Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
198 online now:
DrJones*, Theodoric (2 members, 196 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,794 Year: 1,542/23,288 Month: 1,542/1,851 Week: 182/484 Day: 105/77 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 9 of 453 (520202)
08-19-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by pandion
08-19-2009 2:14 PM


anchor stones away ...
Hi pandion, interesting post.

So how would Noah's big wooden box have fared? With no means of propulsion the ark would have been turned broadside to the first few small waves. If the 40 day storm was as severe as creationists tell us, Noah and family and all the animals spent 40 days rolling over and over and over - unless the ark settled quietly on the bottom.

You must have missed "JohnFulton" (aka aka reversespin, Bret, Charley, Craig, keys, the Golfer, Tom, Tim, whatever) and the amazing anchor stones and moon pools ...

Message 203 and (filtered posts by him)
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&m=104522&mbrid=4323

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noahsarkstones.htm

quote:

Click to enlarge

Underwater view of ark carrying the large anchor stones.


Click to enlarge

This is Wyatt's model of the ark (it's in his "museum") - I've seen a picture showing the stones hanging from the back end. Wan't to guess what they will do in a storm tossed sea?

Entertaining to say the least.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by pandion, posted 08-19-2009 2:14 PM pandion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-19-2009 10:07 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 19 by Peg, posted 08-20-2009 6:28 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 21 of 453 (520317)
08-20-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by pandion
08-20-2009 10:41 AM


Waves that reach around the world
Hi again pandion,

I'll second what Rahvin said in Message 15

quote:
I'd focus more on your initial observation: that a boat of teh size described in Genesis would exceed the structural limitations of wood.

The point was that any wooden ship over 300 ft in length leaks - all the time. It could not have stayed afloat for a year.

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.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by pandion, posted 08-20-2009 10:41 AM pandion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by pandion, posted 08-20-2009 8:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 26 of 453 (520334)
08-20-2009 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rahvin
08-20-2009 7:17 PM


Ship Design 101
Hi Rahvin, (and pandion) sorry to disagree.

The measurments are 300 long, 50 wide, and 30 high. Rule up those measurements and you've got a rectangular box with a lenght to depth ratio of 10 to 1 and a length to width ratio of 6 to 1.

The ratio is irrelevant. The issue is the strength of the building materials. For similar reasons that you cannot make a skyscraper out of wood, you cannot make a seaworthy ship of that length out of wood.

Actually the ratios are relevant. For one they do show the relative "boxiness" of the vessel/s compared to modern designed ocean going vessels. For two they affect the "hull girder" strength, with the vessel considered as a box beam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)

quote:
General characteristics
Tonnage: 3,730.54 gross register tons (GRT), 3036.21 NRT
Displacement: 10,000 short tons (9,100 metric tons) approx.
Length: 450 ft (140 m) overall
350 ft (110 m) on deck
329.5 ft (100.4 m) between perpendiculars
Beam: 50.1 ft (15.3 m)
Draught: 30.4 ft (9.3 m)
Depth of hold: 33 ft (10 m)
Propulsion: Sail
Sail plan: six-masted schooner
Speed: 16 knots (30 km/h/18 mph)
Complement: 13-14


Note: copyright picture here:
http://www.mainememory.net/bin/Detail?ln=8863
From the Maine Maritime Museum (been there)

There was no superstructure on this vessel and the height of the cargo hold would be from the top of the keel to the underside of the deck beams. To be generous we can assume that the height from keel to deck was ~40 ft max.

This results in LOA/maxB of 450/50 = 9:1 and LOA/maxD of 450/40 = 11.25. An L/B over 8:1 is considered lean, and is usually used to decrease drag (Catamaran and kayak hulls are ~12:1), although this can result in strength problems in large vessels (like the Wyoming)

For comparison the Mayflower was fat:

quote:
Details of the ship's dimensions are unknown; but estimates based on its load weight and the typical size of 180-ton merchant ships of its day suggest an estimated length of 90–110 feet (27.4–33.5 m) and a width of about 25 feet (7.6 m).[6]

That's a L/B of ~100/24 or 4:1, and a LOT of european sailing vessels were similarly boxy. There is a reason for this, and the reason is the strength of the hull.

A vessel like this is a box beam, and the strength of a beam is a function of the stressed axis cubed times the non-stressed axis. I-beams and cored laminate constructions take advantage of this to provide high strength to weight rations.

