Hope for your project - a little off topic.

Discussion in 'C++' started by woodbrian77@gmail.com, Jun 9, 2013.

  1. David Brown Guest

    On 29/04/14 12:45, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "Juha Nieminen" wrote in message
    > news:lhsnm0$2bpo$...
    >
    > Reply at the end...
    >
    > -----------------------------------------
    > wrote:
    >> I don't know the students. But my understanding is
    >> the majority of animals are unclean. I'm also of
    >> the opinion it was a regional flood. So I don't think
    >> 35,000 species were on the ark.

    >
    > It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
    > unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
    > and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
    > probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.
    >
    > You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number
    > was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
    > other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
    > humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
    > and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern
    > times. They were not built of wood. There's a maximum size that you
    > can build from wood before it crumbles under its own weight.)
    >
    > Even if it were to build a boat of that size from wood alone (it's
    > not, but let's assume it is), it's logistically impossible to do with
    > such a small crew with bronze-age technology.
    >
    > Building a boat of that size with such a small crew and such primitive
    > technology would have taken decades, if not hundreds of years. "That's
    > fine", you say, "Noah was hundreds of years old." Yeah, sure, let's
    > accept that myth. However, that's not the problem. The problem is that
    > a wooden structure of that size would require constant maintenance,
    > especially given that it's constantly exposed to the elements. At some
    > point, when the structure reaches a certain size, the amount of
    > maintenance will take all the effort of the four-man crew, stopping
    > them from actually building any more of it.
    >
    > Even if the boat wouldn't crumble under its own weight, it just cannot
    > be seaworthy. There's a lot of engineering that goes into building big
    > modern vessels, such as oil tankers. The sea exerts all kinds of stress
    > onto the ship and it has to be designed to withstand them.
    >
    > Even if it had been just a *building* made of wood, rather than a boat,
    > it would have been completely unprecedent for the time. The technology
    > just wasn't there and, once again, there's a limit of how big a wooden
    > structure can be.
    >
    > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
    > -------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    > For me, to believe that there is some degree of truth in the story of
    > Noah's Ark means accepting that there was considerable divine
    > intervention at every step of the way. Personally I have no problem
    > with that and don't try to "prove" the story based on science alone and
    > nor do I feel I need to.
    >
    > If there wasn't a divine force or supernatural powers then not much of
    > the Bible makes sense anyway. I believe Jesus was God and rose from the
    > dead. Nothing scientific in that. Not a problem for me.
    >


    That's consistent, I suppose.

    However, I think it makes more sense to divide the Bible stories into
    three fairly obvious categories.

    One is the divine or supernatural parts - such as Jesus rising from the
    dead. That sort of thing is clearly a matter of belief and not
    scientific, but still has to be accepted as basically factual if you are
    a believer at all.

    Another group is the historical stuff - things like the records of the
    kings of Israel, or the letters to the early Christian church. These
    are probably at least partly based on real lives and events, though
    highly biased (as many histories are) and almost entirely without
    third-party corroboration. Much of these parts are not particularly
    relevant anyway.

    Finally, there are the myths, allegories, legends, fairy tales, and
    parables. This includes the creation myths, Noah's arch, and much of
    the books of Moses. If you treat these the way most religions treat
    their myths (including the way almost all Christians treated them until
    a couple of centuries ago), they are stories to describe God, his
    relationship to people, his strengths, his weaknesses, and how he wants
    people to behave. It is pointless to try to view these things as "real"
    events - it involves so much waving of magic wands and divine
    intervention that it becomes meaningless as "real" events, and you lose
    all purpose and teaching from the story. When Jesus told the parable of
    the lost sheep, he did not mean it literally - the same applies to the
    old prophets talking about Noah's ark and similar tales.

    If you believe in a creator God, and you believe he cares for you, then
    you have /got/ to believe he gave you rational sense for a purpose and
    expects you to use it. If he wanted you to have blind faith in what
    people tell you, he'd have made you a North Korean.
     
