Awful lot of gopher steel in this structure

Well, it's not like anyone thinks the Bible literally says how the ark was made. Oh.

Funny. gopher steel was indeed not around. the bible does call the wood gopher and its the only time. Never again. So it suggests ot not only was a special wood but the bible wants us to know it. I suspect no readers ever knew what this wood was.
it must of been about resisting water intrusion. The bible says its true unless its lying we should accept it.

One has to wonder how many of Ham's followers would recognize, as this thing comes together, that not only would it not be seaworthy, Noah could not have built such a thing.

Ham must have been there; how can we deny it now? Furthermore, since this doesn't match the description in Ham's holy book, how can we even trust what it says?

Just look at all that "biblical" machinery and trucks. Did anyone know that the ballast for the ark was steel reinforced concrete slabs? And look at all that biblical material holding those laminated parts together.

I've heard that there is a book called Lamentations in Ham's holy book; but now we know it is actually Laminations.

This is all quite a Revelation.

Ian Menzies said: Well, it's not like anyone thinks the Bible literally says how the ark was made. Oh.

I'm assuming that the reason there's no gopher wood any more is that all the gopher trees died in the Fludde and Noah forgot to pack any seeds. Not his fault, though, as God only commanded him to save the animals. So God's error.

John Harshman said: I'm assuming that the reason there's no gopher wood any more is that all the gopher trees died in the Fludde and Noah forgot to pack any seeds. Not his fault, though, as God only commanded him to save the animals. So God's error.

What building code, maritime or otherwise, did noah have to comply with? Were his plans accepted and approved, or did he pull 'em out of his ...?

This will be my one response the (hopefully, only) post by Mr. Byers.

Enough is known about the properties of wood generally to have sound grasp on what the physical limits for *any* type of wood would be, even if all we have is a name not associated with any known plant. You have seen--even if you won't acknowledge it--quite a bit of discussion about the known limits of wooden ship building, including the point that, even with the best techniques ever used, one the size claimed for the Ark won't work. This is even ignoring the issue of such a ship surviving in even the mildest conditions on open ocean.

Now...as you can see in the picture above, not only does this "replica" structure contain quite a bit of steel, both as reinforcing plates and the bolts holding everything together, but quite a bit of the interior space is being taken up with beams to stabilize the structure and make it keep its shape. All of this is *without* being required to float at all. Without the reinforced concrete foundation, the structure being built would fail in short order as well. That picture shows why so many of us hold that the Ark could not have existed as described, and that is without even considering the conditions under which it was supposed to be used.

Even with steel ties, bolts, trusses and plates like these, the stresses on the Ark's structure would be well beyond the basic strength of its main material. The largest mainly wooden ships ever built had iron or steel hull components, too, but they failed in quite ordinary seas, despite also having pumps powered by steam engines.

The main failure point, immediately, would be the hull planking, which must gape open as the hull flexes. The longer the hull, the more the flexing. The Lord God told Noah to coat the Ark inside and out with pitch, but he issued no instructions as to caulking and spirketting. No caulking would have helped anyway. The working of the seams in rough seas shreds it and works it out. So the Ark would leak like a sieve, just like every wooden-hulled vessel that approached its reputed size.

But I suspect that although that would alone be enough to sink her, the end would be more, er, spectacular as the main hull components tore away from their supports or simply broke apart, and catastrophic hull failure ensued.

The Ark was a miracle. No, it was a series of miracles, most of them not mentioned in the text. As a fantasy writer, I know the principle very well, and avoid it like the plague: "It's magic. I don't got to explain it."

Dave Luckett said: The Ark was a miracle. No, it was a series of miracles, most of them not mentioned in the text. As a fantasy writer, I know the principle very well, and avoid it like the plague: "It's magic. I don't got to explain it."

Looks like the one back in my old hometown of Frostburg, MD :

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/10061

At least that one was never intended to float.

He's been at it since 1974 - been waiting for God to provide.

PA Poland said: Looks like the one back in my old hometown of Frostburg, MD : http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/10061 At least that one was never intended to float. He's been at it since 1974 - been waiting for God to provide.

It's hard to tell for certain, but if you look just behind the three people in hard hats in the first picture, it sure looks like the main "tree trunk" supports in the middle of the structure are mere sheaths around a steel core; the core to which all the wooden beams are bolted to with all those steel flanges. Look at the base of the "trunks".

On the other hand, this NBC piece does make it look like the vertical pieces are mostly wood. Lifted into place by modern cranes, of course.

More construction details here, and here, showing some of the joint details, and the bent laminate wood for the outer mold-line pieces.

And this appears to be the web site of the architectural and/or engineering firm, with 53 detailed pictures of every stage of construction so far, with up-close images of the concrete, wood, and steel construction.

So much for Amish wood joiners. Though, it does appear that they have a token Amish consultant on site, identified in one of those pictures.

I'd love to see the architectural drawings.

And maketh thee a large autoclave, and make it thirty cubits long, so thoust can laminate thine beams with the correct grain orientation, and skimpeth not on the steam, lest the diphenylmethane diisocyanate isomers in your polyurethane glues doth not setteth-up properly, and your ass shall drown. Oh, and forget not the unicorns, for those art My favorites, for they doth fart rainbows.

The obvious fact is that these people are not attempting to build something like Noah's Ark, except that it is about the specified size and there is a lot of wood. It will not float, and it will not take care of a large variety of animals. How many kids will be disappointed that there are no giraffes - every picture I've seen has giraffes.

Why bother with such a construction when it doesn't have much to do with what they think the Ark was?

I've mentioned the vessel here before, but the French replica of a late eighteenth century frigate is currently on tour up the east coast of the USA. In New York now, heading for New England. Well worth a look if you are local and want an example of how much structural timber is required to build even a much smaller wooden vessel that is seaworthy. Apart from using modern bolts instead of roves, and a few steel plates to reinforce knees, it is as near to an eighteenth century ship as you are likely to see. And the auxilliary engines of course, but that really is to meet modern codes, and it sails perfectly well without them.

And Stevaroni, you'll love those big laminated ribs; 2-ply laminated oak, nine inches per ply, and not even a whiff of diphenylmethane diisocyanate isomers anywhere between them. Well you would if you could still see them. Even with a skeleton of eighteen inch square frames set only a few inches apart, there is still a need for a layer of planks at least 2 inches thick on both the inside and the outside.

http://www.hermione.com/blog-de-l-hermione/

Late 18th century, you say? She actually looks a little earlier than that, with a lateen on the mizzen rather than a driver, and the stern seems higher. Possibly I'm used to English naval painting, but I'd have said 1730 or so.

