Talk:Noah's Ark

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The claim that the Chinese character for boat is flawed. The word 'boat' in Chinese is made up of three parts, 'boat', 'mouth' however the last part is not 'eight'. It is a radical which looks similar to 'eight' but in fact is not. It means table. Could this be changed? EvelynJ


"asswaged"?

Yes. Asswaged is the proper Biblical spelling of the modern assuaged, as it is in the original authorized English translation of the Holy Scriptures. Many modern "King James" Bibles actually alter the text, which can lead to confusion and errant exegesis (see "King James Glossary" & "Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles" for other spelling alterations).
Um, how can changing the spelling in a translation result in exegetic problems? JoshuaZ 14:57, 7 March 2007 (EST)
King James-onlyism is not an official position of Conservapedia last I checked. MountainDew 15:01, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Oh my, was that the logic behind the user's comment. *checks link*. Yep, wow. I don't know what to say to that. JoshuaZ 15:08, 7 March 2007 (EST)
In fact, looking at that website in detail it argues for among other things the old-style British spelling of "Savior" as "Saviour" so per Conservapedias rules about British and American English if anything Conservapedia is anti-KJV onlyism. JoshuaZ 15:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)
By that reasoning, any edition claiming to be the King James Version that omits the Apocrypha is counterfeit. What do they have to say about the Apocrypha? Is it OK to omit them? Dpbsmith 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)
(Sigh) Why do I even ask? Yes, they have a pat answer. Dpbsmith 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Well at least they are aware that the apocrpha was in the original KJV. Many KJVist don't even know that. I can spot at least 4 factual errors in that piece though (ignoring things that aren't factual errors per se but just very odd language choice like the "Jewish Church"). What fun. JoshuaZ 16:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Conservapedia is obviously not King-James-only, since the article on the Ark of the Covenant says it was made of "acacia" wood. :-) Dpbsmith 13:37, 10 March 2007 (EST)


Contents

Dates

Excuse me but where the heck are the Roman calendar dates coming from? There is no way that that was the calendrical system in use. Most likely the system refferred to is a lunar calendar or lunar-solar calendar like that that Jews currently use. JoshuaZ 14:59, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Post-Diluvian Content

I am unsure that the explanation of the dispersal of animals from after they exited the Ark is within the scope of this article as it isn't really about the Ark itself. I think instead a separate article on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas should be created and linked to from here. Dr. Richard Paley 08:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I agree. Started article Post-Diluvian Diasporas--AustinM 11:23, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Polar Bears?

Were polar species such as Polar Bears and Penguins to be found on the ark? I'm guessing they would not be friendly with their cell-mates for 40 days: Feeding regiments must have been tricky, but above all the middle-eastern climate must have been damaging to their well-being.

If God can flood the Earth, he can keep penguins alive. MountainDew 01:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If God can keep penguins alive, he could've just let all chosen animals and humans survive miraculously without the need for an ark. ;) --Sid 3050 09:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I included a comment about dinosaurs, which conceivably could have had difficulty coexisting on the Ark with other animals, as another controversial issue about the Ark. However, I'm not sure why it was removed. Fairandbalanced 22:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Not being the one who removed it, I couldn't say for sure, but it was a fairly vague criticism (what "difficulty"?), and not worthy of an encyclopedia article as it stood. However, I don't think locking the article was justified; apart from your (presumably well-intentioned) edit there was only one attempt at vandalism. Philip J. Rayment 22:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. It seems like a fair amount of content on Conservapedia is locked from editing. In addition, it may be worth pointing out that as one possibility, the reason why dinosaurs are extinct is because they were not allowed on the Ark. Fairandbalanced 10:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I was premature in the above comment, as according to this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp, dinosaurs were definitely on the ark. Fairandbalanced 14:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
You are aware that this is a hotly debated topic, yes? --Hojimachongtalk 14:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
It is important to consider that, pace Carl Everett, that dinosaurs and their fossilized 'remains' might well be red herrings of a sort, designed by Satan to trap or confuse the believer. DunsScotus 14:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm, I'll just point you to Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creationism, both classes consider themselves Christian. --Hojimachongtalk 14:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Fairandbalanced: Yes, the Bible says that two (or more) of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing creature were on the ark. This leaves two possibilities: (a) Dinosaurs were on the ark, or (b) dinosaurs were extinct before the flood. However, the second option is ruled out because there are fossils of them in flood-laid deposits, indicating that they were around at the time of the flood.

