Evidence for God from Science

Could some people take a look at A Series of Logistical Feasibility Studies of Noah's Ark and comment on it here?

Thank you...

I. FEASIBILTY STUDY #1. Could eight humans have built the ark in 100 years, the actual time that the Bible seems to allocate to Noah to build the Ark?

[...]

The outer surface area of the ark was 114,750 square feet. My basis for this figure is as follows: The port and starboard sides of the vessel were 450 feet by 45 feet (20, 250 square feet each) The roof and bottom of the vessel were 450 feet by 75 feet (33,750 square feet each) The fore and aft sections of the vessel were 75 feet by 45 feet (3, 375 squre feet each) To give you a general idea of how much wood this is, a wooden plank 12 inches wide, 114, 750 feet long would be 21.7 miles in length.

If we assume three decks internally, as recorded on the Bible, plus the floor covering the water (See feasibilty study below) , that would add another 135,000 square feet.(if calculated two dimensionally)

Factors impossible to calculate would be the amount of wood necessary for transverse or longitudinal beams, the keel, stockpens, support beams, storage areas, and bulkheads, as these specifics are not discussed in the Bible.

His calculations are off:

* The nearest proximate palaeographical data we have for the cubit of Genesis 6 is the 9th century Siloam inscription, which uses a 17 inch cubit

* This results in an Ark of about 420 feet long

* He is assuming a solid wooden roof for the Ark, which is nowhere described in the text (in fact the 'covering' for the Ark uses a word which is always used of a tent like covering made from linen or skins)

* He also strangely supposes that only eight humans were involved in building the Ark (I have no idea why)

Then he says this:

Many naval architectural engineers have concluded, though, that a wooden ship built with no metal structural supports and only pitch "gluing" it together could be no longer than 300 feet and still maintain structural integrity on the high seas. Did Noah find a way around this limitation?

He is so badly offbase here it's not even funny.

Western ships beyond this 'limit' were built when ship design was improved with diagonal bracing in 1807 (the design was the problem, not the wood), and ship design in the Ancient Near East was much better (even certain ancient Egyptian ships were built longer than this supposed 'limit').

The Greek historian Memnon describes a timber warship built in the 3rd century BC which was around 100 metres long (about 300 feet). The Roman historian Plutarch describes a timber warship built for Ptolemy IV (around 200 BC), which was 128 metres long (about 390 feet). The largest of the Chinese baochuan ('treasure ships'), of the 15th century reached 125-160 metres in length (400-480 feet), and were made of wood.

Successful wooden ships of this size require nothing more sophisticated than such timber technology as mortise and tenon joinery, tension cables ('hogging trusses'), and bulkheads or internal bracing, such as transverse lashing and lateral or longitudinal strength beams.

The Chinese baochuan were built using mortise and tenon joinery instead of nails, and used transverse and longitudinal bulkheads (compartments in the hull facing sideways or lengthways), for strength. The Greek warships described by Memnon and Ptolemy used mortise and tenon joinery with hogging trusses, to provide strength to the hull. Egyptian tomb reliefs as early as Dynasty IV (2,613-2,494 BC), show tension trusses being used, and they are known to predate this era.

Egyptian inscriptions as early as the reign of Khufu I (2,589-2,566 BC) show ships built with internal bracing techniques such as lateral and longitudinal strength beams, and transverse lashing. Longitudinal strength bulkheads are found in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom era (between 1,991 BC and 1,648 BC), showing that this technology was used from a very early date in the Ancient Near East.

In Mesopotamia, copper was used to make hammers and nails, adzes, chisels, axes, and drill bits from before 3,500 BC, mortise and tenon joinery was used from at least the same time, whilst timber boats using sails and copper nails appear as early as 3,500 BC.

Noah was a Mesopotamian, who would have used contemporary Mesopotamian construction techniques, meaning the Ark would have used mortise and tenon joinery, longitudinal strength beams, tension trusses, and hogging trusses, just like other ships built in the Bronze Age.

The Ark was also built with internal compartments which may have acted as primitive bulkheads:

Genesis 6:
14 Make for yourself an ark of cypress wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it with pitch inside and out.

Successful timber ships over 67 metres long, carrying heavy loads, and built before the 19th century (Egyptian obelisk barges, Greek warships, Chinese baochuan), used the following technology:

• Mortise and tenon joinery
• Internal bulkheads
• Tension trusses
• Hogging trusses
• Transverse lashing
• Lateral and longitudinal strength beams

In some cases, only three out of these five techniques were used, whereas Noah's ark demonstrably used at least four of these techniques, and most likely five (excepting the bulkheads).

