|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MiguelG Member (Idle past 2002 days) Posts: 63 From: Australia Joined: |
i fail to see why the spruce goose couldn't fly -- there are several airplanes from approximately the same timeframe that are actually larger, and fly quite well, including the boeing 777. Actually the Spruce Goose did fly - though not very far. Its lifting capacity and service ceiling were never tested.Once again there is no a priori proof that the Spruce Goose could not fly. Neither is there any such proof that a wooden vessel of such a size as the Ark (or any of the other discussed ancient or medeival vessels) couldn't float either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Very true. But I wasn't arguing about whether the Tessakonteres could last a deluge (or the Ark for that matter). I was pointing out that the dimensions of the Ark do not a priori exclude it from being seaworthy. Well, "seaworthy" is surely a term implying more than "able to float in calm water". It means that someone not crazy or suicidal could make a sea voyage in it. Whether AiG's boat could float is one question; whether it's seaworthy is another.
This is incorrect. There is both Da Conti's anecdotal evidence and the evidence from surviving official Ming Dynasty documents which order the destruction of all sea-going ships including the bao chuans. I'd have to look at the documents. In particular, your account of what the Ming records say is ambiguous. (Compare: "I like all shellfish, including oysters" and "I am attracted to all redheads, including those with freckles". In the first case, all oysters are shellfish; in the second case, not all freckled women are redheads.)
I'd be more interested in seeing them demonstrate the 'pooper scooper' techniques developed by Noah so as to flush the ship of unwanted faeces. I've made some calculations myself based on creationist estimates of how many animals there were in the Ark. For example, allowing for a sixteen hour working day, each animal gets about six seconds care per day, including the time to get between cages. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MiguelG Member (Idle past 2002 days) Posts: 63 From: Australia Joined: |
Well, "seaworthy" is surely a term implying more than "able to float in calm water". It means that someone not crazy or suicidal could make a sea voyage in it. A barge is eminently 'seaworthy' in calm weather even in deep water though it is usually used in coastal and riverine environments. However my original point was that the arguments against the ark based on its dimensions are unhelpful because of the very eaxamples I've presented.
Whether AiG's boat could float is one question; whether it's seaworthy is another. I would go so far as to say that if it is as effective as AIG's defense of Biblical inerrancy (in history and science then it will sink like the proverbial stone.
I'd have to look at the documents. In particular, your account of what the Ming records say is ambiguous. Fair enough. I would then like to recommend the following: Needham (1962) Science and civilization in China. 4(3). Finlay (1991) The Treasure ships of Zheng He. Terrae incognitae, 23(1). Levathes (1996) When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433. Wade (2005) The Zheng He voyages: a reassessment. Asia Research Institute, Working Paper Series, No.31. Mills (1970) Ma Huan: Ying-yai sheng-lan ‘The overall survey of the ocean's shores’ (1433), translated from the Chinese text. edited by Feng Ch'eng-chn. (Hakluyt Society Extra Series, No. XLII.) Note: By all means steer clear of Gavin Menzies books like 1421. They are execrable from a historical standpoint.
I've made some calculations myself based on creationist estimates of how many animals there were in the Ark. For example, allowing for a sixteen hour working day, each animal gets about six seconds care per day, including the time to get between cages. Let's not even talk about the sheer volume of excrement generated by even a single pair of medium-sized animals. Also, the variety would be problematic as they would cover the gamut from dry to wet and all states in between. I think I once heard a creationist argument about Noah teaching the animals to defecate on command?That one was truly bizarre. PS: If you have any trouble acquiring the articles do let me know as I can probably supply you with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 331 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
I think I once heard a creationist argument about Noah teaching the animals to defecate on command? That one was truly bizarre. Hahah "Dumbo hold it in!!!!! im getting the wheelbarrow. Ok stop now the wheelbarrow is full wait so i can empty it." I would not want to be an animal on that boat. Seriusly though no creationist that thought about the poop, or feeding problem of the ship has any animals. I have 4 horses and you would not imagine the amount of hay i need to store for the winter. during the summertime they graze outside. for the winter i need around nineteen 500 kilo dry bails of hay, and the winter lasts for up to 4 months max, fo for a full year you would need 57 bails of dry hay or 30 tones of hay for 4 horse size animals. and yes all of that hay turns to poop and cause it is wetter then before it is eaten it is at least 10 tones heavier so you get to shuffle 40 tones of poop in one year out the one window up top for 4 horse sized animals. Not much on a day lie basis 100 kilos or around my weight per day but only for 4 horsesized animals. using all their magic and using their magical KINDS of animals (whatever a kind actually is) some creationists say you would not need millions of animals on the boat but only around 4000 and if we magically crunch the numbers down to say the 4000 animals amount to only 400 horse sized animals. that is still 10 tones of crap per day, that have to be hauled up the stairs to that SINGLE window up top and thrown overboard. And the amount of hay you would need to feed them in one year would not fit on the boat. ignoring the whole watter supply you would need.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
[apologist mode]It doesn't specifically say in the Bible that Noah and his family didn't have robots.[/apologist mode]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Doc A wins the Intertubes for today!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!
