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

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.

 

Words don't "say" anything. They are read/heard and interpreted.

 

"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.

 

Then read the several posts that I have posted elsewhere on this board that prove that to be the case.

 

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.

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.

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.

Yes. I think you probably could have answered that question yourself though.

 

Then read the several posts that I have posted elsewhere on this board that prove that to be the case.

</font>[/QUOTE]Were you there?

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

 

Where in the Bible does it say that penguins can fly and that polar bears have wings or that God shipped them to the ark by Federal Express?

 

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!"

 

No, and neither were the penguins and the polar bears.

If we had such an account, I would not deny it.

 

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.

 

Those who understand the Bible know that we don't have to choose between the Bible and science.

 

"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.

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)

 

This is what you wrote:

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.

 

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?

 

How about a rescue of known animals in the known world, just not all the animals in the whole world?

 

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,

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.

 

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!

 

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).