Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8960 total)
146 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Diomedes, DrJones*, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD (6 members, 140 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,751 Year: 1,499/23,288 Month: 1,499/1,851 Week: 139/484 Day: 62/77 Hour: 4/23


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 1 of 453 (520004)
08-19-2009 12:34 AM


In 1909 the schooner Wyoming was launched from the Percy & Small shipyard in Bath, Maine. She was state-of-the art in wooden hulled shipbuilding. She was a six masted schooner and, at 329 ft., the longest ship with an all wood keel and hull ever built. She was the last of nine wooden hulled, six-masted schooners built between 1900 and 1909, and one of seven built by Percy & Small. All were 300 ft. or more in length. They were all state-of-the art.

The Wyoming had 90 steel cross-braces. Even while she was yet on the drawing boards the marine engineers who designed and built her knew from experience with shorter ships that the length of the Wyoming would exceed the structural limits of wood. For this reason they attempted to defeat, or at least support, the laws of physics and the principles of marine engineering with steel. It was to no avail. Not even the steel bracing could prevent the flexing and twisting that resulted in the separation of the hull planking. The Wyoming required constant pumping, as did her sister ships. The Wyoming leaked from the day she hit the water until the day, 14 years later, when she foundered and broke up off of Monomoy Island while riding out a storm at anchor.

It is said that she could be seen to snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to mid ship) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to mid ship) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any caulking that could be devised. The Wyoming and her sisters were used, for the most part, for short, close-in coastal hauls, generally in sight of land. At the first sign if inclement weather, they could run for port. The Wyoming served for several years as a coal hauler, as did several of her sisters.

I have always had a great love for windjammers. I have some very expensive books that deal with the minutia of their construction and for years my hobby was to build full rigged wooden models. I spent hours climbing over the decks of the U.S.S. Constitution in Charleston Navy Yard, admiring her construction. The Wyoming must have been a beautiful vessel. But she was a beautiful anachronism. At about 300 ft. the structural capabilities of wood were exceeded beyond the abilities of engineering and design to remedy

Few other ships of this size were built of wood. One exception was the four-masted medium clipper barque, Great Republic built in 1853. She is sometimes reported as the longest wooden ship ever build with a length of 334 feet, but more usually it is claimed that she was 325 feet. The Great Republic also had 90 steel cross braces, 4 inches wide, 1 inch thick, and 36 feet long. Nevertheless, she sprung her hull in a storm off of Bermuda. She was abandoned when the water in the hold reached 15 feet.

And yet, creationists want me to believe that a 450 ft. (minimum) vessel of ALL wood construction was able to withstand a storm of 40 days and then remain at sea for almost a year, manned by only eight people, without the efficient pumps of the turn of the century, caulked with nothing more than "pitch inside and out". Not to mention the overwhelming necessity of the limited crew to feed and water thousands of animals and to muck out thousands of pens (and then carry the result of the mucking up two decks in order to throw it overboard). When was there time for pumping (24 hours a day if the above is any indication) and the constant re-caulking in a futile attempt to stem the flow.

Experience with real wooden ships sailing in real oceans indicates that Noah's ark would not have survived many days of the 40 day storm.

My opinion of Noah's ark is that that boat don't float.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phage0070, posted 08-19-2009 11:05 AM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 08-19-2009 11:48 AM pandion has responded
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 08-20-2009 6:32 PM pandion has responded
 Message 67 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 6:10 PM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 254 by Blackwodin, posted 10-09-2009 6:55 PM pandion has responded
 Message 318 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-12-2010 9:48 PM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 355 by Possessor, posted 10-26-2011 11:45 AM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 359 by Portillo, posted 12-10-2011 11:28 PM pandion has responded
 Message 380 by evolutionfacts, posted 12-28-2011 6:43 PM pandion has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 6 of 453 (520118)
08-19-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
08-19-2009 11:48 AM


Mistranslation
Coragyps writes:

Two words:
Gopher Wood.

