Summations Only

Two items:

• Please evaluate evidence and/or arguments on the merits rather than on the source.

• Please keep discussion civil and constructive.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

DA writes: 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.

Balsa below the waterline provides optimal buoyancy. Other wood can be used in construction to provide good wear/localised strength characteristics - think of GRP coated polystrene surfboards. Not that balsa wood should be considered weak, think: De Havilland Mosquito.

However, given that some folk object to the use of balsa on locational availability* grounds we could always switch to cedar, Lebanese cedar solving the locality problem perhaps. It's not as light as balsa so we'd have to reduce our above-waterline load carrying capacity to something like 1,500 metric tonnes (or 1,490 metric tonnes if we subtract the aforementioned pair of African elephants).

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

Backpeddling? What backpeddling?

*it could be that the YEC argument permits an alternative model for continental location at the time but seeing as I'm not aware of what that model is we'll suppose balsa wood out.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

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 'any' force. It's mucho reduced force - compared to what a traditional closed hull structure would undergo. If it's a good enough idea for fishermans nets then it's good enough for Noahs ark.

It's not 'any' force. It's mucho reduced force

How much reduced? show your math.

If it's a good enough idea for fishermans nets then it's good enough for Noahs ark.

Are you trying to win the Buzsaw award for most blatant bullshit?

---

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 much reduced? show your math.

There's no math in the OP. Nor here. The OP approaches things from a credulity point of view and is correct (in my view) in supposing it impossible to create a watertight hull (placed on even a calm sea) by traditional shipbuilding means. He uses the example of a similar sized wooden hull to illustrate his point and works from there. Remember:

the OP writes: And yet, creationists want me to believe that a 450 ft. (minimum) vessel of ALL wood construction was able to withstand a storm of 40 days and then remain at sea for almost a year, manned by only eight people, without the efficient pumps of the turn of the century, caulked with nothing more than "pitch inside and out". Not to mention the overwhelming necessity of the limited crew to feed and water thousands of animals and to muck out thousands of pens (and then carry the result of the mucking up two decks in order to throw it overboard).

I'm suggesting more floating platform/less ship. It doesn't stretch credulity to suppose that an intrinsically buoyant structure would be capable of floating on water whilst carrying a load. There is no need for pumps, no need for caulking, no need to dispose of waste and no need to feed (assuming feed was put in place beforehand and the animals fed themselves).

We've no way of knowing what the sea conditions were in the locality of the ark and we shouldn't necessarily suppose 'stormy'. To that end, we can suppose the possibility of a calm-ish sea which isn't (credulity suggests) going to tax a structure through which a swell can freely move. If it floats your boat, imagine a series of smaller rafts daisy chained together rather than a single monolithic structure. Something that could be expected to roll with the waves. Then come back with your objections.

Are you trying to win the Buzsaw award for most blatant bullshit?

Be careful that your objections rise above rhetoric lest you fall on your own sword in this regard.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

We've no way of knowing what the sea conditions were in the locality of the ark and shouldn't necessarily suppose stormy.

We know more then 7 inches of rain fell on the ark every minute for 40 days and 40 nights. That's as much rain as a hurricane drops in two hours. Why shouldn't we necessarily suppose stormy?

---

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

So then you're unable to support your claim of:

It's mucho reduced force

in regards to your proposed ark and as such your ideas can be grouped with the other bullshit theories on ark construction.

Be careful that your objections rise above rhetoric lest you fall on your own sword in this regard.

If you can't see how the statement:

If it's a good enough idea for fishermans nets then it's good enough for Noahs ark.

isn't 100% bullshit then I must ask you, what's the weather like up your own ass?

---

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

We've no way of knowing what the sea conditions were in the locality of the ark and we shouldn't necessarily suppose 'stormy'.

You're right. It was probably a gentle mist that flooded the earth. The opening of the heavens is just a gentle mist.

Are we also to suppose he floated the animals around the world in his effort to distribute them?

If it's a good enough idea for fishermans nets then it's good enough for Noahs ark.

So, now fishing nets float on the surface?

We know more then 7 inches of rain fell on the ark every minute for 40 days and 40 nights. That's as much rain as a hurricane drops in two hours. Why shouldn't we necessarily suppose stormy?

Is that average or local conditions? I'd imagine that amount of water falling uniformly to have a dampening effect on the ocean - if anything.

isn't 100% bullshit then I must ask you, what's the weather like up your own ass?

I take it that the notion of non-rigid structure (in the off-the-top-of-the-head-form of a number of smaller, independent - and patently feasible - structures coupled together) has gone down like a planked ark.

Edited by iano, : add smiley

So, now fishing nets float on the surface?

Er..no. But they do help to illustrate the principle that the more gaps you put into a structure through which a fluid can pass, the (mucho)less force is applied by the fluid to that structure.

Is that average or local conditions? I'd imagine that amount of water falling uniformly to have a dampening effect on the ocean - if anything.

That's average. You'd better hope its everywhere, because if the water then has to flow from the areas of high rain fall to low rain fall the torrents will be rushing along at hundreds of miles per hour. What do you imagine will happen when two such currents meet? How do you imagine your ark-cum-flotsam would respond? Would "wee" be the exclamation that first comes to mind?

How does one keep that much water out of their wicker-works boat? How does one Keep the straw, grain and meal dry? How does one avoid trench foot?

The Bay of Fundy fills 56 feet in six hours or so. That's 1.9 inches a minute. One does not want to be in the way.

---

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

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) • • •

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.