TomS said: The obvious fact is that these people are not attempting to build something like Noah's Ark, except that it is about the specified size and there is a lot of wood. It will not float, and it will not take care of a large variety of animals. How many kids will be disappointed that there are no giraffes - every picture I've seen has giraffes. Why bother with such a construction when it doesn't have much to do with what they think the Ark was?

My point is like this: If I go to a Pirates of the Caribbean theme park, and there are no pirates and no ships, I'm going to be disappointed. It isn't as if I will stop believing that there were pirates on the Caribbean. It's just, what is the point? What is the point of making a Noah's Ark which isn't anywhere near the water, and which doesn't have lots of animals? Any kids that I know are going to ask, where are the giraffes, and lions, and elephants? (The kids that I know are smart enough not to ask for dinosaurs.)

Dave Luckett said: Late 18th century, you say? She actually looks a little earlier than that, with a lateen on the mizzen rather than a driver, and the stern seems higher. Possibly I'm used to English naval painting, but I'd have said 1730 or so.

Just bring in the holy hand grenade and call it a spoof, Kenny.

It could only really be a joke anyhow, after all.

Glen Davidson

I have stumbled on a few sources that refer to "gopher" wood as "shaped" wood, especially referencing shipbuilding. I should have bookmarked the site but I recall it was about Roman shipbuilding. Indeed, they used cedar for salt water boats because of its resistance to shipworms and rotting and, apparently, the Egyptians did, too.

So, depending on when Genesis was written (500 bce?) the authors would have referenced contemporary shipbuilding and perhaps terms like "shaped" wood. Who knows?

All that matters is that Noah left behind the unicorns and that was a very, very bad thing to do.

Dave Lovell said: I've mentioned the vessel here before, but the French replica of a late eighteenth century frigate is currently on tour up the east coast of the USA. In New York now, heading for New England. Well worth a look if you are local and want an example of how much structural timber is required to build even a much smaller wooden vessel that is seaworthy. Apart from using modern bolts instead of roves, and a few steel plates to reinforce knees, it is as near to an eighteenth century ship as you are likely to see. And the auxilliary engines of course, but that really is to meet modern codes, and it sails perfectly well without them.

Arrghhh... Missed a "not". The Constitution is NOT a replica. (It's the real thing.)

Dave Lovell said: I've mentioned the vessel here before, but the French replica of a late eighteenth century frigate...

To build the boat - Go for wood - :) what else.

Marilyn said: To build the boat - Go for wood - :) what else.

There are apparently some pretty strange incongruities in Ham's followers when one stops to think about why this ark would be an attraction. How would people with such lack of sophistication and experience with travel and tourist attractions have the money to pay Ham to do this and then pay more money to go see it?

People who have traveled and seen things would not be impressed with Ham's phony structure; it is just too dull and tacky to pay out any money to see. Certainly not very many people who have been on an aircraft carrier or a submarine would be impressed; and there are a number of those ships that are tourist attractions in various locations on the East and West coasts and on the Great Lakes.

Would the tourists Ham expects be mostly land-locked farmers and people from Appalachia who have never been outside their state or counties; people for whom this ark is some kind of impressive structure bigger than a barn? Are these the people who gave Ham all that money to build this thing? And where did they get the money to give to Ham? How many of these kinds of people are there?

Ham must have figured out from the donations he has received that there is a rather large population of some pretty naive people out there who will continue to keep paying him money to buy what he offers. If that is the case, it certainly explains why Ham left Australia to come here; but what does that say about the US relative to other countries? Does it have something to do with some unforeseen consequences of the First Amendment concerning religion?

Are we primarily a bunch of really dumb rich people here in the US? Looking at the slate of Republican candidates for political offices in recent years, one would have to conclude that we really are pretty dense on average; or that there is a rather large tail on the distribution that is pulling the mean way down.

I would be curious to know just what the average citizen in Australia thinks about the reasons for Ham's success here in the US but not in Australia.

To build the boat - Go for wood - :) what else.

Mike Elzinga said: People who have traveled and seen things would not be impressed with Ham's phony structure; it is just too dull and tacky to pay out any money to see. Certainly not very many people who have been on an aircraft carrier or a submarine would be impressed; and there are a number of those ships that are tourist attractions in various locations on the East and West coasts and on the Great Lakes.

Matt Young said:

To build the boat - Go for wood - :) what else.

Possibly it has escaped your attention that, since we have been able to fabricate large structures out of materials other than wood–including reinforced concrete, I might add–beyond rather modest size, wood is never used structurally for boats, and often not at even for very small vessels where wood could be easily used. It was a pun -- and a good one!

Doc Bill said: I have stumbled on a few sources that refer to "gopher" wood as "shaped" wood, especially referencing shipbuilding. I should have bookmarked the site but I recall it was about Roman shipbuilding. Indeed, they used cedar for salt water boats because of its resistance to shipworms and rotting and, apparently, the Egyptians did, too. So, depending on when Genesis was written (500 bce?) the authors would have referenced contemporary shipbuilding and perhaps terms like "shaped" wood. Who knows? All that matters is that Noah left behind the unicorns and that was a very, very bad thing to do.

W. H. Heydt said: There are aircraft carriers and more than one submarine "on" the Great Lakes? I know about the U-505. I've been through it. (And it is interesting to compare the U-505 to the USS Pampanito.) Quite possibly the best comparison to Ham's Ark would be HMS Vicotry, especially for anyone who researched the amount of work it takes to keep the thing in decent condition. And...at 228x52x29 feet (rounded up), has less than half the length and height of Ham's Ark.

The Wikipedia article on "Gopher Wood" indicates that this is the only use of the word in the Bible, and it's translation is still uncertain. Interestingly, it notes that one possible translation is that "gopher wood" means "reeds". That would be especially interesting, given that the entire "Ark" story could have been borrowed from a similar Babylonian/Sumerian myths/legends/stories about a reed boat.

And in addition to all that, it's measured in cubits. Lord, what's a cubit?

Mike asks: I would be curious to know just what the average citizen in Australia thinks about the reasons for Ham’s success here in the US but not in Australia.

Re "But you can’t lift much deadweight with them, and this turkey is pure deadweight."

