Summations Only

Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant brontosaurus in the ark?

A. Getting a brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!

(Noah! Make them stop! I'm getting seasick.)

Hi pandion et al

In such cases, the wave force would strike one extreme of the vessel first and push it out of alignment. This was the cause of the visible snaking of the Wyoming and her sister ships. The hogging/sagging and the snaking as the ship crossed the waves sprung the hull timbers.

They also had higher length to depth ratios, and they had added stresses from rigging and sail loads and these contributed to hogging and snaking.

You have still not taken into account that the strength of members also increases with size, not just the stresses, and that when we do a rough calculation of strengths (as I did in Message 37 and copied below) we see that the ark is potentially stronger: 20% stronger against hogging (ignoring the difference due to rigging loads that increased hogging stress on the Wyoming), and 100% stronger against snaking.

Without doing a more detailed design you cannot claim that the ark was weaker than needed.

Without knowing what the stresses encountered were you cannot claim that the ark was not strong enough.

Moreover, without any ability to orient the vessel to the waves, the ark would have been turned broadside to the waves and rolled if the height of the waves exceeded the breadth of the big box. Please refer to my earlier post where I mentioned the USS Hull, USS Spence, and the USS Monaghan.

Again, you have absolutely no proof or documentation of any wave heights during the purported flood event. Flooding does not mean large waves. Rainfall does not mean large waves. For all we know, it could have been a completely calm sea.

Making stuff up to prove a concept wrong is what creationists and pseudoscientists like to do.

Here's a question to ask yourself: would a solid block of wood float upright and stable on a sea in normal weather?

If the answer is no then you have a legitimate argument.

If the answer is yes then all you have is speculation, and your time is better spent elsewhere.

Enjoy.

Message 37:

	L	B	D
Ark	515	86	52
L/	1	6	10
BD^3	(vertical)	-	12092288
DB^3	(horizontal)	33074912	-
Wyoming	350	50	40
L/	1	7	8.75
BD^3	(vertical)	-	3200000
DB^3	(horizontal)	5000000	-
Ark/Wyoming
BD^3	(vertical)	-	3.78
DB^3	(horizontal)	6.61	-
(L/L)^3	3.19	208%	119%

The ark is still 20% stiffer in the worst (vertical loading) condition.

Edited by Zen Deist, : added reference

Portillo writes: Ernst Mayr lists the following numbers for animals species: Mammals - 3,500 Birds - 8,600 Reptiles and Amphibians - 5,500 Fishes - 18,000 Tunicates, etc - 1,700 Echinoderms - 4,700 Arthropods 815,000 Mollusks - 88,000 Worms, etc - 25,000 Coelenterates, etc - 10,000 Sponges - 5,000 Protozoans - 15,000 Total Animals - 1,000,000

Not the numbers that Mayr gave in his last book, What Evolution Is (2001). Here they are, in the same order:

Mammals = 4,800
Birds = 9,800
Amphibians = 4,000
Reptilians = 7,150
= 11,150
Fish = 27,000
Tunicates = no mention
Echinoderms = no mention
Arthropods = 4,650,000
Molluscs = 120,000
Nematodes (worms, etcl) = 500,000
Coelentrates = no mention
Sponges = no mention
Protozoans = 100,000

Total animals = 5,722,750

In fact, Mayr numbers the total number of biologic species to be about 6,790,000. It should be noted that these are extant species and does not include extinct species.

It is interesting that your source numbers Arthropods at 815,000. In fact, more than 850,000 species of beetle are believed to exist, while only about 400,000 have been classified.

So if we accept the numbers that you gave that I don't have, the total number of animals is 5,744,150.

Zen Deist writes: They also had higher length to depth ratios, and they had added stresses from rigging and sail loads and these contributed to hogging and snaking.

Sorry, that's not the problem. Both the Wyoming and the Great Republic broke up while at anchor in the lee of an island. In other words, they weren't flying any sail.

You have still not taken into account that the strength of members also increases with size, not just the stresses, and that when we do a rough calculation of strengths (as I did in Message 37 and copied below) we see that the ark is potentially stronger: 20% stronger against hogging (ignoring the difference due to rigging loads that increased hogging stress on the Wyoming), and 100% stronger against snaking.

