Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About that Boat - Noah's Ark
John
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 296 (53607)
09-02-2003 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Zealot
09-02-2003 8:04 PM


quote:
Nope, I think the topic is about the Ark.
No? Really...???
My response did not concern the topic of the thread, but was a correction of your mistatement of my beliefs. But hey, why dwell in the past when we can move on to some current mistatements of my beliefs?
quote:
YOU chose to only believe the ARK to be structually possibly IF you could SEE it with your own eyes.
This is your straw man. You may capitalize as many words as you like, it does not change the fact that I have directly stated, to you and more than once, that is not the case.
quote:
Again the topic is NOT about whether the ARK actually existed, or whether there was a global flood, but IF it would have been possible to construct a craft of such magnitude and managed to keep it afloat.
Then how about contributing to that debate? This is your sideline. You brought in comparisons to the BB and to evolution. I responded by saying that I am willing to accept the same types of evidence for the ark as I accept for the BB and for evolution. That does not seem to be enough for you. Maybe you are just not reading carefully.
quote:
That is precisely how you are trying to disprove that the Flood 'myth' in Genesis is accurate, by proving that the boat would have been structurally impossible.
Wow. Yes, indeed. That is precisely what I think. Impossible boat == impossible story about the boat. But what does this have to do with the rest of your rant?
quote:
I think that has (in theory) been shown to be rather possible in this thread.
Where, exactly, has it been shown to be possible?
quote:
You then chose to call it a 'myth' because today it coudln't be reproduced.
This is not why I call it a myth. I have stated so already. Please, read more carefully and speak for yourself not for me.
quote:
We know that there existed a 400 foot boat, so why not try created that first, and if possible, surely
then if they cannot create a 450 foot boat, it would throw some suspicion on the measurements of the ARK ?

So if we cannot make a 450 foot boat, just downsize the ark and call it good? Maybe we should just go with 350? Or 300? But where do we put all the critters? The thing has got to be big to carry them all. 450 is not large enough. It doesn't help to make it smaller.
What you may also have missed is that 400 foot wooden boats leaked like sieves, required constant pumping, and iron or steel bracing to hold together. I am quite sure the massive Ming ships of Zheng Ho's fleet used such metal bracing. The chinese were fantastic metal workers and, according to one source which I have yet to verify, even armor plated some ships in the 13oo's.
quote:
You want me to prove that a 5 000 year old ship existed ?
It would help if you could prove it existed but it isn't actually necessary. Any evidence for any of the events describes concerning the ark and the flood, would go a long way.
quote:
You dont need to see it with your own eyes, but yet you criticise Creationists for not 'cutting to the chase and building it' to prove it could have existed ?
Read more carefully.
quote:
Ok, well taking about cutting to the chase ... how about some lab tests trying to reproduce a mini 'big bang' or a mosquito mutating eventually into a bat like creature ?
See. This is what I was talking about above. This BB and evolution stuff is your diversion, yet you are complaining about keeping to the topic. Make up your mind. Do you want to talk about the scientific method? Take it elsewhere.
But for now, I have already agreed to accept the same type of evidence for the ark that I accept for the BB and evolution, so your ranting about this is pointless.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Zealot, posted 09-02-2003 8:04 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Zealot, posted 09-03-2003 10:54 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 296 (53608)
09-02-2003 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Yaro
09-02-2003 10:18 PM


quote:
The Chinese boat employed iron to hold in it's sides as well as cross beems.
Where did you find this information? I suspect that this is the case but I haven't found anything definitive about it yet.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Yaro, posted 09-02-2003 10:18 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Yaro, posted 09-03-2003 12:20 AM John has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 78 of 296 (53615)
09-03-2003 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by John
09-02-2003 11:38 PM


