Noah
by Richard Oakes
Computers on the Ark?
by Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 23 November 2010 (GMT+10)
Realistic picture of animals (including dinosaurs!) entering Ark (by Steve Cardno).
Genesis spends three whole chapters describing a globe-covering Flood and an enormous
vessel built to preserve all vertebrate kinds. Jesus Himself affirmed the reality
of this Flood and Ark, as well as its builder Noah, in Luke 17:26–27. However, few biblical accounts have
been mocked as much by atheists and compromisers.
Many base their objections on the impossibility of primitive men building an ocean-liner-sized
vessel and caring for thousands of animals. But ancient people were much more intelligent
than such objections give them credit for. After all, modern people have endured
loads of mutations every generation, so we have degenerated by comparison, as shown
by our much shorter lifespans.1,2
Korean naval architects have shown that a wooden ship with the dimensions of the
Ark would be incredibly stable … it were only 30 cm (1 foot) thick, it could
have withstood waves over 30 m (100 feet) high.
In Creation magazine we have documented huge ancient ships, such as the
Leontifera with 1,600 rowers;3
and low-tech farming methods that are used to keep animals safely and hygienically
over the winter months, such as the Dutch potstals and grupstalls.4 It’s also likely that
Noah knew about such ancient techniques as cross-planking for strength, wood hardening,
and the very strong mortice-and-tenon joints (see also the resources on the right).
Korean naval architects have shown that a wooden ship with the dimensions of the
Ark would be incredibly stable.5
In fact, if it were only 30 cm (1 foot) thick, it could have withstood waves over
30 m (100 feet) high; even damaging tsunamis rarely reach this height even when
they finally break on-shore; out at sea they are only a few inches high.6
However, some have hugely overstated the case by arguing that Noah had access to
extremely advanced technology. For example, we have argued that a recent Ark claim
could not be genuine since there are marks of wood planing with a rotating cutting
head,7 but defenders have
argued that Noah could have had electrical tools. Another well-known creationist
leader claimed Noah and his contemporaries could have had tools, machines and techniques
not inferior to those of today.
This is obviously fallacious: if they had techniques just as good as ours, then
why didn’t they use a lightweight and strong titanium alloy, attach an outboard
motor, and for good measure, videotape the events for posterity?
Intelligence is not enough for scientific advance. Historically and logically, the
rise of modern science depended strongly on certain assumptions, and these
were derived from a biblical Christian worldview.
Furthermore, such claims overlook a vital factor: intelligence is not enough for
scientific advance. Historically and logically, the rise of modern science depended
strongly on certain assumptions, and these were derived from a biblical
Christian worldview, including honesty, rationality, and a Lawgiving Creator
and upholder of the universe8
Conversely, science was stillborn in many ancient cultures such as Greece and China.
Also, much of today’s technology comes not from superior intellect per se,
but from building on the results of previous research. The great creationist scientific
genius Sir Isaac Newton9
said, “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.”10 This required a relatively
peaceful society that provided enough time to investigate nature and pass on the
results. [Some have understandably pointed to wartime as a fruitful time for military innovations. But in the overall scheme of things, it’s still the periods of peace that were most advantageous, as opposed to the more specialized advances made in weaponry during war. And even during the wars, there was peace within the countries; e.g. even though the UK and US were on war footing, these nations maintained order. The Flood was different: a society full of violence.]
But the pre-Flood world was far from a biblically-based civilization; rather, it
rejected God and was full of violence (Genesis 6:11, Hebrew חָמָס
hamas). These are hardly the conditions required for good scientific research,
and this is the main thing overlooked by those who overstate Noah’s technology
level.
Related articles
Further reading
References
- Wieland, C., Living for 900 years,
Creation 20(4):10–13, 1998; creation.com/900.
Return to text.
- Sanford, J.C., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan
Press, 2005; see
review of the book and the interview
with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47,
2008. Return to text.
- Pierce, L., The large ships of antiquity,
Creation 22(3):46–48 June 2000; creation.com/huge-ships.
Return to text.
- Thom, H., How could Noah care for the
animals? Creation 30(1):50–51, December 2007;
creation.com/noahcare. Return to text.
- Hong, S.W. et al., Safety investigation
of Noah’s Ark in a seaway, J. Creation 8(1):26–36,
1994; creation.com/arksafety. Return to text.
- The massive tsunami that struck countries around the Indian
Ocean on 26 December 2004 was navigable by the Ark, although it killed over 300,000
people. See also Walker, T., Tsunami tragedy, Creation
28(1):12–17, December 2005; creation.com/tsunami-tragedy.
Return to text.
- Wieland, C., Noah’s Ark, or …
what? creation.com/arkclaim, 29 September 2010. Return to text.
- See my articles
Why does science work at all? Creation 31(3):12–14,
2009; and The biblical roots of modern science, Creation
32(4), 2010; creation.com/roots. Return to text.
- Lamont, A., Sir Isaac Newton, Creation
12(3):48–51, 1990; creation.com/newton. See also Sarfati,
J., Newton was a creationist only because there was no alternative?
(response to critic) creation.com/newt-alt, 29 July 2002. The critic I to
whom I was replying later wrote thanking CMI for the response, and to say that he
no longer agreed with the sentiments of his original letter. He was happy for his
original letter and response to remain as a teaching point for others who might
need correcting. Return to text.
- Newton, I., Letter to Robert Hooke, 15 February 1676. Return to text.
| The thousands of fully searchable articles on this site are accessed daily by thousands of people. If even a fraction of those thousands of people gave a small amount regularly, we could dramatically increase our outreach!  | | |
|