It's magical, y'know. Stronger than steel, self-bailing and poop-resistant, resists heat to 800 Fahrenheit..........


I think that whoever recorded the story of Noah and the FLUD got confused and mistranslated part. I think that what happened was that when god told Noah to build the ark, Noah said to his three sons, "You gofer wood. I'll wait here."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 08-19-2009 11:48 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 7 of 453 (520130)
08-19-2009 2:14 PM


Another consideration is what would have happened to a big, wooden box in a stormy sea. Any sailor will tell you how important it is to maintain steerage way in heavy seas. That is the only way that the bow can be pointed into the swell. Sailing ships, even in gale force winds, carry some sail in order to keep the ship pointed in a direction that makes it easier to ride out the weather - stern to in the case of sailing ships. Well, Noah's ark was just a big box if we are to believe the Bible. There was no bow, or stern, and no sails.

Here's what happens to a ship (or a big box) that cannot maintain steerage way in a big storm. In December of 1944 the US Navy Task Force 38 was caught in a typhoon in the Philippine Sea east of Luzon. (The Caine Mutiny was set in that storm - LCdr Gerald Ford was serving aboard the USS Monterey during the typhoon.) In that storm, three destroyers (USS Hull, USS Spence, USS Monaghan) lost power when their engine rooms were flooded. All three ships had pumped out the ballast tanks in anticipation of refueling. All three capsized when they were turned broadside to the waves. All hands were lost. You see, when the height of a wave exceeds the particular dimension of the ship that it encounters, over the ship goes. Waves as high as the length of a Navy destroyer just don't happen. Waves as high as the beam of the ship are common.

So how would Noah's big wooden box have fared? With no means of propulsion the ark would have been turned broadside to the first few small waves. If the 40 day storm was as severe as creationists tell us, Noah and family and all the animals spent 40 days rolling over and over and over - unless the ark settled quietly on the bottom.


Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 08-19-2009 2:19 PM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2009 8:35 PM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 08-20-2009 12:39 AM pandion has responded
 Message 406 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 8:06 PM pandion has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 13 of 453 (520281)
08-20-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
08-20-2009 12:39 AM


Re: Re-storm
ICANT writes:

Who said anything about storms, typhoons, or the like.


Well, Genesis mentions a storm that lasted 40 days and 40 nights. What would you call it? I mentioned a typhoon only to illustrate what can happen to a vessel that cannot maintain headway, like a big box.

Ah you been listening to too many YEC fairy tales.

So you're going to tell me even more fairy tales.

According to Genesis 1:9 the earth would have looked like my avatar but the land mass could have been much smaller.

That's not what Genesis says.

Genesis tells us it began to rain and the fountains of the deep opened up. If that happened all around the planet the water would have rose like it does at the Bay of Fundy.

So all of that rain and these imaginary "fountains of the deep" didn't cause any waves at all. Tell me another fairy tale. The point was that any wooden ship over 300 ft in length leaks - all the time. It could not have stayed afloat for a year.

Depending on the sea level of that land mass would determine how much water was necessary to flood it.

It would require about 4 times the total volume of water on the earth to flood it as described in the Bible.

So without all the earthquakes and everything put forth by the YEC's to produce their impossible dream the water would have rose like water in a tub filling from the bottom.

And you know that how?

Remember this was God's project and I think it was a much easier task that creating the universe. So why would he have problems with such a small thing as flooding the earth and keeping humans, and animals alive on an ark for a year?

So it is nothing more than a miracle. In that case, what was the point? Why didn't your little god just poof everything out of existance and start over? What was the point of the flood if it was a miracle anyway?

But then I will assume that I am talking to someone who does not believe God exists. Therefore would have no comprehension of what He can or can not do.

Since I actually studied theology, my bet is that I have a better understanding of the nature of god than you.

By the way, how do you propose to get all of the continents to where they are now in less than 4500 years without melting the whole planet?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 08-20-2009 12:39 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 08-20-2009 11:23 AM pandion has responded
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 08-20-2009 1:16 PM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2009 6:38 PM pandion has responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 17 of 453 (520302)
08-20-2009 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
08-20-2009 11:23 AM


Re: Storm?
NosyNed writes:

don't remember no storm... just* 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Reference please?

