Evidence for God from Science

macguy wrote:

Gman wrote: Hi Mac,
I'm sorry I don't have more websites for you. One of the authors I quoted is dead now. You will need his books for that. Here are some good websites for you that I use often...

http://www.godandscience.org/ (obviously)
http://www.reasons.org/
http://www.newcreationism.org/
http://www.answersincreation.org
Take care Mac..

I must admit that i was a bit disappointed that you quoted an anti-christian website such as talk-origins. From the start, you can see that they have a great dislike towards creationism even without knowing who they are. One's presuppositions are of course going to lead them to find evidence that is contrary to a global flood. Rather than proving the global flood wrong, He was merely asking more questions as a way to cause doubt. One thing that we must realize is many want to change the facts. Just because an article sounds very grandiloquent doesn't mean that they are necessarily correct/wrong. You didn't need to quote a site such as that one. Reasons.org would've been better. I've been reading talk-origins material and find that there is much deceit. It may deceive the non-scientifc, but we must be cautious.

Thank you for the links

Talkorigins is a rough site and there is a lot of mocking, sarcasm and poor thinking that goes around there. There's some good information too but you have to sift through a garbage to find the pearls.

It actually deceives more than the non-scientific. Many very scientific people use it as a platform to trumpet their atheist/agnostic materials and attack Christianity.

In particular Young Earth Creationism attacks their fire and in many cases they equate YEC with Christianity as a whole.

I do believe it is a valid argument to note that YEC in this instance may be a stumbling block to some in seriously considering Christ. However, I'm also very aware that the Gospel itself is foolishness to those who are perishing. God has to by His Holy Spirit do the work in preparing and drawing people to Himself.

We should not seek to make the Gospel more palatable lest we slip into compromise. But neither should we add elements that make it even more difficult and which, in the case of YEC, in my opinion, are not cardinal nor clearly taught in Scripture.

Sorry about that Mac... As Bart has stated, you have to work around the junk to get to the heart of the issue.

I thought that they nicely put things in order so that one could easily pin point the arguments. And yes, I understand that some of what they quote can be easily be refuted by the global flood theory. Others not... Btw, it feels good to watch what they are advocating disappear with the local flood theory.

As for as their conclusions though (about evolution), we all know where that ball is bouncing.. I hope anyways.. I by no means support them.

I have debated them already a few times and they wouldn't let me respond after my first clause. So it really wasn't much of a debate. They just played it off to their advantage. So much for free speech...

G -

Turgonian wrote:http://www.globalflood.org

I don't quite know what to make of the author of this site, John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics/Space Physics. On his own time, he believes in a young earth and a global flood, but during the work week he does research and publishes papers on standard old earth topics. When Turgonian posted this link, I sent Dr. Baumgartner an email through his website, but have had no reply. Text of the message was

Your global flood website is from a young earth viewpoint. Your professional papers (eg Stirring in 3-d spherical models of convection in the Earth's mantle) state "The timescale in our models is unlikely to correspond to the real Earth, because surface velocities are smaller than observed, the viscosity profile does not evolve and we only speculate about the initial conditions.". Yet there are references to billions of years "A constant temperature of 288K is assumed for the outer boundary, because it is the mean surface temperature today and there has been liquid water on the surface for at least 3.8Ga.". How are Ga and a young earth reconciled?

Oh well, that gives me the last three posts, so I had better quit for now.

I tell you I am right now suffering with this question.

I am 52, my grandfather was a pastor, so all I know is my upbringing. If I throw out half the years of my life, I have still heard over 1000 sermons, not counting all the classes and books I have read. And after pondering this question I cannot understand why it is not the "primary" question at the "forefront" of "all debates".

I am also a practical minded journalistic type person, and understand "cult thinking" that intimidates members into not asking questions as in the day's of Galileo.

