• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is there evidence for a young earth? (An experiment)

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
This is a typical evolutionist ploy - if you haven't got an answer, use ridicule. Ridicule doesn't work though - water off a duck's back.
I very rarely use the word “stupid” because of the severity of it, but for anyone older than my two-year-old grandson to propose that the book of Genesis was written by giants who didn’t even know the approximate length of the biblical cubit is . . . .

But you are right— I can not prove that Genesis was not written by giants who didn’t even know the approximate length of the biblical cubit. Neither can I prove that Genesis wasn’t written by Satan himself, but I can prove, as have many, that the story of Noah’s Ark is not a literal account of an historic event. And at least AIG admits that the ark as literally described in Genesis was not even close to being large enough and finds it necessary to engage in fantasy writing to account for the impossibility of it.

Many persons have questioned whether or not it would be possible to build the ark described in Genesis assuming an 18 inch cubit. Christian engineers, however, have calculated that by using a huge amount of cross beams such a large boat could be built out of wood and have the structural integrity to survive on the ocean for 150 days. However, such a design would very greatly reduce the usable space in the ark. If one were to assume a 36 or 42 inch cubit, the weight of the ark itself would be so immense that it would cause it to fold up like an aluminum can stepped on by an elephant.

I will leave the choice up to you—an ark that is too small or too big. Either way, the story of Noah’s Ark is not a literal account of an historic event.

saint.gif
 

billwald

New Member
"I would be interested to know how you can possibly know "for an absolute fact" that the Ark was not literal."

I know that in this world the entire atmosphere can't be at 100% humidity without it raining someplace.
 

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
I would be interested to know how you can possibly know "for an absolute fact" that the Ark was not literal.
Then read the several posts that I have posted elsewhere on this board that prove that to be the case.

saint.gif
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Mr. Scott,

Do you really believe that you know me better than I know myself?
Absolutely not. All I know of you is what you have revealed on this board... and that is the only basis I have for making the assertions I have made. And I do not do it lightly.

It is not a blanket characterization of you. I have seen other views that show respect for the Bible though I still don't always agree with you. It really only seems to be this one issue that you demonstrate a liberal bias in interpretting the text. You equate it to ancient myth rather than inspired writings.
Do you really know the basis for my beliefs?
NO!!!! For the life of me I cannot understand why you believe as you do. What is especially confusing is that you arbitrarily pull Adam and the creation of man out of evolution and say that you believe God did that directly.

Believe it or not, I respect you for recognizing that a literal Adam is needed to derive a correct NT sotierology.
And do you really believe that you know the book of Genesis better than Baptist scholars who have spent a lifetime studying it?
Do you? I am certain I can name just as many sound biblical, fundamental scholars who accept what God said in Genesis as a narrative account of creation. Probably more and I am not directly involved in academia.
Do you have enough knowledge of the Bible to do anything other than criticize others for what they believe?
Yes. I think you probably could have answered that question yourself though.
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I would be interested to know how you can possibly know "for an absolute fact" that the Ark was not literal.
Then read the several posts that I have posted elsewhere on this board that prove that to be the case.

saint.gif
</font>[/QUOTE]Were you there?

Why would you deny an eyewitness account from Someone who was?
 

just-want-peace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have seen many posts by you, UT, and Paul of Eugene... and have yet to see any of you build a biblical case for evolution or its naturalistic presuppositions from scripture. I have seen many instances OTOH of your basing interpretations of the Bible on a presupposition that evolution and its naturalistic assumptions are true.
Question: So who do you trust most evolutionists, God or science?
Answer: "Science of course, cause we have all these tests & experiments and history, and first hand observation, and, and, and etc etc etc to prove our point. You have ONLY the Word of God; quaint, and interesting, but NOT scientific!"
 

UTEOTW

New Member
Originally posted by Glory2God:
How about Helium flux through the atmosphere??? Pretending to understand Physics will NOT help here!!!Got a copy of the technical papers in my lap.Where oh where did the Helium all go?? Where oh where could it be??? :D

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-143.htm
Yes. Understanding physics does help on this line of reasoning. There is a good reference here.