* "just" being something like under Niagara falls.

Interesting. So enough water to flood the entire globe to a depth of 15 cubits above the mountains and it wasn't a storm? I guess "It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath."

Creationists tell us that the gentle rain was violent enough to wash shell fish to the tops of the highest mountains (they're actually in the mountains, but never mind).

But it doesn't matter. There would have been waves and a wooden boat 450 ft. long, sealed with pitch inside and out, would leak all the time. Besides, the cold water would make the pitch brittle and it would crack and, you guessed it, leak.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 08-20-2009 11:23 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 08-20-2009 4:36 PM pandion has responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 23 of 453 (520327)
08-20-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
08-20-2009 6:32 PM


Peg writes:

the only problem here is that you are assuming the Ark was built in the same way as a conventional ship.


No I'm not. I'm assuming that it was a big box with none of the modern shipbuilding techniques that helped make them seaworthy.

The measurments of the ark do not show a vessel that is anything like the ships we know.

I know. The Bible describes a big box, no more, no less.

The measurments are 300 long, 50 wide, and 30 high. Rule up those measurements and you've got a rectangular box with a lenght to depth ratio of 10 to 1 and a length to width ratio of 6 to 1.

But it is important to understand that the measurements are cubits, probably either Sumerian or Mesopotamian since that is where the Hebrews got their story of Noah. In that case the ark would have been 510 ft. or 525 ft. long. Most measurements designated as cubits would have made the ark well over 500 ft and the Arabic cubit would have made it 640 ft long.

The ratio of length to width doesn't matter a rat's tootie. The length of the ark would have exceeded the structural ability of the wood. It would have been impossible to keep it rigid. Just the action of floating on the water would have caused the ark to flex in middle and therefore spring the hull. Not even the oakum caulking used at the turn of the 20th century could help on ships longer that 300 ft.

It was flat and square. It didnt need a rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat.

Right. Flat and square and leaky. If it was still afloat when the waves turned it, a wave higher than 50 cubits (not unheard of in the open sea) would have rolled it over.

What helped it to stay afloat was that it was made out of a resinous tree. This resinous wood is thought by some to be cypress or a similar tree and in that part of the world there was an abundant supply of resinous trees.

It's funny how unbiblical creationists get when they are trying to defend their improbable mythology. The Bible says that it was gopher wood, and no one has any idea what that was. But it really doesn't matter what kind of wood was used. A wooden ship over 300 ft. long leaks badly.

The Phoenicians and Alexander the Great used the same type of wood in their ships because it is especially resistant to water and decay. Moses also was told to “cover [the ark] inside and outside with tar.”

But the Phoenicians and Alexander didn't build ships over 500 ft. long. The really large ships from antiquity were modular, where smaller watertight sections were fastened together. The Chinese also built some large ships using this method. But not Noah. And I wasn't aware that Moses was ever engaged in any ship building. Can you imagine the lethal atmosphere inside a big box without ventilation that was covered all over the inside with tar? The question of seaworthiness would actually have been moot, since just the fumes from the tar would have killed everything.

So it would have been completely waterproof, no 'pumping' would have been required.

Tar isn't good enough. A ship made of wood over 300 ft. in length leaks. There is no two ways about it. The structural limits of all kinds of wood are exceeded at about 300 ft.

Actually, you'd be more familiar with pitching then me, the ark would have needed to be strong enough to resist the tendency to sag under the stress of being lifted by the waves.

And that is the point. It couldn't have been. It was made of wood. The Wyoming had steel cross-bracing and that wasn't enough. It leaked, just as the ark would have leaked.

The accounts show that the length-to-depth ratio was 10 to 1. Isnt this similar to the ratio modern ship builders use to accommodate such stresses?

