Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark

A sea anchor is used to minimize drift and is usually set to orient the boat into the waves, yes. But weighting down just the bow? To make sure that waves wash over the boat? NOT normal SOP ... in fact stupid in terms of subjecting the deck to more sources of leaks and possible sinking. No you have a boat operating as a submarine with very little access to fresh air ... for how many animals? (oh, yeah, its only 5 or 6 because all the others swim)Why use stones for this purpose when they would have the least drag to weight ratio of any reasonable choice. This is the worst possible design, period.ROFLOL!

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It would appear whatever, that you are having trouble understanding what is being posted to you.May I suggest that you start asking some questions, stop repeating things which have been shown to be wrong and work harder at producing clearer posts of your own.It is not my position to suspend you but I'd sure recommend that at this point.

RAZD, I like it, you might be on to something, the ark might of been designed to be part submarine. It was pitched without and within. With lower compartmentalized water ballasts could of been adjusted by simple RAM pumps, check valves and level adjustment valves, to allow adjusting forward ballasts and tail ballast. It would be kinda like adjusting your air shocks on your car to adjust ride. You do realize that Barges carrying heavy ores, some have moon pools, thought that Ron believed the ark likely had these advanced moon pools (would of been perfect way for the creatures to of entered the different levels of the ark), for enclosed air ventilation off wave pulses. It would be simple to of increased the air pressure in the ark so the moon pool level could of dropped to the bottom of the hull. So if the ark crashed into a wave no water would pulse through hinged weighted intake vents, as the ark came out of the wave it would suck air in through the air intake, and with sea anchors positioning the ark into the waves because the sea anchors would of been anchored in the waters below the wave base, and the waves themselves continually aligning the ark into the waves. etc... It all kinda makes sense, for trout fishermen know that trout uses little energies to face into the stream cause of vortex energies(fluid dynamics), of their arked shape. Fishermen always let the baits flow to the trout, as all kinds of food is pressed downstream, something about fluid dynamics, why the trout isn't pressed downstream, like they are defying gravity, though its believed the parting waters creates a vacuum (vortex energies) in front of the fish, and the laminal waters closing in around the fish, why they are not pressed downstream, as long as they face into the streams currents, likely the entire basis of God requesting Noah to build an arked shaped boat. etc...P.S. I don't know if Ron subscribed to any of this, just liked your thinking that the ark might of been part submarine (that's thinking outside the box). It really is too bad that Ron died, he would of been the perfect man to of run the excavation, now we will likely never know in this life, if the ark had a large moon pool, water ballasts, etc...

oy vey

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Do you even know what a "moonpool" is? You are going to have openings in the bottom of the boat and make it behave like a submarine ... I suggest you build a model and try it out. Take scuba gear with you.The stones position in the Wyatt fantasy would do nothing to prevent the bow from bobbing up and down because of the orientation of the stones -- all they do is contribute to the moment of inertia in the most inappropriate way. A horizontal orientation would be needed to counter up and down motion.You do like jump from one highball fantasy to another.Conclusion: you don't care what you say as long as you get to keep posting. This is troll behavior.[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-23-2004]

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You have really been taking a pounding, I discuss the ark in my book on the flood, here is a link to it. https://www1.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid... I am pro flood but also pro science. My position is that if the flood really happened, then there must be a way of explaining how it happened that is scientifically plausible and variable. So don't talk down scientific methods, because in the end those same methods will be used to learn about the deluge. You may not like all of the answers in my book, hey I didn't even like all of them, but what do you really want, a somewhat awkward reality or a comfortable fantasy?Wm. Scott Anderson

Well, he's not going to have any difficulty submerging ...

JonF's making one of his little fibs, he knows the ark wouldn't sink with a moon pool (we've discussed this before), as long as its sheltered from the inside of the vessel, and that its feasible with weighted hinged intake and outlet vents to raise the air pressure in the ark so the moon pool level drops.P.S. The anchor stones would of only aligned the ark, its rudder so to speak, the ballast would be responsible for how deeply the ark rode in the waters, etc...

and as soon as you open a ventilation hatch .... BLOOP (blub ... blub ...)don't open a hatch and the animals suffocate....going down?cue the beatles ... "we all live in a yellow submarine ..."

