The question is: Why would you think Noah had better engineering techniques than the Victorians?
That may be a bad assumption, and there may be other bad assumptions in the work slevesque cited, but at a minimum, I think slevesque has raised the level of discussion. If someone wants to say that it the ark as described in the Bible was obviously not seaworthy, I think ought to start either some math or some reasonable arguments.
I personally wouldn't bother with such an attack. There are much better arguments.
That boat would float, and it would float mighty well.
Then why don't creationists build one and prove it?
Is that a fair question? Why haven't US physicists built that super-duper particle collider? If aliens didn't build the pyramids, why haven't the Egyptians built any new ones.
This NOVA pyramid was pretty dinky. The Great Pyramid is about 25 times higher than this tiny rock pile... Why won't somebody build a real pyramid and a real Great Sphinx?
Looking at this another way, would it be acceptable to build a 1/25 scale ark? A 1/50 scale model?
quote:In 1997 Mark Lehner and Roger Hopkins, a stonemason from Sudbury, Massachusetts, teamed up to conduct a pyramid building experiment for a NOVA television episode. They built a pyramid 6 meters high by 9 meters square. A total of 162 cubic meters or about 405 tons.
If they have such confidence in their conclusions, they should be eager to prove the evilutionists wrong.
Building a real ark is a fools errand. It would be incredibly expensive, and even if the effort succeeded, it would not prove that Noah ever built such a thing. Worse, it would not address the serious criticisms. The real task is trying to keep enough humans and animals alive on the thing for a year to repopulate the earth in only a few years.
Stone scales better than wood. As long as a pyramid has a firm foundation, you can keep stacking stones of the same size pretty high.
And yet those stones at > 140 meters are a lot harder to get into place than those first stones at ground level or the ones at only 6 meters.
One of the main constraints to wooden ship length is wavelength. A boat that's considerably shorter than the wavelength can ride up one side of a wave and down the other with minimal strain. But as the ship's length approaches the wavelength, it will be often be suspended between two wave crests or perched on top of one wave crest. That puts tremendous strain on it.
Surely those effects can be studied with calculations and models, including testing with fluids other than water. I'm not suggesting that the study slevesque cites deals with those issues, but if I were going to accept that a full size ark was impossible, I'd want to know that somebody had done the relevant calculations and I'd want to review them myself. I haven't seen anything like a thorough analysis given or referenced by people who insist that it would be impossible to build the ark. Maybe it is impossible, but show me the math/physics.
I, for one, would be pretty impressed if they leased a steel freighter the size of the ark, filled it with animals and kept it afloat for a year with no engines and a crew of eight. Hell, I'd be impressed if they leased a building the size of the ark and kept those animals alive in it for a year.
That would be impressive. But I can think of a bunch of reasons why people would avoid such an experiment even if they believed Noah and his family were up to it.
But the point is actually quite simple: if no one here can understand the math when it is presented to them, then no one here can claim that the ark wouldn't float, it really is as simple as that.
Well, that's not quite right. We can form opinions on whether the ark would float independent of this article. Unless the article undercut the assumptions and basis for those opinions, then we would have two opposing opinions.
And no, we don't have to swallow the math just because we don't understand it. The article should be looked at with a critical eye by someone who does understand the math and physics, before we decide that it even presents a credible opinion.
Saying "Slevesque has no reason to disbelieve" does not cut it. We know that you aren't going to find anything wrong with the article before you even take out your calculator. Further you haven't credibly argued that you are qualified to assess the analysis.
If nobody here understands the analysis, including the math and the appropriateness of the assumptions, then the only reason for considering the paper to be plausible is the reputations of the scientists involved. Yet we know that you'd never accept a sinking ark analysis on that same basis.
I'm with you on the paucity of the analysis from people who say that the ark would definitely not float. I'd also be interested in continuing the discussion on the analysis. But saying that the paper is correct until we prove it is not goes too far.
Why would he expect me to know his credentials? That in itself is fairly pompous.
Pompous, perhaps. But the dude is fairly well known in some circles. I doubt you were intimidated. When I see a PhD, I'm simply motivated to figure out what the actual area of expertise is. In this case though, Dr. Safarti is not claiming to have reviewed the paper.