We know that ships this large were built. From a tomb inscription in Late Bronze Age Thebes (Egypt):

'I inspected the erection of two obelisks ////// built the august boat of 120 cubits in its length, 40 cubits in its width, in order to transport these obelisks. (They) came in peace, safety and prosperity, and landed at Karnak ////// of the city.'

Tomb inscription of Aneni, official under Pharoah Tuthmos I, 1500s BC, translation in JH Breasted, 'Ancient Records of Egypt', Part Two, 326 & 328, 1906

This 'august boat' was around 63 metres long, and 20 metres wide (207 feet long, 60 feet wide), built using Early Bronze Age technology.

A still larger ship was built (also for transporting obelisks), during the reign of Queen Hatshepsut (about 1,480 BC, Late Bronze Age), using Early Bronze Age technology (the overhead cables in the picture below are hogging trusses):



It carried two obelisks (each 29.6 metres long and weighing around 323 tons), and the ship itself is estimated at 95-140 metres long and 32 metres wide. The larger of these lengths is almost exactly the length of Noah's ark (a little over, in fact). The broad barge shape of the ship is also very similar to most modern depictions of the ark.

It is also worth noting that although ships of this size were rare in the Ancient Near East, there was no difficulty in constructing them with this technology when the need arose.

Despite the huge obelisk barges being immensely larger than all previously built ships, there is no evidence that the Egyptians were forced to spend years in experimentation, piling up nautical failures as they did so. The outsized obelisk barges appear suddenly in the historical record, apparently without having required a lengthy process of trial and error before finally reaching the desired result.

Proven design techniques were simply taken and scaled up as required. There is therefore no inherent unlikelihood in the construction of Noah's ark, despite the lack of evidence for similarly scaled vessels in Mesopotamia prior to 3,000 BC.

II. FEASIBILITY STUDY #2: How many animals could realistically be supported on the ark for 150 days without resupply?

* He concludes that it would have been possible to take '1, 402 animals, not counting arachnids and insects', with all animals being fed, watered, and cared for

* With a local flood scenario there isn't even the necessity for this number of animals

* He talks about animals such as hippopotami and elephants and includes them in his calculations when determining the average amount of food required for the animals, but such animals and these would most certainly not have been carried in the Ark, so these animals are irrelevant and his calculations have to be reconsidered

III. FEASIBILTY STUDY #3, A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO: If only humans were on Noah's ark, how many could it realistically carry and provide food and water for 150 days, the time the ark was alleged to be adrift?

This question is irrelevant.

Fortigurn, thank you very much for your replies!

What do you think of the 100 / 120 years?

Pegasus_Voyager wrote:DISCUSSION: It is a common belief amongst Christians that Noah was given 120 years to build the ark, based on Genesis 6: 3. This is false. In Genesis 5:32, it states "And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth". Moving on to Genesis 6:7, it states that God has decided to flood the Earth. Moving on to Genesis 6:10, it repeats Genesis 5:32, but omits his age. However, if Genesis 5:32 is accurate about Noah's age, it implies that Noah was at least 500 years old when God made the decision to flood the Earth. Moving on to Genesis 6:14, God instructs Noah to build the ark. These instructions had to come after he was five hundred. Moving on to Genesis 7:11, it states that in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, the fountains of the deep opened up, and in Genesis 6:13, it states that Noah and his family entered the ark that very same day. Noah had to be at least 500 years old when he received the instructions to build the ark, and was 600 years old when he entered it. Therefore, he only had, at best, 100 years to build it. (Presuming the story were true, that is)

Turgonian wrote:Fortigurn, thank you very much for your replies!

What do you think of the 100 / 120 years?

Pegasus_Voyager wrote:DISCUSSION: It is a common belief amongst Christians that Noah was given 120 years to build the ark, based on Genesis 6: 3. This is false. In Genesis 5:32, it states "And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth". Moving on to Genesis 6:7, it states that God has decided to flood the Earth. Moving on to Genesis 6:10, it repeats Genesis 5:32, but omits his age. However, if Genesis 5:32 is accurate about Noah's age, it implies that Noah was at least 500 years old when God made the decision to flood the Earth. Moving on to Genesis 6:14, God instructs Noah to build the ark. These instructions had to come after he was five hundred. Moving on to Genesis 7:11, it states that in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, the fountains of the deep opened up, and in Genesis 6:13, it states that Noah and his family entered the ark that very same day. Noah had to be at least 500 years old when he received the instructions to build the ark, and was 600 years old when he entered it. Therefore, he only had, at best, 100 years to build it. (Presuming the story were true, that is)

I'm not that fussed about it. Either way Noah had plenty of time.

