The claim that the Chinese character for boat is flawed. The word 'boat' in Chinese is made up of three parts, 'boat', 'mouth' however the last part is not 'eight'. It is a radical which looks similar to 'eight' but in fact is not. It means table. Could this be changed?
[[User:EvelynJ|EvelynJ]]
"asswaged"?
:Yes. ''Asswaged'' is the proper Biblical spelling of the modern ''assuaged'', as it is in the original authorized English translation of the Holy Scriptures. Many modern "King James" Bibles actually alter the text, which can lead to confusion and errant exegesis (see [http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/king_james_glossary.htm "King James Glossary"] & [http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html "Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles"] for other spelling alterations).
--[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 13:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Abrown, I'm sure it would have been possible for Noah's wife and daughters to have tended a vegetable and herb garden, perhaps with some (salt-sensitive) citrus trees for the duration of the flood. This would have reduced scurvy among the animals and family members, and provided fresh foodstuffs for the animals. It is important, moreover, to remember that this was the Lord's work, and what the Lord set asunder, He certainly worked to repair. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::Scurvy can also be kept in check through the vitamins and minerals that are absorbed in the body through the consumption of various organs, such as: eyes, hearts and livers. Noah's family clearly ate some of the animals to provide necessary nutrition and disease prevention, although some animals unfortunately went the way of the Dodo. I think this makes a lot more sense than salt-sensitive citrus. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::: That might explain why the unicorn didn't make it. There's that story of it being late and missing the boat but perhaps they sacrificed it for the greater good. A scapegoat of sorts. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]
::: See, that only sounds reasonable until you think about it. Think about the number of animals vs. deck space. Maybe that would work with hydroponics and full spectrum lamps, but the bible mysteriously fails to mention any of those. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 21:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
ABrown, thank you for putting your questions in a fairly civil manner. I couldn't count the number of times I've had sceptics be downright rude about such things. However, I will chastise you a bit, for having such a negative attitude about creation ("my contempt for the biblical creationist point of view") when you obviously have little idea of the concept that you have so much contempt for. Answers to your questions are readily available from creationist sources, so if you don't know them, you haven't looked for them, yet you seem to think you know enough about creationism to have contempt for it! And I'll also chastise you for your putting the term "creationist scientist" in quotes, as though they are not scientists—that's not nice and not fair.
I have to go out shortly, so may not get to answer everything now, but I will be back.
The observations that you mentioned in your third sentence is correct. Despite frequent accusations to the contrary, creationists do not fall back on "God did it", except is certain circumstance (such as the Bible ''saying'' that God did it).
I disagree that none of the creationists would do the maths on space-frame construction. They may not have yet, but creationary scientists are relatively few in number and get virtually no government or other funding (except for donations from supporters), which severely limits the research that can be done. If you'd like to fund this research... :-)
Gotta go now; I'll be back. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: I think it is fair to cast doubt on so-called "creationist scientists" scientific credentials. How can any process be called scientific when the theory is pre-existing and unmodifiable? A scientist doesn't start with a theory, and attempt to manipulate the data to fit it. They observe facts and attempt to draft a theory to fit it. The very phrase "creationist scientist" already predefines their views, and those views are unchanging regardless of the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I think the space frame example is a good benchmark for the whole of "creation science", the Bible suggests there existed a man called Noah who build a vast boat. Sceptics of this view have pointed out that there has never existed a wooden boat of similar size, and that it seems that such a boat would be beyond the tolerances of a purely wooden structure. Creationists respond with a theory that it was constructed using techniques humans have only discovered during the 20th century. At this point a real scientist would attempt to create a model to prove his theory is at least possible, but so-called "creationist scientists" do not. All the creationist "evidence" is like this, unfounded speculation with a thin veneer of plausibility. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 21:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Part 2:
I don't know the specific answers to your questions about life on the ark, but I do know that a creationist has studied these issues extensively and published a book on them. The book is ''Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study''. If you really are interested in finding the answers, I suggest you read that book. He does calculate, if I recall correctly, that only about one third of the space on the ark would be needed to house the animals themselves.
I dispute your characterisation that creationists "fall back" on using ''baramin''. This suggests that ''species'' is the obvious intention, and ''baramin'' is an unlikely alternative. But why is this so? I know of no reason whatsoever, except for an irrelevant etymological one, for supposing that ''species'' was the intention. I also dispute that it is a "movable feast" any more than ''species'' is.
You are simply wrong to assert that creationists don't believe in speciation, and they do accept that wolves and dogs are related. Speciation can happen quite rapidly, and the time available since the flood is quite sufficient.
I think the afore-mentioned book also explains how the people and animals survived after disembarking, but the Bible actually explains that they didn't leave the ark until there was new growth. Clearly it wouldn't take hundreds of years for vegetation to return in sufficient quantities to feed the relatively few creatures that had been on the ark. And I also see no reason for supposing that life continued much as it had done before; I expect that life was quite different. The flood waters would have been nowhere near as salty as they are today, so the salt was likely not a problem at all, or a minor one at worst.
What makes you think that creationism is unmodifiable and unchanging? This is nothing more than a sceptic-spread furphy, and is dead wrong. Your rosy picture of impartial scientists observing facts and drafting a theory to fit it is the ideal, but far from reality. If "creationist scientist" predefines their views, then can the same be said of "evolutionist scientist"?
You say that sceptics point out that there has never been a wooden boat of that size, but surely that is (a) an argument from ignorance ("we don't know of one so there must not have been one") and (b) begs the question ("we reject that the ark—a wooden boat of that size—existed, so we therefore know of no wooden boats of that size").
