Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark)
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 166 of 261 (613654)
04-26-2011 2:56 PM


Reviewing Standards of the Technical Journal
The existence of this article strongly suggests that the reviews were mainly for doctrinal acceptability and did not consider such niceties as the rationalist of the arguments.
The pseudonymous Woodmorappe disposes of an argument which explains how the Earth can be as warm as it is, if it is old, in the following way:
The ‘solution’ to the problem cannot work if the earth is not old.
He even claims that it "begs the question" on this feeble ground ! Apparently Woodmorappe and his reviewers are unaware of the fact that to "beg the question" means that the conclusion must be the same as one of the premises.
For those who can't see the failure of reasoning, the PROBLEM is to show how the heat can be accounted for IF the earth is old. It is hardly a criticism to say that the solution only works in the situations where it is required !
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 3:12 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 167 of 261 (613655)
04-26-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by NoNukes
04-26-2011 2:44 PM


Someone here must know some engineers and by extension some engineers familiar with marine applications. I would like to get a legitimate review of the article.
Should I blindly email some engineering depts at Universitys that have engineering schools that deal with marine aspects?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by NoNukes, posted 04-26-2011 2:44 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Gullwind1, posted 04-27-2011 12:47 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 168 of 261 (613660)
04-26-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by PaulK
04-26-2011 2:56 PM


Re: Reviewing Standards of the Technical Journal
This is also telling.
quote:
Because the scope of this journal is broad, we welcome articles on any topic that is relevant to biblical creation. This includes the sciences such as geology, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc., and also archaeology, theology, hermeneutics, biblical history, geography, linguistics, ethics and society, philosophy, law, etc.
Journal of Creation writing guidelines
They accept anything as long as it deals with biblical creation. I have a feeling the same editor that reviews articles on chemistry also reviews articles on law. I mean why wouldn't it be the same editor. The only important thing is that it matches the apologetics and doctrine of the magazine.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2011 2:56 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Gullwind1
Junior Member (Idle past 4430 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 04-27-2011


Message 169 of 261 (613751)
04-27-2011 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Theodoric
04-26-2011 3:01 PM


I attended a Maritime college, and while I'm not a marine engineer (I studied the deck operations side of things) I can tell you that the biggest problem with a wooden ship the size of the ark isn't the design, its the structural strength of the wood.
Ships have a lot of forces acting on them, even in calm waters. They depend on their buoyancy being fairly evenly distributed. Wave action will cause one or both ends of the ship to be lifted, resulting in the buoyancy of the center to be reduced, since the water isn't supporting it as much. This is known as "sagging". As the wave moves down the hull, it lifts the center, reversing the stresses. Now the bow and stern have reduced support, a situation called "hogging". This repeats over and over, with every wave that passes the ship.
Wood construction vessels have a practical limit as to how long they can be. The longer the vessel, the greater the stress. Wooden vessels longer than 300-400 feet have serious problems in waves. A 450' wooden barge could simply not be built strong enough to withstand the stresses of hogging and sagging. Wood just isn't that strong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 3:01 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Coragyps, posted 04-27-2011 5:25 PM Gullwind1 has replied

  
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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Theodoric, posted 04-27-2011 6:05 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 174 by Theodoric, posted 04-27-2011 8:15 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 171 of 261 (613832)
04-27-2011 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Gullwind1
04-27-2011 12:47 AM


Hi, Gullwind! Welcome aboard, so to speak!
Wood just isn't that strong.
Cue creationist blather about "but this was gopherwood! You don't know how strong gopherwood was!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Gullwind1, posted 04-27-2011 12:47 AM Gullwind1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Gullwind1, posted 04-27-2011 6:02 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Gullwind1
Junior Member (Idle past 4430 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 04-27-2011


Message 172 of 261 (613835)
04-27-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Coragyps
04-27-2011 5:25 PM


Coragyps writes:
Hi, Gullwind! Welcome aboard, so to speak!
Thanks!
Cue creationist blather about "but this was gopherwood! You don't know how strong gopherwood was!"
Just one more miracle added to the pile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Coragyps, posted 04-27-2011 5:25 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 173 of 261 (613836)
04-27-2011 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by NoNukes
04-27-2011 4:46 PM


Re: quick response this time.
Yes quite testy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2011 4:46 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 174 of 261 (613840)
04-27-2011 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by NoNukes
04-27-2011 4:46 PM