But I "must" ask this question because it is germane to authenticity of Christ. I say that because Jesus was our "proof-reader" and "auditor" of the bible during his lifetime. As a Rabbi, he had the bible memorized. As the Son of God, he wrote the bible, He "was" the Word. So if there is any imperfection in the bible, then Jesus cannot be authentic. And I don't understand why the Church at large does not engage in this openly to acknowledge "this is as simple as it gets." It's all about validating Jesus.

Ether "all" timeframes in the bible chronology are "true" and without error, or Jesus is not authentic. There can be no in-between as I can see at this time. It bares completely on the validation of Christ because in John 14:2 he says "if it were not so I would have told you".

Luke 3:23-38 defines the geneology back to Adam. The lives in years define a chronology. This chronology cannot be symbolic in anyway or Jesus would have told us so the same as his words in John 14:2.

So the "literal vs. symbolic" and "old world vs. new world" debates within the church are meritless because those debates side-step the fact Jesus "audited" the word in his day. He is responsible to that audit no less that a bank auditor for the recent Enron crimes.

Jesus' entire ministry can be tested against the accuracy of the biblical chronology back to Adam, and scientific evidence to support or debunk the age of the world to be 6000 yrs old, and a flood that wiped out ALL mankind. So the debate can only be "literal or fake", nothing between. This is what is so troubling and disconcerting.

This is extremely disturbing for me. I want the bible to be true in it's entirety. I want a firm foundation to my faith in Christ. I can't imagine the universe having any other truth.

But this "simple" acid test is all that is needed to prove or disprove the authenticity of Christ. Nothing more. So the "literal" test of the Word is primarily to test the "authenticity of Christ", period. If that test fails, then faith fails, and the bible is nothing other than an additional source of history.

Can you see the basic simplistic situation of this? Do you see anything I am proposing that is "not true" in my presentation? All other debates are meaningless.

David

dhoff wrote:I tell you I am right now suffering with this question.

I am 52, my grandfather was a pastor, so all I know is my upbringing. If I throw out half the years of my life, I have still heard over 1000 sermons, not counting all the classes and books I have read. And after pondering this question I cannot understand why it is not the "primary" question at the "forefront" of "all debates".

I am also a practical minded journalistic type person, and understand "cult thinking" that intimidates members into not asking questions as in the day's of Galileo.

But I "must" ask this question because it is germane to authenticity of Christ. I say that because Jesus was our "proof-reader" and "auditor" of the bible during his lifetime. As a Rabbi, he had the bible memorized. As the Son of God, he wrote the bible, He "was" the Word. So if there is any imperfection in the bible, then Jesus cannot be authentic. And I don't understand why the Church at large does not engage in this openly to acknowledge "this is as simple as it gets." It's all about validating Jesus.

Ether "all" timeframes in the bible chronology are "true" and without error, or Jesus is not authentic. There can be no in-between as I can see at this time. It bares completely on the validation of Christ because in John 14:2 he says "if it were not so I would have told you".

Luke 3:23-38 defines the geneology back to Adam. The lives in years define a chronology. This chronology cannot be symbolic in anyway or Jesus would have told us so the same as his words in John 14:2.

So the "literal vs. symbolic" and "old world vs. new world" debates within the church are meritless because those debates side-step the fact Jesus "audited" the word in his day. He is responsible to that audit no less that a bank auditor for the recent Enron crimes.

Jesus' entire ministry can be tested against the accuracy of the biblical chronology back to Adam, and scientific evidence to support or debunk the age of the world to be 6000 yrs old, and a flood that wiped out ALL mankind. So the debate can only be "literal or fake", nothing between. This is what is so troubling and disconcerting.

This is extremely disturbing for me. I want the bible to be true in it's entirety. I want a firm foundation to my faith in Christ. I can't imagine the universe having any other truth.

But this "simple" acid test is all that is needed to prove or disprove the authenticity of Christ. Nothing more. So the "literal" test of the Word is primarily to test the "authenticity of Christ", period. If that test fails, then faith fails, and the bible is nothing other than an additional source of history.