Irrelevant. You can't "accommodate" the fact that wood will bend and twist. When it does, the hull leaks. Modern shipbuilders use steel.

Edited by pandion, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 08-20-2009 6:32 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 08-20-2009 11:54 PM pandion has responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 24 of 453 (520328)
08-20-2009 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
08-20-2009 6:38 PM


Re: Waves that reach around the world
RAZD writes:

Note that the size of waves are proportional to the reach of the winds as well as their strength. The "roaring 40's" are called that for a reason -- the reach there circles the globe. With a global flood this would be a universal condition. Wind and waves unimpeded as they circle the globe.

The waves that broke up the boats in your OP were peanuts by comparison.


Thanks for that info. I'll keep that in mind the next time a creationist tries to tell me how gentle things were during the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2009 6:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 27 of 453 (520335)
08-20-2009 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by lyx2no
08-20-2009 4:36 PM


Cold Water
lyx2no writes:

According to mfaber that cold water would have been 1800°K.


When I read your post I knew where it was going. I answered a couple of others and then watched some TV and read for awhile. But my mind kept coming back to the heating of the atmosphere from all the rain.

I argued in this thread that the cold water of the seas would make the tar brittle because I thought that maybe creationists could understand that. I know for certain that they don't understand the arguments about the heat. I've argued with them before about this and they just don't seem able to grasp it.

It seems obvious to a creationist that rain cools the atmosphere because on a hot day it gets cooler when it rains. True at ground level. Creationists don't grasp that when water vapor condenses to water it releases heat, latent hear, as it says in the article you cited. I've never been inclined to try to work out how much heat - I'm not sure that I can, but I have been told by a physicist or two that my point was correct. The release of the heat from the condensation of that much water would have steamed Noah and family, along all of the animals.

I had never thought about the kinetic energy of falling raindrops being converted to heat before. That makes the problem worse for Noah, doesn't it? At those temperatures the pitch would have been runny enough to be useless as caulk.

Thanks for the link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 08-20-2009 4:36 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 30 of 453 (520339)
08-21-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
08-20-2009 10:58 PM


Re: Ship Design 101
Wow! Awesome post.

RAZD writes:

So we compare (Lark/Lwyoming)^3 = (515/450)^3 = 1.499 ... so it needs 1.5 x the Wyoming for the same stress, and it has 2.14 in the vertical direction, so OVERALL the would actually be stiffer by ~42%.


Except that where it counts, the Wyoming was not 450 ft. If you discount the bowsprit and all of the sailing rigging, she was 334 ft. on deck and 329 ft. at the water line. How does that affect the "stiffness" of the ark? Also, does your calculation include both snaking and hogging/sagging?

Curiously wood has a high strength and stiffness to weight ration compared to many metals and composites except only the most exotic composites. The problem is more in the fastening than in the strength of the material per se: without a glue as strong as the material you have the old problem of the weakest link in a chain.

In Traditional wooden ship building this weakest link is the bonding of the wood members, one to the next, not just in the sealing of the outer skin, but in fastening the internal structural members so that they don't "work" and result in give (eg - a peg in a loose hole) before taking up load. So it's the fasteners between the wood members that makes wooden boats flex, not the relative stiffness of wood itself.


I have no reason to disagree with anything that you said. I did a bit of reading about wood ship construction. Of course, Noah was bronze age, so he might have fastened the "hull" planks with bronze, or even copper nails. Both of those have the advantage of not being as susceptible to corrosion from sea water, although they are not as strong. But, metal fasteners have the disadvantage of being so much harder than wood that they cause what is known as "nail sickness", i.e., increased wood decay around the metal nails. I don't know if the year at sea of the ark would have been significant.

I think it more likely that the ark would have been constructed using treenails. This method consists of driving wooden dowels through holes bored into the plank and the structural beam. This method has the advantage that the wood of both the planks and the treenails would swell in water, thus forming a stronger bond. Additionally, a very old technique is to drive a spike of a harder wood into the outer end of the dowel, thus forming an even tighter bond.

