Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
32 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,757 Year: 16,793/19,786 Month: 918/2,598 Week: 164/251 Day: 52/65 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark)
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 233 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 83 of 261 (612795)
04-18-2011 8:55 PM


Flotation of the Ark
I fail to see why the Ark is considered a priori to be un-seaworthy?

The dimensions of the Ark are approximately 137 meters by 23 meters.

There are several ships from ancient and medeival history which rival it including:

1.) The Ptolemaic Tessakonteres, an enormous 'super-galley' / catamaran constructed in about 200 BCE. It measured 128 x 18 meters .

2.) The Bao Chuan, flagship of the Ming admiral Cheng Ho. It traveled from China to South East Asia and beyond to Africa some 7 times. It was built during the 15th century CE, in the 1420s if I remember correctly.
It measured approximately 137 X 55 meters.

3.) Caligula's barge, found is Ostia measured 100 X 20.3 meters It was 6 decks high, displaced a minimum of 7400 tons.

4.) The Lake Nemi ships, also built by order of Caligula, were 70 X 20 meters.

The last two mentioned were for all intents and purposes, no more than pleasure barges and not really built to move farther than the length or breadth of their harborages.

Critique the Ark story for the lack of physical and scientific evidencve of the flood, and of the Arks purported carrying capacity by all means, but it would be illogical to say that its dimensions precluded its seaworthiness.

Edited by MiguelG, : Added conclusion.


Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 04-18-2011 9:08 PM MiguelG has responded
 Message 85 by arachnophilia, posted 04-18-2011 9:22 PM MiguelG has responded
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2011 9:26 PM MiguelG has responded

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 233 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 87 of 261 (612802)
04-18-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
04-18-2011 9:08 PM


Re: Flotation of the Ark
jar writes:

MiguelG writes:

I fail to see why the Ark is considered a priori to be un-seaworthy?

The dimensions of the Ark are approximately 137 meters by 23 meters.

There are several ships from ancient and medeival history which rival it including:

1.) The Ptolemaic Tessakonteres, an enormous 'super-galley' / catamaran constructed in about 200 BCE. It measured 128 x 18 meters .

2.) The Bao Chuan

The bǎochuán were from what dates, IF, and I stress IF, they actually existed and were the size described?

The tessarakonteres also may well be apocryphal.

Hi Jar.

Take a look at my edited post below. Sorry about that but I pressed the submit button a little early.

The Bao Chuan were constructed in the 15th century Ming dynasty.

The Tessakonteres were merely the largest in a series of ancient galley-building wars conducted by the successor states of Alexander.

Apocryphal? It is possible of course, but the details of this vessel are just as well supported by ancient documentation as those of the '16s', '14s', '32s' and other ships of the super-galley naval race.

Were such ships beyond the skills of the ancients? No, not just in my opinion but that of a number of ancient scholars.

A couple of references to check out:

Casson (1994). Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times. University of Texas.

Sleeswyck (1994). Launching Philopators 'Forty'. International journal of nautical archaeology 23(2).

Sleeswyck (1997). Quantitative analysis of the oarage of Philopator's 'Forty'. Mnemosyne, 4th ser., 50(2).

Ancient doesn't equate to stupid or unsophisticated.

For experienced people from fairly sophisticated nautical cultures (be they riverine or marine) building such vessels would not be a question of lack of technique or skill. It would be more a p

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Quote box structure was messed up. It was because there was a missing [/i] within the quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 04-18-2011 9:08 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 04-18-2011 9:49 PM MiguelG has responded

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 233 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


(1)
Message 89 of 261 (612805)
04-18-2011 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
04-18-2011 9:26 PM


Re: Flotation of the Ark
Dr Adequate writes:

Yeah, but look what Platarch wrote about the sole example of this sort of ship:

At a later time, it is true, Ptolemy Philopator built one of forty banks of oars, which had a length of two hundred and eighty cubits, and a height, to the top of her stern, of forty-eight; she was manned by four hundred sailors, who did no rowing, and by four thousand rowers, and besides these she had room, on her gangways and decks, for nearly three thousand men-at‑arms. But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger. (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius)

it doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would survive on the open sea in a catastrophic deluge ... for over a year ... with a crew of eight.

The Bao Chuan

Very true. But I wasn't arguing about whether the Tessakonteres could last a deluge (or the Ark for that matter). I was pointing out that the dimensions of the Ark do not a priori exclude it from being seaworthy.

Note that a barge is unlikely to last long in a storm, but that does not preclude it from floating or being used as a means of transport.

But claims about the Baochuan are themselves debated. According to Wikipedia:

Sure scholars debate the dimensions. I gave dimensions in the mid-range. There are arguments for and against the specific size of the Bao Chuan.
Needham certainly recorded the vessel from his investigations of contemporary chinese sources. One should also note Da Conti's observations in his Voyages aux Indes where he makes particular note of the compartamentalization of the huge ships which he estimated at about 2000 tons.

Now the second paragraph is significant --- whatever the size of the ships, there must be no documentary evidence that the largest class of treasure ships ever put to sea, because otherwise there would be no room for scholars to suggest that they didn't.

This is incorrect. There is both Da Conti's anecdotal evidence and the evidence from surviving official Ming Dynasty documents which order the destruction of all sea-going ships including the bao chuans.

That's a nine-masted ship. Estimate the necessary size of the crew. Now estimate it if they also have to cater for the largest zoo ever.

As I said in my earlier post, I am not advocating for a literal Ark, just cautioning people not to predicate their critiques on the 'impossibility' of wooden ships of that dimension.

It's good of you to save me the trouble of pointing that out.

Always a pleasure I'm sure.