Can you see the basic simplistic situation of this? Do you see anything I am proposing that is "not true" in my presentation? All other debates are meaningless.

David

Yet you also fail to see that Jesus himself said Parables when he spoke. Everything was audited by God but that does not say he did not allow the Writer to have his own influence on the Written word. I am guessing like Christ did with John in Revelations he also did with the Moses in Genesis. So your basic principle has flaws because you do not allow for different Languages, Eras, etc... We can all agree that the Bible was inspired by God but it was also written by Men who had their own Styles, Visions, Interpretations of those Visions. It does not negate the fact that it is True but it does stop the world 2-4000 years later from completely understanding the meaning. Why do you think there is so many different Denominations in this World. It is due to our interpretations and to the Values we have as people. We may all believe in the Common Theme that Jesus is Lord but we value different things in the Bible more then others. I believe in the same with the Writers of the Bible. That is why we need to understand the Era and find out the most we can about the History. It allows us to understand where the writer is coming from and his Vision.

You see a Crisis in your Road but I see an opportunity to know Christ More!

So lets take your Quote first and go from there

Jesus' entire ministry can be tested against the accuracy of the biblical chronology back to Adam, and scientific evidence to support or debunk the age of the world to be 6000 yrs old, and a flood that wiped out ALL mankind. So the debate can only be "literal or fake", nothing between. This is what is so troubling and disconcerting.

Question were any of the people in the Chronology Women? What if a Man did not have a Male Child? What if for 6 generations there was no Male born? Each Generation could be the Great Grandfather or so on...
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld016.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... enealogies

Yes I agree the Flood wiped out all Mankind...
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

Then go ahead take a Literal take on it



Sincerely
Bizzt

dhoff,

What you say would be true, if the purpose of the geneologies in Matthew and Luke were to give the history of all mankind. However, I hold that these geneologies served different purposes, identifying the kingship (Matthew) and priesthood (Luke) of our Savior.

In fact most geneologies in the Bible have purposes other then just an overview of human history. Consider the gaps in the Chronolgy of Ezra...

Ezra 7:1-5 - Aaron, Eleazar, Phineas, Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Azariah, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Shallum, Hilkiah, Azariah, Seraiah.

Compare with...

1 Chronicles 6:3-14 - Aaron, Eleazar, Phineas, Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Ahimaaz, Azariah, Johanan, Azariah, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Shallum, Hilkiah, Azariah, Seraiah, Ezra.

Hope this helps,

PL

I can't see in the Flood account anything other than a global catastrophe.

If the Flood was local:

1- How local it was, in other words, where is the scientific evidence setting its specific geographic limits?
2- In connection with the above, a local scenario would require a basin-like location demarcated by elevations at a higher altitude than Mt. Ararat which would not be submerged in the flood waters: where are those?
3- Why would a local flood require almost a year to dry off?
3- How come the word 'upward' cannot be prepositionally understood in its direct sense of 'above, over', or 'covered' as anything but 'filled up, concealed, hidden, overwhelmed' when the context is so clear? (Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth. And all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Gen 7:20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.)
4- Why the pains of building an ark and gathering the animals if Noah could have just been instructed to walk away from the flood area?
5- Knowing that local floods continue to occur in several regions of the world every year, what can we make of God's thought (Gen 8:21 ...And Jehovah said in His heart, ... I will not again smite every living thing as I have done. ) and solemn covenant with Noah (Gen 9:11 And I will establish My covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.)

Those and other arguments I have against the theory of a local deluge.

Since mention was made of church fathers in an earlier post, I will also note that Philo, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo believed the extent of the Flood was global.

Jorge S wrote:I can't see in the Flood account anything other than a global catastrophe.

If the Flood was local:

1- How local it was, in other words, where is the scientific evidence setting its specific geographic limits?

2- In connection with the above, a local scenario would require a basin-like location demarcated by elevations at a higher altitude than Mt. Ararat which would not be submerged in the flood waters: where are those?