Hojimachong, I'm not sure what you are getting at there. What is hotly debated? That dinosaurs were on the ark? Although there is a debate over whether the ark existed (as described in Genesis at least), I'm not aware of any real debate on, if the story is true, whether dinosaurs were on it.

DunsScotus: No informed creationist claims that dinosaurs were designed by Satan to trap or confuse believers.

Philip J. Rayment 21:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Pic added

And other improvements will follow. Karajou 21:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Disambig Great Flood

Great Flood should be a separate article, and the title should not have to redirect here. Noah's ark should be about the ark, it's description, and a history of searches for it. Karajou 12:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree, and I've actually started drafting (off-line) an article for the flood itself. Philip J. Rayment 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Objections

This isn't a troll, though it may seem like one at times such is my contempt for the biblical creationist point of view. Bear with me, I'm genuinely interested in the answers to my objections. From my observations, it seems to me that creationists prefer answers to objections that don't break any known law of physics over the ultimate fallback, "god made it so with magic" wherever possible. For example, when it is pointed out that naval engineering even thousands of years later was not up to producing such a large vessel, fundamentalists seem to prefer to postulate that Noah used space frame construction rather than, say, god used magic to bring about a localised increase in the molecular binding force. Of course, none of the so-called "creationist scientists" would actually break out mathematica and attempt to prove such construction is possible, because I suspect in their hearts they know it is not. So, given this, I wonder how the following objections are reconciled with the real world:

The Ark was supposed to be what amounts to a closed system for a year. In a year, animals will eat several times their body weight in food, especially grazers such as rabbits or cattle which derive very little nutrition from that food they eat. It follows that most of the Ark must have been given over to the storage of fresh water and food supplies, thus drastically reducing the space available for animals. Fresh water is always a problem in such situations, humans can drink spirits such as rum, which keep far longer than water does. However, most animals can not. By the second month, the fresh water supplies would be brackish and undrinkable, disease would quickly spread. Similarly, food would rot. It is not possible to preserve fodder for animals for an entire year. How is this reconciled with the rosy picture the bible paints?
As already noted, most of the Ark must have been devoted to stores. It is accepted even by creationists that the Ark could not have contained even one pair of every species, instead they fall back on that ultimate moveable feast, Baramin. Personally, "kinds" simply sounds to me like a pre-scientific word for species, but lets accept the creationist definition for now. Given that we see from the debate topic that creationists do not believe in evolution to the point of a wolf becoming a domestic dog, how is this notion reconciled with the current diversity of species? Even if we accept evolution, how is it possible to reconcile the idea that all existing species descend from the occupants of the Ark, with the idea that all this happened only 5000 years ago? Observably too little time to account for the present diversity.
The flood waters covered the entire world, yet once they had receded the occupants of the Ark were able to exit and continue with their lives much as they had done previously. Considering all vegetation must have been wiped out, how is this possible? As you can observe at any local beach, it takes a pretty hardy type of plant to thrive in a saltwater environment, these plants would be the first to return. Very little else would grow in the immediate aftermath of a global flood. It would take hundreds of years for vegetation to return to anything like what it was pre-flood. In the mean time, how did the animals survive? How did humans manage cultivation in an environment saturated with salt?

--Abrown 13:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Abrown, I'm sure it would have been possible for Noah's wife and daughters to have tended a vegetable and herb garden, perhaps with some (salt-sensitive) citrus trees for the duration of the flood. This would have reduced scurvy among the animals and family members, and provided fresh foodstuffs for the animals. It is important, moreover, to remember that this was the Lord's work, and what the Lord set asunder, He certainly worked to repair. DunsScotus 18:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Scurvy can also be kept in check through the vitamins and minerals that are absorbed in the body through the consumption of various organs, such as: eyes, hearts and livers. Noah's family clearly ate some of the animals to provide necessary nutrition and disease prevention, although some animals unfortunately went the way of the Dodo. I think this makes a lot more sense than salt-sensitive citrus. --Huey gunna getcha 18:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
That might explain why the unicorn didn't make it. There's that story of it being late and missing the boat but perhaps they sacrificed it for the greater good. A scapegoat of sorts. GentlemanSun
See, that only sounds reasonable until you think about it. Think about the number of animals vs. deck space. Maybe that would work with hydroponics and full spectrum lamps, but the bible mysteriously fails to mention any of those. --Abrown 21:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

