Noah's Flood

[James]

Hello, I just discovered these forums and I was surprised to learn about the number of people here who believe in a global flood. Could anyone wha shares this view explain to me how a global flood could be possible or plausible? Thanks.

[Socrates]

James

There are a number of explanations on Theology Web already, so I won't reinvent the wheel. I also recommend www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp and www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp .

Soc.

[James]

Hey Socrates,

Sorry if that's already explained in these forums, but in the "Archeology" section I didn't see any topics explaining it. I'll take a look at those web sites. I'm mostly interested in an explanation for how many people think a global flood could have happened.

-James

[James]

Ok, I looked at most of the links on those pages, and the only links that seemed to touch on what I was interested in were the "Where did the waters come from?" and "Where did the waters go?" pages. Unfortunately they did not have a very detailed explanation.

They do say that the water from a global flood came from beneath the earh's crust because significant water from the "firmament in the sky" would have cooked the earth. I don't really understand how this is possible, though, because wasn't Noah on land near the Middle East when the flood started? If the crust ruptured how could he survive?

Does anyone know of any information that addresses these questions?

[James]

Does anyone have anything to say about the mechanism of Noah's Flood? I have not found this question answered on any website. Should I post this in the biology section? That are seems more active.

[Hitch]

The explanation I've always liked answers the problems associated with total submergence by contrasting the notions of enough water to cover the 'highest hills' the world over at the same time with a massive tide. Caused by a close encounter with a massive space body or a similarly massive perturbance in the orbits of the moon,Earth and or Mars. In this model the source of the 40 days of rain is the disintegration of a comet. Precipitated as rain near Noah&Co and as ice along the northern and southern magnetic poles*. The same model allows for massive quantities of water held in the atmosphere before the supposed collision.

* Im not very scientific but let me know if you're interested in this theory and I'll find the source. The portion regarding the placement of the ice always intrigued me. In my location the ice reached just below 45 degrees north. While areas in Siberia above 72 degrees north were clear.

Take care

Hitch

[James]

If you or anyone else has more detailed information about any mechanism, I'd be interested.

I don't really understand the ice comet one, wouldn't it get very hot and evaporate when it hit the atmosphere? (Like the shuttle that just exploded because of the bad heat tiles)

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 09:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65312#post65312)
James:

If you or anyone else has more detailed information about any mechanism, I'd be interested.

I don't really understand the ice comet one, wouldn't it get very hot and evaporate when it hit the atmosphere? (Like the shuttle that just exploded because of the bad heat tiles) If memory serves the force involved is gravitational and the disintegration is caused when the invading body reaches Roche's Limit ( sp?) and competing internal and external gravitational forces.:In this case the moon/earth system actually pull the body apart. This is what happened several years ago when a comet came apart as it approached Jupiter.

Since you're interested I will find that source and post it in a day or two.

take care

H

[Hitch]

I've been cradling my old paperbacks of the series for years and tonight I find it all on the net




http://www.creationism.org/symposium/

Look under Donald W. Patten

This will show you where you can obtain a hard copy. Patten's paper is not available for downloadP

Try Patten's own site

http://www.eskimo.com/~dwpatten/

Take care

Hitch

[Socrates]

James:Ok, I looked at most of the links on those pages, and the only links that seemed to touch on what I was interested in were the "Where did the waters come from?" and "Where did the waters go?" pages. Unfortunately they did not have a very detailed explanation. This is not a very specific charge. What did they lack?They do say that the water from a global flood came from beneath the earh's crust because significant water from the "firmament in the sky" would have cooked the earth. I don't really understand how this is possible, though, because wasn't Noah on land near the Middle East when the flood started?Not necessarily. We have no idea where he was, because the Flood totally changed Earth's topography. If the crust ruptured how could he survive? On the Ark, an immensely stable barge that could have survived waves several times as high as tsunamis -- see Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_ArkSafety.asp).

[James]

Today @ 12:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65714#post65714)
Socrates:

This is not a very specific charge. What did they lack?

