Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 4:11 AM
34 online now:
frako, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,573 Year: 3,610/19,786 Month: 605/1,087 Week: 195/212 Day: 10/27 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
iano
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 181 of 453 (521082)
08-25-2009 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
08-25-2009 2:23 PM


Re: An Observation
It's how you decide "what's eminently feasible" that is most interesting.

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?

If in some post apocalyptic future you were one of a large group of people discussing how to preserve on a boat as much as possible of what was left of civilization with waters from global warming rising to wipe out surviving pockets of humanity, 450 foot long wooden boats would sound as ridiculous to you as they do to everyone else.

But if it's the ark of the Bible, then a 450 foot long wooden boat makes perfect sense to you.

Why is that?

This objection barks up the wrong tree given that the feasibility of an ark of given (limited) specification is the topic to hand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 08-25-2009 2:23 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 08-25-2009 8:20 PM iano has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 182 of 453 (521083)
08-25-2009 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Theodoric
08-25-2009 6:45 PM


Re: An Observation
Raft refers to the hull-less nature of it. That there's a structure placed on it doesn't alter the basis of it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 6:45 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2009 10:38 PM iano has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 183 of 453 (521084)
08-25-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
08-24-2009 9:49 PM


Re: What archeology shows for boat building technology
Hi RAZD,

RAZD writes:

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

I don't know what he built.

Theodoric did not say he had to know how to construct the ark only that he had to have access to the materials that could do the job.

RAZD writes:

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

I didn't notice where the pitch was to be applied to keep the water out.

If the ark was built out of cypress or a very similar wood that swells when put in water it would not leak unless the fastners came loose and the boards separated. If the fastners was cypress they would swell when wet and would have to dry out before coming loose.

I didn't know tar and pitch was the same thing.

I always thought pitch was what you get out of a pine tree when you cut a catface on it and put a container below the cut and caught what come out of the tree.

RAZD writes:

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.

Fantasy, fiction, or truth.

If your stock material was 2" thick cypress constructed as I suggested using cypress pegs to join the layers together. All floors and wall partions constructed the same way with beams and floor joists. The rooms 10' x 10'

Would that boat float?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2009 9:49 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 10:06 PM ICANT has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 184 of 453 (521087)
08-25-2009 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by iano
08-25-2009 6:48 PM


Re: An Observation
iano writes:

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?

I'm not suggesting anything in particular about a raft or any other of the offered ideas. What is interesting is that ideas creationists would find as ridiculous as everyone else become reasonable to them if necessary for Biblical inerrancy. The discussion here isn't really an exploration of the feasibility of the ark (especially not of the ark as described in the Bible), but is instead an exercise in trying to talk creationists down to reality.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by iano, posted 08-25-2009 6:48 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by iano, posted 08-26-2009 4:14 AM Percy has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 185 of 453 (521102)
08-25-2009 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by ICANT
08-25-2009 7:16 PM


Re: What archeology shows for boat building technology
Theodoric did not say he had to know how to construct the ark only that he had to have access to the materials that could do the job.

Amazing!!! You will use anything to "win" and argument won't you. Building the Ark is kind of the desired out come isn't it? By the way you never responded to my question of how he would have glued the CLT.

If your stock material was 2" thick cypress constructed as I suggested using cypress pegs to join the layers together. All floors and wall partions constructed the same way with beams and floor joists. The rooms 10' x 10'

Would that boat float?

Do you completely ignore the points made about boats over 300', or do you feel they do not pertain to god's big boats?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 7:16 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 9:03 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


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

  
iano
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 187 of 453 (521118)
08-26-2009 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
08-25-2009 8:20 PM


Re: An Observation
Percy writes:

I'm not suggesting anything in particular about a raft or any other of the offered ideas. What is interesting is that ideas creationists would find as ridiculous as everyone else become reasonable to them if necessary for Biblical inerrancy. The discussion here isn't really an exploration of the feasibility of the ark (especially not of the ark as described in the Bible), but is instead an exercise in trying to talk creationists down to reality.

And the way to do that in the locality of a debate forum is to debate the specific issue at hand - not snipe from the sidelines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 08-25-2009 8:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 08-26-2009 8:34 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 188 of 453 (521149)
08-26-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by iano
08-26-2009 4:14 AM


Re: An Observation
iano writes:

And the way to do that in the locality of a debate forum is to debate the specific issue at hand - not snipe from the sidelines.

To phrase my observation a bit differently, creationists have taken the discussion far into the realm of fantasy, turning this thread away from discussing the topic and into one of trying to get creationists to see reason. When the creationists in this discussion start debating the specific issue at hand instead of inventing fantasies then I am ready.

Concerning your specific proposal of a woven raft, if you're interested in taking discussion back into the real world then I suggest an exercise where you seek out real world examples of rafts of the scale of the ark, or of any significant scale at all. And at a minimum I suggest you persuade your fellow Christians of how faithfully this satisfies the Biblical account before pushing it here. There seems little point discussing a proposal that most Christians would reject.