Banks, P. M. and T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport; the polar wind" Geophysical Research Journal 74: 6317-6332

This was written 26 years before Vardiman wrote the article to which you linked. So there is no excuse for not knowing. Especially since Vardiman mentions polar wind near the end of the article.

According to Banks, the polar wind can account for 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm2-sec of He-4. The estimated by Vardiman to be 2 x 10^6 atoms/cm2-sec and by Banks to be 2.5 x 10^6 atoms/cm2-sec. So the rate of escape from the atmosphere is as much as or greater than the production rate. It seems that helium is in equilibrium and cannot be used to build a case for a young earth.

But that is the way these things normally go. These YE leaders are pseudoscientists. Their stuff sounds very good. It looks very good. But it is built on sand and cannot standup to scrutiny. Just as in the OP where Safarti (or more precisely the authors he was quoting) had to ignore some data and change other numbers to make a case, Vardiman here must also ignore known data. It sounds good, but it is wrong.
 

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
Question: So who do you trust most evolutionists, God or science?
Answer: "Science of course, cause we have all these tests & experiments and history, and first hand observation, and, and, and etc etc etc to prove our point. You have ONLY the Word of God; quaint, and interesting, but NOT scientific!"
Those who understand the Bible know that we don't have to choose between the Bible and science. :rolleyes:

saint.gif
 
I very rarely use the word “stupid” because of the severity of it, but for anyone older than my two-year-old grandson to propose that the book of Genesis was written by giants who didn’t even know the approximate length of the biblical cubit is . . . .
Hmmm... Ridicule didn't work, so I'll try insult! Craigbythesea, you are so predictable.

You're also a mite too touchy about this subject, but then perhaps I'm a mite too close to showing the validity of a literal Ark.

You cannot "prove" that the Ark was not literal. For a start, you were not there. On the other hand, the writer of the account of the Ark, Flood etc. was there - this is likely to have been one of the sons of Noah (see the toledoth of Genesis 10:1).

The following link is to an AiG report of a safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway.

&gt;&gt;&gt;Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway&lt;&lt;&lt;

In this report, we are told that the cubit was taken to be 17.5 inches. Please read this carefully Craigbythesea, so that you don't distort what I have said again. I did not say that Genesis was written by giants, I said that since people were likely to have been bigger in Noah's day than they are now, it is likely that their cubit was bigger than the one specified (17.5 inches) and that if this is the case, then the Ark would also have been bigger than is commonly thought.

According to this report, using a cubit of 17.5 inches, the Ark:

--was approximately 135m long, 22.5m wide and 13.5m high,

--probably had a cargo weight of 17016 tonnes,

--was a good design for the conditions it had to endure.

Of course these figures are necessarily approximations and some assumptions have had to be made, but that shouldn't bother scientists, who routinely have to use assumptions in their work too.

I expect you will find a problem with something here (and for all I know, you might be a naval architect, and therefore qualified to comment on such matters).

The next link is probably a bit "simple" for you folk who like complicated stuff but nevertheless it shows the size of the Ark compared with what it had to contain.

&gt;&gt;&gt;Modelling the size of Noah's Ark&lt;&lt;&lt;

...at least AIG admits that the ark as literally described in Genesis was not even close to being large enough
Admittedly, I didn't read through all the material that came up when I searched for "Ark" on AiG's site, but those that I read said nothing like your comment above. I would be interested to see proof of this AiG admission.

Yours in Christ,
PlainSense
 

UTEOTW

New Member
"I expect you will find a problem with something here (and for all I know, you might be a naval architect, and therefore qualified to comment on such matters)."

I found an analysis of this from an actual naval architect. You won't like it.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96044#post96044

I apologize in advance for the copy and paste.

0. Editorial comment

This paper was written by people who looked at a naval
architecture text book and did not understand what they
were seeing; it uses terminology from the profession
but not correctly, and does not use the right analysies.
Either the translation was grossly incorrect or the
paper was the work of not particularly attentive undergrad
students, given that the authors were supposedly at the
Korea Research Institute for Ships and Engineering.