Thanks.

Fortigurn, your analysis is being critiqued here.

Edit: seemingly in the way of a panicky person.

That didn't take long. Dear me, he is an angry man, isn't he?

The discussion in the original thread also continues.

Let's deal with this:

PEGASUS_VOYAGER RESPONSE: My calculations are based on a reference in the King James Version of the Bible, of which my parents gave me a copy my first year in the Army, 1980.

I suggest you use a more academic source next time. One which is actualy relevant to the topic at hand.

Also, don't you think you're "shooting yourself in the foot" by saying it was shorter? You're already strapped for space in this thing as it is.

I have no problems with space, because I believe in a local flood. Even the feasible number of animals you finally arrived at is more than enough, in my view.

Of course, your intent was to subtly suggest my feasibility study is flawed by implying I don't know the true definition of a cubit.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I was doing no such thing. I was simply correcting an error.

If you consult most references, they will say that a cubit will range from 17 to 21.88 inches.

Yes, they will say that the cubit length differed over the history of Israel. I have referred to that length which is proximate with the writing of the Genesis narrative. That is the only relevant length.

PEGASUS_VOYAGER RESPONSE: In other words, you're saying that Noah and his family sewed together a roof the size of a circus tent?

No I am not. There is no necessity for it to have been of one piece.

Are you really serious when you imply that this thing could hold up in a torrential downpour?

Even canvas holds up very well in torrential downpours (I refer you to the traditional use of canvas in the history of sailing, as well as to the huge meeting tents which were used in the 19th century revival meetings).

But your point is irrelevant. I conceded that the project was feasible and "do-able" even if there was a wooden roof. So why even bring up the roof issue? You are "sound-biting" me, setting up a straw-man that doesn't exist, and attacking it. I thought Christians were supposed to be totally honest in everything. Obviously not in apologetics. Once again, you wish to discredit the entire study with a trivial point. If the roof being made of wood made the project improbable, your point would be relevant, but to reiterate, I conceded that the project was feasible given a century or more to do it.

I was not attempting to discredit the entire study with a trivial point. I said nothing about this one point discrediting the entire study. My point in raising the roof issue was to correct your assessment of the amount of timber required. I know you acknowledged the project was feasible given a century or more to do it, but I would prefer an accurate presentation of the account rather than an inaccurate one.

PEGASUS_VOYAGER RESPONSE: To echo mwc's response, because the Bible doesn't say otherwise. Evangelicals/fundamentalists take the Bibe literally when it suits them, then put words in the authors mouths and read into it what isn't there when it's necessary to support their conclusions.

I am neither an evangelical nor a fundamentalist, but this is beside the point. It is not taking the Bible literally to say that only Noah (or only his family), built the entire Ark by themselves. The Bible says no such thing.

That would be like criticizing a history book for saying that Columbus sailed to the Americas and claiming that he couldn't have done it on his own, and yet this statement says he did it on his own and doesn't even mention a boat.

PEGASUS_VOYAGER RESPONSE: First of all, I am not off-base. I did not myself say that building a ship longer than 300 feet completely out of wood and pitch was impossible, only that nautical engineers had. If they're wrong, fine. If you recall, I asked: "Did Noah overcome this limitation?" Did I say "It would be impossible to overcome this limitation"? No, I did not.

I think this is a little disingenuous. For what purpose did you raise the authority of these 'nautical engineers' if not to cast doubt on the possibility of the Ark being of the dimensions and materials described in the Bible? If you're happy with that possibility, great, let's move on. But let's hear no more about unnamed 'nautical engineers' who say such a vessel could not have been built.

Remember, after referring to the unnamed 'nautical engineers', you then asked:

Did Noah find a way around this limitation?

Clearly you viewed this limitation as fact.

Noah was told to build the boat out of gopher wood and pitch. Did the Bible say "nails"? No, it did not. Did the Bible indicate any other construction material other than wood and pitch? No, it did not.

Are you seriously suggesting that when Noah was told to build an Ark out of wood and pitch, he was told to do so without anything else, including tools? This is not an honest way to read the text.

If I tell you to 'build a wooden boat', would you even imagine that I am instructing you to use nothing but wood, and to use no tools?

Also, every ship you mentioned that was close to equivalent in size to the ark, especially the Chinese treasure ships, required nails and/or spikes to fasten the wood.

