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: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 331 of 453 (564932)
06-13-2010 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 4:11 PM


off-topic comments and threads to go to for further discussion
Hi Jzyehoshua, and welcome to the fray.
You've made some assertions that have little to do with the topic of the thread, and newcomers generally don't understand the protocol here of sticking to the topic for each thread: if you want to discuss some other topic, then start a new thread.
Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
Additionally, there is the mere act of fossilization, which requires covering something so fast bacteria can't destroy it. Sinking down gradually into swamps doesn't allow for this.
If you want to start a new thread on this, then we can discuss it in more detail. Otherwise you will need to accept the fact that peat bogs have perfectly preserved the remains of many people from over 1000 years ago with no bacterial damage, that "tzi the Iceman" is a mumified corpse of a man buried in ice, complete with leather shoes, and that natural mummies have been found in the deserts of china and peru.
In all three of these cases the environment did not allow bacterial decay, thus the bodies were preserved.
Bog body - Wikipedia
quote:
There are of course bog bodies that are exceptions in that they do not date to the Iron Age. The oldest known bog body is that of the Koelbjerg Woman who was found in Denmark, and has been dated to around 8000 BCE, during the Stone Age.
Ötzi - Wikipedia
quote:
tzi the Iceman (pronounced De-Oetzi-pronunciation.ogg [ˈ—tsi] (helpinfo)), Similaun Man, and Man from Hauslabjoch are modern names of a well-preserved natural mummy of a man who lived about 5300 years ago.[1] The mummy was found in September 1991 in the Schnalstal glacier in the tztal Alps, near Hauslabjoch on the border between Austria and Italy.[2]
An Overview of Mummification in Ancient Egypt
quote:
Mummification of bodies was originally a natural process in Egypt and elsewhere, where the dryness of the sand in which the body was buried, the heat or coldness of the climate, or the absence of air in the burial helped to produce unintentional or "natural" mummies. These processes have produced mummies not only in Egypt, but in South America, Mexico, the Alps, Central Asia, the Canary Islands, the Aleutian Islands and Alaska.
In a nutshell your claim is shown to be false from this evidence alone. Interestingly, this means that Josh McDowell and Don Stewart are not good sources for valid information on reality.
Message 329: At any rate, my point is that we assume many of the factors on which dating methodologies, and thus the age of the earth, are based on, to be the way they are because of Uniformitarianism. Why has Carbon 14 decayed at the same rate? Because that's what it does now. We assume the concept of Uniformitarianism to be true, aka 'the present is the key to the past', and assume that such huge catastrophes - which not only fly in the face of Uniformitarianism but we've now been forced to recognize did actually occur - did not affect carbon levels and the atmosphere. Because if they did, then the dating methodologies would be thrown off.
We have often heard that such dating methodologies are unreliable past 10,000 or 100,000 years. And yet, still they are used to reach these exorbitant dates.
In addition to what Coyote says in Message 21 of the Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project thread, please feel free to see if you can be the first creationist to deal with the evidence of old age as detailed on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 - in particular see Message 1 and note that the issue is correlations between all the methods of dating.
Both of those threads are better places to discuss this issue, as the age of the earth is not the topic of this thread. I'll let Coyote follow up on your response to Message 21 and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
Note that any YECs that fail to answer the issues on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 yet claims that the earth is young are only fooling themselves: a young earth does not produce evidence of extreme age, and the existence of this evidence invalidates the claims of a young earth.
Message 330: They just fit the evidence to whatever works for their evolutionary theory worldviews, the exact same way they complain Creationists are doing. 40,000 years would not work for evolutionary theory, so it takes another team to get the result they want. Early life was too complex, so we need to take on another 40 million years to its start time.
Curiously, the argument from ignorance and incredulity does not affect reality. You are welcome to your opinion, but having an opinion doesn't mean that it is true - you need to look at the evidence, all the evidence.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

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 323 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 4:11 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 337 of 453 (564978)
06-14-2010 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by pandion
06-14-2010 12:32 AM