My apologies, I missread some of the previous poasts. It seems that the secret was not iron (though the chinese did have knowledge of ironworking) but rather a complex wooden balast and bulkhead system:
http://www.studyworksonline.com/...18_NAV2-5_SAR108,00.shtml
Still, this article is carefull to note that the chines were 600 years ahead of the Europeans of the time and had advanced mapmaking techniques and compass' ! Again, a testament to how technologicaly challenged Noah must have been.
Not to mention the fact, that Noah was likely compleatly ignorant of the idea of balast's and bulkheads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by John, posted 09-02-2003 11:38 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Yaro, posted 09-03-2003 12:29 AM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 79 of 296 (53617)
09-03-2003 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Yaro
09-03-2003 12:20 AM


Page not found | TIME
Id also like to add this link. It is a nice interactive site about the ship. It also goes into detail about the complex balast and bulkhead system. It even speaks of the technology employed to move the massive rudder.
The ship was a technological marvel, even today. As I stated before, using thousands of years of Chinese technical "know how".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Yaro, posted 09-03-2003 12:20 AM Yaro has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 296 (53626)
09-03-2003 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by allenroyboy
08-28-2003 3:21 AM


CORRECTION
I had calcualted that the stresses under the standard l/20 trachodial wave conditions as 3882 psi. In this article I had erroniously stated that this represented the stress of the ship as supported by two points. And so, I reduced that stress by 1/4 based on a comparison with a cruise ship. However, since I have reviewed the process I realize that I need to use the 3882 psi.
This still compares favorably with the maximum stresses for several woods ranging from 6300-10200 psi.
PS I have used the PSI of several common woods because the exact idenetity of "Gopher" wood is unknown. I could make reference to some exotic hard woods that range from Opepe (G=.63; 10400 psi) to Ipe (G=.92; 13010 psi) to Kaneelhart (G=.96; 17400 psi). Presumably, Gopher wood was a hard wood and perhaps even an exotic wood, but we dont know. Comparisons to common woods puts computations on the conservative side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by allenroyboy, posted 08-28-2003 3:21 AM allenroyboy has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 296 (53629)
09-03-2003 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by John
08-29-2003 10:59 AM


quote:
I notice that cruise ships do have small doors in the sides of the hull about midship. It doesn't matter. These are modern STEEL hulls and the doors are tiny. This is not equivalent to cutting a door in a wooden hull.
The midway point on the side of a ship between the top and bottom of the ship experiences nearly zero percent of the longitudinal compresion/tension stress. If it is also midway between the two ends of the ship, it also experiences near zero shear stress. Therefore, it hardly matters what the ship is constructed of.
The size of the door in cruise ships looks comparatively small in relation to the over all size of the ship. However, they are not all that tiny. You may also want to consider the freight ships that carry cars from Japan to the USA. The cars and all driven on and off the ships through doors in the sides of the freighter.
I envision a door some 15 feet tall about 20 ft wide for the Ark. It may have been hinged on the bottom and closed by swinging upward. There could be compression seals all around where the door closed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by John, posted 08-29-2003 10:59 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by John, posted 09-03-2003 11:53 AM allenroyboy has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 296 (53632)
09-03-2003 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Mespo
08-29-2003 12:04 PM


In your discussion of what would happen to a boat in a storm without any means of propulsion and control you say that the winds will produce yaw, or spin the vessel around and around. And, while the vessel is crosswise to the wind and waves it will experience high roll that will cause terrible damage to the cargo.
I appears to me that you envision the Flood cataclysm is some kind of tropic storm, typhone, hurricane or even a hypercane. I think that this ideas comes from childhood Sunday school stories, i.e. that the Flood was just some overblown, out of control weather condition. I dont believe that the evidence found in the biblical record supports that view.
First, the cataclysm begins with the "break up of the fountains of the deep." Anybody know of any 'storm' today that begins that way. After all, what the heck is "the fountains of the great deep' anyway?
Second, this break up is associated with the 'opening of the windows of heaven." Anybody had that happen lately? What does it mean anyway?
Third, rain falls. This rain is likely associated with the break up and the opening, but no one is certain just what the first two are, so we don't know exactly how the first two cause the third.
Fourth, high winds did not start until after causes 1 and 2 had stopped at which time the Ark also came to rest (Gen 7:24-8:4).
So, the idea of the Flood being somekind of hypercane, for instance, is not supported by the story. The biblical story describes something which is unknown to us. And, the Ark was agound before the high winds came so it would not be subject to the yaw and spin from that cause.
In our discussion of the Flood, we must remember to stick to the narrative of the Bible, even if you don't believe it, because if you don't, you end up creating a strawman argument which is a waste of your precious time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Mespo, posted 08-29-2003 12:04 PM Mespo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by John, posted 09-03-2003 11:57 AM allenroyboy has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 296 (53677)
09-03-2003 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by John
09-02-2003 11:37 PM


