Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
31 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 30 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)
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 261 (613296)
04-24-2011 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ringo
04-24-2011 2:11 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
ringo writes:

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.

ringo writes:

slevesque writes:

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 04-24-2011 2:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ringo, posted 04-24-2011 3:02 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 261 (613306)
04-24-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ringo
04-24-2011 3:02 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
ringo writes:

NoNukes writes:

If aliens didn't build the pyramids, why haven't the Egyptians built any new ones.


They have.

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.

ringo writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ringo, posted 04-24-2011 3:02 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 04-24-2011 7:25 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 261 (613345)
04-24-2011 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by ringo
04-24-2011 7:25 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
ringo writes:


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.

ringo writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 04-24-2011 7:25 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ringo, posted 04-24-2011 8:11 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 261 (613651)
04-26-2011 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by slevesque
04-25-2011 1:58 PM


slevesque writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:58 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 3:01 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 261 (613829)
04-27-2011 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Theodoric
04-26-2011 2:49 PM


Re: quick response this time.
Did the tone of Dr, Sarfati's response seem a bit testy to you? A quick internet search turns up a number of examples of the good doctor's responses to critics and criticism.

I would not make to much of the Dr. adding his title. You did call him Mr. in your email, when it would have been fairly easy to check.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : Address dr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 2:49 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Theodoric, posted 04-27-2011 6:05 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 174 by Theodoric, posted 04-27-2011 8:15 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 261 (613893)
04-28-2011 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Theodoric
04-27-2011 8:15 PM


Re: quick response this time.
Theodoric writes:


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Theodoric, posted 04-27-2011 8:15 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