I was mostly interested in things such as: Where the water came from, how it was stored, what caused its release, where it went, and what evidence supports these mechanisms. I didn't see any specific info on those sites that fully explained these points. Thanks for the reply.

[James]

Yesterday @ 10:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65574#post65574)
Hitch:

If memory serves the force involved is gravitational and the disintegration is caused when the invading body reaches Roche's Limit ( sp?) and competing internal and external gravitational forces.:In this case the moon/earth system actually pull the body apart. This is what happened several years ago when a comet came apart as it approached Jupiter.

Since you're interested I will find that source and post it in a day or two.

take care

H

Interesting idea Hitch. Did the source where you got this from explain the size of an object that would be torn apart this way, or whether the size of the object between the Earth and moon matters? It just seems like astronauts would be concerned with that effect if it acted on smaller objects.

The main concern I had with the ice particle idea was that the ice particles would heat up as they entered the atmosphere. If my physics is correct, the energy due to the earth's gravitational pull on the ice would be converted to heat as the ice rubbed up against the atmosphere. This would probably cause the ice to evaporate into very hot steam and cook the earth, or have a whole number of other negative effects. I also wonder where the water went if so much extra water was introduced from space.

-James

[James]

By the way Hitch, thanks for the websites, but they only list books for order and I really don't wish to buy any right now.

-James

[James]

Are there any models of a worldwide flood that work with the known laws of physics? I can't find any on the internet.

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 09:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68084#post68084)
James:

Are there any models of a worldwide flood that work with the known laws of physics? I can't find any on the internet. Sure ya can, right next to the one abour the Resurrection...

H

[James]

Hitch, wouldn't you say that a worldwide flood would leave a considerable amount of evidence all over as opposed to the Resurrection of Christ which physically affected one man in one place?

[James]

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

[Socratism]

Since there is no credible conventional explanation for the geological layers, it amazes me when people say there is no evidence for a global flood when they are probably standing on it right now.

Wasn't there a classic novel about hiding things in plain sight?

[SLPx]

04-12-2003 @ 06:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64189#post64189)
James:

Ok, I looked at most of the links on those pages, and the only links that seemed to touch on what I was interested in were the "Where did the waters come from?" and "Where did the waters go?" pages. Unfortunately they did not have a very detailed explanation.

They do say that the water from a global flood came from beneath the earh's crust because significant water from the "firmament in the sky" would have cooked the earth. I don't really understand how this is possible, though, because wasn't Noah on land near the Middle East when the flood started? If the crust ruptured how could he survive?

Does anyone know of any information that addresses these questions?

Isn't it also strange that after being afloat on turbulent waters for so many months in an unseaworthy wooden vessel with no steering that it just happend to alight really close by where it left from?

[James]

Today @ 09:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70830#post70830)
Socratism:

Since there is no credible conventional explanation for the geological layers, it amazes me when people say there is no evidence for a global flood when they are probably standing on it right now.

Wasn't there a classic novel about hiding things in plain sight?
If it's so simple, why doesn't someone just answer the question? I'm asking how people who believe in a worldwide flood think it happened and no one has given a straight answer. Can you give me an answer, socratism?

[James]

Poll: do people who believe in a global flood just do so because it's in the Bible or is there any evidence to prove it?

[tgamble]

04-12-2003 @ 05:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63675#post63675)
James:

Hello, I just discovered these forums and I was surprised to learn about the number of people here who believe in a global flood.

It amazes me to. The global flood claim was rejected over 200 years ago by Christian geologists because the evidence didn't support one. Today, it's still rejected by geologists including Christians with only a very few exceptions. Those who still cling to do so solely on blind faith.

Could anyone wha shares this view explain to me how a global flood could be possible or plausible? Thanks.

Not likely. But even if they could, they still wouldn't have any evidence that one occured. There is also loads of evidence that one simply didn't happen (the order of the fossil record can't be explained with a flood for example). The problems of animal care on the ark, survival of marine life, plants, Algae, bacteria, viruses, genetics, ecology, species distribution, historical records etc. There is simply no evidence for a global flood and no reason to assume one ever occured even if it were possible.

