Noah's Ark Challenge
You know what I would like to see? I would like to see some creationists/biblical fundamentalists do some actual research for once. Conduct a scientific experiment which is designed to test their theory that the world is only 6,000 years old and that the bible is literally true. One such test would not be hard to set up, would not be overly expensive, would not be difficult to conduct, and its results would go a long way to proving the literal truth of the bible. It would be unique in this way, as it is one of the few instances found in the bible of something required for a young earth, and that we can test today. I am of course, referring to the great flood and Noah's Ark. The Bible gave specifics as to the design of the ark, its purpose, its precise contents, and its length of use. This little experiment would be something right up the alley of "scientific" creationist groups such as Answers in Genesis. (read their current article.)
The experiment I refer to is this: build a ark, sail it for a year, and come out with all occupants alive and ready to breed. It is simple enough, the bible gives precise details as to the shape, size and construction of the ark. So it can be reproduced. Simple, neat, and evidenciary.
I call it a challenge, because of the obvious: No bible literalist would ever actually do it. Take AiG for example, they would much rather talk about what could have happened and never test it so that if it were, God Forbid, to fail then they would not have to explain how the bible could be wrong.
But let us set up this experiment and see what we have. First let us look at the construction of the ark: (Genesis 6:13-22 NKJV)
13 And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. 15 And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.” 22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did.
Thus we have the basic plan. Build an ark of dimensions 300x50x30 cubits, with only one window and one door. The outside and inside shall be pitched and its occupants will consist of 8 humans and pairs of every animal type ("kind"). First, the dimensions of the ark, in more modern terms is 438 feet long by 73 feet wide by 46 feet high. That gives us a specific volume, 1,470,804 cubic feet. Certainly plenty of room to work with, but not so big that it cannot be built using modest funds. As for the gopherwood, well, I think it would be allowable to use another type of wood as a substitute; just not the treated wood we use to build houses, etc. Treating wood to be resistant to water, fungi, barnicles, etc. is expressly forbidden.
So now we have the basics of our experiment, a boat made of some natural wood, with pre-specified dimensions and only one window and one door. The next step is to fill it. We already have the need for 8 humans, and that will easily be supplied by some God-fearing Christians the AiG supplies. The animals that will populate the ark seems to be the next logical step. Since we no longer have dinosaurs or many of the other species ("kinds" as AiG prefers) due to extinction, it would only be fair to allow a generous substitution of of "kinds". I certainly would be agreeable to that easing on the restraints.
[Update:] One issue I neglected to address was the nature of the great flood itself. From a purely mechanical physics point of view, the flood waters would have to have been very violent, much more so than today's harshest hurricanes. In addition, the temperature of the floodwaters due only to the kinetic energy released from the deluge would raise the temperature of the water to boiling. The ark was, according to the bible, covered in pitch. Pitch in boiling water becomes very gooey and much more likely to bead up. This would have the effect of greatly reducing its ability to make the ark watertight.
I think that given the nature of today's animal kingdom, endangered and threatened species and all that, that we could further limit the varying "kinds" put on this neo-ark. We will allow only non-threatened species on board. The only real concern is that there be a fair representation of both carnivores and herbivores on board as well as parasitic species. Providing adequate food and water for everyone will be up to the decisions of the AiG and the 8 volunteers. AiG as well as many other Creationist organizations have written extensively on how this could have been done, so I will allow them their expertise on that matter. My only constraint is that the ark be fully self-contained, and only have one window and one door.
Since it is spelled out in the Bible, that this ark was completely self-sustaining for one year, this experiment must also be completely self-sustaining for one year. Here are some other issues which I think need be addressed and are vital for the success (or failure) of this experiment.
1. Since the Bible does not specify the number of "kinds" of animals, and is unclear as to whether there were just pairs of all animals, of pairs of all unclean animals except birds, and the clean animals and birds went in pairs of 7 males and females, then the best estimates of the Aig and other creationist sources be used for this number. Some estimates range from over 6,000 "kinds" to under 3,000 "kinds". I will happily accept the lower number for this experiment, as long as a representative number of carnivore and herbivores are present (along with parasitic species). For example, only two earthworms are allowed on board (unless they are also stored solely as food and not as a preservatory "kind").