ABrown, thank you for putting your questions in a fairly civil manner. I couldn't count the number of times I've had sceptics be downright rude about such things. However, I will chastise you a bit, for having such a negative attitude about creation ("my contempt for the biblical creationist point of view") when you obviously have little idea of the concept that you have so much contempt for. Answers to your questions are readily available from creationist sources, so if you don't know them, you haven't looked for them, yet you seem to think you know enough about creationism to have contempt for it! And I'll also chastise you for your putting the term "creationist scientist" in quotes, as though they are not scientists—that's not nice and not fair.

I have to go out shortly, so may not get to answer everything now, but I will be back.

The observations that you mentioned in your third sentence is correct. Despite frequent accusations to the contrary, creationists do not fall back on "God did it", except is certain circumstance (such as the Bible saying that God did it).

I disagree that none of the creationists would do the maths on space-frame construction. They may not have yet, but creationary scientists are relatively few in number and get virtually no government or other funding (except for donations from supporters), which severely limits the research that can be done. If you'd like to fund this research... :-)

Gotta go now; I'll be back. Philip J. Rayment 19:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it is fair to cast doubt on so-called "creationist scientists" scientific credentials. How can any process be called scientific when the theory is pre-existing and unmodifiable? A scientist doesn't start with a theory, and attempt to manipulate the data to fit it. They observe facts and attempt to draft a theory to fit it. The very phrase "creationist scientist" already predefines their views, and those views are unchanging regardless of the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I think the space frame example is a good benchmark for the whole of "creation science", the Bible suggests there existed a man called Noah who build a vast boat. Sceptics of this view have pointed out that there has never existed a wooden boat of similar size, and that it seems that such a boat would be beyond the tolerances of a purely wooden structure. Creationists respond with a theory that it was constructed using techniques humans have only discovered during the 20th century. At this point a real scientist would attempt to create a model to prove his theory is at least possible, but so-called "creationist scientists" do not. All the creationist "evidence" is like this, unfounded speculation with a thin veneer of plausibility. --Abrown 21:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Part 2:

I don't know the specific answers to your questions about life on the ark, but I do know that a creationist has studied these issues extensively and published a book on them. The book is Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study. If you really are interested in finding the answers, I suggest you read that book. He does calculate, if I recall correctly, that only about one third of the space on the ark would be needed to house the animals themselves.

I dispute your characterisation that creationists "fall back" on using baramin. This suggests that species is the obvious intention, and baramin is an unlikely alternative. But why is this so? I know of no reason whatsoever, except for an irrelevant etymological one, for supposing that species was the intention. I also dispute that it is a "movable feast" any more than species is.

You are simply wrong to assert that creationists don't believe in speciation, and they do accept that wolves and dogs are related. Speciation can happen quite rapidly, and the time available since the flood is quite sufficient.

I think the afore-mentioned book also explains how the people and animals survived after disembarking, but the Bible actually explains that they didn't leave the ark until there was new growth. Clearly it wouldn't take hundreds of years for vegetation to return in sufficient quantities to feed the relatively few creatures that had been on the ark. And I also see no reason for supposing that life continued much as it had done before; I expect that life was quite different. The flood waters would have been nowhere near as salty as they are today, so the salt was likely not a problem at all, or a minor one at worst.

What makes you think that creationism is unmodifiable and unchanging? This is nothing more than a sceptic-spread furphy, and is dead wrong. Your rosy picture of impartial scientists observing facts and drafting a theory to fit it is the ideal, but far from reality. If "creationist scientist" predefines their views, then can the same be said of "evolutionist scientist"?

You say that sceptics point out that there has never been a wooden boat of that size, but surely that is (a) an argument from ignorance ("we don't know of one so there must not have been one") and (b) begs the question ("we reject that the ark—a wooden boat of that size—existed, so we therefore know of no wooden boats of that size").

