|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2898 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Another aspect to consider is the following: they evaluated 12 different hulls sizes/forms, and dimensions given of the biblical ark turned out to be the most optimal when considering seakeeping safety , structural safety and overturning safety (the three considered in their analysis). This probably wasn't expected by the authors, but does it not at least hint that their may be more to the story then just fabulation ? But everything except the length, breadth, and width of the Ark, and the choice of wood as a material, is not given in the book of Genesis, but rather chosen by modern naval architects. They determined the shape of the Ark, its construction, and its draft.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9143 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
oh creationist peer reviewed, not scientifically peer reviewed.
So the geocentrists could have a peer reviewed journal too and that would give their claims legitimacy? By peer reviewed the vat majority on this site mean scientifically peer reviewed journal. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
slevesque writes: First published: Technical Journal8(1):26—36 April 1994 It's the peer-reviewed creationist journal. Sorry but peer reviewed and creationist journal don't make it. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
''Well duh, because I haven't found anything wron with their math, and I have no reason to doubt them, so the rational thing to do is act as if it is true until shown otherwise''. No reason to doubt them??? They're a bunch of YECs trying to demonstrate the validity of a YEC concept. Substitute YEC for geocentrist. Do you still have no reson to doubt?
But of course, you are still free to remain overtly skeptical just because they are YEC, although I'll point out that this is obviously an irraitonal position.
Substitute YEC for geocentrist. Do you still think that this is obviously an irrational position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
That depends what they're modeling. A tow tank test typically investigates the properties of the shape, not the structure, and if you look at pictures of them doing it they seem to cast the miniature boats out of plastic, rather than reproducing in miniature each plank or nail or rivet. I didn't find any pictures of the scale models.
I need hardly explain to someone who studies physics why an exact 1/50 scale replica would not in any case answer questions about the structural integrity of the boat. I agree it does not answer all the questions, if it would then we could prove anything using scale models. But it does answer some questions, and it confirms their theoretical analysis in the areas that it could confirm it.
As for its shape, that simply isn't given in the book of Genesis, only its length, width, and depth, so the shape is just something they had to make up. Their hull-form isn't very far fetched, I'd say. Remember that I am only saying that I'm only addressign the assertion that a seaworthy wooden boat that size can't be built. Their calculations and tests show that it can, end of PRATT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8536 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: So the researchers are staff to the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering. The study in question was not sanctioned, vetted or approved by the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering. Only the Creationist orgs approved of the study. This is not any kind of peer review. Since we know, have the history and examples, of creationist subterfuge in such matters this one does not carry the sweet smell of legitimacy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9143 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Their calculations and tests show that it can, end of PRATT.
Not until the "paper" and its calculations are reviewed and confirmed. Show me other non-associated oceanic engineers that can verify this and I may consider what they have to say. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
No reason to doubt them??? They're a bunch of YECs trying to demonstrate the validity of a YEC concept. Substitute YEC for geocentrist. Do you still have no reson to doubt? I still have the right to doubt, but if I'm evaluating a given geocentrist claim, and I cannot point out where they are wrong, then I would have no legitimate reason to doubt.
Substitute YEC for geocentrist. Do you still think that this is obviously an irrational position? If my sole, only reason to doubt their conclusionwould be that they are geocentrists, on something that does not depend on that fact, then yes I would think it is irrational. Seriously, how hard can it be to say ''it is possible for a wooden ship of that size to be seaworthy'', when you have naval engineers telling you that it is possible and you have no other reason to believe them other then the fact they are 'evil creationists' ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
That's why I asked you to provide evidence that it isn't necessary. Has there ever been a real-world-ship the size of the ark built without ironwork?
I don't have evidence of ironwork, but I don't think it is necessary. slevesque writes:
Once again, I have NOT said that it's impossible. I'm looking for positive evidence that it is possible.
I'm still open for counter-evidence, but I'm sayign that for now you can only suppose that an ark that size is not impossible. slevesque writes:
Again, I explained why the scaling works in one case bit not the other. Now if you are of the idea that miniature scales are only acceptable in some cases but not others, I would consider this a bit of changing the goalpost. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
slevesque writes:
Creationists can claim "peer review" but this is just another example of their dishonesty. First published: Technical Journal8(1):26—36 April 1994 It's the peer-reviewed creationist journal. Peer review has both a specific meaning and a specific implication. The specific meaning is in the world of science, where peer review refers to review by experts in the field. The specific implication is that they are looking for errors or problems with the submitted article. I've been through peer-review from both sides and have a good idea how it works. The way creationists use it is dishonest. They say, "Hmmm. Scientists want peer-reviewed articles so we'll do it ourselves. Our way." Only it isn't the same and everyone knows it. Real peer review, done by scientists, first and foremost makes sure the submitted articles conform to the rules and methods of science. This is exactly what creationists seek to avoid in their "peer review." They can't conform to those rules and methods, so they have to fake it with their own "peer review." Dishonest. This is much the same (failed) tactic they tried with creation "science." Creationism was tossed from the classrooms by a U.S. Supreme Court decision, so they simply changed the name and tried again. When that was tossed they changed from creation "science" to ID. How dishonest can you get?? If your ideas and beliefs can't stand the test of the marketplace and scientific scrutiny, maybe they're wrong. Trying to disguise them as science when everyone knows that they are the exact opposite of science is just plain dishonest. So don't cite creationist "peer review" as if it meant anything. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Once again, I have NOT said that it's impossible. I'm looking for positive evidence that it is possible. And I showed you the math showing that it is possible. If you do not consider that as positive evidence, nor testing on scaled down models, then I have to conclud that the only positive evidence you would accept would be the actual real-size thing being actually built and put to sea. And if that is the case, then my work is pretty much done here as it just becoems plain stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
You showed a self-serving claim by a bunch of YECs. If they have any confidence in their results, why hasn't the paper been peer-reviewd? (Hint, "peers" means other naval engineers, not other YECs.)
And I showed you the math showing that it is possible. slevesque writes:
That's exactly what I've suggested a number of times. What do you think the Wright brothers did after they calculated that heavier-than-air flight was possible? ... I have to conclud that the only positive evidence you would accept would be the actual real-size thing being actually built and put to sea. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
You showed a self-serving claim by a bunch of YECs. If they have any confidence in their results, why hasn't the paper been peer-reviewd? (Hint, "peers" means other naval engineers, not other YECs.) First off, I didn't show a ''claim''. I showed the math and calculations. Second, when published in the TJ, it was reviewed by other naval engineers. (or at least people qualified to evaluate their math)
That's exactly what I've suggested a number of times. What do you think the Wright brothers did after they calculated that heavier-than-air flight was possible? ... this doesn't mean the theoretical calculations isn't positive evidence, or doesn't have any weight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9143 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Really? really? You have evidence of this? Please provide these reviews.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
You really asking me to find the reviews of a 17 year old paper ?
In any case, the reality is that you should all be either attacking the math head-on, or acknowledge that the paper is positive evidence that a seaworthy wooden boat that size is possible. The authors gave all their references to where they took the formula's, and there is nothing in there overly complicated. Hiding behind the concept of peer-review seems dishonest from where I stand. It shouldn't be an issue, because if we are to be honest, even if all their math was right, and all their tests were accurate, does anyone here think it would actually pass peer-review ? Would any engineering journal really publish a paper titled ''Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway'' ? If someone here answers yes to that question, I will seriously consider you either delusional or nave. If however you agree that the answer to that question is no, then we can move on and actually talk about the paper instead of mudslinging. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024