The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness

Don't think so. At very least I'd need to see more details of your proposed linkage to see if it's even statically determinate, much less will transfer force as you envision.Which leaves aside entirely the question of the piston and cylinder element. What materials would it be made out of ? How would the thermal analysis be done such that the device didn't self destruct in use ? Would it be possible to machine such materials to the tolerances required to develop the pressure and flow rates required to clear the ark of bilge water and waste at the required rate ?
All with Bronze Age or early Iron Age technology and no knowledge of calculus, statics, thermodynamics, and strength of materials ? And how was all this advanced naval engineering technology totally lost to history until being redeveloped in the late 18th century ? My objections are based on mechanical engineering. If you want to assert that Noah's society had developed to late 18th century knowledge of science and technology - well, that leads us into the archeological and geological objections to the whole scenario.

Some mech eng terms you apply:statically deterinate, thermal analysis, tolerances, calculus, stastistics, thermodynamics etc, etcIf you were cast on a desert island with some basic tools and could not manufacture a pump based on a reciprocating float then a mechanical engineer you are not.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'd be even less of one if I tried to exploit random wave motion to produce a high and constant flow rate.But you might try being less coy, and answering the objections by supplying relevant details, as asked.

Actually I was thinking of a hole wearing in the float that renders it inoperative. Which you just made much more likely due to friction against the side, as well as rendering repair next to impossible. If they all go at once due to wear and tear, then you (indeed) are in deep doo doo ...When it comes to a life-sensitive system in a boat with no near source of rescue, give me one that (1) is simple and (A) can be easily repaired or replaced.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I think you need to apply some standards. Your answers seem to be of the form, "If Noah needed a certain technology for the ark several thousand years ago, then if the technology is physically possible he must have had it." If that's the standard you're being permitted to apply then I would concede the discussion now.Shouldn't your arguments for certain technologies be based upon evidence, in this case upon evidence for the existence of reciprocating pump technology about 5000 years ago? A quick Google reveals that the earliest pumps were the screw type, used in the first millenia BC in Babylonia, and described later by Archimedes. The more sophisticated reciprocating technology must have come later.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improved wording.

Fine. Show us some archeological evidence from the 4th millenium BC that pumps were being made and used. Surely old Noah and his sons made use of his marvelous water pumps after they disembarked from the Ark? Otherwise it is just more "Goddidit" nonsense.

Let's not get too depreciating. At the time the flood supposedly happened there were some pretty sophisticated technology in use. remember the Pyramids were already old, lots of waterworks all over the world.I don't know of any examples of piston type pumps but there were lots of lever operated devices, lots of floats, lots of water lifing and heavy materials moving technology. Granted the wheel had not been developed yet but skids and other labor saving devices were known.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well Noah MIGHT have had a shaduf, which is essentially a lever with a bucket on the end. There is no evidence of anything more sophisticated than that at the time. No evidence of water wheels, for example, that I know of, anyway. If Ian has evidence of water wheels and reciprocating pumps in the 4th millenium B.C. let him produce it. Enough with could have, would have, might have been possible history.

Ian is just having mechanical engineering fun dreaming this stuff up. I think it's called blarney in Ireland, and shoveling bull here in the states. Those are his fields not archeology. Of course he's not gonna offer what he doesn't have because it doesn't exist!lfen

To be honest, I'm slightly bemused by the cries of 'evidence'. I'm not saying that Noah has this pump, that pump, or any pump.A person who decides to build an ark 4000 or whatever years ago can so decide. There is nothing at all to stop them so deciding. Immediately they are faced with problems, in this case: "how do I deal with the issue of poo removal (if they decided that that was as issue)?" And if they decided it is a problem then they can begin to figure out ways around it. And if the solutions do not require anything other than intelligence and simple materials then such solutions are eminantly possible."Man hadn't progressed this far" is a red-herring. It seeks to sidestep the fact that there is nothing at all stopping Noah by introducing general argument against the Ark (ie: the standard evo timeline for mans development)The most amusing objection along these lines was the one which demanded that Noah first be in possession of concepts such as "statically determinate", "thermal analysis", "tolerances", "calculus", "ststistics", "thermodynamics etc"...before he could even begin to startAs if man achieved this before he started making machines..

