Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About that Boat - Noah's Ark
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 226 of 296 (169097)
12-16-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Hmmm
12-16-2004 5:13 PM


Re: World population growth rate
Read the link - it talks about Europe's plague and it's trivial effect on curbing population growth. E.g. "...the awful figures for natural disasters are very quickly made up for by the subsequent rates of increase among the survivors (Langer 1964)"
That's a known effect, though. When calamity reduces a population significantly below k, the population quickly returns to k.
What you're suggesting is that we can throw out the k altogether, without any reason why we should do this. Populations grow quickly until the approach k, and then they stop. This is well-understood by evolutionists, and confirmed by experiment, but you give absolutely no indication why we should reject this model.
Good point, and these are the countries with the booming populations.
Their populations are not growing. What is growing is k, and the population follows suit, but it never exceeds the growth of k.
I get the feeling I'm talking to somebody who doesn't know any ecology, or how to model population growth.
So recent world population growth cannot be attributed to modern medicine.
That's exactly what it is best attributed to - modern technology raises k values for population areas. It's almost self-evident.
To fit an evolutionary timescale into this data you have to make out that mankind has been on the edge of extinction for most of history and then suddenly makes a recovery in recent (KNOWN) history.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Anyone can plot these curves for and see for themselves;
Indeed - they can see for themselves that there aren't nearly enough people to have built the Pyramids, or to inhabit the ancient, large civilizations that we know were there. For instance, at the time when the Bible says Moses was leading 600,000 Hebrews out of Egypt, the entire population of the world was 726 according to your model.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-16-2004 05:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 5:13 PM Hmmm has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 227 of 296 (169102)
12-16-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Hmmm
12-16-2004 5:27 PM


For 500 year issue, see previously cited
But this isn't a case of revising dates; this is a case of explaining a calibration issue of radiocarbon dating that puts radiocarbon dates at a different age than the convergent dates of other methods, like dendrochronology.
This isn't at all what you made it out to be, and I'm rather offended at the deception.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 5:27 PM Hmmm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 6:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 228 of 296 (169119)
12-16-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Hmmm
12-16-2004 3:27 PM


Carrying Capacity
Hmmm writes:
The evolutionist has a problem here. Where are all the people if we have been breeding for such a hypothetically long time? Wars and famine?
What you are missing in the big picture is that for much of the history of mankind we were limited by local geographical carrying capacity. This limited our growth potential. It has only been recently in our history that it became possible for us to make use of phantom carrying capacity and ghost acreage [Trade and Fish acreage] in expanded our population greatly. The switch to intensive agriculture from hunting gathering and more complex trasportation systems from simple transportation methods is what helped increase our population from roughly 600 million in the 17th century to about 6.4 billion now. It is of course more complicated than this but I hope you get the picture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 3:27 PM Hmmm has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 296 (169122)
12-16-2004 6:08 PM


Getting WAY off topic
While the issue of population studies and even creationism are interesting, they have NOTHING to do with the topic.
Let's drop all of the off topic stuff. Continued discussion of population growth will lead to premature closure.

Heed the Warning


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 7:01 PM AdminJar has not replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 296 (169133)
12-16-2004 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by crashfrog
12-16-2004 5:37 PM



Don't be offended Crashfrog, although the Keenan's article is about about radiocarbion problems (a YEC favorite) and tree rings too, it specifically mentions the dating problems of Egyptian chronology. It also provides room for the opposite argument - faulty Egyptian chronology;
"Of course, it might be that there are errors in the archaeo-historical chronologies of the Ancient Near East. All such chronologies ultimately derive from (archaeo-historical synchronisms with) Egypt (James 1991; Knapp 1992). Hence, if there are errors in Ancient Near Eastern chronologies, then their genesis lies in Egyptian chronology. In fact, Egyptian chronology does not have secure foundations (Cryer 1995; Rohl 1995; Hagens 1996)and some workers have argued for revising it.
But one could read this paper as giving the impression that archaeo-historical interpretations control Egyptian chronology, and 14C is just a secondary proof (if it matches of course).
Not so. Take the central issue of dating the pyramids, and the complaints about lack of secure 14C dates.
"While the multiple old wood effects make it difficult to obtain pinpoint age estimates of pyramids"
Dating the Pyramids - Archaeology Magazine Archive
So for "pinpoint" dating of the pyramids, go radiometric?
What a clash of logic. Keenan had highlighted how 14C dates were treated as disposable evidence;
"Too, some archaeologists have said that if they attempt to publish 14C dates contradicting archaeo-historical chronologies, their papers are rejected (Nelson et al. 1990). One archaeologist, reviewing the situation for the eastern Mediterranean, concluded blandly: radiocarbon dates are invoked if they support a particular hypothesis and dismissed if they do not (Merrillees 1992)."
It's not a pretty picture, this archaeo-historical-radiometric guessing.
(And I bet we've gone totally off topic now...here comes Administrator...)
Hmmm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 5:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 296 (169137)
12-16-2004 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by AdminJar
12-16-2004 6:08 PM


