did atheist Ekrem Akurgal call it a ship (see video)? Why did Jim Irwin say there's a pattern of iron there? You can't fake radar results, so why do they have radar results? You shouldn't slander people you know.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
Not slandering, and whether or not you did research in Turkey is irrelevant. The ark is impossible. You could have found anything, but it was not the ark. The ark is too large, and definitely not seaworthy That I assure you of.
quedorf 4 years ago
I see your point, but we're looking at a boat shape. Atheist Ekrem Akurgal said it is a ship, it's shaped like a ship, and it's in the mountain regions near the Turkish, Iranian border. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
VortexDelta 4 years ago
The problem is simple. the claimed ark is too large to be seaworthy. It would hog and sag due to the motion of the waves. This would cause leakage,and without modern pumps, the bilge could not be kept clear. If the ship did not break, it would sink over time from the water. there are other problems, but it would take longer to write.
quedorf 4 years ago
Yes, a large wooden ship could hog and sag, but not if it's constructed of metal fittings. And the Durupinar site appears to have a double hull construction to it. We discovered a line of metal, as if it were a pipe or bar that ran continuously under the surface. So I'm quite convinced of it. It's Noah's Ark.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
So noah had the ability to forge steel to reinforce the ark. I find this as a very far reaching idea, and as well if it is not done properly, it would still contain the same problems. And any reinforcement would still not solve other problems with the arks construction.
quedorf 4 years ago
What qualifications does "atheist" Ekrem Akurgal have to claim that this is a ship. As he is an archaeologist I can only ask is he trained in the construction of ships. I am sure he can make the claim that something is there, but to say that it is a ship holds little water. And I can honestly say that radar results are of no value when the ark is impossible.
quedorf 4 years ago
What is the problem? In order to know what ship looks like you merely find a real one and see where the bolts are planted. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand boats.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
No not a rocket scientist, but there is much more to ships than meets the eye. I spent 4 years training in the construction and operation of ships, and several other working in the field. It isn't as simple as knowing where the "bolts are planted". Especially when he is just looking at a formation, and finding some sign of iron. Again I say he is qualified to say that you found something, but to say it is a ship is pure speculation.
quedorf 4 years ago
Quedorf, there are photos online. Just do a search on old wooden ships. I've seen a number of them and you can easily see where the iron nails were once planted. They are similar to the ones on Noah's Ark. To know a ship takes only the time to see some pictures.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
I have seen many wooden ships and worked on the construction of several as well in my career. Believe me I do understand ships, and I still tell you that iron nails would not be a very definitive evidence that it is a ship. Also Iron nails will make very little difference to the structural strength of the ship.
quedorf 4 years ago
Yuk! I question your integrity. Because my reading of wooden ships points to the fact that those built with metal were stronger.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
Metal reinforcing yes, but just using metal nails will affect very little. Of course metal will strengthen the ship, but that depends on its uses. Some use bands to reinforce the keel for example. Some use strapping running longitudinally. Some use steel cladding. etc. Many ways, but nails are not very effective.
quedorf 4 years ago
This can all be simplified. Noahs ark was impossible. Pure and simple. To large to exist. These guys are simply looking for fairy tales, and hoping to cash in.
quedorf 4 years ago
The Chinese built a serious of boats which were at least 500ft long. This boat is only 15ft longer. What is the problem?
VortexDelta 4 years ago
There is no proof of the Chinese treasure ships size. Only proof ever found was a rudder post, and it was found on shore in a shipyard. Many experts claim the ships were in the range of 250 feet. Of course when other vessels of the time were in the range of 60 feet these did appear quite large. Only record of the ships size are written documents by observers, or much later documents from word of mouth.
quedorf 4 years ago
Quedorf, why do you question the written records of every single thing that ONLY supports the Bible? Did all these records conspire against atheism? Did a Christian become Chinese in order to prove Noah's Ark? Or did they actually build large ships as their records tell us?