Hi pandion,
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.
This is due to the motion of water in the waves (which is not the motion of the waves). The water flows from the peaks to the troughs from both sides of 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.
She was in a sailboat with a keel that kept the boat from rolling over, unlike the destroyers.
And yes, this would be a problem for a big boxy ark, no matter how "shipshape" the ends were.
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 335 by pandion, posted 06-14-2010 12:32 AM pandion has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 338 of 453 (564979)
06-14-2010 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:06 PM


Re: off-topic comments and threads to go to for further discussion
Hi Jzyehoshua, I'll follow up on your new thread when promoted.
Just a quick point though:
Yes, such mummification via peat bogs can occur. But how prevalent is it? ... Furthermore, as stated here, isn't it true that "natural mummification is rare"?
After all, simply proving that natural mummification CAN happen would not support the natural fossilization of all fossils through slow depositional rates. You would then have to prove prevalence.
Except you were the one claiming that it could not happen. All I needed to prove was that it occurred.
What you are forgetting is that your initial claim was that:
Message 323: Additionally, there is the mere act of fossilization, which requires covering something so fast bacteria can't destroy it. Sinking down gradually into swamps doesn't allow for this.
And that this claim is invalidated by the bog mummies.
Now you can admit that you were wrong and we can move on.
Fossils are rare. Rare does not mean never occurs.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : rare

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 332 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:06 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 2:18 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 344 of 453 (565095)
06-14-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:31 PM


Re: off-topic comments and threads to go to for further discussion
btw Your new thread is at
Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
and I see it is doing well ...
Your link is not correct (it is to your message here)
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 334 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:31 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 345 of 453 (565103)
06-14-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 11:06 PM


duplicate
now I see my former post - thought it was missing.
Edited by RAZD, : deleted

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 11:06 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 346 of 453 (565108)
06-14-2010 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 2:18 PM


moving on
Hi again Jzyehoshua, thanks.
... but to move this conversation forward I'll just admit to being wrong.
Excellent, I rate this a 5 event.
I suppose there's the question of whether the peat bogs were the same as gradually sinking into a swamp, ...
What the peat bog mummies show is that this sinking can occur without bacterial decomposition. Bog mummies are made by "sinking down gradually into swamps" without the bodies being decomposed by bacteria. Once this stage has been reached the mummy can then be transformed into a fossil by other geological processes.
To the last point, I still question whether most fossils occur from peat bogs, however.
Some do, at least from conditions very similar, especially where "soft parts" are fossilized, which is a rare event among rare events.
Going back to your previous message, I have a couple minor additional comments:
I did not claim that natural mummification cannot occur, neither to my knowledge did McDowell and Stewart. Rather, the implication was that the large mass of fossils are not explained in this fashion, and that typical explanations involve sinking down gradually into swamps - which seems to be distinguishable from mummification in peat bogs.
The large mass of fossils is minuscule in comparison to the numbers of organisms that once lived on the earth, and only a small fraction of that life has been fossilized.
Your information source that this is a "typical explanation" is also incomplete at best, outright wrong at worst - and this is what is known as a straw man logical fallacy: set up a simplistic "explanation" and then demonstrate that it is false.
Curiously, all this demonstrates is that fossils are not made by "sinking down gradually into swamps," but that this may be the beginning of the process. Certainly, the issue of bacterial decay is not a problem for the (rare) preservation of organisms in the formation of fossils.
I think we can both agree that mummies are not fossils, as your typical fossils are made by replacing organic material with minerals, and this has not occurred yet with the mummies.
Interestingly this also means that we should look for another source of explanation -- McDowell and Stewart don't cut it -- preferably one that scientist that study fossils propose, rather than people who are misinformed or are misrepresenting the facts.
The implication then being, that dinosaur fossils occur via other methods...
Exactly, and this too would be an interesting new thread.
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 340 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 2:18 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 11:18 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 354 of 453 (565954)
06-22-2010 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by dennis780
06-21-2010 11:18 PM