Or to paraphrase a famous line, "As God is his witness, he thought turkeys could fly".

Henry J said: And in addition to all that, it's measured in cubits. Lord, what's a cubit?

On gopher wood, nobody knows what it is. You could say from context that whoever used that word didn't think it was anything special or miraculous. Nothing like, "Lo, I have provided for you wood of pure unobtainium, from trees of mighty strength and growth that shall be called gopher wood..." None of that. "Make an ark of gopher wood," it says, and that's all. Many translations give it as "cypress", others as "cedar", but both are guesses. Apparently the writer was using a dialect word for something that he was familiar with, and he didn't think it was any more unusual than pitch or reeds or measurement in cubits, which he also mentions in the same way.

Everything about that story screams loudly that the writer had not the faintest notion of the engineering challenges involved in building a ship that big. He knew there were ships. He simply scaled them up, on the grounds that it needed to be big. The other physical impossibilities involved didn't seem impossible at the time, either. Water came from the sky, sometimes, so obviously there was water up there - you could see it, after all, the great blue immensity above our heads, held up by God. If God made a hole in the sky, obviously it would all fall down on us. You got water in wells, too, so plainly it was under our feet, and if God released it, it would come up.

That's what I meant about magic. The writer wasn't evoking magic. God didn't whomp up the waters of the flood from nothing. He used what was there. He didn't make them vanish into nothing, either. He put them back where they belonged. The writer had not the faintest notion of the energy involved, and as for the laws of thermodynamics, forget it. So the writer has no clue about the miracles needed for those things to happen, and that's why they aren't in the text.

This is so plainly obvious to anyone who reads it that it's simply inexplicable why anyone would nail their colours to this particular mast. Why? What on Earth is driving them? Why on Earth can't they go one of two ways: one, that it's a story with a moral, not an account of historical events; or two: physical reality has to be set aside, and whatever miracles are required simply happened. That is, we know it's not physically possible. Why this heedless double insistence that it did so happen, and it didn't require miracles?

Should've just made it out of upsidaisium, then it'd have no trouble floating.

But if the usefulness of the law and the sequence and ease of the narrative were at first sight clearly discernable throughout, we should be unaware that there was anything beyond the obvious meaning for us to understand in the scriptures. Consequently the Word of God has arranged for certain stumbling-blocks, as it were, and hindrances and impossibilities to be inserted in the midst of the law and the history, in order that we may not be completely drawn away by the sheer attractiveness of the language ...

Well, others may dispute, but for me this thing illustrates how social and political right wing authoritarian creationism actually is.

The function of this structure is to say "In your face, science, nothing can stop us from denying you. We don't care about evidence."

The function of this structure is obviously not to provide a convincing model to persuade scientifically educated people that the ark story is grounded in fact.

Again, the function here is not to provide or deal with evidence, but to non-verbally give the message "we don't care about evidence".

TomS said: My point is like this: If I go to a Pirates of the Caribbean theme park, and there are no pirates and no ships, I'm going to be disappointed. It isn't as if I will stop believing that there were pirates on the Caribbean. It's just, what is the point? What is the point of making a Noah's Ark which isn't anywhere near the water, and which doesn't have lots of animals? Any kids that I know are going to ask, where are the giraffes, and lions, and elephants? (The kids that I know are smart enough not to ask for dinosaurs.)

W. H. Heydt said:

Dave Lovell said: I've mentioned the vessel here before, but the French replica of a late eighteenth century frigate is currently on tour up the east coast of the USA. In New York now, heading for New England. Well worth a look if you are local and want an example of how much structural timber is required to build even a much smaller wooden vessel that is seaworthy. Apart from using modern bolts instead of roves, and a few steel plates to reinforce knees, it is as near to an eighteenth century ship as you are likely to see. And the auxilliary engines of course, but that really is to meet modern codes, and it sails perfectly well without them.

If you really want to see a late 18th century wooden hulled vessel (a large frigate, at that) go to Boston and tour the USS Constitution. It is even a replica, though it has had to undergo reconstructive work from time to time.

Don't know why anyone is fussing about how it would be necessary to constantly rebuild the Ark. It didn't even have to last one year.

Joe Felsenstein said: Don't know why anyone is fussing about how it would be necessary to constantly rebuild the Ark. It didn't even have to last one year.

Dave Lovell said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Don't know why anyone is fussing about how it would be necessary to constantly rebuild the Ark. It didn't even have to last one year.

The Bible doesn't mention a keel. Or a bow or stern or deck or gunwale or anchor or sails or rudder or oars or ... The keel had to last a century!

Dave Lovell said:

The keel had to last a century!

TomS said: Some suggest that either the writers were not acquainted with sailing, or did not intend for the Ark to be a ship. Reading it literally, what is described is a big box. It did not have a keel, a prow, any means of propulsion or steering.

Dave Luckett said:

Mike asks: I would be curious to know just what the average citizen in Australia thinks about the reasons for Ham’s success here in the US but not in Australia.

His exoticism might have something to do with it. For some reason beyond the ken of even Australians, Americans often find the flat twang of a Queensland accent charming. Maybe he comes over as genuine and rural, too. He's about as genuine as a Tudor stereo system, but it's what comes over that matters.

stevaroni said: I'll bet a lot of money that even the scribe who wrote it didn't take it literally. It was a parable.

It would be interesting to know what the allowed "maximum occupancy" of the Ham's Ark will be. Sure, there are lot's of animals smaller than humans, but there are lot's of animals at least as big. I'm betting, to a first approximation, that the number of humans this thing can hold would be about the number of animals this thing can hold.

What you want to bet that the powers that be in Kentucky don't think that anywhere near 16,000 human animals can fit in this building.

So they're gonna need a bigger boat building?

(Maybe if they got help from Evan Almighty?)

Henry J said: So they're gonna need a bigger boat building?

Probably, but if physics is involved there could be an amount of uncertainty.

On second thought, I doubt that they lack for BS.

Assume a spherical giraffe.

TomS said: Assume a spherical giraffe.

stevaroni said:

TomS said: Assume a spherical giraffe.

Actually, spherical giraffes would be good. They'd stack better. And you could pack the voids with the spherical sheep and spherical chickens, blocking them in with the cubical marmots (they were pretty much spheres to start with).

Mike Elzinga said:

stevaroni said:

TomS said: Assume a spherical giraffe.

