|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: That boat don't float | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3453 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
A couple of points. If the only animals on the ark were the wild animals found in the marshes of southern Sumer, the area flooded, and only the domestic animals that were adapted to the intense heat of Sumer, then there were not too many animals on the Ark.
If there were no significant predators in the region, other than cats, and other small carnivores, then meat for the carnivores would not be a problem. Reed boats, like the Tigris made by Heyerdahl, remained seaworthy after months continuously in the seawater. They did not use the tar and pitch that the ancients used, which may have increased the length of time. We do know that chips of tar that we found from these ancient boats had significant sized barnacles on them, showing that they spent much more than a few weeks in the water. Reed boats are solid crafts, not hollow like wooden boats. waves washing over the boat just flows down through the reeds. It is impossible for the boats to sink. They can break apart or run aground, but they can't sink. The Hogging and other bending movements that cause wooden boats to sink are not a problem with reed boats. We have thousands of years of continuous boat building experience. What you say about wooden boats is true. We have lost most of the scientific knowledge of Reed boat building. The ancients had at least a thousand years to make many errors and learn improvements. We have only made 10 to 20 reed boats, and do not know all of their secrets. Did they solve all the problems you mentioned. When I said "I don't know." I meant that we have no scientific evidence if reed boats can overcome those problems. Yes, some verses seem to be better interpreted as a whole world flood. Other verses seem to be better interpreted as meaning a regional flood. When you examine the original Hebrew in detail, either interpretation can be supported. When two interpretations seem equally valid, I prefer the one that fits known science much better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 862 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
greentwiga writes: A couple of points. If the only animals on the ark were the wild animals found in the marshes of southern Sumer, the area flooded, and only the domestic animals that were adapted to the intense heat of Sumer, then there were not too many animals on the Ark. If there were no significant predators in the region, other than cats, and other small carnivores, then meat for the carnivores would not be a problem. OK, so far so good, there Gilgamesh.
Reed boats, like the Tigris made by Heyerdahl, remained seaworthy after months continuously in the seawater. They did not use the tar and pitch that the ancients used, which may have increased the length of time. We do know that chips of tar that we found from these ancient boats had significant sized barnacles on them, showing that they spent much more than a few weeks in the water. Reed boats are solid crafts, not hollow like wooden boats. waves washing over the boat just flows down through the reeds. It is impossible for the boats to sink. They can break apart or run aground, but they can't sink. The Hogging and other bending movements that cause wooden boats to sink are not a problem with reed boats. Too bad the designers of other 'unsinkable' boats, like the Titanic or Bismark did not know this. Just think, if only the Titanic had been built of reeds, it would have flexed when it hit that iceberg, regardless of how cold or stiff the reeds may have been. If only the Bismark had been built of reeds, it would have survived all those fatal shells from the Prince George, as it would just flex around them. Then they could have retaliated with their reed guns! Somehow common sense makes me think reed boats are not as suitable for long distance ocean travel as wooden, or now steel, hulled ones are. If so, why aren't cruise ships, cargo ships, and {heaven forbid!} oil tankers made of reeds?
We have thousands of years of continuous boat building experience. What you say about wooden boats is true. We have lost most of the scientific knowledge of Reed boat building. The ancients had at least a thousand years to make many errors and learn improvements. We have only made 10 to 20 reed boats, and do not know all of their secrets. Did they solve all the problems you mentioned. When I said "I don't know." I meant that we have no scientific evidence if reed boats can overcome those problems. {emphasis mine} Name one ancient technology that has not been replicated in modern times. Sure, Europe went stupid under fundamentalism and forgot how to make concrete, but that does not mean the world went stupid along with Europe. They had their own time for their own fundamentalism to get stupid over. When considering individuals and groups instead of nations, it even happens to this day, all around the world (with some exceptions).
Yes, some verses seem to be better interpreted as a whole world flood. Other verses seem to be better interpreted as meaning a regional flood. When you examine the original Hebrew in detail, either interpretation can be supported. When two interpretations seem equally valid, I prefer the one that fits known science much better. IMO, I like the speculations made at the beginning and end of your post a lot better than the ones in the middle. Edited by anglagard, : Add {emphasis mine} The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3887 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
really, the subtitle says it all. I don't know what sort of magic reeds you would use, but all the boats I know about made of reeds would never be anywhere near large enough to hold an actual population of animals for a year without getting water-logged and sinking.
Anyway, you're pretty much saying it wasn't the whole world but an arbitrarily small part of it. I'm fine with that - it wouldn't be a year, it wouldn't be impossibly big, it wouldn't hold everything...the story would be the fictionalized account of a real event, and with that I'm fine. The problem is that there are many, many people on this board and others who don't think that. They think it meant the whole world, they think it meant a water-canopy somewhere above the sky, they think it meant literally all the animals of the world (and forget that all the plants would die) - AND then they insist that our science is insignificant when compared to the force^w^w faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3453 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Yes, a reed boat has problems, but more to do with sailing angles. wooden boats have a single mast that allows them to point closer into the wind. I love you who claim that they get waterlogged without examining the archaeological, historical and scientific evidence. You are the same ones who claim the Christians don't look at the science. Remember, these ships stayed in the water for over a year, the marsh floods could stay flooded for over a year, and this is a perfectly reasonable scenario.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I have already provided sufficient evidence as to why they do not, and have not worked for vessels exceeding even 100 ft.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I love you who claim that they get waterlogged without examining the archaeological, historical and scientific evidence.
