Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 178 (8013 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2014 3:17 AM
195 online now:
edge, frako, hooah212002, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (5 members, 190 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Ed67
Post Volume:
Total: 723,692 Year: 9,533/28,606 Month: 1,223/2,455 Week: 533/428 Day: 5/117 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark)
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 38 of 259 (594462)
12-03-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by frako
12-03-2010 11:46 AM


Re: Lost technology
frako writes:

Steel was not availible at the time....


The Bible says that iron was available:

quote:
Gen 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

Personally, I expect the "ark" to have concrete foundations, a steel girder framework and vinyl siding. It will be more like a false-front Western town on a movie lot than an actual reconstruction.


"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by frako, posted 12-03-2010 11:46 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by frako, posted 12-03-2010 2:40 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 40 of 259 (594487)
12-03-2010 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by frako
12-03-2010 2:40 PM


Re: Lost technology
frako writes:

The earliest iron finds date 1800 bce in india....


Who do you think the creationists are going to believe? The Bible or your history and archaelology?


"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by frako, posted 12-03-2010 2:40 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by frako, posted 12-03-2010 3:17 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 80 of 259 (595951)
12-11-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Deleted
12-11-2010 7:08 AM


PrinceGhaldir writes:

Could you explain why you call them liars?


It may not be a bold-faced lie but claiming that the ark "would" float when they have no intention of trying to float it is definitely dishonest.

The claim that it wil be "built according to the biblical dimensions and constructed with materials and methods as close as possible to those of Noahs time" and the claim that "it and the Flood were real events in history" definitely imply that it will be an authentic working replica.

Clearly, they're interested in its money-making potential and its propaganda value rather than historical accuracy. Otherwise, they'd build a floating replica instead of just a purportedly floatable one.


"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Deleted, posted 12-11-2010 7:08 AM Deleted has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 100 of 259 (613291)
04-24-2011 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by slevesque
04-24-2011 1:53 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
slevesque writes:

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 ?


The question is: Why would you think Noah had better engineering techniques than the Victorians?

slevesque writes:

That boat would float, and it would float mighty well.


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.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 1:53 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 2:32 PM ringo has responded
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2011 2:45 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 102 of 259 (613295)
04-24-2011 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by slevesque
04-24-2011 2:32 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
slevesque writes:

I was simply pointing out that it is wrong to think that a seaworthy wooden boat of that size is impossible.


Who's saying it's "impossible"? I think the consensus is that it's highly unlikely.

slevesque writes:

It is impossible, however, to speculate what type of technique Noah would have used.


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.

slevesque writes:

ringo writes:

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 ...

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.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 2:32 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 3:47 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 104 of 259 (613297)
04-24-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NoNukes
04-24-2011 2:45 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
NoNukes writes:

ringo writes:

Then why don't creationists build one and prove it?


Is that a fair question?

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.

NoNukes writes:

If aliens didn't build the pyramids, why haven't the Egyptians built any new ones.


They have.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2011 2:45 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2011 4:06 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 107 of 259 (613331)
04-24-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by slevesque
04-24-2011 3:47 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
I agree that frako shouldn't have used the word "impossible".

slevesque writes:

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.


It might be possible to make a wooden ship of that size with modern methods such as iron cross-bracing. The Bible does claim that Noah had access to iron:
quote:
Gen 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
but as far as I know, there is no evidence of iron work as far back as Noah's time. So we have no good reason to think he could have done it.

slevesque writes:

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.


I'm not qualified to assess the accuracy of the calculations and as far as I know, neither are you. You're taking them on authority. Without some hard evidence linking them to reality, skepticism is the correct approach.

slevesque writes:

Not only that, but the authors of the above paper tested it on 1/50 scale, and it validated their theoretical analysis.


1/50 scale is like a rowboat. We already know that rowboats are seaworthy because we build rowboats all the time. There's no reason to assume that it would scale to a full-sized model.

slevesque writes:

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.


You should know better than that. The burden is never on "negative evidence". I don't have to demonstrate that whales can't fly either. Show me one that can.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 3:47 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 7:39 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 108 of 259 (613336)
04-24-2011 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by NoNukes
04-24-2011 4:06 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
NoNukes writes:

This NOVA pyramid was pretty dinky. The Great Pyramid is about 25 times higher than this tiny rock pile...


Stone scales better than wood. As long as a pyramid has a firm foundation, you can keep stacking stones of the same size pretty high.

A wooden boat, on the other hand, has no external foundation. It relies on its own internal strength.

One of the main constraints to wooden ship length is wavelength. A boat that's considerably shorter than the wavelength can ride up one side of a wave and down the other with minimal strain. But as the ship's length approches the wavelength, it will be often be suspended between two wave crests or perched on top of one wave crest. That puts tremendous strain on it.

NoNukes writes:

The real task is trying to keep enough humans and animals alive on the thing for a year to repopulate the earth in only a few years.


I think the real issue here is that creationists are thoroughly unwilling to test their own claims. I, for one, would be pretty impressed if they leased a steel freighter the size of the ark, filled it with animals and kept it afloat for a year with no engines and a crew of eight. Hell, I'd be impressed if they leased a building the size of the ark and kept those animals alive in it for a year.