Actually, spherical giraffes would be good. They'd stack better. And you could pack the voids with the spherical sheep and spherical chickens, blocking them in with the cubical marmots (they were pretty much spheres to start with).

Being spherical would also save a lot of cleaning of stables. You could roll them up ramps to the poop deck and let them defecate over the side.

I thought I'd take a look at the source page for that picture. It's actually funny. Ha-ha type funny. The construction site pictures are great. Yup, that really looks like how Noah went about it.

And the best irony is in Ham's headline: :"We Need To Build an Ark As a Sign To the World." Your pictures don't show you building any ark, Kenny. They show a modern concrete, steel, and wood building going up. Now why would one more modern building -- even if it is a funny shape -- be any kind of "Sign To the World"?

Just Bob said: I thought I'd take a look at the source page for that picture. It's actually funny. Ha-ha type funny. The construction site pictures are great. Yup, that really looks like how Noah went about it. And the best irony is in Ham's headline: :"We Need To Build an Ark As a Sign To the World." Your pictures don't show you building any ark, Kenny. They show a modern concrete, steel, and wood building going up. Now why would one more modern building -- even if it is a funny shape -- be any kind of "Sign To the World"?

Too much gopher steel? If Ham, et. al, have to build their "Arks" using these artificial means to maintain the structure's integrity, how then would it even be possible for noah to build such a craft, water proof and floatable at that, thousands of years ago without the aid of these modern structural elements? Could it possibly mean the bible is wrong, stretching the story beyond bounds like the fisherman's tale?

Just a comment about the respective sizes of US and RN frigates

The RN frigates were the "eyes of the fleet" - as such they needed speed rather than gunpower,
The "Ships of the Line" were the gun platforms

The US "frigates" were basically commerce raiders - the problem for the RN was that because they were "frigates" RN frigate captains accepted battle
(This was the Navy that court martialled an Admiral for attacking eight larger ships with his four ship squadron and only capturing two of them)
in most cases losing to the larger US ships

Any of the US frigates would have been rapidly destroyed by a two or three deck ship of the line (If the captain had been daft enough not to run away)

In December 2013 Matt Young referred us to Gwen Pearson (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/ham-fisted-anim.html#more) and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums standards for animal enclosures such as will (may?) be on Ham's "Ark". Ventilation, heating/cooling, cubic feet per minute of fresh air supplied per animal, cubic feet per minute of suction air exhausted per animal, appropriate lighting on a diurnal cycle, clean water, waste disposal, bedding, square feet per animal, perching for birds, etc, etc. Can somebody solicit an update on this topic? Any guesses if the state or county will enforce these rules on Ham?

And then there's people. The NFPA Life Safety Code and various building codes require fire exits, fire sprinkler systems, aisle and stairway widths based on number of people inside a building, heating / cooling / ventilation, bathrooms, handicap access (ramps! elevators! escalators!), etc, etc. Is anybody even looking into this?

Yet here we are are 3000 years later, battling whether tax dollars should be used to teach schoolchildren that the dinosaurs are dead because they didn’t catch the boat in time.

— stevaroni

DavidK said: Too much gopher steel? If Ham, et. al, have to build their "Arks" using these artificial means to maintain the structure's integrity, how then would it even be possible for noah to build such a craft, water proof and floatable at that, thousands of years ago without the aid of these modern structural elements? Could it possibly mean the bible is wrong, stretching the story beyond bounds like the fisherman's tale?

Scott F said:

DavidK said: Too much gopher steel? If Ham, et. al, have to build their "Arks" using these artificial means to maintain the structure's integrity, how then would it even be possible for noah to build such a craft, water proof and floatable at that, thousands of years ago without the aid of these modern structural elements? Could it possibly mean the bible is wrong, stretching the story beyond bounds like the fisherman's tale?

No. It just means that the Ancients were far more advanced than we are today, able to do more with less. It's all part of The Fall(tm), and we've simply "fallen" farther than Noah had. The same reason why Noah lived over 900 years.

In this day it's better to gopher steel so as to preserve the forests, but they should be sustainable and new trees planted, steel is not so easily replaced. Actually they are showing sense to reinforce this structure securely with it been stationary. Perhaps the ark could have survived because the structure was made with some give in it, so it could bend a little with the waves.

Marilyn said: Perhaps the ark could have survived because the structure was made with some give in it, so it could bend a little with the waves.

stevaroni said:

Marilyn said: Perhaps the ark could have survived because the structure was made with some give in it, so it could bend a little with the waves.

You. Have. Never. Been. In. A. Boat. In. Any. Kind. Of. Rough. Seas.

Dave Luckett said: Late 18th century, you say? She actually looks a little earlier than that, with a lateen on the mizzen ...

Marilyn said: In this day it's better to gopher steel so as to preserve the forests, but they should be sustainable and new trees planted, steel is not so easily replaced. Actually they are showing sense to reinforce this structure securely with it been stationary. Perhaps the ark could have survived because the structure was made with some give in it, so it could bend a little with the waves.

TomS said: Can you imagine the giraffes being tossed around. And the elephants being seasick?

Marilyn said: In this day it's better to gopher steel so as to preserve the forests, but they should be sustainable and new trees planted, steel is not so easily replaced. Actually they are showing sense to reinforce this structure securely with it been stationary. Perhaps the ark could have survived because the structure was made with some give in it, so it could bend a little with the waves.

Re "Mental image of the week - two seasick Brontosaurus."

Yeah. Remember what happened when one of those (or maybe a close relative?) sneezed while a girl was petting it?

And that was just a sneeze.

DS said:

Marilyn said: In this day it's better to gopher steel so as to preserve the forests, but they should be sustainable and new trees planted, steel is not so easily replaced. Actually they are showing sense to reinforce this structure securely with it been stationary. Perhaps the ark could have survived because the structure was made with some give in it, so it could bend a little with the waves.

So Marilyn, tell us, was the magic flood real? Was the magic ark real? Do you really believe it? Really? Really? A simple yes or no will suffice, since you seem to have trouble expressing yourself.

"Something for saving something from something" is a good idea.

Can't deny that. Well, yes. If the something works. Me, I prevent floods by keeping a pail of sand by the back door. Works really well. Never been flooded out yet.

But you didn't answer the question, Marilyn: Did Noah's Flood and the Ark ever really happen?

Marilyn said:

DS said:

Marilyn said: In this day it's better to gopher steel so as to preserve the forests, but they should be sustainable and new trees planted, steel is not so easily replaced. Actually they are showing sense to reinforce this structure securely with it been stationary. Perhaps the ark could have survived because the structure was made with some give in it, so it could bend a little with the waves.

So Marilyn, tell us, was the magic flood real? Was the magic ark real? Do you really believe it? Really? Really? A simple yes or no will suffice, since you seem to have trouble expressing yourself.

Building the ark was a very good idea. The writer saw the need for something for saving something from something, and the same idea is still needed and still works.

Marilyn said:

DS said:

Marilyn said: In this day it's better to gopher steel so as to preserve the forests, but they should be sustainable and new trees planted, steel is not so easily replaced. Actually they are showing sense to reinforce this structure securely with it been stationary. Perhaps the ark could have survived because the structure was made with some give in it, so it could bend a little with the waves.

So Marilyn, tell us, was the magic flood real? Was the magic ark real? Do you really believe it? Really? Really? A simple yes or no will suffice, since you seem to have trouble expressing yourself.

Building the ark was a very good idea. The writer saw the need for something for saving something from something, and the same idea is still needed and still works.

I've noticed that there is a huge knot in the timber just above Ken Ham's head.

I think God is communicating something here...

Marilyn said: In this day it's better to gopher steel so as to preserve the forests, but they should be sustainable and new trees planted, steel is not so easily replaced. Actually they are showing sense to reinforce this structure securely with it been stationary. Perhaps the ark could have survived because the structure was made with some give in it, so it could bend a little with the waves.

Apparently you can drive in and watch the Ark being built for the minor price of $20. I don't know why anyone would spend that to watch 'cranes raise the timber bents' like on any other building site - if seven or eight guys with only bronze age tools were doing it, that might be worth the admission price, but there you go. It does make me chuckle, however, that access to Noah's Ark might be cancelled in case of 'inclement weather'. A little rain should motivate you, gents, not put you off...

How could I really know I wasn't there...... but you wasn't there but you know. I think it's quite possible that something of the sort happened.

Marilyn said: How could I really know I wasn't there...... but you wasn't there but you know. I think it's quite possible that something of the sort happened.

Marilyn said: How could I really know I wasn't there...... but you wasn't there but you know. I think it's quite possible that something of the sort happened.

Marilyn said: How could I really know I wasn't there...... but you wasn't there but you know. I think it's quite possible that something of the sort happened.

Marilyn said: How could I really know I wasn't there...... but you wasn't there but you know. I think it's quite possible that something of the sort happened.

prongs said:

Marilyn said: In this day it's better to gopher steel so as to preserve the forests, but they should be sustainable and new trees planted, steel is not so easily replaced. Actually they are showing sense to reinforce this structure securely with it been stationary. Perhaps the ark could have survived because the structure was made with some give in it, so it could bend a little with the waves.

Ashes to ashes, and rust to rust. Wood and steel, all return whence they cometh.

I wonder if the completed (if ever) ark will have any outside views, like maybe fake windows with diorama views of endless water, or the ongoing storm, with water falling so hard and fast that it would boil the oceans while driving the ark beneath the surface.

Or maybe it'll be a later-in-the-year view, featuring the bloated corpses of all the babies and little kids murdered by Yahweh's loving justice.

Just Bob said: I wonder if the completed (if ever) ark will have any outside views, like maybe fake windows with diorama views of endless water, or the ongoing storm, with water falling so hard and fast that it would boil the oceans while driving the ark beneath the surface. Or maybe it'll be a later-in-the-year view, featuring the bloated corpses of all the babies and little kids murdered by Yahweh's loving justice.

Marilyn said:

Just Bob said: I wonder if the completed (if ever) ark will have any outside views, like maybe fake windows with diorama views of endless water, or the ongoing storm, with water falling so hard and fast that it would boil the oceans while driving the ark beneath the surface. Or maybe it'll be a later-in-the-year view, featuring the bloated corpses of all the babies and little kids murdered by Yahweh's loving justice.

If it hadn't been for the ark no one would be looking through any windows at all. If it wasn't for safe havens there wouldn't be any thing to look out from and see, it's usually the tragedies that are seen from safe havens, that's why there are save havens some where to go to escape the tragedies and see the better side of life, the trees and flowers.

Marilyn said:

Just Bob said: I wonder if the completed (if ever) ark will have any outside views, like maybe fake windows with diorama views of endless water, or the ongoing storm, with water falling so hard and fast that it would boil the oceans while driving the ark beneath the surface. Or maybe it'll be a later-in-the-year view, featuring the bloated corpses of all the babies and little kids murdered by Yahweh's loving justice.

If it hadn't been for the ark no one would be looking through any windows at all. If it wasn't for safe havens there wouldn't be any thing to look out from and see, it's usually the tragedies that are seen from safe havens, that's why there are save havens some where to go to escape the tragedies and see the better side of life, the trees and flowers.

Ease up, guys. Marilyn said "It's quite possible that something of the sort happened". Something of the sort does happen. There are floods, and people use boats for rescue. Somebody made a story of that, with a myth about rainbows, and a moral, which is admittedly odd - God didn't like doing it, as it turns out, and swore never to do it again. But it's a story, and as Marilyn says, it's about safe havens, and about how life goes on.

Marilyn's language is vague and elusive, but she seems to be acknowledging that it's a story. Marilyn, for your part, you have to remember that you are dealing with people who are interested in the physical specifics. Maybe "something like this" happened. But was there a great world-wide flood that killed everyone but one family? Or is this a sort of tall story, where everything is exaggerated for effect?

Dave Luckett said: But was there a great world-wide flood that killed everyone but one family? Or is this a sort of tall story, where everything is exaggerated for effect?

Marilyn said:

Just Bob said: I wonder if the completed (if ever) ark will have any outside views, like maybe fake windows with diorama views of endless water, or the ongoing storm, with water falling so hard and fast that it would boil the oceans while driving the ark beneath the surface. Or maybe it'll be a later-in-the-year view, featuring the bloated corpses of all the babies and little kids murdered by Yahweh's loving justice.

If it hadn't been for the ark no one would be looking through any windows at all. If it wasn't for safe havens there wouldn't be any thing to look out from and see, it's usually the tragedies that are seen from safe havens, that's why there are save havens some where to go to escape the tragedies and see the better side of life, the trees and flowers.