2. Creationists speculate that that many, if not all, of the "kinds" brought on board were young and not adult animals. This is allowable.
3. Since many species are now extinct, substitute species are clearly acceptable.
4. Since many species alive still today are endangered or threatened, substitute species are again acceptable.
5. Again, since we do not know exactly how many, or exactly what 'kinds' of species were on board the ark, it is acceptable for the AiG to make their best guess, and use surrigate species in their places. This does mean that carnivore be replaced by carnivore, and herbivore be replaced by herbivore. This seems more than fair and adequately scientific for the purposes of this experiment, since the inhabitants of this neo-ark will not need to repopulate the planet after their fantastic voyage.
[Update II:] 6. Regarding aquatic animals, the conditions of the flood would cause all aquatic animals to die as well (also as God intended, since He did say all living things on earth), since both the PH and the saline content would be radically altered, then it seems that aquatic animals would need to be placed on the ark as well. This includes the bottom dwellers too.
As for technology and the internal workings of this neo-ark; again it will be left to the AiG to set up. I think the rules for this should be both simple and honest:
1. No modern technology be used in regards to the care and feeding of the animals, only technology available to Noah during his time is allowable. However, the AiG can determine what this technology is, given that they state it before the experiment begins.
2. Because the experiment is to last a year (as according to the Bible, Noah's voyage lasted) and due to modern nautical regulations, some emergency equipment should be placed on this neo-ark: An emergency radio.
3. If the occupants get sick or need emergency attention the experiment shall be deemed a failure. If there is a massive problem with their precious cargo, then the experiment should be called off, and deemed a failure.
4. This experiment can be repeated as many times as needed until AiG is convinced that Noah's ark is a myth.
I look forward to learning the results of this scientific experiment to prove the validity of Noah's ark and the vindication of AiG soon, as I know, as do you all, that AiG is really a science outfit and not simply a Christian apologetics evangelical operation.
Please allow me to put this in my own terms. I, as a scientist, see just how difficult it would be to design and build a spaceship to keep just 8 humans alive for the journey to mars and back. That craft would certainly have to be self sustaining, providing not just its own food, but oxygen and water as well. This type of endeavor is beyond our capabilities even today. Yet somehow, I'm supposed to believe that not only was this done thousands of years ago, it was done including the precursors ('kinds') of every single species on earth, living and long since extinct. And yet AiG would have all you believe that I'm the one who is unscientific and wrong. It just boggles the mind. All you fundamentalist Christians out there: put your beliefs where your mouth is, build the thing and prove yourselves right. It is not my responsibility to accept your outrageous claims without one shred of proof. Science provides proof for its claims on a regular, everyday, basis. Isn't it about time you did the same?
[Update Sept 13]: I found this interesting web site. Apparently they are building an "exact" replica of Noah's ark as a building. Unfortunately though, it requires concrete and steel. Not exactly materials you'd find thousands of years ago. P.S. I have no idea if this is real or a hoax, but it is funny nontheless.
The absolute last update: I make a few closing comments here.
Labels: Answers in Genesis, creationism, humor, skepticism
posted by jeffperado @ 8:25 PM
15 Comments:
I have written AiG asking them about possibly conducting this experiment.
So far they have given me two replies:
1) They have conducted "feasibility studies" and based on them it was possible for Noah's ark to have worked.
2) Science has not yet completed its "molecules-to-man" study and therefore Noah's ark is just as likely.
I wrote back to them saying that every single day scientists conduct experiments (adding up to thousands yearly) working on origins, and "feasibility studies" are not scientific and can be tragically flawed if they fail to take into account all possible unknown and known factors -- just look at the "feasibility studies" on the Twin Towers regarding the possibility of a direct airplane strike taking them down. Those studies concluded that it was impossible. 9-11 proved those studies tragically wrong.
FYI, to date, I have not recieved a third response --ahem-- excuse explaining away those counterpoints.