... perhaps we can get back to the topic?
Hi again dennis780, well that's one answer to the many questions raised for you.
Absolute zero freezing causes all internal organs to be preserved.
Curiously, absolute zero has never been experienced.
Absolute zero "is the theoretical temperature at which entropy would reach its minimum value. The laws of thermodynamics state that absolute zero cannot be reached because this would require a thermodynamic system to be fully removed from the rest of the universe."
Case and point, the palm trees in the north pole, ...
You mean these?
Page Not Found: 404 Not Found -
quote:
In fact, 55 million years ago the Arctic was once a lot like Miami, with an average temperature of 74 degrees, alligator ancestors and palm trees, scientists say.
That conclusion, based on first-of-their-kind core samples extracted from more than 1,000 feet below the Arctic Ocean floor, is contained in three studies published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
The 74-degree temperature based on core samples, which act as a climatic time capsule was probably the year-round average. But because the data is so limited, it could also be simply the summertime average, researchers said.
You will note that the alligators and palm trees are media hyperbole, and are not mentioned as being found in the core samples. Now we could dig up the actual article in Nature if one were interested in facts rather than hyperbole.
... and mammoth graveyards in northern Siberia.
You mean these?
Woolly mammoth - Wikipedia
quote:
The woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), also called the tundra mammoth, is an extinct species of mammoth. This animal is known from bones and frozen carcasses from northern North America and northern Eurasia with the best preserved carcasses in Siberia. They are perhaps the most well known species of mammoth.
Preserved frozen remains of woolly mammoths, with much soft tissue remaining, have been found in the northern parts of Siberia. This is a rare occurrence, essentially requiring the animal to have been buried rapidly in liquid or semi-solids such as silt, mud and icy water which then froze. This may have occurred in a number of ways. Mammoths may have been trapped in bogs or quicksands and either died of starvation or exposure, or drowning if they sank under the surface. The evidence of undigested food in the stomach and seed pods still in the mouth of many of the specimens suggests that neither starvation nor exposure are likely. The maturity of this ingested vegetation places the time period in autumn rather than in spring when flowers would be expected.[20] The animals may have fallen through ice into small ponds or potholes, entombing them. Many are certainly known to have been killed in rivers, perhaps through being swept away by river floods. In one location, by the Berelekh River in Yakutia in Siberia, more than 9,000 bones from at least 156 individual mammoths have been found in a single spot, apparently having been swept there by the current.[citation needed]
Seems to me that this gets us back to the issue of mummification rather than of fossil formation.
Curiously, it has little to do with whether or not a noah type ark would make a feasible vessel.
Enjoy
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

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 347 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 11:18 PM dennis780 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 377 of 453 (645308)
12-25-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by pandion
12-13-2011 2:04 AM


Sorry, but you can't make up facts.
Hi pandion et al
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.
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.
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.
Without doing a more detailed design you cannot claim that the ark was weaker than needed.
Without knowing what the stresses encountered were you cannot claim that the ark was not strong enough.
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.
Again, you have absolutely no proof or documentation of any wave heights during the purported flood event. Flooding does not mean large waves. Rainfall does not mean large waves. For all we know, it could have been a completely calm sea.
Making stuff up to prove a concept wrong is what creationists and pseudoscientists like to do.
Here's a question to ask yourself: would a solid block of wood float upright and stable on a sea in normal weather?
If the answer is no then you have a legitimate argument.
If the answer is yes then all you have is speculation, and your time is better spent elsewhere.
Enjoy.
Message 37:
LBD
Ark5158652
L/1610
BD^3(vertical)-12092288
DB^3(horizontal)33074912-
Wyoming3505040
L/178.75
BD^3(vertical)-3200000
DB^3(horizontal)5000000-
Ark/Wyoming
BD^3(vertical)-3.78
DB^3(horizontal)6.61-
(L/L)^33.19208%119%
The ark is still 20% stiffer in the worst (vertical loading) condition.
Edited by Zen Deist, : added reference

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 370 by pandion, posted 12-13-2011 2:04 AM pandion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by pandion, posted 12-26-2011 1:32 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 386 of 453 (645735)
12-29-2011 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by evolutionfacts
12-28-2011 6:43 PM