Of course, we have no idea of the supposed shipbuilding skills of Noah or any methods he may have used. But all in all, the ark would have leaked badly. No way around it. Maybe it didn't leak as badly as the Wyoming and her sisters, maybe worse. That boat still didn't float.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2009 10:58 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2009 9:32 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 31 of 453 (520342)
08-21-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
08-20-2009 11:54 PM


Peg writes:

it was ventilated according to the account


There is a difference between venting and ventilation. The ark was vented by a window, not ventilated. To ventilate the ark you would have to have an intake of fresh air and an outlet for noxious fumes and a fan (or some other means) to drive the air. Down 3 decks, a 20 inch window would have no effect. Add to that the buildup of methane from the belching and flatulence of the animals. Both the fumes from the tar and the methane are heavier than air and thus would have needed a positive ventilation system to prevent the lower decks from becoming lethal. Thus, the 8 people would have been required to man the air pumps as well as the water pumps many hours a day, in addition to feeding the animals and mucking out all of the feces and urine and carrying it up a deck or two to dump it out that little window.

Noah was told to make an opening at the top of the width of a cubit all around Ge 6:16. this wasnt just a small peephole, if the opening was a cubit in height near the roof and extending right around the four sides, thats nearly 140 sq/m air vent.

But that's not what Genesis says. It says, "A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above." So there was a window on the top deck. So what? Please stop with the extra-Biblical inventions.

I understand that the structural limits are exceeded at 300 ft in length, but again you are assuming that Noah made each piece of wood at this length or longer.

No we aren't. We are assuming that the ark exceeded 300 ft., to over 500 ft. in fact. It actually has nothing to do with the length of each plank but the structural strength of wood. Never, ever are adjacent, or even near, hull planks terminated on the same structural rib. Thus, the length of individual planks is negated. Nice try, but wishing doesn't make it so.

We are not told how Noah fastened the timbers together or what length each of them were so its not a valid argument to claim that the length of the wood would have been a failure for the ark.

Really? Neither were we told anything about resinous wood, or a vent all around the ark. You just make it up as you go, don't you? Of course, no one but you mentioned the length of the timbers. It is the length of the ship that matters. Please pay attention.

also the ark was constructed with three decks, which would have added to its strength

Not significantly. The length of the ark exceeded the structural strength of wood by more than 1.5 times.

I sometimes wish that I could be a creationist so that I could make thing up as I went along. "The Bible is the literal truth unless we feel the need to invent arguments."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 08-20-2009 11:54 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Peg, posted 08-21-2009 3:00 AM pandion has responded
 Message 33 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 8:36 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 42 of 453 (520393)
08-21-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Peg
08-21-2009 3:00 AM


Peg writes:

how its that an extra-biblical invention ???


Your description exceeds what the Bible says. Therefore, your description is extra-Biblical. You, as a creationist, get to make it up as you go and then claim the Bible as the authority for your fantasies.

you made the claim that there was no ventilation, i showed you otherwise. And genesis does not say 'window' it says 'tsohar' This is a hebrew word that means “opening for illumination.”

Do you actually know the difference between light and ventilation? It seems not. Further, you tell me that it isn't a window but an opening for illumination, followed by a translation that calls it a window. Either it is or it isn't a window. Exactly what do you think a window is? And somewhere in you confusion about the window/opening for illumination you come up with ventilation. Make it up as you go and claim the Bible says that.

This 'window' was an openening for light and air to come in.

Great! On the top floor someone might stick their head out this window and get some fresh air - but not down two decks. The problem has been explained to you several times but you seem to be having trouble understanding the most simple principles. The hydrocarbon fumes (from tar - ever smelled it) and the CO2, are heavier than air. There would also be constant accumulation of methane from the animal waste. Those gases would have accumulated in the bottom of the ark unless there were an active ventilation system. It is the reason that hard rock mines have huge fans on ventilation shafts - to pump good air down to the miners and drive out the methane.

houses are built with air vents that are not propelled by a fan. If they are of no value, why continue to build houses with air vents?

