Life size replica of Noah's Ark in China

[sawoobley]

There are no other planets like ours, no others with the same amount of spheres, no others that can sustain life, no others that are just the right distance from the sun, etc.

NASA discovers Earth-sized planet that may sustain life

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/17/tech/s...h-size-planet/


Milky Way may bear 100 million life-giving planets

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0609100725.htm

[KTownGT]

Well if you're talking about giant lizards as in dinosaurs, it's the opposite... CO2 was much higher than what it was today, O2 was down. So no. Oxygen is poisonous in high concentrations anyways because of how oxidative it is. Idk why dinosaurs were bigger, maybe because there was more food, maybe because it became an evolutionary advantage to be bigger, maybe because they had lighter bones, idk. I didn't study dinos.

We don't age for mysterious reasons. There are plenty of reasons. Telomere shortening is one off the top of my head and is important; when DNA is replicated the enzyme that does this can't physically go all the way to the end, so there's a segment of repeating bases that acts as a "buffer". This end gets shortened over time and DNA transcription gets shoddy. Other physical harm like cell loss or damage to things like DNA or mitochondria are important too. Cell damage and damage in your DNA is generally considered to be why we age.

The problem isn't with a "perfect DNA" because that has nothing to do with cell replication. The process of replicating DNA and producing new cells isn't perfect by any means, DNA Polymerase isn't perfect (average is about one mistake every billion or so bases... it adds up) and doesn't act through thought or "knows it's doing well" or can make itself do any better. It just grabs things floating near it and attaches it, through principals of chemistry and biochemistry

When you think of a cell, all that **** is there floating randomly while the cell does it's best to compartmentalize things (through chemistry). There's no guidance from outside sources, unless you want to make the claim that God also invented the enzymes used in cell reproduction and through his Hands and guidance was able to make sure there were no errors in Adam's code when reproduced... but then made Eve imperfectly for some reason.

I studied nanotechnology in my undergrad... I don't see how we can make humans live 900 years.

I'd neg the phuck out of you, if your post wasn't 100% spot on.

Didn't the increased surface area (versus volume) in dinos help in their environment or something?

[Paul Kreul]

NASA discovers Earth-sized planet that may sustain life

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/17/tech/s...h-size-planet/


Milky Way may bear 100 million life-giving planets



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0609100725.htm

Yet not one life form was seen that day

[dweeegs]

I'm not sure if you're just joking around when you ask that? SRS
By the very definition of the scientific theory the whole process must be repeatable, this obviously cannot happen. It is called the vapor canopy if anyone wants to look into it more.

I'm going to take it a step farther and say that couldn't happen for reasons related to physics. Noah's story involves the mountains being covered by water, correct? Do you know what type of temperature and pressure that would involve?

Everest is a tad under 9 km high, so I'll use that as a reference point. So a global flood would have had to cause the Earth to be covered by 9,000 meters of water.

Do you know how water statics works? The pressure in a fluid is it's density*height*gravitational constant. So the pressure that we feel, one atmosphere, is basically the weight of stuff in a column on top of us. If there was an atmosphere of water above us (which means in gas form, which is important later), that means everything on Earth was under a pressure of what we feel (from air+trace water vapor+ extremely trace other gases) PLUS the weight of 9 km of water. So let's calculate that

(9 km)(1000 kg/m^3)(1000^3 m^3/km^3)(9.8 m/s^2)(.001 km/meter) = 8.8*10^7 Pa, which is 868 atmosphere

So the pressure of atmosphere pushing down on things would be 868 times what it was today, ie almost the pressure at the lowest point in the sea floor.

NOT TO MENTION that the water would have to be vapor to be in the atmosphere... the boiling temperature decreases as pressure decreases... meaning the boiling point of water would be higher.

If you give me a minute I can find you the boiling point of water, I can guarantee it's over 300+ C at that temperature

So people were living under insane pressure and temperatures, basically in a boiler. Does that really sound plausible to you?

EDIT: NIST doesn't even keep values of water properties that goes up that high in pressure

Lifestyle Changes May Lengthen Telomeres, A Measure of Cell Aging



http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/09/108...ure-cell-aging
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...366-8/fulltext


http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/conte...mes/telomeres/

Kind of interesting.