DanHolme said: Marilyn, if Dave Lovell's comment is correct and you do live near Sheffield, can I urge you to pop down the road to Creswell Crags and have a look at the caves and exhibition centre there? As an ice-age interpretative site with a strong focus on archaeological evidence, it's going to be very different to something like the Ark Park, but it's very user friendly and would be worth your while. When the caves there were first excavated, 'the Flood' was seen as a plausible explanation for why there were lion bones, bits of elephant, hyenas and wolves all jumbled up underground in Nottinghamshire. It was the 1800s - a cool cleric called Buckland was knocking around with his pet hyena digging up bones and making observations. But it was the observations of people like him who gradually changed the story. Creswell Crags was a real 'safe haven' - a place of shelter for weary travellers who wanted to avoid bears and lions, who needed somewhere to wait out a storm, make some carvings on a wall, talk to each other, make a meal (there's charcoal from a campfire - probably mesolithic, which means 7 - 10,000 years old - embedded in a wall in one of the caves, but you really have to know where to look). In other words, a place to escape the tragedies and see the better side of life. No global destruction needed. Why not wander down and have a look?

Marilyn said:

DanHolme said: Marilyn, if Dave Lovell's comment is correct and you do live near Sheffield, can I urge you to pop down the road to Creswell Crags and have a look at the caves and exhibition centre there? As an ice-age interpretative site with a strong focus on archaeological evidence, it's going to be very different to something like the Ark Park, but it's very user friendly and would be worth your while. When the caves there were first excavated, 'the Flood' was seen as a plausible explanation for why there were lion bones, bits of elephant, hyenas and wolves all jumbled up underground in Nottinghamshire. It was the 1800s - a cool cleric called Buckland was knocking around with his pet hyena digging up bones and making observations. But it was the observations of people like him who gradually changed the story. Creswell Crags was a real 'safe haven' - a place of shelter for weary travellers who wanted to avoid bears and lions, who needed somewhere to wait out a storm, make some carvings on a wall, talk to each other, make a meal (there's charcoal from a campfire - probably mesolithic, which means 7 - 10,000 years old - embedded in a wall in one of the caves, but you really have to know where to look). In other words, a place to escape the tragedies and see the better side of life. No global destruction needed. Why not wander down and have a look?

I'm glad you told me about this, it isn't too far away and I didn't know about it, so as soon as I get the opportunity I'm going to visit the centre and I'll book for both caves :)

When ancient scriptures talk about 'all the word', they obviously are talking about the known world, the world that they knew. They may have been aware of a world beyond that scope, but it didn't belong to 'all the world.'

Taking into account the obvious possibility that what actually happened was the flooding of the Black Sea when mediterannean waters rose to a level sufficient to overflow the Dardanelles/Bosporus/

We are dealing about the times of the end of the last ice age so far.

Must have been quite a sight to Gilgamesh!

Marilyn said:

DanHolme said: Marilyn, if Dave Lovell's comment is correct and you do live near Sheffield, can I urge you to pop down the road to Creswell Crags and have a look at the caves and exhibition centre there? As an ice-age interpretative site with a strong focus on archaeological evidence, it's going to be very different to something like the Ark Park, but it's very user friendly and would be worth your while. When the caves there were first excavated, 'the Flood' was seen as a plausible explanation for why there were lion bones, bits of elephant, hyenas and wolves all jumbled up underground in Nottinghamshire. It was the 1800s - a cool cleric called Buckland was knocking around with his pet hyena digging up bones and making observations. But it was the observations of people like him who gradually changed the story. Creswell Crags was a real 'safe haven' - a place of shelter for weary travellers who wanted to avoid bears and lions, who needed somewhere to wait out a storm, make some carvings on a wall, talk to each other, make a meal (there's charcoal from a campfire - probably mesolithic, which means 7 - 10,000 years old - embedded in a wall in one of the caves, but you really have to know where to look). In other words, a place to escape the tragedies and see the better side of life. No global destruction needed. Why not wander down and have a look?

I'm glad you told me about this, it isn't too far away and I didn't know about it, so as soon as I get the opportunity I'm going to visit the centre and I'll book for both caves :)

Dave Lovell said: Marilyn, you might also try watching the three episode series "Catching History's Criminals: The Forensics Story" if you have access to BBC catch-up services. Episode two in particular explains how forensic science allows us to be so sure we "know" what happened in the past that we are prepared to take peoples' liberty or even their lives based on that knowledge. Don't misinterpret the comments about the science being beyond dispute but the human interpretation being suspect though. They are meant as a warning against using the forensic science to confirm what you already think to be true, rather than as a tool to discover what really happened. Definitely not an endorsement of a Ken Ham "same facts, different interpretation" style of approach.

Hi Dave. Creswell is a good jumping off point for the Archaeological Way, which follows a ridge of magnesian limestone roughly north south, starting around Anston Stones near Dinnington and going down to Mansfield via Langwith etc. Lots of small caves and rock shelters along the way, with a variety of animal and human remains and artefacts.
We're not talking 'caverns measureless to man' here, but usually gullies or fissures that have yielded good finds of predators like hyenas, lions, etc.
(Maybe that's how Noah dealt with all the waste - he fed it to the hyenas - it seems they'll eat anything....)

Rolf said: When ancient scriptures talk about 'all the word', they obviously are talking about the known world, the world that they knew. They may have been aware of a world beyond that scope, but it didn't belong to 'all the world.'

There's also Luke 2:1, where the Evangelist says that Caesar's decree was that the whole world was to be registered.

But Luke's word in the gospel is "oikomene", roughly "all the world we know", and in Acts he says "panthos ethnos hypo ton ouranon", which is literally "all peoples under the sky". It would appear that in the first he meant "the Roman world", and in the second he wished to include people who came even from outside the oikumene. Some Jewish people came from the east, from Parthia or even central Asia, even, perhaps, India. There might have been some of them in Jerusalem that day.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them (KJV)

Just Bob said: And that "whole world" was small enough (and flat enough!) that it could ALL be seen from the top of a particular mountain.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them (KJV)

TomS said: But it is only on a round Earth are we able to see farther from a higher point.

TomS said: Perhaps the vision was not natural, but some trick of the devil. Or the mountain was on the Moon.

By the way, were all these construction folks working on this project required to sign Ham's statement of faith, under penalty of the inquisition, to qualify for their jobs?

Just Bob said:

TomS said: Perhaps the vision was not natural, but some trick of the devil. Or the mountain was on the Moon.