Your comment about space-frame construction only being discovered in the 20th century is itself ''based'' on your evolutionary views. Evolutionists believe that man has evolved to be smarter and smarter, so in the past was too primitive to invent great technology. Creationists, conversely, believe that man was created without blemish, and has ''deteriorated'' since. It follows that man was ''smarter'' in the past (although lacking the accumulated knowledge that we have built up over time). Therefore, how do you know that Noah (or God for that matter, as he gave Noah the instructions) didn't know about space-frame construction, and that it wasn't ''rediscovered'' in modern times? Your basis for rejecting this possibility seems to be your evolutionary paradigm, not any inconsistency with the facts nor the creationary view.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
"Evolutionists believe that man has evolved to be smarter and smarter, so in the past was too primitive to invent great technology." - em.. no, what on earth gave you that idea? average IQ has increased for a number of reasons but nowhere near the levels required to make that statement true. Why is this article locked? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
== BBC Article: Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark ==
<br><nowiki> *{{Harvard reference </nowiki>
<br><nowiki> | Surname = BBC </nowiki>
<br><nowiki> | Given = British Broadcasting Corporation </nowiki>
<br><nowiki> | Year = 2006 </nowiki>
<br><nowiki> | Date = 2006-03-28 </nowiki>
<br><nowiki> | Title = Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark </nowiki>
<br><nowiki> | Publisher = BBC News 24 </nowiki>
<br><nowiki> | URL = </nowiki>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4853890.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4853890.stm]
<br><nowiki> }} Retrieved on 2007-05-13 </nowiki>
Hope this helps. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 23:10, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:One other comment. If we only had written descriptions of the pyramids, we would not believe that ancient civilizations could have built them. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 23:13, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
== Kinds ==
I think ''kinds'' should be linked to [[Baraminology]] [[User:PrometheusX303|PrometheusX303]] 09:36, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
:Done! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
== cubit ==
I suggest the "design and construction" section note that there are different widely-used lengths of the cubit in ancient times (egyptian royal, sumerian nipur, roman, greek, arabic, and the potential that the cubit referred to in Genesis was different than all of them), so we don't really know what the size of the ark was in feet. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
: Do you by chance read [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/original-cubit Answers Magazine]? I agree. You might also want to include which cubit measurement was used in the current cited size, and also add more info to [[cubit]]. [[User:PrometheusX303|PrometheusX303]] 10:06, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:: Good to see you again, my friend:). The protection of creationism-oriented articles makes development very difficult without admins dedicated to discussing and making changes. Simple, commonsense edits like this one seem to just sit on talk pages and go nowhere:(. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
== Lets distinguish between articles ==
I feel that with this subject, there could be a lot of duplication between this one and the [[Great Flood]]. This article should be talking about the Ark as you would talk about any vessel. Another way we could look at this is, we shouldn't see any general flood criticisms in this article, but we might have criticisms of the ark as a vessel. Also, we don't need to talk about the life of Noah here, since it's about the vessel itself. Just some thoughts to keep in mind while we edit. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 20:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: I agree. And in the same vein, [[Great Flood]] is about flood accounts, not about [[Flood geology]], which has its own article.
== References ==
It's common in Bible study notes and the like to put scripture references inline, but in other publications, it's normal to put references as footnotes or the like. This being an encyclopaedia, I think we should put scripture references in as footnotes rather than inline, as they were before Ymmotrojam changed them.
Also, Ymmotrojam removed the explanatory footnote of the flood being a year long. The Bible doesn't spell out in so many words that it lasted a year, so as it's a (simple) deduction from what it does say, I feel that this footnote should have remained.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:57, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
==Depth of the Ark==
Is there a measurement for the depth of the Ark? The draft is the measurement from the keel to the waterline. It would be helpful to know the cubic meters for the Ark to understand its size.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:47, 8 December 2008 (EST)
: Did you see the footnote for the draft? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::No, I did not, thank you for pointing that out. Could we add the 30 cubits since most hull measurements include depth? I would add it but the page is locked.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:01, 8 December 2008 (EST)
==Responses to Criticisms==
I recently received my copy of Woodmorappe's Ark Feasibility Study and I see that it comprehensibly addresses all of the criticisms listed. I would like to address each criticism with a '''Response'''. Is there any chance of this article being unlocked? [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 12:27, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: I've unlocked it. It's been locked too long anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:00, 29 January 2009 (EST)
== problematic use of reference - the graph ==
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
apart from the general questionable character of the Noah's Ark article, I as a historian have to object to the graph presented. Obviously methods of ship construction evolved during the first millenium B.C., wherefor the equation of technolgy levels presented is inacceptable. The graph, whereever it may come from, is clearly not based on scientific grounds. The succession of "Roman era, Dark Ages, Renaissance" is clearly made up in regards to general history, history of technology and history of ship-building.
The presented "model" of the Ark is absurd at the least. If one feels the urge to present the Ark as anything other as an allegory, it should be done another way. I would suggest a whole fleet for the beginning...
With best regards,
J.F.H.
== Carnivores ==
How were carnivorous animals prevented from killing the other animals? The small number of humans on board wouldn't have been able to physically stop lions, tigers etc. from doing so - because they're much faster and stronger than humans. Even if they weren't hungry, they'd have killed out of instinct. How would they have got all the animals to queue up (as shown the picture)? Antelope, sheep etc. in a queue with lions and tigers? [[User:Zx|Zx]] ([[User talk:Zx|talk]]) 00:26, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:Have you not read the account of Daniel being in the lions den? Were there not cows and goats and chickens on board? Did you ever feed your dog or cat milk or eggs from the fridge? They even showed what both people and animals were eating in the Noah's ark scene from the 1965 film ''The Bible'' starring John Huston as Noah - a film you obviously seen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 01:28, 21 August 2017 (EDT)