Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 142 of 453 (520920)
08-25-2009 1:33 AM


This is getting funny
So far, the creationist response has been varied and silly. The construction of the ark has been essentially described as a big wicker basket, a balsa raft, and a construction of CLTs. I wonder. Have any of these people actually read the Bible? Wouldn't it be great to be a creationist and be able to make it up as you went along? I doesn't matter what the Bible says or what the facts of science or reality are, as a creationist, you could propose any imaginary answer in an effort to make mythology seem possible. Creationism is so much easier than science.
One creationist even demanded to know who determined that the structural limits of a wood "ark" was 300 ft. The answer was in the OP where it was explained that there were 9 wooden ships of over 300 ft. that were built between 1900 and 1909. All of them leaked beyond the capabilities of any caulk of the day to stop from the day they hit the water. No one determined that 300 ft. was the limit. It's just that experience showed it to be the case. All of the 10 ships of all wood construction (in spite of steel cross bracing) that exceeded 300 ft. leaked badly.
I have even learned that a 200 ft. cypress tree, which apparently is not affected by wind, somehow proves that a 450 to 550 ft. box would not flex by the action of waves, or that a floating apartment building somehow makes the ark possible.

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by anglagard, posted 08-25-2009 2:54 AM pandion has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 172 of 453 (521019)
08-25-2009 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Peg
08-25-2009 3:30 AM


Re: Anything Goes
Peg writes:
we do know what gopher wood is
Nonsense. According to Strong's "gopher" comes from an unused root that probably meant "to house in." Strong's defines the word as "the wood from which the ark was made, meaning and exact type unknown." Even Gesenius states the his association of the word with "pitch trees" is speculative. Gesenius speculates that gopher wood may have been pine, fir, cypress, cedar or other wood used in shipbuilding. But you know better than Strong and Gesenius.
the word comes from the Hebrew root tar or pitch (ko'pher) If gopher is related to this root word, it must mean that its a resinous wood
If? What do you mean "If gopher is related..." You said that we know what gopher wood is, not that we guess what it may have been. Further, "resinous wood" doesn't tell us what wood it was.
You see, we just don't know. It's a myth anyway.
Edited by pandion, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Peg, posted 08-25-2009 3:30 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Peg, posted 08-27-2009 6:31 AM pandion has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 173 of 453 (521022)
08-25-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Peg
08-25-2009 3:33 AM


Re: Not 300 ft boards! Doh!!
Peg writes:
mythical people dont turn up in the genealogies of real people.
I don't think that's true. But on the other hand, mythical people do turn up in the mythical genealogies of mythical people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Peg, posted 08-25-2009 3:33 AM Peg has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 200 of 453 (521324)
08-27-2009 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by greentwiga
08-27-2009 1:19 AM


Re: The Boat that floats
How is this relevant to Noah, the ark, and the tens of thousands of animal pairs that he supposedly loaded, fed, watered, and mucked through a 40 day storm and a year afloat?
Really. Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by greentwiga, posted 08-27-2009 1:19 AM greentwiga has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(1)
Message 256 of 453 (529825)
10-10-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Blackwodin
10-09-2009 6:55 PM