It would help if you could prove it existed but it isn't actually necessary. Any evidence for any of the events describes concerning the ark and the flood, would go a long way.
Again, that is not the topic of this discussion. Whether or not a global flood occurred is irrelevant to the structural feasibility of the Ark with the specific specification.
So if we cannot make a 450 foot boat, just downsize the ark and call it good? Maybe we should just go with 350? Or 300? But where do we put all the critters? The thing has got to be big to carry them all. 450 is not large enough. It doesn't help to make it smaller.
Ok. Lets try this and add in Yaro or Yabo's (non iron hinge) information.
1. There is evidence of a 400 foot boat existing (now it seems without metal hinges).
2. We believe the Ark to be 450 feet.
3. If we cannot reproduce today a 400 foot boat, which we know from evidence has existed, how would you like us to reproduce a 450 Ark ?
Simply put 'A' exists, and 'A' < 'B'. We cannot create 'A' because 'A' is too big, so how would an inability to produce 'B' disprove its existance ?
What you may also have missed is that 400 foot wooden boats leaked like sieves, required constant pumping, and iron or steel bracing to hold together. I am quite sure the massive Ming ships of Zheng Ho's fleet used such metal bracing. The chinese were fantastic metal workers and, according to one source which I have yet to verify, even armor plated some ships in the 13oo's.
No-one has managed to produce anything in modern times close to the 400 foot boat, so your speculation that it leaked like sieves is just speculation. As for Metal hinges, see Yabo's post... but I cant verify its accuracy.
Ok, well taking about cutting to the chase ... how about some lab tests trying to reproduce a mini 'big bang' or a mosquito mutating eventually into a bat like creature ?
See. This is what I was talking about above. This BB and evolution stuff is your diversion, yet you are complaining about keeping to the topic. Make up your mind. Do you want to talk about the scientific method? Take it elsewhere.
I believe you suggested that Creationists were too afraid of actually building a 450 foot Ark, and that it clearly must be a Myth because else they would have done so.
"I'm sure you are right. The hardcore would have excuses. I do think such a project would be huge blow to the creationist movement, though. And I think they know that." msg 25.
My response is saying that in the same way that it is impossible to reproduce a Big Bang and Macro Evolution, it would be impossible to recreate the Ark, thus it seems ironic that you choose to use a lack of 'recreatable proof' as your basis of dismissal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by John, posted 09-02-2003 11:37 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by John, posted 09-03-2003 12:52 PM Zealot has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 296 (53688)
09-03-2003 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by allenroyboy
09-03-2003 1:56 AM


