|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2905 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ringo writes: NoNukes writes:
They have. If aliens didn't build the pyramids, why haven't the Egyptians built any new ones. This NOVA pyramid was pretty dinky. The Great Pyramid is about 25 times higher than this tiny rock pile... Why won't somebody build a real pyramid and a real Great Sphinx? Looking at this another way, would it be acceptable to build a 1/25 scale ark? A 1/50 scale model?
quote: ringo writes: If they have such confidence in their conclusions, they should be eager to prove the evilutionists wrong. Building a real ark is a fools errand. It would be incredibly expensive, and even if the effort succeeded, it would not prove that Noah ever built such a thing. Worse, it would not address the serious criticisms. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 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 441 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
No you did not debunk this a year ago. All you did was mention this article on creation.com The funny thing is that Korean Institute of Ships and Engineering seems to only exist on creo websites. There is such a thing as Korean Institute of Ships and Oceanic Engineering. This seems to be what they are referring to. There does not seem to be any reference to this anywhere but on creationist sites. I have emailed the institute in the past and have again today to confirm that this is a study by them and/or by members of the institute. I never did get a response before, hopefully I will this time.
I would like to see an independent analysis of this study. A few things leap out at me. One their claim that the Ark could stand waves to 30m. Also, what little they write makes a lot of assumptions. Now if you could show me that this was published on a non-creo site or any peer review I might take a serious look at at. Until then all it is is an uninteresting paper written by people to reinforce their beliefs. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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:
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. But that is just assertion and personnal feeling. The above paper is positive evidence that it is possible. Another aspect to consider is the following: they evaluated 12 different hulls sizes/forms, and dimensions given of the biblical ark turned out to be the most optimal when considering seakeeping safety , structural safety and overturning safety (the three considered in their analysis). This probably wasn't expected by the authors, but does it not at least hint that their may be more to the story then just fabulation ?
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. This makes me think of another study done at the university of montrea psychological department, which said that people tend to agree with experts only if what the experts says is in agreement with what they previously believe. This is essentially what you are doing here. You have a paper from 9 naval engineers, saying that a wooden boat of that size can be seaworthy. Included in their research is a experimental analysis on 1/50 scale, that agrees with their theoretical analysis (therefore linking it to reality). 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.
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. I'll suppose you never did scale-modeling, or else you probably wouldn't have made that comparison. 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.
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. If we had positive eivdence whales could fly, yes you would have to support your opinion that they can't. 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. 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 ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ringo 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. 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.
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 approaches 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. Surely those effects can be studied with calculations and models, including testing with fluids other than water. I'm not suggesting that the study slevesque cites deals with those issues, but if I were going to accept that a full size ark was impossible, I'd want to know that somebody had done the relevant calculations and I'd want to review them myself. 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. Maybe it is impossible, but show me the math/physics.
ringo writes: 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. That would be impressive. But I can think of a bunch of reasons why people would avoid such an experiment even if they believed Noah and his family were up to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
One their claim that the Ark could stand waves to 30m. Also, what little they write makes a lot of assumptions. Now if you could show me that this was published on a non-creo site or any peer review I might take a serious look at at. Until then all it is is an uninteresting paper written by people to reinforce their beliefs. The technical journal is peer-reviewed. But I'm thinking you wanted it published in a peer-reviewed journal. But the reality is that you people asked for the math, and the math was shown. And I consider it sufficient, until shown otherwise, to consider this argument a PRATT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
This makes me think of another study done at the university of montrea psychological department, which said that people tend to agree with experts only if what the experts says is in agreement with what they previously believe. Yes, definitely true in my experience of the general public. But not, in my experience, of scientists and the more academically trained. They tend to respect the expertise that can be brought to bear on specific problems. They can also be very good at sniffing out bullshit...
quote: Just how many of those authors are YECs? I'll put down good money that each and everyone has Paul Yonggi Cho as his pastor. I have zero trust for this "paper". Next?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'll suppose you never did scale-modeling, or else you probably wouldn't have made that comparison. 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. That depends what they're modeling. A tow tank test typically investigates the properties of the shape, not the structure, and if you look at pictures of them doing it they seem to cast the miniature boats out of plastic, rather than reproducing in miniature each plank or nail or rivet. I need hardly explain to someone who studies physics why an exact 1/50 scale replica would not in any case answer questions about the structural integrity of the boat. As for its shape, that simply isn't given in the book of Genesis, only its length, width, and depth, so the shape is just something they had to make up. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Yes, definitely true in my experience of the general public. But not, in my experience, of scientists and the more academically trained. They tend to respect the expertise that can be brought to bear on specific problems. They can also be very good at sniffing out bullshit... Well isn't that exactly what ringo is doing here then ? He's saying ''Your not a naval engineer, so your takign them on authority'' and I'm sayign ''Well duh, because I haven't found anything wron with their math, and I have no reason to doubt them, so the rational thing to do is act as if it is true until shown otherwise''.
Just how many of those authors are YECs? I'll put down good money that each and everyone has Paul Yonggi Cho as his pastor. I have zero trust for this "paper". Next? Me thinks a paper should be judged on it's own merits. But even then, all I'll want to say here is this: if no one can show where the paper is wrong, or provide counter evidence, or anything of like, then they can't honestly use the argument ''a wooden boat that big wouldn't be seaworthy''. But of course, you are still free to remain overtly skeptical just because they are YEC, although I'll point out that this is obviously an irraitonal position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 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 441 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
The technical journal is peer-reviewed. What journal?Creation.com? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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. I don't have evidence of ironwork, but I don't think it is necessary.
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. 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". A paper written by naval engineers showing calculations that the ark would be seaworthy is positive evidence.
How thick was the planking on the model? Thicker or thinner than a rowboat? They took a real thickness of 30 cm. I couldn't find pictures or info on the scale models, but it would have need to be 0,6cm thick.
Not anywhere near the realm of conclusive. You have one study (apparently unknown to anybody but creationists). And you have only assertions to the contrary. 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.
I explained in Message 108 the differences between scaling a pyramid and scaling a boat. And I was adressing the claim that the only way to show it was possible is to build a real-scale replica and actually have it float. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
First published:
Technical Journal8(1):26—36 April 1994 It's the peer-reviewed creationist journal.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024