Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
31 online now:
Faith, jar, JoeT, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Theodoric (7 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,384 Year: 20,420/19,786 Month: 817/2,023 Week: 325/392 Day: 15/41 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark)
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 61 of 261 (595365)
12-08-2010 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Granny Magda
12-08-2010 7:55 AM


Granny Magda writes:

So AiG thinks it will float? Then float it! Not going to float it? Then don't claim it floats!

Strangely, Kentucky is well known for its floods. I've seen one there with wooden houses afloat. Here's a classic postcard of Louisville in 1907.

And this is Jackson Ky. post-flood in May last year:

Click to enlarge

Although I'd love to see the ark end up like that, I wouldn't wish that kind of mega-flood on the people of Kentucky. It would, of course, be filled with valuable race horses if the local Noahs had their way, and interesting stuff like wildcats and copperhead snakes wouldn't stand a chance.

Kentucky Wildcat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 12-08-2010 7:55 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2815
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 62 of 261 (595418)
12-08-2010 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Panda
12-08-2010 8:42 AM


But why would an all-powerful being (and you) require a flood to 'reset' the Earth?

Well if i felt in the mood for a flood, the easiest way would be a 100% lethal virus that would kill off all humans except the 8 i choose.

And of course the easiest way i snap my fingers and everyone except Noa dies. Way better then a flood or virus and all the innocent soulless and "tested" animals get to live.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Panda, posted 12-08-2010 8:42 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 63 of 261 (595477)
12-08-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Deleted
12-06-2010 2:13 AM


Well, it seems that quite a lot of people want to see the ark float. [...] It has already been designed, no offence, but I do think that naval engineers know better then you do (yes, naval engineers designed it).

If it had been designed by NASA engineers, that wouldn't be an argument that it could fly to the moon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Deleted, posted 12-06-2010 2:13 AM Deleted has acknowledged this reply

  
Deleted
Inactive Junior Member


Message 64 of 261 (595558)
12-09-2010 10:34 AM


Well, it seems that quite a lot of people want to see the ark float.

Well, that's because it's easy to see AiG building this and then claiming that they have somehow proved the ark to be feasible. If they don't float it, they have proved no such thing.

I guess theoraticaly it would float, and I guess every evolutionist around here would thrust scientists. How many boats have been build, only to sink in water?

The whole park will cost 150 million dollars, of which AiG will provide 24,5 million.

How about the profits? Where do they go?

I will just quote the website to avoid wrong interpretations:
"A private Limited Liability Company (LLC) will own the Ark Encounter. A non-profit subsidiary of Answers in Genesis will be one of the members of the LLC and will also be the managing member responsible for day-to-day operations."
and
"In a sense, the Ark Encounter is both a for-profit and not-for-profit endeavor. The Ark Encounter is a for-profit operation but is managed by a non-profit subsidiary ministry of Answers in Genesis. The LLC and its members will be responsible for all of the normal taxes required for pass-through business entities."

The park will be build eco friendly.

In my opinion, building a 150 million dollar white elephant could never be eco friendly. The whole project is a massive waste of resources. Where are they going to source their "Gopher wood"? Is that a hardwood? Hard to see how that could be considered green.

They are using other woods IIRC, it is mentioned in the press conference.
Quote from Arkencounter.com:
"Yes. The Troyer Group in Mishawaka, Indiana heads our construction management team. It has one of the largest LEED certified (Leaders in Energy and Environmental Design) staffs in the Midwest. We intend to integrate solar panels along with passive solar, geothermal, water, and wind technologies into our mechanical systems, as well as some other innovative and sustainable technologies to maintain good stewardship during construction and for long-term operations.

We plan to use as many local companies and locally manufactured products as possible in order to maximize efficiency while also enhancing the local economy."

In the pressconference (which you can see on YouTube or on their site) they say it will be able to float, although they wont do that

That is exactly the sort of claim that people are objecting to. So AiG thinks it will float? Then float it! Not going to float it? Then don't claim it floats! If AiG want to claim that their silly boat is seaworthy, they have to send it out to sea. Anything else falls into the category of "Making Shit Up".