quote:
The midway point on the side of a ship between the top and bottom of the ship experiences nearly zero percent of the longitudinal compresion/tension stress.
BS. Assuming the box-girder design you've been championing...
I found the following nifty picture of a box-girder under stress.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB7/IST/english/research/poster/kast_e/abb1.html
And this even nifty-er animation of the girder's failure under stress.
Willkommen an der ersten deutschen Universitt des 21. Jahrhunderts
You'll notice that the sides carry a significant load, and that load increases as the structure begins to fail.
quote:
If it is also midway between the two ends of the ship, it also experiences near zero shear stress.
More BS. Have you ever actually build anything sizeable out of wood?
quote:
The size of the door in cruise ships looks comparatively small in relation to the over all size of the ship.
The doors ARE small relative to the size of the ship. A twenty foot door in a thousand foot ship is not the same as a twenty foot door in a 400 foot ship, especially given the huge difference in the strenght of the materials-- wood vs. steel.
quote:
There could be compression seals all around where the door closed.
Right...
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by allenroyboy, posted 09-03-2003 1:56 AM allenroyboy has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 296 (53689)
09-03-2003 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by allenroyboy
09-03-2003 2:25 AM


You have got to be joking? Pouring this much water onto the surface of the Earth, from whatever source, will produce hurricane-like conditions.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by allenroyboy, posted 09-03-2003 2:25 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by allenroyboy, posted 09-04-2003 10:05 PM John has replied

Mespo
Member (Idle past 2884 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 86 of 296 (53692)
09-03-2003 12:31 PM


I second John's sentiments, allenroyboy.
Question: How do you pump several million cubic miles of water onto the surface of the planet and maintain New York Central Park boating conditions?
Answer: You don't.
The only way you could possibly have no wind and flat seas is to have ZERO temperature / pressure gradient differences on a global scale and at all elevations, both above and below the water surface, 24 hours a day.
And even conceding a gentle summer shower that covers the earth, I would love to see the model of what lunar tides would be like with no land to impede the tidal surge as it races around the globe twice a day.
(:raig

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by NosyNed, posted 09-04-2003 4:00 AM Mespo has not replied
 Message 95 by allenroyboy, posted 09-04-2003 10:47 PM Mespo has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 296 (53697)
09-03-2003 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Zealot
09-03-2003 10:54 AM


quote:
Again, that is not the topic of this discussion.
Zealot, I am directly addressing an issue you raised. Do not complain that I answer a question you asked. That is damned irritating.
quote:
1. There is evidence of a 400 foot boat existing (now it seems without metal hinges).
Nothing in Yaro's posts supports this. The fact is that even iron nails would have made a big difference. Noah wouldn't have had them.
quote:
Simply put 'A' exists, and 'A' < 'B'. We cannot create 'A' because 'A' is too big, so how would an inability to produce 'B' disprove its existance ?
Please, please, please read my posts before responding. I quote:
John post # 71 writes:
A working replica would prove me wrong. A failed replica would not prove the story wrong but it would be a psychological blow to creationism.
Note the red part!!!! We could save a lot of time if you'd just read.
quote:
No-one has managed to produce anything in modern times close to the 400 foot boat, so your speculation that it leaked like sieves is just speculation.
The USS Wyoming was 329 feet, leaked like mad and wiggled like a snake. The Great Republic was 325 feet and cross-braced with iron. You want to scale up?
quote:
As for Metal hinges, see Yabo's post... but I cant verify its accuracy.
Where in Yaro's posts did you find this information? The Chinese ships are a problematic comparison because we don't know how they were constructed and we don't know any exact sizes.
quote:
I believe you suggested that Creationists were too afraid of actually building a 450 foot Ark, and that it clearly must be a Myth because else they would have done so.
You've made up the last part. What I said is that if the thing were built and it sank, that would be a blow to the creationist movement. It would be. That is different from what you keep insisting that I said.
quote:
My response is saying that in the same way that it is impossible to reproduce a Big Bang and Macro Evolution
Bud, the BB would require power and technology far in advance of what we have. Reproducing evolution would take enormous amounts of time, unless we use rapidly reproducing organisms like bacteria but that never seems to satisfy creationists. Building the Ark, would take a lot of wood. It would be possible to build the ark, reproducing evolution and the BB is out of our league at the moment. It isn't a valid comparison.
quote:
thus it seems ironic that you choose to use a lack of 'recreatable proof' as your basis of dismissal.
And yet again, you misrepresent me. I don't have to see an ark, to believe it is possible-- if there is other evidence. The comments about the creationists building the ark aren't requirements for my belief. It is a side issue.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Zealot, posted 09-03-2003 10:54 AM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Zealot, posted 09-03-2003 5:07 PM John has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 296 (53732)
09-03-2003 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by John
09-03-2003 12:52 PM