VortexDelta 4 years ago
I don't question only these. I am a marine Engineer, and know a thing or two about the construction of ships, and know that these large wooden ships are impossible. Also I know of ballasting problems, and pumping problems the ark would have. it is simply not possible
quedorf 4 years ago
Being a marine Engineer doesn't quite cut it. When boats are built often times many are made that don't cut it. The engineers don't find out until it's built. And you know as I know that this assumption of wood limitations is built on the last few large wooden boats that were made, these weren't double hulled.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
what background do you have in the construction of wooden ships? I am sure that you would like to take the word of the bible over the scientific facts, but that still doesn't change those facts. And I know for a fact that the ark will never be found due to it's non-existence. But all the power to you.
quedorf 4 years ago
My background is that I spent many hours in the library reading the works of people who were experts in wood ships. And these authors said that the largest woodenships were improved by the use of metal brackets. But none of these ships had double hulls. Now a double hull changes things.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
Well fill your boots. there is no point in debating with an "expert" on ship construction. I mean you did read as book or two. Well go on and have fun. Just hope you don't waste too much time and money on this useless endeavor. but just curious though did you bother to do any calculations on the stability factor of a double hull. It is all a give and take. Also still impossible.
quedorf 4 years ago
Excuse me, it makes no difference if I'm an expert or not. The fact is you have no studies to cite that prove that double hulled wooden ships reinforced with iron fittings could not endure and survive the seas. Show me the studies and convince us.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
Honestly I have no studies, because I need no studies. Simple as that. You are the ones who require that as obviously ship construction is not your field, and I understand that. But this does not change the fact that I have no interest in others calculations on something I can do myself. And as far as convincing you, I have a feeling that you do not wish this to be proven false, so you hold on to any flotsam.
quedorf 4 years ago
Quedorf, an engineer takes the time to come up with contruction techniquest and may come up with several different plans. Each plan is then subjected to tests. The only real test possible is the actual contruction and use of the vessel on the water. That's the only test possible. As a matter of fact you haven't even drawn a plan on a paper. Thus you are trying to prove a negative. And the proof you give: "I am an engineer. Thus it is so."
VortexDelta 4 years ago
Well you are wrong on many points. First there are several ways to test without building the actual vessel. The test depends on what you are testing for. Stability, structural, drag, etc. I am not saying that I am an engineer as a form of proof. It is only why i know that the ark is not possible. If you choose to believe me or not is of no consequence to me. I am not trying to be rude, but this is the only way I can say it.
quedorf 4 years ago
Any engineer could calculate the viability of the ark.The results don't look good.Space ship one is a great example of sound engineering.The designer was so sure is would work,he flew it himself,all the way to space.You believe it would been so difficult to work out if a large wooden boat would float.
FEAROFFEET 4 years ago
The problem is that "any engineer" has never produced any scientific study that proves that the Ark couldn't be feasible. Secondly the truth be told modern atheists base their ideas on wooden ships based on ships that were made of wood but were single hulled. Noah's Ark was double hulled.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
Doubling the hull would also cause additional problems of stress.What sort of bilge system would a ship of this size need?
FEAROFFEET 4 years ago
"Doubling the hull would also cause additional problems of stress". That's absurd. You can test this on a micro level. What is stronger, laminated wood or plain wood?
VortexDelta 4 years ago
Are you implying Noak was able to laminate wood?How exactly? Maybe he had the technology to built the machinery and source a good supply of glue.Double hulled does not mean laminated.Try laminating two wooden beams.And again how did he deal with the bilge problem.
FEAROFFEET 4 years ago 2
Whats more absurd.Laminated wood was not invented until 1890.Were did Noah get his pressure press, Mail order?
FEAROFFEET 4 years ago
It said in the bible the gaps were filled with pit or tar,not glued together.
FEAROFFEET 4 years ago 3
Fearoffeet, a simple Google search of egyptian history and laminated wood should answer your question. Laminated wood was no invented in 1890.