Blackwodin writes:
You're probably not aware of the logical fallacy you've committed but thankfully I'm here to point it out to you.
Apparently you're not aware of the logical fallacy that you have committed, but since I am actually aware of what I said and what I meant, I'll point out your error. Out of context quote.
Depending on how you look at you've committed either an argument of incredulity or an argument from ignorance. If I may paraphrase, you are saying, "I/we don't know how this could be done so therefore it can't be don't."
It was nothing of the kind. In fact, what I said was quite the opposite of that. I pointed out the evidence upon which I based my rejection of the myth of Noah. I don't believe the ark myth as fact simply because there is no evidence that shows that it is in any way possible, and there is lots and lots of evidence that it is, in fact, wildly impossible. What I said was that I am quite sure that this can't be done because of the great volume of evidence that shows that the myth is just that, myth.
We have very little information about the Ark so it is difficult to judge Noah's construction.
Just one more reason why we should discount the myth for the oral tradition of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen that it is. In fact, it was actually taken from earlier myths of other civilizations of the region - Gilgamesh, for example.
Much has been written about the ship. You have cited some examples where engineers have struggled to build practical, large wooden ships. However, one problem with the examples you've cited is they were built for navigation including masts.
Tell me what that logical fallacy is, please. You assume that the laws of physics don't apply to big boxes without masts not meant for navigation. Explain why the missing masts makes the wood stronger.
This would have been an unnecessary feature on Noah's Ark and his ship would not have suffered for it.
Actually, if you don't count being up-side-down, you're correct. Without some means by which the ship could have been oriented to the waves (modern ships do it through engines and screws - sailing ships did it with masts and sails), it would turn broadside and would have capcized. I recounted the case of the three U.S. destroyers that were lost in the typhoon in 1944. They lost power, were turned sideway to the waves and rolled.
You have also failed to cite other examples such as Zheng He treasure ships which, according to some reports, were as long as the Ark.
You didn't read very much of the discussion did you. I did, in fact, specifically mention the Chinese ships. The problem is that they were made from a series of boxes that were then fastened together. As a result, the hogging and snaking didn't spring the hull. Unless you wish to reject the Bible and what it says, this is irrelevant to discussions of the mythical ark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Blackwodin, posted 10-09-2009 6:55 PM Blackwodin has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 335 of 453 (564952)
06-14-2010 12:32 AM


The extra biblical connotations of a reed ark aside (it supports a mythological explanation for the ark), I noticed something on the TV news that illustrates a point I first made in msg 7. An unpowered vessel will be turned broadside to the waves.
In watching the news about about 16 year old Abby Sunderland and her attempt to sail around the world, I noticed in all pictures of her boat after it had been demasted, it was broadside to the waves. Without any means to maintain headway, a boat, ship, or ark would turn broad side to the waves. This sort of event resulted in the loss of the three destroyers in 1944 (USS Hull, USS Spence, USS Monaghan). Miss Sunderland is very lucky.

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 1:02 AM pandion has not replied
 Message 337 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2010 7:22 AM pandion has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(1)
Message 358 of 453 (641525)
11-20-2011 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by jar
10-26-2011 12:01 PM


351/69 is 5/1. I checked several battleships and didn't find any that came out to 6/1. Some older ones came out as low as 4.8/1, while more recent vessels had ratios as high as 8/1.
I also checked the ratios of several aircraft carriers. Stability is very important for these vessels. And yet, I couldn't find any that were very close to you magic 6/1 ratio. Every one that I checked had a ratio of more than 8/1, even as much as 9/1.
It seems the 6/1 ark story is a bunch of hogwash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by jar, posted 10-26-2011 12:01 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 362 of 453 (643785)
12-11-2011 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Portillo
12-10-2011 11:28 PM


Portillo writes:
That boat can float.
Sorry, but it can't. Did you read the OP?
The dimensions of the ark indicate that it was more of a barge than a ship.
True but irrelevant.
It was about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. It had about 95,700 square feet on three decks, 1,400,000 cubic feet and a gross tonnage of 13,960.
I know. And that is large enough to exceed the structural strength of wood. Thus, wave action would spring the hull and it would sink.
It was fully large enough to carry its cargo.
What cargo? As jar points out, you don't specify what the cargo was. How many "kinds" were there. Given the millions of species of living things on earth today, it seems improbable that they could have evolved in such a short time from the few kinds that would have been aboard the ark.
Its carrying capacity equaled that of 522 standard railroad stockcars, which can carry 125,000 sheep.
I knew a guy who worked on a livestock transport ship. It was just a short journey across the English Channel, but even in that short distance, when transporting sheep, they all got sick and many died. How do you think that Noah's cargo fared any better. But that is actually irrelevant since the ark wasn't carrying sheep and you haven't told us exactly what it was carrying.
The ark was about the size of an oil tanker and was proper seagoing dimensions for an ocean voyage.
How is that relevant? It leaked. Also, with no power, it would have turned broadside to the wave front and then rolled. 75 ft. waves are not uncommon even today.
Korean naval experts did a study on the ark and concluded that the ark could float.
Like all creationists, your Korean creationists do shoddy science. They don't consider the sprung hull because the size of the ark exceeded the strength of wood. They don't consider that the ark was not powered and would have been turned sideways to the waves and rolled.
I believe that I pointed out somewhere in this thread that on 17 December 1944 U.S. Navy Task Force 38 encountered a Typhoon. During that storm three destroyers, USS Hull (DD-350), USS Spence (DD-512), and USS Monaghan (DD-354), lost power when waves washing over the stern flooded the engine rooms. As a result, all three ships were turned sideways to the waves and rolled. The reports say that "almost" all hands perished.
The story of Noah and the ark is a myth, not history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Portillo, posted 12-10-2011 11:28 PM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Portillo, posted 12-12-2011 2:01 AM pandion has replied
 Message 371 by Portillo, posted 12-24-2011 10:53 PM pandion has replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 367 of 453 (643865)
12-12-2011 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Portillo
12-12-2011 2:01 AM