You're making that up. Have you ever been in a forest with a wind blowing. Have you ever watched trees that were 2 ft. across sway in the wind. The fact is that ships are not constructed from the whole trunk of trees - they are constructed from plank on beam. What you are claiming is that Noah reduced the cargo capacity of the ark by about 20% because he used whole timbers in construction. That only increases the caulking problem - it doesn't stop the leaking. None of the timbers could run the entire length of the ark. Given bronze age knowledge of construction, how were these entire trees fastened together?

Without doing a more detailed design you cannot claim that the ark was weaker than needed.

So now you are claiming that because the Bible gives such a simple design for the ark, that we can't know anything about it.

Without knowing what the stresses encountered were you cannot claim that the ark was not strong enough.

We know the stressed encountered. Wooden ships leak beyond any means to stop it as they near 300 ft. They don't get stronger with size.

Again, you have absolutely no proof or documentation of any wave heights during the purported flood event.

And you have absolutely no proof or documentation that the purported flood event actually occurred. Evidence presented in a number of other threads on this forum make it clear that the flood of Noah is a myth.

Flooding does not mean large waves. Rainfall does not mean large waves. For all we know, it could have been a completely calm sea.

Actually, heavy rains at sea produce huge waves. Since we're not talking about a river flood, your objection to that point is nonsense. We are talking about rains that equaled hundreds of feet per day, several feet per hour that went on for 40 days. And you're telling me that there wasn't any wind? You're telling me that without any land to interfere with the wind blowing across the flat water that the seas were calm?

Making stuff up to prove a concept wrong is what creationists and pseudoscientists like to do.

Isn't it great how creationists get to make it up as they go along? But that's not what I'm doing. You, on the other hand...

Here's a question to ask yourself: would a solid block of wood float upright and stable on a sea in normal weather?

The short answer is no. If it was longer than it was wide then it would be turned broadside to the waves. If the waves exceeded the width, it would roll. However, since the ark isn't described as a solid block of wood, your question is irrelevant and meaningless.

If the answer is no then you have a legitimate argument.

But, then, I didn't need you to tell me that. I actually did some research and talked to a number of friends where are experienced sailors, including some who served on Navy ships.

If the answer is yes then all you have is speculation, and your time is better spent elsewhere.

But, of course, all you have posted is unsupported assertion. Your time is better spent elsewhere. Possibly a course in science at a college near you.

Edited by pandion, : additional comments

"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 "

It's silly indeed. But keep in mind they simply claim it was God's intervention and from there move to something like "unlike evolutionists, at least we admit we have faith."

That's what it's like when you debate to their way of thinking. I find it best to focus on the idea that the ark somehow had to make a pit stop in Australia to specifically drop off the Kangaroos. It's difficult for them to argue that this was God's plan.

Edited by evolutionfacts, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I find it best to focus on the idea that the ark somehow had to make a pit stop in Australia to specifically drop off the Kangaroos.

---

So when humans evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago, how did the Aborigines get to Australia?

By foot and boat.

So why is it a thoughtcrime to believe that wallabies and kangaroos made it to Australia?

HUH?

Portillo writes: So why is it a thoughtcrime to believe that wallabies and kangaroos made it to Australia?

You're sort of in the wrong thread for that question. This thread is about the seaworthiness of the ark. You could propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy

Hi evolutionfacts, and welcome to the fray.

"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 "

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

That's what it's like when you debate to their way of thinking. I find it best to focus on the idea that the ark somehow had to make a pit stop in Australia to specifically drop off the Kangaroos. It's difficult for them to argue that this was God's plan.

Yes, the pertinent question is how did all the species get to the places where they are found today, many with no known intermediates between their location and a single place where the ark was purported to land.

How did koalas get to Australia without any koalas left in between?
How did they survive the journey without eucalyptus trees along the way and no evidence of them anywhere but Australia?

And the question is not just one of getting from A to B, but also why that specific B for each species and no other - why no koalas in North America? Why no koalas in England?

Why do we end up with the distribution pattern seen today?

However these questions are off topic on this thread, and should be taken to a new thread (we like to keep threads focused on one topic as much as possible).

It's silly indeed. But keep in mind they simply claim it was God's intervention and from there move to something like "unlike evolutionists, at least we admit we have faith."

