When Literalists have to literally lie to sell their literal truth (AKA Adventures in Ark-itecture)

[bigfield]

I applaud your imagination in interpreting the Egyptian art, but the most mundane explanation is the most likely one: the artist drew an inaccurately-small giraffe for some reason--probably to fit it in the panel.

Why can't my explanation be a mundane one too?

The notion that 'there were big people in those days' is not supported by the archaeological evidence, including the lack of giant human skeletons, giant houses, giant clothing etc.

Then there's the fact that Egyptian art in general is not exactly realistic and one should not read too much into what is likely a bit of artistic licence with respect to scale.

Your explanation would make a fun premise for the opening scene in a schlocky PG adventure movie set in ancient Egypt: a discredited Egyptologist explaining his "giant Egyptian" theory to a plucky student, who then stumbles upon a wormhole in the library that takes them back to the Middle Kingdom...

- - - Updated - -

Or maybe the ark was more like pasta which expands when you put it in water.

Gopher wood!

 

[Learner]

]
It pains God to see the suffering he himself created. What a twisted cult.

This God is such an obvious human-created abuser. Punish and torment, make the victims believe it's their own fault, then promise relief. This is clear, textbook psychological abuse.

Well its good you have the humanity and compassion like everyone on the thread with all these atrocious sufferings detested. Since God does not exist according to you, don't you think its time the suffering stops or it should have stopped eons ago by our very own compassions? Or is it impossible because there are no consequences to such actions? Actions of violence and atrocities would then be merely 'relative' between different people , no real rights or wrong.

 

[Atheos]

And that's exactly my point. Once you start invoking magic the whole story becomes even more absurd. Why bother with all the drama when you can just write a quick routine to purge out of existence everything you don't want to salvage?

Is the "Lord Almighty" so unmerciful that he'd rather watch the horror and hear the screams of millions of children struggling for one more breath? The same god who could turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt could just as easily turn millions of humans into topsoil. Problem solved and orders of magnitude less suffering involved for everyone.

I believe it pains God to see this suffering. The prophecy has to be fulfilled and God does not break his word or promises. The whole understanding from Christians is there is a better future.

Revelations 21.4
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

And again I understand where you're coming from. Been there myself. Would you agree though that this simply paints this god as a person who doesn't think things through very well? Did god simply make this arbitrary plan to flood the earth without considering the suffering that would result? He didn't even consider that there might be alternative ways to accomplish the same objective without causing such gratuitous suffering? Did he publish this plan before he had a chance to think it through? Having done so was he just so much of an asshole he couldn't just admit that it was a dumb plan and decide to do things a different way?

As a former christian I know what it's like to assuage my beliefs with platitudes. In this sense the "Noah's Ark" myth is a microcosm of the logical problem of evil. Either Yahweh was too stupid to realize how much suffering this method of accomplishing the objective would cause, or he was quite happy to see all this suffering transpire, or he just didn't have the power to get this done in a more humane way.

 

[Angry Floof]

]
It pains God to see the suffering he himself created. What a twisted cult.

This God is such an obvious human-created abuser. Punish and torment, make the victims believe it's their own fault, then promise relief. This is clear, textbook psychological abuse.

Well its good you have the humanity and compassion like everyone on the thread with all these atrocious sufferings detested. Since God does not exist according to you, don't you think its time the suffering stops or it should have stopped eons ago by our very own compassions? Or is it impossible because there are no consequences to such actions? Actions of violence and atrocities would then be merely 'relative' between different people , no real rights or wrong.

Dreaming up a magical judge doesn't change any of that.

Anyway, you're talking about a minority of people. Your view of humankind is skewed to the negative. Your brain is wired to give many times more attention and resources to negative events. This is the case with all humans.

All is not lost, however, because we also have a great capacity for maturity in our understanding, and to question our perceptions, and to challenge our emotional, animal brain reactions.

Turn off Fox News and look for the good in the world. It's quieter and less flashy than the negative, but there is much more of it.

You can trust yourself to use your executive functions to consciously strive for a better view, and to cultivate your own sense of empathy and compassion for others. You can trust yourself to do a great many things that religion would have you believe you can't, including dealing with uncertainty and injustice in the world with maturity rather than infantile, fearful wishing.