So as of today, AiG still refuses to do any actual science other than verbal refutations of all other's actual science.
Just a note on the Twin Towers studies, (if I recall correctly): They were working on the assumptions of smaller planes, low on fuel, and slow speed: In short, a plane of the day that got lost and looking to find the airport.
But the point about the unscientific nature of "feasibility studies" is pretty much accurate: They're just thought experiments that presume assumptions are correct. Scientific experiments do a damn good job of tearing apart wrong assumptions.
BD:
I certainly agree. I didn't mention the specifics of the feasibility study regarding the twin towers, becuase I thought the flawed assumptions that went into it were implicit. The studies said it couldn't happen, we now know it not only could, but did, thus the studies had to be flawed, the reasons they were is, again, implicit in its assumptions (whatever they may/could have been).
But you are right, since we as members of the reality community are aware; the devil is in the details...
P.S. If you want a little fun of your own, write AiG yourself and inquire about conducting actual science, see what dodges -- ahem -- responses you get:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/
Frankly, I would've thought Biosphere Two would've been a better comparison than the Twin Towers. That was actually intended to be a self-sustaining system, and they were caught off-guard some of the internal interactions that resulted in the loss of oxygen.
>that gives us a specific volume, 1,470,804 cubic feet.
OK, so let's make a list of all the "Kinds" of animals, computer their average volume add them all up and see if it's less than 1,470,804 cubic feet.
But that's not a true test. The Bible says there are 3 decks. So we really only have have to find the area that each of these animals takes up and see if that's less than the length times the width times 3. Whatever area is left over (if there is any) is for food and water.
No fair using 4 dimensional wormholes in your calculation.
I'm surprised that AiG just doesn't come back with the answer: "It is clear that no modern wood is physically capable of being used to build a craft like the ark. Clearly this means that gopherwood was a far superior wood to those avaiable today. It is a great shame that this antediluvian wonder was one of the victims of the great flood."
The problem with all such speculation as this is that the thumpers have a built-in out. "With God, all things are possible"-Matthew 19:26. It doesn't matter how unlikely, or even impossible, these things are. God can make anything happen. The folks at AIG are so far from the true message of their religion that they couldn't hear it with a Whisper 2000(TM).
If the God of the Bible exists (just granting it, for the sake of argument), is it incontheivable that He might provide a little providential care to make sure that, for example, no animals died?
I couldn't pass this up. Please just read into the Bible. You will have all the answers you want. Like God BROUGHT the animals to Noah. AND after the flood things had changed, animals were now scared of Man and we were now aloud to eat meat.
So if you think about this logically which I am sure you will, if the animals are not scared of Man and they can live comfortably side by side then it would make a big difference wouldn't it? Just a thought to ponder through your journey.
Please take the time to read His word and you will find the answers you are looking for. I promise. Take Care.
Amy,
I appreciate your concern. But do you really think I have not read the Bible?
I have... Thoroughly.
Just a thought on your comment: Where in the bible does it state the claims you are making? For if you simply infer things from how you interpret what you read, then I am just as solid in my assessment as you are. And you are invoking invisible, supernatural entities and events whereas I only invoke what we know to be true.
Thank you so much for commenting and not running away from people who have different views then yours.
I have found that when I read the Bible and wasn't Saved all I looked for were contradictions. I hope this answers your questions. If not, please let me know and I will reply.
The Bible says that in the earliest days of creation, all of God's creation (even animals) were vegetarian. When God blessed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, He said to them: "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be food for you. And to the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food. And it was so" (Genesis 1:29-30).
It appears that all creation was vegetarian until after the waters of the Great Flood receded and Noah and his family were left to replenish the earth.
Genesis 9:1-3 says: "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all of the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, now I give you everything."
It is interesting to note that because they didn't eat meat, it could have been one of the reasons that Noah was able to so easily gather all the animals into the ark--and explains why the animals did not devour each other while they were in it.