Firstly, the similarly scaled Egyptian ships to which I referred used no nails or spikes at all. They used mortise and tenon joins (which I made very clear in my post). That aside, I also made the point that at this time in Mesopotamia copper tools, nails, and drill bits were already in use, demonstrating that they could have been used to build the Ark (though they were not necessary).

Also, the Chinese vessels had to be launced before the upper decks were completed.

So what? We're not talking about a ship desgined identically to a baochuan.

Additionally, these ships were designed by men who were extremely learned in this field of endeavor. It is doubtful that Noah had this expertise, and also that he had the manpower to do it.

Why is it 'doubtful'?

The Bible makes no mention of a brigade of "hired hands" to build this thing.

Argument from silence.

I conceded that eight people could build a wooden building essentially in a century, but a ship equivalent in compexity to these ships you mentioned? Don't even embarass yourself by suggesting it.

Not only have I not suggested it, I have suggested the opposite.

And yes, I know the Bible doesn't say that he didn't have help, but neither does it say that he did have it.

Argument from silence.

PEGASUS_VOYAGER RESPONSE: Okayyyyyyyy, when did the evangelicals "shift gears, fall-back and regroup" to the local flood scenario? I was addressing the global flood scenario. Obviously, I missed a memo or didn't read the bulletin board. Also, is it possible you finally woke up and realized that the global flood idea "won't hold water"?(sorry, couldn't resist that)

Firstly, I'm not an evangelical. Secondly, if you had done any serious research on this issue you would find that the first extra-Biblical reference to the flood being local is found in the Jewish Talmud (1st-5th centuries AD), and that standard Christian commentaries from at leass the 17th century were interpreting the flood as local.

Thirdly, I myself have considered the flood to be local for years. I reached the conclusion on the basis of my own consideration of the text and the physical evidence.

PEGASUS_VOYAGER RESPONSE: This answer is either rooted in a misunderstanding or out-and-out dishonesty. I never included those animals in my calculations for food, ony mentioned them as "FYI". I suppose by default you could say I included them since they took up space that could have been used for food, but I did not "factor in" their actual daily food intake.

It appeared to me that your calculations of the average food intake of each animal included the intake of these animals. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you and you did not in fact include the food intake of these animals when calculating the average food intake of the animals.

And once again, I was addressing the global flood scenario, which many, many Christians still embrace, so obviously hippopotomi and elephants would have to go along, since I believe it is a safe bet they couldn't tread water for 150 days.

Yes, I agree that your assessment provides a challenge for the global flood scenario. I don't hold to that view, so it's no problem for me.

Then there was the 'how many humans could you fit in the Ark' question, which I said was irrelevant. You replied:

PEGASUS_VOYAGER RESPONSE: Ultimately, it is not. Once again, you are "sound-biting" me. I indicated at the end of the study my purpose for doing it was to address a preacher's contention that all humanity could have fit on the boat. I also did this hypothetical study to reveal that the ark was not "larger than life", or some wooden "bottomless pit".

The stated purpose of your study was to discuss whether or not the building of the Ark was feasible. This question about how many humans could have fitted into it is irrelevant to that purpose. As you said, it is only relevant to the question of whether or not 'all humanity could have fit on the boat'.

That is a question unreleated to anything the Bible says about the Ark, and unrelated to the stated purpose of your study. I am uninterested in the odd comments of unnamed 'preachers', I am only interested in the stated purpose of your study. For this reason, I considered this issue to be irrelevant.

DISCUSSION: It is a common belief amongst Christians that Noah was given 120 years to build the ark, based on Genesis 6: 3. This is false.

I agree.

PEGASUS_VOYAGER RESPONSE: In other words, you are conceding that I could be right, but your hubris won't allow you to admit that an apostate skeptic "exploded a myth" and exposed an error that as existed for centuries , that even the most learned of theologians missed.

This is totally bizarre. I said nothing about you being wrong. I actually agree with you. I don't care what people make of this point. You have not 'exploded a myth' or 'exposed an error that has existed for centuries that even the most learned of theologians missed'.

That Noah had 100 years is referred to at least as early as Rabbi Jarchi (11th century), and is found in standard Christian commentaries from at least the 17th century. How you could assert that it is 'an error that has existed for centuries that even the most learned of theologians missed', is beyond me.

If Kent Hovind had caught this, you would have hailed him as a "brilliant Bible scholar"

I most certainly would not. I wouldn't have paid any attention at all. I have no time whatever for Kent Hovind.

