Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 1:31 AM
30 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 61 of 453 (520457)
08-21-2009 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by iano
08-21-2009 1:12 PM


Re: Let's be resinable
You are making the claim of this porous vessel, why should I provide evidence to DISprove it? typical xtian. I am simply stating what should be the obvious.

Throw a whiffle ball in a bath tub. It floats....until you put something in it. Why? Because it's bloody full of holes man!

How about you name ONE such vessel recorded in history to come close to validating your claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 1:12 PM iano has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 62 of 453 (520458)
08-21-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Theodoric
08-21-2009 2:23 PM


Re: Let's be resinable
Did you read the post earlier about the roaring 40's? Message 21

RAZD writes:
Note that the size of waves are proportional to the reach of the winds as well as their strength. The "roaring 40's" are called that for a reason -- the reach there circles the globe. With a global flood this would be a universal condition. Wind and waves unimpeded as they circle the globe.

The waves that broke up the boats in your OP were peanuts by comparison.

That about answers it.

I just wanted to add to this by pointing out Jupiter and the Red Spot. Do you know why that storm has raged for so long? At least one theory is because there is no land mass to stop it. So, think for second about our earth with its Hurricanes, Typhoons, etc., unabated for a year.

Edited by hooah212002, : added quote

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 08-21-2009 2:23 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 63 of 453 (520460)
08-21-2009 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by iano
08-21-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Let's be resinable
… volume fitted out with balsa wood…

Was the balsa wood carried over from South America by the llamas Noah saved?


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 10:58 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1402 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 64 of 453 (520463)
08-21-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by iano
08-21-2009 1:56 PM


Re: Let's be resinable
You've come up with an idea. An idea, by the way, that seems to be, ahem, full of holes. But, why don't you test it and see what happens? Scale it down, weave yourself a boat that will support yourself on a pond or lake, and see how it works. Then, if you can make that type of floating kludge work, scale up, see what it would take to keep an elephant, an elephant's mate, elephant food and elephant dung afloat (or to let the elephant dung pass through the weave). If you can make that work, take a look at how large the kludge is, and try to see how your idea begins to sink under the weight of all the biomass that would have to be on the boat to get the animals we see today, regardless of how you define "kinds."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 1:56 PM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 3:41 PM Perdition has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 65 of 453 (520464)
08-21-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Perdition
08-21-2009 3:34 PM


Re: Let's be resinable
how could he do that if he doesn't have god to give him the blueprints?

It would have been God-designed and Noah-built........

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Perdition, posted 08-21-2009 3:34 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Perdition, posted 08-21-2009 3:45 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1402 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 66 of 453 (520467)
08-21-2009 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by hooah212002
08-21-2009 3:41 PM


Re: Let's be resinable
Well, either God could help him, or he could use his God-given intelligence and keep trying until he comes up with a way to make it work, or after the millionth iteration, decide it's just not possible unless it's a miracle, in which case the whole debate stops being a science one and becomes a question of why the flood was necessary in the first place if God could use a miracle to just kill everyone who was "wicked."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 3:41 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2804 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 67 of 453 (520496)
08-21-2009 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pandion
08-19-2009 12:34 AM


I'll give a shot at this, as it is a very interesting question.

The first thing to do would be to have comparable examples of ancient wooden ships, and how their size compared to the Ark. You use modern examples of wooden ships, but I do not think that because we cannot do it, then they could not have.

So what does history tell us about big ships ? Are there any records of descriptions of wooden ships with a comparable size to the ark ? Astonishingly, the answer is that it does. Ussher describes a ship that battled in the Aegan sea in 280BC, and in his description he says that it had eight tiers (or levels) of rowers, with a total of 1600 rowers in all. This means 200/level, and so the boat had the length to accomodate 100 rowers. Assuming a distance of three feet to accomodate a rower (about the space in airline planes) and a bow and a stern on the ship, it could have been between 400 to 500 feet in length. DUring the battle, it would have been at sea for many days during the battle, plus days at sea before and after the battle.

Athenaeus also describes 420 feet long which had 40 levels of rowers and had a crew of 7250 men.

Now I don't know how they did it, but looking in history it seems that they achieved ship sizes comparable to the ark, and so I see no reason that because we cannot do it anymore, they could not have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pandion, posted 08-19-2009 12:34 AM pandion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 08-21-2009 6:12 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 08-21-2009 6:55 PM slevesque has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 68 of 453 (520499)
08-21-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by slevesque
08-21-2009 6:10 PM


Please supply sources so I can look at them to verify.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 6:10 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 69 of 453 (520504)
08-21-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by slevesque
08-21-2009 6:10 PM


hmm in interesting.

I see what your source was.
Answersingenesis

As for the Ussher ship, Leontifera. It seems Ussher is the only source I can find. Though now days creationists like to call his work The Annals of the World, it was written in Latin and its true title is Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world. I wonder why the creationist publishing house decided to change the title.

