I'll agree with you that the pitch from Noahs day might of been superior given all the evidence of insects perfectly preserved in (pitch)amber, like Baltic amber. Baltic Amber is used for jewelry and still is found floating in salt water and upon the shores of Poland. The Ancient Romans used (amber) for jewelry.
Baltic Amber This amber normally is found in the Baltic sea and the tides will carry the amber to the shores of Poland as amber will float in Salt water. This event has been going on for centuries as the Ancient Roman's used the amber for jewelry and medicine. Until recently the insects found in the amber were thought to be oldest geologic speaking.
******* Also, amber is not pitch, no matter how much you'd like to pretend it is.
Amber is a resin which is formed from pitch, its from wood applied to wood. Its a perfect sealing agent, glue, preserving organic fossils within resin even unto this day.
It floats in salt water, it has not been destroyed by the salt water (Baltic Amber) and has survived the pounding of the waves since they formed. We know these fossils formed at least before the times of the Ancient Romans who too used fossilized amber for jewelry.
Amber is a time hardened resin which formed from pitch.
Amber is a time hardened resin which formed from pitch.
No, it isn't. Pitch is a distillate, amber is not. It is brittle understress and does not hold things together. It is great for jewelry but totally useless as a sealant for a boat or holding boards together. A mixture of pine tar and moss would do far better.
There was no such knowledge that Noah could have drawn upon for a ship the size of the Ark.
The story clearly states that Noah got his building information from God Himself, why are you debating how well it would have been made?
The dimensions and details of the ark provided by God are pretty sparse. Did it have a prow? A rudder? A means for facing it into waves so it couldn't be tipped?
I wondered the asme thing. It looked like the typical ark you see in most renderings. I do not know where those images or likenesses come from.
What would the testing of such a model tell them about the stability of the actual Wasa? Obviously, not a thing.
The testing would either show that the way they thought it was, is either good, or no good.
The whole test could have very well been BS.
And what "naval engineers" did Noah use?
I do not necessarily agree with that web-site.
I have been around boats my whole life. I worked on the water and was trained by a tug boat captain. I owned my own dock building business, and built a boat with a wooden crane on it that could lift 4000 pounds. The 2 booms were 2x12's and in no way should they have been able to lift that much, but they did, for 3 years straight. I also used the booms to break through ten miles of ice, 2"-3" think. If you saw the boat, you would laugh, and not think it possible. But this boat amazed many people around here. Too bad I couldn't make enough money doing it, because I loved it.
I am not just some land lubber with no sea experience. I have owned 9 boats in my life. I just came from my boat. But I am not an engineer, so I am open to all conversations about the ark. However, I still think it is possible to have built such a vessel, especially if God provided the plans.
And, of course, here in the science forums we don't entertain "Goddidit" arguments.
Any discussion about the ark is a goddidit discussion.
God may have just told Noah everything he needed to know, implying that what made it into the Bible is just an outline, but "Goddidit" arguments aren't permitted in the science forums.
I don't think for a second that Noah had the knowledge to build the ark himself, without God's advice. That seems a little extreme. It would be about a billion to one chance of it being sucessful.
But if someone makes a scale model of the ark, and applies sclae forces to it, and it survives, doesn't that just say that it was possible? Isn't that all we are trying to find out, if it was at all possible?
The ark would spring leaks all over, pitch or no pitch.
It seems to me that just about the worst thing you could do under these circumstances is put a door in the side of the boat. It just gives you an additional place for the ark to spring leaks and will really undermine the stability of that side.
Didn't God seal the door for him?
You also have a boat with no steerage drifting around in global rainstorm for 40 days and nights. Enough water would come in the window to sink the ark nearly as fast as it would sink from leaking at the seams. Remember that even a mere thousand feet of global rain requires it to rain a foot an hour the entire time.
Well the rain is another story. It could have come up from the ground. I think we know that God must have provided all that water, because there is not enough water on the earth for it to happen.
And it would have been fairly simple to make windows with an overhang, and a self bailing deck.
The ark held up better than the supertanker, and would not roll, or sink. The only way it could flip is end over end.
First you said it would rather pitch than roll? Now you say it would rather roll than pitch?
It seems pretty obvious that a ship with a length:beam ratio of 6:1 would roll over long before it would pitch over. It also seems pretty obvious that any ship will roll over and/or sink if the wave conditions are severe enough.
In summary, it seems pretty obvious that either your recollection of the demonstration is worthless as evidence, or the demonstration itself was worthless as evidence.
