|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
will be quite surprised if thing even stays together on the dry ground without cheating and using modern technology.
Creos will just claim that Noah used a technology that was lost in the flood. We have seen that argument on this forum already. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Search the threads here on Noah's ark. You will see claims very similar to this by the fundies.
Edited by Theodoric, : changed creos to fundies Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
No but I almost choked on my chocolate(hershey bar, nothing special).
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
how Larni has lied for his religious beliefs? Example please.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
I haven't read 1421 but have read some excerpts online. It sounds like he is a writer who made a decision and .tried to find evidence to support it.
There is a pretty good site that pretty much destroys all of his assertions.
The myth of Menzies' "1421 " exposed I have emailed the editor for a copy of this paper
Fathoming the Unfathomable: Even Leviathans have LimitsDr. Stephen Davies Museum Director, Hong Kong Maritime Museum Hon. Research Fellow, Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
No you did not debunk this a year ago. All you did was mention this article on creation.com The funny thing is that Korean Institute of Ships and Engineering seems to only exist on creo websites. There is such a thing as Korean Institute of Ships and Oceanic Engineering. This seems to be what they are referring to. There does not seem to be any reference to this anywhere but on creationist sites. I have emailed the institute in the past and have again today to confirm that this is a study by them and/or by members of the institute. I never did get a response before, hopefully I will this time.
I would like to see an independent analysis of this study. A few things leap out at me. One their claim that the Ark could stand waves to 30m. Also, what little they write makes a lot of assumptions. Now if you could show me that this was published on a non-creo site or any peer review I might take a serious look at at. Until then all it is is an uninteresting paper written by people to reinforce their beliefs. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
The technical journal is peer-reviewed. What journal?Creation.com? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
oh creationist peer reviewed, not scientifically peer reviewed.
So the geocentrists could have a peer reviewed journal too and that would give their claims legitimacy? By peer reviewed the vat majority on this site mean scientifically peer reviewed journal. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Their calculations and tests show that it can, end of PRATT.
Not until the "paper" and its calculations are reviewed and confirmed. Show me other non-associated oceanic engineers that can verify this and I may consider what they have to say. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Really? really? You have evidence of this? Please provide these reviews.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
You really asking me to find the reviews of a 17 year old paper ?
You are the one that brought it up. So unless you can present evidence showing us that some other engineers agree with the calculations and conclusions, then this "paper" ain't worth the photons that are wasted displaying it on my monitor.
Hiding behind the concept of peer-review seems dishonest from where I stand.
And you claim to want to be a scientist? Peer review is a hallmark of the modern scientific process. Do you understand the engineering behind this paper? Or are you accepting it totally just because it supports your view.
even if all their math was right, and all their tests were accurate
How can I know this unless it is reviewed? As I said early, you haven't debunked anything. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
First off, you brought in peer-review.
Of course I did, because when it doesn't suit you, you run from it as fast as you can. The hypocrisy of the creo/ID side is astounding. You refuse to accept volumes of scientific data, that has been peer-reviewed and analyzed extensively and then get all huffy when you present something that is less than a paper and has nothing to attest for even it's authenticity and no one accepts it blindly. You make a false claim of peer review, the whole thing stinks of fallacy of authority and a poor attempt at that. Lets look at this attempt. We have no idea who S.W. Hong, S. S. Na, B. S. Hyun, S. Y. Hong, D. S. Gong, K. J. Kang, S. H. Suh, K. H. Lee and Y. G. Je are. They could be janitors for all we know. They could not even exist. All we have is an assertion on the webpage you claim is authoritative. That claims.
quote:Bloody hell, they can't even get the name of the Institute correct. This is also the same website that has articles(yes, articles not papers) that states this. quote:Source More damning is their article of faith. If you expect anyone to believe anything you post on a site you probably should skip an article of faith.
quote:Source And you expect us to believe the crap they post without any analysis or backup? What the hell are you smoking?
And secondly, I'm not forcing you to hold on to some seconr-rated argument against the plausibility of the ark.
Expecting outside verification and validation is "second-rate"? I truly think your career in science is going to be very short lived.
''if it isn't in a secular peer-reviewed journal I won't believe it''. Well good for you, but I won't waste any more time with this childish attitude.
Do you even understand the reason for peer-review? Childish? Really? really? That's what you've got? You think a demand for confirmation of the source and an independent evaluation of the data is childish? If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. The whole thing is what 4-5 pages printed? You think this answers all the questions of the ability of the Ark to float. The structural integrity section is a joke. The assumptions they make are astounding.
quote:How? What was used to attach the structures to each other? What fasteners were used to make all of this work? I'd say the only thing I couldn't evaluate was their claim of the scaled down models validating their theoretical analysis, and having the softwares they used to look if the results they gave were accurate. Although I know I'm far from qualify to assess if everything is right in the paper, I have no reasons to think it is not.
How about you then explain it to us what they concluded and why there calculations and arguments are valid? You claim you understand the technical aspect of the paper so how about you showing us. Do you want to continue the personal attacks(childish)? Or do you want to provide something to back up your claims and the claims of the article?
A claim should stand or fall on it's merits,
Exactly. Maybe you should try explaining its merits to us. ABEMaybe you creos should just stick with the argument "godidit". It is much more effective than the lame attempts you try to use to sound "sciency". Edited by Theodoric, : Last second shot across the bow Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Now, you asked of me the reviews that particular paper obtained 17 years ago. It is without saying that such a task is practically impossible, since reviews are never published and made accessible only on demand (which would probably take at least 1 month to obtain from the TJ). The fact that you asked me something that is impossible in a short time, and that I was unable to do it in a short time, does not mean what I said was false (which implies I am a lier) You mean the original is not available at all? Doesn't sound real sciency to me. Oh this is too funny.This "journal" is a propaganda arm of Creation Ministries International. They are your original link. This is no journal it is poor apologetics. So you are going to use the source itself as the verification of the legitimacy of itself? Remember their statement of faith. It says "fuck science and actual facts we know the bible is the answer to all".Everyone should take a look at the articles. Journal of Creation archive index - creation.com We have years worth of debunking creationists here. This is their requirements for anything to get into the "journal".
quote:Wow. You are really going to fall on this sword aren't you? I just emailed CMI to see if the article was in fact reviewed by anyone before or after publication. Gee that was easy. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
You think if they will respond it will be that they have no record of any reviews of the article. Or if they do they will decline to provide them.
But as I said, it would surprise me if we got a quick answer. They receive a boatload of emails each day. Answers usually take over a month
Well that is a pretty piss poor way to run an organization. The only people I email that take that long are lawyers. I have never had to wait longer than 5 days to get a response whenever I email any journal to get more information. I have found also that I do not have to subscribe or be in the field and I can usually get them to provide me the info I request. I find science people are not afraid of people getting the information themselves. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
I am not surprised by their response. Classic.
quote: He did respond to my name I chose to X out my name. I am emailing response.
quote: I guess I got a response from one of the big dogs. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024