You don't need a magical punisher, and that's a good thing since the universe does not offer you one.

 

[Learner]

Dreaming up a magical judge doesn't change any of that. Anyway, you're talking about a minority of people. Your view of humankind is skewed to the negative. Your brain is wired to give many times more attention and resources to negative events. This is the case with all humans.
All is not lost, however, because we also have a great capacity for maturity in our understanding, and to question our perceptions, and to challenge our emotional, animal brain reactions.

Why do you say my view is skewed and negative ? I was highlighting that suffering is caused by human non compasionates. 'All is not lost' is not something I disagree with or have the need to say anything against.

Turn off Fox News and look for the good in the world. It's quieter and less flashy than the negative, but there is much more of it.

I could have said that too if I'd thought about it.

You can trust yourself to use your executive functions to consciously strive for a better view, and to cultivate your own sense of empathy and compassion for others. You can trust yourself to do a great many things that religion would have you believe you can't, including dealing with uncertainty and injustice in the world with maturity rather than infantile, fearful wishing.

You're preaching to the converted ... all but the fearful wishing bit. Beside (I know you know ) wishing and believing are not the same thing.

You don't need a magical punisher, and that's a good thing since the universe does not offer you one.

Understand your meaning although the term magical punisher is not correct imo but I would say that. I disagree of course.

 

[Learner]

And again I understand where you're coming from. Been there myself. Would you agree though that this simply paints this god as a person who doesn't think things through very well? Did god simply make this arbitrary plan to flood the earth without considering the suffering that would result? He didn't even consider that there might be alternative ways to accomplish the same objective without causing such gratuitous suffering? Did he publish this plan before he had a chance to think it through? Having done so was he just so much of an asshole he couldn't just admit that it was a dumb plan and decide to do things a different way?

As a former christian I know what it's like to assuage my beliefs with platitudes. In this sense the "Noah's Ark" myth is a microcosm of the logical problem of evil. Either Yahweh was too stupid to realize how much suffering this method of accomplishing the objective would cause, or he was quite happy to see all this suffering transpire, or he just didn't have the power to get this done in a more humane way.

Well Atheos as a former Christian yourself ,you know I won.t agree with the above. What can I say? I do understand what you're saying but your descriptive wording can be substituted with descritptive choices from my perspective, painting God differently. Sort of saying the same thing of subject with different meanings.

 

[Lion IRC]

How is the Noachian Flood inconsistent with the age of reefs or ice cores? And don't understand how tree rings would be affected. The Flood story doesn't report that all trees died.

Per Genesis (NASB) 7:18-20 "The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered." The highest altitude tree lines in the world are about 16,000 ft. The world has hundreds of mountain peaks that are thousands of feet higher than this. Do you really think that trees would survive being submerged in a muddy brackish mess for months like this.

The Flood account doesn't say the mountain tops were covered the whole time.
The Flood account doesn't say that all the pine cones were obliterated or rendered sterile.
In point of fact - if you actually read the Flood account - you will see that a bird brought back proof to Noah that there was now dry land emerging. Guess what the proof was?

...Anywho, getting beyond another set of miracle cards... We have a continuum of ice core samples going back roughly 800,000 years. These would not survive a "Noachian Flood". So are you going for the Deluge happening even before 800,000 years ago? Or maybe your god is a trickster god? Or?

I'm sorry. Can you please explain to me why ice cores disprove the Flood?
How cold do you think it gets at the bottom of the ocean?

 

[jonJ]

View attachment 8066
According to this ancient Egyptian depiction on the right,there were big people in those days. Thought provoking in any case.

Judging by the size of the monkey (a marmoset?) that's probably a baby giraffe. They would have been a lot easier to capture and tame than the adults:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7f/17/48/7f1748f9b985ea84b554c9f76f602570.jpg

 

[Lion IRC]

Why two of every creature on earth today?
That wouldn't necessarily be the same number as the theoretical number in Noah's Ark.
You're guessing aren't you? Artistic license?

What number should it be? Go on, I am waiting for you to provide us with hard data.