But, you know, AiG are welcome to prove us all wrong by putting to sea in their boat for a year or so. If they float, they'll have increased the scope of human knowledge. And if they sink, they'll have reduced the scope of human ignorance.

I'd be more interested in seeing them demonstrate the 'pooper scooper' techniques developed by Noah so as to flush the ship of unwanted faeces.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2011 9:26 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2011 11:55 PM MiguelG has responded

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 233 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


(1)
Message 90 of 261 (612806)
04-18-2011 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
04-18-2011 9:49 PM


Re: Flotation of the Ark
jar writes:

However there is no indication that Noah was "experienced people from fairly sophisticated nautical cultures (be they riverine or marine) building such vessels would not be a question of lack of technique or skill. "

And again, there is really no evidence those vessels existed or were sea worthy, particularly through what is described in the Biblical Flood myths.

No there is certainly evidence of their existence. The fact that there is debate on the specifics of their existence is another matter entirely.

Again I stress that I am merely pointing out the problems of using dimensions in your critique of the Ark given the dimensions of just some of the vessels I have supplied.

There are an enormous quantity of other critiques regarding the Ark story that are far more significant.

Read Woodmorappe as a starting point. His attempted defense of the Ark as a literal possibility is full of errors in mathematics, biology and just basic logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 04-18-2011 9:49 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 233 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 91 of 261 (612807)
04-18-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by arachnophilia
04-18-2011 9:22 PM


Re: Flotation of the Ark
i fail to see why the spruce goose couldn't fly -- there are several airplanes from approximately the same timeframe that are actually larger, and fly quite well, including the boeing 777.

Actually the Spruce Goose did fly - though not very far. Its lifting capacity and service ceiling were never tested.
Once again there is no a priori proof that the Spruce Goose could not fly.

Neither is there any such proof that a wooden vessel of such a size as the Ark (or any of the other discussed ancient or medeival vessels) couldn't float either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by arachnophilia, posted 04-18-2011 9:22 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 233 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 93 of 261 (612813)
04-19-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
04-18-2011 11:55 PM


Re: Flotation of the Ark
Well, "seaworthy" is surely a term implying more than "able to float in calm water". It means that someone not crazy or suicidal could make a sea voyage in it.

A barge is eminently 'seaworthy' in calm weather even in deep water though it is usually used in coastal and riverine environments.

However my original point was that the arguments against the ark based on its dimensions are unhelpful because of the very eaxamples I've presented.

Whether AiG's boat could float is one question; whether it's seaworthy is another.

I would go so far as to say that if it is as effective as AIG's defense of Biblical inerrancy (in history and science then it will sink like the proverbial stone.

I'd have to look at the documents. In particular, your account of what the Ming records say is ambiguous.

Fair enough.

I would then like to recommend the following:

Needham (1962) Science and civilization in China. 4(3).

Finlay (1991) The Treasure ships of Zheng He. Terrae incognitae, 23(1).

Levathes (1996) When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433.

Wade (2005) The Zheng He voyages: a reassessment. Asia Research Institute, Working Paper Series, No.31.

Mills (1970) Ma Huan: Ying-yai sheng-lan ‘The overall survey of the ocean's shores’ (1433), translated from the Chinese text. edited by Feng Ch'eng-chün. (Hakluyt Society Extra Series, No. XLII.)

Note: By all means steer clear of Gavin Menzies books like 1421. They are execrable from a historical standpoint.

I've made some calculations myself based on creationist estimates of how many animals there were in the Ark. For example, allowing for a sixteen hour working day, each animal gets about six seconds care per day, including the time to get between cages.

Let's not even talk about the sheer volume of excrement generated by even a single pair of medium-sized animals. Also, the variety would be problematic as they would cover the gamut from dry to wet and all states in between.

I think I once heard a creationist argument about Noah teaching the animals to defecate on command?
That one was truly bizarre.

PS: If you have any trouble acquiring the articles do let me know as I can probably supply you with them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2011 11:55 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by frako, posted 04-19-2011 6:31 AM MiguelG has not yet responded
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 04-19-2011 10:51 AM MiguelG has not yet responded
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2011 10:59 PM MiguelG has responded

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 233 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 192 of 261 (630995)
08-29-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
06-24-2011 10:59 PM


Re: terminology
Hi Razd,

Heh, hope you get to read this - I know I've been rather a long time missing from here.

If we were indeed using the literal meaning of seaworthy then most of the ancient ship designs of the Diadochi period would fail to be 'seaworthy'. The 4s, 5s, 6s and right up to 16s would fail the definition of surviving "90%" of weather conditions. Many of these enormous war galleys did indeed succumb to the vagaries of Mediterranean weather as surviving records indicate, and yet this did not stop rulers like Ptolemy and his opponents from building them because they conferred a tactical advantage in a sea battle (or indeed merely for prestige's sake or to awe the other side).

My point was that even a barge (which can certainly make a sea voyage - in calm weather*) is seaworthy sometimes.

* Most ancient admirals did not like to risk their fleets in stormy weather since most galleys (especially the larger ones) were notorioulsy prone to sinking in such conditions.

I would also like to, once again, note that whilst I am arguing that large wooden vessels are technically possible (given the ancient references to the existence of some very large examples), it is counterproductive to belabor creationists and Ark-enthusiasts about the Ark being an 'impossible' vessel to either build or float.

Far better to attack the Ark myth with the many other logical fallacies inherent in it, like the inability to keep a representative pair of every animal on Earth onboard for even a few days, much less 40.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2011 10:59 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2011 8:04 PM MiguelG has not yet responded
 Message 194 by Gullwind1, posted 08-29-2011 8:06 PM MiguelG 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 © 2019