Noah's Ark Replica

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Johan's Ark: Noah's Ark Replica Crashes Into Moored Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel, Officials Say
The crash occurred in Oslo, Norway, Friday. A military patrol boat and the 230-foot long replica created by Dutch carpenter Johan Huibers, who reportedly used the Bible's measurements, were damaged.




Two of every species of animal in the entire world and all of the food necessary to feed and maintain them all for months was going to fit into that? REALLY?

Does anyone foresee any problems here?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If the waters covered all the mountain peaks world wide there would have been an ocean level at an altitude of 29K above the sea level we have now...........at that height the air would be too thin and the temperature would be well below freezing.......no place for survival of anything that would have been on a boat.

Objection! As the water rises, so would sea level. The Ark, supposedly floating on the water surface would always be at sea level, even when all the mountain were covered. The actual change in air pressure (force over area) would be insignificant as an increase of 29k ft in the Earth's radius would only lead to a mere 0.2% increase in its surface area, with a similar force pushing down from air above.

Objection! This would require the spontaneous creation of matter, in the form of water, where none had previously existed, violating the law of conservation of energy. Would God have violated His own (apparently) law? The Krmn line, the line between the earth's atmosphere and space is established at 62 miles above sea level. Mt Everest at just over 29,000 feet is roughly 5.5 miles above sea level. The obvious solution for the source of the water necessary to raise sea level to above the top of Mt Everest while not violating physical law would be to convert the atoms of the atmosphere into water. 78% of the earth's atmosphere is nitrogen. Ten atoms of nitrogen can be reconfigured into seven molecules of water. Less volume of air would necessarily have resulted in a reduced atmospheric pressure at sea level. Isn't God wonderful?

[JehovahsWitness]

Objection! As the water rises, so would sea level. The Ark, supposedly floating on the water surface would always be at sea level, even when all the mountain were covered. The actual change in air pressure (force over area) would be insignificant as an increase of 29k ft in the Earth's radius would only lead to a mere 0.2% increase in its surface area, with a similar force pushing down from air above.

Interesting, post. So if I understand correctly, if the water level of the entire planet rose the air would not thin (physics for dummies please)?

JW

[Zzyzx]

.

Objection! As the water rises, so would sea level. The Ark, supposedly floating on the water surface would always be at sea level, even when all the mountain were covered. The actual change in air pressure (force over area) would be insignificant as an increase of 29k ft in the Earth's radius would only lead to a mere 0.2% increase in its surface area, with a similar force pushing down from air above.

Interesting, post. So if I understand correctly, if the water level of the entire planet rose the air would not thin (physics for dummies please)?

JW, from one who has taught meteorology to graduate level, density of air (atmosphere) at any point is a function of the mass of atmosphere (air molecules) above the given position (and thus atmospheric pressure 29.92" mercury at present sea level). If sea level rises worldwide, any position at sea level would still be at the "bottom of the atmosphere" and still at or near 29.92", so density would be relatively unchanged from present.

Likewise, temperature of the lower atmosphere is related primarily to temperature of the Earth surface (it is heated largely from below) -- and would not be expected to decrease with a rise in sea level -- as would be expected to accompany an increase in elevation within the atmosphere (1/30 of itself every 1000 feet).

Temperature and density are NOT very good arguments against the flood. Thee are FAR better arguments -- such as the one billion cubic miles of water that would be required to suddenly appear and then to disappear from the Earth's hydrology in a few months.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.

Objection! As the water rises, so would sea level. The Ark, supposedly floating on the water surface would always be at sea level, even when all the mountain were covered. The actual change in air pressure (force over area) would be insignificant as an increase of 29k ft in the Earth's radius would only lead to a mere 0.2% increase in its surface area, with a similar force pushing down from air above.

Interesting, post. So if I understand correctly, if the water level of the entire planet rose the air would not thin (physics for dummies please)?

JW, from one who has taught meteorology to graduate level, density of air (atmosphere) at any point is a function of the mass of atmosphere (air molecules) above the given position (and thus atmospheric pressure 29.92" mercury at present sea level). If sea level rises worldwide, any position at sea level would still be at the "bottom of the atmosphere" and still at or near 29.92", so density would be relatively unchanged from present.

Likewise, temperature of the lower atmosphere is related primarily to temperature of the Earth surface (it is heated largely from below) -- and would not be expected to decrease with a rise in sea level -- as would be expected to accompany an increase in elevation within the atmosphere (1/30 of itself every 1000 feet).

Temperature and density are NOT very good arguments against the flood. Thee are FAR better arguments -- such as the one billion cubic miles of water that would be required to suddenly appear and then to disappear from the Earth's hydrology in a few months.