Wide makes the boat stiffer against side to side bending -- and you will note that Wyoming was known for snaking while underway, bending side to side, and this is due to the high L/B ratio.

Changing the L/B ratio from 9 to 6 and the L/D from 11.25 to 10 would mean (roughly) an increase of (11.25•9^3)/(10•6^3) or 3.80 times as strong in the transverse direction: stiffer against snaking -- for the same length vessel.

Tall makes the boat stiffer against up and down bending -- and you will note that Wyoming was also known for hogging and sagging while underway, and this is due to a high L/D ratio.

Changing the L/D from 11.25 to 10 and the L/B ratio from 9 to 6would mean (roughly) an increase of (9•11.25^3)/(6•10^3) or 2.14 times as strong in the vertical direction: stiffer against hogging\sagging -- for the same length vessel.

The next issue is how much you need to scale the strength up for size: the strength of a beam necessary to carry the same stress (ie the strength of the material) in the extreme fibers is a function of length cubed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark

quote:
From the same period the early Church Father Origen (c. 182–251), responding to a critic who doubted that the Ark could contain all the animals in the world, countered with a learned argument about cubits, holding that Moses, the traditional author of the book of Genesis, had been brought up in Egypt and would therefore have used the larger Egyptian cubit. He also fixed the shape of the Ark as a truncated pyramid, square at its base, and tapering to a square peak one cubit on a side; it was not until the 12th century that it came to be thought of as a rectangular box with a sloping roof.[15]

Abdallah ibn 'Umar al-Baidawi, writing in the 13th century, gives the length of the Ark as 300 cubits (157 m, 515 ft) by 50 (26.2 m, 86 ft) in width, 30 (15.7 m, 52 ft) in height, ...


Doesn't seem to be much agreement on the size or shape, but we can go with Peg's numbers:

The bending stress of a beam is related to (1/L)^3, so if you double the length of a beam you need 8 times the strength to have the same bending stress (measured in the extreme fibers, the places where failure starts), which is set by the material limits (usually with a factor of safety to reduce design stress levels below the failure level).

So we compare (Lark/Lwyoming)^3 = (515/450)^3 = 1.499 ... so it needs 1.5 x the Wyoming for the same stress, and it has 2.14 in the vertical direction, so OVERALL the would actually be stiffer by ~42%.

This, of course, is just theoretical - the Wyoming had steel cross beams and other structures to increase the strength of the hull girder, while the ark was constructed entirely of wood -- but the boxier shape does make the vessel stiffer.

Wood is flexible.

Curiously wood has a high strength and stiffness to weight ration compared to many metals and composites except only the most exotic composites. The problem is more in the fastening than in the strength of the material per se: without a glue as strong as the material you have the old problem of the weakest link in a chain.

In Traditional wooden ship building this weakest link is the bonding of the wood members, one to the next, not just in the sealing of the outer skin, but in fastening the internal structural members so that they don't "work" and result in give (eg - a peg in a loose hole) before taking up load. So it's the fasteners between the wood members that makes wooden boats flex, not the relative stiffness of wood itself.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rahvin, posted 08-20-2009 7:17 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by pandion, posted 08-21-2009 12:13 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 35 of 453 (520382)
08-21-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
08-20-2009 11:54 PM


Hi Peg,

also the ark was constructed with three decks, which would have added to its strength

Curiously horizontal decks don't contribute to vertical stiffness. We don't really know the internal structure of either vessel, so a real comparison cannot be made.

Noah was told to make an opening at the top of the width of a cubit all around Ge 6:16. this wasnt just a small peephole, if the opening was a cubit in height near the roof and extending right around the four sides, thats nearly 140 sq/m air vent.

A single vent is not ventilation. Heavy gas sinks (CO2, methane, etc) are heavier that oxygen and fill a space from the bottom up. The air needs to be moved to be ventilation, usually with a dedicated in and out flow path.

Message 20

What helped it to stay afloat was that it was made out of a resinous tree. This resinous wood is thought by some to be cypress or a similar tree and in that part of the world there was an abundant supply of resinous trees.

Curiously the buoyancy of the wood is irrelevant to the buoyancy of the vessel, which is why we can build boats of steel and concrete.