You mean "eminently"?Yes, this is about as I described. You're not interested in the evidence for when technologies became available, only if they're possible. You've thus made available to Noah all of technology throughout history (I assume you except modern technology such as radios and internal combustion engines and so forth). To your mind, if Noah needed a given technology, he had it, and no evidence is required. I really think the discussion needs to be based upon evidence. The history of technology is one of continuous discovery, improvement and refinement, and earlier eras almost always had more primitive technologies available than later ones. The construction and seaworthiness of the ark using the technology of 5000 years ago would seem a task beyond the means of that time. If the discussion proceeds without evidence then it will take the form of you saying, "I think Noah could do it," and of others saying, "I don't think he could." This wouldn't normally be termed constructive discussion.You mention the "evo timeline for man's development", referring to technology development, I assume. There's no such thing. Evolutionists have not developed their own private technology timeline. The only technology timeline I'm aware of was developed by historians and archeologists. If you're suggesting that creationists have an alternative technological timeline to that of mainstream history that is based upon evidence, then I think it would be a good idea to enter it into the discussion.--Percy

It is not a red herring unless you are willing to evoke "Goddidit". Either the technology was available or it wasn't. We don't discount the fact that Noah could have come up with some innovations - but then there should be some archeological evidence that sometime in the 4th millenium B.C. in the Middle East some breakthroughs in water pumping technology occured that would have allowed pumping the bilge of a 450 foot long wooden ship, for example. This technology would have been highly useful post Flood so we would have expected Noah and his decendents to have used that technology and there would be archeological evidence of it. But no, all we have is the shaduf and no evidence of any advancement beyond that. If you have some other evidence, now is the time to produce it.It is the equivalent of saying that William the Conquerer crossed the English Channel in 1066 using airplanes.

I agree that some assumptions need to be made but I am far from invoking semi-conductor technology in Noahs day on the basis that "there was nothing stopping him." There is nothing in the design that could not be extracted from plain observation of simple mechanical concepts such as buoyancy, levers , pivots etc.We had Paisano earlier enquiring into thermal analysis and bursting pressures as if such a pump even approached a complexity level requiring such notions.If we take the ark as being 45 foot tall and assume half that under water then the pressure on the pump (and anything involved in driving it) is a mere 0.66 Bar (not incl losses). Thats 9.3 lbs/sq inch. (nearly the pressure I place on the floor if I stand on one foot) This is not pressure - this is a pittance. The very weakest of woods are around this strong. The very strongest woods, 150 times this strong. Sure we do not know the wood type. But is it not reasonable to assume the availability of trees and assume a wood strength somewhere in the middle?And why one would invoke 'thermal analysis' for a slow moving (the ark was not a cork - its period of rolling would have been longish) low pressure pump which is immersed in cooling fluid is beyond me.This is not "I don't think it can be done" this is "I know it could be done but I will put in any obstacle I can - no matter how silly"

There are a few indications that such technology existed. IIRC in 2004 the Hibernian Tablet was found which lists a series of patent rights granted to one Noah&Sons of North Tukkas Mesopitamia for various devices including:

• a cockle shell shaving device which when drawn over one of the Cedars of Lebanon while being rotated about the circumference of said Cedar of Lebanon yields one continuous sheet of wood suitable for hanging within closets.
• a method of producing a non water-soluble adhesive made from masticated shellfish.
• a method of pasting two or more sheets of Tukkas Cedar of Lebanon Closet Liners® together to form a single thicker sheet by the continuous application of human keisters.
• a shit slinger.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It did not need to be available. It needed to be thought up. And it is simple technology. Then everyone who has helped along the way dies. The technology dies with it. Now your left with a very few people who know the technology. It is their choice whether to propagate it or not. There is no particular reason why they should. Sure it makes life 'easier'. But as many who seek to escape from the technological world we have created have found out - technology is a double edged sword. Easier doesn't always mean good.