[tgamble]

04-17-2003 @ 02:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70830#post70830)
Socratism:

Since there is no credible conventional explanation for the geological layers, it amazes me when people say there is no evidence for a global flood when they are probably standing on it right now.

Are you kidding me? There have been explanations for over 200 years! The layers were laid down over millions of years and the order represents the evolution of life over the last 4 billion years.

[dizzle]

Much better Gamble, thank you.

[Socrates]

SPLX:Isn't it also strange that after being afloat on turbulent waters for so many months in an unseaworthy wooden vessel ...What would SPLX know about seaworthiness? He has probably just parroted nonsense from one of the many gutter atheist websites around. I would rather trust professional Korean naval architects who calculated that the Ark could have navigated waves several times higher than a typical tsunami -- see www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_arksafety.asp ... with no steering that it just happend to alight really close by where it left from?Who says? We have no idea where it started from, because the antediluvian topography would have been totally rearranged by the Flood, especially with catastrophic plate tectonics www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/tectonics.asp

[tgamble]

Today @ 10:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75816#post75816)
Socrates:
What would SPLX know about seaworthiness? He has probably just parroted nonsense from one of the many gutter atheist websites around.


As apposed to your parroting nonsense from some gutter christian website. But of course, you still haven't offered any actual evidence that the ark could survive a global flood. You can't build boats that big even with modern building materials.

You still haven't offered any explanation to the many problems I and others have pointed out.

[tgamble]

AIG is about as likely to conclude that Noah's ark couldn't survive as Mother Teresa is to get an abortion.

Who says? We have no idea where it started from, because the antediluvian topography would have been totally rearranged by the Flood, especially with catastrophic plate tectonics

Nevermind that there's no evidence for catastrophic plate tectonics.

[James]

Soc, I read through some of those articles that say that the flood, separation of continents, and rising of the mountains happened at the same time. I believe this is called "catastrophic plate tectonics." This model leaves me with a few uncertainties regarding mountain ranges.

I live near the Appalachian mountains in the Eastern United States. I have been a hiker for many years, and have spent some time on the Appalachian trail and at the top of some of the higher peaks in this range. The Appalachians show signs of advanced erosion, and are very old. Usual models of plate tectonics predict that the early Appalachians, a "folded" type mountain range, were formed from a collision between the North American and European tectonic plates, which subsequently experienced erosion. Then, after drifting apart for some time, the North American and European plates collided once again approximately 500 million years ago to form what is commonly referred to as "Pangea." This second collision formed a second set of folded mountains to the east of the original Appalachians. The plates have drifted apart again since to leave the earth that we see today, and the Appalachians have experienced significant wear and erosion. There are several parallel chains of mountains forming the Appalachian range, and the westernmost mountains are eroded much further than the eastern, newer mountains, which follows from two separate collisions of plates with a time gap in between. I do not see how the catastrophic plate tectonics model can account for the Appalachian range.

Also, there is a great variety in the types of mountain ranges found on this planet. There are 4 general categories, which are composed of volcanic ("Ring of fire"), Erosional (Rocky mountains, western US), Fault-block (Sierra Nevada mountains, Nevada), and folded (Appalachian mountains, Himalaya mountain range, Ural mountains). I don't see how a single catastrophic motion of plates could have accounted for all these fine distinctions. For example, certain volcanic formations (The Hawaiian islands, for one) show evidence of a gradual growth. The Hawaiian island chain is made by the gradual motion of the Pacific plate over an ocean ?hot spot,? which has formed each of the islands one at a time in succession. The formation pattern of the Hawaiian islands is a record of the motion of the Pacific plate. Plate motions are also observed today.

-James

[Socratism]

Nice story James, but it is only a story.

[James]

Would anyone mind explaining how a catastrophic model can account for several different types of mountains, parallel Appalachian mountain ranges at different stages of erosion, and the formation of the Hawaiian islands?