Another thing to consider is the manpower problem. While Noah might have had a labour crew of eight, just keeping the family fed would be a near fulltime job, with little spare time for foraging for trees, hauling them to the worksite, sawing and seasoning the beams or planking necessary, rough-shaping the needed item, craning the plank or beam into place as the hull was built, final shaping, fixing in place, then scouring the forest for resin and preparing it for application. Boatbuilding is a full-time job for a small craft, even if the materials are on hand. Almost nothing on a boat is square, each piece nearly always needing shaping to fit, and extending the time and effort needed to finish.
If metals were needed for the saws, splitting wedges, fastenings (Ron Wyatt`s titanium rivets), parts of the crane to lift the beams/planks into place, we are talking a separate effort of locating ores, smelting, forging, sharpening. Unless, of course, they traded with merchants who might ask why so much material was needed. Did Noah, the righteous man, dupe the metal or timber suppliers with some tale of a South Seas cruise? No one in the neighbourhood wondered when the gang started rounding up specimens, fencing, feeding, ploughing, harvesting, and storing as would be necessary in the last days before sailing?
In the ancient Roman Empire boiling birch bark and extracting the resins yielded a glue-like tar. This resin was used to glue together broken ceramic pots.
Birch bark tar chewing gum was also used thousands of years ago in the Neolithic times as a cleaner for teeth ...
This ancient â€œsuperÂglueâ€ was detected on remnants of two tools that were unearthed in Germany. The site called Koenigsaue, in the foothill of the Harz Mountains revealed the technical abilities of the people that produced the glue. The glue had been used to secure flint implements to wooden handles.
One of the finds showed an impression of a fingerprint on the surface of the pitch, which was prepared by heating birch bark to between 340-400Â°C. Lower temperatures would not allow the resin in the wood to melt and be extracted. If the temperatures were too high this would burn the tar that had been extracted from the birch and render it unusable. This required a large amount of intellectual and technical knowÂledge.
â€œThe very fact that birch bark pitch was identified [in the artifacts] already proclaims the intellectual and technical abilities of the NeanderÂthals.
Neanderthals used it for chewin' gum! (gopherwood) That's how they proved they weren't dumb! (gopherwood, gopherwood) The Romans used burnt birch to make it! (gopherwood!) And bugs in amber kinda fake it! (gopherwood, gopherwood!) Think steel is strong? Well this is stronger! (gopherwood!) Think your boat's long? Well mine is longer! (gopherwood, gopherwood!) Too much water? It can pump it! (gopherwood) Polyploidal species? It can hump it! (gopherwood, gopherwood) ...
But if someone makes a scale model of the ark, and applies sclae forces to it, and it survives, doesn't that just say that it was possible?
Nope, not at all, I sort of covered this already though not in so many words. Boats use surface to support mass. When you double the size of something, that's 8 times as much mass but only 4 times as much surface. No matter how nice it floated originally, you double it a couple of more times and it will sink for sure.
Larger ships use a whole different strategy to float involving distribution of density. Take a little scale model of the Nimitz made of comparable materials and put it in the water. It sinks like a rock. It isn't big enough for the amount of air / empty space / whats left when we throw ballast out / empty air to offset the weight of the metal. *Anyone who actually understands buoyancy and wants to improve on my gross overgenuflections, step right up!
Basically if your scale model works really great your boat is never going to be anything except a blueprint that's obviously been scaled all wrong.
You got it, gopherwood (laminates) reduced flex so the pitch (amber like resin) that appears hardened but would still be able to flex because even hardened pitch is still a visious fluid. Harps are coated with pitch resins yet they flex (vibrate)its why harps are coated with resins. Boats today are built with fiberglass and fiberglass too is hard like amber and will shatter if you hit it with a sludge mall. The water forces however dissipate outward because of the denseness and hardness of pitch being a fluid and not a solid would not flex inward due to the gopher wood (laminates).
The amber being a resin thats derived from the sap in the trees (pitch) yet still preserving them insects after all these years in a salt water environment because even in its hardened state pitch resin a highly viscious liquid. Its just that its that more dense than water that it appears to be a solid but is not.
Harps are coated with pitch resins yet they flex (vibrate)its why harps are coated with resins.
It seems pretty silly to be comparing a harp to the ark.
There's a big difference in frequency between a harp's musical vibrations and an ocean wave. There's also a big difference in amplitude.
If pitch works in one case, there is no reason to assume it will also work in the other.
(This would be an excellent oppurtunity for you to do what no other creationist has done yet - show examples from history where your "miracle pitch" was actually used in shipbuilding, with the results you claim.)