Some other guy wrote this:

I see 3rd century BC. I see 200 BC (better). I see 15th century (presumably AD). Now, which of these designs are from 23rd century BCE? Which of these designs are for deep water with absolutely zero control? Just to be tossed about like a cork on the roughest oceans ever seen? Even if the boat survives what are the odds the cargo is dashed to bits on the interior? Zero? Good guess and very accurate. All the ships mentioned where designed to be controlled. All the ships mentioned would sink in rough waters. Why not just mention a modern carrier or something as long as you're comparing apples to oranges (which would also sink in the conditions of the biblical flood). Just because they're made of wood doesn't mean they're the same. I'm also sure that you're aware of the modern wooden ship that was built that leaked like crazy and had to be crossed braced with metal just to be structurally sound.

Find a 23rd century BCE (or older) barge of this size designed for use on the high seas and get back to us.

It's disappointing when people don't read posts. I'll deal with this briefly:

* The 15th century Chinese baochuan and the 3rd century BC polyremes were presented simply to prove that the dimensions of the ark were feasible (they were not presented as proximate evidence that the Mesopotamians built such vessels)

* I presented considerable evidence that chronologically proximate Egyptian and Mesopotamian ship building techniques were capable of building vessels of this size (I referred specifically to the Egyptian obelisk barges, built in the Middle Bronze Age with techniques which had not changed since the Early Bronze Age)

* The idea of the Ark having to resist 'the roughest oceans ever seen' is bizarre - the Bible refers to 40 days of rain, and the Ark floating on the Mesopotamian flood basin, nothing at all about 'the roughest oceans ever seen', or indeed any 'rough waters'

I should also point out that the other guy failed completely to realise that I was making a case for a local flood, not a global flood. That's what happens when you don't read posts properly.

I can see I'm going to have to join that forum, since they're still not reading my posts properly.

Under the name Fortigurn?

Yes, under the name 'Fortigurn'. But it didn't work. I registered for their forum, but after about 8 hours or so I still haven't received the confirmation email which was supposed to complete my registration and allow me to post.

So on it goes.

mwc wrote:Actually, this was understood, but you're the one that took a posting a changed the parameters of the debate. The OP that started all this was about a global flood. It's not my fault you felt this alteration should be respected when you failed to respect the OP. The bible says it's a global flood. You say it's a local flood. I say there's no flood. Now it's just a matter of scale, isn't it?

* The OP that started all this was seeking to address the question 'Was the Ark possible?', and chose to set the feasibility study in the context of a global flood - I said 'Yes', in the contex of a local flood, but the replies made to my post did not actually take this into account

* I certainly respected the OP - I answered the question directly, and made it clear that the global flood assumption was unnecessary (I even agreed with his assessment of a global flood model)

* The Bible does not say that the flood was global

* If you say there was no flood, you have to account for the geological evidence of the 2,900 BC Mesopotamian mega-flood

So, they are meaningless? You are trying to say that boats this large are possible and therefore, perhaps, Noah's boat was possible.

* If you had read my original post, as well as my succeeding post, you would have seen why I raised the other exampoles of large scale timber ships - Pegasus Voyager had cited unidentified 'naval architectural engineers' as giving their professional opinion that a wooden ship with no metal structural supports could not be built larger than 300 feet in length

* The evidence I proivded from Greek, Roman and Chinese sources was simply to demonstrate the falsity of the claim that 300 feet in length was the limit of wooden ships without metal structural supports, and I made that clear - I did not claim that this proved Noah built his boat, or even that this proved such technology was available to Noah

Please read my posts.

However, an ark is normally accepted as a box like object, so Noah was probably in a barge (not a polyreme either).

A barge is exactly what I argued for in my posts. I did not argue for a polyreme (please read my posts).

All the evidence from the time period (c2300BCE) shows no boats like the ones you describe. Unless Noah was 2000 years ahead of everyone in naval engineering then show all the example ships you like but he would have built ships of his own day like it or not.

This ignores the data I provided:

* The technology necessary to build a ship on the scale of Noah's was available in the Early Bronze Age, and was at this time already being used for building freight barges (though not on the scale of these obelisk barges)

* Such technology was used (unaltered), in the Middle Bronze Age to build ships on the scale of Noah's

* No one had to wait 2,000 years after 2,300 BC for technology necessary to build such ships

Please read my posts.

Yes, you did show this. It was a nice picture too. It was also too late as I recall. Also a ship not built for the type of flood we were discussing and until we're on the same page on that this one will have to put on the sideline.