Re: quick response this time.
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.
Why would he expect me to know his credentials? That in itself is fairly pompous.
I know a few Dr's, medical and PHD's. The only ones that would point out in a situation like this that they were Dr's are the assholes.
In his original response he signed it as Jonathan Sarfati. In his second email he went out of his way to highlight Dr. It was obviously an attempt to try to make the impression of expertise and authority and possibly an attempt to try to be intimidating. If not why would he do it like this
quote:
(Dr) Jonathan Sarfati

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2011 4:46 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by NoNukes, posted 04-28-2011 5:24 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
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 replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 176 of 261 (613901)
04-28-2011 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by slevesque
04-25-2011 1:46 AM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
slevesque writes:
I did; I don't think it answers my question. What it shows,
quote:
The distribution of the equivalent stress obtained by the stress analysis is shown in Figure 3. Because the maximum stress was smaller than the allowable stress, the Ark could be said to have had safe structural performance.
Which means that it starts off in the position of a sailing ship that's been dismasted.
Well, no, because it wasn't meant to sail, so it isn't a sailing ship. They clearly mention this in the introduction:
quote:
... enable investigations of the practicality of the Ark as a drifting ship in high winds and waves.
So they evaluated that as a drifting ship, it could have navigated on waves as high as 30m. Note that this is using modern passenger ships criteria of what is 'navigable'.
Broaching to is when a ship turns side-on to the waves. In a storm, this was often fatal. That's why sails were required --- the ship had to be kept sailing in the direction of the wind, and if the sail or mast carried away, you were in trouble.
Ok. And so the danger is to overturn ? Isn't that covered in the 'overturning stability' section ?
If not, how do mastless ships (modern) deal with this ? Do they use their motors to align themselves continually, or can't you simply shape the boat so that it aligns itself naturally ?
Yes, modern mastless ships have to use their engines to be able to run before the wind. If they broach, then they roll and capsize, which is not specifically too good.
A number of possibilities present themselves.
1. The ark had masts. Now you have to add the labor of atually manning the masts and stearing to the labor of tending to all those animals.
2. The ark was a mastless barge. And it rolled. And sank.
3. The ark had engines. Not mentioned in scripture, but then again, it doesn't say that Noah didn't have engines.
4. The ark was an airship and floated above the waves. Or was actually a building and sat atop a mountain. Not really scripturally supported either.
5. The seas remained perfectly calm, despite 40 days and 40 nights of rainfall sufficient to cover the earth.
6. God magically kept the ark afloat, in which case why bother with all this real-world modeling and caluculating?
If you can come up with any others, I'd be interested to hear about it.
If you add in the fact that a wooden boat that large is going to buckle whenever it spans the trough between two waves, I'll go ahead and take the position that you can a priori say that that boat won't float.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:46 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 3:17 PM ZenMonkey has not replied
 Message 181 by frako, posted 06-25-2011 4:15 AM ZenMonkey has replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 177 of 261 (615000)
05-09-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by ZenMonkey
04-28-2011 7:53 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
If I was multi billionaire I would definately build one to spec and see if it would actually float and see if it could actually hold all those animals and the supplies it would take to feed them.
3... 2...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-28-2011 7:53 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
MelissaDaisy99 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 4661 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 06-24-2011


Message 178 of 261 (621142)
06-24-2011 4:47 AM


Wonderful! thanks for the info that you guys have been discussing. Awesome!!!!
__________________
watch movies online free
Edited by Admin, : Spamify signature.

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 179 of 261 (621194)
06-24-2011 11:46 AM


Scantlings were posted at Message 58. I don't understand them at all, but FWIW.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 180 of 261 (621316)
06-24-2011 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by MiguelG
04-19-2011 1:42 AM


terminology
Hi MiguelG, just a quick quibble
A barge is eminently 'seaworthy' in calm weather even in deep water though it is usually used in coastal and riverine environments.
Curiously, this is not what seaworthy means.
quote:
seaworthy
—adjective, -thier, -thiest. (of a vessel)
1. constructed, outfitted, manned, and in all respects fitted for a voyage at sea.
2. safe for a voyage at sea.
Included by inference is the ability to handle storms that normally occur at sea and sever weather that occasionally occurs -- being able to survive and operate in something like 90% of all weather conditions.
Mariners take safety at sea as a highly critical aspect of their occupation -- many times you don't get a second chance.
Now back to the humorous (and pointless) discussion.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by MiguelG, posted 04-19-2011 1:42 AM MiguelG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by MiguelG, posted 08-29-2011 7:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024