Resins can make wood denser and more brittle. There is a wood called "ironwood" because it sinks. It is full of resins.

Moses also was told to “cover [the ark] inside and outside with tar.”
So it would have been completely waterproof, no 'pumping' would have been required.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, or wooden vessels would still be using this simple system. When a seam works the tar seal is broken if the tar is stiff, and if the tar is flexible then the water pressure at the bottom forces it out of the seam.

and thanks to RADZ for that ratio info!

You're welcome.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 08-20-2009 11:54 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 37 of 453 (520384)
08-21-2009 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by pandion
08-21-2009 12:13 AM


Re: Ship Design 101
Thanks pandion,

Except that where it counts, the Wyoming was not 450 ft. If you discount the bowsprit and all of the sailing rigging, she was 334 ft. on deck and 329 ft. at the water line. How does that affect the "stiffness" of the ark? Also, does your calculation include both snaking and hogging/sagging?

This is how it works out on the spreadsheet (this is done a little more rigourously than the previous calculation, and is more accurate as a ballpark estimate for comparisons. Note that done properly each would be modeled as a shell rather than a block, however we have no information on the skin thickness of either vessel.

LBD
Ark5158652
L/1610
BD^3(vertical)-12092288
DB^3(horizontal)33074912-
Wyoming3505040
L/178.75
BD^3(vertical)-3200000
DB^3(horizontal)5000000-
Ark/Wyoming
BD^3(vertical)-3.78
DB^3(horizontal)6.61-
(L/L)^33.19208%119%

The ark is still 20% stiffer in the worst (vertical loading) condition.

I think it more likely that the ark would have been constructed using treenails. This method consists of driving wooden dowels through holes bored into the plank and the structural beam. This method has the advantage that the wood of both the planks and the treenails would swell in water, thus forming a stronger bond. Additionally, a very old technique is to drive a spike of a harder wood into the outer end of the dowel, thus forming an even tighter bond.

Agreed, the problem is making sure you have enough area in the dowels to transfer the loads.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : transposed numbers


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by pandion, posted 08-21-2009 12:13 AM pandion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 08-22-2009 4:50 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 89 of 453 (520578)
08-22-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Peg
08-22-2009 4:50 AM


Re: Ship Design 101
Hi Peg,

Reference in the previous post, where the cubit was converted by the egyptian cubit - wiki provided the conversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark

quote:
From the same period the early Church Father Origen (c. 182–251), responding to a critic who doubted that the Ark could contain all the animals in the world, countered with a learned argument about cubits, holding that Moses, the traditional author of the book of Genesis, had been brought up in Egypt and would therefore have used the larger Egyptian cubit...

Abdallah ibn 'Umar al-Baidawi, writing in the 13th century, gives the length of the Ark as 300 cubits (157 m, 515 ft) by 50 (26.2 m, 86 ft) in width, 30 (15.7 m, 52 ft) in height, ...


Again strict comparison of strength is not really possible as it should be based on the of the skin of the vessel interpolated over it's length, both vertically and horizontally, and then compared to sagging load (when bow and stern are lifted by waves) and hogging load (when midship is lifted by waves).

Message 84

lets stick to pandions argument that the structual limits of wood is 300ft

the ark was a width of 50 cubits which translates to about 73 feet or 22 meters wide.

If noah laid the beams across the width of the boat rather then along the lenght, then the structural limits of the wood is nowhere near reached.

Nope: then it would have folded up like an accordion.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : =


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 08-22-2009 4:50 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 90 of 453 (520579)
08-22-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by iano
08-21-2009 9:49 AM


Reality: displacement is what makes boats float or not
Hi iano,

quote:
So....the Ark just porously floated atop the water? All 3-500ft of it?

Assuming it's made from a material less dense than water (ie: most woods) then of course it doesn't matter how big it is - it'll float
quote:
With thousands of animals inside?

Why not? Empty, a woven balsa vessel would barely 'dent' the surface of the water. As you load up it'd sink lower and lower into the water. A point would come when it sinks low enough to submerge the lowest stored animals (because the water level rises inside the ark). At which point you've reach max capacity.

The material a boat is constructed from has absolutely no effect on whether the boat will float or not.

The key term is displacement: a boat will ride at the elevation where the weight of the water displaced by the boat is equal to the weight of the boat and contents.

