God sent aliens to transport noas ark in to their ships holodeck, where they simulated a flood while transporting noa to a new planet earth because the last one was going to be destroyed.
When they got here they also planted fossils of pre humans to not make this so obvious. They just lacked the technology to make the world apheare to have suffered a worldwide flood.
Re: Not going to happen, and it won't work if they actually do try
quote:1) Are they going to be able to raise the money? I doubt it.
Considering they raised millions quite easily to build the museum, Im sure they can get money for the ark.
quote:Mark Looy, a vice president at Answers in Genesis, said the museum has received at least $21 million in private donations. He said two anonymous donors have given $1 million, and he expects the museum to be debt-free when it opens next May.
Re: Not going to happen, and it won't work if they actually do try
From your source,
quote:I dreamed a part of Holland was flooded, Huibers, 60, told Janet Shamlian in a report that aired on TODAY Wednesday. Then, the next day I get the idea to build an ark of Noah.
I still stand by my Robot Monkey hypothesis as the most parsimonious explanation of how the Ark worked. No creationist or biblical literalist has been able to refute it yet. However, I must admit that the Holodeck Thesis has a lot going for it as well. Any scientific theory that can include Jean Luc Picard as a mechanism is all right by me.
quote:1. Noah did not actually have to do most of the labor building the Ark. Robot monkeys are easily programmed to do basic construction work.
2. Likewise gathering all the animals two by two. Robot monkeys equipped with jet packs could have traveled quickly around the globe to collect all necessary "kinds."
3. Robot monkeys don't need to sleep, so they can take care of all the animals around the clock.
4. Robot monkeys can also use their jet packs to fly out to all the floating vegetation mats to tend to insects too.
5. If the Ark were also equipped with a Matter-Antimatter Transmutation Fabricator (which the Robot Monkeys would also be able to build), then it would be easy to recycle waste matter back into fresh, nutritious food.
6. Radiation leakage from a broken Robot Monkey Atomic Power Pack could also have affected atomic decay rates around the globe, rendering all radiometric dating techniques invalid. This indicates to me that at least one Robot Monkey did not survive the whole voyage.
7. Robot Monkeys could also have a combined data storage capacity big enough to contain all the information they'd need to retrain young animals that were raised on the Ark to return to life in the wild.
Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs. -Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. -Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill
Pastor Richard Greene is building "Noah's Ark" in Frostburg MD.
In 1974, Pastor Richard Greene was repeatedly told by Jesus to build an Ark next to the interstate. The ark would be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Through a series of "miracles," materials and expertise was donated to get the project started in 1976. Greene has traveled around the world to show off the architect's drawings and plans, but things seemed to have stalled out at times. "As God provides, we will build."
He started the project in 1976. In 1999 a steel superstructure was erected but apparent progress has been nil since then. I guess "God is providing" at his own pace. OTOH by the historical standard for arks I guess he is way ahead of schedule. Some Ark apologists believe old Noah was at it for 120 years although this is vigorously disputed by other Ark apologists (and no one disputes more vigorously than an Ark apologist).
Note: This "ark" is an earthbound building (well, building skeleton at the moment). If it ever gets built (doubtful unless a deep pocket donor shows up) it will be a conference/educational center - or maybe an ark theme park, who knows.
Heh, hope you get to read this - I know I've been rather a long time missing from here.
If we were indeed using the literal meaning of seaworthy then most of the ancient ship designs of the Diadochi period would fail to be 'seaworthy'. The 4s, 5s, 6s and right up to 16s would fail the definition of surviving "90%" of weather conditions. Many of these enormous war galleys did indeed succumb to the vagaries of Mediterranean weather as surviving records indicate, and yet this did not stop rulers like Ptolemy and his opponents from building them because they conferred a tactical advantage in a sea battle (or indeed merely for prestige's sake or to awe the other side).
My point was that even a barge (which can certainly make a sea voyage - in calm weather*) is seaworthy sometimes.
* Most ancient admirals did not like to risk their fleets in stormy weather since most galleys (especially the larger ones) were notorioulsy prone to sinking in such conditions.
I would also like to, once again, note that whilst I am arguing that large wooden vessels are technically possible (given the ancient references to the existence of some very large examples), it is counterproductive to belabor creationists and Ark-enthusiasts about the Ark being an 'impossible' vessel to either build or float.
Far better to attack the Ark myth with the many other logical fallacies inherent in it, like the inability to keep a representative pair of every animal on Earth onboard for even a few days, much less 40.
I would also like to, once again, note that whilst I am arguing that large wooden vessels are technically possible (given the ancient references to the existence of some very large examples), it is counterproductive to belabor creationists and Ark-enthusiasts about the Ark being an 'impossible' vessel to either build or float.
I have previously discussed the issues of scale on the strength and stiffness of an Ark-like vessel, and noted that the purported ark did not have rigging or the stresses due to rigging. But this also means there is no stabilizing mechanism for such a vessel, which is the main issue I have with a barge like design. To my mind this makes the vessel possible to build but extremely uncomfortable (to say the least) to ride out storms in.
But I agree that such discussions are ultimately counter-productive and that discussions for and against the global flood on other issues are more to the point. For instance the fossil record show fossils on virtually every mountaintop, but those fossils show undisturbed marine ecosystems that have organisms decades old, in layer after layer, and so the evidence does not match the duration for the purported flood by any stretch of imagination that I can see that would benefit a creationist viewpoint.
Far better to attack the Ark myth with the many other logical fallacies inherent in it, like the inability to keep a representative pair of every animal on Earth onboard for even a few days, much less 40.
Plus the time it takes for the water to recede enough to uncover land. IIRC this amounts to almost a year afloat in an environment devoid of potable water and increasingly foul bilges.
From my reading, the largest galleys mentioned to support the claim of wooden ships the size of the ark were not actually as big as they seem. The Tesseriaconteras (I think I spelled that right) built by Ptolemy Philopater was actually two galleys attached side-by-side with a large ram stuck on the front, so while similar in overall dimensions, it had nowhere near a similar internal capacity, and other than a short trip in harbor, never moved again for fear it would break apart.
It really seems that the problems inherent with wooden ships this large is an argument against the Ark, rather than for it.
Christianity is stuffing up again, distorting the Hebrew bible to kingdom come, with no history of ever observing this scripture. This is also done in the depiction the earth as 6000 years old: anyone who reads will see that Genesis lists numerous events before the creational days, accounting for bllions of years travserved before life emerged: how long does it take for water to be seperated from the lands - or light from darkness!?
The Ark represents a domestic, regional flood; the boat for Noah's possessions only [the text]; but to the people of tht town it appears the whole world was under water. Of course it would and this is a correct depiction of people in that time. Tasmania, Norway and Rio never yet existed!
™ Version 4.2
(1)
(1)