Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 9:57 AM
50 online now:
CosmicChimp, Diomedes, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko (6 members, 44 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,542 Year: 3,579/19,786 Month: 574/1,087 Week: 164/212 Day: 6/25 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1314 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 211 of 453 (521470)
08-27-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by slevesque
08-27-2009 2:32 PM


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2009 2:32 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2009 3:05 PM Perdition has responded
 Message 217 by hooah212002, posted 08-27-2009 4:41 PM Perdition has not yet responded

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


Message 212 of 453 (521474)
08-27-2009 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by slevesque
08-27-2009 2:32 PM


creation crap site writes:

This work was fully supported by the Korea Association of Creation Research

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2009 2:32 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2009 3:10 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2717 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 213 of 453 (521476)
08-27-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Perdition
08-27-2009 2:54 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 2:54 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 3:34 PM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2717 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 214 of 453 (521477)
08-27-2009 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by hooah212002
08-27-2009 3:02 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by hooah212002, posted 08-27-2009 3:02 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 08-28-2009 7:19 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1314 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 215 of 453 (521487)
08-27-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by slevesque
08-27-2009 3:05 PM


Do you believe their estimation of the length of a cubit to be innacurate ?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2009 3:05 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2009 4:05 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2717 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 216 of 453 (521505)
08-27-2009 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Perdition
08-27-2009 3:34 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 3:34 PM Perdition has not yet responded

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


Message 217 of 453 (521515)
08-27-2009 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Perdition
08-27-2009 2:54 PM


At that time, trees might have grown taller than 10 metres, and their diameters may have been larger than 1 metre as a result of the presumed more favourable natural environment.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 2:54 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
LaryB
Junior Member (Idle past 3403 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 08-27-2009


Message 218 of 453 (521542)
08-27-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by slevesque
08-27-2009 2:32 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2009 2:32 PM slevesque has not yet responded

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


Message 219 of 453 (521593)
08-28-2009 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by slevesque
08-27-2009 3:10 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2009 3:10 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1938 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 220 of 453 (521619)
08-28-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by slevesque
08-27-2009 2:32 PM


You gotta love that this discussion is still going at it, when in fact the answer is all in my message no74. The link I had posted (http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway) was a complete analysis of the feasability of the ark done by 9 persons who are all on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering.

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
* the boat would not float upright, it would roll, yaw and pitch and spin and then sink within a few minutes of a torrential flood
* the boat would spring so many leaks it wouldn't last 40 days, let alone a year, no matter how calm the waters
* the boat was non-ventilated, so the animals and people would die
* it would be physically impossible to fit all the animals of all the world into a space that small
* it would be physically impossible to fit all the food for all the animals of the world for a year into a space that small, even IF there weren't that many animals
* it would be physically impossible to keep enough food fresh enough for all the animals of all the world to eat, without magical non-electric fridges and ice that kept cool but didn't melt
* it would be physically impossible for a crew of 8? 12? to muck out AND run the ship containing all the animals of all the world, for 40 days and nights (let alone a year)
* it would be physically impossible, even given magic scaling-up and magic trees, for one man to make a boat (that was the wrong shape to even float safely) that large with stone-age tools, even IF it took him 40 years
* it would be physically impossible for that amount of water to even appear and then disappear from the surface of the earth
* it would be physically impossible for such a small tribe of people to populate the entire earth in what amounts to three generations, even IF you handwave the inability of these people to cross the great oceans and seas

so, given that every. single. one. of those is an impossibility, isn't it just a tad unlikely that it ever actually happened?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2009 2:32 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by greentwiga, posted 08-28-2009 10:37 PM greyseal has responded

    
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 221 of 453 (521764)
08-28-2009 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by greyseal
08-28-2009 9:19 AM


