Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8945 total)
35 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, jar, Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,784 Year: 20,820/19,786 Month: 1,217/2,023 Week: 168/557 Day: 55/43 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark)
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6837
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 151 of 261 (613428)
04-25-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by slevesque
04-24-2011 10:13 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
First off, you brought in peer-review.

Of course I did, because when it doesn't suit you, you run from it as fast as you can. The hypocrisy of the creo/ID side is astounding. You refuse to accept volumes of scientific data, that has been peer-reviewed and analyzed extensively and then get all huffy when you present something that is less than a paper and has nothing to attest for even it's authenticity and no one accepts it blindly.

You make a false claim of peer review, the whole thing stinks of fallacy of authority and a poor attempt at that. Lets look at this attempt. We have no idea who 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. They could be janitors for all we know. They could not even exist. All we have is an assertion on the webpage you claim is authoritative. That claims.

quote:
are all on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon.

Bloody hell, they can't even get the name of the Institute correct. This is also the same website that has articles(yes, articles not papers) that states this.
quote:
Furthermore, such claims overlook a vital factor: intelligence is not enough for scientific advance. Historically and logically, the rise of modern science depended strongly on certain assumptions, and these were derived from a biblical Christian worldview, including honesty, rationality, and a Lawgiving Creator and upholder of the universe8 Conversely, science was stillborn in many ancient cultures such as Greece and China. Also, much of today’s technology comes not from superior intellect per se, but from building on the results of previous research. The great creationist scientific genius Sir Isaac Newton9 said, “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

Source

More damning is their article of faith. If you expect anyone to believe anything you post on a site you probably should skip an article of faith.

quote:
What we believe
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also “Good News ”)
(A) PRIORITIES

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

(B) BASICS

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.

(C) THEOLOGY

The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.

(D) GENERAL

The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called ‘progressive creation’), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.



Source

And you expect us to believe the crap they post without any analysis or backup? What the hell are you smoking?

And secondly, I'm not forcing you to hold on to some seconr-rated argument against the plausibility of the ark.

Expecting outside verification and validation is "second-rate"? I truly think your career in science is going to be very short lived.

''if it isn't in a secular peer-reviewed journal I won't believe it''. Well good for you, but I won't waste any more time with this childish attitude.

Do you even understand the reason for peer-review? Childish? Really? really? That's what you've got? You think a demand for confirmation of the source and an independent evaluation of the data is childish? If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

The whole thing is what 4-5 pages printed? You think this answers all the questions of the ability of the Ark to float. The structural integrity section is a joke. The assumptions they make are astounding.

quote:
The frame structure was made longitudinal, the transverse and diagonal directions being fixed to each other. The plate structure was then attached to the frame structure.

How? What was used to attach the structures to each other? What fasteners were used to make all of this work?

I'd say the only thing I couldn't evaluate was their claim of the scaled down models validating their theoretical analysis, and having the softwares they used to look if the results they gave were accurate. Although I know I'm far from qualify to assess if everything is right in the paper, I have no reasons to think it is not.

How about you then explain it to us what they concluded and why there calculations and arguments are valid? You claim you understand the technical aspect of the paper so how about you showing us.

Do you want to continue the personal attacks(childish)? Or do you want to provide something to back up your claims and the claims of the article?

A claim should stand or fall on it's merits,

Exactly. Maybe you should try explaining its merits to us.

ABE
Maybe you creos should just stick with the argument "godidit". It is much more effective than the lame attempts you try to use to sound "sciency".

Edited by Theodoric, : Last second shot across the bow


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 10:13 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:16 PM Theodoric has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 152 of 261 (613439)
04-25-2011 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dr Adequate
04-24-2011 11:34 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
Hi Dr,

Dr Adequate writes:

It was floating, OK?

That really depends on where you think it was floating.

Dr Adequate writes:

And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

I didn't think you believed in miracles.

The first verse Genesis 7:17 you quoted said the ark was lifted up above the earth which would have been in the atmosphere.

According to Genesis 1:2 the water was a part of the earth.

The prefix translated upon in 7:18 could have been translated over or above instead of upon which would have agreed with the previous verse, as required when taken in context. The translators just did not believe God could do what He says He can do.