Intredasting, I'll give it a look in a second

I'd neg the phuck out of you, if your post wasn't 100% spot on.

Didn't the increased surface area (versus volume) in dinos help in their environment or something?

Why would you neg me brah

You study microbio, I'm not sure but I'd be willing to bet that the same parameters that limit cell size, mainly the surface area/volume ratio (ie volume increases faster than volume, meaning nutrient intake through the cell's surface becomes too inefficient as those nutrients have more volume to diffuse through) would apply to a larger organism's tissues instead of cells. I literally have no idea why dinosaurs got so large since what I just said would mean they wouldn't, and I especially wouldn't understand how a carnivore having more surface area would help it... it'd be interesting if you could find a source for it. Maybe the increased surface area in it's GI tract and other organs helped? I dunno

[sawoobley]

Yet not one life form was seen that day

Sorry about that. The planet NASA discovered is 490 light-years away. Anyways, you didn't say we had to actually see the life forms.

There are no other planets like ours, no others with the same amount of spheres, no others that can sustain life, no others that are just the right distance from the sun, etc.

We found planets just like ours that can sustain life. The conditions are right. Mission accomplished.

[Paul Kreul]

I'm going to take it a step farther and say that couldn't happen for reasons related to physics. Noah's story involves the mountains being covered by water, correct? Do you know what type of temperature and pressure that would involve?

Everest is a tad under 9 km high, so I'll use that as a reference point. So a global flood would have had to cause the Earth to be covered by 9,000 meters of water.

Do you know how water statics works? The pressure in a fluid is it's density*height*gravitational constant. So the pressure that we feel, one atmosphere, is basically the weight of stuff in a column on top of us. If there was an atmosphere of water above us (which means in gas form, which is important later), that means everything on Earth was under a pressure of what we feel (from air+trace water vapor+ extremely trace other gases) PLUS the weight of 9 km of water. So let's calculate that

(9 km)(1000 kg/m^3)(1000^3 m^3/km^3)(9.8 m/s^2)(.001 km/meter) = 8.8*10^7 Pa, which is 868 atmosphere

So the pressure of atmosphere pushing down on things would be 868 times what it was today, ie almost the pressure at the lowest point in the sea floor.

NOT TO MENTION that the water would have to be vapor to be in the atmosphere... the boiling temperature decreases as pressure decreases... meaning the boiling point of water would be higher.

If you give me a minute I can find you the boiling point of water, I can guarantee it's over 300+ C at that temperature

So people were living under insane pressure and temperatures, basically in a boiler. Does that really sound plausible to you?

EDIT: NIST doesn't even keep values of water properties that goes up that high in pressure

Very good argument. The bible does not speak of this theory, it is just a speculation of what some purposed may have happened. Personally I believe it just as it states, it rained a lot. It was an interesting attempt to enlighten on the aging process. Theres a lot of evidence you can look up to support the flood, but honestly a lot of it is going to come from christen cites which to me says a lot more than you might think.

[CalmWind]

I'm going to take it a step farther and say that couldn't happen for reasons related to physics. Noah's story involves the mountains being covered by water, correct? Do you know what type of temperature and pressure that would involve?

Everest is a tad under 9 km high, so I'll use that as a reference point. So a global flood would have had to cause the Earth to be covered by 9,000 meters of water.

Do you know how water statics works? The pressure in a fluid is it's density*height*gravitational constant. So the pressure that we feel, one atmosphere, is basically the weight of stuff in a column on top of us. If there was an atmosphere of water above us (which means in gas form, which is important later), that means everything on Earth was under a pressure of what we feel (from air+trace water vapor+ extremely trace other gases) PLUS the weight of 9 km of water. So let's calculate that

(9 km)(1000 kg/m^3)(1000^3 m^3/km^3)(9.8 m/s^2)(.001 km/meter) = 8.8*10^7 Pa, which is 868 atmosphere

So the pressure of atmosphere pushing down on things would be 868 times what it was today, ie almost the pressure at the lowest point in the sea floor.