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
* the boat would not float upright, it would roll, yaw and pitch and spin and then sink within a few minutes of a torrential flood
* the boat would spring so many leaks it wouldn't last 40 days, let alone a year, no matter how calm the waters
* the boat was non-ventilated, so the animals and people would die
* it would be physically impossible to fit all the animals of all the world into a space that small
* it would be physically impossible to fit all the food for all the animals of the world for a year into a space that small, even IF there weren't that many animals
* it would be physically impossible to keep enough food fresh enough for all the animals of all the world to eat, without magical non-electric fridges and ice that kept cool but didn't melt
* it would be physically impossible for a crew of 8? 12? to muck out AND run the ship containing all the animals of all the world, for 40 days and nights (let alone a year)
* it would be physically impossible, even given magic scaling-up and magic trees, for one man to make a boat (that was the wrong shape to even float safely) that large with stone-age tools, even IF it took him 40 years
* it would be physically impossible for that amount of water to even appear and then disappear from the surface of the earth
* it would be physically impossible for such a small tribe of people to populate the entire earth in what amounts to three generations, even IF you handwave the inability of these people to cross the great oceans and seas

so, given that every. single. one. of those is an impossibility, isn't it just a tad unlikely that it ever actually happened?

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
*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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 9:19 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by greyseal, posted 08-29-2009 3:07 AM greentwiga has responded
 Message 223 by jacortina, posted 08-29-2009 8:26 AM greentwiga has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1938 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 222 of 453 (521777)
08-29-2009 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by greentwiga
08-28-2009 10:37 PM


greentwiga writes:

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.

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
- the point is that whether it was reed or not, it would break at that size (we can't do it *now*, and I'm sorry, we're smarter and more capable than a single shepherd thousands of years ago)

*Not sure about this point - yawing, rolling, etc.
- the point was that whatever it was made of, the shape described would not be stable and would kill everybody on board and sink.

*There are no such things as leeks on a reed boat. Water drains through.
- the point is, if you put a reed boat (even a large one) to sea for a year...it would sink. You can't drain it when you're on the water. if it was wood as it says, they had no pumps at the time...

*Ventilation depends on the interpretation - not sure
- I'll give you this one, but I think it highly likely it would cause at least great sickness

*It is possible to put 2-7 animals of each type in Sumer on the ark
- I'd really, really have to take your word for that, but again - the whole world? Still, if you did limit your animals to domesticated, then you'd probably be fine...but that's not what they say.

*It is physically possible to fit enough dry food on the boat.
- again, scale...and a reed boat? wouldn't stay dry.

*not sure if any food for carnivores was needed.
- er...haha. no food for carnivores? Look, if you didn't, you'd need more of your carnivore-food-type animals. a lot more.

*It is physically possible to muck out and man the boat for this much more limited # of animals.
- scale!

*Who said that Noah did not hire people to help him make the boat?
- god did? (i.e. correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the bible said Noah built it himself over 40 years?)

*It is physically possible for a giant river flood (plus a possible landslide generated tsunami) to occur
- sure! but the world? gates of heaven? floating water canopy?

*It is physically possible for a small group and survivors from outside the flood area to repopulate Sumer.
- sure, but the world? across the oceans AFTER the fact?

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by greentwiga, posted 08-28-2009 10:37 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by greentwiga, posted 08-30-2009 2:10 AM greyseal has responded

    
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 223 of 453 (521791)
08-29-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by greentwiga
08-28-2009 10:37 PM


That does not prove that the event described in the Bible never happened.

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.

Genesis 6:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Unless you hold to a pretty limited idea of heaven, I guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by greentwiga, posted 08-28-2009 10:37 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

    
iano
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 224 of 453 (521794)
08-29-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
08-25-2009 10:38 PM


Re: Moving forward ... greduelly
Hi RAZD, sorry for the delayed response.

RAZD writes:

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

Any thoughts on how you keep the superstructure together?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2009 10:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by bluescat48, posted 08-29-2009 9:24 AM iano has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2266 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 225 of 453 (521801)
08-29-2009 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by iano
08-29-2009 8:56 AM


Re: Moving forward ... greduelly
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).

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by iano, posted 08-29-2009 8:56 AM iano has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
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