VortexDelta 3 years ago
Also I have done calculations for the ark (it isn't really a uncommon thing to do) many years back. Actually together with several other engineers (you really get bored at sea for long periods) did them for fun, and we came to the same conclusion. We tried everything, and always problems. And no one has come up with any new ideas since. We found we could do it, but not under Noahs technology.
quedorf 4 years ago
You haven't done any calculations. There are multiple configurations and hundreds of possible configurations possible. And all engineers know that a real test is a real ship.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
Suit yourself. Believe what you wish. No problem with me. I know the facts and it is a simple as that.
quedorf 4 years ago
And don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be insulting, but I just cannot understand why people cannot accept facts, over a belief of something. It almost seems to be a fear of the actual truth.
quedorf 4 years ago 2
Quedorf, in the past engineers discovered if their ideas worked when their boats were launched and tested. And today, if you're claiming that you can't build a large wooden boat, you're merely repeating what atheist Ian Plimer said, a man who was found to plagiarize alot. Let's not side track this however. The fact is you cannot provide any documentation that shows a double hull cannot work.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
No I have no idea who this Pilmer is. i am repeating what I know. The double hull will still not allow it to be as large as claimed. But I it seems you do not want to know the facts, because they are not in line with what you want to believe. And you don't have to explain to me the ideas that have been dreamed up to make this ship possible. I have heard it all. Simply put the ark is possible today, but not under the conditions noah had. I am sure he didn't have a welder.
quedorf 4 years ago
Quedorf, no such study on wooden double hull ships exist.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
I am sorry, but I don't need a study by someone outside source. I don't require someone else to do the calculations for me. I think you seem to forget that I said earlier that I was a Marine Engineer, not someone who read a book or two. Spent years in the field. I do know what I am talking about. I know you seem to have a hard time believing this, and well that is your prerogative.
quedorf 4 years ago
Quedorf, there are experts in every field of science who profer opinions thinking that status makes an opinion valid. And apparently you subscribe to that point of view because you are asking about my credentials. My argument is that status does not make a truth. The fact is your opinion is not valid because you have no study. Where's the study?
VortexDelta 4 years ago
Let me ask you this. Why do I need a study to convince myself of something i already know, and can do myself. I do not say that my status makes my opinion valid. I say my opinion is valid because I possess the ability and the background to assess the ark and its feasibility myself, due to the fact that divine intervention or not it is still a ship. I do not claim to be an expert in geology, animal husbandry, or other fields. for these arguments I would require studies.
quedorf 4 years ago
Your words "divine intervention" does not take away from the fact that you disavow any large ship, including claims made by ancient Chinese documents in relation to their large treasure ships. The Chinese do not make any claims about divine intervention in their ships, nor did they conspire to prove that Noah's Ark could be built and survive the seas.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
The chinese ships have no more proof of being as large as they say, as the ark. Many of the claims of the ships being as large as they are came from Marco Polo. He was sailing a 60 foot ship. Next to that a 2 or 3 hundred foot ship would be huge. Exaggeration is not uncommon. I do not dispute the existence of those ships, just the claims of size. And again I dispute this from my knowledge of ship construction.
quedorf 4 years ago
Anyone who described the pyramids to some one who has never seen them could be called exaggerating the facts. The Colossus of Rhodes has never been seen, nor the Hanging Gardens, yet you choose to focus in on the Chinese ships which were described in elaborate detail, for example how many masts, and all these factors force the ships to be large. Yes inspite of this you selectively tell us to doubt all this, yet not doubt some other historical facts that you haven't seen.
VortexDelta 4 years ago
I don't recall saying anything about other ancient structures. That is your own little tangent.
quedorf 4 years ago
Funny you should mention the pyramids as they were built before the flood.Not only did the Egyptians survive but there continued with the lives as normal.
jesuslives57 3 years ago