Oh please!!
You don't mean to say that you want me to provide you with hard data to make up for the very same absence of hard data in the bible which enables you to make stuff up?

Isn't that a little disingenuous?

The bible doesn't quantify total numbers of animals or species or 'kinds'. Neither does it say there were more or less animal species back in those days than there are today.

Yes - that does allow you to speculate.
But it doesn't allow you to refute Ken Ham's speculation aka"artistic license".
Neither does it give you the ability to demand bible literalists provide "hard facts" to dispute your interpretation of the bible.

So then what would the point be in writing that the boat was X cubits long, if the value of a cubit was going to be such a mystery?
Why would Moses have recorded completely meaningless values that way?

The measurements were for Noah's benefit - not Moses'
Noah knew how big a cubit was in the time he was measuring and building.
What difference would it make to Moses ? ? ?

Hey cool fact...a nautical mile is 15% longer than a standard mile.
Imagine how many more animals you could fit into an Arc that was 15% bigger?

Would an ark that was 15% bigger be able to fit all the animals on boards with sufficient provisions to feed and care for them over this incredible voyage. Go on, I am waiting for you to come up with some hard facts.

Yes - clearly the Arc [sic] was big enough. Do you see anything in the text about a lack of room?

 

[Lion IRC]

God did.
Moses didn't make that story up. Moses wasn't guessing how many cubits long or wide. Neither was he in any position to argue.

...Noah knew how big a cubit was in the time he was measuring and building.

Yeah, sure.

Indeed. And that was Learner's point.

...
What difference would it make to Moses ? ? ?

as above...

I'm not sure what the measurements have to do with Moses.
Why would he care?

...Hey cool fact...a nautical mile is 15% longer than a standard mile.

Um... You're inventing a nautical cubit? Seriously?

Wut?
No. I'm pointing out that the word 'cubit' like the word 'mile' cannot be assumed to be an empirical, unchanging measurement. If a cubit in Noah's time was 15% different to some other nominal cubit then obviously that would be an interesting factor.

...
Imagine how many more animals you could fit into an Arc that was 15% bigger?

Fewer, really.
Wooden ships that big would need so much internal support in order to float, there'd be less room for animals or crew.

Floatation is a matter of buoyancy (displacement of water/volume) not internal structural support.
Plus, last time I checked, wood floats.

The ark would be required to weather a storm flood event that is unparalleled in human history. Modern naval engineers would be hard pressed to design a large vessel housing millions of lives today that could hold up in a Category 5 Hurricane, much less the Biblical flood.....

Category 5 hurricane? A vessel with millions of passengers?
Where is that in the biblical text?

All the Ark had to do is float. Wood floats.
Noah's Ark wasn't going on a 'voyage'. It didn't need to be steered or navigated anywhere. There's no tsunamis in the biblical Flood account.

 

[Learner]

Judging by the size of the monkey (a marmoset?) that's probably a baby giraffe. They would have been a lot easier to capture and tame than the adults:

A monkey ,a baby giraffe does seem a convincing possibility to be honest ,well spotted.

 

[Learner]

All the Ark had to do is float. Wood floats.
Noah's Ark wasn't going on a 'voyage'. It didn't need to be steered or navigated anywhere. There's no tsunamis in the biblical Flood account.

Indeed Lion IRC like one great big barge not a sailing ship. Wood floats and weight is of NO consequence to floatation in water (depending on design this would extend this further).
For example below of weight mass in water;

Icebergs generally range from 1 to 75 metres (3.3 to 246.1 ft) above sea level and weigh 100,000 to 200,000 metric tons (110,000 to 220,000 short tons). The largest known iceberg in the North Atlantic was 168 metres (551 ft) above sea level, reported by the USCG icebreaker East Wind in 1958, making it the height of a 55-story building.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg

 

[Keith&Co.]

Indeed Lion IRC like one great big barge not a sailing ship. Wood floats and weight is of NO consequence to floatation in water (depending on design this would extend this further).

how do you figure weight is of no consequence? There's a certain amount of buoyancy for any material, which can be overcome by weight.
In addition to the animals and year's worth of food, there would also need to be ballast weight to keep the thing floating right-side up.