The highest hills would not have been submerged... There has been some research on this but more needs to be done. I think a good explanation I've seen comes from William Ryan and Walter Pitman, geologists from Columbia University. Their book Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries about the Event that Changed History covers most of it...



Source: //www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm

3- Why would a local flood require almost a year to dry off?

Jorge, you will need to read Rich Deem's article on this in the beginning of this thread.

//www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

3- How come the word 'upward' cannot be prepositionally understood in its direct sense of 'above, over', or 'covered' as anything but 'filled up, concealed, hidden, overwhelmed' when the context is so clear? (Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth. And all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Gen 7:20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.)

It's covered by Ernest L Martin at the beginning of this thread. Bascially when Moses said the mountains were "covered," he did not mean they were "submerged."

//discussions.godandscience.org/about2551-0-asc-0.html

4- Why the pains of building an ark and gathering the animals if Noah could have just been instructed to walk away from the flood area?

Quote by Rich Deem: "If God had told Noah to just migrate away from the flood area, the people would not have been warned of the impending judgment. Ultimately, they were without excuse in their rebellion against God, since the impending judgment was proclaimed to them for 100 years before it happened. Likewise, God will send two preachers for 1260 days prior to the ultimate judgment of God.16 Those who get on God's ark (Jesus Christ) will be saved from the judgment and pass from death to eternal life."

5- Knowing that local floods continue to occur in several regions of the world every year, what can we make of God's thought (Gen 8:21 ...And Jehovah said in His heart, ... I will not again smite every living thing as I have done. ) and solemn covenant with Noah (Gen 9:11 And I will establish My covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.)

Quote by Rich Deem: "The first part of the verse is a promise not to exercise universal judgment by means of a flood, "all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood." The flood, although local in extent, was global in judgment, since all humanity lived in the same locale. It wasn't until God confused the languages (Genesis 11) that people began to spread over the earth. So, God promised to never again execute universal judgment of humans by means of a flood. The second part, "never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth" can be explained by other verses found in the Genesis flood account.

Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

The passage in this instance refers to the people of the earth, since planet earth itself was not corrupt. Likewise, Genesis 9:11 is referring to the people of the earth rather than the planet itself. Ultimately, even if the flood were global, it did not "destroy the earth," but just the people on the earth. As stated above, "people" is often understood from the Hebrew word erets."

//www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Those and other arguments I have against the theory of a local deluge.

Since mention was made of church fathers in an earlier post, I will also note that Philo, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo believed the extent of the Flood was global.

Yes and many of them didn't even know about how big our world really is as we know today.

Marco Pollo was one of the first westerners to travel the Silk Road to China in the 1200's..

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Pollo

Also the Americas were considered a land mass around 1507, or perhaps a bit earlier but not 2000 years ago...

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

Hope this helps...

sandy_mcd wrote:

macguy wrote: First of all, have they made an ark that size to see if it could be seaworthy? Scripture doesn't specify on what type of wood was used for the building anyways. Perhaps there was better material back in the time of Noah. My speculation doesn't refute anything but it's a rather "possible" theory. The ark was built for stability by the way. Some of the stuff talk origin presents is ridiculous. Take a look at this thorough investigation: http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp

An earlier post http://discussions.godandscience.org/post-27196.html included information on some of the largest wooden ships built. In the light of that evidence, it seems to me that it is up to Ark proponents to demonstrate that such a ship could be built or specify the material properties necessary for gopher wood to hold up. Almost anything is (was?) possible if a vague "things were different back then" claim is made.

This may help.

I just want to make sure that you guys realize than in a local flood model, not only do you have to limit man's extent to the mesopotamian plain, but also all animal life as well.

• 6:7, The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
  
  6:12-13, God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.
  
  6:17, "Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
  
  6:19, "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
  
  7:4"For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made."
  
  7:15-16, So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life. Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him.
  
  7:21-23, All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
  
  8:21b, and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
  
  9:11, "I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth."