1. "Draft and center of gravity" section

Displacement is given as:
(delta) = 1.025 L B d

That is the correct formula, for a brick.
Perhaps a bad sign of things to come.

Real ships are not perfect rectangular prisms;
they have rounded shapes, and the actual
displacement is some fraction depending on
the curvature of the ship, keel deadrise,
and numerous detail factors. These combine
to give a 'block coeficient' Cb which is simply
the actual volume divided by the volume of
the rectangular shape of the same length,
breadth, and depth. Cb varies from about 0.9
(really blocky huge oil tangers) to 0.55
(light destroyers) but is not 1.0 even for
rectangular barges, which have *some* rounded
off parts...


2. also in "draft and center of gravity" section

These guys calculate the height of the center of
gravity... which is good, and they don't seem to
have completely blown it, but the simplicity of the
analysis jumps out.

*No* mention is made of the height of the center
of buoyancy (the geometric centroid of the displaced
volume).

*No* mention is made of the equally important
Metacentric Height. The metacenter (M) is the imaginary
point around which the geometric center of the
waterplane area rotates as the ship rolls and
pitches. As that area shifts, the actual dynamic
stability of a ship depends on how far above
the center of gravity the metacenter is found.
The metacenter is some distance above the center
of buoyancy, and has to be calculated.

No real ship other than a submarine has its
center of gravity under its center of buoyancy.
The actual moment arm for stability calculations
is the height from the center of gravity G to
the metacenter M (GM).


3. "Comparative hull forms" section

Huh?

Comparative hull dimentions table, maybe.

"Hull Form" implies looking at the curvature,
block coeficient, etc.


4. "Method of Evaluation" subsection in "Seakeeping Performance" section

"A widely used strip method"...

These guys have not even determined KB, BM, or GM, and they
are performing computational motions analysis?

Er.

Ok. This fails the scratch and sniff test, but the method used
is not grossly inappropriate.


5. "General" subsection of "Structural Safety" section

These people do not understand wooden shipbuilding.
Using the terms associated with steel ships is
a gross mistake.


6. "Structural analysis of Ark" subsection of "Structural Safety" section

This fails the scratch and sniff test.

They plug the numbers in to a FEA rather than presenting the basic
by hand back of the envelope calculation. Bzzt.

They assume that they could rigidly attach a 2 dimentional girder
structure to a wooden "shell" ... no mention of how this is made
strong in shear, which is why thick hulled wooden ships are not
made that way.

They do not list the scantlings (thickness and dimentions of
the hull, longitudional and transverse frames, etc).
Without knowing what the actual dimentions are nobody
can crosscheck their numbers. Showing computer program
output without scantlings is the equivalent of lying
with graphics.

"Structural Safety Index" is introduced without any
foundation for what it is supposed to represent
in the analysis and optimization.


7. "Righting Arm" calculations in "Overturning Stability" section

Ah, now we get the metacenter. Except they're calling it Z,
instead of M, and they *integrate* to find the height rather
than simply pulling "Principles of Naval Architecture" off the
shelf and plugging the one line formula in... D'oh.


8. "Overturning stability Index" in "Overturning Stability"

What is this 'overturning stability index' and where is it
coming from? The term is not defined, referenced, etc.
It is not a term of the art in the field.


9. "Voyage Limit of the Arc"

Calculated for rolling motion. Never calculate in roll;
always calculate in pitch and sagging/hogging moment.

"Thickness of wood..." thickness *where*?


10. conclusions

Yet more of these imaginary safety indexes, which are not defined.
Yet more graphs without any supporting explanation of what the
axies mean.


11. my conclusion

This paper fails to show its work.
Almost none of its stated conclusions are supported
with enough documentation to review and evaluate for
technical correctness. Were this a student paper
it would fail on that basis, and it would never
be published in a naval architecture journal for
the same reason.

This paper fails to show basic familiarity with the
standard terminology, rules of thumb, and standards
of practicing naval architects, much less student
naval architects.