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76829#post76829)
James:

Would anyone mind explaining how a catastrophic model can account for several different types of mountains, parallel Appalachian mountain ranges at different stages of erosion, and the formation of the Hawaiian islands?

Trying to reconstruct events which are not happening today is probably an exercise in futility, even though I realize that evolutionary oriented geologists try to do this all the time.

Actually the best evidence for the historicity of the Flood is the multiplicity of stories all around the globe that nevertheless have an amazing number of common elements to them.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/17051.htm

Also see the extensive collection at talk.origins

[James]

I'm really not interested in the history of different culture's flood myths, I just want to know how a global flood could have formed the geological features we see today. Is there anyone who has information in this regard on the Hawaiian islands and the different mountain ranges?

[Socrates]

tgamble:But of course, you still haven't offered any actual evidence that the ark could survive a global flood. I have, by all normal criteria for designing ships. More to the point: it was SPLX who parroted atheistic arguments that the Ark could NOT have survived, so how about trying to prove THAT?!You can't build boats that big even with modern building materials.Then abuse the professional naval architects who wrote the article. And gamble is evidently blissfully unaware that since the 19th century, boats bigger than the Ark HAVE been built.

[James]

I give up, I haven't been able to find any information on the Hawaiian islands or many other topics. One last try, do any believers in a global flood have any idea how the Hawaiian islands were formed, along with the 3 other types of mountains that exist on the earth?

[Bubba]

Larger ships have been constructed, Soc, but with modern building materials. I think (Unless I'm wrong) that was the point.

Bubba

[Socrates]

Blubba:Larger ships have been constructed, Soc, but with modern building materials. I think (Unless I'm wrong) that was the point.Don't blame me if your atheistic buddy gamble is too incompetent to express himself properly. And the paper I cited pointed that only 30 cm thickness of wood would be needed for the Ark to be able to navigate sea conditions with 30-m-high waves. So THAT is what biblioskeptics have to deal with. Less stable wooden ships used a weak plank-to-frame construction, but the Ark could have been such a 30-cm-thick monocoque.

[Socratism]

I heard a story about a huge airplane that was constructed almost entirely of wood. My source said that it was the largest heavier than air craft ever built.

Surely this must be a myth.

[James]

Maybe we could change the topic back to the actual flood and not the ark... does anyone have a new model to propose by which the flood could have happened?

[Socratism]

04-29-2003 @ 10:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81904#post81904)
Socratism:

I heard a story about a huge airplane that was constructed almost entirely of wood. My source said that it was the largest heavier than air craft ever built.

Surely this must be a myth.

Hint: search on the "Spruce Goose"

Better yet, try this link:

http://www.sprucegoose.org/Specification.htm

or this:

http://www.sprucegoose.org/Brief%20History.htm

[Vorkosigan]

Don't blame me if your atheistic buddy gamble is too incompetent to express himself properly. And the paper I cited pointed that only 30 cm thickness of wood would be needed for the Ark to be able to navigate sea conditions with 30-m-high waves. So THAT is what biblioskeptics have to deal with. Less stable wooden ships used a weak plank-to-frame construction, but the Ark could have been such a 30-cm-thick monocoque.

Here's a page on monocoque construction techniques.[url]

[url=http://brandt.kurowski.net/projects/lsa/wiki/view.cgi?doc=975]Here's another one (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/monocoque/DI89.htm)

Interesting assertion. Have monocoque techniques been used to build ships that exceed the historical size limit for wood?

Vorkosigan

[Socratism]

I think the basic problem is that most of us have been conditioned to consider that people in ancient times were essentially "cave men" like the drawings in popular literature and even textbooks and museums.

If we consider that our current modern technology is only a few hundreds of years old, then it is not that hard for me to believe that pre-flood people were not all that different than today and perhaps had technology and techniques not all that different than we have.

Let us hope that humanity never again descends to the depths of evil behavior that necessitated the cleansing of the entire globe in preparation for a "fresh start".

