|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
frako writes:
The Bible says that iron was available:
Steel was not availible at the time.... quote:Personally, I expect the "ark" to have concrete foundations, a steel girder framework and vinyl siding. It will be more like a false-front Western town on a movie lot than an actual reconstruction. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
frako writes:
Who do you think the creationists are going to believe? The Bible or your history and archaelology? The earliest iron finds date 1800 bce in india.... "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
PrinceGhaldir writes:
It may not be a bold-faced lie but claiming that the ark "would" float when they have no intention of trying to float it is definitely dishonest. Could you explain why you call them liars? The claim that it wil be "built according to the biblical dimensions and constructed with materials and methods as close as possible to those of Noah’s time" and the claim that "it and the Flood were real events in history" definitely imply that it will be an authentic working replica. Clearly, they're interested in its money-making potential and its propaganda value rather than historical accuracy. Otherwise, they'd build a floating replica instead of just a purportedly floatable one. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
The question is: Why would you think Noah had better engineering techniques than the Victorians?
Now it is at this point that the illogical comes in: why think that it is impossible to make a seaworthy wooden ship that big, just because Victorian shipbuilders at the time were unable ? Why not think that it is a simple matter of engineering, instead of some intrinsic wood property ? slevesque writes:
Then why don't creationists build one and prove it? That boat would float, and it would float mighty well. The PRATT here is that saying it "would" float isn't the same as demonstrating that it does float. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
Who's saying it's "impossible"? I think the consensus is that it's highly unlikely.
I was simply pointing out that it is wrong to think that a seaworthy wooden boat of that size is impossible. slevesque writes:
It's never impossible to speculate. Sometimes it might be inadvisable to specualte but even that isn't true in this case. We can look at the building techniques available throughout history and come to a fairly sound conclusion about what worked and what didn't. There is no firm evidence pointing to the success of large wooden boats and lots of evidence of failure.
It is impossible, however, to speculate what type of technique Noah would have used. slevesque writes:
Again, saying that it "would" float through calculations is worthless. It's a combination of the Buzsaw method of speculating what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened and the Dawn Bertot method of using logic to contradict evidence. ringo writes:
Yes, and that it why they are saying that it would float (through calculations) and not saying that it does float ... The PRATT here is that saying it "would" float isn't the same as demonstrating that it does float. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Of course it is. I'm not saying the have to build one. I'm asking why they don't. If they have such confidence in their conclusions, they should be eager to prove the evilutionists wrong.
ringo writes:
Is that a fair question? Then why don't creationists build one and prove it? NoNukes writes:
They have. If aliens didn't build the pyramids, why haven't the Egyptians built any new ones. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
I agree that frako shouldn't have used the word "impossible".
slevesque writes:
It might be possible to make a wooden ship of that size with modern methods such as iron cross-bracing. The Bible does claim that Noah had access to iron:
Then I will only speculate this: if it is possible to make such a long seaworthy wooden boat, and that the techniques required does not require some particular insight from modern science, then you and I have absolutely no reason to believe that Noah couldn't have done it.quote:but as far as I know, there is no evidence of iron work as far back as Noah's time. So we have no good reason to think he could have done it. slevesque writes:
I'm not qualified to assess the accuracy of the calculations and as far as I know, neither are you. You're taking them on authority. Without some hard evidence linking them to reality, skepticism is the correct approach.
Calculations have weight, and if you cannot show where the calculations are wrong, or where they missed something, then you have nothing to support your personal skepticism on the feasability of the thing. slevesque writes:
1/50 scale is like a rowboat. We already know that rowboats are seaworthy because we build rowboats all the time. There's no reason to assume that it would scale to a full-sized model.
Not only that, but the authors of the above paper tested it on 1/50 scale, and it validated their theoretical analysis. slevesque writes:
You should know better than that. The burden is never on "negative evidence". I don't have to demonstrate that whales can't fly either. Show me one that can. So in theory, it would float, and so the burden is on you to come up with evidence or insight to show why it wouldn't. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Stone scales better than wood. As long as a pyramid has a firm foundation, you can keep stacking stones of the same size pretty high. This NOVA pyramid was pretty dinky. The Great Pyramid is about 25 times higher than this tiny rock pile... A wooden boat, on the other hand, has no external foundation. It relies on its own internal strength. One of the main constraints to wooden ship length is wavelength. A boat that's considerably shorter than the wavelength can ride up one side of a wave and down the other with minimal strain. But as the ship's length approches the wavelength, it will be often be suspended between two wave crests or perched on top of one wave crest. That puts tremendous strain on it.