A: How could the mere devil trick Jesus himself? B: It don't say nuthin' about no moon, so tweren't on the moon. Besides, if Satan and Jesus were on the Moon, looking at Earth (for 20 hrs. or so to see "all kingdoms"), what would be the point of being on a mountain? The bottom of a crater would do just as well for watching the Earth in the sky.

DanHolme said:

Just Bob said:

TomS said: Perhaps the vision was not natural, but some trick of the devil. Or the mountain was on the Moon.

A: How could the mere devil trick Jesus himself? B: It don't say nuthin' about no moon, so tweren't on the moon. Besides, if Satan and Jesus were on the Moon, looking at Earth (for 20 hrs. or so to see "all kingdoms"), what would be the point of being on a mountain? The bottom of a crater would do just as well for watching the Earth in the sky.

Maybe the devil, developing his own evil materialistic world view, showed Jesus nothing more than an animal, a plant, and a mushroom with some bacteria on it. Easily done on almost any mountain.

Well, the KJV quote says 'up INTO an exceeding high mountain', so perhaps it was a stratovolcano, and the devil was taking Jesus through a lava tube to show him some extremophile archaea in a hot spring. And actually, that would be a nice quick short cut home for the devil, so very convenient.

DanHolme said: Well, the KJV quote says 'up INTO an exceeding high mountain', so perhaps it was a stratovolcano, and the devil was taking Jesus through a lava tube to show him some extremophile archaea in a hot spring. And actually, that would be a nice quick short cut home for the devil, so very convenient.

DavidK said: By the way, were all these construction folks working on this project required to sign Ham's statement of faith, under penalty of the inquisition, to qualify for their jobs?

Rolf said:

DavidK said: By the way, were all these construction folks working on this project required to sign Ham's statement of faith, under penalty of the inquisition, to qualify for their jobs?

How would Noah have been able to recruit and remunerate his construction folks - and prevent them from going with him on the Ark?

Rolf said:

DavidK said: By the way, were all these construction folks working on this project required to sign Ham's statement of faith, under penalty of the inquisition, to qualify for their jobs?

How would Noah have been able to recruit and remunerate his construction folks - and prevent them from going with him on the Ark?

TomS said: Is there any Biblical precedent for a statement of faith for hiring of workers? Clearly, Noah did not have one. We know that Ham must be following Biblical rules.

eric said:

TomS said: Is there any Biblical precedent for a statement of faith for hiring of workers? Clearly, Noah did not have one. We know that Ham must be following Biblical rules.

Anyone else find it ironic that Noah would not have been allowed to work on Ham's Ark, because he would probably not have signed on to Ham's Christian, trinity-heavy and Jesus-heavy statement of faith?

Rolf said: How would Noah have been able to recruit and remunerate his construction folks - and prevent them from going with him on the Ark?

John Harshman said:

TomS said: But it is only on a round Earth are we able to see farther from a higher point.

That would certainly be true if the surface were completely even except for that one height. But in the real world there are obstructions to your line of sight, of various heights, and if you're higher than they are you can see over them. There's also an advantage in looking at the distance other than edge on. So even on a flat earth, you could see farther from the mountain top.

harold said:

John Harshman said:

TomS said: But it is only on a round Earth are we able to see farther from a higher point.

That would certainly be true if the surface were completely even except for that one height. But in the real world there are obstructions to your line of sight, of various heights, and if you're higher than they are you can see over them. There's also an advantage in looking at the distance other than edge on. So even on a flat earth, you could see farther from the mountain top.

Although on a finite flat Earth, this would only be an issue for seeing farther if an obstacle blocked your view of the edge. There would be no horizon and you would always be able to see the edge if the view was clear. A close analogy would be a big wooden platform. Suppose Bubba and Buck are on a big wooden platform. Buck is standing behind an obstacle, but it isn't high enough to prevent him from seeing the distant edge of the platform. Buck could see more by being up high enough to see better over the obstacle, but not, within the context of the platform, "father" - he can already see all the way to the edge. Whereas on the surface of the sphere, the general tendency is that until you get high enough to see the full central circumference, you can usually see farther by going up higher. It is true that not only the horizon, but the fact that increasing elevation increases visual distance to the horizon, are both lines of evidence against a flat Earth.

Actually, the vital observation is that departing ships disappeared from the bottom up, and that this was true at the same rate no matter in what direction they were going. As soon as you think about it, this must imply that you are living on a surface evenly curved in all directions. It must at least be the section of a sphere. As soon as you then travel far enough to observe that objects fall perpendicular to the horizon no matter where you are, the first essential observation of a theory of gravity must occur.

Dave Luckett said: Actually, the vital observation is that departing ships disappeared from the bottom up, and that this was true at the same rate no matter in what direction they were going. As soon as you think about it, this must imply that you are living on a surface evenly curved in all directions. It must at least be the section of a sphere. As soon as you then travel far enough to observe that objects fall perpendicular to the horizon no matter where you are, the first essential observation of a theory of gravity must occur.

On a flat earth, the higher the obstacle, the higher you have to be to see over it to the edge. The farther away the obstacle, ditto. Even if you're standing on a spot that's higher than the obstacle, there will be a visibility shadow behind it, which may extend to the edge of the world.

Noah must have been known to use concrete and rebar too.

It looks like they are putting in up on a concrete platform. Probably to protect it against flooding.

https://arkencounter.com/blog/2015/06/15/today-is-the-day/

DanHolme said:

Marilyn said:

DanHolme said: Marilyn, if Dave Lovell's comment is correct and you do live near Sheffield, can I urge you to pop down the road to Creswell Crags and have a look at the caves and exhibition centre there? As an ice-age interpretative site with a strong focus on archaeological evidence, it's going to be very different to something like the Ark Park, but it's very user friendly and would be worth your while. When the caves there were first excavated, 'the Flood' was seen as a plausible explanation for why there were lion bones, bits of elephant, hyenas and wolves all jumbled up underground in Nottinghamshire. It was the 1800s - a cool cleric called Buckland was knocking around with his pet hyena digging up bones and making observations. But it was the observations of people like him who gradually changed the story. Creswell Crags was a real 'safe haven' - a place of shelter for weary travellers who wanted to avoid bears and lions, who needed somewhere to wait out a storm, make some carvings on a wall, talk to each other, make a meal (there's charcoal from a campfire - probably mesolithic, which means 7 - 10,000 years old - embedded in a wall in one of the caves, but you really have to know where to look). In other words, a place to escape the tragedies and see the better side of life. No global destruction needed. Why not wander down and have a look?