Just food for thought. If the purpose was the total destruction of man, it was equally the total destruction of all animal life that was made. Therefore, if the flood was local, then all animal life was contained in that local area. I don't want to argue the point - again, just food for thought.

God bless

The following is a list of phrases used in the description of the flood, together
with examples of them used elsewhere in a non-global sense:

* 'all flesh: Psalm 145:21, Isaiah 40:5; 66:23, Jeremiah 45:5, Ezekiel 20:48; 21:4, Joel 2:28

* 'under heaven': Mark 16:15, Colossians 1:23

* 'the face of the earth': Genesis 4:14 ; 41:56, Exodus 10:5, Numbers 11:31; 22:5, 11, Isaiah 23:17, Jeremiah 25:26, Ezekiel 34:5; 38:20

* 'The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground', Ezekiel 38:20

Equivalent phrases also used in a non-literal sense include:

* Deuteronomy 2:25, 'all people under heaven'

* 1 Kings 18:20, 'every nation and kingdom'

* Ezekiel 38:20, 'The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground, and all people who live on the face of the earth'

* Daniel 4:1; 5:19; 6:24, 'all peoples, nations, and language groups'

* Mark 16:15, Colossians 1:23, 'all creation'

Jac3510 wrote:If the purpose was the total destruction of man, it was equally the total destruction of all animal life that was made. Therefore, if the flood was local, then all animal life was contained in that local area. I don't want to argue the point - again, just food for thought.

I don't believe there were any "ifs" here.. I think the Bible clearly states that the flood mainly happened as a response to the wickedness of man, not animals.. If so the focus was on mankind.. Unfortunately many animals lived near the humans so they met their doom as well.

Here in Genesis 6:5 it is attributing to man's "thoughts of the heart" being "evil" all the time. Nowhere else in the Bible I can see where animals were attributed to having evil or immoral thoughts.. If they did, we better start reading them their rights in our courts of law...

Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Here God grieves that he made man, not the animals directly...

Genesis: 6:6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Again because of the violence of man God is going to destroy the earth..

Genesis 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Later confirmed in the NT..

2 Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

Fortigurn wrote:This may help.

Fortigurn, thanks for the powerpoint slides... From what I understand, there may be some problems with the flood occurring in the Mesopotamian Plains in the cities of Ur, Erech, Shuruppak and Kish, (commonly now known today as the regions of Iraq)..


Mesopotamian Plains


Flood layers

The classic case of a local flood occurring in the city of Ur excavated by Leonard Woolley and the British Museum in the 1920's has come under some criticisms over the years. Excavations in the Mesopotamian Plain revealed the presence of a layer of silt at a depth of 2.5 meters (8 feet). This stratum consisted of clay carried by the waters of a flood, however it turned out later that this flood layer did not cover the city of Ur entirely. What they found is that the river of the Euphrates had once covered that area but later it had moved..

Perhaps a better location could be found. Reason's to Believe seems to point to other geographical areas. In their claim, they put the local flood to the Mesopotamia area and beyond.

Quote RTB: "Biblical clues to the geographical limits on human habitation can be found in the place-names Genesis mentions or does not mention. In Genesis 1-9 the text mentions place-names only in the environs of Mesopotamia. From Genesis 10 onward, we encounter references (by name or direction) to places beyond Mesopotamia, in fact, to places covering much of the Eastern hemisphere.

This sudden shift from narrow to wider geographical range after Genesis 10 strongly suggests that until the time of the Flood, human beings and their animals remained in and around Mesopotamia. Therefore, to fulfill His purpose in sending the deluge, God would need to flood only the Mesopotamian plain and perhaps some adjacent territories (such as the areas of the Black Sea to the north)."

When we speak of our world today we mean the entire world or globe. When the people wrote the Bible, their picture or world view map was much different from what we know today. Unfortunately literalists think that their global view of the earth must apply to the view that the people had at that time or where they were living. This is a major mistake..

An interesting note... The Bible claims that the ark rested in the mountains of Ararat (in eastern Turkey), not on the mountain of Ararat itself. Ernest clarifies the location a bit better perhaps.