Re: Getting WAY off topic
Hooray!
Did you want to shift those posts elsewhere? I came here to talk HULL, but when they bring up other points it's not fair to let it go.
I'm happy to ignore non-NOAH'S ARK specific questions from now on.
Thanks
Hmmm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by AdminJar, posted 12-16-2004 6:08 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 9:33 PM Hmmm has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 232 of 296 (169172)
12-16-2004 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Hmmm
12-16-2004 7:01 PM


Re: Getting WAY off topic
Yeah, we'd better hit the population stuff another time, in another thread. And I don't know the first thing about boats. Cya!
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-16-2004 09:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 7:01 PM Hmmm has not replied

tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 233 of 296 (169235)
12-17-2004 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hmmm
12-16-2004 5:26 AM


Strength of Materials
Let’s go into the backyard and set up two sawhorses about ten feet apart. Now put a 12’ two-by-four on them on it’s edge. Measure the compression stress on top and the tensile stress on the bottom of the two-by-four. Repeat using a 20’ spacing on the sawhorses and a 24’ two-by-four. You will find the stress has increased. Long before you reach 300 feet the wood will break because it lacks the tensile strength to span such distances. This lack of tensile strength is a basic characteristic of wood. Why were there no skyscrapers before iron?
{changed strengh to stress}
This message has been edited by Flying Hawk, 12-17-2004 06:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 5:26 AM Hmmm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Hmmm, posted 12-21-2004 7:57 PM tsig has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 296 (169262)
12-17-2004 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hmmm
12-16-2004 6:30 AM


Re: Too Big or not too Big...
quote:
Wrong again. A random sea does not assume all the waves are cancelling each other. Even a non Naval Architect should know a bit more about waves - it would be an absurd fluke for all the waves to have just the right amplitude, wavelength, period and phase to cancel each other out.
Yes I agree - that is the substance of my criticism. what they say is:
quote:
Since the waves came from all directions with the same probability, we defined another safety index , which was given by taking the average of the safety indices for each wave direction.
So they have unilaterally defined a new safety index, which is the average of the indices of each direction - that surely implies a model in which waves do come from all sides and cancel each othewr out. Accumulated stress has been removed from the model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 6:30 AM Hmmm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Hmmm, posted 12-17-2004 6:36 AM contracycle has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 296 (169264)
12-17-2004 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Hmmm
12-16-2004 8:59 AM