Please, please, please read my posts before responding. I quote:
John post # 71 writes:
A working replica would prove me wrong. A failed replica would not prove the story wrong but it would be a psychological blow to creationism.
I do read your posts, but lets take your entire quote into consideration, not just some parts.
The remainder of your quote, you chose to omit...
quote.(msg 71)
" This latter, I am convinced is the reason that no one has attempted to build an ark despite the many voices claiming the ark to be perfectly reasonable and well designed. "
Yes, you are saying that a failed replica would not prove the story wrong, but you are convinced the reason Creationists dont build it, is because they know it would fail and be a great blow to the theory.
Rather sweeping statement considering the original took 120 years to complete and its a rather expensive expedition to build an ARK purely to prove it is possible. Not to mention that Creationists believe Noah to have received divine wisdom and guidance by God himself in creating it.
Yes, it would be humanly possible to try and replicate the Ark, but not even slighly feasible. Now my quest is that 1st Athiest should try build a 400 foot ship (which we know existed) and then once they have achieved that, they can ask Creationists to build one of 450 feet. If they cant even get to 400 feet, well then we know there is no point trying for 450 now is there..
cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by John, posted 09-03-2003 12:52 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by John, posted 09-03-2003 7:43 PM Zealot has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 296 (53761)
09-03-2003 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Zealot
09-03-2003 5:07 PM


quote:
Yes, you are saying that a failed replica would not prove the story wrong, but you are convinced the reason Creationists dont build it, is because they know it would fail and be a great blow to the theory.
... a blow to creationism. That is because creationism is a mind game the success of which depends upon the creation and maintenance of illusions of plausibility. I think creationists have never tried to build an ark not because its failure would prove the ship impossible but because its failure would be an immense blow to the psychological artifice upon which the movement depends. It isn't about logic. It isn't about science. It is about psychological war.
quote:
Rather sweeping statement considering the original took 120 years to complete and its a rather expensive expedition to build an ARK purely to prove it is possible.
I dispute this time-frame. I'd give him about half that time, based of the text. But tell me, Noah is 500 when God starts complaining and 600 when the Flood starts. What's with that extra 20?
quote:
Yes, it would be humanly possible to try and replicate the Ark, but not even slighly feasible.
Think of the souls you could save!
quote:
Now my quest is that 1st Athiest should try build a 400 foot ship (which we know existed) and then once they have achieved that, they can ask Creationists to build one of 450 feet.
Talk about shifting the burden!
quote:
If they cant even get to 400 feet, well then we know there is no point trying for 450 now is there.
Actually, there would be. You can't just keep scaling up forever. The materials have limits. These limits for wooden ships are at about 300/350 feet, without using iron and steel. The possible exception are the Chinese ships of the Ming era. We don't know if they actually are exceptions because we don't know how they were built. Specifically, we don't know if they used any of there considerable metal working skills in the construction.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Zealot, posted 09-03-2003 5:07 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Zealot, posted 09-04-2003 11:56 AM John has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 90 of 296 (53806)
09-04-2003 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Mespo
09-03-2003 12:31 PM


and if it is all too gentle then the suggestions that it created the geologic column and all the fossils gets harder to explain. Then of course there is the rapid plate movements that have been suggested by other creationists.
A big problem that creationists have is trying to keep all the different made-up, non-biblical solutions from conflicting with each other. Well, they don't have the problem. They could care less about any consistency. They just avoid trying to be and don't all get in the same room at the same time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Mespo, posted 09-03-2003 12:31 PM Mespo has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024