It's like I don't even want to discuss it then. I mean what is the point of building an ark anyway? The whole story is tied together. What is the point of debating where Noah got the knowledge from, if God wasn't the one who told him to build it?
EvC Forum exists to examine creationism's claim to be science as much as any other field of science. If you believe the Genesis story to be impossible if not for divine intervention then you must reject the claim that creationism is legitimate science. The Theological Creationism and ID forum exists for those who take your position.
For them to know that, they'd have to have a good idea about the mass of the ark. And since nobody has been able to come up with a sample of "gopherwood" or any of it's physical properties, this is all just talk emanating from a dorsal orifice.Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
riverrat asserted that "they may have said the ark was self righting" to which DrJones* replied:
For them to know that, they'd have to have a good idea about the mass of the ark. And since nobody has been able to come up with a sample of "gopherwood" or any of it's physical properties, this is all just talk emanating from a dorsal orifice.
They would have to know a hell of a lot more than just mass.
The idea of building a model of "The Ark" is so absolutely ludicrous that it is beyond laughable. The FACTs are that there is not enough details given in the myth to even begin such a design. You can build a boat of the approximate length, width and height mentioned in the myth, but to then say that it is a model of the Ark is just plain fantasy piled on enigma.
But the idea of it being self-righting is even funnier. To do that the designers would need to know more about the moment of the boat, the distribution of that mass while the boat is in normal transit and the moment of the boat, the distribution of that mass as it rolled over.
In addition, put a few elephant (not sure if they are clean or unclean so lets say it's just two) in a box and roll the box down a hill, and then YOU open the box. Then continue the test with the boxes that contained the rinos, crocks, lions, tigers, dinos, snakes, scorpions, wild ox, and let me sit in some safe spot as the other seven folk open the different boxes.
I don't see why the ark would have to be self righting at all. Why let it roll over in the first place? A look a the density of wood shows us that we would be very safe in assuming (and it makes explaining easier) that the arks wood was about as half as dense as water. (the figures here are density relative to water which is 1000 kgs/m3)
This means that a solid lump of such wood the size of the ark would float half in/half out of the water. Now excavate large lumps of that, that which is not required in order to provide a strong structure/that is required in order to provide space for the animals. Now airs density is effectively zero. Thus for every animal (approximate density the same as water) you need to excavate twice the animals volume out of the wood in order to maintain the animal filled ark half in/half out of the water.
Now add ballast to the bottom of the ark (rocks?) so as to get it to sit lower and lower in the water - say 7/8ths in the water. Thats a lot of ballast.
First, you have no evidence tying your speculations to the Ark.
Second, you have no evidence that your speculations are a successful way of making boats that don't sink. The world's ocean floors are littered with the hulls of wooden boats whose designers had every intention that they remain afloat.
As described several times in this thread, there are a large number of variables that have to be properly manipulated when building a boat, especially a large one, and the history of shipbuilding says that new boats can only be incrementally different from existing boats, else various undesirable characteristics will be introduced, such as a tendency to capsize or founder or leak or break up or any number of other problems.
I persist as you persist. You talk technolgy as if anything here was super-complex going on here. Your appeal to the "history of the advance of technology" seeks to circumvent the fact that any old fool with a boat could see the principles involved. Let me ask you Percy, if you were a kid with a plastic bucket and a sea at your disposal: how long would it take you to figure out that adding a couple of stones in the bottom of the bucket aids seaworthyness no end.
The story circulates in my family about me as a 9 year old (Robin: pay attention here)
I can't remember the context, but my father had some reason to ask "is the floor in the sitting room level?" Apparently I disspeared for a minute or two, only to return with a ball bearing which I placed on the floor and discovered that the floor was indeed not level - at least not locally. Veritable mountains existed at floor level was what was discovered.
Well, yes, you do persist, but you persist in the absence of evidence.
You talk technolgy as if anything here was super-complex going on here. Your appeal to the "history of the advance of technology" seeks to circumvent the fact that any old fool with a boat could see the principles involved.
As I just noted in my previous message, the floors of the world's oceans are littered with the hulls of wooden boats whose designers intended that they should remain afloat. Obviously the task of boat design is not as simple as you think.
Let me ask you Percy, if you were a kid with a plastic bucket and a sea at your disposal: how long would it take you to figure out that adding a couple of stones in the bottom of the bucket aids seaworthyness no end.
You're ignoring the foundering problem, and the added ballast requires additional strength of materials. Plus, if you have a bucket and no tub for testing, which is the case with the ark, then you cannot figure out how much ballast will provide the necessary balance between stability and resistance to foundering.
Strength of the ark is another issue. If the ark is held up by waves at each end, it must be able to resist cracking in two at the bottom. And if the ark is instead held up in the middle by a single wave, then it must be able to resist cracking in two at the top. Significant ballast severely worsens this concern.
Don't know about that. Of the 70 or so fellow students who sat engineering finals with me, there were but two whose final year projecs I would absolutely trust (sight unseen) to function approximately according to the intention of the project-setter
B.Mech Eng (hons) is but a title. It confers no true engineering ability. Think of all those who claim Christianity and you'd get the gist