Re: Too Big or not too Big...
quote:
hat's odd - land based constructions in enduring materals like stone isn't a smooth progression at all. "With spectacular suddenness, an architecture sprang up that was suitable for kings and gods...stone monuments that rank with the most impressive of any age" (Ancient Egypt: Lionel Casson, Leonard Krieger, Time Life Books 1966.
You're citing information that is 38 years old.
"Sudden" stone architecture is not that sudden - after all, stone is among the most venerable materials worked by humans. We were working stone arguably before we were even human - so the appearance of stone monuments simply is not that weird, even if it is sudden (which I don't accept either, really).
Besides that, whether or not stone-working had a smooth progression is aonly an argument by implication against a smooth progression of naval technology. The fact is there WAS such a smooth progression, which has been much studied.
quote:
Even with the familiar Greek trireme Casson confesses "Very little is known about the shape and construction of the hull". p89 Triremes 500-3232BC. Sound familiar?
Well that depends on the tone which which you ask the question, you see. The fact is we are not staring open mouthed at the trireme asking "how did they do that". We know almost everything there is to know about the trireme, but not everything. We could build one today, but could not say it was 100% the same as one that would have been built by actual greeks.
quote:
Even the shear size claimed by ancient records of Greek ships had been disqualified by the consensus of opinion - until some super-sized bronze ramming bows turned up.
You will note that is change based on EVIDENCE. What is the EVIDENCe for the arks hull?
The fact of the matter is that in the mediterranean basin, naval technology did progress smoothly. The Greeks and Phoenicians were the premier shi-builders in the early classical period, and the Romans inherited and conitnued their techniques. These were stillo in place by the time the Empire broke up into Eastern and Western segments, plus the basin recieved an infusion of European naval tech through the Crusades. Still at this point the Arabs who had conquered the east were building better ships, until Europe copied the techniques and the first fully modern sailing vessels appeared. at that pouint innovation prewttu much stops until the developement of steam - the limits of the materials have been reached.
There is simply no basis for thinking that the Isaelites were an exception to that process - there is no evidence even in their own histories for any siginificant naval technology or experience at all. The idea that Noah could build a vessel so sophisticiated from a standing start is totally implausible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 8:59 AM Hmmm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-20-2004 12:58 PM contracycle has replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 296 (169282)
12-17-2004 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by contracycle
12-17-2004 4:24 AM


Re: Too Big or not too Big...
Hi contracycle;
Nice to be back on the ark again...
You appear to be saying a ship in a perfectly random sea will always experience no net primary wave loadings, such as wave bending moment. Or did you mean to accuse only the Hong study of saying this?
In either case, how do you explain the inclusion of the wave bending moment (Mw) in the elementary beam theory equation (9)?
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Or this derived relationship between wood thickness and wave height?
(BTW: This graph shows the effect of wave loading only - the static (still water) loads are not shown, which one of those naval architecture things - in case you were wondering.)
Hmmm?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by contracycle, posted 12-17-2004 4:24 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by contracycle, posted 12-21-2004 9:35 AM Hmmm has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 296 (170104)
12-20-2004 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by contracycle
12-17-2004 4:55 AM


Re: Too Big or not too Big...
Contracycle,
There is simply no basis for thinking that the Isaelites were an exception to that process - there is no evidence even in their own histories for any siginificant naval technology or experience at all. The idea that Noah could build a vessel so sophisticiated from a standing start is totally implausible.
According to the Bible, Noah is the patriarch of all post-Flood races, including the Romans and Greeks as well as the Israelites. You, perhaps, are confusing Abraham with Noah. Noah is the ancestor of Abraham (the patriarch of the Israelites), but Noah predates Abraham by several centuries. The Israelites did not become a nation until several centuries after Abraham.
As far as Noah building a sophisticated sea vessel, consider these three things:
  • Noah was a pre-Flood human (pre-Flood humans have an unknown level of technological knowledge)
  • Noah was about 500 years old (a person could probably assimilate quite a bit of knowledge in 500 years)
  • Noah was recieving instructions from God, who designed the universe (so, actually, Noah's ship-building knowledge is almost, if not completely, irrelevant).
I am not, of course, expecting you to accept this view. But I thought you might like input concerning these issues from one who does believe the Bible.
{Added by edit}
I guess I mean a non-technical line of thinking (plus there were just some plain misunderstandings of biblical chronology). I see you're getting plenty of technical input from Hmmm, who appears also to believe the Bible.
This is what I get for jumping in without reading all 200+ messages (I just didn't feel like it, can you blame me?)
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-20-2004 01:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by contracycle, posted 12-17-2004 4:55 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by contracycle, posted 12-21-2004 9:44 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 296 (170365)
12-21-2004 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Hmmm
12-17-2004 6:36 AM