If you treat the ark as a leaky raft, with the only displacement coming from the wood timbers and not from the shape of the hull, then you have significantly less displacement.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 9:49 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2009 11:07 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 96 by iano, posted 08-22-2009 7:39 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 119 of 453 (520757)
08-23-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by iano
08-22-2009 7:39 PM


Re: Reality: displacement is what makes boats float or not
Hi Iano,

I hope all is well.

I've been better, and I've been worse. Thanks.

When the vessel isn't based around an air containing hull then it matters alot.

Displacement is displacement. Whatever floats your boat, the gross weight of your boat and contents equals the weight of water displaced or the boat sinks.

Of course. And in our balsa wood model the relatively low weight of the wood involved permits higher other-load carrying capacity.

Balsa wood has excellent tensile strength along the fibers, but splits along fibers easily, and it has very little compressive strength, and would crush under load, whether load is from other parts of vessel (fasteners, beams, etc) or cargo.

An earlier post contains a calculation based on the ark being 50% submerged - with the submerged volume made up of woven balsa (70% wood/30% space iirc). The water displaced gave an above waterline load carrying capacity of 3000 metric tonnes or so.

You have less load carrying capacity than a sealed hull construction - for sure. But you also have a vessel that is immune to the problem of leaks - swells passing right through it.. so to speak.

Ah well, if you are going to move off into ad hoc ideas rather than keep it to what we know (which, granted, is small), then have fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Brendan

Except the hull was not covered with hides ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by iano, posted 08-22-2009 7:39 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by iano, posted 08-24-2009 8:17 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 120 of 453 (520758)
08-23-2009 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by DrJones*
08-22-2009 8:17 PM


Re: Reality: displacement is what makes boats float or not
Hi DrJones,

it must be magic water to pass only through the holes of his farcical aquatic construction and not exert any force on the remainder of the vessel.

It is common with large rafts to see waves pass down their length, as the average position of the floating members is at the average height of the waves over it's length.

The main point is that we have no idea how the ark was actually constructed, and you could easily have a large square raft with enough thickness to support the loads, then enclosed decks over that to contain the animals and humans. This would solve the waste issue, but means that the cargo volume is severely reduced to fit inside the envelope ... which is all we have information on ....

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DrJones*, posted 08-22-2009 8:17 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 138 of 453 (520905)
08-24-2009 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by iano
08-24-2009 8:17 AM


Re: Reality: displacement is what makes boats float or not
Hi again iano,

Taking the higher end Balsa and lower end Oak we see that Balsa has half the compressive strength of Oak. Not bad.

Understood, but this means that fasteners need to be twice as extensive, not impossible, but again taking room from the inside of the envelope.

We (and presumably Noah) know that woven structures are tough little critters.

Actually no. In fiberglass construction biaxial cloth, where the fibers run in two different layers at 90% that are stitched together with a binder until glassed, is stronger than woven cloth in the final layup for the same weight of glass and resin.

It's not so much a question of ad hoc as what's reasonably feasible given available skills, materials and observational know-how. So far there's not much of note which would prevent construction of an ark.

Except that you are making stuff up, and will continue to do so in order to maintain a "gosh it's possible" opinion. It's ad hoc and confirmation bias in full glory.

A more scientific approach would be to first determine what technology was available, and then see how that could be applied to the problem.

There are reed boats in the Med, there are planked boats, and there are rafts. I am not aware of any woven boats in that neck of the world.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by iano, posted 08-24-2009 8:17 AM iano has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 140 of 453 (520908)
08-24-2009 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by ICANT
08-24-2009 9:26 PM


What archeology shows for boat building technology
Hi ICANT, I have a simple problem here:

He had lumber.
He had glue.
He had fastners.

All he had to do was put a vertical layer on then glue and fasten a layer at a 45° angle left to right. Then apply a layer at 45° from right to left. Then apply a layer horzontal.

So you are saying that he built a state-of-the-art cold-molded (as opposed to plywood making) wooden boat ...

... that needed to be caulked with tar inside and out to keep water out of the lack of leaks?

Fantasy is fun, but the reality is that the ship building technology then was not that advanced, as shown by the evidence of all the wrecks of ships that have been built and the absolute absence of any mythological story of such wood forming technology.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/greatpyramid5.htm

quote:
When one of the slabs was raised from the eastern pit, the planking of the great boat was seen, completely The assembly work on Khufu's boat dismantled, but arranged in the semblance of its finished form.

