Replica of Noah's Ark in Schagen, Netherlands

reply to post by riley

It's stuck in orbit.

No it's not, the moon recedes 3.82 centimeters, or roughly 2 inches per year.

A foot every 6 years.

A mile every 31,680 years.

If the moon started at the surface of our planet, it got to where it is today after only 7.92 billion years.

Science says the rate the moon recedes and the rate of the Earth's rotation are both DECREASING, meaning even a billion years ago *rolls eyes*, the rate the moon was receding was much greater than today.

Science and math sucks huh?



:bnghd:

[edit on 3-10-2008 by NOTurTypical]

dude.. you just said the moon is not in orbit so I doubt you're an expert on cosmology.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
dude.. you just said the moon is not in orbit so I doubt you're an expert on cosmology.

No I didn't, I refuted the claim that it was "stuck" in orbit.

It's orbit is receding.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by shihulud

 

I'm glad you did bring up "gravity". If you want to go that route, then Billions of years ago the Earth's gravity would have pulled the moon to the surface of our planet.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Not quite - when the moon was closer to the Earth the Earth spun faster as did the moon around the earth therefore the gravitational pull would not have pulled the moon to the Earth, 620 million years ago the Earths day was 21.9 hours which was recorded in tidal rythmites shows that the Earth spun faster. Also the moon being a bigger satellite than what the Earth should have also helps the moon recede from the Earth.

Cake is tasty hmmmm cake.


G

LOL, wipe the cake off your face and do some simple math.

We know the rate the moon is receding, we know it's current distance from the Earth, and we know what "science" says is the age of the Earth.

You don't even need a calculator for this mathematics problem.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
LOL, wipe the cake off your face and do some simple math.

We know the rate the moon is receding, we know it's current distance from the Earth, and we know what "science" says is the age of the Earth.

You don't even need a calculator for this mathematics problem.

Pray explain this simple maths then - don't forget to add in the fact that days were shorter many years ago and that they will get longer as time progresses. Also don't forget to add in the gravitational attractions throughout the ages.



G

Hmmm...interesting reading you two
You are both thoroughly convinced of your positions and don't care to change them.
You both are dealing pretty broadly with these highly complex subjects.
I am glad to see you are both being pretty civil since these conversations often wind up being an insulting match after a while.

I don't think that evolution has happened/is happening because it can't really be observed. (read:I'm talking about the difference between micro and macro)

You might say that creationism hasn't been observed.
But we have something an evolutionist does not. A Bible.

Hope this is an interesting 3rd opinion
(though really I'm just agreeing with notyouraverage)
Your Anonymous Friend, Justin

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
I would love to see him explain how all the animals could have fit in the ark and the logistics of such project.

Not only is this replica huge, but its only 1/4th the actual dimensions of the ark described in the Bible.

The ark in the Bible was 450 feet long.
75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.
Thats 33,750 square feet per floor and 3 stories tall.
Therefore, the square footage of the ark is around 60% of an entire football field which in its entirety is 360 feet long by 160 feet wide.

So visualize, 3 levels, that are 60% of the entire football field and end zones you see on TV. That is some serious area.

Large animals such as horses and cows require in todays standards, 10x10 or 12 x 12 stalls. Using a 10 x 10 as a standard, the ark would have carried 1000 of those stalls.

Not all animals were horse size and therefore I think its safe to say there were upwards of 2000 stalls if not more for much smaller species.

I think we can all agree, thats one real big boat. A task that any of us would be hard pressed to build. Here is a man who has show that indeed, on a smaller scale, that even then, its really, really big.

Peace

[edit on 6-10-2008 by HIFIGUY]

reply to post by HIFIGUY


It also took over 100 years to build.

reply to post by HIFIGUY


Even if Noah was able to get all the animals on the ark, never mind the problems of special diet, cleaning up after them, predators, temperature control, etc., he would still have the problem of ark being seaworthy.

The ark was larger than the schooner Wyoming. The Wyoming had the problem of chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation, even with iron bracing.

The length of build time was something I did not realize. Thanks for bringing that to light.

Thanks also for the reference of the schooner Wyoming.
en.wikipedia.org...(schooner)

I did not know of this vessel and it is quite something.

As far as the ark being sea worthy, one must consider what was said by Jesus himself:

"The things which are impossible with men are possible with God" (Luke 18:2227)

Much happened that was not penned. All that is hidden will be revealed.

Peace


[edit on 6-10-2008 by HIFIGUY]

You might be interested in this (from wiki's list of external sites):

Noah's ark skeptic site:
www.talkorigins.org...

Christian's response:
www.trueorigin.org...
This site tries to explain the seaworthiness problem.

Isaak: How was the ark made seaworthy? The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [Gen. 6:15].
Answer: This argument is often parroted, but is just as bogus as the others. The Ark was built for stability, not movement. A flat-bottomed barge like the Ark wouldn’t have problems with sag. If the lower deck were made of logs, four layers deep, it would have been very sturdy. If they were teak logs, especially specially treated by being buried for a while, the ark would have been especially seaworthy. Woodmorappe points this out too, and much more, so Isaak is dishonest to ignore that. Korean naval architects have confirmed that a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m (S.W. Hong et al., “Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway”, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):26–36, 1994. All the co-authors are on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, Taijon.)

That could be feasible. However, what about violent upheaval at the beginning?

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by HIFIGUY

 

Even if Noah was able to get all the animals on the ark, never mind the problems of special diet, cleaning up after them, predators, temperature control, etc., he would still have the problem of ark being seaworthy.

The ark was larger than the schooner Wyoming. The Wyoming had the problem of chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation, even with iron bracing.

I watched a DVD years ago, and that design was tested and found to be the most "seaworthy" vessel ever made, the scale model withstood waves that pitched the boat at 70 degree angles.

This is an amazzing piece of art i wish i could see it in real life