Portillo writes:
At least it would do better than the Babylonian ark, which was a cube.
Irrelevant and untrue. The length of the ark would mean that the hull would be twisted by the action of the waves. That would spring the hull beyond the abilities of any caulking to seal. There isn't any wood that is strong enough to resist twisting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Portillo, posted 12-12-2011 2:01 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Portillo, posted 01-12-2012 1:34 AM pandion has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 368 of 453 (643866)
12-12-2011 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Portillo
12-12-2011 5:16 AM


Portillo writes:
Your smart enough to figure out that a barge bigger then a football field can withstand the forces of rolling seas and mighty tidal waves alot better than a cube.
He is no doubt smart enough to figure it out if it weren't for the fact that you are dead wrong. Wood isn't strong enough to resist twisting when the craft is the size of a football field. It would sink and/or capsize in the slightest storm. Creationists tell us that Noah's flood was a big storm since it flooded the entire earth in only 40 days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Portillo, posted 12-12-2011 5:16 AM Portillo has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 370 of 453 (643926)
12-13-2011 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Taq
12-12-2011 1:11 PM


Taq writes:
You should be smart enough to understand the stress on the keel as a barge hogs a swell.
Hogging and sagging - Wikipedia
A wooden keel is not able to handle these stresses in larger boats. Hogging and sagging can snap steel keels in larger vessels.
Of course, he should also be smart enough to understand the stress on the vessel if it is not exactly perpendicular or exactly at right angle to the waves. In such cases, the wave force would strike one extreme of the vessel first and push it out of alignment. This was the cause of the visible snaking of the Wyoming and her sister ships. The hogging/sagging and the snaking as the ship crossed the waves sprung the hull timbers.
Moreover, without any ability to orient the vessel to the waves, the ark would have been turned broadside to the waves and rolled if the height of the waves exceeded the breadth of the big box. Please refer to my earlier post where I mentioned the USS Hull, USS Spence, and the USS Monaghan.
Edited by pandion, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Taq, posted 12-12-2011 1:11 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by RAZD, posted 12-25-2011 1:58 PM pandion has replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 378 of 453 (645323)
12-26-2011 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Portillo
12-24-2011 10:53 PM


Portillo writes:
Ernst Mayr lists the following numbers for animals species:
Mammals - 3,500
Birds - 8,600
Reptiles and Amphibians - 5,500
Fishes - 18,000
Tunicates, etc - 1,700
Echinoderms - 4,700
Arthropods 815,000
Mollusks - 88,000
Worms, etc - 25,000
Coelenterates, etc - 10,000
Sponges - 5,000
Protozoans - 15,000
Total Animals - 1,000,000
Not the numbers that Mayr gave in his last book, What Evolution Is (2001). Here they are, in the same order:
Mammals = 4,800
Birds = 9,800
Amphibians = 4,000
Reptilians = 7,150
= 11,150
Fish = 27,000
Tunicates = no mention
Echinoderms = no mention
Arthropods = 4,650,000
Molluscs = 120,000
Nematodes (worms, etcl) = 500,000
Coelentrates = no mention
Sponges = no mention
Protozoans = 100,000
Total animals = 5,722,750
In fact, Mayr numbers the total number of biologic species to be about 6,790,000. It should be noted that these are extant species and does not include extinct species.
It is interesting that your source numbers Arthropods at 815,000. In fact, more than 850,000 species of beetle are believed to exist, while only about 400,000 have been classified.
So if we accept the numbers that you gave that I don't have, the total number of animals is 5,744,150.

