Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
31 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, Percy (Admin), Taq (5 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,756 Year: 16,792/19,786 Month: 917/2,598 Week: 163/251 Day: 51/65 Hour: 0/1


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: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 30 of 261 (594388)
12-03-2010 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by arachnophilia
12-03-2010 12:31 AM


Lost technology
will be quite surprised if thing even stays together on the dry ground without cheating and using modern technology.

Creos will just claim that Noah used a technology that was lost in the flood. We have seen that argument on this forum already.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 12-03-2010 12:31 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by frako, posted 12-03-2010 10:36 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 32 of 261 (594392)
12-03-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by frako
12-03-2010 10:36 AM


Re: Lost technology
Search the threads here on Noah's ark. You will see claims very similar to this by the fundies.

Edited by Theodoric, : changed creos to fundies


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by frako, posted 12-03-2010 10:36 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by frako, posted 12-03-2010 11:46 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 54 of 261 (595134)
12-06-2010 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
12-06-2010 3:29 PM


Re: The humor continues.
No but I almost choked on my chocolate(hershey bar, nothing special).


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 12-06-2010 3:29 PM jar has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 78 of 261 (595927)
12-11-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Deleted
12-11-2010 10:35 AM


Could you please point out
how Larni has lied for his religious beliefs? Example please.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Deleted, posted 12-11-2010 10:35 AM Deleted has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 98 of 261 (612844)
04-19-2011 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by MiguelG
04-19-2011 1:42 AM


Re: Flotation of the Ark
I haven't read 1421 but have read some excerpts online. It sounds like he is a writer who made a decision and .tried to find evidence to support it.

There is a pretty good site that pretty much destroys all of his assertions.

The myth of Menzies' "1421 " exposed

I have emailed the editor for a copy of this paper

Fathoming the Unfathomable: Even Leviathans have Limits
Dr. Stephen Davies
Museum Director, Hong Kong Maritime Museum
Hon. Research Fellow, Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by MiguelG, posted 04-19-2011 1:42 AM MiguelG has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 109 of 261 (613338)
04-24-2011 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by slevesque
04-24-2011 1:53 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
No you did not debunk this a year ago. All you did was mention this article on creation.com The funny thing is that Korean Institute of Ships and Engineering seems to only exist on creo websites. There is such a thing as Korean Institute of Ships and Oceanic Engineering. This seems to be what they are referring to. There does not seem to be any reference to this anywhere but on creationist sites. I have emailed the institute in the past and have again today to confirm that this is a study by them and/or by members of the institute. I never did get a response before, hopefully I will this time.

I would like to see an independent analysis of this study. A few things leap out at me.

One their claim that the Ark could stand waves to 30m. Also, what little they write makes a lot of assumptions. Now if you could show me that this was published on a non-creo site or any peer review I might take a serious look at at. Until then all it is is an uninteresting paper written by people to reinforce their beliefs.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 1:53 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 7:52 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 118 of 261 (613354)
04-24-2011 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by slevesque
04-24-2011 7:52 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
The technical journal is peer-reviewed.

What journal?
Creation.com?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 7:52 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:17 PM Theodoric has responded
 Message 126 by AZPaul3, posted 04-24-2011 8:31 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 122 of 261 (613358)
04-24-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by slevesque
04-24-2011 8:17 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
oh creationist peer reviewed, not scientifically peer reviewed.

So the geocentrists could have a peer reviewed journal too and that would give their claims legitimacy?

By peer reviewed the vat majority on this site mean scientifically peer reviewed journal.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:17 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 127 of 261 (613364)
04-24-2011 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by slevesque
04-24-2011 8:24 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
Their calculations and tests show that it can, end of PRATT.

Not until the "paper" and its calculations are reviewed and confirmed. Show me other non-associated oceanic engineers that can verify this and I may consider what they have to say.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:24 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 134 of 261 (613371)
04-24-2011 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by slevesque
04-24-2011 9:06 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
Really? really? You have evidence of this? Please provide these reviews.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 9:06 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 9:40 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 137 of 261 (613374)
04-24-2011 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by slevesque
04-24-2011 9:40 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
You really asking me to find the reviews of a 17 year old paper ?

You are the one that brought it up. So unless you can present evidence showing us that some other engineers agree with the calculations and conclusions, then this "paper" ain't worth the photons that are wasted displaying it on my monitor.

Hiding behind the concept of peer-review seems dishonest from where I stand.

And you claim to want to be a scientist? Peer review is a hallmark of the modern scientific process.

Do you understand the engineering behind this paper? Or are you accepting it totally just because it supports your view.

even if all their math was right, and all their tests were accurate

How can I know this unless it is reviewed?

As I said early, you haven't debunked anything.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 9:40 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 10:13 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


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

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


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

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


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: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


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

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019