Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
506 online now:
Faith, kjsimons (2 members, 504 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,814 Year: 21,850/19,786 Month: 413/1,834 Week: 413/315 Day: 9/82 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)
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 76 of 261 (595904)
12-11-2010 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Deleted
12-11-2010 7:08 AM


Could you explain why you call them liars?

Because they lie about facts to support their religious beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Deleted, posted 12-11-2010 7:08 AM Deleted has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Deleted, posted 12-11-2010 10:35 AM Larni has responded

  
Deleted
Inactive Junior Member


Message 77 of 261 (595925)
12-11-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Larni
12-11-2010 8:01 AM


Could you explain why you call them liars?

Because they lie about facts to support their religious beliefs.

Just like you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Larni, posted 12-11-2010 8:01 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 12-11-2010 11:01 AM Deleted has not yet responded
 Message 79 by subbie, posted 12-11-2010 11:02 AM Deleted has not yet responded
 Message 81 by Larni, posted 12-11-2010 5:02 PM Deleted has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6879
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


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

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 79 of 261 (595929)
12-11-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Deleted
12-11-2010 10:35 AM


Brilliant! The "I know you are but what am I?" defense; usually mastered by the second grade and usually abandoned by the sixth. What's next, "I am rubber and you are glue?"


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17646
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 80 of 261 (595951)
12-11-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Deleted
12-11-2010 7:08 AM


PrinceGhaldir writes:

Could you explain why you call them liars?


It may not be a bold-faced lie but claiming that the ark "would" float when they have no intention of trying to float it is definitely dishonest.

The claim that it wil be "built according to the biblical dimensions and constructed with materials and methods as close as possible to those of Noah’s time" and the claim that "it and the Flood were real events in history" definitely imply that it will be an authentic working replica.

Clearly, they're interested in its money-making potential and its propaganda value rather than historical accuracy. Otherwise, they'd build a floating replica instead of just a purportedly floatable one.


"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Deleted, posted 12-11-2010 7:08 AM Deleted has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 81 of 261 (595970)
12-11-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Deleted
12-11-2010 10:35 AM


Lies, moi?
I'm unsure exactly where I have lied to promote my (well known) religious beliefs: if you could point them out I would be much obliged to you.

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

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5600
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 82 of 261 (596013)
12-12-2010 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Dr Adequate
12-09-2010 11:28 AM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2010 11:28 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 312 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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31753
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 84 of 261 (612797)
04-18-2011 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by MiguelG
04-18-2011 8:55 PM


Re: Flotation of the Ark
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.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Edited by jar, : fix quote box


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MiguelG, posted 04-18-2011 8:55 PM MiguelG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by MiguelG, posted 04-18-2011 9:43 PM jar has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 85 of 261 (612799)
04-18-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by MiguelG
04-18-2011 8:55 PM


Re: Flotation of the Ark
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:

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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MiguelG, posted 04-18-2011 8:55 PM MiguelG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by MiguelG, posted 04-18-2011 10:35 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 86 of 261 (612800)
04-18-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by MiguelG
04-18-2011 8:55 PM


Re: Flotation of the Ark
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.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MiguelG, posted 04-18-2011 8:55 PM MiguelG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by MiguelG, posted 04-18-2011 10:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 312 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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31753
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 88 of 261 (612804)
04-18-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by MiguelG
04-18-2011 9:43 PM


Re: Flotation of the Ark
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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by MiguelG, posted 04-18-2011 9:43 PM MiguelG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by MiguelG, posted 04-18-2011 10:27 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 312 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 312 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019