|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total) |
| Hyroglyphx, nwr (2 members, 763 visitors)
|
Mikee | |
Total: 866,911 Year: 21,947/19,786 Month: 510/1,834 Week: 10/500 Day: 10/96 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: That boat don't float | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 1575 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Your link says they had to make assumptions about the size of a cubit. So, how does their assumptions coming out ok have any bearing on the actual size of the ark as described in the Bible when the size of the cubit assumed is not the size it probably was?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 159 days) Posts: 3183 Joined: |
How cute, the only people support this research is :GASP!: yet, another creation group. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : The bloody Korea Association of Creation Research doesn't even exist! Edited by hooah212002, : Guess they do exist
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Do you believe their estimation of the length of a cubit to be innacurate ?
Even in the case that they were wrong about this, their data still clearly contradicts the OP that 'no wooden boat can exceed 300 feet' since they used a length of 135 meters long and that boat could float. If it was smaller, all the better, if it was longer, you would have to say how much longer and how this added length would compromise an optimally seaworthy boat into a totally unseaworthy boat.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Gotta love when an opponent uses twice the same fallacy in the same thread ....
It is the second time you use the genetic fallacy against one of my arguments, I would remind you that a claim should be evaluated on it's own merits rather than on the source. FUrthermore, this was mentioned by the admin in message no106. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 1575 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I'm not sure. I have no way of knowing how the people at that time and in that place measured a cubit. Others with a better understanding can look at this claim. I was merely pointing out that basing an argument on an assumption that yields a "perfect" result is less than convincing. Also, they based their shape of the ark on people who claim to have seen the ark on Mt. Ararat. Considering I'm convinced the ark is not on Ararat, this again fails to convince me. Also, they acknowledge that their techniques assumed for shipbuilding were based on modern techniques and technology, while saying they assume the actual builders did not have access to these techniques or technologies. They assume that maybe trees grew differently in the past than they do now. They also have no actual practical experiemnts, all of it is done using math, which we have shown don't work in actual practice because a wooden ship of that size seems to work out on paper, but when put into sea, it leaks because of factors not included in the math. All in all, this whole page starts with assumptions built on assumptions leading to math of dubious accuracy in real world applpications to create an answer they were sure of from the start.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
This is all the time I have for today unfortunately, be sure that the points you have raised are very interesting and I will gladly look at them probably tomorrow.
I also want to note to the others that you do not have to restate previous points that have been already mentionned before you, but you can add to them if you consider it useful to the discussion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 159 days) Posts: 3183 Joined: |
Pure speculation. One cannot write a paper in which "facts" are based off of untested speculation. Also, this document says nothing about the ability to hold the hundred of thousands of animals.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
LaryB Junior Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
slevesque
The paper you linked to (http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway) is completly irrelevent to the topic of this thread. The OP was about whether a large (>300ft) wooden vessel could be built that would not leak excessively. That paper discussed strength and stability issues. It did not address the issue of leaking at all. Do you have any data the addresses the issue at hand?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 19069 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
If instead of "message no106" you type "[msg=-106]" then you get a nice link to the message that looks like this: Message 106
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
As has been said, giving a link to a creationists website, who let's be frank are not non-biased and certainly haven't won any awards for shipbuilding, isn't the most reliable witness. I'll play the "bible code" card and say that just because they've used computers, doesn't mean it can't be bullsh*t. I think the defining answer was several pages back when it was made clear that * the boat would shear itself to pieces, even IF it floated safely so, given that every. single. one. of those is an impossibility, isn't it just a tad unlikely that it ever actually happened?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 1765 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
That is true, if they interpreted the Bible right. If, instead, the ship was a reed boat, and the flood was a once in ten millennium flood in Sumer and the animals rescued were the animals of Sumer, all a reasonable interpretation of the verses, then most of your points are not valid. *Reed boats are made to twist Therefore, you did a great job of proving the interpretation does not represent a real event. That does not prove that the event described in the Bible never happened.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Oh, I have no problem in it being an allegorical, summarized, partially fictitious account of a real event. those sorts of narratives are being written now and have been for hundreds if not thousands of years! the problem is scale - when it's supposed to be big enough to carry multiples of every type of animal on the face of the planet, when it's supposed to be built with technology thousands of years out of date, when it can't be duplicated now with all of our advanced technology, then I have issues. *Reed boats are made to twist *Not sure about this point - yawing, rolling, etc. *There are no such things as leeks on a reed boat. Water drains through. *Ventilation depends on the interpretation - not sure *It is possible to put 2-7 animals of each type in Sumer on the ark *It is physically possible to fit enough dry food on the boat. *not sure if any food for carnivores was needed. *It is physically possible to muck out and man the boat for this much more limited # of animals. *Who said that Noah did not hire people to help him make the boat? *It is physically possible for a giant river flood (plus a possible landslide generated tsunami) to occur *It is physically possible for a small group and survivors from outside the flood area to repopulate Sumer.
sigh - I never said it didn't happen, or if I did I apologize. I meant that it couldn't have literally happened the way the bible literally says it did and the way many people here insist it must have. I have no problem, no problems at all, with somebody telling me that the bible is essentially a work of fiction, the story written by bronze-age man in an attempt to describe the world around them, to collect their oral history together and to use it to educate a people about their ancestors and culture. The issue is when people insist, flying in the face of possibility, of everything we know about the world, that what it says makes sense even according to the rules we know and therefore we must bow to their stories and change our minds on their hearsay. The scientific method does not work this way, and it's as close to blasphemy (for a familiar term for you) as a scientist can get. Either we use the scientific method, or we don't. I don't get this - if you want to say "it was magic" or "godidit", that's fine! Really it is! Just stop, please, from trying to force the scientists to kowtow to a scroll.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 3421 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
SOME event with some points of similarity with that in the Bible may have happened, but the event described in the Bible is clearly presented as global in extent.
Unless you hold to a pretty limited idea of heaven, I guess.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 278 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Hi RAZD, sorry for the delayed response.
Granted. I was referring to the fact that a structure placed on a raft doesn't alter the raft being a raft - it'd just be a raft-based vessel with a structure on it. I'd agree that it would be inadvisable to place the elephant pen at the top of the flagpole. What do you think; the (heavier/bigger) animals could be placed on the lowest deck near the water line with perhaps (lighter) food placed on the deck above - allowing labour saving gravity-aided feeding time.
Remembering that at least half of the vessel is submerged and that a (suggested) 70% of this submerged volume is wood, there is no particular issue with a superstructure above the waterline. Let's assume that 5% of the volume of that superstructure is wood - we are left with a significant load capacity above the waterline - whilst maintaining CoG at or below the waterline. Especially if we keep the weighier items close to the waterline.
One way to build a suitable superstructure would be to do so in discrete, pod-like units - placed end-to-end/side-by-side with space between them to accomodate raft flexing. Flooring between units to be fixed to one unit but free floating over the next - bridging the gap required for flexing. If required to provide for a closed external wall the the same idea could be employed here(ie: the walls would look something like the scales on a fish from the outside). Thoughts? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 2527 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Yes, from a modern standpoint but totally unfeasible for a bronze aged people whose "knowledge" was a flat earth, a water canopy, the sun & moon as lights and the feasibility to reach Heaven by building a tower. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019