NoNukes writes:
I think the real issue here is that creationists are thoroughly unwilling to test their own claims. I, for one, would be pretty impressed if they leased a steel freighter the size of the ark, filled it with animals and kept it afloat for a year with no engines and a crew of eight. Hell, I'd be impressed if they leased a building the size of the ark and kept those animals alive in it for a year. The real task is trying to keep enough humans and animals alive on the thing for a year to repopulate the earth in only a few years. But we don't see any effort on their part to do anything like the pyramid experiment. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
If you have evidence of ironwork during Noah's time, present it. If you have evidence of a wooden ship anywhere near the size of the ark that doesn't require ironwork, present it.
But that is just assertion and personnal feeling. slevesque writes:
You're jumping to conclusions. I haven't said I disagree with the paper. I've said I'm not qualified to assess it. Neither are you (are you?), yet you've claimed it as "positive evidence" that the boat "would" float. Yet you remain overly skeptical, and the only reason for this being, in my opinion, that it goes against your a priori belief that the conclusion should have been the opposite. I haven't even said that the ark wouldn't float. I'm just asking for real-world, hands-on evidence that it would. Questioning the claims of a creationist website is hardly being "overly skeptical".
slevesque writes:
How thick was the planking on the model? Thicker or thinner than a rowboat?
A 1/50 scale model of the ark would include planks 1/50 thickness, which is obviously not the case with a rowboat, for example. slevesque writes:
Not anywhere near the realm of conclusive. You have one study (apparently unknown to anybody but creationists).
Here we have positive evidence that the ark was seaworthy, in the form of a theoretical analysis and testing on scaled models in a towing tank and a wave generator. Both conclusive. slevesque writes:
I explained in Message 108 the differences between scaling a pyramid and scaling a boat. Saying ''I won't believe it's doable until they do it'' won't cut it, sorry. Especially when you brought up a 1/25 scale building of the pyramids as evidence that the egyptians could have built the pyramids ... If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Not really. A ramp doesn't care if it's 140 meters off the ground or one.
And yet those stones at > 140 meters are a lot harder to get into place than those first stones at ground level or the ones at only 6 meters. NoNukes writes:
As far as I know, only one person in this thread has used the word "impossible" and it isn't me. I'm saying I'll believe it when I see some convincing evidence, same as the flying whale. I haven't seen anything like a thorough analysis given or referenced by people who insist that it would be impossible to build the ark. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
That's why I asked you to provide evidence that it isn't necessary. Has there ever been a real-world-ship the size of the ark built without ironwork?
I don't have evidence of ironwork, but I don't think it is necessary. slevesque writes:
Once again, I have NOT said that it's impossible. I'm looking for positive evidence that it is possible.
I'm still open for counter-evidence, but I'm sayign that for now you can only suppose that an ark that size is not impossible. slevesque writes:
Again, I explained why the scaling works in one case bit not the other. Now if you are of the idea that miniature scales are only acceptable in some cases but not others, I would consider this a bit of changing the goalpost. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
You showed a self-serving claim by a bunch of YECs. If they have any confidence in their results, why hasn't the paper been peer-reviewd? (Hint, "peers" means other naval engineers, not other YECs.)
And I showed you the math showing that it is possible. slevesque writes:
That's exactly what I've suggested a number of times. What do you think the Wright brothers did after they calculated that heavier-than-air flight was possible? ... I have to conclud that the only positive evidence you would accept would be the actual real-size thing being actually built and put to sea. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
You showed a claim that those calculations have something to do with the real world. I can calculate the IQ of a unicorn but it isn't evidence of anything. First off, I didn't show a ''claim''. I showed the math and calculations. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
You're "pretty sure"? In other words, you haven't checked it out either, yet you're confident that they're right. You really need to stop being so credulous. What you'll find, I'm pretty sure, is that they didn't pull formula's out of their ass. Once again, if they have confidence in their conclusions, why hasn't the paper been peer-reviewed? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
If you understand the math, the first step is to check whether the math is correct. The second step is to check whether the math is an accurate model of reality. The claimants themselves have only made a baby step in that direction.
Either you understand the math, and in that case you would figure that the ark could have been seaworthy.... slevesque writes:
Since you don't pretend to understand the math, why do you get to make grand claims that it's correct? ... or you don't understand the math, and in that case you jsut say so and accept that you shouldn't make grand claims about something you know nothing about. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024