NOT TO MENTION that the water would have to be vapor to be in the atmosphere... the boiling temperature decreases as pressure decreases... meaning the boiling point of water would be higher.

Except that the mountains we see today were formed Post-Flood. So all of your calculations on Mt. Everest are wrong.


I'll get a video of what I'm talking about in a second.

[dweeegs]

Lifestyle Changes May Lengthen Telomeres, A Measure of Cell Aging

[youtube]QPpJU8Je-lE/youtube]

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/09/108...ure-cell-aging
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...366-8/fulltext


http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/conte...mes/telomeres/

Kind of interesting.

Pretty cool stuff actually, I'll take a premature death eating meat over eating a plant-based diet lol. I'll rebuke my statement that it's impossible to live that long, but will hold firm that it's insanely improbable

[KTownGT]

Why would you neg me brah

You study microbio, I'm not sure but I'd be willing to bet that the same parameters that limit cell size, mainly the surface area/volume ratio (ie volume increases faster than volume, meaning nutrient intake through the cell's surface becomes too inefficient as those nutrients have more volume to diffuse through) would apply to a larger organism's tissues instead of cells. I literally have no idea why dinosaurs got so large since what I just said would mean they wouldn't, and I especially wouldn't understand how a carnivore having more surface area would help it... it'd be interesting if you could find a source for it. Maybe the increased surface area in it's GI tract and other organs helped? I dunno

Because I haven't negged anyone in like a year, brah. Dat dry spell making me desperate

I swear I've heard the size argument in regards to thermoregulation. Similar to deep sea gigantism, in combination with the different environment back then. Who knows, all I know, is a ~900 year old person is impossible even with "perfect genetics" of Adam

[CalmWind]

Well if you're talking about giant lizards as in dinosaurs, it's the opposite... CO2 was much higher than what it was today, O2 was down. So no. Oxygen is poisonous in high concentrations anyways because of how oxidative it is. Idk why dinosaurs were bigger, maybe because there was more food, maybe because it became an evolutionary advantage to be bigger, maybe because they had lighter bones, idk. I didn't study dinos.

No, I am talking about a lot of life forms. I specifically mentioned giant dragonflys, giant roaches, etc. I don't know why you would act confused as to what I am talking about.

Most life forms on earth were simply bigger back then. The current theories are that it was due to much more oxygen in the atmosphere. The reason is irrelevant. I brought it up to make a point.

We don't age for mysterious reasons. There are plenty of reasons. Telomere shortening is one off the top of my head and is important; when DNA is replicated the enzyme that does this can't physically go all the way to the end, so there's a segment of repeating bases that acts as a "buffer". This end gets shortened over time and DNA transcription gets shoddy. Other physical harm like cell loss or damage to things like DNA or mitochondria are important too. Cell damage and damage in your DNA is generally considered to be why we age.

It is for mysterious reasons, because science does not know the full extent of what causes humans to age. We know some pieces, but not the whole picture. And once again, the details are not as important as to the point being made.

We age, and if we could learn how to stop it or slow it down, we could have longer lifespans. So therefore it is no stretch to assume that a Creator of all things would have been able to do it first.

The problem isn't with a "perfect DNA" because that has nothing to do with cell replication. The process of replicating DNA and producing new cells isn't perfect by any means, DNA Polymerase isn't perfect (average is about one mistake every billion or so bases... it adds up) and doesn't act through thought or "knows it's doing well" or can make itself do any better. It just grabs things floating near it and attaches it, through principals of chemistry and biochemistry

You have no idea what you are talking about right now. When I said Adam was a perfectly created being, I meant exactly that. His biology was better than our current one. Our "DNA Polymerase" that you mention is not the same process that Adam had. Our current bodies are corrupt and far removed from the perfect DNA/perfect being that Adam was. So aging has -everything- to do with perfect DNA, a perfect being. Ancient humans, closer to Adam, didn't break down as quickly. They didn't have as many errors in cell replication, or any of the processes of our human bodies. Your lack of understanding of the Bible has wasted our time again.

When you think of a cell, all that **** is there floating randomly while the cell does it's best to compartmentalize things (through chemistry). There's no guidance from outside sources, unless you want to make the claim that God also invented the enzymes used in cell reproduction and through his Hands and guidance was able to make sure there were no errors in Adam's code when reproduced... but then made Eve imperfectly for some reason.

Both Adam and Eve were both created by God, so both were perfect.

It is only us, down through the ages, that are imperfect. Post-Garden of Eden, there is death and disease and aging, things that did not exist at first with Adam and Eve in the Garden. So you cannot look at modern human's and use that knowledge to apply it to Adam.

I studied nanotechnology in my undergrad... I don't see how we can make humans live 900 years.

I'm not surprised. You lack imagination. Nanotechnology is just one example I used to make a point, but once again you latched onto one word, or one phrase, and proceeded to attack that one thing while ignoring the point being made. Even still, nanotechnology (in the future) could have many applications to prolong human lifespans.

[sawoobley]

Pretty cool stuff actually, I'll take a premature death eating meat over eating a plant-based diet lol. I'll rebuke my statement that it's impossible to live that long, but will hold firm that it's insanely improbable

agreed

[CalmWind]

Because I haven't negged anyone in like a year, brah. Dat dry spell making me desperate

I swear I've heard the size argument in regards to thermoregulation. Similar to deep sea gigantism, in combination with the different environment back then. Who knows, all I know, is a ~900 year old person is impossible even with "perfect genetics" of Adam

It is impossible to you because you have no faith in God, so you look at the world from a Naturalist viewpoint only. You only see what the modern world is like.

However, if the Church of Science were to announce breakthroughs in cell regulation, replication, and be able to genetically engineer you to slow down your aging process...... all with the benefit of modern science, you would be jumping for joy at your new 500 year life span, and singing the praises of science.


But because it's from the Bible, you scoff at the idea that somehow, Humans could have lived that long at one point.

[CalmWind]

agreed

Another believer falls to atheism. Perhaps the peer pressure and faith in human wisdom will comfort you if you are ever shown evidence that Genesis was in fact accurate and correct.

You either believe, or don't believe. There is no half-way. You can't serve two god's. Either you think God is real and is competent enough to preserve the Bible for us, including Genesis, or you think it's all mumbo jumbo.

[dweeegs]

No, I am talking about a lot of life forms. I specifically mentioned giant dragonflys, giant roaches, etc. I don't know why you would act confused as to what I am talking about.

Most life forms on earth were simply bigger back then. The current theories are that it was due to much more oxygen in the atmosphere. The reason is irrelevant. I brought it up to make a point.

It is for mysterious reasons, because science does not know the full extent of what causes humans to age. We know some pieces, but not the whole picture. And once again, the details are not as important as to the point being made.

We age, and if we could learn how to stop it or slow it down, we could have longer lifespans. So therefore it is no stretch to assume that a Creator of all things would have been able to do it first.

You have no idea what you are talking about right now. When I said Adam was a perfectly created being, I meant exactly that. His biology was better than our current one. Our "DNA Polymerase" that you mention is not the same process that Adam had. Our current bodies are corrupt and far removed from the perfect DNA/perfect being that Adam was. So aging has -everything- to do with perfect DNA, a perfect being. Ancient humans, closer to Adam, didn't break down as quickly. They didn't have as many errors in cell replication, or any of the processes of our human bodies. Your lack of understanding of the Bible has wasted our time again.

Both Adam and Eve were both created by God, so both were perfect.

It is only us, down through the ages, that are imperfect. Post-Garden of Eden, there is death and disease and aging, things that did not exist at first with Adam and Eve in the Garden. So you cannot look at modern human's and use that knowledge to apply it to Adam.

I'm not surprised. You lack imagination. Nanotechnology is just one example I used to make a point, but once again you latched onto one word, or one phrase, and proceeded to attack that one thing while ignoring the point being made. Even still, nanotechnology (in the future) could have many applications to prolong human lifespans.

No my problem is I brought science to a Bible fight. I guess my first question then is how long ago do YOU think the Flood happened? That would help me out here.