After the flood, why did God now deem it fit for His creation to eat each other? A possible clue that comes to mind is this: Man's wickedness had just reached its fullness, and God had destroyed almost all of the inhabitants of the earth because of it. That flood had somehow changed the order of things--and it was as if Noah and his family were like Adam and Eve, beginning things all over again, but without the innocence of Adam and Eve. The first world, which had been created in perfection, was ruined because of sin. For man to function in the post-flood world, evidently God allowed for the eating meat that would become a part of our existence. The distinguishing mark on this particular era of history would be having to live with the blight of sin.
Take care!
Many conclusions are reached in the scientific community on the basis of simulations and feasibility studies. They form the basis for many events which are difficult to demonstrate in the 'physical realm'.
Feasibility studies are accepted as the design basis for many studies, including:
1. Nuclear power plant failure modes and outcomes
2. Climate studies and change theories
3. Automobile accident recreation
and many more.
Are you really suggesting that simulation, physical modeling and feasibility should be abandoned as an analytic tool?
Is it possible that you disagreement with the outcome (the possibility of an accurate Genesis) is the real basis for rejecting the analysis performed by AIG (and others)?
BTW -- have you studied AIGs analysis? What is th scientific basis for your objection?
01/04/2009
Hi, it seems you are of the attitude that if creationists were to build an ark, and do the minimal requirements of living in such a vessal for a yr. that this would be enough proof to support the creationist position on the viability and past exitance of Noah's Ark.
This is very interesting. However, there's a lot of unknown written history I've access to that has not been seen for a long time. Point is, ask any inventor or engineer. When starting out with a the draft of an actual physical project you can put it on all the paper you want, and do all the "feasibility studies " you also want on it. But, this does not necessarially mean that when practical and actual application of it will work in reality according to the laws of physics etc.For example, an inventor can first make a "rough-proto-type". This allows the conceptual design pursued to be tested in the purpose in which it is intended for. To see for instance if the design concept will even work or not.However, it may become the rule and not the exception that the first rough proto-type will either work or not. If not, it's back to the drawing board.If the first proto type does work then it would usually be within the operational function of the design. But, it does not usually mean that the proto-type has all of the proverbial"design problems worked out".
You offer a solution in one aspect which is admirable.However, The Bible does not state exactly what shape the ark was. The shape and design of the ark is thought to be a box-barge-like structure.A box-like design would be the simplest application.This is one reason for thinking the ark was this shape. Secondly, those adept in Hebrew etc. use the Hebrew word "Te'vah for translating it into "box-or coffin; also applicale in the Egyption language sense. However, te'vah can also be translated into "chest" which may be a more accurate meaning. However, just because it states:"chest" not all chests are box-like. There's all kind of chest shapes. A box design was tested in the late 1960's in a tank on a "Noah's Ark-Model".
This ark model was only simulated to wave conditions that may duplicate an actual possible flood.Beinmg applicable to :"Roll stability" according to simulated wave action being at least one-half as high or more of the total ark's box-like design/shape height. However, it has to be asked if this was a true test.First it was done on a model under only one simulated condition that may have prevailed in such an earthwide flood.But, even if using a model there's many problems with just building a model much less a full sized ark and being in it.In other words, there were at least hurricane forced winds that blew the water from the rain in all kinds of conditions. In Hurricane Katrina the average wave action-(According to The National Scientific recording charts used to record such Marine action) was an average of 37 feet high every 7-11 minutes in open seas. Water surges went up to 67 feet high about the same period of time. Even if based upon the largest construction cubit , this may have still put the waves at least 15 feet higher then the top of the ark itself.Then there's the question if the model was not hollow , then what purpose does this serve?There would also have to be a model with an open venilation system. To allow fresh air in and heat, and other gases that would build up on the inside of a totally airless object, without this. Plus that would harmoniously allow cross venilation to accomodate a temperate enclose avegae temperature.Plus, a way to keep the water from getting into the venilation system. From hurricane forced winds and very high wave action. If the scale model for instance was 1/50 scale then these time factors simulating a time period equal to at least 40 days and nights would have to be applicable also.Plus, water sprayers and fans on the tank simulating wind and also rain at scale model applicable variations. All of these things would equal a more fair true model test.
