Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
339 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 338 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,360 Year: 5,006/14,102 Month: 604/707 Week: 2/157 Day: 2/22 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
William Rea
Junior Member (Idle past 1616 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 12-23-2007


(2)
Message 560 of 614 (745995)
12-31-2014 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 559 by Coyote
12-12-2014 11:25 PM


Re: To recap...
The root of this is the, 'same data, different interpretation' tactic that is widely used by many Fundagelicals. They cannot deny the useful application of science in the modern age and indeed, many of them make a good living from Science however, there are creationists that do science but, they do not do 'Creation Science'. They reconcile this with their dogmatic disbelief in 'Deep Time' by trying to differentiate certain types of Science as just speculation and therefore their speculation is as good as anyone else's.

In my humble opinion, the best approach to this is to immediately call these people out on the 'Deep Time' issue. To deny 'Deep Time' they have to deny not just Geology but, practically every field of modern science. Until they accept the reality of this then there is nothing further on the table to discuss and they are essentially no better that any conspiracy theorist nut job on the Internet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by Coyote, posted 12-12-2014 11:25 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by Percy, posted 12-31-2014 7:28 AM William Rea has responded

  
William Rea
Junior Member (Idle past 1616 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 12-23-2007


Message 563 of 614 (746028)
12-31-2014 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by Percy
12-31-2014 7:28 AM


Re: To recap...
The picture is a fantasy; I will say with little fear of contradiction that the Ark will not be built on Biblical principles and will have steel and/or concrete reinforcements because a wooden structure of that size is not viable on land let alone the sea. More plastic Christianity from the most plastic Christians on the planet.

This Dutch attempt is a steel reinforced frame with wood decoration for that authentic old time biblical feel...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...ahs-Ark-replica-Dordrecht.html

...oh, and it is kept afloat on 25 lash barges.

Hilarious, I am eagerly anticipating Ham's hammed up version.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Percy, posted 12-31-2014 7:28 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2015 2:18 PM William Rea has not yet responded

  
William Rea
Junior Member (Idle past 1616 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 12-23-2007


Message 573 of 614 (746129)
01-03-2015 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 567 by RAZD
01-02-2015 9:06 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
Ironically, you have taken a very literal interpretation of my post but, that is my fault

Tough to find a definitive answer for what wood and in what condition but, I would suggest that 3.5 MPa and 380 kg/m^3 is not an unreasonable working figure. Assume that given the lifespans of the generations in those times that the wood would be well kept then it should have dried to a good strength.

Quote from Ark Encounter that provoked my wrath...

"Yes, we are constructing a full-scale, all-wood ark based on the dimensions provided in the Bible (Genesis 6), using the long cubit, and in accordance with sound established nautical engineering practices of the era. It should become the largest timber-frame structure in the USA."

Edited by William Rea, : Went back and looked at Ark Encounter site again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2015 9:06 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 576 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2015 9:14 AM William Rea has responded

  
William Rea
Junior Member (Idle past 1616 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 12-23-2007


Message 574 of 614 (746130)
01-03-2015 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by Percy
01-02-2015 4:53 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
It is a fantasy I agree. The design is distinctly modern vis-a-vis the enclosing of the mechanism/operator. It is also contradicted by other artists impressions on the AIG/Ark Encounter site including one showing more expedient and contemporary means of moving materials along with a substantial workforce of around 21 people for which there is a whole new apologetic on AIG so, the Hamster is obviously hedging his bets

Edited by William Rea, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Percy, posted 01-02-2015 4:53 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
William Rea
Junior Member (Idle past 1616 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 12-23-2007


Message 593 of 614 (746185)
01-04-2015 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 576 by RAZD
01-03-2015 9:14 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
Hey, it's your 'thought experiment' that you decided to take into fantasy and you're busting my balls over your paradigm that I was going along with for the sake of argument? I have nothing else to go on so I assumed that a C18 wood soft enough to work from here...

http://www.roymech.co.uk/..._Tables/Timber/Timber_index.html

...was a starting point considering that we might be talking about a 'solid block' but that it would need to be hewn to make a container in which case we would need to adjust your section moment OR I am happy to assume a stronger D30 material for a viable subframe with a C18 cladding in which case your model becomes inadequate even as a fantasy thought experiment.

My statement may have been 'bald' but, I obviously made the point about your 'literal interpretation' far too subtly so I will be more forthright. It is fine being a philosophical smart ass and saying that you can conceive of a solid block of wood of those dimensions and do a simple calculation in your thought experiment. Great but, being literally a philosophical smart ass back at you, assuming the solid block can be made from numerous trees how does a solid block function as a boat? It floats but it is not a boat as the term is generally understood unless you can convince me otherwise?

The statement was made in the knowledge that it is generally agreed upon that practical wooden boats over 100m are at the threshold. In this particular case of the Ark Encounter 'classic' design, a wooden boat with no means of steerage has no way to protect itself from swells and waves breaking across it. You can argue, if you like, that the flood could have been pond like and so a boat drifting with no visible keel or steerage (exactly as pictured in the Ark Encounter literature) would not need such. Regardless, modern wooden boat manufacture halted for many reasons at around 100m length mark. Finally, I will accept as evidence that previous attempts and this attempt will require sub-structures on land and/or afloat to make it viable and, it could be argued that modern H&S requirements mean that less risks have to be taken but, that indicates that quantitative risks exist with such a structure. At the same time I will accept that because it has not been made, that does not mean it cannot be made.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2015 9:14 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2015 12:20 PM William Rea 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 © 2021