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Your unsupported (and, as has been pointed out many times before with references, almost all false) claims about moon pools are irrelevant. Listing a few errors in or occasional problems with dating, especially in tests performed by dishonest creationists (and the evidence for this has been pointed out to you many times), is not support for your claim that "The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old". Similarly, your refusal or inability to understand dating methods is not evidence for your claim. You are claiming that all dates are controlled and puposefully falsified with malicious intent by all people performing dating. Provide evidence for the universal and purposeful falsification of dates or retract your claim.You have repeated a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. For the sixth time in this thread, support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW!

Whatever's making one of his bald-faced lies. I know Snelling and Austin and Brown and their ilk do it all the time, but it's not a good practice.I know the Ark would sink with or without a moon pool; all a moon pool would do is speed things up.Wooden ships leak. Caulked with pitch, calked with silicone, caulked with anything; they leak.[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-24-2004]

JonF, Face it they lied to you, I've explained over and over to you, its simply not possible to to date fossils imprints accurately by the sediments, but that doesn't stop the paleontologists from teaching its possible. I've explained if your assumptions are off by just a little bit, because of the great half life, makes the fossil imprint age off by not by hundreds of years, but millions of years because of the great scale used for the various isotope methods. Its no wonder fossil imprints will date millions, not thousands of years old. Its like placing a fly on a truck scale. When you factor in leaching, mineralization, anerobic and aerobic soil bacteria, capillary solute movements within micro-pores, and water solvent movement in macro-pores all seeking to equalize solute concentration's, earth worm's and other soil micro-organisms, and the great amounts of time of at least 4,350 years since the biblical deluge, where all the sediments were saturated (covered) by water. The age of the sediments is just a reflection of all the things that happened in the last 4,350 years, and not actually the sediments true age.P.S. Seems your without excuse, knowing oil, coal, has C-14 in amounts excess showing the sediments were laid down thousands of years ago. I say your lying to yourself, and you say I'm lying when I believe your being lied to. I can understand the paleontologists need to pretend they believe their goofy theories, so they won't lose foundational grants(monies)(or be sued by the foundation against religion, or some other watchdog organization against religion), if they are a professor they might be denied tenure or be ridiculed (black listed) for daring to believe something as fundemental as Irreducible Complexities, Intelligent design, and or the Creationist theory (creationism's).

Your made-up and lunatic ideas about dating and sediments are irrelevant. You have explained nothing. You have just made a series of idiotic claims, each more ludicrous than the last, none supported by any evidence whatsoever, and none consistent with reality. The only reason you have for beleiveing your claims is your inability ot accept reality. None of what you have postedsupports your claim that "The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old". Repeating your silly made-up fantasies does not make them any more real. Similarly, your refusal or inability to understand dating methods is not evidence for your claim. You are claiming that all dates are controlled and puposefully falsified with malicious intent by all people performing dating. Provide evidence for the universal and purposeful falsification of dates or retract your claim.You have repeated a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. For the eighth time in this thread, support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW! But I have evidence (and have presented it) for my contention thaqt you are deluded, ignorant, totally incorrect, and lying. All you have to support your claim that I and "the paleontologists" are lying is your hope that reality isn't true.

You're underestimating the intelligence and ingenuity of the pre-flood folks, Jon. They had brass and iron workers and artificers according to the account.1. According to the length of time the flood lasted and considering that the ark landed not all that distant from where it started it appears that the weather was not stormy.
2. After the rain subsided there would have been no rain or storms during the evaporation because the atmospheric water had all fell to the earth and part was now to evaporate back up.
3. There is indication in scriptures that the flood had something to do with the lowering of the ocean floors and the rising of the mountains.I'm saying the above to say that the ark would not have endured the storms and the high waves modern ocean vessels encounter and thus would not be so apt to leak if well sealed by the pitch.

Eight times in one thread is enough, Jon. As amusing as his contortions and thickheadedness are, let's all just stop feeding the troll. Maybe he'll go back under his bridge.