Unfortunately, this thread is about how silly the ark design is, and this is a silly argument itself. It is silly because the argument is necessarily based on many assumptions rather than objective evidence and engineering.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by Zen Deist, : added welcome & tips

Hi pandion,

Thanks for marking the sections you changed ... oh wait, you didn't ....

Sorry, but I am not the one making stuff up, rather I am pointing out why your assumptions are tenuous at best, if not totally unfounded.

But, of course, all you have posted is unsupported assertion. Your time is better spent elsewhere. ...

Amusingly, I got bored with the creationists around here at present, so I thought I would return to this issue to tackle an equally bad argument.

... Possibly a course in science at a college near you.

Curiously, I already have. We've discussed this before. It appears you either have a short memory or do not read for comprehension. Try again.

You're making that up.

No, I actually CALCULATED it from the available information using the engineering formulas for beam strength against moment stresses. We can go into this in more detail if you like and make better approximations of the Wyoming while exposing more of the lack of information on the purported ark to make similar approximations. I didn't do that for the simple reason that we don't have sufficient information on the purported ark to do a similar analysis AND because these rough calculations are sufficient to show that the ark could have been stronger than the Wyoming. More refined calculations would likely only make this worse.

IF the calculations had resulted in a weaker ark THEN you might have had an argument. They don't ... so YOU don't.

Because a weaker ship had certain structural problems does not mean that a stronger vessel would.

Because one specific design had certain structural problems does not mean that a different design would.

Because one specific design foundered under a certain set of conditions does not mean that those conditions would apply to the purported ark.

Even at rest the rigging still loads the hull with tension in the stays and compression in the masts -- 6 in the case of the Wyoming. When the vessel was under sail she leaked, hogged and snaked, and this is when the vessel was under load from the rigging. In gale force winds, even with no sails set, there would be significant loading of the rigging being transmitted to the hull. These loads are not static, and the pulsing of loads causes more working of the hull than steady loads would.

You have significant additional loads that just do not apply to the ark.

You have an apples and oranges comparison.

Sorry, that's not the problem. Both the Wyoming and the Great Republic broke up while at anchor in the lee of an island. In other words, they weren't flying any sail.

Amusingly, the documented facts concerning the Wyoming say otherwise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_%28schooner%29

quote:

---

1924 24 March. In order to ride out a nor'easter, she anchored off Chatham MA, in the Nantucket Sound, together with the five-masted schooner Cora F. Cressy which had left Norfolk at the same time as the Wyoming. Captain H. Publicover in the Cora F. Cressy weighed anchor at dusk and stood out to sea. The Wyoming is believed to have foundered east of the Pollock Rip Lightship and the entire crew of 14 was lost.[3][4][5]

---

(color for emphasis)

Firstly, foundering does not mean the vessel broke up. The actual cause is unknown, and she may have run into a sandbar or broached. It does not appear that the wreck has been found, so we may never know.

Secondly, the conditions encountered by the Wyoming at that time may not apply to the purported ark, the area involved is shallow and hazardous, much more dangerous than in the open ocean. For additional evidence we see that the Wyoming lasted 14+ years crossing the ocean, thus showing that the structure was not insufficient for those 14+ years of voyages.

Thirdly, the location where the Wyoming appears to have foundered was not the lee of an island:

http://www.vsa.cape.com/~harharb/lightships.html

quote:

---

Like the crouch of a tree, Pollock Rip Channel and Great Round Shoals Channel converge in Nantucket Sound at Cross Rip. The only "safe" route for ships at sea between northern New England and New York, a need for an extraordinary number of light vessels emerged to mark a safe passage on through Vineyard Sound making this area known as "lightship alley". In fact, this channel had the most prolific number of lightships in the world. The "Monomoy Passage" route was heavily used by coastwise shipping to avoid an offshore passage seaward of Nantucket Shoals, but was subject to prolonged periods of heavy fog in the spring and summer months.

Pollock Rip Lightship stationed 3.5 miles east of Monomoy Beach. Between 1849 and 1969 eight different light vessels served at this dangerous open water station.

---

(color for emphasis)

See Monomoy Beach (google maps)

So the location where the Wyoming was believed to have foundered is ~3.5 miles offshore and to the east side of the exposed beach, which puts her in open waters exposed to a northeaster\gale, and NOT the lee of an island. In addition, as this is not technically in Nantucket Sound, she must also have weighed anchor (she wouldn't drift towing her anchor in this direction), and she likely had storm sails set for steerage.