    David Brown, Apr 29, 2014
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. David Brown Guest

    On 29/04/14 16:14, Scott Lurndal wrote:
    > David Brown <> writes:
    >> On 29/04/14 03:19, wrote:
    >>> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:23:46 PM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
    >>>> unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
    >>>> and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
    >>>> probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.
    >>>>
    >>>> You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number>
    >>>> was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
    >>>> other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
    >>>> humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
    >>>> and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern
    >>>
    >>> Noah and family would put Olympians to shame:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...peaked-7-300-years-ago-declining-rapidly.html
    >>>

    >>
    >> The article is about people 7300 years ago - isn't that long before the
    >> world was created, according to creationists?

    >
    > And it's in the Daily Mail. Similar levels of veracity as History Channel.
    >


    No, the History Channel is a lot more accurate and entertaining. But
    the Daily Mail has more scantily clad women.
     
    David Brown, Apr 29, 2014
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. David Brown Guest

    On 29/04/14 18:16, Scott Lurndal wrote:
    > David Brown <> writes:
    >> On 29/04/14 16:14, Scott Lurndal wrote:
    >>> David Brown <> writes:
    >>>> On 29/04/14 03:19, wrote:
    >>>>> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:23:46 PM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
    >>>>>> unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
    >>>>>> and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
    >>>>>> probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number>
    >>>>>> was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
    >>>>>> other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
    >>>>>> humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
    >>>>>> and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Noah and family would put Olympians to shame:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...peaked-7-300-years-ago-declining-rapidly.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The article is about people 7300 years ago - isn't that long before the
    >>>> world was created, according to creationists?
    >>>
    >>> And it's in the Daily Mail. Similar levels of veracity as History Channel.
    >>>

    >>
    >> No, the History Channel is a lot more accurate and entertaining. But
    >> the Daily Mail has more scantily clad women.
    >>

    >
    > Entertaining, perhaps. Accurate? UFOs? Ghosts? Grail Legends?
    >


    It's been a number of years since I've had the History Channel, so maybe
    it's gone downhill. It is certainly possible to make accurate
    documentaries about what people /think/ about UFOs, ghosts, etc. - there
    is plenty of scope for good history about the place of such things in
    societies. But the History Channel suffers from the same problem as
    Discovery, Nat Geo, etc., in that Americans like to portray all opinions
    as equally valid. If you can mentally filter out the crackpot opinions,
    which are usually obvious, you can get real information from the
    programs. (The Cosmos series seems to be an exception - I've only seen
    a couple of the programs so far, but the crackpot opinions are mentioned
    briefly to show that they are wrong.)

    And sometimes these channels show BBC documentaries, which are always
    accurate :)
     
    David Brown, Apr 30, 2014
    #63
  4. David Brown Guest

    On 30/04/14 15:41, Scott Lurndal wrote:
    > David Brown <> writes:
    >> On 29/04/14 18:16, Scott Lurndal wrote:
    >>> David Brown <> writes:
    >>>> On 29/04/14 16:14, Scott Lurndal wrote:
    >>>>> David Brown <> writes:
    >>>>>> On 29/04/14 03:19, wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:23:46 PM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
    >>>>>>>> unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
    >>>>>>>> and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
    >>>>>>>> probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number>
    >>>>>>>> was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
    >>>>>>>> other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
    >>>>>>>> humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
    >>>>>>>> and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Noah and family would put Olympians to shame:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...peaked-7-300-years-ago-declining-rapidly.html
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The article is about people 7300 years ago - isn't that long before the
    >>>>>> world was created, according to creationists?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And it's in the Daily Mail. Similar levels of veracity as History Channel.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No, the History Channel is a lot more accurate and entertaining. But
    >>>> the Daily Mail has more scantily clad women.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Entertaining, perhaps. Accurate? UFOs? Ghosts? Grail Legends?
    >>>

    >>
    >> It's been a number of years since I've had the History Channel, so maybe
    >> it's gone downhill. It is certainly possible to make accurate
    >> documentaries about what people /think/ about UFOs, ghosts, etc. - there
    >> is plenty of scope for good history about the place of such things in
    >> societies. But the History Channel suffers from the same problem as
    >> Discovery, Nat Geo, etc., in that Americans like to portray all opinions
    >> as equally valid. If you can mentally filter out the crackpot opinions,
    >> which are usually obvious, you can get real information from the
    >> programs. (The Cosmos series seems to be an exception - I've only seen
    >> a couple of the programs so far, but the crackpot opinions are mentioned
    >> briefly to show that they are wrong.)