Perhaps you were unaware of this, but houses are not built to float. The vents in houses are to allow rising hot air to escape from attics. You probably never noticed that there are vents under the eaves as well as vents at the top of the roof. The rising hot air goes out at the top and pulls cooler air in from the eaves. Their purpose is not to introduce breathable air into the house.

but i though you said that the structural limit stops at 300 ft. If thats the case, then several shorter lengths would not reach their structural limit. There is nothing to say that Noah used peices of over 300 ft. They could have been shorter pieces that were somehow connected together.

It amazes me how you just don't grasp some very simple concepts when they are explained to you. No one mentioned individual timbers that were 300 ft. long. Are you actually aware of how long that is? Imagine a football field with a single board laying on it that goes from goal line to goal line. Not gonna happen! Do you think that the wooden ships that we have been talking about were planked with strakes that ran the entire length of the ship? What you are being told (and what you are ignoring) is that 300 ft. is the structural limit of shipbuilding of all wood construction.

the structual strength is determined by the ratio as RAZD has shown in his above post.

Then show us the calculations that show that the ark, at over 500 ft. would not have leaked. Do you actually understand the calculations that RAZD provided?

have you read the account or are you going off anti creation propaganda?

Yes, I have read it, in three different languages, as well as in several different translations in English. The real question is whether or not you have read it. Since you keep making up so much about the story that just isn't there, it would seem not. The "resinous tree" part is from a non-standard translation. No one knows what "gopher" wood was so it is a bit disingenuous to claim that "resinous tree" has some meaning. By the way, your quote begins at Gen 6:14 - not Gen 6:13.

the length is one thing, but the width is what increases its ratio and in the case of the ark, it was 1-10. You need to calculate the width into it.

No I don't. You do. Show us the calculations that make the ark seaworthy. I guess you didn't understand what RADZ said. Increasing the width would decrease the snaking. But you don't say anything about hogging/sagging. Besides, RADZ was talking about box beams and their strength. We are not claiming that the hull broke, only that it leaked badly because of the inability to keep it rigid enough. Tar/pitch isn't a very good caulk for large, wooden ships - it leaks.

But on the other hand, no one ever claimed that mythology had to be possible.

Edited by pandion, : methane


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Peg, posted 08-21-2009 3:00 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Peg, posted 08-22-2009 5:24 AM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 12:35 PM pandion has responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 75 of 453 (520534)
08-22-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Theodoric
08-21-2009 10:49 PM


Theodoric writes:

Also, a very important point if the Leontifera or others were built they were not seagoing vessels in any real sense. Galleys hugged the coast they did not venture into the open seas.
Also, all of the large galleys are thought to have been of a catamaran configuration.
Source Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Lionel Casson, 1995


That is what I understand the case to be, but I can't source it except to say that it was a TV program. The show discussed the largest ancient ships ever built. It seems that it was accomplished in a couple of ways.

The first is what you mention, a catamaran configuration. As I recall, what is believed to have been the largest was actually a triple hulled catamaran. The hulls weren't useful space. They weren't compartments or cargo areas. They were for flotation only. I don't recall if they were solid or hollow and filled with buoyant material. Above that were the decks build on a grid of support that held the hulls together.

The other method I mentioned before. That was essentially to fasten together a series of smaller, water tight boxes. Thus, the boxes could be made watertight with wood and reasonable caulk, and the joints between the compartments allowed the snaking and hogging/sagging.

But that's pretty irrelevant since the ark predated any of these ships by a couple thousand years, and the description of the ark isn't even similar to any of the other ancient ships.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 08-21-2009 10:49 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 78 of 453 (520543)
08-22-2009 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Theodoric
08-22-2009 12:49 AM


Theodoric writes:

Please provide evidence that it was in the battle. As I said before Ussher is the only source known. You should not speak in absolutes if you do not have solid evidence.