Either God simply "spoke" this extra water into existence, much as He did the universe itself, once again violating the laws of physics, or He converted something else into water and then back again. What would you suggest as a candidate for the most likely source for this matter? Accepting, of course that the entire premise is ridiculous from the very start. Given that a good portion of the atmosphere is composed of water already, if a portion of the atmosphere of the earth could be converted from mostly nitrogen atoms into water molecules, while still maintaining the oxygen levels at a breathable 20%, what THEN would this resulting drop in the mass of the atmosphere cause the atmospheric pressure to be at 29,000 feet? Like most things involving religion, I notice that the science is much easier if we just assume that "God did it," and leave it at that.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 43 by Zzyzx]

Thanks very much, I have heard these arguments (if the ark rose above the mountains everyone would have suffocated or something along those lines) and not known how to answer, now I do.

Your explanation is much appreciated.

JW

(love this site!!)

[Zzyzx]

.

Thanks very much, I have heard these arguments (if the ark rose above the mountains everyone would have suffocated or something along those lines) and not known how to answer, now I do.

Your explanation is much appreciated.

I'm sincerely glad to help evaluate the merits of arguments.

Those two are incorrect and among the weakest arguments against the flood. The most compelling one from the point of view of Earth science is the tremendous volume of water that would have to magically appear and disappear -- three times the total Earth hydrology -- one billion cubic miles.

Fanciful "explanations" claiming that the mountains were lower back then contradict everything we know about the Earth and its landforms / continents / processes. NO evidence is presented to back that speculation.

"Explanations" involving the changing configuration of continents are pseudo-science -- otherwise known as "junk science" with NO verification -- just pure speculation. Time differences of hundreds of millions of years can't just be waved away. Rates of movement of continents are known. Anyone whose arguments depend upon rates being different are expected to present evidence to show what the rates were and what mechanisms were involved that changed.

Claiming that the flood was local doesn't work either because that clearly doesn't meet the Genesis description "to the tops of mountains".

So, maybe I haven't been too helpful after all -- just eliminated a couple weak and incorrect arguments.

[Bust Nak]

Thanks very much, I have heard these arguments (if the ark rose above the mountains everyone would have suffocated or something along those lines) and not known how to answer, now I do.

I have a question, if you thought the arguments re: suffocation due to altitude had any merit to them, why didn't you seek out the answer first before voicing your support for an physical Ark? Aren't you setting yourself up for a fall if you know there were counter-arguments you had no answers to?

physics for dummies please

Here is a way to visualise what Zzyzx is talking about. Consider a vertical column immediate around the ark. A=air, B=boat, W=water. The stack on the left is before the flood, the right is after the flood, (along with an ascii mountain!)

Code: Select all

          A
          A
          A
A         B
A         W
A         W             /
B         W            /  
W         W           /    
W         W          /      
W         W         /        

There are double the amount of W on the right, yet there is the same amount of A above B in both scenario, hence the same air-pressure. The water pressure at the seabed however, would have increased significantly, there are now lots more letters above it then before. (This isn't 100% exact due to the difference in surface area and even difference in gravity, but should suffice.)

[JehovahsWitness]

Thanks very much, I have heard these arguments (if the ark rose above the mountains everyone would have suffocated or something along those lines) and not known how to answer, now I do.

I have a question, if you thought the arguments re: suffocation due to altitude had any merit to them, why didn't you seek out the answer first before voicing your support for an physical Ark?

If you look back, I didn't address the point about the air density at all; I already knew from study that the ark would float and theoretically hold the animals assigned to it so those were the points I addressed.

I'm happy to hear both sides of the argument and learn where I can, if I don't know the answer to something I will say so - nobody can know everything. If I think I know I will say what I understand and listen to the counter arguments to see if I find them convincing; if I feel I have been mistaken I have no problem at all with saying so.

Hope that answers your question.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

physics for dummies please

Here is a way to visualise what Zzyzx is talking about. Consider a vertical column immediate around the ark. A=air, B=boat, W=water. The stack on the left is before the flood, the right is after the flood, (along with an ascii mountain!)

Code: Select all

          A
          A
          A
A         B
A         W
A         W             /
B         W            /  
W         W           /    
W         W          /      
W         W         /        

There are double the amount of W on the right, yet there is the same amount of A above B in both scenario, hence the same air-pressure. The water pressure at the seabed however, would have increased significantly, there are now lots more letters above it then before. (This isn't 100% exact due to the difference in surface area and even difference in gravity, but should suffice.)

Yes, I kind of visualized something like that to understand what he said, thanks for the graphics.

JW

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

So, let's see if my admitted thick mind can wrap around this one:

We demo'd the unlikelihood of structurally secure ark.
We demo'd the impossibility of capturing two of every creature (except for a magical children's story).
We demo'd there isn't enough water.
We demo'd how inefficient and idiotic a plan it would be to drown the Earth and leave Noah's descendants to inbreed and become us smart folks.
We demo'd etc., etc.,

But you still have faith because air pressure would remain about constant in this contingency, where through your lack of understanding of physics is somehow rewarded by another member?

Can somebody finish this paragraph, because I can't...

JW; we had a conversation where you agreed with my counter-argument which essentially used scientific analogy to write-off scripture, I really think it's time you joined the agnostics and etc.s, of the forum.

Your faith is not holding water from your own point of view.

And no, this is not a test of faith.