However, let me add, that all of this was done before that few persons know about. In 1609 a Mr. Patterson made a model made in the shape of a triangular-like shaped ark.It was quite large. It was about 8 feet wide at the base in width proportionately in model size equal to the ark's approximate width.It was also about 5 feet high and some 30 feet long. All equal to The Bible's width, length, and ht. measurements as outlined in scripture. It was reported to do well on the open seas.He even made cargo arks using them to carry larger loads. However, it was not a vessal of speed. Which later was more required. So, in time he abandoned this fleet of simlar triangular designs.
Again in 1905 M. Vogt a marine scientist and engineer was invoked by King Christian IX of Denmark to investigate the design of Noah's Ark.Why? Because it is said that he saw the true ark's design and shape on a 300-B.C. Apamean-(Syrian) coin. That was in good-excellant condition in the Museum of Stockholm Sweden. That was based upon a triangular-like shape large house like roof on a vessal's hull.Not a box-barge-like shape.It showed in detail how to build what the ark originally looked like.Again M. Vogt made a model in similar size to Patterson's for preliminary proto-type testing application. The model was tested several times at a number of Universities. In front of an assorted and many varied different engineers,Professors and scientists from numerous fields.However, it went even beyond this.
King Christian not only had his own funds available to do this, but also of a late millionaire to seek out this design to see if it could work.Now came a larger test. These engineers, and scientists made a "literal ark" made and based upon this design that could fit human inhabitants. It was only part of the size of the original ark. But was made still to duplicate the same dimensions though smaller. This ark was some 60-70 feet long,about 15-16 feet wide, and about 10 feet high. The scientists themselves tested it upon the open seas of The Strait of Oresound-(also pronounced-(Oresund)-(Danish).They made numerous trips up and down the strait numerous times.Covering a distance of more then hundreds of miles. Open seas there have an average wave height of 15-20(+) feet high. It was the following month that even King Christian himself made similar trips. All the scientists and the King himself resounded over and over again the extraordinary sea worthinesss of the vessal under all sea going conditions.Later a trip was being planned across part of the Atlantic. But, by the time this was ensued King Chritian IX died.
So, more then just models of the ark have been made in a more stable design then just a box.This has been done several times to say the least. PLus, under an intense witnessing by the scientific community in denmark and Sweden etc. in and around 1905.
best With your project~In part I we revealed that in the event something would happen to us or one of our loved ones for instance, we more or less asked the question in such a possible example:"Suppose we had a heart attack, that severely damaged our heart, and we were told we could die, what would be our current present day choices"?
As of now our most likely option would be to wait maybe for a heart. If we got on the waiting list our chances of getting one may be slim to none. Even if we were fortunate enough to get a heart, that too under current conditions we would still face a host of accompanying problems after a transplant took place.For we could face rejection of the heart. Plus, we would be forced to take drugs that have various side effects. That would in other ways to maybe even develope other health problems too.Plus, maybe have a 50/50% or less chance in maybe extending our lives another 5-15 years of more life.
We also contemplated the concept though that "if" at some point in our earlier younger life for example if there had been open another option that maybe it would open doors and a new world of possibilities to save lives,without experiencing for the most part all the other problems a current transplant from another human being would now present.We looked at the concept. The option we speak of here as a new concept is:"That if we could have cloned for example in cellular tissue for instance, the requirements to grow another heart for ourselves , then we would actually be getting a heart that was made and the design based upon our own DNA. Suppose, we had the current heart attack at 50. Yet, we cloned the cellular tissue when we were 25 years of age,what may this essentially mean? It would mean, that just like it's done with sperm cells which can be placed in a state of semi-freezing temperatures, similar to the science known a cytogenesis. That later can be reactivated and be used even years later to have a baby, so may be the possibility for this to be done in cloning one of our heart cells when we were younger. Meaning; we would be able to grow our own heart maybe even 25 years later. We would essentially be getting our own heart. But, even in better condition. Because it would only be equal to the heart condition we had when only 25 years of age.Not a more defective heart we had at 50 just right before the heart attack itself , that did the damage."