But regardless of where it was, on the water, in the water, or above the water, it was held together by the same force that holds the universe together. Something I refer to as Pure Energy.

But as far as my statement that it did not have to float, I was refering to the fact that the door was 48' above the ground level. If the ark was sitting on the highest piece of dry ground on the face of the earth the water could have covered that spot by 30' of water and still had 18' to the door on the main deck. So why did it have to float? It did not even have to move. Just my crazy thinking.

I really like the miracle view the best.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2011 11:34 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-25-2011 3:41 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 3023 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 153 of 261 (613443)
04-25-2011 12:13 PM


Is this thing going to get government funding?

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:16 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2959 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 154 of 261 (613449)
04-25-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Theodoric
04-25-2011 9:41 AM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
Of course I did, because when it doesn't suit you, you run from it as fast as you can. The hypocrisy of the creo/ID side is astounding. You refuse to accept volumes of scientific data, that has been peer-reviewed and analyzed extensively and then get all huffy when you present something that is less than a paper and has nothing to attest for even it's authenticity and no one accepts it blindly.

And you got it backwards here: creationists refuse to accept volumes of published papers because they disagree with what is said in the paper (the interpretation of the data, etc.), not because it was peer-reviewed.

Conversely, they don't expect you to accept their analysis because it was peer-reviewed, but because you consider the analysis for what it is, and determine that it is correct.

You make a false claim of peer review, the whole thing stinks of fallacy of authority and a poor attempt at that. Lets look at this attempt. We have no idea who 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. They could be janitors for all we know. They could not even exist. All we have is an assertion on the webpage you claim is authoritative. That claims.

First, the peer-review process for the TJ is the very same then for any other journal. Keep in mind that most creationist scientists have made careers in science and know the peer-review process very well, and so when they made that journal they just applied the very same peer-review process.

Now, you asked of me the reviews that particular paper obtained 17 years ago. It is without saying that such a task is practically impossible, since reviews are never published and made accessible only on demand (which would probably take at least 1 month to obtain from the TJ). The fact that you asked me something that is impossible in a short time, and that I was unable to do it in a short time, does not mean what I said was false (which implies I am a lier)

Now secondly, who cares if they are janitors ? It doesn't change the math and calculation. Once again, they should stand or fall on their merits, not on where it was published or who said it.

Bloody hell, they can't even get the name of the Institute correct. This is also the same website that has articles(yes, articles not papers) that states this.

You realize that was in '94 ? You realize the name could have changed since then, you know, like simply adding 'oceanic' before engineering ? Just saying ...

And you expect us to believe the crap they post without any analysis or backup? What the hell are you smoking?

No, I said you are free to accept their math or not. However, I maintain that it would be dishonest to claim from here on end that such a big seaworthy wooden boat is impossible to build, since if you cannot even analys the math when it is presented to you, then you shouldn't be talking out of your ass.

Expecting outside verification and validation is "second-rate"? I truly think your career in science is going to be very short lived.

That is not what I said, thanks for the misrepresentation though.

I said the argument ''such a big seaworthy wooden boat is impossible'' is second-rate.

Do you want to continue the personal attacks(childish)? Or do you want to provide something to back up your claims and the claims of the article?

My claim is: No one here can legimitaly say ''such a big seaworthy wooden boat is impossible''.

The support for my claim is the calculations shown in the paper that it is certainly possible. Either you understand the math, and in that case you would figure that the ark could have been seaworthy, 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.

AbE

Here is part of another paper published by three of the authors of the ark paper

http://www.isope.org/...01994/Abstract%20Pages/I94v4p603.pdf

So we at least know they are not janitors, and that they have done this kind of calculations before

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Theodoric, posted 04-25-2011 9:41 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by ringo, posted 04-25-2011 1:40 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 160 by Theodoric, posted 04-25-2011 4:37 PM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2959 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 155 of 261 (613450)
04-25-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Tram law
04-25-2011 12:13 PM


tax cuts I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Tram law, posted 04-25-2011 12:13 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17564
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 156 of 261 (613452)
04-25-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by slevesque
04-25-2011 1:16 PM


slevesque writes:

Either you understand the math, and in that case you would figure that the ark could have been seaworthy....


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.

slevesque writes:

... 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.


Since you don't pretend to understand the math, why do you get to make grand claims that it's correct?


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:16 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:58 PM ringo has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2959 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 157 of 261 (613453)
04-25-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by ringo
04-25-2011 1:40 PM


Since you don't pretend to understand the math, why do you get to make grand claims that it's correct?

I don't make grand claims either, I only quote the naval engineers who are making the claims. And I pretend to have no reason not to think they are right

But the point is actually quite simple: if no one here can understand the math when it is presented to them, then no one here can claim that the ark wouldn't float, it really is as simple as that.

You don't have to accept that it would, but you can't claim it wouldn't. that's all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ringo, posted 04-25-2011 1:40 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 04-25-2011 2:13 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 164 by NoNukes, posted 04-26-2011 2:44 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17564
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 158 of 261 (613456)
04-25-2011 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by slevesque
04-25-2011 1:58 PM


slevesque writes:

... if no one here can understand the math when it is presented to them, then no one here can claim that the ark wouldn't float....


We can conclude from what we do know from other sources that the ark probably wouldn't float. For example, there is no evidence of any wooden ship that size built with any technology, much less the technology that would have been available to Noah.

In this case, lack of evidence does supersede hypothetical calculations. The position of "show me" is more sound than the position of "prove it can't be done".


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:58 PM slevesque has not yet responded

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


Message 159 of 261 (613476)
04-25-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by ICANT
04-25-2011 11:21 AM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
I didn't think you believed in miracles.

I don't, you great banana. But I do believe that the Bible says that the Ark floated, 'cos it does.

The first verse Genesis 7:17 you quoted said the ark was lifted up above the earth which would have been in the atmosphere.

You think Genesis says that the Ark was flying?

No, it's quite clear. It was above the earth, and on the face of the waters. It was floating.

The translators just did not believe God could do what He says He can do.

Well it's not just the translators of the KJV. Everyone, including the Jews who read it in the original, has taken the Ark to be a sort of boat. Also, I don't think the translators of the KJV were noted for their skepticism.

What do you make of the bit in Genesis 6 where Noah is told to caulk the Ark with pitch? This only makes sense if it has to be watertight, which it wouldn't if it was flying.

And what about the statement that the waters "bare up the Ark"? This would not be true if it was levitating rather than floating --- it wouldn't have been borne up by the waters.

But as far as my statement that it did not have to float, I was refering to the fact that the door was 48' above the ground level. If the ark was sitting on the highest piece of dry ground on the face of the earth the water could have covered that spot by 30' of water and still had 18' to the door on the main deck. So why did it have to float?

Again, you'd have to deal with "bare up the Ark" and "lift up above the earth" and "on [or, if you prefer, "above"] the face of the waters".

You are right that according to the description of the Ark and the Flood it would have been practicable to build it on the tallest available mountain and have it sit there for the duration of the Flood, but that is not what the narrative says happened.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2011 11:21 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6837
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 160 of 261 (613484)
04-25-2011 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by slevesque
04-25-2011 1:16 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
Now, you asked of me the reviews that particular paper obtained 17 years ago. It is without saying that such a task is practically impossible, since reviews are never published and made accessible only on demand (which would probably take at least 1 month to obtain from the TJ). The fact that you asked me something that is impossible in a short time, and that I was unable to do it in a short time, does not mean what I said was false (which implies I am a lier)

You mean the original is not available at all? Doesn't sound real sciency to me.

Oh this is too funny.
This "journal" is a propaganda arm of Creation Ministries International. They are your original link. This is no journal it is poor apologetics. So you are going to use the source itself as the verification of the legitimacy of itself?

Remember their statement of faith. It says "fuck science and actual facts we know the bible is the answer to all".
Everyone should take a look at the articles.
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-archive-index
We have years worth of debunking creationists here.

This is their requirements for anything to get into the "journal".

quote:
Journal of Creation is dedicated to upholding the authority of the 66 books of the Bible, especially in the area of origins. All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this.

Wow. You are really going to fall on this sword aren't you?

I just emailed CMI to see if the article was in fact reviewed by anyone before or after publication. Gee that was easy.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:16 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 4:41 PM Theodoric has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2959 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 161 of 261 (613486)
04-25-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Theodoric
04-25-2011 4:37 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
You mean the original is not available at all? Doesn't sound real sciency to me.