The cedar boat now on display was originally dismantled into 1,224 individual parts. On top of the wood was a layer of mats and ropes, an instrument made of flint, and some small pieces of white plaster. The prow of the boat, a wooden column topped by a round wooden disk, was found at the western end of the pit. This column was connected to two long wooden pieces that extended along the bottom of the pit. Most of the wooden parts had been tied together with ropes. Also found inside the pit were many other items, such as twelve oars, each mad from a single piece of wood, fifty-eight poles, three cylindrical columns and five doors. In total, there were thirteen Another view of Khufu's boat being reconstructedlayers of materials consisting of 651 artifacts ranging in size from 10 centimeters to 23 meters.

The boat was removed, piece by piece, under the supervision of Ahmed Youssef Mustafa, the master restorer who worked on Hetephere's funerary furniture. It is 43.3 meters (142 feet) long and made of Lebanese cedar wood and some acacia. Its displacement was 45 tons. The maximum draft is 1.48 meters (5 feet). It is 5.9 meters wide. The separate parts of the boat had numerous U-shaped holes so that the boat could be 'stitched' together using ropes made of vegetable fibers. Interestingly many of the boats planks were marked with signs for prow, stern, port and starboard. Nevertheless it took Mustafa some ten years to completely reassemble the boat. That work was not completed until 1968.


http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/aboat.htm

quote:
The ancient Egyptians once again reached out of the past to awe the world with another of their buried secrets - the Abydos ships. In 1991 in the desert near the temple of Khentyamentiu, archaeologists uncovered the remains of 14 ships dating back to the early Barques, Barges, and Byblos Boatsfirst dynasty (2950-2775 BC), possibly associated with King Aha, the first ruler of that dynasty. These 75 foot long ships are buried side by side and have wooden hulls, rough stone boulders which were used as anchors, and "sewn" wooden planks. Also found within their desert graves were remains of the woven straps that joined the planks, as well as reed bundles that were used to seal seams between planks. The Abydos ships have the honor of being the world’s oldest planked boats.

No one knows exactly when the first ship was built, but we do know that the ancient Egyptians were creating ships with technological skills far beyond their time, well before the invention of the wheel.


That would appear to be the height of boat building technology circa 3000 BCE. No woven hulls of balsa wood, no laminated parts, but bits and pieces tied together.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 9:26 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 7:16 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 186 of 453 (521106)
08-25-2009 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by iano
08-25-2009 7:06 PM


Moving forward ... greduelly
Hi iano,

Raft refers to the hull-less nature of it. That there's a structure placed on it doesn't alter the basis of it.

It does affect the stability, as any increase in the height of the center of gravity increases the chances of it being flipped.

Message 179

It wasn't a boat - it was a liferaft. And if boat it what was required then there are far better ways to make them than building a raft. The reason it wasn't done again was that there was no reason to do it again.
...
You got any technical objections to a big raft?

Actually, I would agree that a "covered life raft" is a better mental image than a boat for this story to work, and it is less constrained by the dimensional issues so it can fill out the full 500x50x30 cubit volume in a boxy way rather than "shipshape".

A large flat wide raft is more stable than a shipshape ark, but the superstructure jeopardizes that, with a raised center of gravity (to say nothing of the cargo on the decks on top of the raft).

Message 181

Are you suggesting that it would be difficult to successfully construct a raft of that size? What particular technical problems do you see as insurmountable?

A raft can also be tied together, so construction does not challenge them to use high technology in fastening and bonding systems.

The next question is to see if this is really feasible in terms of the size.

The use of bindings would mean that the structure is flexible, which could be fine for just a raft, but when you add decks you are now generating forces that tend to tear things apart every time it goes over a wave. We are back to the OP:

quote:
It is said that she could be seen to snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to mid ship) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to mid ship) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any caulking that could be devised.

Any thoughts on how you keep the superstructure together?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by iano, posted 08-25-2009 7:06 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by iano, posted 08-29-2009 8:56 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 301 of 453 (563781)
06-06-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by greentwiga
05-29-2010 1:18 AM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Hi greentwiga,

Scroll down and see the huge communal meeting hall made totally out of reeds. Also note the carvings denoting ancient reed shrines.