The lightships were there because of numerous sandbars and shifting shoals. There are many shipwrecks in the area, so the fact that the Wyoming foundered here is not necessarily due to her design.

You just can't assume that because the Wyoming foundered in that location, that the ark -- a different design AND exposed to different conditions -- would.

Especially since the Cora F. Cressy, a 273' five masted schooner by the same builders, survived the same storm by going to sea. It survived the same gale, so you need to account for this: you haven't.

http://www.hazegray.org/features/schooners/

quote:

---

Cora F. Cressy was a massive five-masted schooner built at the famed Percy & Small yards at Bath in 1902. She was 2499 tons (GRT), 273 feet long, and could carry some 4000 tons of coal. She was of very stout construction, with very high bows, but was a good sailer, and fast. After surviving a 1924 gale that claimed two other schooners (including the mighty six-masted Wyoming), she was known as "Queen of the Atlantic Seaboard". In 1928 she lost her sails in a gale and was laid up; she was expensive to operate and the repair costs could not be justified.

---

(color for emphasis)

So a second vessel foundered in the same gale, yet it did not have the structural problems of the Wyoming?

Grounded on an exposed beach in Maine the hull remained intact for several decades (I saw it in late 1980's). The dimensions for the Cressy are listed in Lloyds: 273' length (deck) 43.4' beam, 27.9' depth.

quote:

---

Schooner Wyoming. On Verso Schooner "Wyoming" of New York, the largest schooner in the World at the L & H Docks, Pensacola. 93 days from Africa with mahogany. Will now load lumber and turpentine, etc. for France.

---

Note that this picture was taken in 1917, that the vessel was launched in December 1909, and foundered in March 1924 -- surviving 14+ years afloat, much longer than the ark needed to remain afloat, and she crossed the ocean several times.

It would appear that the foundering was caused by the specific location and specific encountered conditions, not necessarily to the design of the vessel, as this is an area notorious for shipwrecks.

You are conflating this particular shipwreck with the design of the vessel when that does not necessarily mean that the vessel was not safe for open ocean voyages.

If the design was inadequate for ocean voyages then logically it would have broken up on one of the first of the many voyages it completed. This did not happen.

Just to ram this home a little more, I will revisit the calculations and add the Cora F. Cressy to the mix:

Bending stress of a beam = M/S (psf)
Where M = moment =wL^{^2}/8 (lb-ft) ∝ {L^{^2}}
      w = load per foot of the beam, and
      L = length of the beam,
and Sv = vertical section modulus = BD^{^2}/6 (ft^3) ∝ {{BD^{^2}}
and Sh = horizontal section modulus = DB^{^2}/6 (ft^3) ∝ {{DB^{^2}}
      B = breadth of the beam, and
      D = depth of the beam,

Thus vertical stress ∝ {L^{^2}}/{BD^{^2}}
And horizontal stress ∝ {L^{^2}}/{DB^{^2}}

	Ark	Wyoming	Cressy
L (ft)	515	350	273
B (ft)	86	50.1	43.4
D (ft)	52	36	27.9
L/B	6.0	7.0	6.3
L/D	9.9	9.7	9.8
Sv:{L^2}/{BD^2}	1.14	1.89	2.21
Sh:{L^2}/{DB^2}	0.69	1.36	1.42

Now extrapolations are notoriously questionable, especially when conditions apply to two examples and not the third (the rigging loads, for example), however, in addition to these stress calculations we can also extrapolate linearly what they would be for a schooner with rigging based on Wyoming, Cressy and length:

{L(Wyoming)-L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)-L(Wyoming)} = 2.14
{Sv(Cressy)-Sv(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)-L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)-L(Wyoming)} = 0.69
{Sw(Cressy)-Sw(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)-L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)-L(Wyoming)} = 0.13
Sv(Ark) ≈ Sv(Wyoming)-{Sv(Cressy)Sv(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)L(Wyoming)} = 1.20 (> 1.14 from the block analysis)
Sv(Ark) ≈ Sw(Wyoming)-{Sw(Cressy)Sw(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)L(Wyoming)} = 1.23 (> 0.69 from the block analysis)

Lower stresses means (a) more resistance to breaking up and (b) less working of the parts of the vessel.