I mean, if I built a rocket in my back yard and claimed that it could take me all the way to Mars, wouldn't you want to see me go to Mars? Or would you just take my word for it?

I would certainly take calculations for it, if your rocket would fly to Mars according to your calculations (which I checked). I would certainly believe you.

I dont completely see why you all are doubting the ark can be build?

Because it's frickin' huge! The ark dwarfs any contemporaneous vessel. Even much later, much more sophisticated ships couldn't match that size. It's simply too big to hold together on the water, let alone in the cruel waters of the flud.

The tower in Dubai is also "frickin' huge", and it still stands because of a few(/sarcasm) calculations. Why wouldn't the ark?

It has already been designed, no offence, but I do think that naval engineers know better then you do (yes, naval engineers designed it).

Did they have naval engineers in the Bronze Age? I don't think they did...

Since when does the evolutionary timescale count for biblical stories?

Of course, if you're going to fall back on that line of reasoning, then geologists tell us that there never was a global flood, so no need for any ark. It simply never existed. I do think that geologists know better than you do, eh?

And other geologists say there was a global flood. And I cant find scientists say the Ark cant be build...


Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 12-09-2010 10:45 AM Deleted has acknowledged this reply
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2010 11:28 AM Deleted has acknowledged this reply
 Message 67 by Granny Magda, posted 12-09-2010 11:39 AM Deleted has acknowledged this reply
 Message 68 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2010 11:55 AM Deleted has acknowledged this reply
 Message 71 by subbie, posted 12-09-2010 1:07 PM Deleted has responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 65 of 261 (595560)
12-09-2010 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Deleted
12-09-2010 10:34 AM


PrinceGhaldir writes:

...and I guess every evolutionist around here would thrust scientists.

Only if she's cute.

PrinceGhaldir writes:

I would certainly take calculations for it, if your rocket would fly to Mars according to your calculations (which I checked). I would certainly believe you.

Last time I checked, AiG had not released any calculations or schematics, so I remain skeptical.

PrinceGhaldir writes:

The tower in Dubai is also "frickin' huge", and it still stands because of a few(/sarcasm) calculations. Why wouldn't the ark?

Because the tower in Dubai isn't a boat that's made of wood.

PrinceGhaldir writes:

It has already been designed, no offence, but I do think that naval engineers know better then you do (yes, naval engineers designed it).

Did they have naval engineers in the Bronze Age? I don't think they did...

Since when does the evolutionary timescale count for biblical stories?

What does evolution have to do with this?

PrinceGhaldir writes:

And I cant find scientists say the Ark cant be build...

I think you'll find several on this board.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Deleted, posted 12-09-2010 10:34 AM Deleted has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 66 of 261 (595576)
12-09-2010 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Deleted
12-09-2010 10:34 AM


I guess theoraticaly it would float and I guess every evolutionist around here would thrust scientists.

Er ... show me the theory and the scientists?

Engineers have calculated that they can build a big wooden box. Hurrah! But AiG aren't even going to try to float it in still water, let alone put it to sea.

How many boats have been build, only to sink in water?

Lot and lots and lots. What's your point?

The tower in Dubai is also "frickin' huge", and it still stands because of a few(/sarcasm) calculations.

Yes, but it wouldn't float.

Since when does the evolutionary timescale count for biblical stories?

I take it that by "the evolutionary timescale" you mean "the discoveries of archeologists which have damn-all to do with evolution".

Well, on what else can we base our knowledge of ancient shipbuilding techniques except the ancient ships dug up by archaeologists? When AiG say that the Ark is being built "in accordance with sound established nautical engineering practices of the era" what are they going on?

If they are going to ignore archaeology and operate within the parameters of their chosen fairy-story, then do they claim to have the remains of prediluvian ships? Or prediluvian shipbuilding manuals? Where did they find them --- fossilized in Jurassic rocks with the dinosaurs that didn't make it onto the Ark?

And other geologists say there was a global flood.

And they turn out exclusively to be fundies who say this because their religion requires it of them rather that because they have a shred of evidence for it.

And I cant find scientists say the Ark cant be build...

