Hi PG,
I guess theoraticaly it would float,
Really? Why? What "theory"? You seem to be taking this on trust.
How many boats have been build, only to sink in water?
That's precisely my point! There have been plenty of disasters at sea. What specific, concrete reason can you present to suggest that this would not be one of them?
Granny writes:
How about the profits? Where do they go?
Prince Ghaldir writes:
I will just quote the website to avoid wrong interpretations:
That quote doesn't really cover where the profits end up, but it sounds like they will be used to continue proselytising for AiG's uniquely insane version of fundamentalist Christianity; aided by over a hundred million dollars of state funds. Separation of church and state anyone?
Granny writes:
Where are they going to source their "Gopher wood"? Is that a hardwood? Hard to see how that could be considered green.
Prince Ghaldir writes:
They are using other woods IIRC, it is mentioned in the press conference.
That quote doesn't mention what wood they are using, but even if it did, it still does not address the simple fact that squandering precious and finite resources on a purposeless white elephant can never be environmentally friendly. Almost all human activities have an environmental cost. It's a question of whether the benefits outweigh the cost. The alleged benefits of this project seem to be exclusively geared toward spreading AiG's crazy delusions to impressionable rubes. Forgive me, but I don't consider that to be a valid use of resources.
I would certainly take calculations for it, if your rocket would fly to Mars according to your calculations (which I checked). I would certainly believe you.
Ah! A maths graduate! You
are a maths graduate right? Otherwise, what on Earth would make you think that you would be able to understand the maths involved. Fluid dynamics is an extremely complex subject. Assuming that you can casually pick it up and immediately understand it strikes me as both frighteningly naive and astonishingly arrogant.
Then of course, we have the small problem that you haven't presented any maths. Where is your maths? Where is AiG's maths? You would demand calculations for my rocket but you seem happy to accept AiG's word for it that their boat would float without them presenting any calculations at all.
Again, this comes across as deeply naive and lacking in due scepticism. If that is your attitude, I have some money resting in a Nigerian bank account that might interest you...
The tower in Dubai is also "frickin' huge", and it still stands because of a few(/sarcasm) calculations. Why wouldn't the ark?
Please try to keep up; I wasn't asking about whether the "ark" would stand up. I was wondering whether it would float.
The tower doesn't float.
The tower is not built with Bronze Age materials.
The tower is actually standing as we speak, so I believe that it can stand.
The "ark" is not floating, nor is it likely to do so, so why should I take it on blind faith that it will float?
There is no comparison.
Granny writes:
Did they have naval engineers in the Bronze Age? I don't think they did...
Prince Ghaldir writes:
Since when does the evolutionary timescale count for biblical stories?
So you're just going to gloss over the fact that AiG are intending to use modern expertise that did not exist in the time that the original ark was supposedly built? Oh. Okay.
The reason that AiG should accept a conventional time scale for their project is because they want to claim that the ark myths are more than a "stories". They want to claim that those events were real. That means they have to use a
real time-line, one that fits in with all the relevant evidence, not just the evidence that they find convenient. Of course, they won't do this, preferring instead to go with the methodology known as "Making Shit Up".
Evolution of course, has nothing to do with it, beyond the lazy habit of using the term "evolutionist" to describe anyone who disagrees with a fundamentalist/evangelical Christian.
And other geologists say there was a global flood. And I cant find scientists say the Ark cant be build...
Really? have you tried... looking?
The overwhelming consensus of expert geological opinion is that there was no flood. That renders this whole Snark hunt completely pointless. It also means that you don't get to use naked arguments from authority. Just because AiG's pet engineers claim the boat can float does not mean it will. The only way to prove that is to float the damn thing, something that AiG will never do because they know only too well that it won't work.
Mutate and Survive
On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage