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 ?
But everything except the length, breadth, and width of the Ark, and the choice of wood as a material, is not given in the book of Genesis, but rather chosen by modern naval architects. They determined the shape of the Ark, its construction, and its draft.
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 didn't find any pictures of the scale models.
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.
I agree it does not answer all the questions, if it would then we could prove anything using scale models.
But it does answer some questions, and it confirms their theoretical analysis in the areas that it could confirm it.
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.
Their hull-form isn't very far fetched, I'd say.
Remember that I am only saying that I'm only addressign the assertion that a seaworthy wooden boat that size can't be built. Their calculations and tests show that it can, end of PRATT.
quote: This work was fully supported by the Korea Association of Creation Research.
S.W. Hong, S. S. Na, B. S. Hyun, S. Y. Hong, D. S. Gong, K. J. Kang, S. H. Suh, K. H. Lee and Y. G. Je are all on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon. This paper was originally published in Korean and English in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Creation Research, Korea Association of Creation Research, Taejon, 1993, pp. 105–137. This English translation is published with the permission of the Korea Association of Creation Research and the authors.
So the researchers are staff to the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering. The study in question was not sanctioned, vetted or approved by the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering. Only the Creationist orgs approved of the study. This is not any kind of peer review. Since we know, have the history and examples, of creationist subterfuge in such matters this one does not carry the sweet smell of legitimacy.
Their calculations and tests show that it can, end of PRATT.
Not until the "paper" and its calculations are reviewed and confirmed. Show me other non-associated oceanic engineers that can verify this and I may consider what they have to say.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
No reason to doubt them??? They're a bunch of YECs trying to demonstrate the validity of a YEC concept. Substitute YEC for geocentrist. Do you still have no reson to doubt?
I still have the right to doubt, but if I'm evaluating a given geocentrist claim, and I cannot point out where they are wrong, then I would have no legitimate reason to doubt.
Substitute YEC for geocentrist. Do you still think that this is obviously an irrational position?
If my sole, only reason to doubt their conclusionwould be that they are geocentrists, on something that does not depend on that fact, then yes I would think it is irrational.
Seriously, how hard can it be to say ''it is possible for a wooden ship of that size to be seaworthy'', when you have naval engineers telling you that it is possible and you have no other reason to believe them other then the fact they are 'evil creationists' ?
Creationists can claim "peer review" but this is just another example of their dishonesty.
Peer review has both a specific meaning and a specific implication. The specific meaning is in the world of science, where peer review refers to review by experts in the field. The specific implication is that they are looking for errors or problems with the submitted article. I've been through peer-review from both sides and have a good idea how it works.
The way creationists use it is dishonest. They say, "Hmmm. Scientists want peer-reviewed articles so we'll do it ourselves. Our way."
Only it isn't the same and everyone knows it.
Real peer review, done by scientists, first and foremost makes sure the submitted articles conform to the rules and methods of science. This is exactly what creationists seek to avoid in their "peer review." They can't conform to those rules and methods, so they have to fake it with their own "peer review." Dishonest.
This is much the same (failed) tactic they tried with creation "science." Creationism was tossed from the classrooms by a U.S. Supreme Court decision, so they simply changed the name and tried again. When that was tossed they changed from creation "science" to ID.
How dishonest can you get??
If your ideas and beliefs can't stand the test of the marketplace and scientific scrutiny, maybe they're wrong. Trying to disguise them as science when everyone knows that they are the exact opposite of science is just plain dishonest.
So don't cite creationist "peer review" as if it meant anything.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Once again, I have NOT said that it's impossible. I'm looking for positive evidence that it is possible.
And I showed you the math showing that it is possible. If you do not consider that as positive evidence, nor testing on scaled down models, then 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. And if that is the case, then my work is pretty much done here as it just becoems plain stupid.
And I showed you the math showing that it is possible.
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.)
... 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.
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?If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
You really asking me to find the reviews of a 17 year old paper ?
In any case, the reality is that you should all be either attacking the math head-on, or acknowledge that the paper is positive evidence that a seaworthy wooden boat that size is possible. The authors gave all their references to where they took the formula's, and there is nothing in there overly complicated.
Hiding behind the concept of peer-review seems dishonest from where I stand. It shouldn't be an issue, because if we are to be honest, even if all their math was right, and all their tests were accurate, does anyone here think it would actually pass peer-review ? Would any engineering journal really publish a paper titled ''Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway'' ?
If someone here answers yes to that question, I will seriously consider you either delusional or naïve. If however you agree that the answer to that question is no, then we can move on and actually talk about the paper instead of mudslinging.