Interesting how the current publisher New Leaf Publishing touts itself as

quote:
The world's largest publisher of creation-based material for all ages.

Ussher seems to be referencing a work by Memnon, but I can find no reference anywhere. I do not have direct access to any historical research libraries but I may know someone that does. Unfortunately, this may be so obscure it may take a professional researcher with latin skills to actually find the original reference. If that is truly what he was referencing. Also, I might point out. This was a period when there was a lot of exaggeration and isn't it amazing that a ship this big and this is the only reference.

The next ship referenced is a laughable example. From your source.

quote:
Athenaeus gives us a detailed description of a very large warship, built by Ptolemy Philopator (c. 244–205 bc).7 It was 130m (420 feet) long, 18m (57 feet) wide, and 22m (72 feet) high to the top of her gunwale. From the top of its sternpost to the water line was 24 metres (79.5 feet). It had four steering oars 14m (45 feet) long. It had 40 tiers of oars. The oars on the uppermost tier were 18m (57 feet) long. The oars were counter-balanced with lead to make them easier to handle. It had a double bow and a double stern and carried seven rams, of which one was the leader and the others were of gradually reducing size. It had 12 under-girders 275m (900 feet) long. The ship was manned by 400 sailors to handle the rigging and the sails, 4,000 rowers and 2,850 men in arms for a total of 7,250 men. This ship was too large to be of much practical use.

My bold. Gee even admits it wasn't a real boat.

Lets look at the original description by Plutarch of this same ship Athenaeus talked about.

quote:
Ptolemy Philopator built [a ship] of forty banks of oars, which had a length of two hundred and eighty cubits, and a height, to the top of her stern, of forty-eight; she was manned by four hundred sailors, who did no rowing, and by four thousand rowers, and besides these she had room, on her gangways and decks, for nearly three thousand men-at‑arms. But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger. However, in the ships of Demetrius their beauty did not mar their fighting qualities, nor did the magnificence of their equipment rob them of their usefulness, but they had a speed and effectiveness which was more remarkable than their great size.

Source

You know you should really do some independent research. These creationists sites make stuff up and twist facts so bad that they arent facts anymore.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 6:10 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 7:34 PM Theodoric has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2804 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 70 of 453 (520505)
08-21-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Theodoric
08-21-2009 6:55 PM


Of course, a 40 level boat is totally useless in a battle. Even at 420 feet long, its height makes it very unstable, and so it is of no surprise that it was just a 'show-off'.

I of course, did not do any extensive research on the subject, because of a lack of time and access to the adequate information. But I simply had the impression in reading in that OP that it was just a 'we can't do it, so they surely couldn't do it' sort of argument. And because we could not build a wooden vessel longer than 300 feet, than that such a thing is impossible to do.

I think it should be interesting to view in history if boats of comparable sizes to the ark have been built.

Because ingeneering physics of a ship is surely not a simple thing, and often enough, some counter-intuitive arrangements amount ot incredible results in matter of stiffness and solidity.

I remember a few years ago, my friends father had participated in a bridge-making competition in which the bridge had to support the most weight possible within restriction in material and weight put into the bridge itself. Now he only had a bachelor's degree in ingeneering, and every single other contestants were university teams who were led by PhD scientists in the domain. When they saw his bridge, they laughed out loud, saying that his strings, the way he had put them, were totally useless. These people all had a PhD, with years of experience in bridge-building competition. Yet my friends father's bridge turned out to finish in second place exactly because of his new string-concept.

The point of all this is that ingeneering is never short of new concepts which makes things stronger and better. The simple fact that some people in this discussion thought that the proportion of height-lengtth-depth could not impact the stiffness of the ship is indeed laughable, and shows a lack of understanding of how complex ingeneering can be.

Could it be possible that the ancient civilisation were more advanced in boating ingeneering then we are today ? I think it is a distinct possibility, and one that should not be discarded in this discussion.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 08-21-2009 6:55 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 08-21-2009 7:52 PM slevesque has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 71 of 453 (520509)
08-21-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by slevesque
08-21-2009 7:34 PM


Of course, a 40 level boat is totally useless in a battle. Even at 420 feet long, its height makes it very unstable, and so it is of no surprise that it was just a 'show-off'.

Then why did you use it? Did you know it was a 'show-off" before I posted my response.

I of course, did not do any extensive research on the subject, because of a lack of time and access to the adequate information.

Maybe you should before you blindly repost something from a creationist website.

I think it should be interesting to view in history if boats of comparable sizes to the ark have been built.

Is it a boat if it really doesn't do anything or go anywhere. The Ark had to withstand heavy seas and winds, to use a ceremonial boat that didn't really move as an example that the Ark could have been built and could have floated is ingenuous at best.

I remember a few years ago, my friends father had participated in a bridge-making competition in which the bridge had to support the most weight possible within restriction in material and weight put into the bridge itself. Now he only had a bachelor's degree in ingeneering, and every single other contestants were university teams who were led by PhD scientists in the domain. When they saw his bridge, they laughed out laud to the fact that his strings, as he had put them, were totally useless. These people all had a PhD, with years of experience in bridge-building competition. Yet my friends father's bridge turned out to finish in second place.