This paper fails to reference any of the standard
textbooks in ship design (Such as, Principles of
Naval Architecture 1990 ed). While papers have
certainly been written without reference to PNA,
the inclusion of a bunch of more specific references
without any reference to or use of the basic methods
and overview survey in PNA is bizarre.
ISBN numbers for Principles of Naval Architecture is 0-939773-00-7(I), 0-939773-01-5(II), 0-939773-02-3(III) (3 vol. set)
 

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
did not say that Genesis was written by giants, I said that since people were likely to have been bigger in Noah's day than they are now, it is likely that their cubit was bigger than the one specified (17.5 inches) and that if this is the case, then the Ark would also have been bigger than is commonly thought.
This is what you wrote:

given the Bible's description of the gigantism of people in those times, their forearm was likely much longer than ours and it is likely that you should double the size of the Ark as worked out by AiG.
I do not believe that Noah and his wife were Neanderthals, but of course you have a right to your opinion (even though the Neanderthals were not human and humans in Noah’s day were not larger, but much smaller than are people today.

My calculations were based on a cubit of 21 inches in order to give the creationists every possible bit of the doubt (as I always try to do), and I found that the ark was only a fraction of the size necessary to do the job that a literal interpretation of Genesis says it did. If you will carefully do the calculations for yourself, you will find that I am correct. Everyone who presents calculations that allow for a literal interpretation must cheat to do so. Their cheating has been exposed time and time again, but they continue to cheat. In my personal opinion, cheating is a sin, but I admit that is my personal opinion.

saint.gif
 

hillclimber

New Member
Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> This is a typical evolutionist ploy - if you haven't got an answer, use ridicule. Ridicule doesn't work though - water off a duck's back.
Many persons have questioned whether or not it would be possible to build the ark described in Genesis assuming an 18 inch cubit. Christian engineers, however, have calculated that by using a huge amount of cross beams such a large boat could be built out of wood and have the structural integrity to survive on the ocean for 150 days. However, such a design would very greatly reduce the usable space in the ark. If one were to assume a 36 or 42 inch cubit, the weight of the ark itself would be so immense that it would cause it to fold up like an aluminum can stepped on by an elephant.
nonsense

I will leave the choice up to you—an ark that is too small or too big. Either way, the story of Noah’s Ark is not a literal account of an historic event.

</font>[/QUOTE] Gee couldn't I have a third option?
 

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
Hillclimber,

You have misquoted me and inserted the word "nonsense" after the word "elephant." Please don't do that again!

And, by the way, "Gee" is a euphemism for “Jesus” and is “used as an introductory expletive or to express surprise or enthusiasm.” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).

You may want to consider whether or not it is appropriate for Christians to use euphemisms for profanity. Other examples include, “heck” for “hell,” “darn” for “damn,” and Jeez” for “Jesus.” H. L. Mencken wrote is his classic work, The American Language, p. 316,

Swearing, of course, is not the prerogative of all men. Many lack the natural gift for it, and others are too timorous. For such toters of inferiority complexes there is a repertory of what may be called denaturized profanity. For spoken discourse there are darn, goldarn, doggone, jimmy, gosh, golly, gee-whiz, holy gee, son-of-a-gun and their congeners, and for written discourse damphool, damfino, helluva . . . .
I learned as a graduate student in a secular, “aetheistic,” “satanic” university that such euphemisms should be used only with care, reservation and caution lest they offend others where an offense is not intended.

saint.gif
 

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
Plain-Sense,

It is an undeniable proven fact that NONE of the “12 different hull forms of barge-type” boats discussed in the article that you linked to, of the size given in the article, “the Ark was approximately 135m long, 22.5m wide and 13.5m high,” would displace the amount of water equal to the weight of the cargo as literally described in the Genesis account. Even if we very substantially increase the size of the ark based on a 21 inch cubit, NONE of the “12 different hull forms of barge-type” boats discussed in the article that you linked to would displace the amount of water equal to the weight of the cargo as literally described in the Genesis account. Therefore, the boat would NOT have floated, and, therefore, if your article is accurate, it is proof that Noah, his family, and all the animals that were on the boat drowned, and that you and I never existed. That is an interesting theory, and of course it also proves that Moses never existed and that the Book of Genesis was never written! I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that posting a link to an article that, if true, proves that the Book of Genesis was never written is very helpful in proving that the Book of Genesis was meant to be interpreted literally.