Note that in BOTH comparisons, the proportionate stresses for the purported ark are LESS than the Wyoming (as previously noted) and further that the proportionate stresses for the Wyoming are less than the Cressy. Both schooners were capable ocean crossing vessels, but the Wyoming was known for flexing and leaking underway compared to the Cressy. What was the difference? You have argued that it is due to the increased length of the Wyoming, however she also had 20%+ more rigging load than the Cressy, and you have not accounted for that factor.

Apples and Oranges.

So now you are claiming that because the Bible gives such a simple design for the ark, that we can't know anything about it.

No, please read for comprehension. What we can know about the purported ark is limited to what is in the bible, both in terms of vessel design and in terms of the conditions that were experienced. We don't know much more about the vessel design than overall length, beam and depth of the vessel. We don't know much more about the weather conditions experienced other than it rained: there is no mention of large wind, large waves, or of the vessel rolling over, so it is safe to say that you cannot assume that these were necessarily experienced, you need to actually demonstrate the flood and rain would cause these conditions. You haven't, you have only made assumptions that they do.

The information available is just not sufficient to make the case that the vessel in question would roll over or break up:

1. Using a rough block analysis of beam strength (see above)
   
   1. The purported ark is stronger than the Wyoming in regards to hogging and sagging loads,
      
   2. The purported ark is stronger than the Wyoming in regards to snaking loads,
      
   3. The Wyoming did not break up at sea, and actually survived over 14 years at sea,
      
   4. Thus we could assume that the ark would survive those same conditions for at least 14 years.
   
   
2. In addition we know:
   
   1. The Wyoming had additional loads due to rigging etc that added significant stress to the Wyoming that would not be experienced by the purported ark.
      
   2. This means that, when you subtract the structure needed to handle the rigging loads, the Wyoming was likely even weaker in comparison than is indicated by these block calculations.

Have you ever been in a forest with a wind blowing. Have you ever watched trees that were 2 ft. across sway in the wind. The fact is that ships are not constructed from the whole trunk of trees - they are constructed from plank on beam. What you are claiming is that Noah reduced the cargo capacity of the ark by about 20% because he used whole timbers in construction.

Really? Would you care to quote the post where you think I claimed that? Or have you moved from making up stuff about the ark to making up stuff about my arguments? Reading for comprehension means reading and understanding what people actually say, not what you make up about their arguments.

Curiously, it was common for the wooden schooner boat builders to use whole trunks or branches for structural members, such as transverse beams and knees.

That only increases the caulking problem - it doesn't stop the leaking.

The bible does say that the purported ark is caulked, it does not say that the vessel leaked. There are many caulked wooden vessels that do not leak, so the fact that a vessel is caulked does not mean it leaks.

The leaking and flexing problems encountered by the Wyoming was when she was under sail, and are highly likely to be due to the significant rigging loads of this type of vessel, rather than just to her size. The captains of the schooners were known for putting up as much sail as they felt the vessel could carry, and take routes known for winds, in order to deliver their cargo in the shortest possible time.

Apples and Oranges.

We know the stressed encountered. Wooden ships leak beyond any means to stop it as they near 300 ft. They don't get stronger with size.

We do know the stresses encountered by the Wyoming, we do know that it survived those stresses for 14+ years of ocean voyages, even with the high rigging loads, we do NOT know the stresses or conditions encountered by the purported ark.

We do NOT know the characteristics of the wood purportedly used to build the purported ark, because "gopher wood" is not identified with any known species of wood.

We don't know how it swells or how strong it is (modulus of elasticity, etc).

They don't get stronger with size.

Sorry, this is a false statement as made: double the depth and breadth of a beam and you increase the strength by a factor of 16.

And you have absolutely no proof or documentation that the purported flood event actually occurred. Evidence presented in a number of other threads on this forum make it clear that the flood of Noah is a myth.

Curiously, I never claimed that the flood actually occurred: in fact if you actually read my posts you will see that they are among the ones with evidence that contradicts the possibility that a flood occurred.

The evidence for an old age for the earth is overwhelming, imho, and when coupled with a lack of evidence of a widespread flood occurring within those long ages, makes such an event highly unlikely, imvhasao.