Re: Too Big or not too Big...
quote:
You appear to be saying a ship in a perfectly random sea will always experience no net primary wave loadings, such as wave bending moment. Or did you mean to accuse only the Hong study of saying this?
I am saying, that is how I read what the Hong study is saying. They themselves said they were introducing a new, synthetic term. Why?
quote:
In either case, how do you explain the inclusion of the wave bending moment (Mw) in the elementary beam theory equation (9)?
Or this derived relationship between wood thickness and wave height?
How long is a piece of string?
I don't explain them, but then I don't need to. I have already openly admitted that this stuff is beyond my capacity to read and understand properly, but that it APPEARS TO ME that the math is being manipulated by the introduction of this term. It is you advancing the claim, and so you should be explaining my problems away for me, not challenging me to explain them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Hmmm, posted 12-17-2004 6:36 AM Hmmm has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 296 (170372)
12-21-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by TheLiteralist
12-20-2004 12:58 PM


Re: Too Big or not too Big...
quote:
The Israelites did not become a nation until several centuries after Abraham.
sigh
quote:
# Noah was a pre-Flood human (pre-Flood humans have an unknown level of technological knowledge)
There is no evidence of a flood. This argument - toward the veracity of the ark - is an attempt to argue by implication for a flood on which the ark sailed. You cannot site the conclusion as evidence of the premise.
Secondly, there is nothing in the flood that suggests that there would not be archeological remains of pre-flood societies. We have wood-work thousands of years old due to being immersed - where are remains of pre-flood tech? Whatever technology these mythical people are attributed, it should not violate the KNOWN human timeline.
quote:
Noah was about 500 years old (a person could probably assimilate quite a bit of knowledge in 500 years)
Seeing as no human has ever been recorded to luive remotely that long, thats a good reason for rejecting the rest of these claims prima facie, wouldn't you say?
quote:
* Noah was recieving instructions from God, who designed the universe (so, actually, Noah's ship-building knowledge is almost, if not completely, irrelevant).
You couldn't be more wrong. This would be a society so truncated that it would have to have lost a large chunk of its other technological knowledge - the fine points of pot-making or bronze-smelting, say. If the boat was god-given tech, and so succesful that it is optimised even by 17th century standards, than it would necessarily have become the very basis of ALL israelite technology. Like a cargo cult. What we should see as a result is an immediate explosion of naval science. And we do NOT see that in the people who supposedly came from the ark at all - we see them as totally landlocked and without significant naval technology ever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-20-2004 12:58 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 296 (170590)
12-21-2004 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by tsig
12-17-2004 1:44 AM


Re: Strength of Materials

Hi Flying Hawk;
I've been away a few days.
Thanks for you little example of Galileo's square/cube law. (Already nicely covered in Missing Link | Answers in Genesis )
While you are on the right track regarding scale-up, using a ship hull as a simply supported beam is several orders of magnitude more severe than the American Bureau of Shipping rules regarding the maximum design wave bending moment. This is because waves are a distributed load.
So with this in mind, let's run the numbers for fun...
Wood: Douglas Fir: Density approx 500 kg/m3
At Ark scale (scale=1), and using cubit of 0.5m,
A solid timber lump weighs 28125 tonnes, giving simply supported bending moment of 5.168e9 Nm. With a section modulus of b*d^2/6, you get Stress = 5.168e9/937.5 = 5.5e6Pa = 5.5MPa (800psi)
Being well short of the 85MPa MOR (maximum failure), we could take it further (without safety factor applied) like this...
To get bending stress of 85PMa, scale=15.4, Length of block 2313m, breadth 385m, height 231m, mass 103 million tonnes .... This is an absurd scale - far bigger than anything afloat today, and equivalent to a 2.3km (1.4 mile) long bridge!
Obviously these numbers are a bit silly since the solid block has no carrying capacity (and the exaggerated stress loading is without a safety factor) but it does show that your argument isn't going to arrive at the popularly quoted 300ft limit doesn't it?
To do it properly you would use something like the ABS bending moment rule to get a realistic applied bending moment, and a more reasonable hull wall thickness.
If it works, it would show the Biblical Ark is quite a reasonable scale after all - at least Genesis doesn't say 3000 cubits. That would really make Gen 6:14 a problem for YECers!
Regards
Hmmm
This message has been edited by Hmmm, 12-21-2004 08:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by tsig, posted 12-17-2004 1:44 AM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by tsig, posted 12-28-2004 12:40 AM Hmmm has replied
 Message 243 by tsig, posted 01-28-2005 5:11 AM Hmmm has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024