So how exactly did Adam's cells replicate?
How does having 'perfect DNA' (how do you define that again?) have to do with errors during cell reproduction?
How did your supposed 'perfect DNA' produce defects 'over time' if reproduction was perfect, since he has this 'perfect DNA' according to you?

PS - aging has little to do with DNA, it's the enzymes cutting short and making errors when the cell reproduces. Not DNA. Not a defect in the enzyme. Just the chaotic nature of how the process works.

[CalmWind]

No my problem is I brought science to a Bible fight. I guess my first question then is how long ago do YOU think the Flood happened? That would help me out here.

No, your problem is you brought a lack of knowledge on the subject.

I don't know how long ago it was, because the Bible does not say.

So how exactly did Adam's cells replicate?
How does having 'perfect DNA' (how do you define that again?) have to do with errors during cell reproduction?
How did your supposed 'perfect DNA' produce defects 'over time' if reproduction was perfect, since he has this 'perfect DNA' according to you?

You want a scientific treatise on Adam's perfect biology. Laughable.

PS - aging has little to do with DNA, it's the enzymes cutting short and making errors when the cell reproduces. Not DNA. Not a defect in the enzyme. Just the chaotic nature of how the process works.

You continue to display your lack of knowledge in all subjects.

First off, what actually causes aging in humans is still a mystery for the most part. This is scientifically true. Your claims to knowing exactly what causes human aging, down to the T, are laughable and in direct opposition to what science knows about the subject.

Lastly, DNA contains all genetic information for every cell. It is responsible for everything. So if the organism's systems have errors or malfunctions, it is due to the design given by the DNA.


Oh, and all that gibberish you wrote about Mt. Everest flood waters...

[KTownGT]

It is impossible to you because you have no faith in God, so you look at the world from a Naturalist viewpoint only. You only see what the modern world is like.

However, if the Church of Science were to announce breakthroughs in cell regulation, replication, and be able to genetically engineer you to slow down your aging process...... all with the benefit of modern science, you would be jumping for joy at your new 500 year life span, and singing the praises of science.


But because it's from the Bible, you scoff at the idea that somehow, Humans could have lived that long at one point.

I'll make sure to tell everyone at my service in a few hours about lacking faith in God... Hail Dawkins, praise science! Thanks for the reminder, brah.

In before Nonoverlapping Magerteria

[sawoobley]

Another believer falls to atheism. Perhaps the peer pressure and faith in human wisdom will comfort you if you are ever shown evidence that Genesis was in fact accurate and correct.

Calm down bro. Yes, I think it is insanely unlikely that man will ever reach 900 years old again in this life. Yes, I think it's possible and probable that the people in the people in the days of Adam and Seth lived hundreds of years because I believe the words of scripture. Yet, I can't make sense of how this would have been. Sure there are theories to explain how this is possible theoretically but I think it is pointless to cling to any such theories. Yet, I leave myself open to the possibility that I may not have all the facts to make sense out of all of it. Those early writings were likely passed down by word of mouth and what they say is so far removed from my current life experience. I read it as something unusual and interesting and trust I will one day be able to make sense out of it in the next life. None of those interesting little factoids is essential to my salvation so I don't stress over them or feel a necessity to cling to them. What I know is God has all power to do whatever he wants and there must be a simple explanation for it all.

While this discussion is interesting and all I'd submit to you that the necessity you feel to cling to these wild theories may become a stumbling block for people who look at Christianity and are trying to evaluate whether it has any merit. It might seem noble to stand up for your interpretation of scripture but I'd say it is better to be humble about how certain we are about our most ancient writings which are so far removed from us. Yes, I believe God does and has done many mighty miracles such as parting the red sea but I also have try and look at things realistically and think how and why things were done the way they were. If I can't make sense out of it all on some level I must consider that I may be lacking some information. Having to say well because God can do whatever he wants because he is all-powerful suggests God has either changed the way He is doing things or we don't know exactly how it happened so we have to fall back on because God instead of just admitting we may not have all the answers at this point.

[dweeegs]

No, your problem is you brought a lack of knowledge on the subject.