Reviews are available only through private communication, since they are never officially published.

I just emailed CMI to see if the article was in fact reviewed by anyone before or after publication. Gee that was easy.

So did I. But as I said, it would surprise me if we got a quick answer. They receive a boatload of emails each day. Answers usually take over a month


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Theodoric, posted 04-25-2011 4:37 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Theodoric, posted 04-25-2011 4:51 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 163 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 2:35 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6837
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 162 of 261 (613490)
04-25-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by slevesque
04-25-2011 4:41 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
You think if they will respond it will be that they have no record of any reviews of the article. Or if they do they will decline to provide them.

But as I said, it would surprise me if we got a quick answer. They receive a boatload of emails each day. Answers usually take over a month

Well that is a pretty piss poor way to run an organization. The only people I email that take that long are lawyers. I have never had to wait longer than 5 days to get a response whenever I email any journal to get more information. I have found also that I do not have to subscribe or be in the field and I can usually get them to provide me the info I request. I find science people are not afraid of people getting the information themselves.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 4:41 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6837
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 163 of 261 (613648)
04-26-2011 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by slevesque
04-25-2011 4:41 PM


Response from Creation Ministries
I am not surprised by their response. Classic.

quote:
Dear Mr XXXXXX

This article was published before my time, but the Journal has always been peer reviewed, and the authors are experts in the field of ship design for the Korean navy, and explain their work in the article. I am not aware of responses.

Regards

Jonathan Sarfati


He did respond to my name I chose to X out my name.

I am emailing response.

quote:
Mr. Sarfati,

Can you provide contact information so I can confirm that these authors are experts in the field of ship design for the Korean navy. I am not trying to be difficult, but anyone can claim anything. Unless sources and methodologies can be independently verified then the article basically means nothing.

Also, can you provide information as to who did the peer review? As a journal there must be some sort of records of who reviewed it before publication.


I guess I got a response from one of the big dogs.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 4:41 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 2:49 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 261 (613651)
04-26-2011 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by slevesque
04-25-2011 1:58 PM


slevesque writes:

But the point is actually quite simple: if no one here can understand the math when it is presented to them, then no one here can claim that the ark wouldn't float, it really is as simple as that.

Well, that's not quite right. We can form opinions on whether the ark would float independent of this article. Unless the article undercut the assumptions and basis for those opinions, then we would have two opposing opinions.

And no, we don't have to swallow the math just because we don't understand it. The article should be looked at with a critical eye by someone who does understand the math and physics, before we decide that it even presents a credible opinion.

Saying "Slevesque has no reason to disbelieve" does not cut it. We know that you aren't going to find anything wrong with the article before you even take out your calculator. Further you haven't credibly argued that you are qualified to assess the analysis.

If nobody here understands the analysis, including the math and the appropriateness of the assumptions, then the only reason for considering the paper to be plausible is the reputations of the scientists involved. Yet we know that you'd never accept a sinking ark analysis on that same basis.

I'm with you on the paucity of the analysis from people who say that the ark would definitely not float. I'd also be interested in continuing the discussion on the analysis. But saying that the paper is correct until we prove it is not goes too far.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:58 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 3:01 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6837
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 165 of 261 (613652)
04-26-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Theodoric
04-26-2011 2:35 PM


quick response this time.
quote:
The article provides the authors' affiliation, so it's up to you to check if you have doubts about that.

Most journals provide little information on the peer reviewers even for today's papers.

The authors explain their methodology, which was standards for design of ships in their navy. If you have any problems, then you are welcome to submit criticisms.

Regards

(Dr) Jonathan Sarfati


Notice how he put the Dr on this response. Think maybe he is trying to intimidate me with his expertise?

Basically, the "journal" has no info on this article other than what the article states. We need to take it on blind faith that it was in fact reviewed prior to publication by people familiar with the subject. I guess for this journal it doesn't mean people familiar with engineering, but rather people familiar with apologetics.

Gee sleve, it takes you a month to get a response. Funny how an atheist can get a response within a day. Just yanking your chain. You prob get a response today too.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 2:35 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2011 4:46 PM Theodoric has 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