* I acknowledged it was built in the 16th century BC, but I pointed out that it was built with the same nautical technology and design which had been used since the Early Bronze Age - the ship was simply a scaled up version of previous vessels

* It may not be a ship built for the type of flood you are discussing, but it is certainly a ship built for the type of flood I am discussing

The bible mentions 40 days of rain, the ground waters bursting forth, it makes no mention of the Mesopotamian flood basin but it does mention snuffing out the all life (human and animal) on the face of the earth. It mentions the waters covering the earth for about one year before the boat comes to rest at the top of a mountain (hard to do in a flood basin). The whole earth being covered by water would produce the roughest waters ever seen.

* The 'earth' was Mesopotamia in this historical context

* There is no mention whatever of the Ark coming to rest at the top of a mountain (have you actually read the text?)

* The Mesopotamian flood basin is surrounded by mountain ranges, and given that flood waters move both as they rise and when they drain, it was inevitable that the Ark was pushed to the edge of the flood basin where the mountain ranges were

* The Bible does not mention 'the roughest waters ever', nor does it mention 'the whole earth being covered by water'

Even if it was a local flood, if it rained non-stop for 40 days in a local area this would produce a horrific scene in that area. It would be rough. Your cited boats would sink. All of them. They would be swept away and dashed into something, or something would smash into them causing major damage. That's what happens when a flood comes along in a flood basin. You aren't "gently" lifted into the air as the water comes along. Your scenario causes major issues with the initial rush of debris that will destroy your ship.

* I am assuming you know a lot more about the hydrology of the 2,900 BC flood than I do, so please provide your sources (this idea that 40 days of non-stop rain would cause a flood with rough waves is particularly intriguing)

* I am particularly interested in the sources you are using to determine and assess the effect of this 'initial rush of debris' (I'm assuming you're familiar with the site from which the Ark was launched, and the conditions under which it entered the water, not to mention the geographical details of the 2,900 BC Mesopotamian flood basin)

* The hydrological and geological studies I have read of the 2,900 BC mega-flood indicate that it was not a swift moving flood, nor was it riverine in origin (a complete absence of marine life in the sedimental layers, the layers indicating a large body of water sitting around for an extended duration), and no evidence of high speed currents (which would have left unmistakable traces as they cut new channels, changed riverine structures, tore through trees and buildings, and would have completely inhibited the formation of the deep sedimental layers which have been found)

Pegasus Voyager wrote:Hey, I thought of a good argument to counter this "Other civilizations had big boats, why not Noah?" stuff. If God instructed Noah to build a spacecraft to house all the animals, would the fact that space travel is feasible in the 21st century make space travel feasible in Noah's century?

This is a mischaracterization of the argument. The question at issue was whether or not civilizations contemporary with Noah's had the technology necessary to build ships on the scale of the Ark. The answer to that is yes.

Also, did you see all the "red herring" arguments this fortigurn guy was using? Calling me "panicky" because I responded so quickly to his critique. and "angry".

This is yet more evidence that my posts are not being read. I was not the one who referred to you as 'panicky'. That was Turgonian. I referred to you as 'angry' because your post sounded angry. I apologise if I misread you.

Talk about hypocritical! Who's being "panicky" here realistically? Within a matter of hours after I posted my feasibility study, turgonian goes running willy-nilly to "god and science" screaming "DANGER WILL ROBINSON", and within a 24 hour period, his friend fortigurn spits out practically a mini-thesis to attack my study. And they call me "panicky"???Please!

I didn't see any screaming being done, nor a 'mini-thesis'. I simply pointed out a few errors in your study. As it happens I clicked on that thread by chance, no one alerted me to it, and I responded to it when I read it simply because I had the time to do so. You appear to be overdramatizing the situation for polemic purpoes.

Also, did you notice how "canned" and "scripted" turgonian's conversation with fortigurn apeared to be?

No I didn't. What do you mean by this?

Also, in the immortal words of "Emily Latella"(Gilda Radner), "What's all this talk about anger manglement?? Pretty soon they'll want to shred depression!" Even if I was angry, which Im not, why is it treated as something aberrant or deviant if you are, especially in the Christian community.

I saw no 'talk about anger management', nor any evidence that anger was being treated as 'aberrant or deviant'. Which posts were you reading?

Anger is a perfectly healthy emotion, as long as it's controlled.

I certainly agree.

Additionally, why is this guy fortigurn jumping through hoops over this? Was my study that big of a deal to these guys? Actually, I'm kind of flattered!

