-
Someone told me that Noah's Ark was as big as the state of Rhode Island, is that true?
- Michael Kestner
- 11 years in the restaurant business, IT/CCNP student, part time Twitch streamer.
- Updated Jul 12
- Not for Reproduction [respected on sight]
- I answered twice
- A and B, and further other people's answers may come in after that.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- A
- Oct 3
- A
- “You see, the motion of waves and wind on the sea cause a ship to flex. The bigger the ship, the more stress the hull is put under.”
You are aware that this is because a ship is not drifting with the waves, it has a sail which makes it navigate against the waves?
You are aware that the Ark was a box shaped object, which would not navigate against the waves, but drift with them?
Noah allowed God to do all navigation THROUGH the waves, you know?
This means that as an argument against the Ark, it is stupid.
- Michael Kestner
- 10h ago
- You are aware that none of that matters, and you are being disrespectful? It doesn’t matter one bit whether a ship drifts with the waves or sails against them, it will bend all the same. A box drifting with the waves is in even worse shape than an actual ship in a storm.
I would advise you to not speak so angrily or authoritatively about things which you clearly have no understanding.
- Answered twice
- C and D.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- C
- Michael, you may be a great cook.
You are not a great debater.
And if I were given a chance to make a professional reorientation as cook, I would probably not be too keen on it, if I had to have you while being appprenticed.
Even apart from my sucking at keeping finger tips curled in so as not to cut them off, when cutting tomatoes rapidly.
Your advise on cooking is certainly very welcome, but your advise here is less so.
- Michael Kestner
- 15h ago
- I am not a cook by trade, and have not been for many years, and in any case your opinion on my expertise in any subject is neither welcome nor important. Again, you insult me while failing to address my points. In any case, Quora is not a debate site, and I am not here to debate with you. It seems you are here to evangelize, not to be convinced, in any case. I simply state the facts.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Just now
- “11 years in the restaurant business” - Some time back?
“IT/CCNP student” - Some internet expertise?
Also not marine.
“Quora is not a debate site,”
It has features allowing it to be so on occasions. Like the possibility to comment on someone’s answer.
“It seems you are here to evangelize, not to be convinced, in any case.”
I am here to debate, quite a lot.
“I simply state the facts.”
As they are in your opinion.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- D
- “A box drifting with the waves is in even worse shape than an actual ship in a storm.”
How so, if the storm is NOT near any coastline (the Biblical Flood, by definition made coastlines of the pre-Flood world obsolete and was before the post-Flood coastlines)?
- Michael Kestner
- 15h ago
- Because the box has no method to control itself, so it inevitably ends up taking the full force of the waves and wind to it’s broadside, which increases the stress on the structure (which, as I mentioned before , could not possibly be strong enough in any case) and increases the risk of capsize.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Just now
- “Taking the full force”?
What taking if there is no navigation? If the box floats with the waves, how are they stressing it? The no method to control itself is precisely the good part. If it had had one, we would not be here, Noah and fam. would have been fish food.
As for risk of capsize, Korean navy has done scaled models.
CMI : Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
by S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je
https://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway
- Michael Kestner
- Just now
- Yeah, I’m sure Creation | Creation Ministries International is going to be a scientifically rigorous and unbiased source. If that’s the best you have, I think we are done here.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Just now
- “by S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je”
mean less to you than the fact their research was published by CMI?
“Salvesan, N., Tuck, E.O. and Faltisen, O. 1970. On the motion of ships in confused seas. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 78.”
means less to you than the fact they are just cited on CMI?
Well, sounds you are very rigorous and objective … doesn’t it?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- B
- Oct 3
- B
- “Wyoming was built by professional shipbuilders,”
With 100 years to do it, what would you qualify Noah as? Especially as getting sintructions from God Almighty and Allwise and All Knowing?
“and she still sank.”
Checking story : In order to ride out a nor'easter, it anchored off Chatham, Massachusetts, in the Nantucket Sound, together with the five-masted schooner Cora F. Cressey which had left Norfolk at the same time as Wyoming. Captain H. Publicover on the Cora F. Cressey weighed anchor at dusk and stood out to sea. Wyoming is believed to have foundered east of the Pollock Rip Lightship and the entire crew of 14 was lost.
Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_%28schooner%29
Noah’s Ark was not anchored. Wyoming was not prepared to ride out on waves in a storm, as the Ark was, since there was land (when Noah’s Ark took off, it was from the highest mountain) and since Wyoming did not have comparable supplies.
“What chance do you think Noah’s Ark really had?”
Considering the factors duly, a much better one than Wyoming (as the outcome verifies, known in both cases).
- Michael Kestner
- 9h ago
- Hans, it is clear that you have no interest in an actual discussion here. You’ve called my answer “stupid” and been generally rude. Now, I would normally delete your comments and mute and block you, but for now I’m leaving them up for the sake of others who may be reading. Tread lightly, I do not owe you my time or a discussion.
I’ve explained clearly in my answer and in other comments how a ship of any shape, made of wood, powered or unpowered, anchored or unanchored, could not be built to the size of the Ark and have any hope of surviving in the open sea. I also note that none of the fanatics who have built replicas of the Ark have been brave enough to chance putting their replica to the test to prove me wrong. The fact that the Ark was supposedly not anchored, but meant to drift aimlessly on the waves, makes it even less likely that it would survive. A ship at anchor in relatively protected waters will always be in a better place to ride out a storm, and yet Wyoming sank with all hands. The Ark would have fared no better. These are the facts, and whether you choose to accept them or not matters not a bit to me.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Just now
- “I’ve explained clearly in my answer and in other comments how a ship of any shape, made of wood, powered or unpowered, anchored or unanchored, could not be built to the size of the Ark and have any hope of surviving in the open sea.”