    >
    > Tonights schedule:
    >
    > American Pickers (two guys from iowa buying old junk)
    > three more episodes of AP.
    >
    > You can Take it with you.
    >
    > (that's it!)
    >
    > Tomorrow morning:
    >
    > Vikings (Sitcom set in obvious era)
    > Info-documentaries ("Only available on TV")
    > Conspiracy?: Princess Dianna
    > Info-documentaries
    > Real Deal: Knife Fight (have no clue what this is about)
    > 7 more Real Deal episodes
    > American Pickers.
    >
    > Downhill is putting it kindly. Reality TV, Ghosts, UFO's.
    >
    >>
    >> And sometimes these channels show BBC documentaries, which are always
    >> accurate :)

    >
    > But why not, then, watch them on the beeb (iplayer?)
    >


    Last I checked, "iplayer" doesn't work outside the UK (which is not
    unreasonable - I pay TV license fees to the Norwegian equivalent, NRK,
    but I don't pay TV license fees to the BBC). Also last I checked,
    iplayer needs Windows.

    But I get "BBC Knowledge" in my TV package, and a fair number of BBC
    documentaries are shown on the Norwegian NRK national channels (a number
    of them are made as cooperations between BBC and NRK).

    I would probably watch the occasional program from the History Channel
    if I got it (but not "Reality" TV and other nonsense), but I can live
    without it.


    But back to the point - based on your description of the History
    Channel, the Daily Mail is still a worse source of information!
     
    David Brown, Apr 30, 2014
    #64
  5. Guest

    On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:36:20 AM UTC, Martijn Lievaart wrote:
    >
    > Seriously, arguing logic with fanatic beleivers, or really any beleivers,
    > is futile. Anything can be made to fit with the "god did it" argument.


    I'm doing my best here. Sorry if it doesn't help you.
    I not a historian. But yes, I believe G-d helped Noah
    in a variety of ways to be successful in the job he'd
    given him. This is also my experience with what I've
    been working on. G-d has led the way.

    >
    > All you can hope for is for them to contradict themselves so badly it
    > cannot be explained away anymore, but you need a lot more subtle buildup
    > for that.
    >


    I believe Noah endured similar mocking of his faith
    while he built the ark. Some probably thought the
    work was crazy.


    Brian
    Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
    http://webEbenezer.net
     
    , Apr 30, 2014
    #65
  6. seeplus Guest

    On Thursday, May 1, 2014 7:22:06 AM UTC+10, wrote:
    > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:36:20 AM UTC, Martijn Lievaart wrote:
    > I'm doing my best here. Sorry if it doesn't help you.
    >
    > I not a historian. But yes, I believe G-d helped Noah
    >
    > in a variety of ways to be successful in the job he'd
    >
    > given him. This is also my experience with what I've
    >
    > been working on. G-d has led the way.
    >
    >
    > I believe Noah endured similar mocking of his faith
    >
    > while he built the ark. Some probably thought the
    >
    > work was crazy.


    Just the one thing about the ridiculous bible story:

    There are now about 90 species in the whale family.

    The top 12 whales avg over 85 tonnes each, some are 200 tonnes.
    So just 12 of them weigh about 1000 tonnes.
    You need 2 of each on board = 2,000 tonnes.
    Now you can't just put these things down on a piece of damp towelling.

    They would need at least 10 times their own volume of water = 20,000 tonnes
    of sea water displacement for just those animals.

    The larger whales eat over 3 tonnes of krill a day.
    For 180 whales that is about 16,000 tonnes a month.
    The ships displacement now is 38,000 tonnes, to cater for 1 month.
    And 30,000 tonnes of poop a month to clean up, or about 1,000 tonnes a day.

    But then the magic guy with a broom could do his miracles again.

    How do you create that daily feed from just 2 krill?

    How does that guy Noah's mob manage to wrangle these things on board ...
    and get them individually penned. Promise not to mock ... if there is some sane explanation.

    Be interesting <not> to see Ken Ham's interpretation.