The question is not whether you could build such a structure, but whether it would be seaworthy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Deleted, posted 12-09-2010 10:34 AM Deleted has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by JonF, posted 12-12-2010 11:07 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 67 of 261 (595578)
12-09-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Deleted
12-09-2010 10:34 AM


Floating on Blind Faith
Hi PG,

I guess theoraticaly it would float,

Really? Why? What "theory"? You seem to be taking this on trust.

How many boats have been build, only to sink in water?

That's precisely my point! There have been plenty of disasters at sea. What specific, concrete reason can you present to suggest that this would not be one of them?

Granny writes:

How about the profits? Where do they go?

Prince Ghaldir writes:

I will just quote the website to avoid wrong interpretations:

That quote doesn't really cover where the profits end up, but it sounds like they will be used to continue proselytising for AiG's uniquely insane version of fundamentalist Christianity; aided by over a hundred million dollars of state funds. Separation of church and state anyone?

Granny writes:

Where are they going to source their "Gopher wood"? Is that a hardwood? Hard to see how that could be considered green.

Prince Ghaldir writes:

They are using other woods IIRC, it is mentioned in the press conference.

That quote doesn't mention what wood they are using, but even if it did, it still does not address the simple fact that squandering precious and finite resources on a purposeless white elephant can never be environmentally friendly. Almost all human activities have an environmental cost. It's a question of whether the benefits outweigh the cost. The alleged benefits of this project seem to be exclusively geared toward spreading AiG's crazy delusions to impressionable rubes. Forgive me, but I don't consider that to be a valid use of resources.

I would certainly take calculations for it, if your rocket would fly to Mars according to your calculations (which I checked). I would certainly believe you.

Ah! A maths graduate! You are a maths graduate right? Otherwise, what on Earth would make you think that you would be able to understand the maths involved. Fluid dynamics is an extremely complex subject. Assuming that you can casually pick it up and immediately understand it strikes me as both frighteningly naive and astonishingly arrogant.

Then of course, we have the small problem that you haven't presented any maths. Where is your maths? Where is AiG's maths? You would demand calculations for my rocket but you seem happy to accept AiG's word for it that their boat would float without them presenting any calculations at all.

Again, this comes across as deeply naive and lacking in due scepticism. If that is your attitude, I have some money resting in a Nigerian bank account that might interest you...

The tower in Dubai is also "frickin' huge", and it still stands because of a few(/sarcasm) calculations. Why wouldn't the ark?

Please try to keep up; I wasn't asking about whether the "ark" would stand up. I was wondering whether it would float.

The tower doesn't float.

The tower is not built with Bronze Age materials.

The tower is actually standing as we speak, so I believe that it can stand.

The "ark" is not floating, nor is it likely to do so, so why should I take it on blind faith that it will float?

There is no comparison.

Granny writes:

Did they have naval engineers in the Bronze Age? I don't think they did...

Prince Ghaldir writes:

Since when does the evolutionary timescale count for biblical stories?

So you're just going to gloss over the fact that AiG are intending to use modern expertise that did not exist in the time that the original ark was supposedly built? Oh. Okay.

The reason that AiG should accept a conventional time scale for their project is because they want to claim that the ark myths are more than a "stories". They want to claim that those events were real. That means they have to use a real time-line, one that fits in with all the relevant evidence, not just the evidence that they find convenient. Of course, they won't do this, preferring instead to go with the methodology known as "Making Shit Up".

Evolution of course, has nothing to do with it, beyond the lazy habit of using the term "evolutionist" to describe anyone who disagrees with a fundamentalist/evangelical Christian.

And other geologists say there was a global flood. And I cant find scientists say the Ark cant be build...

Really? have you tried... looking?

The overwhelming consensus of expert geological opinion is that there was no flood. That renders this whole Snark hunt completely pointless. It also means that you don't get to use naked arguments from authority. Just because AiG's pet engineers claim the boat can float does not mean it will. The only way to prove that is to float the damn thing, something that AiG will never do because they know only too well that it won't work.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Deleted, posted 12-09-2010 10:34 AM Deleted has acknowledged this reply

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5407
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 68 of 261 (595585)
12-09-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Deleted
12-09-2010 10:34 AM


And I cant find scientists say the Ark cant be built...