I did. I also googled "iraqi marsh arab reed mosques" and found this site:

http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/posters/c58336_p10.html
with these photos:

quote:

Reed Houses, Photograph Taken in 1982, Shobaish, Marshes, Iraq, Middle East

Reed Houses and Boat, Marshes, Iraq, Middle East

Mudhif (Meeting House), Photograph Taken in 1982, Shobaish, Marshes, Iraq, Middle East
Suk-Esh-Shiukh Village, Marshes, Iraq, Middle East
Marsh Arab Village, Iraq, Middle East

What I do NOT see in any of this, is whether these structures are built on islands, floating or just resting on the bottom. Marsh is not ocean, it has bottom relatively close to the surface, so it is possible to pile stuff up without it having to float.

Several of those pictures look like there is dirt around the structures

Building reed houses on land does not make an ark. There is a joke about a king that put his stone throne in his attic, and it fell through the floor killing him ... the moral is that people that live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones ....

None of these structures show a second floor.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : end


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by greentwiga, posted 05-29-2010 1:18 AM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2010 11:25 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 303 of 453 (564023)
06-07-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by dennis780
06-07-2010 7:14 PM


... and more PRATTs
Hi dennis780,

quotes are easy

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

if you think you are the first one to blurt this out without looking at the layers of the earth, you aren't. There should be a topic for this is in a thread somewhere, yes? However I have always found it amusing that evolutionists refuse to believe that the earth was never flooded, even though over 90% of it's surface is water, but mars was flooded, with only 10%. Some estimates go as high as 50, but still do not even come close to earth.

If you think you are the first creationist to blurt this out, you are sadly mistaken. The problem is not that there is evidence of various bits of land being underwater at some time in the past but that:

  • there is no consistent age for all such deposits
  • there are layers of underwater ecology deposition that sandwich layers of land ecology deposition
  • ALL sedimentary layers showing underwater ecology deposition show that the life involved lived there for decades (if not thousands of years), not just a couple hundred days - much too old to have occurred during a short term flood.
  • geology explains these multiple long lived deposits, a flood does not.

If you want to discuss if the layers of the earth are signs of a flood, or millions of year time periods, I'm game.

See Seashells on tops of mountains. or we can ask for Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? to be reopened.

One look at the polonium halos in the granite in the precambrian layer will tell you it is not 250+ years old, and could not have taken millions of years to form.

Another underinformed polonium aficionado ... and unfortunately (for you) this information you have is invalid: polonium is a product of uranium decay, and the immediate predecessor in the decay chain is radon gas, which can, does, and has permeated the various rocks (not granite btw) where these halos are found. In every case where polonium halos are found you will also find uranium halos, evidence of a very old earth.

See polonium halos (particularly Message 265 and the posts leading up to it), and Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) and old earth AND (b) constant physics?.

Sure. My first question is however, why would the bible go into detail about the dementions, and materials of a boat that did not exist?

Why not? Perhaps the authors were demented enough to think gullible people will fall for it more readily if they put in some numbers that sound big.

And it just so happens there is a boat covered in snow, in the middle of land, at the base of Mount Ararat. The ark? Possibly.

Or just another bogus claim that is unsubstantiated by real evidence.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : dayz

Edited by RAZD, : affective


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by dennis780, posted 06-07-2010 7:14 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Theodoric, posted 06-07-2010 9:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 312 of 453 (564195)
06-08-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by greentwiga
06-08-2010 11:25 AM


izatso?
Hi greentwiga,

They are floating islands.

Reed buildings do not mean that the islands are floating. Several of the pictures look like there is dirt around and inside the structures, and that does not match with your assertion that ...

... The people add more reeds on top when the island sinks too low, usually once a year.

How do the doors and windows magically raise up with the new floor?

These could be floating, maybe:

quote:

Reed Houses and Boat, Marshes, Iraq, Middle East
Marsh Arab Village, Iraq, Middle East

As they are surrounded by reads and water and not much else,

These are highly unlikely to be floating:

quote:
Suk-Esh-Shiukh Village, Marshes, Iraq, Middle East

Mudhif (Meeting House), Photograph Taken in 1982, Shobaish, Marshes, Iraq, Middle East

Because it looks like dirt and there are non-swamp trees growing around these structures.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2010 11:25 AM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2010 1:24 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020