From The Treaty of Tripoli, Art. 11, negociated under Washington, passed unanimously by the senate, and signed by Adams -- "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Portillo, posted 12-24-2011 10:53 PM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by saab93f, posted 01-12-2012 2:02 AM pandion has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(1)
Message 379 of 453 (645324)
12-26-2011 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by RAZD
12-25-2011 1:58 PM


Neither can you make up facts
Zen Deist writes:
They also had higher length to depth ratios, and they had added stresses from rigging and sail loads and these contributed to hogging and snaking.
Sorry, that's not the problem. Both the Wyoming and the Great Republic broke up while at anchor in the lee of an island. In other words, they weren't flying any sail.
You have still not taken into account that the strength of members also increases with size, not just the stresses, and that when we do a rough calculation of strengths (as I did in Message 37 and copied below) we see that the ark is potentially stronger: 20% stronger against hogging (ignoring the difference due to rigging loads that increased hogging stress on the Wyoming), and 100% stronger against snaking.
You're making that up. Have you ever been in a forest with a wind blowing. Have you ever watched trees that were 2 ft. across sway in the wind. The fact is that ships are not constructed from the whole trunk of trees - they are constructed from plank on beam. What you are claiming is that Noah reduced the cargo capacity of the ark by about 20% because he used whole timbers in construction. That only increases the caulking problem - it doesn't stop the leaking. None of the timbers could run the entire length of the ark. Given bronze age knowledge of construction, how were these entire trees fastened together?
Without doing a more detailed design you cannot claim that the ark was weaker than needed.
So now you are claiming that because the Bible gives such a simple design for the ark, that we can't know anything about it.
Without knowing what the stresses encountered were you cannot claim that the ark was not strong enough.
We know the stressed encountered. Wooden ships leak beyond any means to stop it as they near 300 ft. They don't get stronger with size.
Again, you have absolutely no proof or documentation of any wave heights during the purported flood event.
And you have absolutely no proof or documentation that the purported flood event actually occurred. Evidence presented in a number of other threads on this forum make it clear that the flood of Noah is a myth.
Flooding does not mean large waves. Rainfall does not mean large waves. For all we know, it could have been a completely calm sea.
Actually, heavy rains at sea produce huge waves. Since we're not talking about a river flood, your objection to that point is nonsense. We are talking about rains that equaled hundreds of feet per day, several feet per hour that went on for 40 days. And you're telling me that there wasn't any wind? You're telling me that without any land to interfere with the wind blowing across the flat water that the seas were calm?
Making stuff up to prove a concept wrong is what creationists and pseudoscientists like to do.
Isn't it great how creationists get to make it up as they go along? But that's not what I'm doing. You, on the other hand...
Here's a question to ask yourself: would a solid block of wood float upright and stable on a sea in normal weather?
The short answer is no. If it was longer than it was wide then it would be turned broadside to the waves. If the waves exceeded the width, it would roll. However, since the ark isn't described as a solid block of wood, your question is irrelevant and meaningless.
If the answer is no then you have a legitimate argument.
But, then, I didn't need you to tell me that. I actually did some research and talked to a number of friends where are experienced sailors, including some who served on Navy ships.
If the answer is yes then all you have is speculation, and your time is better spent elsewhere.
But, of course, all you have posted is unsupported assertion. Your time is better spent elsewhere. Possibly a course in science at a college near you.
Edited by pandion, : additional comments

From The Treaty of Tripoli, Art. 11, negociated under Washington, passed unanimously by the senate, and signed by Adams -- "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by RAZD, posted 12-25-2011 1:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2011 3:38 PM pandion has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024