I'm not aware that I was jumping through any hoops. I saw something which interested me, and I responded. I'm actually flattered you took the time to review my reply (even though you didn't read it properly).

mwc wrote:I did a quick search for this "august boat" and came up empty handed. I'll try again later when I have a bit more time.

I suggest your search technique may be at fault. Try here, here, here, here, and here. This is a matter of historical record.

However, both of these Egyptian boats are from roughly 1000 years too late (You should be considering something more like this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/egypt/explore/boat.html which is far closer to the time period we're discussing and keeping in mind apples to apples it is also Egyptian like your example).

They are not too late, because they use the same Egyptian ship building technology and techniques which was used over 1,000 years earlier, simply on a larger scale. Egyptian ships dating to the 1st dynasty (the Abydos ships of 2,950-2,775 BC, found in 1991), used exactly the same building techniques. The Solar Barque to which you linked is certainly not a case of comparing apples to apples, because it is not a freight barge but a funerary artefact. It is undoubtedly seaworthy, but it is clearly not intended to carry freight (it was probably designed for a sarcophagus, but nothing in the way of freight).

From the image you posted it appears the cargo is placed upon the deck as opposed to internally if we take the image literally. They don't appear to be designed for anything other than river work.

I'm wondering how this is relevant.

So beyond being able to carry a very heavy capacity on the deck what are they good for in a flood?

What do they need to be good for? They were able to carry very heavy loads, certain of them were designed to drift unguided (without a helmsman or rudder), they could travel 60-70 kilometres a day with a load of several hundred tons, and they kept the water out. What else do you want?

How GOOD were these ships? Your image cannot answer this nor can your argument. Did they all work as designed 100% of the time or did 99% of them sink? Is that why the Aneni was so proud? He actually succeeded where others had failed?

I can certainly answer these questions. They were very good. We have multiple epigraphical and papyrological sources which illustrate their success (not to mention the many obelisks themselves which these ships carried). These ships were used on a regular basis, year in, year out. Records have been found warning of the various dangers encountered in the river channels at different times of the year (in particular the danger of running aground in the summer season, when the rivers were low).

There are some 20 known reliefs and relief fragments illustrating Egyptian nautical technology from the Old Kingom era alone 2,575-2,134 BC). But further back than this, in the pre-dynastic era, we have abundant evidence from boat graves as early as 3,800 BC. From this evidence we see a high level of standardisation of shipbuilding practices dating from about 3,300 BC onwards.

We find standard techniques such as mortise and tenon joinery, transverse lashing, carvel shell construction, and edge to edge plank binding used from the late pre-dynastic era right through to the New Kingdom, over 1,000 years.

Consistency and standardisation were prominent features of ancient Egyptian shipbuilding:

The feature is seen repeatedly on representations of other early Egyptian boats, and indicates 'accepted practice': the correct way to build and to portray a boat incorporated transverse lashing of major components.

By the fifth millennium BC, some boats were able to move large loads because they relied on displacement rather than simple buoyancy.

[...]

It can be suggested that the practices by which the transition was accomplished were rapidly standardised and can be traced through Egyptian boat-building for more than a thousand years. Examination of woodworking and standard boat-building techniques in the fourth and third millennia supports this hypothesis.

[...]

It is possible to examine the development of woodworking skills through tools, artefacts and features in tombs at several sites. By the mid-fourth millennium, evidence for sophisticated woodworking exists, and specialised carpenters had probably become a part of ordinary life in regional centres such asMaadi,Nagada orNekhen.

[...]

Grave enclosures in the Predynastic Naga-ed-Dêr cemetery (Lythgoe & Dunham 1965; phase dates in Savage 1998) demonstrate an increased standardisation and complexity of woodworking technology.

[...]

Knowledge and control of raw materials, production and design are reflected in technological standardisation visible by the third phase of Nagd-ed-Dêr burials [pre-dynastic era] when a limited range of techniques was repeatedly used to join individual planks of uniform thickness and width with lengths of 2m or more (Lythgoe & Dunham 1965: xiv-xv, 202-5).

[...]

It was startling to realise that the strap shows the same weave and
approximately the same dimensions as similar remains from Lisht planks created more than a thousand years later.

[...]

Examination of the details of hull construction over a period of 1200 years indicates regularities in design, plank shape, plank fastenings and even the dimensions of individual components.

One explanation for the enduring tradition could be the establishment of communities of specialists with an extensive apprenticeship programme that maintained group practice over a very long period.