But we don't see any effort on their part to do anything like the pyramid experiment.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2011 4:06 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2011 7:51 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 116 of 259 (613351)
04-24-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by slevesque
04-24-2011 7:39 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
slevesque writes:

But that is just assertion and personnal feeling.


If you have evidence of ironwork during Noah's time, present it. If you have evidence of a wooden ship anywhere near the size of the ark that doesn't require ironwork, present it.

slevesque writes:

Yet you remain overly skeptical, and the only reason for this being, in my opinion, that it goes against your a priori belief that the conclusion should have been the opposite.


You're jumping to conclusions. I haven't said I disagree with the paper. I've said I'm not qualified to assess it. Neither are you (are you?), yet you've claimed it as "positive evidence" that the boat "would" float.

I haven't even said that the ark wouldn't float. I'm just asking for real-world, hands-on evidence that it would. Questioning the claims of a creationist website is hardly being "overly skeptical".

slevesque writes:

A 1/50 scale model of the ark would include planks 1/50 thickness, which is obviously not the case with a rowboat, for example.


How thick was the planking on the model? Thicker or thinner than a rowboat?

slevesque writes:

Here we have positive evidence that the ark was seaworthy, in the form of a theoretical analysis and testing on scaled models in a towing tank and a wave generator. Both conclusive.


Not anywhere near the realm of conclusive. You have one study (apparently unknown to anybody but creationists).

slevesque writes:

Saying ''I won't believe it's doable until they do it'' won't cut it, sorry. Especially when you brought up a 1/25 scale building of the pyramids as evidence that the egyptians could have built the pyramids ...


I explained in Message 108 the differences between scaling a pyramid and scaling a boat.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 7:39 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:15 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 117 of 259 (613353)
04-24-2011 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by NoNukes
04-24-2011 7:51 PM


NoNukes writes:

And yet those stones at > 140 meters are a lot harder to get into place than those first stones at ground level or the ones at only 6 meters.


Not really. A ramp doesn't care if it's 140 meters off the ground or one.

NoNukes writes:

I haven't seen anything like a thorough analysis given or referenced by people who insist that it would be impossible to build the ark.


As far as I know, only one person in this thread has used the word "impossible" and it isn't me. I'm saying I'll believe it when I see some convincing evidence, same as the flying whale.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2011 7:51 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 129 of 259 (613366)
04-24-2011 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by slevesque
04-24-2011 8:15 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
slevesque writes:

I don't have evidence of ironwork, but I don't think it is necessary.


That's why I asked you to provide evidence that it isn't necessary. Has there ever been a real-world-ship the size of the ark built without ironwork?

slevesque writes:

I'm still open for counter-evidence, but I'm sayign that for now you can only suppose that an ark that size is not impossible.


Once again, I have NOT said that it's impossible. I'm looking for positive evidence that it is possible.

slevesque writes:

Now if you are of the idea that miniature scales are only acceptable in some cases but not others, I would consider this a bit of changing the goalpost.


Again, I explained why the scaling works in one case bit not the other.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:15 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:41 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 132 of 259 (613369)
04-24-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by slevesque
04-24-2011 8:41 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
slevesque writes:

And I showed you the math showing that it is possible.


You showed a self-serving claim by a bunch of YECs. If they have any confidence in their results, why hasn't the paper been peer-reviewd? (Hint, "peers" means other naval engineers, not other YECs.)

slevesque writes:

... I have to conclud that the only positive evidence you would accept would be the actual real-size thing being actually built and put to sea.


That's exactly what I've suggested a number of times. What do you think the Wright brothers did after they calculated that heavier-than-air flight was possible?


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:41 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 9:06 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 140 of 259 (613377)
04-24-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by slevesque
04-24-2011 9:06 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
slevesque writes:

First off, I didn't show a ''claim''. I showed the math and calculations.


You showed a claim that those calculations have something to do with the real world. I can calculate the IQ of a unicorn but it isn't evidence of anything.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 9:06 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 10:17 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 143 of 259 (613381)
04-24-2011 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by slevesque
04-24-2011 10:17 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
slevesque writes:

What you'll find, I'm pretty sure, is that they didn't pull formula's out of their ass.


You're "pretty sure"? In other words, you haven't checked it out either, yet you're confident that they're right. You really need to stop being so credulous.

Once again, if they have confidence in their conclusions, why hasn't the paper been peer-reviewed?


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 10:17 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 8754
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 156 of 259 (613452)
04-25-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by slevesque
04-25-2011 1:16 PM


slevesque writes:

Either you understand the math, and in that case you would figure that the ark could have been seaworthy....


If you understand the math, the first step is to check whether the math is correct. The second step is to check whether the math is an accurate model of reality. The claimants themselves have only made a baby step in that direction.

slevesque writes:

... or you don't understand the math, and in that case you jsut say so and accept that you shouldn't make grand claims about something you know nothing about.


Since you don't pretend to understand the math, why do you get to make grand claims that it's correct?


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:16 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:58 PM ringo has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014