Your comment about space-frame construction only being discovered in the 20th century is itself based on your evolutionary views. Evolutionists believe that man has evolved to be smarter and smarter, so in the past was too primitive to invent great technology. Creationists, conversely, believe that man was created without blemish, and has deteriorated since. It follows that man was smarter in the past (although lacking the accumulated knowledge that we have built up over time). Therefore, how do you know that Noah (or God for that matter, as he gave Noah the instructions) didn't know about space-frame construction, and that it wasn't rediscovered in modern times? Your basis for rejecting this possibility seems to be your evolutionary paradigm, not any inconsistency with the facts nor the creationary view.

Philip J. Rayment 00:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


"Evolutionists believe that man has evolved to be smarter and smarter, so in the past was too primitive to invent great technology." - em.. no, what on earth gave you that idea? average IQ has increased for a number of reasons but nowhere near the levels required to make that statement true. Why is this article locked? --Cgday 12:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

BBC Article: Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark


*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = BBC
| Given = British Broadcasting Corporation
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-03-28
| Title = Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark
| Publisher = BBC News 24
| URL = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4853890.stm
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-13

Hope this helps. HeartOfGold 23:10, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

One other comment. If we only had written descriptions of the pyramids, we would not believe that ancient civilizations could have built them. HeartOfGold 23:13, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Kinds

I think kinds should be linked to Baraminology PrometheusX303 09:36, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Done! Philip J. Rayment 11:24, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

cubit

I suggest the "design and construction" section note that there are different widely-used lengths of the cubit in ancient times (egyptian royal, sumerian nipur, roman, greek, arabic, and the potential that the cubit referred to in Genesis was different than all of them), so we don't really know what the size of the ark was in feet. Ungtss 11:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Do you by chance read Answers Magazine? I agree. You might also want to include which cubit measurement was used in the current cited size, and also add more info to cubit. PrometheusX303 10:06, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
Good to see you again, my friend:). The protection of creationism-oriented articles makes development very difficult without admins dedicated to discussing and making changes. Simple, commonsense edits like this one seem to just sit on talk pages and go nowhere:(. Ungtss 20:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Lets distinguish between articles

I feel that with this subject, there could be a lot of duplication between this one and the Great Flood. This article should be talking about the Ark as you would talk about any vessel. Another way we could look at this is, we shouldn't see any general flood criticisms in this article, but we might have criticisms of the ark as a vessel. Also, we don't need to talk about the life of Noah here, since it's about the vessel itself. Just some thoughts to keep in mind while we edit. --Ymmotrojam 20:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree. And in the same vein, Great Flood is about flood accounts, not about Flood geology, which has its own article.

References

It's common in Bible study notes and the like to put scripture references inline, but in other publications, it's normal to put references as footnotes or the like. This being an encyclopaedia, I think we should put scripture references in as footnotes rather than inline, as they were before Ymmotrojam changed them.

Also, Ymmotrojam removed the explanatory footnote of the flood being a year long. The Bible doesn't spell out in so many words that it lasted a year, so as it's a (simple) deduction from what it does say, I feel that this footnote should have remained.

Philip J. Rayment 23:57, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Depth of the Ark

Is there a measurement for the depth of the Ark? The draft is the measurement from the keel to the waterline. It would be helpful to know the cubic meters for the Ark to understand its size.--Able806 09:47, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Did you see the footnote for the draft? Philip J. Rayment 09:53, 8 December 2008 (EST)
No, I did not, thank you for pointing that out. Could we add the 30 cubits since most hull measurements include depth? I would add it but the page is locked.--Able806 10:01, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Responses to Criticisms

I recently received my copy of Woodmorappe's Ark Feasibility Study and I see that it comprehensibly addresses all of the criticisms listed. I would like to address each criticism with a Response. Is there any chance of this article being unlocked? CherylE 12:27, 29 January 2009 (EST)

I've unlocked it. It's been locked too long anyway. Philip J. Rayment 15:00, 29 January 2009 (EST)

problematic use of reference - the graph

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

apart from the general questionable character of the Noah's Ark article, I as a historian have to object to the graph presented. Obviously methods of ship construction evolved during the first millenium B.C., wherefor the equation of technolgy levels presented is inacceptable. The graph, whereever it may come from, is clearly not based on scientific grounds. The succession of "Roman era, Dark Ages, Renaissance" is clearly made up in regards to general history, history of technology and history of ship-building.

The presented "model" of the Ark is absurd at the least. If one feels the urge to present the Ark as anything other as an allegory, it should be done another way. I would suggest a whole fleet for the beginning...

With best regards,

J.F.H.

Personal tools