But still, the very size would flex with the waves beyond the wood's ability to flex.

 

[Angry Floof]

Some people should spend more time in the science forum instead of preaching. Holy crap.

 

[atrib]

The ark would be required to weather a storm flood event that is unparalleled in human history. Modern naval engineers would be hard pressed to design a large vessel housing millions of lives today that could hold up in a Category 5 Hurricane, much less the Biblical flood.....

Category 5 hurricane? A vessel with millions of passengers?
Where is that in the biblical text?

All the Ark had to do is float. Wood floats.
Noah's Ark wasn't going on a 'voyage'. It didn't need to be steered or navigated anywhere. There's no tsunamis in the biblical Flood account.

Are you really this ignorant or are you pretending ignorance so you don't have to respond to my point?

A flood is usually the result of a rainfall event that disperses more water over the planet's surface that can be handled through seepage and normal drainage. What kind of rainfall event would be required to raise the water levels in the oceans on the order of 30,000 feet (the height of the tallest mountains) over a period of hours or days? What kind of storm event would produce 1,000 feet or more of accumulation per day over the entire surface of the planet? Hint: the last big storm that produced historic flooding in South Carolina was caused by accumulations of just 8 to 16 inches of rain over a 24-hour period. Assuming that a storm that could dump a 1,000 feet of rain over a day is even possible (it is not), can you imagine the conditions on the surface of this planet as the oceans rose thousands of feet before our eyes? Now imagine the ship that would have to weather this storm and keeps its inhabitants alive for many days. Wood floats, indeed

Ignorance can be cured. Stupid, not so much.

 

[Learner]

how do you figure weight is of no consequence? There's a certain amount of buoyancy for any material, which can be overcome by weight.

Apologies , I meant in relation to the Ark supposedly said to be too heavy to float. But yes you're right there is variying amounts of buoyancy with different materials.

In addition to the animals and year's worth of food, there would also need to be ballast weight to keep the thing floating right-side up.

I'm pretty sure all this would have been thought of in the blueprints, so to speak.

But still, the very size would flex with the waves beyond the wood's ability to flex.

Yes understandable and much similar to the law of some sort (can't remember off hand), that the larger one builds a vessel the weaker or flimsy it becomes. Can't remember exactly how it was coined.

There is an answer to that and that is to consider ; if building a vessel the size of an Ark strong enough to withstand rough waters. One would have to increase in 'proportionate size' every aspect of a similar design required in a much smaller vessel ,similar to the old sailing ships.. Every aspect of fittings to scale in propotionate size.


The strength of the wood is determined by the 'proportionate thickness'. Imagine planks having the thickness of 2 feet, where as the old sailing ships had planks of several inches thick and were (if not now) considered to be fairly big ships of the day that could carry quite some cargo. This would certainly give some impression that an Ark could potentially withstand such forces. Unlike the recent Ark replicas, although big in size but not the same in proportionate strength. It would have only been possible with gargantuan sized trees.

There were a lot of big trees in those days

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is an answer to that and that is to consider ; if building a vessel the size of an Ark strong enough to withstand rough waters. One would have to increase in 'proportionate size' every aspect of a similar design required in a much smaller vessel ,similar to the old sailing ships.. Every aspect of fittings to scale in propotionate size.

I think i mentioned something like that... The internal supports would have to be so massive that there would be little room left for occupants.

The strength of the wood is determined by the 'proportionate thickness'. Imagine planks having the thickness of 2 feet, where as the old sailing ships had planks of several inches thick and were (if not now) considered to be fairly big ships of the day that could carry quite some cargo. This would certainly give some impression that an Ark could potentially withstand such forces. Unlike the recent Ark replicas, although big in size but not the same in proportionate strength. It would have only been possible with gargantuan sized trees.

But then you don't have an Ark, you have a block of wood floating on the water. Not too many animals could be housed inside a solid block.

 

[skepticalbip]

.........snip..........
There is an answer to that and that is to consider ; if building a vessel the size of an Ark strong enough to withstand rough waters. One would have to increase in 'proportionate size' every aspect of a similar design required in a much smaller vessel ,similar to the old sailing ships.. Every aspect of fittings to scale in propotionate size.
....................snip..............