Call me. I'm a chemist, or used to be, and therefore a scientist. It may be able to be built, but that boat won't float!


"God is Santa Claus for adults."
- Mad Kallie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Deleted, posted 12-09-2010 10:34 AM Deleted has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 12:01 PM Coragyps has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2010 5:26 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31612
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 69 of 261 (595587)
12-09-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Coragyps
12-09-2010 11:55 AM


Damn good thing ...
that the Biblical Flood never happened then.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2010 11:55 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Coyote, posted 12-09-2010 12:16 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 70 of 261 (595592)
12-09-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jar
12-09-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Damn good thing ...
Damn good thing ...that the Biblical Flood never happened then.

You could say that it would have been the final solution, eh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 12:01 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 57 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 71 of 261 (595602)
12-09-2010 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Deleted
12-09-2010 10:34 AM


I guess every evolutionist around here would thrust scientists.

Nope. Not a single one of us here would blindly trust anything that any scientists says. Most of us would believe the results of several different tests that all came up with the same results independently, unless those results were at odds with what we otherwise know to be true.

Science is not about trusting another scientist. In fact, science has a built in bias against believing any one result. That's what it has to be replicable and pass peer review. I'm sure you knew all this already, and just felt like being a snarky pissant, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to point out the error of your snark anyway.

Of course, here, we don't even have the result of one test, just your unsupported assumption that someone who had something to do with this might know something about boat building, and the bible said it happened, so this will float. Color me amused, but unimpressed.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Deleted, posted 12-09-2010 10:34 AM Deleted has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Deleted, posted 12-09-2010 1:30 PM subbie has responded

  
Deleted
Inactive Junior Member


Message 72 of 261 (595611)
12-09-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by subbie
12-09-2010 1:07 PM


I guess every evolutionist around here would thrust scientists.

Nope. Not a single one of us here would blindly trust anything that any scientists says. Most of us would believe the results of several different tests that all came up with the same results independently, unless those results were at odds with what we otherwise know to be true.

Problem is we dont have "several different tests", so where should we look at next?

Of course, here, we don't even have the result of one test, just your unsupported assumption that someone who had something to do with this might know something about boat building, and the bible said it happened, so this will float.

Certainly you could have watched the press conference, where officials will say the same thing. Not really unsupported.
And I can't remember me saying that it can float because it does in the bible. Where did that statement come from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by subbie, posted 12-09-2010 1:07 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by subbie, posted 12-09-2010 1:39 PM Deleted has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 57 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 73 of 261 (595615)
12-09-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Deleted
12-09-2010 1:30 PM


Problem is we dont have "several different tests", so where should we look at next?

Well, the first thing to do would be not assume that it will float.

Certainly you could have watched the press conference, where officials will say the same thing. Not really unsupported.

If the only reason to believe it would float is because the scam artists and liars who are building it say it would, not only is that unsupported, it's actually reason to affirmatively believe that it won't.

And I can't remember me saying that it can float because it does in the bible. Where did that statement come from?

Well, the only reason those people are building it is because it's from a story in the bible, and the only reason you think it will float is because they say it will. You do the math.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Deleted, posted 12-09-2010 1:30 PM Deleted has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Deleted, posted 12-11-2010 7:08 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 74 of 261 (595655)
12-09-2010 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Coragyps
12-09-2010 11:55 AM


Call me. I'm a chemist, or used to be, and therefore a scientist. It may be able to be built, but that boat won't float!

I think it might, in still water. Whether it would be seaworthy is another matter ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2010 11:55 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Deleted
Inactive Junior Member


Message 75 of 261 (595901)
12-11-2010 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by subbie
12-09-2010 1:39 PM


If the only reason to believe it would float is because the scam artists and liars who are building it say it would, not only is that unsupported, it's actually reason to affirmatively believe that it won't.

Could you explain why you call them liars?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by subbie, posted 12-09-2010 1:39 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Larni, posted 12-11-2010 8:01 AM Deleted has responded
 Message 80 by ringo, posted 12-11-2010 1:58 PM Deleted has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019