My own wild speculation, based only on ancient legends including those of Atlantis, is that genetic experiments had been conducted which essentially polluted the genomes of the entire human race, except for a few who like Noah were said to be "perfect in their generations".

Thus, the necessity of a wholescale cleansing, including otherwise innocent children, and perhaps many animals as well.

Perhaps someday we will find out the rest of the story.

[Socrates]

Vork:Have monocoque techniques been used to build ships that exceed the historical size limit for wood?Not sure. Why not? Remember, the assertion by the likes of gamble and splx was that the Ark could not have been seaworthy. I suggested a possible way the Ark could have been seaworthy, and this is all that's needed to refute their claims. And the Korean naval architects have demonstrated the seaworthiness by standard modeling. Another way to considerably strengthen a ship compared to the weak plank-to-frame connections is to use mortise and tenon jointing.

[Vorkosigan]

I asked

Have monocoque techniques been used to build ships that exceed the historical size limit for wood?

And Socrates has not given us an answer. Can they be used to build large ships (they are used for canoes)?

And the Korean naval architects have demonstrated the seaworthiness by standard modeling. Another way to considerably strengthen a ship compared to the weak plank-to-frame connections is to use mortise and tenon jointing.

Yes, I am sure with mortise and tenon jointing it would have been no problem for Noah to exceed the physical limits for wood, and build a ship 100 feet longer than any wooden ship built by any subsequent culture, no matter how advanced.

I do admire the Koreans' ingenuity, and sense of humor, though.

Vorkosigan

[Jimmy Higgins]

Funny. Seeing that no creationist has yet to specify the loading on the boat, the weight of the boat, the structural integrity of the boat, the overdesign of the boat (if applicable), the external forces the boat was subjected to, the depth of the boat kept under water at all times, the ballast of the boat, etc...

I'd see no reason why anyone should openly accept the fact that the boat was stable. Heck, no one even knows how many animals were on the boat. Simple math I've done shows that 2/3's of the boat would have to of been beneath the water to carry 7000 "kinds", half clean / half unclean.

The flood hasn't been modeled and neither has the ark. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the building material, gopherwood, is unknown. No one knows its characteristic, ie unit weight, elastic modulus, etc... Very veyr difficult to model something out of a material you know nothing about.

[Goochdad]

Mortise and tenon joinery? Huh? To join the planks of a ship to the frame? SockRace, a mortise is a HOLE in the wood. You're talking about putting hundreds of holes in the planks, to try to join them to the frame? Or what exactly ARE you proposing?

Shipbuilders have used mortise and tenon joinery for thousands of years. They use it to join frame to knees, for example. Care to provide me an example of how a shipbuilder might use a mortise and tenon to join the planks to the frame?

I'm completely flabbergasted that anyone would even suggest something as irrelevant and nonsensical. It seems fairly obvious you've never done any boatbuilding, Sock.

[James]

I just created a Noah's Ark thread for everyone who wants to talk about the feasibility of the ark. Do any flood believers know of any possible flood models that haven't been discussed? That is the purpose of this thread.

[bhukkadakota]

i think when the bible was written they didnt know the earth was round
so i guess when god made this flood he just assumed after a while all the water would just fall off the edge
theres no proof of such a flood ever

[Bubba]

What we are missing here is real num,bers from creationists on how such a large ship could have been built.


Bubba

[Ted]

On the original thought of this thread:
Please consider that I have published a paper on the issue of global flood mechanisms, taking into account the physical data in scripture of the antediluvian world. It is called "A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood." You can read it at: http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF. I stand ready to comment after the skeptics have considered the data.

[Socratism]

The flood hasn't been modeled and neither has the ark. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the building material, gopherwood, is unknown. No one knows its characteristic, ie unit weight, elastic modulus, etc... Very veyr difficult to model something out of a material you know nothing about.

And yet some have demanded that such be done. Go figure.

What is significant to me is that some of these same critics have told us that the Flood story was simply a myth devised by primitive nomads and sheepherders who passed it down orally around the campfire. How did these ignorant savages come up with details that critics struggle to show are impossible?