    Most religions say that their magic book is the word of their <insert magic author's name> god.

    If the magic book is just so absurdly wrong here, then how can anybody believe any of that other stuff in there?
     
    seeplus, May 1, 2014
    #66
  7. Qu0ll Guest

    "seeplus" wrote in message
    news:...

    [snip]

    > How does that guy Noah's mob manage to wrangle these things on board ...
    > and get them individually penned. Promise not to mock ... if there is some
    > sane explanation.


    The whales are aquatic and hence were less prone to the effects of well...
    more water.

    They stayed in the water like the fish and all other sea-dwelling creatures.

    Sane enough for you?

    --
    And loving it,

    -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    _________________________________________________

    [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]
     
    Qu0ll, May 1, 2014
    #67
  8. Ian Collins Guest

    seeplus wrote:
    > On Thursday, May 1, 2014 7:22:06 AM UTC+10, wrote:
    >>
    >> I believe Noah endured similar mocking of his faith
    >> while he built the ark. Some probably thought the
    >> work was crazy.

    >
    > Just the one thing about the ridiculous bible story:


    The one that used to flummox my RE teacher at school was a) where did
    all the water com from and b) where did it all go?

    If it cam from rain, the rain would have had to come form evapourated
    water, see where this is going?

    --
    Ian Collins
     
    Ian Collins, May 1, 2014
    #68
  9. seeplus Guest

    On Thursday, May 1, 2014 3:42:28 PM UTC+10, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "seeplus" wrote in message
    >
    > The whales are aquatic and hence were less prone to the effects of well...
    >
    > more water.
    >
    > They stayed in the water like the fish and all other sea-dwelling creatures.
    > Sane enough for you?
    > -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)


    To quote the book of myths.

    Genesis 7 >NKJV:
    "and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made"

    Yes... the guy's just not sane, AND he did not say anything about leaving the whales alone did he?

    Of course if your particular cult considers the whales "clean", then there would be 7 of each aboard. Ken's ark is now the size of a medium modern tanker.
     
    seeplus, May 1, 2014
    #69
  10. Qu0ll Guest

    "seeplus" wrote in message
    news:...

    >> To quote the most significant book in history.

    >
    > Genesis 7 >NKJV:
    > "and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I
    > have made"


    The "face of the earth"could of course refer to the land ("earth") as
    clearly if a flood is His M.O. then flooding would not have much of a
    negative impact on animals that already live *in* the water.

    > Yes... the guy's just not sane, AND he did not say anything about leaving
    > the whales alone did he?
    > Of course if your particular cult considers the whales "clean", then there
    > would be 7 of each aboard. Ken's ark is now the size of a medium modern
    > tanker.


    As I have said many times, I for one do not believe that the story of Noah
    is a fact-by-fact account of what happened and is more a statement of the
    way the situation appeared to the peoples of the time. Much of the Bible is
    like this and I have no problem with this. Also, as stated, many Biblical
    events such as this one could only have happened in a manner even remotely
    similar to how they were described if there was considerable divine
    intervention.

    But that's what we are talking about: God who is divine so once you accept
    that then there is absolutely no point in trying to argue over apparent
    scientific anomalies.

    Divine power cannot be explained by science and does not appear to be
    governed by scientific laws so why bother trying to somehow combine them or
    use one against the other in futile arguments?

    --
    And loving it,

    -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    _________________________________________________

    [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]
     
    Qu0ll, May 1, 2014
    #70
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Martyn Fewtrell

    A little off topic!

    Martyn Fewtrell, Jan 7, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    653
    Michael
    Jan 7, 2004
  2. A little off topic

    , Feb 4, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
  3. ohaya
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,464
    Sudsy
    Aug 21, 2004
  4. Claude
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    Claude
    Mar 7, 2004
  5. Cliff R.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    565
    Roy Schestowitz
    Jun 15, 2005
  6. Tan Thuan Seah

    A little off topic but..

    Tan Thuan Seah, Oct 13, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    458
  7. m.a

    a little off topic

    m.a, Feb 7, 2008, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    472
    Paul Shapiro
    Feb 8, 2008
  8. jacob navia
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    810
    spinoza1111
    May 30, 2010
Loading...