Quote Ernest: "The answer to this so-called dilemma is so easy to understand. The reason that the ark landed in the mountain area of Ararat is because that is where it was built. The simple truth is, Noah constructed the ark in a basin area in the mountains of Ararat (say in the region where Lake Van is at the present). Since that area around Lake Van has no outlet to the sea, the ark would have risen with the rising waters from the 276 inches of rain that fell. In actual fact, the watershed area in the basin could have caused a lake to develop (possibly Lake Van itself) to a height well over 40 or 50 feet deep from the waters that came "from above," Since the ark was not constructed to navigate to some distant area (it was simple built to float), it could have been built in the basin area where Lake Van is presently situated and touched land again just a few miles away from where it was built.

One thing for certain, the ark did not come to rest near the top of Mount Ararat (some suppose at about the 15,000 foot level). Moses said it anchored in "the mountains of Ararat," not on Mount Ararat itself. The region near the shores of modern Lake Van (being in a basin area) could well fit the precise spot where the ark again touched land. The fact that the ark landed in a basin area (where a new lake had formed on account of the prodigious amount of water that came "from above" and onto the earth) may well explain how other basin areas on earth (without outlets to the oceans) became partially filled with water during the time of Noah's flood. The origin of the waters in the Dead Sea, just to the east and south of Jerusalem (and many similar areas in other parts of the world), could be explained with this interpretation. But if, on the other hand, Noah's flood did in fact submerge even the highest of the mountains, then why was not the basin area containing the Dead Sea brim full with water in the time of Abraham and even today from those flood water? The simple truth is, the Dead Sea basin is not full of water (nor other basins on the earth) because the earth, since the time of Adam, had never been submerged in water."



In this map you can see Lake Van (in the eastern part of Turkey) with mount Ararat on the right hand side.

an ape wrote:Sandy mcd: ~6000 in Galveston two centuries ago
Twas May of 1900. I had a relative in the Houston zoo at the time
an ape

You can't trust an ape.
'Twas September 8-9, 1900.
[There was no Houston zoo in 1900. "May" be your relative was a politician?]
1900 was in the 19th century; 2006 is in the 21st century.
Aside: Were you the model for that old BASIC game where you throw bananas (?) and destroy the other ape?

Fortigurn wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:An earlier post http://discussions.godandscience.org/post-27196.html included information on some of the largest wooden ships built. In the light of that evidence, it seems to me that it is up to Ark proponents to demonstrate that such a ship could be built or specify the material properties necessary for gopher wood to hold up.

This may help.

Thanks, that is a pretty comprehensive slideshow.
There are four references to earlier large wooden ships:
1) Greek reference to 3rd century BC warship.
2) Roman (and Egyptian?) reference to 2nd century BC Egyptian ship.
3) 15th century Chinese treasure ships.
4) 1807 western ship.

There are no references given to support these claims. The first two are historical and not scientific. Without archaeological support, it is hard to give them much credence. The latter two claims should be easier to document, but Googling around I could find nothing to back them up (iron reinforcements were apparently starting to become feasible by the early 1800's).
It is certainly true that earlier civilizations had technical skills which were lost over time (Roman concrete, Egyptian pyramid construction techniques). So maybe this is true for wooden ship construction skills as well. But in the absence of any physical evidence for such ships and in the presence of evidence that later shipbuilders could not duplicate these efforts, I am going to side (until there is some other evidence) with the naysayers on this one.
Two important points are:
1) The largest known (i.e. reasonable documentation provided for) wooden ships were not barges as the Ark is described, and thus had drastically smaller capacities. I suspect (just guessing) that the barge configuration would be more stressful (on the wood structure) than the standard ship configuration.
2) Even so, the purported size of the Ark is not that much larger than what is supposed to be possible. Given the unknowns and approximations used, the size argument (to a non-shipwright at least) does not seem to be all that strong. There are bigger difficulties to overcome, such as subsequent genetic diversification.