They must have been incredibly lucky ------- or else .....

[Mechanical Blis]

Yesterday @ 05:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93056#post93056)
Ted:

On the original thought of this thread:
Please consider that I have published a paper on the issue of global flood mechanisms, taking into account the physical data in scripture of the antediluvian world. It is called "A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood." You can read it at: http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF. I stand ready to comment after the skeptics have considered the data.

What data? All I see here are a bunch of unsubstantiated, hand-waving assertions with the insert-a-miracle-here method of constructing a "model" when they cannot give a realistic explanation that actually concerns physical evidence such as the fact that there is not enough water on earth in the first place, not to mention the bit about volcanos can't exist before the flood because they would be fatal to the model whether or not there is evidence that shows this--those types of assertions. Nor do they address the most problematic aspects of geology fatal to YECism and the global flood model such as angular unconformities, radiometric dating (which is merely hand-waved away), varves, certain strata not deposited by water, certain strata deposited by precipitation, paleosols, metamorphism, unconformities where there are weathered and reworked inclusions in the above stratum, etc.

The article pretty much sums it up when it says:

At this point it is important to understand that we do not believe the Biblical account of the flood is true because we can prove it scientifically. Rather, we believe the biblical account because it is God's word.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether the evidence supports a global flood or not--it's that the Bible says it's true therefore it is.

Furthermore, this article was written by a medical doctor and a physicist not qualified as geologists, so they are pretty much speaking outside of their realm of qualifications anyway.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93475#post93475)
Socratism:
What is significant to me is that some of these same critics have told us that the Flood story was simply a myth devised by primitive nomads and sheepherders who passed it down orally around the campfire. How did these ignorant savages come up with details that critics struggle to show are impossible?Details? What details?
And the Lord said, "To qualify as a composite column, the following limitations shall be met:
(1) The cross-sectional area of the steel shape, pipe, or tubing shall comprise atleast four percent of the total composite cross section.

(2) Concrete encasement of a steel core shall be reinforced with longitudinal load carrying bars, longitudinal bars to restrain concrete, and lateral ties. Longitudinal load carrying bars shall be continuous at framed levels; longitudinal restraining bars may be interrupted at framed levels. The spacing of ties shall be not greater than two-thirds of the least dimension of the composite cross section. The cross-sectional area of the transverse and longitudinal reinforcement shall be at least 0.007 sq. in. per inch of bar spacing. The encasement shall provide at least 1 1/2-in. of clear cover outside of both transverse and longitudinal reinforcement.

(3) Concrete shall a specified compressive strength f sub c prime of not less than 3 ksi anor more than 8 ksi for normal weight concrete and not less than 4 ksi for light weight concrete.

(4) The specified minimum yield stress of structural steel and reinforcing bars used in calculating the strength of a composite column shall not exceed 55 ksi."

You mean those type of details? By the way that is taken from the LRFD Steel Design Manual. I don't have timber design manual on hand to quote.

The bible gives barely any details.
1) It lists the only building material, gopher wood, which is unidentifiable! How can one do an analysis on an object made of a material no one has heard of?

2) It gives bare dimensions. 300x50x30 cubits.

3) A window

4) 3 decks

5) A door in the side (duh, where else would it be?)

Man, if a client came to us for an ark design and we gave him these blueprints to build it by, well, I think we'd be sued.

There is not a single detail on the design of the ark, so stop fooling yourself.

[papabryant]

04-22-2003 @ 06:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75891#post75891)
tgamble:



As apposed to your parroting nonsense from some gutter christian website. But of course, you still haven't offered any actual evidence that the ark could survive a global flood. You can't build boats that big even with modern building materials.


I would suggest that you contact the archivist at the U.S. Naval Academy. A few years back the Academy sponsored a contest for their engineering students to design an "unsinkable" ship. They worked in teams and produced models which were then placed in a wave tank and subjected to simulated storms 5 times worse than the most powerful recorded hurricanes. The only ship to survive was the model of Noah's ark.

