Talk:Noah's Ark

"The challenges associated with housing all living animal types, and even plants, would have made building the ark a practical impossibility."

The discussion in the above section will go nowhere productive, however the recently-added text does require scrutiny. The source cited is not academic research but a publication of an advocacy organization that exists solely to oppose the promotion of creationist views. Quoting that organization's wiki article: "The center opposes the teaching of religious views in science classes in America's public schools through initiatives such as Project Steve, and is regarded as the United States' leading anti-creationist organization."

This source is thus on similar ideological grounds to information about evolution published by Answers In Genesis, and should not be presented in the article as undisputed fact. Moore's own citation list shows that lots of other writers who like Moore have the specific purpose of swaying public opinion on this controversy take a different view. -- LWG ^talk 16:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point too, but the main issue remains that it is ridiculous to attempt to use observable science to refute the argument, "God did it with magic". Arguing that it must stay there because "it's cited" is a non-starter. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that being verifiable by a reliable source does not mean information necessarily belongs in an article. My tone in the above section may not be the most pleasant, but it's quite frustrating trying to deal with the ubiquity of strawmen being built.Joefromrandb (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

LWG's point is the only fair one made thus far because it isn't based on original research. Also, he doesn't engage in strawman personal attacks rooted in an assumption of bad faith. Still, an advocacy group that pushes for mainstream scientific facts is not exactly on the same footing as groups that reject science completely. That said, attribution (e.g. "according to the National Center of Science Education...") would be an acceptable compromise. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest changing it to the sentence used at the start of the "Historicity" section: "The practical challenges associated with building an ark large enough to house all living animal types, and even plants, would have been very considerable." That would reflect the content of that section, which is what the lead paragraph is supposed to do, and would be both accurate and consistent with the whole range of reliable sources. -- LWG ^talk 16:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I wrote both sentences (lead and body) a few months ago. The present lead, a modification of a my first writing, accommodates another editors wishes for "impossibility", which is factual. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't currently have sufficient sourcing to prevent "impossibility" being undue weight, given that many authors have made various attempts to explain how it would be possible. The Moore article is not a statement of consensus, but a rebuttal to the opposing view, and the very fact that Moore found it necessary to write a rebuttal tells us that there are people out there who take the other view. For us to endorse Moore's position over theirs is undue weight rooted in a WP:TRUTH way of thinking. -- LWG ^talk 04:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, we have to be careful to distinguish between the historicity of the flood narrative and the feasibility of the construction of the supposed ark, which are two distinct questions. -- LWG ^talk 05:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Where was the original request for the "impossibility" phrasing discussed? If it was not discussed, it should have been, and if it was, reading that discussion would help me gain some perspective. -- LWG ^talk 05:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• That people take the opposing view that it was completely possible for all species of plants and animals to be stored in the ark really doesn't necessarily mean that we have to artificially give them equal validity. There are rebuttals of Young Earth creationism, and yet we outright say "Evidence from numerous scientific disciplines contradicts YEC" even if about half of Americans don't get that. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

But we do that by citing actual scientific articles, not their advocates. That is what we need to do here. The only thing that gives the current source greater weight than the people he is rebutting on whether ancient people could construct an ark and survive a flood in it is that he agrees with mainstream science on the related issue of whether geology provides any evidence that a flood actually occurred. That is not enough to justify stating Moore's position as fact, just as we don't cite Bill Nye on global warming even though he is correct. We cite the sources that actually support his correctness. If Moore is the only source out there for the claim that the ark would have been technically impossible, then it is undue weight to state that in the article, even if it not undue weight to state that regardless of its technical feasibility there is no evidence that the ark was actually constructed. -- LWG ^talk 15:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This complete argument is stupid. Since the clauses in the unknown word meanings allow for a series of cubical compartments of the sort the whole ship would have needed by design, in the first place - including with the term tsohar the possibility of stabilisers in the roof space as a reservoir would have been carried there and the roof-covering would thus not serve to shed water.

A ship of the lengths specified (although the eventual length quoted is unproven) could not possibly rely on a keel made of any tree, even assuming that the length of such prehistoric trees was greater than in these days.

Instead they architecture would have needed the style adapted in the time of Admiral He, who led a fleet of riverboats to Japan from China in the 15th century.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible plans for Noah’s ark

Here plans how it is possible to build Noah’s ark: http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Noahs_Ark.html

I would like to add them as a link on top of the Ark subject. Is there some problem with this, or why it is not possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.94.40.69 (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Your blog does not show a link for correspondence.

You detail the creatures that may have been allowed on the raft but do not attempt to describe species. The term "Species" is itself a misnomer so perhaps there is good reason for your reticence.

There is likely no reason to make provision for amphibians nor for that matter a number of lizards.

With the length of time taken to build; the state of metalwork at the time allows for plenty of preparation, even without angelic help.

Storm-proofing may not have been needed until the time god sent the east wind. Even then, if he had been caught in the eye of a storm of a semi-permanent type such as the Aleutian or Icelandic low, the Ark will have been relatively safe.

It is best not to attempt to convert non-believers, there being room in the original account to allow considerate hearted ones to conclude in the positive if they wish and to continue disbelief should they wish for that.

The only way to find out the honest truth is to ask god himself. And only believers will do so, regardless of the fact non believers can access him with such questions as occur to them.

Good luck. Weatherlawyer (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's a problem. There are thousands of books that have been written on Noah's Ark that aren't linked to, either. A random blog post just isn't important enough to mention barring some truly exceptional circumstances. SnowFire (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)