I don't know how long ago it was, because the Bible does not say.

So then what is your definition of ancient??

You want a scientific treatise on Adam's perfect biology. Laughable.

Yea it's laughable to have someone acting like their system is the true system, without knowing exactly how it works, while claiming the other is at fault because there isn't a ten trillion page manual to explain every detail

You continue to display your lack of knowledge in all subjects.

First off, what actually causes aging in humans is still a mystery for the most part. This is scientifically true. Your claims to knowing exactly what causes human aging, down to the T, are laughable and in direct opposition to what science knows about the subject.

I claimed it was due to general cell and DNA damage, I don't recall anything down to the T. I focused on telomere shortening because it's been shown to have an effect in aging and some cool research was posted ITT about it.

Lastly, DNA contains all genetic information for every cell. It is responsible for everything. So if the organism's systems have errors or malfunctions, it is due to the design given by the DNA.

Wrong, wrong, wrong in every single possible way. I can't begin to describe how wrong that is. I'll direct you to the answer on why perfectly functioning enzymes make errors, but I'm not sure if you know how all that works in the first place since this is not the first time you've said something along those lines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_potential

Are you saying God stopped Brownian motion, but resumed it for his offspring? Why was that exactly?

Oh, and all that gibberish you wrote about Mt. Everest flood waters...

Can you give me some background papers, something else I can read for proof? I don't know who he is or what this is based on

[CalmWind]

I hope that this thread helped some people see the beauty of the Ark, and how it was an incredibly stable design.

And to the rest of you, God loves you. One day, those who have fallen away will see that the materialist and naturalist view of the Universe was wrong, and that it is much deeper and more wonderful than that.

[GreatOldOne]

I hope that this thread helped some people see the beauty of the Ark, and how it was an incredibly stable design.

And to the rest of you, God loves you. One day, those who have fallen away will see that the materialist and naturalist view of the Universe was wrong, and that it is much deeper and more wonderful than that.

I'm not ready to abandon a natural view of the universe until you tell me how two skunks on a boat won't drive every person and creature there insane and then the boat comes out of hell with all passengers lost event horizon style.

[Darkhare]

No, actually modern ship engineering has proven that the Ark would have never been seaworthy.

neither you nor OP has proven either point *******s., someone cite som,ething

[sawoobley]

neither you nor OP has proven either point *******s., someone cite som,ething

Here you go bro.

[CalmWind]

neither you nor OP has proven either point *******s., someone cite som,ething

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11231628

[dweeegs]

neither you nor OP has proven either point *******s., someone cite som,ething

It's highly unlikely. A large wooden boat called the Wyoming ended up not being able to support itself. The wood buckled and twisted because of the sheer size... Noah's ark dimensions as in the Bible are way bigger, and the Wyoming had access to technology from the early 1900s... Noah's boat would have not had that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2492.htm

EDIT: here's some more info on why

Allow me to explain. What's known as the square-cube law is pretty familiar: increase an object's dimensions, and its surface area increases by the square of the multiplier, and its weight increases by the cube of the multiplier. But one extension of this law is less familiar. When we scale up an object — take a wooden structural beam as an example — the strength of the beam does not increase as fast as its weight. Applied mechanics and material sciences give us all the tools we need to compute this. In summary, the tensile strength of a beam is a function of its moment and its section modulus. No need to go into the complicated details here — you can look up beam theory on Wikipedia if you want to learn the equations. Scale up a simple wooden beam large enough, the weight will exceed its strength, and it will break from its own weight alone. Scaled up to the immense size of Noah's Ark, a stout wooden box would be unspeakably fragile.

If there was even the gentlest of currents, sufficient pressure would be put on the hull to open its seams. Currents are not a complete, perfectly even flow. They consist of eddies and slow-moving turbulence. This puts uneven pressure on the hull, and Noah's Ark would bend with those eddies like a snake. Even if the water itself was perfectly still, wind would expose the flat-sided Ark's tremendous windage, exerting a shearing force that might well crumple it.