It has been an number of years since I have read the news story about the contest, but it should be available under the Freedom of Information Act from the Academy.

Peace, Tom

[papabryant]

05-09-2003 @ 01:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91784#post91784)
bhukkadakota:


theres no proof of such a flood ever

Actually, there may be, but it hasn't been researched very well yet.

It seems the iridium layer found worldwide at the geological boundaries of the Cretatious (sp) period shows evidence of wave action when looked at in a top-down cross section.

Most scientists believe this iridium layer was caused by the meteor that is thought to have crashed into the Earth at that time.

My theory, (and so far I have found nothing much in the way of research on the subject to back my idea up) is that the meteor hit in the ocean, evaporating the meteor material AND causing massive tidal waves (thus the waters coming up from the Earth).

As the sediments settled back down out of the atmosphere, through rainfall that would have accompanied such an explosion, it mixed with the ocean water which, when receeding, produced this wave action noted in the scientific literature. (I believe SA had an article a few years back, and if my memory doesn't fail me that is where I first read about the wave action - evidence.)

Again, I am just putting together bits and pieces I have read from memory, but if the scientific literature is accurate this would be plausible for a worldwide flood scenario.

Peace, Tom

[Socrates]

Jimmy rants :rant::There is not a single detail on the design of the ark, so stop fooling yourself.So? The Bible doesn't have to provide exhaustive detail. It's enough that it provides overall dimensions, which turn out to be ideal for stability. And all Jimmy's posturing about how he, a mere B.S. engineer, knows more than professional naval architects who have demonstrated the Ark's stability, is just laughable :lol:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93913#post93913)
papabryant:
I would suggest that you contact the archivist at the U.S. Naval Academy. A few years back the Academy sponsored a contest for their engineering students to design an "unsinkable" ship. They worked in teams and produced models which were then placed in a wave tank and subjected to simulated storms 5 times worse than the most powerful recorded hurricanes. The only ship to survive was the model of Noah's ark.

It has been an number of years since I have read the news story about the contest, but it should be available under the Freedom of Information Act from the Academy.

Peace, Tom Never happened.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 07:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94115#post94115)
Socrates:
Jimmy rants :rant::I though Socrates was supposed to stop saying stuff like that?
There is not a single detail on the design of the ark, so stop fooling yourself.So? The Bible doesn't have to provide exhaustive detail.Socratism alluded that scientists have been trying so hard to disprove the ark, but I noted that there aren't nearly enough details to design one and to do an analysis on it. It's enough that it provides overall dimensions, which turn out to be ideal for stability.According to whom? Do you think if the side of that ark wasn't braced enough, that it'd still survive a thrashing of waves. Very doubtful.
And all Jimmy's posturing about how he, a mere B.S. engineer, knows more than professional naval architects who have demonstrated the Ark's stability, is just laughable :lol: Actually, if I had money, I'd of got my Masters in stuctural engineering (got accepted to Case Western), but I couldn't afford it and decided that taking up so many more loans would be unwise. I don't merely have a BS in engineering. I have a civil engineering degree from a very good engineering school. I've designed and have analyzed. I can find loadings in a any particular beam from an entire building high rise structure. Can you do that?

And by the way, architects don't know squat about structural analysis. They exist because if Civil Engineers designed how things looked, everything would be cubes. Architects make things look nicer and they have a broad understanding of structures, but to say an architect knows more about design and analysis of structures just proves how much you don't know Socrates.

(editted by me to correct my terrible and misotheistic misspellings)

[papabryant]

Today @ 08:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94146#post94146)
Jimmy Higgins:

Never happened.


Go contact the Naval Academy and prove me wrong.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94188#post94188)
papabryant:
Go contact the Naval Academy and prove me wrong. And in Yellowknife there is a chemical weapons plant that is making weapons for the Syrians. Go to Yellowknife and prove me wrong. :ahem:

How about a cite or two for your claim?