The same could apply to almost any medical situation. Suppose, someone lost their leg due to the diabetes. Point is clone a new leg.Transplant it.Or a person who lost eyesight.Or needed skin tissue replacement due to being burned-etc. We could literally name possible hundreds, if not thousands, of other medical applications,and scenarios, a person could experience in life.However, the main point here is that this new possible application of cloning being used for this purpose has never been thought of before, and could offer so much to mankind himself.
However, what about the science of cloning, and the control that would have to be placed upon it to keep such a concept from being unethically and illegally being misused? The point is yes the governments would have to be the watchful eye in such situations. However, if carried through appropriately for the good of all mankind everywhere, what harm could this approach do? However, it would always be an option. A person could decide for or against it just like anything else in life.The main point is, "it could become a new viable medical technology to help many persons. Who knows maybe even extending a person's own life,or that of a loved one". The reality of the situation is right now it is not an option. But, it could become one. Maybe sooner then realized.Those of you who read this maybe you too may be moved to contact your U.S. Senator or Congressman, to see if such an option is at all possible.
Some may say though:"The cloning technology has flaws in it that we know of. For example; look at what happened when they cloned :"Dolly The Sheep".Here was an example of the fallacy of cloning. Even for the purposes in which you the author of this article suggest. For Dolly the sheep was about 4 years old when she was cloned. The point is she only lived to the age of a sheep to about 8-10 years. So, she only lived for maybe 6 more years then died. In other words, when Dolly the sheep was cloned and she took her first breath into this planet we call earth, she was already 4 years old. So, would be the problems in cloning our own body parts". Then I the author of this article would have to say:"You know these are points well made and taken. However, is what you say really so"? Meaning what?Meaning; that we are not talking here of cloning a direct replica of ourselves . We also are not talking about cloning life itself.Which would have to clone the person themselves, and the brain functions to become a living person. All we are referring to is to make the technology available to cloning all of our body parts or life sustaining organs, but not the part of the brain itself, that would captivate and cause to function the thinking processes themselves.The at least partial solution would be not to clone these body parts at the age we are at, but maybe persons could have an option to make these choices when younger. Therefore, creating a cellular bank of their own body parts. Only to use on themselves in some sort of medical emergency. Or in the areas we touched on in part I or above in this continuing article on this subject.The point here is that to have this available most certainly may be able to be used for more good when it comes to saving the lives of our loved ones, or even ourselves. Without such options we limit ourselves to sustain and continue life. The choice is now up to one or maybe all of us.
In conclusion, if this could become an option it could improve the quality and maybe even extend the life as we know it. Given the fact that those choosing such an option may make it if they are not loosing their thinking mental faculties, that could effect their overall quality of life. If this could still be in tact and maintained even with the wonderful prescription medicines of today and the breakthroughs that are made medically and scientifically everyday the near future quality of life could not only be saved, but, also extended. Can you imagine living 10,15,20, 30 or maybe even more years past your current capability of maximum life potential?Some could say that only God can extend life and when it's time for them to go they will go.Those of you who think like that are to be respected.For you have that freedom and choice to choose such things as all of us do.However,think about this. 40 years ago a kidney or heart transplant was not available. At that time if you were alive under the medical conditions of that day, and you needed such an organ for your loved one of yourself ,would not you have wished such a choice was possible? Of course you no doubt would. In like manner it is the same today. So what if life is extended another 20 , 30 or more years, eventually like all of us alive today facing what we do everyday we still could die or would die thirty years from now,if such were the case. The whole point to the matter is, "to have another medical option to save or extend life, not now available to you or I.It's all a personal choice to make.
Got one paragraph into your "challenge" and read that you've decided that "treated" wood isn't allowed... What do you think wood covered with pitch, inside and out, is?
Moron.
Stopped reading there. Read a book.
Nobody would build it now for two simple reasons:
1 ) money.
2) computer simulations would be a hell of a lot cheaper.
Seriously, did you do any research AT ALL before posting this?
And if I worked for AiG, I'd probably stop answering your e-mails too, because I'd only have so much time in my life to talk to a guy who wanted me to break the ministries bank account by building an ark!
Post a Comment
<< Home