I must thank you for the link, however, because both my two-year-old grandson and my dog got a big laugh out of it! Please post some more of them—this is too good to be true!

saint.gif
 
Craigbythesea,

You are trying to colour my words to fit your evolutionary viewpoint and argument. I didn't mention Neanderthals. I am referring to biblical descriptions - descriptions by people who were actually there at the time. Such eyewitness reports are far more reliable than the suppositions of people who dig bones out of the ground and theorize about them. Before you get onto your "Even Creationists use science in their homes etc." speech, I am not saying there is no place for such things, just that actual eyewitness reports are of more use. Of course, you will not accept that because your evolutionary beliefs have coloured your interpretation of the Bible, and, sadly, you will not accept that these things are meant to be understood in as plain a manner as they are written. Nevertheless, let me show you some scripture:

Numbers 13:23-28,
"And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs. The place was called the brook Eshcol, because of the cluster of grapes which the children of Israel cut down from thence. And they returned from searching of the land after forty days. And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land. And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it. Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak [lit giants] there."

It would seem that it wasn't only people who were big. Not only were there giants here, but even a single cluster of grapes needed to be carried by two people.

Numbers 13:33 "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."

Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days..." Note that this was the time of Noah and the Ark

Deuteronomy 2:10-11 "The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims."

Deuteronomy 2:19-21 "And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession. (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead..."

There is more I could quote, much, much more, but this will do to show what I mean. These giants weren't few and far between, there were whole races of them - you can call these by any scientific name you want to but the fact is that these were very big humans. I could of course be wrong about the size of the cubit in those times, but as the scriptural record of giants in the land in those times shows, the idea is not altogether without merit, except to those who refuse to accept such scripture as a plain account of actual events.

Even using an 18 inch cubit (for convenience), Genesis 6:15 tells us that the Ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Someone else has mentioned the opinion that many crossbeams would have been required in the Ark. I accept that, but the Bible tells us that the Ark was built on three levels (Genesis 6:16) which would have provided horizontal bracing. We have very little information on the Ark's construction. Noah would have had a full blueprint to work from no doubt. All we have is a brief overview. I would think that it would have been necessary to compartmentalize the interior to keep the animals separated and under control, and to provide somewhere for Adam and his family to live, somewhere for food to be stored etc. Such compartmentalization would also provide vertical bracing.

I hope you can now see, that when the Bible is taken as a plain and straightforward account of actual events, what I said earlier was by no means stupid or ridiculous, as least I don't consider them to be so.

UTEOTW, I hope to be able to reply to your post regarding the Ark later, I have to go and do other things now.

Yours, in Christ,
PlainSense
 

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
I hope you can now see, that when the Bible is taken as a plain and straightforward account of actual events, what I said earlier was by no means stupid or ridiculous, as least I don't consider them to be so.
The expression that I would use is “grossly absurd.” In all my years of study of the Bible, I have never before seen such a grossly absurd comment about the length of a cubit.

And then you post a link to an article that defends the structural integrity of a boat the size of the ark based on a cubit of 17.5 inches. Did it fail to come to your attention that with each and every increase in the size of the ark, the structural integrity is brought more and more into question?

But all of these things have very little relevance because the cargo as literally described in Genesis would have weighed more than the amount of water that the ark could possibly have displaced even if we were to allow for a 36 inch cubit. And the weight of the cargo is only one of the very many factors that prove, absolutely prove, that the story of the ark in NOT a literal account of an historic event. And I am quite prepared to not only list very many of these factors for you, but to show you in detail how and why they prove that the story of the ark in Genesis is NOT a literal account of an historic event (Indeed, I have already posted in other threads several of these factors, and I can post them again along with many more).

saint.gif
 
Top