Whether a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark could be made seaworthy is in grave doubt. At 137 meters (450 feet), Noah's Ark would be the largest wooden vessel ever confirmed to have been built. In recorded history, some dozen or so wooden ships have been constructed over 90 meters; few have been successful. Even so, these wooden ships had a great advantage over Noah's Ark: their curved hull shapes. Stress loads are distributed much more efficiently over three dimensionally curved surfaces than they are over flat surfaces. But even with this advantage, real-world large wooden ships have had severe problems. The sailing ships the 100 meter Wyoming (sunk in 1924) and 99 meter Santiago (sunk in 1918) were so large that they flexed in the water, opening up seams in the hull and leaking. The 102 meter British warships HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey had such bad structural problems that they were scrapped in 1871 and 1875 after only a few years in service. Most of the largest wooden ships were, like Noah's Ark, unpowered barges. Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter Pretoria in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking.

Calm down bro. Yes, I think it is insanely unlikely that man will ever reach 900 years old again in this life. Yes, I think it's possible and probable that the people in the people in the days of Adam and Seth lived hundreds of years because I believe the words of scripture. Yet, I can't make sense of how this would have been. Sure there are theories to explain how this is possible theoretically but I think it is pointless to cling to any such theories. Yet, I leave myself open to the possibility that I may not have all the facts to make sense out of all of it. Those early writings were likely passed down by word of mouth and what they say is so far removed from my current life experience. I read it as something unusual and interesting and trust I will one day be able to make sense out of it in the next life. None of those interesting little factoids is essential to my salvation so I don't stress over them or feel a necessity to cling to them. What I know is God has all power to do whatever he wants and there must be a simple explanation for it all.

While this discussion is interesting and all I'd submit to you that the necessity you feel to cling to these wild theories may become a stumbling block for people who look at Christianity and are trying to evaluate whether it has any merit. It might seem noble to stand up for your interpretation of scripture but I'd say it is better to be humble about how certain we are about our most ancient writings which are so far removed from us. Yes, I believe God does and has done many mighty miracles such as parting the red sea but I also have try and look at things realistically and think how and why things were done the way they were. If I can't make sense out of it all on some level I must consider that I may be lacking some information. Having to say well because God can do whatever he wants because he is all-powerful suggests God has either changed the way He is doing things or we don't know exactly how it happened so we have to fall back on because God instead of just admitting we may not have all the answers at this point.

Bingo

I haven't read Scripture in almost 5 years and dropped Catholicism completely after HS, although wasn't into it before that. When I did, I never took a literal approach to anything out of anything and only took ideas out of it.

You're right, these stories were passed by word of mouth for a very long time. In fact one of my turn offs (besides the science) was human interference and how it played into how the faith was transformed. How people can take the Bible literally when it was shaped by humans to the point of the addition/non-inclusion of specific books and how things were written in the first place was beyond me. The claim of "The Holy Spirit guided them" and the general "because God" never sat right with me

[GonHx]

I'm not ready to abandon a natural view of the universe until you tell me how two skunks on a boat won't drive every person and creature there insane and then the boat comes out of hell with all passengers lost event horizon style.

why are you so stuck on skunks. the whole story of "noahs ark" is based off the premise that through GOD'S SUPERNATURAL WILL these animals were able to be gathered on the boat.

the problem is you fools want a "scientific" answer to this.

THERE IS NONE, there are only "faith based" answers to this. If you don't have faith in god, you dont have faith in his capabilities.

So heres my answer to you, coming from an ATHEIST: "BECAUSE GOD WILLED IT"



lol @ other atheist saying "oh how was adams DNA replicated" and **** like that. get out of here...

[GonHx]

It's highly unlikely. A large wooden boat called the Wyoming ended up not being able to support itself. The wood buckled and twisted because of the sheer size... Noah's ark dimensions as in the Bible are way bigger, and the Wyoming had access to technology from the early 1900s... Noah's boat would have not had that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2492.htm



Bingo

I haven't read Scripture in almost 5 years and dropped Catholicism completely after HS, although wasn't into it before that. When I did, I never took a literal approach to anything out of anything and only took ideas out of it.

