Summations Only

Yes I don't really see how we can be discussing buoyancy and boats without discussing Archimedes principle.

Wiki writes: In physics, buoyancy (pronounced /ˈbɔɪ.ənsi/) is the upward force that keeps things afloat. The net upward buoyancy force is equal to the magnitude of the weight of fluid displaced by the body. This force enables the object to float or at least seem lighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

Type "Archimedes principle" into Google and the first entry that comes up is the Wiki article on buoyancy.

As RAZD says displacement is the key criteria here. If the weight of the water displaced is not equal to the weight of the boat and it's contents the boat will sink. Thus the shape of the boat, to maximise displacement as weight increases, is absolutely crucial. A simple raft is a desperately poor design with this in mind.

That is why huge ships are the tapered shape that they are. Obviously.

The legends goes further and tells that Archimedes was so excited with his discovery that he hopped out of the bath, and rushed naked into the street yelling triumphantly, "Eureka!" "Eureka!"

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/archimedesprinciple.html

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : Add Eureka link

I know you went on the related article on answersingenesis.org (I go on creation.com though, but it is the same article. I'm putthing the quote from Ussher here for those who didn't:

Answersingenesis...or any creationist website is NOT a valid source for any evidence as they have been proven to bolster evidence and distort facts/history time and time again. A simple perusal of this site alone will show you that.

It's akin to me proving the FSM exists by going to venganza.org, then telling you to prove He doesn't.

Do you have any contrary evidence that the Leontifera did not participate in this battle ?

What part of "You are making a claim and YOU need to verify it" don't you get?

It lies not on the shoulders of the defendant to prove why he did not do it.

Edited by hooah212002, : spellcheck /fail

Do me a favor: take a step away from the bible and into reality for one second and actually think about what you are proposing. A 400+ft boat, WOVEN, SO AS TO TAKE ON WATER, able to withstand 40 days and 40 nights of rain, enough of which to cover all mountains by 15 meters. Tel me with a straight face that seems plausible....... It's woven because that is a relatively easy structure to construct with basic tools and techniques. It's woven because that offers flexibility. It's woven so that wind and water flow through the structure rather than exert load on the structure. It's not woven to take on water I see far fewer problems here than I do with a ship and await something (technically) specific to support your ongoing sense of incredulity.

Thor Heyerdahl tried an ocean voyage in a reed boat (the Ra). It was only marginally successful. But then, think of all the fun he could have had if he was traveling with two elephants, a brontosaurus or two, and all the rest of the critters.

Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus into the ark?

A. Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!

(Noah! Make them stop. I'm getting seasick! And they're tearing a hole in the boat!)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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.

OK, so you have beams across the width.

Its still wood front to back, some 300 feet, so you haven't changed the problem whatsoever.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Peg writes: 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.

There is a reason why the keel of a ship is laid longitudinally (lengthwise) instead of laterally (across the breadth of the ship).
Without a keel running the entire length, a large ship/boat cannot withstand the hydronamic forces and structural stresses placed on it and would literally break up.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

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

Hi RAZD. I hope all is well.

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

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.

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

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.

Agreed.

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.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

And a vessel that is immune to the problem of leaks - swells passing right through it.. so to speak.

How the fuck does a swell pass through a boat?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

How the fuck does a swell pass through a boat?

In his woven vessel which is full of holes.

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's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

It's balsa wood like material, so it naturally floats!

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

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.

Have you ever worked with balsa wood? It is so porous, light and soft that you can snap small pieces of it in half with one finger. You are expecting us to believe that animals with weights as large as 13,000 lbs (the average weight of an African elephant bull (male) would not tear this balsa wood construction apart? Much less the hooves, feet and other appendages of thousands of other animals.

You are out of your gourd? How much more backpeddling and outright fabricated lies are you going to use to support this myth?

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Easy:

Not to mention it says cover it with pitch, inside and out. If it is woven, and meant to take on water, why cover it with pitch? To stop the wood becoming waterlogged and sinking perhaps?

The pitch strengthened the wood.

Edited by hooah212002, : is an /s necessary?

Besides, balsa (Ochroma pyramidale) only grows in South America not the Middle East where Noah built his ark.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

First of all, welcome to EvC! I hope we will have some pleasant discussions

Answersingenesis...or any creationist website is NOT a valid source for any evidence as they have been proven to bolster evidence and distort facts/history time and time again. A simple perusal of this site alone will show you that. It's akin to me proving the FSM exists by going to venganza.org, then telling you to prove He doesn't.

Of course, this is elephant hurling. They always provide the references in their articles. If you would like to start a new thread and attack their credibility, feel free to do it.

Note also that any statement can be determined true or false on its own merits. Claiming it to be false because of where it comes from is to commit the genetic fallacy.

What part of "You are making a claim and YOU need to verify it" don't you get? It lies not on the shoulders of the defendant to prove why he did not do it.

Of course, the claim I made was not unfounded. It was based on a statement from Ussher, which himself claimed reference to Memnon.

Now if the 'defendant' wants to say that what Ussher claimed is false, he does need to provide evidence for his position. As of yet, all I have found as any 'proof' to descredit Ussher's claim was that he recorded the Genesis account as real history, and so any claim he made is 'suspect'. Of course, not only is this reasoning fallacious (As I said, any claim can be determined true or false on it's own merits), but it disregards the fact many historians up to the 18th century viewed the creation account as real history.

On a final note, I would suggest you to let go of the arrogance, it will lead you nowhere around here ...

According to what standard of historical research?

How many historical documents do we believe accurate that do not have 2nd and 3rd independant confirmations ? I would suggest more than one

There are some Egyptians Pharaohs that we only know that they existed by Maneto's record of egyptians Dynasties. Why do we not doubt their existence ? After all, we have only one document that talks about them. The answer is simple: because we have no reason to doubt it.

The post is that we have no historical reference for a boat that size that could survive forty days of stormy seas. The building of the boats is a necessary premise of the OP. It is ridiculous to make the argument that the Ark was possible if you cannot account for how any possible comparisons were built.

The OP is about the physics of building a wooden ship that long, and how the physical capabilities of wood do not allow it. It is not about if Noah could have had the ressources, or the time, or the knowledge to do it. If you want to start a new topic about this, you can.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.