Not only float, but filled with all the species and enough food to last the total time listed in Genesis and 8 people (4 men and 4 women) taking care of it the same way they would have had to, with no conveniences of any kind.
I'd make do with them trying to make it float.
The last guy who tried this had to build it out of steel and concrete.
I'm not going to try and debate anyone here on the buoyancy of an ark described in the Bible or whatnot. I would only like to point out that there has been some comments made in ref to "shouldn't the money be spent on more useful endeavors"?? This project, whether one agrees or not with it, will help that local economy in a tremendous way. Over 900 jobs will be created because of this project. Can't really say that's a bad thing and it certainly is helping people out, in an economic way I mean.
Which would also be the case if they spent the money on building a hospital.
Well, it seems that quite a lot of people want to see the ark float. [...] It has already been designed, no offence, but I do think that naval engineers know better then you do (yes, naval engineers designed it).
If it had been designed by NASA engineers, that wouldn't be an argument that it could fly to the moon.
I guess theoraticaly it would float and I guess every evolutionist around here would thrust scientists.
Er ... show me the theory and the scientists?
Engineers have calculated that they can build a big wooden box. Hurrah! But AiG aren't even going to try to float it in still water, let alone put it to sea.
How many boats have been build, only to sink in water?
Lot and lots and lots. What's your point?
The tower in Dubai is also "frickin' huge", and it still stands because of a few(/sarcasm) calculations.
Yes, but it wouldn't float.
Since when does the evolutionary timescale count for biblical stories?
I take it that by "the evolutionary timescale" you mean "the discoveries of archeologists which have damn-all to do with evolution".
Well, on what else can we base our knowledge of ancient shipbuilding techniques except the ancient ships dug up by archaeologists? When AiG say that the Ark is being built "in accordance with sound established nautical engineering practices of the era" what are they going on?
If they are going to ignore archaeology and operate within the parameters of their chosen fairy-story, then do they claim to have the remains of prediluvian ships? Or prediluvian shipbuilding manuals? Where did they find them --- fossilized in Jurassic rocks with the dinosaurs that didn't make it onto the Ark?
And other geologists say there was a global flood.
And they turn out exclusively to be fundies who say this because their religion requires it of them rather that because they have a shred of evidence for it.
And I cant find scientists say the Ark cant be build...
The question is not whether you could build such a structure, but whether it would be seaworthy.
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
But claims about the Baochuan are themselves debated. According to Wikipedia:
Scholars disagree about the factual accuracy and correct interpretation of accounts of the treasure ships [...] Some scholars argue that it is highly unlikely that Zheng He's ship was 450 feet (140 m) in length, some estimating that it was 110–124 m (390–408 feet) long and 160–166 feet wide instead while others put them as 61–76 m (200–250 feet) in length, since in later historical periods ships approaching the extreme sizes claimed for the treasure ships (such as HMS Orlando and the schooner Wyoming) were unwieldy and visibly undulated with the waves, even with steel braces.
One explanation for the seemingly inefficient size of these colossal ships was that the largest 44 Zhang treasure ships were merely used by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats to travel along the Yangtze for court business, including reviewing Zheng He's expedition fleet. The Yangtze river, with its calmer waters, may have been sailable for those ships.
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.
Finally, here's a model of one of Zheng He's ships next to one of Columbus's:
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.
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.
It's good of you to save me the trouble of pointing that out.
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.
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.
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.
Whether AiG's boat could float is one question; whether it's seaworthy is another.
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.
I'd have to look at the documents. In particular, your account of what the Ming records say is ambiguous.
(Compare: "I like all shellfish, including oysters" and "I am attracted to all redheads, including those with freckles". In the first case, all oysters are shellfish; in the second case, not all freckled women are redheads.)
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.
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.
I'll suppose you never did scale-modeling, or else you probably wouldn't have made that comparison.
A 1/50 scale model of the ark would include planks 1/50 thickness, which is obviously not the case with a rowboat, for example.
That depends what they're modeling. A tow tank test typically investigates the properties of the shape, not the structure, and if you look at pictures of them doing it they seem to cast the miniature boats out of plastic, rather than reproducing in miniature each plank or nail or rivet.
I need hardly explain to someone who studies physics why an exact 1/50 scale replica would not in any case answer questions about the structural integrity of the boat.
As for its shape, that simply isn't given in the book of Genesis, only its length, width, and depth, so the shape is just something they had to make up.
Another aspect to consider is the following: they evaluated 12 different hulls sizes/forms, and dimensions given of the biblical ark turned out to be the most optimal when considering seakeeping safety , structural safety and overturning safety (the three considered in their analysis). This probably wasn't expected by the authors, but does it not at least hint that their may be more to the story then just fabulation ?
But everything except the length, breadth, and width of the Ark, and the choice of wood as a material, is not given in the book of Genesis, but rather chosen by modern naval architects. They determined the shape of the Ark, its construction, and its draft.
Clearly they didn't make this out of steel with tiny little rivets. And similarly, contrary to what you told ringo, it is not at all clear that "a 1/50 scale model of the ark would include planks 1/50 thickness". Indeed, I doubt it very much, because if they had gone to such extraordinary lengths to achieve verisimilitude, surely they'd have mentioned it.
I agree it does not answer all the questions ...
In particular, even if they did build it out of tiny planks, which they probably didn't, it wouldn't answer questions about structural integrity, which is my concern. What worries me is, wouldn't a ship that size work itself apart, as wooden ships of that size tend to do? This has not been answered.
Their hull-form isn't very far fetched, I'd say.
But see my previous post (previous to this one, I mean, and subsequent to the one you're answering).
Remember that I am only saying that I'm only addressign the assertion that a seaworthy wooden boat that size can't be built. Their calculations and tests show that it can, end of PRATT.
I'm not so convinced as you that they've answered all the concerns. Wouldn't it work apart? If it didn't do that, wouldn't ordinary working at the seams cause it to ship an awful lot of water? --- more than a crew of eight could pump out? If it's stationary, wouldn't it be in danger of broaching to? (A sailing ship needed to run before a storm, if its sails or masts gave way in the process and it turned side-on to the waves it wouldn't last very long.)
I have to conclud that the only positive evidence you would accept would be the actual real-size thing being actually built and put to sea. And if that is the case, then my work is pretty much done here as it just becoems plain stupid.
But it ceases to be "plain stupid" if AiG are building an Ark anyway. If they weren't, it would be an unreasonable demand. As they are, is it really so unreasonable that they should go to sea in it? That's usually exactly what people do with replicas of historic ships.