That doesn't work in the real world. Larger ships have very different and much greater stresses than smaller ships. Smaller ships ride the waves so can experience impacts and torquing. When ships become large enough that their bow is being buoyed by one wave and the stern by the next wave the bending force of the full weight of the ship is on the midships which are not being buoyed which can, and has, snapped the keels of large ships (sorta like holding each end of a branch with the center on your knee and pulling on the ends to break it). This is in addition to to the increased pounding and torque that smaller ships experience.

 

[Lion IRC]

Category 5 hurricane? A vessel with millions of passengers?
Where is that in the biblical text?

All the Ark had to do is float. Wood floats.
Noah's Ark wasn't going on a 'voyage'. It didn't need to be steered or navigated anywhere. There's no tsunamis in the biblical Flood account.

Are you really this ignorant or are you pretending ignorance so you don't have to respond to my point?

Ignorant of what? You can say whatever you like about hypothetical stuff not mentioned in the bible. No argument from me.

It's only if you start with the eisegesis that I'm going to challenge your claims.

...A flood is usually the result of a rainfall event that disperses more water over the planet's surface that can be handled through seepage and normal drainage.

You said "water over the planet's surface". Are you talking about the Noachian Flood. Because according to the bible there only ever has been or will be one global flood. So I'm not sure how you can refer to what usually happens.

... What kind of rainfall event would be required to raise the water levels in the oceans on the order of 30,000 feet (the height of the tallest mountains) over a period of hours or days?

Can you please cite the bible verse which informs us that the mountains were 30,000 feet back in those days?
Also, you refer to rainfall. But the bible clearly states that rain was not the only source of flood water.

...What kind of storm event would produce 1,000 feet or more of accumulation per day over the entire surface of the planet? Hint: the last big storm that produced historic flooding in South Carolina was caused by accumulations of just 8 to 16 inches of rain over a 24-hour period.

Even without supernatural rainfall or subterranean water there's already more than enough water to coven the entire surface of the Earth. (2/3rds is already covered.) Hint : take the average depth of the ocean and the average height of land above sea level. Subtract one from the other.

... Assuming that a storm that could dump a 1,000 feet of rain over a day is even possible (it is not), can you imagine the conditions on the surface of this planet as the oceans rose thousands of feet before our eyes?

I ran an experiment in my bathtub at home.
I put in an origami paper boat and started filling up the bath.
It was like a disaster movie. The water kept rising and rising. The boat was buffeted horribly.
It was bobbing and rocking left to right. I prayed really hard for a miracle.
...and you know what? It didn't sink. A simple paper boat. Flimsy and light-weight.

Who would have guessed.

...Now imagine the ship that would have to weather this storm and keeps its inhabitants alive for many days. Wood floats, indeed

You think I should redo the experiment with some miniature animal statues and paper doll Noah cut-out shapes?

...Ignorance can be cured. Stupid, not so much.

God designed Noahs Ark. Humans designed the Titanic.
I know which one I would rather choose.

 

[Learner]

I think i mentioned something like that... The internal supports would have to be so massive that there would be little room left for occupants.

But then you don't have an Ark, you have a block of wood floating on the water. Not too many animals could be housed inside a solid block.

True to first quote.. but it wouldn't just be the internal supports but everything else relative to the internal supports by size.

That doesn't work in the real world. Larger ships have very different and much greater stresses than smaller ships. Smaller ships ride the waves so can experience impacts and torquing. When ships become large enough that their bow is being buoyed by one wave and the stern by the next wave the bending force of the full weight of the ship is on the midships which are not being buoyed which can, and has, snapped the keels of large ships. This is in addition to to the increased pounding and torque that smaller ships experience.

The Ark after being built would obviously just stay stationary till the water rose around it eventually raising the ark. Now unlike a large ship in treacherous seas forcing forwards the Ark just floated along where the waters would flow. What I also meant by proportionate size is for example; you mentioned keels snapping of large ships. The keel for arguments sake in the Ark would take the strain because of its much larger size in diameter. Large trees are known to have reached 25+ feet in diameter.