LV -
Because you state:
lv said:
you have presented a pretty good argument. i guess i have my work cut out for me.
I anticipate you're not finished. Regardless, if it's all the same to you, I'm going to respond to your most recent post (like once I hit "Submit Reply" you have a choice, :p)
First, with regard to the opening for light and the window, we are assuredly not at impasse. I'm perfectly willing to accept your contention as a matter of how the Ark was constructed. I do ask, however, that you present an argument how the openings were sufficient for the task of ventaliation. I also ask that you support your findings with something I can review independantly - identifying the processes at issue and what assumptions are being made.
My point about the UFO museum was not to discern whether you believe or do not believe in ETs personally, but more to demonstrate how the existence of a museum does not command the conclusion that ETs exist and have visited Earth, nor does the Ark Museum establish the Ark existed - and as I've addressed to S&G above, even to the extent the Turkish findings are the Ark (which, as is no surprise I'm sure, I reject), fails to establish it worked.
On the difference between a Naval warship and the Ark, I agree that all that is required of the Ark is that it floats along, unpowered. However, I would ask you how this difference is a critical difference. In other words, you seem to leave it unsaid and implied that the difference between a powered long wooden vessel and an unpowered one has meaning related to the "upper limit" of wooden construction. I accept that this MAY be true, but I'd like to see some support for the contention rather than a simple notation of the difference (which may or may not be consequential)
With regard to the tonnage, you say you've seen as low as 12,000 and as high as 50,000+ Above, I did the calculations assuming a tonnage limit of 60,000 and the Ark still failed to stay afloat considering the Biomass and Food weights I had already calculated.
lv said:
here i disagree, but i suppose it's a technicality. the dove returned with an olive branch. but whatever.
I don't know what this means, and I hope you intend to expand this remark if I'm correct above that you're not finished yet.
On the care of animals, you're welcome to outline whatever procedure you wish (ie hoppers), all I ask is that you list your assumptions, and provide a demonstration of the calculations of how it's supposed to work.
Finally, on the issue of rain - which I fear may take this thread off it's intended course, but feel like addressing anyway - consider:
The "record" for rainfall was 96" in 4 days which I cited on the other thread. I did a quick google this AM and came up with a
Higher Figure which I will use here and did not see when I found the 96" figure.
It is apparently confirmed that it rained 12.9 feet (154.8 inches) in 72 hours thanks to an Indian Ocean Hurricane (Cyclone if you prefer).
12.9 feet divided by 3 days = 4.3 feet of rain per day
4.3 feet per day X 40 days of rain (world wide) = 172 feet of water world wide.
Can we agree that 172 feet of water is insufficient to cover the earth to a depth of at least 15 cubits over it's highest terrestial point? Genesis 7:18-20
15 Cubits is as small as 18" and as large as 27 inches (
Wiki)
The minimum depth of the water must be no less than 270" assuming a flat earth. That's 22.5 feet of water. If we load up the Ark, and put it in 22.5 feet of water, I think the Ark would remain on the ground, but I would have to concede the Ark wouldn't "sink."
The Maximum depth 15 Cubits represents is 405" or 33.75 Feet. Assuming a flat earth, this is all the more rain we'd need, but again - assuming the Cubit is consistent, the Ark need not float at all. Genesis 7:17 specifically states the ark was raised above the Earth, so I think we can both assume we're contemplating more water than either 22.5 feet or 33.75 feet.
Thus, we need to figure out what the highest point on Earth was during Biblical times. Let's ignore the Himalayas and concern ourselves only with the Mountains or Arat. I am unaware of any Biblical citation which identifies the height of any mountain, and sadly we have to engage in some guess work. (If you have a Biblical Cite, please post it, I'd rather work with real Biblical numbers for our purposes here.) Anyway, It would appear that
The Ark is presently resting at a height of 6,524 feet. I think we can both agree that the area is Volcanic, and was probably once lower than it is currently. How much lower, I suppose I cannot say, and in what time frame is it said to have arisen, we have still no identification. But... I'm willing to say it was 6,000 feet lower. Meaning it was 524 feet high, some 92% smaller than today.
The rainfall would have to be sufficient to reach that height + 15 cubits. We'll use the smaller measure since less water is better for believability.
The rain for forthy days must be enough to cover the Earth to the height of 524 Feet plus 22.5 feet = 546.5. Please remember the assumptions I'm making here.. That 524 feet represent the highest point on Earth during the time of Noah. I believe in making this assumption I've pushed credibility far beyond the limit of credibility, but I have done so in favor of making a literal reading more possible.
The record rainfall, again, would come to 172 feet, still well below the 546 feet we need.
Indeed, to match the 546 (which I would say is an exceedinly low estimate of the Earth's highest point during the Flood) we need 40 days of rain = 13.65 feet per day (546 feet divided by 40 days = 13.65 feet per day)
Nearly 10 more feet per day than has ever been observed.
13.65 feet per Day is .57 feet per hour or 6.84 inches per hour for 40 straight days in something that would probably resemble a wordwide hurricane (though, perhaps without the wind?) 11 tenths of rain every minute for 40 days.
It is this - or similar extremes - one must believe in order to believe the Flood occured. One might concede the Earth's highest point was more than 524 feet, but then you need more rain. One might say you need less rain, but then you need an even smaller Earth. To me, and of course we are all free to make up our own minds, this stretches reality past the breaking point. The Noah story cannot be taken literally. While there may be a lesson to be learned from it, and I'd even concede the story may be in reference to some real event that took place but which has been fictionalized, it is to me undeniable that it did not occur as the Bible described. For me, again, the Bible retains value even as a non-literal text, as the book has never been a "fact" book for me.
for the record, so do i