I'm glad you told me about this, it isn't too far away and I didn't know about it, so as soon as I get the opportunity I'm going to visit the centre and I'll book for both caves :)

Nice one, I think you'll really enjoy it, even if you are still 'philosophically unconvinced' at the end, shall we say. It's a beautiful gorge and there's loads of wildlife in and around Crags Pond. They usually do some special events for National Archaeology Week in late May - early June, for instance having a flint knapper come in to show how stone tools were made in the Old Stone Age. But it's a great landscape at any time of year. I hope you have a good time, and I hope you come away, if not 'converted' (very much the wrong word here!), at least having an appreciation for the work of the archaeologists and the techniques they use.

Marilyn said:

DanHolme said:

Marilyn said:

DanHolme said: Marilyn, if Dave Lovell's comment is correct and you do live near Sheffield, can I urge you to pop down the road to Creswell Crags and have a look at the caves and exhibition centre there? As an ice-age interpretative site with a strong focus on archaeological evidence, it's going to be very different to something like the Ark Park, but it's very user friendly and would be worth your while. When the caves there were first excavated, 'the Flood' was seen as a plausible explanation for why there were lion bones, bits of elephant, hyenas and wolves all jumbled up underground in Nottinghamshire. It was the 1800s - a cool cleric called Buckland was knocking around with his pet hyena digging up bones and making observations. But it was the observations of people like him who gradually changed the story. Creswell Crags was a real 'safe haven' - a place of shelter for weary travellers who wanted to avoid bears and lions, who needed somewhere to wait out a storm, make some carvings on a wall, talk to each other, make a meal (there's charcoal from a campfire - probably mesolithic, which means 7 - 10,000 years old - embedded in a wall in one of the caves, but you really have to know where to look). In other words, a place to escape the tragedies and see the better side of life. No global destruction needed. Why not wander down and have a look?

I'm glad you told me about this, it isn't too far away and I didn't know about it, so as soon as I get the opportunity I'm going to visit the centre and I'll book for both caves :)

Nice one, I think you'll really enjoy it, even if you are still 'philosophically unconvinced' at the end, shall we say. It's a beautiful gorge and there's loads of wildlife in and around Crags Pond. They usually do some special events for National Archaeology Week in late May - early June, for instance having a flint knapper come in to show how stone tools were made in the Old Stone Age. But it's a great landscape at any time of year. I hope you have a good time, and I hope you come away, if not 'converted' (very much the wrong word here!), at least having an appreciation for the work of the archaeologists and the techniques they use.

It's really a very nice park to visit, I only had time for the caves this time. The magnesium limestone caves, pastel in colour, have rugged walls with long tunnels and are cold with only tiny stalactites forming. In the cave the artefacts are mainly replicas but there was one genuine flint arrow head, it seems that the Smithsonian has some of the genuine articles from Creswell also other museums. The few rock carvings are now quite faint the Oryx -or Unicorn- can just be made out, the Ibis was the most visible, the cave has been through some blundering excavation that will have diminished the findings. The pond that is edged with the caves is home to some very nice ducks and water birds. The scene does have an air of the Neanderthal.

DanHolme said: Glad you liked it, Marilyn! I like your phrase 'blundering excavation', that's a bit of an understatement when you consider that Boyd Dawkins and his team in the 1800s used explosives to get through the calcite layers to the sediments underneath. Apocryphally, some of the tons of stuff that the Victorian archaeologists took out are still awaiting proper sorting and cataloguing at Manchester Museum, they took out that much. Did you have a chance to have a look at some of the reconstructions of the valley through different climatic periods - and did you have a look at how those reconstructions are developed based on the animal and plant remains from the valley?

Marilyn said:

DanHolme said: Glad you liked it, Marilyn! I like your phrase 'blundering excavation', that's a bit of an understatement when you consider that Boyd Dawkins and his team in the 1800s used explosives to get through the calcite layers to the sediments underneath. Apocryphally, some of the tons of stuff that the Victorian archaeologists took out are still awaiting proper sorting and cataloguing at Manchester Museum, they took out that much. Did you have a chance to have a look at some of the reconstructions of the valley through different climatic periods - and did you have a look at how those reconstructions are developed based on the animal and plant remains from the valley?

I didn't get to see more than the caves this time but I'm going to go again and I'll look for these things you've said. How do you know about Creswell have you worked there or are you a Smithsonian.

DanHolme said: I did work there, way back when, and I'm relatively local, though more Peak District than Dukeries. I met David Bellamy at Creswell in 2001! It'd be nice if it was a better known site, though the flip side would be more traffic and a less pleasant 'vibe'. More local school trips there would be great, even (especially?) if people came to challenge and argue. There is a story amongst Derbyshire cavern guides about a Jewish faith school in Manchester that used to bring groups to caves, wait until the guide mentioned the age of the (Carboniferous) rock, then pounce and suggest a 6000 year figure instead. I was always really looking forward to their visit for a good old debate, but it never happened in a decade of guiding at five different sites, and I wonder now if it was just a managerial scare story to keep us on our toes.

It's posts like the above, Marilyn, that get you treated differently here to how we treat creationist trolls. You show a mind that is open. You acknowledge that people who have spent their lives gathering evidence and studying it know more about it than you, and you're preparted to learn from them. Good on yer, as we say here.

Marilyn is indeed a person, and not a troll.

Marilyn said:

DanHolme said: I did work there, way back when, and I'm relatively local, though more Peak District than Dukeries. I met David Bellamy at Creswell in 2001! It'd be nice if it was a better known site, though the flip side would be more traffic and a less pleasant 'vibe'. More local school trips there would be great, even (especially?) if people came to challenge and argue. There is a story amongst Derbyshire cavern guides about a Jewish faith school in Manchester that used to bring groups to caves, wait until the guide mentioned the age of the (Carboniferous) rock, then pounce and suggest a 6000 year figure instead. I was always really looking forward to their visit for a good old debate, but it never happened in a decade of guiding at five different sites, and I wonder now if it was just a managerial scare story to keep us on our toes.

The lovely Peak District and The Blue John Caves.....As a guide you will have to have very good knowledge of all the history of the sites we should visit, so perhaps not too easy to challenge. It just so happens that on Sunday 19 th, Creswell is having an event called Research Revealed where experts are going to talk about the discoveries made, so I'm hoping to go then to see what they say.