To give you an an idea of the kind of information you'll find about the viability of large rafts, here are some excerpts from a 1907 New York Times article titled Big Leary Raft in Port:

The first Leary raft was launched at Joggins, N.S. in the Bay of Fundy in September, 1888. It was the largest one constructed under Mr. Murray's supervision and encountered a terrific equinoxial storm and was wrecked on the way to this city.

...

The second great raft, which was slightly smaller than the first, was constructed the following year, and was also wrecked in a similar September gale.

...

The Underwriter's tow ["Underwriter" is the name of the tugboat, "tow" is a reference to the raft's cargo] consisted of 6,000 spruce piles, and was 320 feet long, 40 feet wide amidships, and 25 feet at each end. It drew 12 feet of water.

When creationists allow discussion to be about real-world possibilities instead of fantasies, then there will be something worth discussing.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by iano, posted 08-26-2009 4:14 AM iano has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 189 of 453 (521153)
08-26-2009 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Theodoric
08-25-2009 10:06 PM


Re: What archeology shows for boat building technology
Hi Theo,

Theodoric writes:

Amazing!!! You will use anything to "win" and argument won't you. Building the Ark is kind of the desired out come isn't it? By the way you never responded to my question of how he would have glued the CLT.

You haven't learned yet that no one wins an argument on EvC.

However In Re: Limits of Wood (Message 133) you said:

Theodoric writes:

Now if you can show me that Noah had access to CLT I will give it to you. If not, then this is a really stupid example for you to use.

Nothing about the ability or knowledge to use the material just access.

Theodoric writes:

Do you completely ignore the points made about boats over 300', or do you feel they do not pertain to god's big boats?

Just like you keep ignoring the fact the ark was not a boat.

Just like everyone ignore's the fact all land mass was in one place in Genesis when the flood took place. Which would reduce the amount of water necessary to cover it.

BTW the message you are responding to stated what was used between layers.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 10:06 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2009 9:20 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 194 by lyx2no, posted 08-26-2009 10:03 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 190 of 453 (521155)
08-26-2009 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by ICANT
08-26-2009 9:03 AM


Re: What archeology shows for boat building technology
Just like everyone ignore's the fact all land mass was in one place in Genesis when the flood took place. Which would reduce the amount of water necessary to cover it.

So in addition to fantastic claims about Noah's boat building expertise, you are now adding a fantasy about all the world's lands masses quickly sailing about to their current positions following the flood, just 4,350 years ago.

Two questions:

--How do you account for the vast geological changes that would have had to be compressed into a dozen or so centuries instead of millions of years?

--What geological mechanism made the land masses suddenly slow to their current speed now that we're watching and measuring?

In your efforts to support your belief system, you are piling fantasy on fantasy. You'll probably be trying to convince us everything we know about radiometric and other forms of dating are all wrong next.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 9:03 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 9:42 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 195 by AdminNosy, posted 08-26-2009 10:09 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 191 of 453 (521157)
08-26-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Coyote
08-26-2009 9:20 AM


Re: What archeology shows for boat building technology
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

Two questions:

I am affraid if I chase that rabbit the boss will get upset.

I have discussed it in religious threads.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2009 9:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 9:55 AM ICANT has not yet responded

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


Message 192 of 453 (521160)
08-26-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by ICANT
08-26-2009 9:42 AM


Re: What archeology shows for boat building technology
I am affraid if I chase that rabbit the boss will get upset.

Is that because you know the two will not cohabitate? Is it because you know once you put all your alleged ideals on the table, you might just realize they don't quite line up as they appear to (to you) individually?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 9:42 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by AdminModulous, posted 08-26-2009 10:01 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 193 of 453 (521162)
08-26-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by hooah212002
08-26-2009 9:55 AM


No - it's because getting into any depth on that would be off topic. And goading people into addressing off-topic concerns is something to be avoided too.

Let's all try and stick to discussing the sea-worthiness (or lack thereof) of Noah's vessel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 9:55 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2793 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 194 of 453 (521163)
08-26-2009 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by ICANT
08-26-2009 9:03 AM


Re: What archeology shows for boat building technology
Just like you keep ignoring the fact the ark was not a boat.

Your suggestion of a rudderless, three tier crate wouldn't relieve the problem of breakup but increase it. And with only a 5:3 section it would roll like a log without adding yet again its own weight in ballast.

Just like everyone ignore's the fact all land mass was in one place in Genesis when the flood took place. Which would reduce the amount of water necessary to cover it.

I do suppose if all the land mass was in one place the extra gravity would allow the water to pile. I can see this cutting the 11 km down to 10.990 km. [sarcasm]That solves everything.[/sarcasm]

Nothing about the ability or knowledge to use the material just access.

Do you think you could put a few paragraphs of argument and explanation together instead of disingenuous one liners? Very often the points you're trying to make with your snappy comments are delusional and, consequently, not as apparent to the rest of us as they are to you.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 9:03 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 195 of 453 (521166)
08-26-2009 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Coyote
08-26-2009 9:20 AM


Plate Tectonics is not the topic
Please, no more of it here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2009 9:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
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