However this is a red herring, because you are arguing about the conditions that would theoretically occur during such an event: we are discussing your theoretical assumptions, not whether the flood actually occurred or not.

AND, that still doesn't mean that I can't show your argument to be full of holes big enough to sink a battleship, with unfounded assumptions about things that don't necessarily apply.

Actually, heavy rains at sea produce huge waves. Since we're not talking about a river flood, your objection to that point is nonsense. We are talking about rains that equaled hundreds of feet per day, several feet per hour that went on for 40 days. ...

Did you add this comment in your edit? Bad idea.

Firstly, heavy rains do not produce waves, if anything they knock waves down. They provide no energy to cause waves.

Secondly, you don't know how heavy the rains were -- not all the flood water is claimed to come from the rain:

http://www.genesis.net.au/~bible/kjv/genesis/

quote:

---

7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

---

This says that there were "fountains of the great deep" in addition to rain, so you do not know how much of the purported flood can be attributed to the rain.

... And you're telling me that there wasn't any wind? ...

I'm saying that there is no mention of great winds, rather the significant events noted are rain and flooding. Thus your job is to show that high winds must necessarily have occurred, rather than just assume it. You have not done this.

quote:

---

7:17 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.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

---

Doesn't sound like gale conditions.

You just can't assume gale conditions without some foundation and objective evidence to support your argument. This does not mean cherry-picked evidence of extreme conditions in specific locations, and assuming that they necessarily apply across the board.

quote:

---

8:7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

---

Those birds apparently had no trouble flying back to the ark. No gale winds.

... You're telling me that without any land to interfere with the wind blowing across the flat water that the seas were calm?

(1) What causes that wind and how strong it is? The difference between heating and cooling of the land and water between day and night is the major cause of most wind we know. With no land masses you only have the heating and cooling of surface water between day and night, and this is significantly less than the effect of land heating and cooling. During the rain period there would be no daylight, and so there would be even less differential to generate wind.

(2) There are patches in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans where there is little wind: ever hear of the Saragossa Sea? Thus open water on its own does not create high wind or waves.

(3) What affects the air should also affect the water, and with no land masses there is nothing to block vast currents of water flowing around the earth in sync with the day\night cycle (think tides). Wind blowing with currents cause lower waves than when against them.

(4) The long (infinite?) reach means that waves get longer wavelengths. Ocean swells, not whitecaps.

You have not shown why the waves should be significantly different from normal ocean swells.

Isn't it great how creationists get to make it up as they go along? But that's not what I'm doing. You, on the other hand...

A bad argument is a bad argument, no matter who proposes it. You are comparing apples with oranges and assuming conditions that are not documented to have been experienced within the narrative, and with no reason given for making your assumptions.

The short answer is no. If it was longer than it was wide then it would be turned broadside to the waves. If the waves exceeded the width, it would roll.

Amusingly, that doesn't answer the question actually asked. You keep making stuff up -- you don't know the wave height or length. You need to include what would happen when your if statements are NOT fulfilled to properly answer the question.

... If the waves exceeded the width, it would roll.

Interestingly there are two dimensions to waves: wavelength and wave height. Wavelengths can be very long but with little height. These are well rounded waves without steep slopes. Such waves are normal and they are typical of ocean swells. Such waves would not roll the block of wood. Tsunami waves in the open ocean are only a few feet high and often pass unnoticed under ships, yet they are of extremely long wavelengths.

Obviously there are other factors involved in creating waves that could roll over a solid block of wood with these dimensions, and you have not shown that they would exist in normal weather.

In relative calm and long rollers the block would not turn over. Even in fairly nasty weather the block would not roll over.

The tilt necessary is a function of the beam to depth and the location of the center of gravity. For a block of wood the center of gravity would be the center of the block.

Fascinatingly, a block of wood can float in waves where the wavelength is many times the beam without rolling, and a block of wood can float in ocean swells with wave heights taller that the block of wood is wide without rolling.

The rolling action you are talking about is caused by a number of additional conditions, not just wave size (height?).

With a beam of 86 ft and a depth of 52 feet, the center of gravity would be at 26 feet above the baseline, assuming a specific gravity for the wood of 0.50 (it varies between 0.5 and 0.9 for most woods used on ships) this gives us 50% depth for draft (26 feet), and a fairly stable condition (common to many barges that don't roll over on ocean voyages).