Cheryl Ward, 'Boat-building and its social context in early Egypt: interpretations from the First Dynasty boat-grave cemetery at Abydos', Antiquity volume 80, pages 118—129, 2006

Large wooden freight barges capable of moving heavy loads by virtue of displacement rather than buoyancy are found as early as the pre-dynastic era, with rock carvings and pottery illustrations displaying vessels of 200 and even 275 feet long.

His is the only mention of the "august boat" I could find so your claim that "there was no difficulty in constructing them with this technology when the need arose" is unfounded. That's okay if that's your assertion. Perhaps it's even true but one difficult to locate inscription seems like hardly enough evidence on which to base such a claim (and it seems everyone simply copies this same bit over and over unfortunately...so my search for something more concrete continues).

I am amazed that 'His is the only mention of the "august boat"' you could find. This is not about 'one difficult to locate inscription' (you appear to be overlooking the Hatshepsut barge, the details of which I provided for you, including the epigraphical evidence, and which was even larger than this 'august boat'), this is about a nautical culture which left copious records of its technology, designs, and achievements. Egyptian inscriptions detailing their nautical technology are legion. We have books and books of them, and the evidence for the obelisk barges in particular is abundant. Herodotus notes that they were still being used in his own day, and marvelled at the huge loads they were able to carry.

They must have gotten better as time went on since we know obelisks made it far outside of Egypt. I have no qualms with that.

Not only do we know that obelisks made it far outside Egypt, but we know that the ship building techniques the Egyptians used had first arisen in Mesopotamia before travelling West to Egypt. They were using techniques which had been used since around 4,000 BC in Mesopotamia. In fact they were still trailing behind the Mesopotamian nautical technology in Hatshepsut's reign, since the Mesopotamian ship building technology had by this time been using copper nails and drill bits for around 1,500 years (before 3,000 BC in fact).

However, we are talking about Noah and not the Egyptians and so this path only takes us so far. I concede that the Egyptians may have built a really fantastic boat around 1500 BCE but that has no bearing on Noah of the ~23rd century BCE.

I believe I've explained why it does. That 1,500 BC boat was built using exactly the same technology and construction techniques which had been available and used since the Early Bronze Age. The only difference is that it was a scaled up version of the commonly used Early Bronze Age design.

As for this statement "Proven design techniques were simply taken and scaled up as required." This rarely works in the real world. I'm not an engineer but I've had enough of them talk over my head to know that materials, especially wood, can't just be "scaled up" otherwise we'd have wooden sky scrapers. We don't. Wood fails structurally at a given point. It's a fact. Make it thicker and you not only add weight but you lose your internal cargo space. There's a point of diminishing returns. I'm sorry I'm not the one to discuss the finer details of this with as it's way out of my area of knowledge. However, the broad stroke, you can't simply take something that works on the small scale and make it bigger "as required," is a factual statement. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't (with something as complex as a ship with all it's various stresses I'd imagine it fails more often than not...I'd ask a nautical engineer if I knew one).

You appear not to have read my post. I did not assert that any given design can simply be scaled up. I am aware of the law of diminishing returns. You are not actually addressing what I wrote. I pointed out that the Early Bronze Age ship building techniques of the Egyptians were still being used by the Egyptians in the Middle Bronze Age. I pointed out that they were being used in the Middle Bronze Age to build ships far larger than had been built by the Egyptians in the Early Bronze Age.

The technology was the same, and the ship designs were the same. The only difference was that the scale had been enlarged. Yes, it's true that a given deisgn cannot simply be scaled up indefinitely - the law of diminishing returns prevents that. But in this case there is no doubt that the design was scaled up. This is not a matter for dispute.

All you have to do is look at the inscriptions which display the Early Bronze Age Egyptian ships being built, and compare them with the inscriptions which display the Middle Bronze Age Egyptian obelisk barges being built. You will find that the ship designs and construction techniques used by the Middle Bronze Age obelisk barges are identical to those which had been used over 1,000 years previously. The only difference is that they were now being used on a larger scale.

If you can prove from your examination of the relevant epigraphical evidence that Middle Bronze Age Egyptian ship building design and technology was significantly different to that used in the Early Bronze Age, and that the obelisk barges used techniques which had not been used previously, I would be very interested to read the case with which you challenge the relevant scholarship in this field.

I recommend something to you which you will probably not have read, 'An Analysis Of Tomb Reliefs Depicting Boat Construction From The Old Kingdom Period In Egypt', a published thesis by Edward Rogers (1996), as well as the paper by Cheryl Ward I have already quoted.