(July 30, 2014 at 8:36 am)Revelation777 Wrote:

(July 29, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Tonus Wrote: And shaped like a massive, erect dong.

No,,,I will wait at the entrance of the ark and embrace all who enter welcoming them with love and joy.

No thanks-- I don't roll that way, buddy!

(July 30, 2014 at 9:02 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 8:58 am)Esquilax Wrote: Sorry Rev, it physically can't: wooden ships less large than the ark was purported to be- with the benefit of iron braces, I might add, and sailed in tranquil weather- proved to be not seaworthy. Wood simply isn't structurally capable of that; it flexes and separates and eventually floods.

For further information, check how many of the ships substantially over three hundred feet long have the word "sunk" in their eventual fate. The ark is purported to be substantially larger than all of them, made of inferior materials, operating for a longer period of uninterrupted sailing with no hope of repair, in conditions far worse than those that sank every ship smaller than it.

The ark would not float.

Also, a Dutch Christian recently built a full size replica of the ark and had to mount it on two steel barges because it didn't have the structural integrity to float by itself.
He apparently failed to see the irony implicit in this.

According to physic students an ark built as prescribed in Genesis holding animals can float.

So, if one could hypothetically build an ark to the specifications outlined in the Bible, and actually cram two of every species on the boat, would it float or would Noah have found himself in a Titanic-like scenario? That’s what four physics graduate students at the University of Leicester wondered. As part of a special course that encourages the students to apply basic physics principles to more general questions, the team did the math and found that an ark full of animals in those dimensions could theoretically float. They recently published their research in a peer-reviewed, student-run publication, the Journal of Physics Special Topics.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...LTrmy1J.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

---

(July 30, 2014 at 9:25 am)Tonus Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 8:36 am)Revelation777 Wrote: No,,,I will wait at the entrance of the ark and embrace all who enter welcoming them with love and joy.

No thanks-- I don't roll that way, buddy!

It would be non-sexual in nature

(July 30, 2014 at 9:28 am)Revelation777 Wrote: According to physic students an ark built as prescribed in Genesis holding animals can float.

So, if one could hypothetically build an ark to the specifications outlined in the Bible, and actually cram two of every species on the boat, would it float or would Noah have found himself in a Titanic-like scenario? That’s what four physics graduate students at the University of Leicester wondered. As part of a special course that encourages the students to apply basic physics principles to more general questions, the team did the math and found that an ark full of animals in those dimensions could theoretically float. They recently published their research in a peer-reviewed, student-run publication, the Journal of Physics Special Topics.

Diiiid you read the paper, or did you stop at the news article that seemed to confirm what you want to believe?

Because I actually read the paper. So...

First of all, here's the conclusion:

Quote:Therefore, regardless of which
figure is correct, we believe the ark to be of
sufficient buoyancy. Of course,
this does not
conclude whether logistically Noah’s ark was
possible,
it remains to be concluded if the size
of the boat is sufficient to house all the
animals
.

So it's not as unequivocally on your side as you present, Rev. Second of all, there's a vast difference between "sufficiently buoyant," and "seaworthy." The only conclusion presented in this paper is that the ark would not immediately sink upon being introduced to the water, and that's no great feat. Those lesser ships that all sank didn't do that either. But they did flex horribly, take on water perpetually, and require intensive repairs at that. The Wyoming, for example, was smaller than the ark and, due to the flexing of wood that was braced against that with iron, needed to be constantly pumped out while at sea.

The ark wouldn't have sunk right away. But it would have sunk very quickly when introduced to open water even in tranquil conditions, unless eight people could bail out a ship of that size- without drowning any of the animals- pretty much constantly. And that's even discounting capsizing, damage from the flood, and... you know, the wood flexing apart.

(July 30, 2014 at 9:24 am)Revelation777 Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 8:56 am)Zen Badger Wrote: How do you explain the size of the observable universe if it is only 6000 years old?

I do not know how to answer that but have faith God can.

-_-

---

(July 30, 2014 at 9:28 am)Revelation777 Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 9:25 am)Tonus Wrote: No thanks-- I don't roll that way, buddy!

It would be non-sexual in nature

Non-sexual hugs on the orgy ark!? I don't think so, gtfo!

(July 30, 2014 at 9:01 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: So one can surmise ....

"There is no Ark"

But then were will the orgy take place?

(July 30, 2014 at 9:46 am)Losty Wrote: Non-sexual hugs on the orgy ark!? I don't think so, gtfo!

Guess we'll have to show them how it's done.
*grabs his porn mustache and a stapler*

Rev, this is from the article you linked:

"In their study, students decided on an average length for their calculations: 48.2 centimeters. This means that, by their approximations, the ark would have been 144.6 meters long, 24.1 meters wide, and 14.46 meters tall—the size of a very small cargo ship."

A "very small cargo ship". Pay close attention to that because this is a modern livestock carrier. Please note the number of sheep it is equipped to hold -- not even fucking close to the 2.15 million sheep the ark was calculated to be able to hold according to your article.

By the way, I'm in the shipping business, routinely board cargo vessels, and deal with Captains and Chief Mates all the time. They'd all bust a gut laughing at the thought of stowing Yahweh's Really Large Menagerie on a wooden vessel of these dimensions. You really have no idea what goes into calculating stability and stowage, do you Rev?

But, yeah, I know -- it's all magic, right? Believe your old stories if you must, but please don't try to justify your nonsense. It insults our intelligence and makes you look like a douche.

(July 30, 2014 at 9:02 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 8:58 am)Esquilax Wrote: Sorry Rev, it physically can't: wooden ships less large than the ark was purported to be- with the benefit of iron braces, I might add, and sailed in tranquil weather- proved to be not seaworthy. Wood simply isn't structurally capable of that; it flexes and separates and eventually floods.

For further information, check how many of the ships substantially over three hundred feet long have the word "sunk" in their eventual fate. The ark is purported to be substantially larger than all of them, made of inferior materials, operating for a longer period of uninterrupted sailing with no hope of repair, in conditions far worse than those that sank every ship smaller than it.

The ark would not float.

Also, a Dutch Christian recently built a full size replica of the ark and had to mount it on two steel barges because it didn't have the structural integrity to float by itself.
He apparently failed to see the irony implicit in this.

It's nowhere near full size.
Edit: oops. I looked it up to add the measurements, and apparently he's built a new one. But the small first one was mouted on a barge as well.

In short, read and understand your 'evidence' before you post it Rev.

(July 30, 2014 at 9:24 am)Revelation777 Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 8:56 am)Zen Badger Wrote: How do you explain the size of the observable universe if it is only 6000 years old?

I do not know how to answer that but have faith God can.

In other words, you will believe in god regardless of what demonstrably better means of truth finder says. Yet you flatter your moronic self by pretending to yourself your belief in god should somehow be inspirational to those of us who care something about whether something is actually true.

---

(July 30, 2014 at 10:33 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: In short, read and understand your 'evidence' before you post it Rev.

If he cared about evidence, he wouldn't have been Christian.