Why don't you do the math and tell me what is needed to actually roll that block over?

My calculations show that you would need a wave slope > 25°, with one side of the waterline for the block (ie the wave) raised > 45 ft above the other, and this would only be the steepest portion of the wave shape, not the total height of the wave.

Hurricane Irene did not generate waves this big.

Hurricane Bob did not generate waves this big, although it did generate breaking waves that washed boats up onto shore.

Hurricane Katrina did not generate waves this big, although it did generate breaking waves that washed many boats up onto shore along miles of the gulf coast.

The reason that (navy etc) ships will put to sea when hurricanes are due to land is because the waves and other conditions are less severe in the open ocean than they are along a coast (ie -- again, for emphasis -- where the Wyoming was purported to be when she foundered).

Please note that I specified normal weather. NORMAL weather does not include hurricanes, and does not have large steep breaking waves.

The weather outside right now is NORMAL weather, and a block of wood with the dimensions of the purported ark would not roll over in these conditions.

In fact the weather outside for the last 20 years would not have generated waves that would roll such a block over, including two hurricanes (Bob and Irene).

Interestingly, the "area outside" I am talking about is Nantucket Sound ... you know, that area where the Wyoming was anchored?

Seeing as that is much longer than the time period that the purported ark needed to survive, you cannot say that it would not have done so without showing that the weather necessarily was severly worse, and you have not done so and you have no information to base such an assumption.

But, then, I didn't need you to tell me that. I actually did some research and talked to a number of friends where are experienced sailors, including some who served on Navy ships.

And yet they (gasp) survived sailing around on the open ocean?

Do you understand that you are talking about people that survived extreme conditions, yet you cannot show that such conditions were necessarily experienced by the purported ark?

And that you are now comparing anecdotal experiences of unknown\un-described ships? What is their stability compared to the purported ark? Totally unknown at this point.

Apples and oranges again.

Now, If I were a creationist, and if I was arguing that the conditions were necessarily calm and flat, you would likely scream bloody murder about unfounded assumptions, yes?

Yet what you have done is assume an extreme set of conditions at the other end of the spectrum, and your argument is just as unfounded and just as spuriously self-indulgent as the example creationist one.

The short answer is no. If it was longer than it was wide then it would be turned broadside to the waves. If the waves exceeded the width, it would roll.

This is you once again assuming an extreme condition, not a normal condition, not a common condition, not some intermediate position that would allow you to argue that "in most cases" your scenario would occur. This means your argument is of very little value, if any.

If you wanted to prove that the vessel could not float, then you would need to show that this is necessarily so during the conditions that are the worst for your position: dead calm and flat seas. You have not done that. Curiously, I have shown that such conditions would be extremely hard pressed to cause the purported ark to break up, sink, roll or otherwise founder.

Epic fail.

Enjoy.

Edited by Zen Deist, : english

Edited by Zen Deist, : formula symbol fix

Thanks.

The length of the ark would mean that the hull would be twisted by the action of the waves. That would spring the hull beyond the abilities of any caulking to seal. There isn't any wood that is strong enough to resist twisting.

It says that the ark was made out of gopher wood. If you went to a lumber yard to buy some gopher wood, you probably wouldnt find it. So what was gopher wood? We dont know but many people in that time built things from the cedars of Lebanon. One thing we know about cedar and cypress trees is that once it swells up, it gets tight, doesnt leak and doesnt rot in water. So it was probably some type of cedar or cypress.

Explorer Thor Heyerdahl tried to find out whether it was possible for people to go from Europe or Africa by a primitive sailing vessel to North America. He used reeds to build a ship and tried to go across. He was never able to make it, until he read Genesis and noticed that they "pitched" Noahs Ark within and without. So he took tar from the sands of Egypt, covered his boat with it and was able to sail all the way across.

"Make thee an ark of gopher wood, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." - Genesis 6:14

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

The flud apologetics is nothing but sad. It is one of the clearest indicators of how far people are willing to go to defend a lie.

It is nothing but baffling how grown-ups are in all honesty claiming that the ark was real and all the animals did in fact survive in it and Noah and his posse had no trouble looking after them. It has got to hurt (at least in the beginning) to say that the tigers ate grass as did the snakes so they would not hurt the bambi