Is this James Ussher, Prelate of all Ireland? Is this the guy who claimed that the earth was created at nightfall on 22 October 4004 BC? I think that anything he might have to say about battleships in the Aegean is highly suspect, I mean, given his track record with the age of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Theodoric, posted 08-22-2009 12:49 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 08-22-2009 2:33 AM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 81 by slevesque, posted 08-22-2009 2:36 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 127 of 453 (520784)
08-24-2009 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Peg
08-23-2009 10:00 PM


Re: Not 300 ft boards! Doh!!
Peg writes:

however we have no way of knowing how Noah reinforced the ark, there are no details of how he laid any of the beams...if there were explicit details, then we'd be able to ascertain if its was a sound structure.


Actually, that's not true. We know that he built the ark from wood. So says the Bible. Any reinforcing would have reduced the the space available for the hundreds of thousands of "kinds", along with food to sustain them for a year (how did Noah [not Moses, Peg] know how much food to put on board?), and provisions to catch and store fresh water.

Why am I doubtful? Maybe it is because your solution to the fact that the ark exceeded the structural limits of wood construction was to make the ark 50 cubits long and 300 cubits wide by turning the planking sideways in an effort to escape the known limits of wood construction. How strange that you don't understand that ships and boats are never build with planking from gunwale to keel as opposed to stem to stern. The reason is that your suggested method of planking would produce a leaky 10 ft. row boat, not to mention a sea bottom curiosity of a ship that went down as it was launched. Ship's planking runs from stem to stern because it adds strength to the ship.

we can assume he did it the way that would cause the boat to break up, or we can assume he must have reinforced it in a way that kept it secure.

There you go with the extra-Biblical claptrap again. Why would we make such assumptions? How would Noah (not Moses) have even known what reinforcements were necessary in a vessel so large. Certainly, no such vessels had ever been built before. How would he have known? Did god tell him? If that is the case, then we fall back again to miracle. And that begs the question, what is the point if it is just a miracle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Peg, posted 08-23-2009 10:00 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1388 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 134 of 453 (520854)
08-24-2009 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
08-24-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Limits of Wood
ICANT writes:

The ark is not a ship. It wasn't going anywhere. Its function was to float and keep the occupants alive.


Exactly. The ark wouldn't have floated for long. Wood is not rigid enough to prevent flexing and separation of the planking. Doesn't matter if it is going anywhere or not. Both the Wyoming and the Great Republic weren't going anywhere when they sank. Both were anchored in shelter and their hulls were sprung by the action of the waves.

I know they just completed a 9 story 30 meter apartment building in London this year. It is all wood construction.

So, this apartment building is floating in the Thames? It is water-tight and windowless except for one small window at the top? No? Then what is your point? Certainly you can't believe that an apartment building is somehow analogous to the ark.

So big things can be built out of wood.

That's not the point. Big ships or arks can certainly be built from wood. The problem is that they would leak. Why the red herring? Do you think your efforts to change to point makes the mythology of Genesis any more believable?

Was to be built of Gopher wood. Most scholars think that was cypress. Cypress trees get to be very large. There is one standing on my uncles land that is over 200 feet tall.

That's probably a very impressive tree. My guess is that it sways in the wind. Trees are pretty flexible you know. And that flexibility is what causes the problem with sea going vessels longer than 300 ft. It causes them to leak, even more so that the ark was caulked with tar and only tar.

There are huge 1300 year old wood buildings standing today.

The point is not how long it would have lasted on dry land but if it would have floated for a year after a big storm. Big boats flex and the planking separates. That doesn't matter to a wood building but it does to a ship.

When properly built, once the boards have received water and swell they will not leak as long as the boards stay in the water.

Unless the hull snakes or sags/hogs enough to cause openings. Ships longer than 300 ft. leak. You don't think that your wet wood hypothesis applied to the Wyoming or the Great Republic? They both leaked and required constant pumping.

You seem to be having trouble in understanding the point. No one is claiming that it would be impossible to build the ark from wood, only that it would not be sea worthy. Please try to keep up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 12:35 PM ICANT 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 © 2020