The point of all this is that ingeneering is never short of new concepts which makes things stronger and better. The simple fact that some people in this discussion thought that the proportion of height-lengtth-depth could not impact the stiffness of the ship is indeed laughable, and shows a lack of understanding of how complex ingeneering can be.

No your anecdote has nothing to do with the topic. Of course practical knowledge can out do book knowledge. Thinking outside the box can be a very good thing.

Could it be possible that the ancient civilisation were more advanced in boating ingeneering then we are today ? I think it is a distinct possibility, and one that should not be discarded in this discussion.

I do not thnk anyone is claiming such a thing. No one alive today could control a fleet like Nelson at Trafalgar, It is a skill that is not needed and has died. Building of wooden ships in the style of the ancients is also a lost art. That all said the ancients could not defy the laws of physics. The structural limitations we see today existed then also.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 7:34 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 8:05 PM Theodoric has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2804 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 72 of 453 (520513)
08-21-2009 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Theodoric
08-21-2009 7:52 PM


The 40 level-boat is useful knowledge because we know it's dimensions, and that it had 420 feets. A reasonable estimations of the Leontifera, which had 8 levels, puts it at over 300feet, probably around 400 feet. Pliny records other boats of up to ten-twelve-fifteen and thirty levels in other ancient naval armies. It is very reasonable that they would have been comparable in length to the Leontifera and the 40level boat.

The laws of physics of course, would have been the same at any epoch, and I have never implied he contrary. It does not stop, however, that new engineering concepts can help make more resistant to weight bridges, and more stiff wooden ships.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 08-21-2009 7:52 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 08-21-2009 10:49 PM slevesque has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 73 of 453 (520526)
08-21-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by slevesque
08-21-2009 8:05 PM


Also, a very important point if the Leontifera or others were built they were not seagoing vessels in any real sense. Galleys hugged the coast they did not venture into the open seas.

Also, all of the large galleys are thought to have been of a catamaran configuration.
Source Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Lionel Casson, 1995

So your points are irrelevant for a couple reasons. One, your examples were not vessels that plied the open sea, which the Ark would have had to do. Two, the ark was not of a catamaran.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 8:05 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 08-22-2009 12:11 AM Theodoric has responded
 Message 75 by pandion, posted 08-22-2009 12:13 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2804 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 74 of 453 (520533)
08-22-2009 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Theodoric
08-21-2009 10:49 PM


The point I was adressing is that some have asserted in this discussion that a wooden ship cannot exceed 300 feet because of the structural capabilities of wood.

I was making a case that there are records of ancient wooden vessels exceeding this length, reaching probably very near the size the Ark would have had in terms of length. How they managed to engineer such ships is a mystery, but the point is that they did it. Either be it a Catamaran configuration or something else who enabled this, the point is that a boat of that size can float.

Furthermore, the Leontifera battled in the Aegan sea, and as per Ussher's description, it had absolutly no problem engaging in battle. It's not as if it was 'fragile'

Finally, a study of the configuration of Noah's Ark was done in 1994 by: S.W. Hong, S. S. Na, B. S. Hyun, S. Y. Hong, D. S. Gong, K. J. Kang, S. H. Suh, K. H. Lee and Y. G. Je.

All one whom are on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon. Here it is:http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway

It's pretty technical, and I haven't finished reading it. They evaluate the three major aspects of the safety of the Ark: structural safety (Which was the original point), overturning stability (which was talked about in this discussion), and seakeeping quality.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 08-21-2009 10:49 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Theodoric, posted 08-22-2009 12:49 AM slevesque has responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1165 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 75 of 453 (520534)
08-22-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Theodoric
08-21-2009 10:49 PM


Theodoric writes:

Also, a very important point if the Leontifera or others were built they were not seagoing vessels in any real sense. Galleys hugged the coast they did not venture into the open seas.
Also, all of the large galleys are thought to have been of a catamaran configuration.
Source Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Lionel Casson, 1995


That is what I understand the case to be, but I can't source it except to say that it was a TV program. The show discussed the largest ancient ships ever built. It seems that it was accomplished in a couple of ways.

The first is what you mention, a catamaran configuration. As I recall, what is believed to have been the largest was actually a triple hulled catamaran. The hulls weren't useful space. They weren't compartments or cargo areas. They were for flotation only. I don't recall if they were solid or hollow and filled with buoyant material. Above that were the decks build on a grid of support that held the hulls together.

The other method I mentioned before. That was essentially to fasten together a series of smaller, water tight boxes. Thus, the boxes could be made watertight with wood and reasonable caulk, and the joints between the compartments allowed the snaking and hogging/sagging.

But that's pretty irrelevant since the ark predated any of these ships by a couple thousand years, and the description of the ark isn't even similar to any of the other ancient ships.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 08-21-2009 10:49 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019