Originally Posted by FreeMe
Originally Posted by kellory
Originally Posted by FreeMe
Originally Posted by kellory
Actually. I recall a documentary quite a few years ago, where they built a model to the scale specs of the Ark, and subjected it to simulated 60foot waves. It was the most stable design they tested.


So, what designs did they test? My experience tells me to bet it looked something like an old school whitewater tripping canoe.


"God gave Noah the dimensions for the Ark in cubits. “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.” (Genesis 6:15)" (
300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in width and 30 cubits in height (450 × 75 × 45 ft or 137 × 22.9 × 13.7 m).)
It would need to be a closed structure against wave and weather. The model looked somewhat like a coffin, and rode the turmoil like a wood chip, but never flipped, or sank. (Iirc) they tested it against all other designs known to that region and age.


I don't doubt that.

I suggest you do a search for the term "sea kindly". Not flipping or sinking is a good start - and that's not hard to accomplish with other shapes - but it's not everything.

I don't believe God meant to torture the passengers for months.

Where can I see the report of this test? I'd love to see all the details.

As I mentioned in my first post, it was quite a while ago. And while I remember watching the program, I do not recall who did it. Or for what network. It was a straight forward science type program.
As for sea friendly, I doubt he gave a damn about comfort. Survival was the design parameters.

An unemployed Jester, is nobody's Fool.

the only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker, is observation. all the same data is present for both. The rest, is understanding what you're seeing.

~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~