Except - that will now show up as a genuine "argument" somewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 331 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
I know it is off topic and i dont care i had to post this. (the pink unicorn commanded me to spreed the word )
After having a laugh at your apologist mode i Googled robots in the bible
Actually I believe there is a passage that foretells a future supercomputer, which will be downloaded with the personality of the Beast - the Antichrist; and it will have power to speak, and be used to exercise power over all who follow the Beast....... Where it says "he was given power to breath to the image of the Beast"; the word breath in the Greek could also be rendered "spirit". I believe this will be a supercomputer which will seem to have personality, only be far faster in computing speed and more knowledgeable than any human being. http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2010092802... Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
So I came across this discussion a bit too late, but I think it's time we put an end to this particular argument against the Ark: That a wooden boat of that size would not survive at sea, because of the shear pressure it would have to sustain coming from the waves, etc.
I remember debunking this one over a year ago here, but let's try to make it clear once and for all and hopefully it won't turn into a PRATT. The origin of this argument seems to come from the idea that wood has this intrinsic property of being unable to make ships that long. This comes from the attempts of shipbuilders at the beginning of the 20th century to make large wooden ships, who leaked etc. (pandion made a good resume of this here Message 1) Now it is at this point that the illogical comes in: why think that it is impossible to make a seaworthy wooden ship that big, just because Victorian shipbuilders at the time were unable ? Why not think that it is a simple matter of engineering, instead of some intrinsic wood property ? Isn't it more reasonable to think that those ships failed, because they used the ''plank-to-frame'' method, coupled with masts that provide a lever arm for the wind, creating big pressure on the bottom planks of the boat, amongst other things ? This all reminds me of the 19th century scientists who said that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible, just people had tried and failed. I think the problem is here, just as it was then, a problem of engineering and technique rather then being intrinsically impossible. Other much stronger techniques of building wooden ships are possible: the french monocoque. Or adjoining planks could have been strengthened by mortice and tenon joints. Finally, some here have asked for the calculations, and they in fact have been made by staff of the Korean Institue of Ships and Engineering. here is the abstract:
In this study, the safety of Noah’s Ark in the severe environments imposed by waves and winds during the Genesis Flood was investigated. Three major safety parametersstructural safety, overturning stability, and seakeeping qualitywere evaluated altogether to assess the safety of the whole system. The concept of ‘relative safety’, which is defined as the relative superiority in safety compared to other hull forms, was introduced and 12 different hull forms with the same displacement were generated for this purpose. Evaluation of these three safety parameters was performed using analytical tools. Model tests using 1/50 scaled models of a prototype were performed for three typical hull forms in order to validate the theoretical analysis. Total safety index, defined as the weighted average of three relative safety performances, showed that the Ark had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied. The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated on the basis of modern passenger ships, criteria, revealed that it could have navigated through waves higher than 30 metres. Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway - creation.com In other words: That boat would float, and it would float mighty well. And so, because this argument seems untenable, and because their are other, far better arguments against the plausibility of the ark then this one, here's hoping I won't meet it again here at EvC. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change "msg" to "mid" for "Message 1" link in paragraph 3.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
The question is: Why would you think Noah had better engineering techniques than the Victorians?