Any idea of the effects of elephant feet on reed bundles? For a year? (Don't forget elephant urine and feces.) And, as some claim, we have to leave room for brontosaurus also. Two of them. And Tyrannosaurus and the rest of the big guys also. Doesn't this whole scenario start to look the least bit ridiculous to you? Or are you just going to keep coming up with "what ifs," each more outlandish than the previous, to support your a priori religious beliefs? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3887 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
greentwiga writes: I love you who claim that they get waterlogged without examining the archaeological, historical and scientific evidence. You were given examples of reed boats, made last century to test such theories, that basically sank because they became waterlogged, soggy and fell to pieces, and they were much, much smaller than what you're positing. Even the small ones (which apparently last from 4 to 9 months when built by people who have used them continually for thousands of years - these guys are the masters of that craft and they still don't last a year) get water-logged (it's their *nature*) and to claim that reeds magically repel water is ridiculous. As always, it's not whether a boat could have carried some animals, it's whether a boat, even made from reeds, would last a year (it wouldn't), could be made that size (the maths seem to say it couldn't without collapsing under it's own weight), let alone carry all the animals of the world. The account in the bible, if taken literally, is many orders of magnitude beyond that (and talks about a different boat material besides) If you want to posit a smaller boat of believable size, made of alternative but real, known materials, holding breeding pairs of some animals, making a journey of even several months, then that's fine - but it's a far, far cry from the bible's account. I repeat, because this is the important part: the boat described in the bible was too large to be feasible, not large enough for the task and not capable physically. That's all that's needed - if you want to abandon the literal nature of the bible, we won't stop you, but to insist that it's a scientific, literal account? No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3453 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
It was interesting to read how Heyerdahl hired reed boat builders from Africa (Sudan or Chad) The boat became waterlogged before it reached America. He then hired reed boat builders from Lake Titicaca who built reeds boats made firm, tied very tightly. Though tar and pitch were not used, it sailed to America easily. Then He built a bigger boat out of Mesopotamian reeds. This time, he learned that the reeds had to be picked in December. Something in the reed allowed it to resist the water far longer. Again, with no Tar and pitch, the boat sailed for many months and at the end, this still very seaworthy boat was burned in protest to the Arab/Israeli war. Recently, a group tried to build and sail a boat east from America. They took these lessons but allowed the reeds to dry out without properly rehydrating them. The boat broke apart. Again, they did not use the tar and pitch. We do not know why tar and pitch were used, but ancient Sumerians always used the mixture. They built boats they called the 100 and other boats called the 300. The 300 was clearly used to trade all the way to Pakistan. They had to wait for the monsoon winds to change to sail back. We have recovered tar chips that have reed grooves on one side and barnacles on the other side. We have not learned all the secrets of the ancient boatbuilders because we have not learned even how or why the tar and pitch were used. We have learned that, built right, they don't become waterlogged like happens with some building methods.
As for size, we have proven that huge wooden boats can't be built. Giant Reed boats may or may not be possible. It has not been proven either way. As for the posts that mention the Elephants, I am not arguing for elephants. Read my posts before you criticize.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Those vessels that did last for longer than a few months: how big were they? What was the cargo?
Grasp for anything you can try and latch onto.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Sources please.
Hard to understand context without any sources to this information. And please sources other than your website. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
His sources don't seem too accurate. Everything I turn up on Google says that the 60 foot Tigris sailed for 5 months (is that "many" to you ?) and was burned in protest at the wars near the mouth of the Red Sea - in Yemen, Ethiopia and Somalia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3453 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Aramco reprinted part of Heyerdahl's Book, Tigris. It lists the harvesting of the reeds. I got the month wrong. Not tying the bundles tight, and harvesting in the wrong month leads to waterlogging. Done right, they claim it will last at least 9 months. Notice also the reference to loads in excess of 18 metric tons.
Saudi Aramco World : Voyage to the Past Another site describes the reed boats of the Euphrates but refers to the oceangoing tar chips with barnacles and also concludes that the boats were seaworthy for extended periods. They conclude that the tar helps extend the length of time that the boat/rafts remain seaworthy.http://findarticles.com/.../mi_hb3284/is_293_76/ai_n28946720
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
As for the posts that mention the Elephants, I am not arguing for elephants. Read my posts before you criticize.
Its not important what you argue for. The mythical ark would have had elephants and a lot of other critters stomping around for a year. And, according to some, the critter list would have included dinosaurs. How would that material stand up to that for a year? What effect would it have had on the papyrus or reeds when two brontosauruses got amorous? ("Noah! Make them stop! I'm getting seasick.") If you ignore that, and a host of other factors (food and waterstorage, waste removal, ventilation, etc.), you're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Face it, the ark story as written is a myth. Switching from wood to reeds doesn't even begin to bail it out. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
They conclude that the tar helps extend the length of time that the boat/rafts remain seaworthy. Where do they say that? I have reqa it numerous times and don't see this conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3887 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
hooah212002 writes: Those vessels that did last for longer than a few months: how big were they? What was the cargo?Grasp for anything you can try and latch onto. grasping at...straw? O:-) no, he's stuck in a loop - the ancient shipbuilders obviously had higher technology than people today, even people today who still build reed ships because fuck you that's why.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024