[papabryant]

The following are all the phone numbers at the U.S. Naval Academy web site: I'm sure one of them will at least refer you to the correct department to find the information.

USNA Switchboard (410) 293-1000
Academic Dean (410) 293-1583
Action Information Line (recorded events) (410) 293-3109
Alumni Association (410) 263-4448
Ambulance (410) 293-3333
Athletic Association Ticket Office 1-800-US-4-NAVY
Bancroft Hall Main Office (410) 293-5001
Candidate Guidance Office (410) 293-4361
Chaplain Center (410) 293-1100
Commandant of Midshipmen (410) 293-7005
Duty Officer-On Base 0
Duty Officer-Off Base (410) 293-1000
Fleet and Family Service Center (410) 293-2641
Ethics/Honor Office (410) 293-7020
Fire Department (410) 293-4444
Information & Guided Tour Service (410) 263-6933
Library, Nimitz (410) 293-2420
Naval Academy Museum (410) 293-2108
Naval Institute Book Store (410) 268-6110
Public Affairs Office (410) 293-2291
Registrar's Office (410) 293-6383
Visitor Center Gift Shop 1-800-778-4260

[Jimmy Higgins]

What researching! What is the number for made up facts?

Why can't you cite a single paper on the issue? Because it never happened!

Hey! You got the number for NASA? I can ask them about that computer model they were running that indicated a "missing day" as attributed to Daniel. :doh:

[papabryant]

Well, since you won't call the Naval Academy... I took the liberty of e-mailing the Office of Public Affairs -- http://www.usna.edu/PAO/ ---- requesting the information.


To whom it may concern,

I am seeking information on a contest among Naval engineering students that was reported on by the Associated Press. I do not remember what year the contest was held, but the contest consisted of students trying to design an "unsinkable" ship, and was won by a student team whose design was based on the Biblical accounts of Noah's Ark.

Any assistance you can provide in tracking down the details of this contest would be helpful. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

God bless the Navy, and America,

Tom Bryant

Jacksonville, Fl

I sooooo look forward to their reply.

(You didn't call them yourself because you don't like filling out paperwork in triplicate, right?)

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94388#post94388)
papabryant:

Well, since you won't call the Naval Academy... I took the liberty of e-mailing the Office of Public Affairs -- http://www.usna.edu/PAO/ ---- requesting the information.




I sooooo look forward to their reply.

(You didn't call them yourself because you don't like filling out paperwork in triplicate, right?) Good for you. I bet they just love spam. :spam:

How about a single citing for this event?

[dizzle]

Man I HATE hypocrisy. Jimmy you seriously objecting to 'rant' while you purposefully mispell Soc's name to insinuate something very unflattering? And for the record, no Soc was never told to stop using 'rant' entirely. He was told to stop satirzing people's names to mean terms that we would not allow to pepper every posts, and now you are getting the same warning Jimmy.

[dizzle]

Jimmy has PMd me (thank you Jimmy for obeying the Rules) and told me that I misconstrued his misspelling. I believe him, and apologized for thinking ill intent where there was none. However, I am not going to major on the minors with phrases like "rant." Debate forums requires a certain degree of skin thickness. Soc has been told not to use such phrases every other word, but its use above is not something we are going to police in every instance. As I told Jimmy, the heavy hand looks good on someone else, but if we were that zealous, a great many others here would feel it as well. If we keep things to a dull roar we are doing pretty good.

[SLPx]

Yesterday @ 12:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94737#post94737)
Dee Dee Warren:

Jimmy has PMd me (thank you Jimmy for obeying the Rules) and told me that I misconstrued his misspelling. I believe him, and apologized for thinking ill intent where there was none. However, I am not going to major on the minors with phrases like "rant." Debate forums requires a certain degree of skin thickness. Soc has been told not to use such phrases every other word, but its use above is not something we are going to police in every instance. As I told Jimmy, the heavy hand looks good on someone else, but if we were that zealous, a great many others here would feel it as well. If we keep things to a dull roar we are doing pretty good.


The irony is staggering....