Now it is at this point that the illogical comes in: why think that it is impossible to make a seaworthy wooden ship that big, just because Victorian shipbuilders at the time were unable ? Why not think that it is a simple matter of engineering, instead of some intrinsic wood property ? slevesque writes:
Then why don't creationists build one and prove it? That boat would float, and it would float mighty well. The PRATT here is that saying it "would" float isn't the same as demonstrating that it does float. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
The question is: Why would you think Noah had better engineering techniques than the Victorians? That would be the next question, but that wasn't the one I was adressing. I was simply pointing out that it is wrong to think that a seaworthy wooden boat of that size is impossible. It isn't. It is impossible, however, to speculate what type of technique Noah would have used. But it isn't as if the other, stronger techniques were overly-complicated. Tenons and joints aren't hard to imagine, they are simply labour-heavy and time consuming (this is why it was largely abandoned by the time of the victorian shipbuilders)
Then why don't creationists build one and prove it? The PRATT here is that saying it "would" float isn't the same as demonstrating that it does float. Yes, and that it why they are saying that it would float (through calculations) and not saying that it does float ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
Who's saying it's "impossible"? I think the consensus is that it's highly unlikely.
I was simply pointing out that it is wrong to think that a seaworthy wooden boat of that size is impossible. slevesque writes:
It's never impossible to speculate. Sometimes it might be inadvisable to specualte but even that isn't true in this case. We can look at the building techniques available throughout history and come to a fairly sound conclusion about what worked and what didn't. There is no firm evidence pointing to the success of large wooden boats and lots of evidence of failure.
It is impossible, however, to speculate what type of technique Noah would have used. slevesque writes:
Again, saying that it "would" float through calculations is worthless. It's a combination of the Buzsaw method of speculating what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened and the Dawn Bertot method of using logic to contradict evidence. ringo writes:
Yes, and that it why they are saying that it would float (through calculations) and not saying that it does float ... The PRATT here is that saying it "would" float isn't the same as demonstrating that it does float. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ringo writes: The question is: Why would you think Noah had better engineering techniques than the Victorians? That may be a bad assumption, and there may be other bad assumptions in the work slevesque cited, but at a minimum, I think slevesque has raised the level of discussion. If someone wants to say that it the ark as described in the Bible was obviously not seaworthy, I think ought to start either some math or some reasonable arguments. I personally wouldn't bother with such an attack. There are much better arguments.
ringo writes: slevesque writes: That boat would float, and it would float mighty well. Then why don't creationists build one and prove it? Is that a fair question? Why haven't US physicists built that super-duper particle collider? If aliens didn't build the pyramids, why haven't the Egyptians built any new ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Of course it is. I'm not saying the have to build one. I'm asking why they don't. If they have such confidence in their conclusions, they should be eager to prove the evilutionists wrong.
ringo writes:
Is that a fair question? Then why don't creationists build one and prove it? NoNukes writes:
They have. If aliens didn't build the pyramids, why haven't the Egyptians built any new ones. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Who's saying it's "impossible"? I think the consensus is that it's highly unlikely. Message 9Message 24 It's never impossible to speculate. Sometimes it might be inadvisable to specualte but even that isn't true in this case. We can look at the building techniques available throughout history and come to a fairly sound conclusion about what worked and what didn't. There is no firm evidence pointing to the success of large wooden boats and lots of evidence of failure. Then I will only speculate this: if it is possible to make such a long seaworthy wooden boat, and that the techniques required does not require some particular insight from modern science, then you and I have absolutely no reason to believe that Noah couldn't have done it.
Again, saying that it "would" float through calculations is worthless. I'm sorry, but it is not. Calculations have weight, and if you cannot show where the calculations are wrong, or where they missed something, then you have nothing to support your personal skepticism on the feasability of the thing. Not only that, but the authors of the above paper tested it on 1/50 scale, and it validated their theoretical analysis. So in theory, it would float, and so the burden is on you to come up with evidence or insight to show why it wouldn't.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024