You are still forgetting the Ark was a box, not a ship.
A freely floating object.
“A ship at anchor in relatively protected waters will always be in a better place to ride out a storm, and yet Wyoming sank with all hands.”
You know, Wyoming was built for maximal speed, not for maximal buoyancy. And as to “in relatively protected waters” there were none available during the Flood until the waters around Ararat were reached.
“I also note that none of the fanatics who have built replicas of the Ark have been brave enough to chance putting their replica to the test to prove me wrong.”
I am far from sure they would have been allowed to, had they so wanted.
Also, main idea was more like showing:
- it was not a narrow ship built for speed, which could fairly easily capsize in sufficiently turbulent waters;
- it was not too small for keeping all the animals.
Korean navy has done scaled models about chances of keeping afloat.
- Michael Kestner
- 15h ago
- “Also, main idea was more like showing:
- it was not a narrow ship built for speed, which could fairly easily capsize in sufficiently turbulent waters;
- it was not too small for keeping all the animals.”
You didn’t understand my answer at all, then. First of all, a “narrow ship built for speed” (your assertion that Wyoming was built for speed is unsupported, by the way, but I’m rolling with it anyway) would be better for the job the Ark was built for than the Ark actually was, and still would have sunk. Wood is not a strong enough material to make an object of that length no matter how you shape it or how you build it. Period. End of discussion. I made no claim as to whether the Ark was large enough for it’s purpose or not, because it is irrelevant. The Ark, if it existed, would have rapidly foundered once it took to the sea.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 2m ago
- “Wood is not a strong enough material to make an object of that length no matter how you shape it or how you build it. Period. End of discussion.”
Oh, an object of that length?
Why is the Ark model (the full scale one, or the full scale ones, if several) still floating in harbour?
It has the length. It has been some while in water.
Are you aware there is a difference between floating on broad dunes and floating anchored in wild surfs?
If most land was 500 meters or more below most of water surface during Flood, which do you expect to get?
“The Ark, if it existed, would have rapidly foundered once it took to the sea.”
It didn’t “take to sea”. It was on top of the highest mountain or one of several, and it started floating as soon as that high mountain was covered.
That is the only way an information like “water covered the highest mountains to 15 fathoms deep” makes sense.
Once the available land is limited to a mountain top, there is not much solid to make surf turbulences against, and so the Ark started floating well above the deep under water turbulences which have shaped our landscapes.
- Michael Kestner
- 16h ago
- The ark models are all either landbound or built on top of barges. They do not rely on their own structural integrity to remain in one piece, or even float.
“It didn’t “take to sea”. It was on top of the highest mountain or one of several, and it started floating as soon as that high mountain was covered.
That is the only way an information like “water covered the highest mountains to 15 fathoms deep” makes sense.
Once the available land is limited to a mountain top, there is not much solid to make surf turbulences against, and so the Ark started floating well above the deep under water turbulences which have shaped our landscapes.”
There is a saying dear to my heart that goes something like “That which is presented without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” Your claim that there wouldn’t be turbulence because the water is so deep is completely unsupported and without merit. As was your claim in another comment that an object floating with the waves would not be stressed by them. You don’t even know enough about the subject to know what you don’t know. You have zero understanding of naval architecture, navigation, or physics. This discussion is going nowhere and I’m tired of it. Goodbye.
- I Cannot Add
- This Comment:
- "The ark models are all either landbound or built on top of barges. They do not rely on their own structural integrity to remain in one piece, or even float."
This is presented without evidence, and can be dismissed without evidence.
He thought he had me on one there:
"Your claim that there wouldn’t be turbulence because the water is so deep is completely unsupported and without merit."
Not at all, while 500 m depth or more is not totally comparable to Pacific Ocean, the Kon Tiki raft story is very instructive. As long as the raft was on long dunes on the open sea, no problem, but when it came to the island where it landed, for one thing it was nearly impossible to get in through the surface turbulence, for another even if they got in, the raft floundered in it. When they were at Raroia, when the waters were really turbulent surfs, the depth was most certainly very inferior to 500 m.
So, my claim is very well supported conditionally. If the Flood happened as described, the Ark clearly had a good chance of surviving on dunes. Michael Kestner pretending the contrary clearly is a refusal to take a story on its own terms before evaluating it, and interpolating factors alien to it.
Certainly, as a Christian there are factors I interpolate when evaluating Hercules or Romulus : but not many, I generally see no problem taking the story on its terms, except I don't take the theology on its terms.
There was not a single attempts here to support the claim of dunes on top of deep water being too turbulent. I take it that Michael Kestner has a theological problem with accepting the Ark story, rather than a physical one.
- Thomas L. Johnson
- C
- Jun 28
- 21 upvotes including Michael Kestner and Ma.Evelyn D. Vergara
- During the Chinese Ming period, the ships used by the explorer Zhang He were purportedly as long as the Wyoming, but they used one technique of shipbuilding that was counter intuitive on the face of it but apparently gave the ships stability. They were apparently lined with concrete, which provided both ballast and stability.
Chinese treasure ship - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_treasure_ship
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Just now
- You know, with all animals and food for them, I don’t think the Ark needed concrete too.
https://www.quora.com/Someone-told-me-that-Noahs-Ark-was-as-big-as-the-state-of-Rhode-Island-is-that-true/answer/Michael-Kestner
No comments:
Post a Comment