You're right, these stories were passed by word of mouth for a very long time. In fact one of my turn offs (besides the science) was human interference and how it played into how the faith was transformed. How people can take the Bible literally when it was shaped by humans to the point of the addition/non-inclusion of specific books and how things were written in the first place was beyond me. The claim of "The Holy Spirit guided them" and the general "because God" never sat right with me

hey, let me guess: you took most of your history classes literally.

guess what? those history books also shaped by a very SPECIFIC group of humans as well.

[dweeegs]

why are you so stuck on skunks. the whole story of "noahs ark" is based off the premise that through GOD'S SUPERNATURAL WILL these animals were able to be gathered on the boat.

He's obviously joking

the problem is you fools want a "scientific" answer to this.

THERE IS NONE, there are only "faith based" answers to this. If you don't have faith in god, you dont have faith in his capabilities.

So heres my answer to you to answer in a way that he can accept it, coming from an ATHEIST: "BECAUSE GOD WILLED IT"

FTFY

lol @ other atheist saying "oh how was adams DNA replicated" and **** like that. get out of here...

To show how idiotic it is to infer that not knowing everything means it's possible that another explanation is correct, while not knowing a thing about what you hold true.

hey, let me guess: you took most of your history classes literally.

guess what? those history books also shaped by a very SPECIFIC group of humans as well.

One makes claims off of evidence, another just makes claims and is taken literally as the Word of God despite being meddled with

[GonHx]

He's obviously joking



FTFY



To show how idiotic it is to infer that not knowing everything means it's possible that another explanation is correct, while not knowing a thing about what you hold true.



One makes claims off of evidence, another just makes claims and is taken literally as the Word of God despite being meddled with

lol, i dont think hes joking.

your example doesn't show anything though, all it does is waste space and hinders your own argument.

really? so you think everything you read in your history books are proven conclusively with evidence? Do you have any conclusive evidence that 6 million jews died in the holocaust? absolutely not. history as we know it is also "meddled with", only a fool will disagree. Your college history classes made tons of these claims and is taken literally by millions of students as well.

As for the bible itself, i can tell you truly are ignorant on the topic. The majority of Christians do not take the bible "literally" as you say. the bible is definitely a book thats open for interpretation, which is why christians take a lot of time discussing it/preaching it.

[dweeegs]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11231628

Bouyancy force calculations are cute. Problem is, floating isn't the problem.

Here's the paper, it's an absolute joke and I actually laughed when I opened it up. They plug-and-chugged one line from a high school equation, giving hope to people who only read headlines everywhere.

*****://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/view/676/475

Lol at everything, good god man

lol, i dont think hes joking.

your example doesn't show anything though, all it does is waste space and hinders your own argument.

really? so you think everything you read in your history books are proven conclusively with evidence? Do you have any conclusive evidence that 6 million jews died in the holocaust? absolutely not. history as we know it is also "meddled with", only a fool will disagree. Your college history classes made tons of these claims and is taken literally by millions of students as well.

He is, trust me.

I didn't take history in college FYI and don't dabble in it besides basics since it's boring but I don't doubt your claims.

At least history books are sourced when claims are made, good ones at least

As for the bible itself, i can tell you truly are ignorant on the topic. The majority of Christians do not take the bible "literally" as you say. the bible is definitely a book thats open for interpretation, which is why christians take a lot of time discussing it/preaching it.

No, but he does. And people do. And Pope Francis last year stated that the Bible was the word of God, yet it was the Church that decided what was the Word of God by deciding which books to include. That's something that I can't accept and meant by human meddling

[FlyingGrenades]

Christ****s are the worst


>Ark was good

No it wasn't. Past a certain length wood is impossible to use in the ocean. It would sink since it would bench far too much. Take a look at how big the Wyoming was, OP.

Literally everything about your ark can be refuted by this man in less than 10 minutes. Oh wait, you won't even watch it because it doesn't fit your indoctrinated deluded agenda.

http://youtu.be/z6kgvhG3AkI?t=1h2m2s

Chrit****s will just say "have some faith" after that



Anyways it doesn't matter that slowly and surely more and more fairy tales from the Bible get debunked but please still have some faith!!!!11