other arguments better: such as koalas and eucalyptus trees
Hi evolutionfacts, and welcome to the fray.
"And yet, creationists want me to believe that a 450 ft. (minimum) vessel of ALL wood construction was able to withstand a storm of 40 days "
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
That's what it's like when you debate to their way of thinking. I find it best to focus on the idea that the ark somehow had to make a pit stop in Australia to specifically drop off the Kangaroos. It's difficult for them to argue that this was God's plan.
Yes, the pertinent question is how did all the species get to the places where they are found today, many with no known intermediates between their location and a single place where the ark was purported to land.
How did koalas get to Australia without any koalas left in between?
How did they survive the journey without eucalyptus trees along the way and no evidence of them anywhere but Australia?
And the question is not just one of getting from A to B, but also why that specific B for each species and no other - why no koalas in North America? Why no koalas in England?
Why do we end up with the distribution pattern seen today?
However these questions are off topic on this thread, and should be taken to a new thread (we like to keep threads focused on one topic as much as possible).
It's silly indeed. But keep in mind they simply claim it was God's intervention and from there move to something like "unlike evolutionists, at least we admit we have faith."
Unfortunately, this thread is about how silly the ark design is, and this is a silly argument itself. It is silly because the argument is necessarily based on many assumptions rather than objective evidence and engineering.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
Edited by Zen Deist, : added welcome & tips

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 380 by evolutionfacts, posted 12-28-2011 6:43 PM evolutionfacts has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 387 of 453 (645753)
12-29-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by pandion
12-26-2011 1:32 AM


A bad argument is a bad argument whether you want it to be true or not
Hi pandion,
Thanks for marking the sections you changed ... oh wait, you didn't ....
Sorry, but I am not the one making stuff up, rather I am pointing out why your assumptions are tenuous at best, if not totally unfounded.
But, of course, all you have posted is unsupported assertion. Your time is better spent elsewhere. ...
Amusingly, I got bored with the creationists around here at present, so I thought I would return to this issue to tackle an equally bad argument.
... Possibly a course in science at a college near you.
Curiously, I already have. We've discussed this before. It appears you either have a short memory or do not read for comprehension. Try again.
You're making that up.
No, I actually CALCULATED it from the available information using the engineering formulas for beam strength against moment stresses. We can go into this in more detail if you like and make better approximations of the Wyoming while exposing more of the lack of information on the purported ark to make similar approximations. I didn't do that for the simple reason that we don't have sufficient information on the purported ark to do a similar analysis AND because these rough calculations are sufficient to show that the ark could have been stronger than the Wyoming. More refined calculations would likely only make this worse.
IF the calculations had resulted in a weaker ark THEN you might have had an argument. They don't ... so YOU don't.
Because a weaker ship had certain structural problems does not mean that a stronger vessel would.
Because one specific design had certain structural problems does not mean that a different design would.
Because one specific design foundered under a certain set of conditions does not mean that those conditions would apply to the purported ark.
Even at rest the rigging still loads the hull with tension in the stays and compression in the masts -- 6 in the case of the Wyoming. When the vessel was under sail she leaked, hogged and snaked, and this is when the vessel was under load from the rigging. In gale force winds, even with no sails set, there would be significant loading of the rigging being transmitted to the hull. These loads are not static, and the pulsing of loads causes more working of the hull than steady loads would.
You have significant additional loads that just do not apply to the ark.
You have an apples and oranges comparison.
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.
Amusingly, the documented facts concerning the Wyoming say otherwise:
Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia
quote:
1924 24 March. In order to ride out a nor'easter, she anchored off Chatham MA, in the Nantucket Sound, together with the five-masted schooner Cora F. Cressy which had left Norfolk at the same time as the Wyoming. Captain H. Publicover in the Cora F. Cressy weighed anchor at dusk and stood out to sea. The Wyoming is believed to have foundered east of the Pollock Rip Lightship and the entire crew of 14 was lost.[3][4][5]
(color for emphasis)
Firstly, foundering does not mean the vessel broke up. The actual cause is unknown, and she may have run into a sandbar or broached. It does not appear that the wreck has been found, so we may never know.
Secondly, the conditions encountered by the Wyoming at that time may not apply to the purported ark, the area involved is shallow and hazardous, much more dangerous than in the open ocean. For additional evidence we see that the Wyoming lasted 14+ years crossing the ocean, thus showing that the structure was not insufficient for those 14+ years of voyages.
Thirdly, the location where the Wyoming appears to have foundered was not the lee of an island:
http://www.vsa.cape.com/~harharb/lightships.html
quote:
Like the crouch of a tree, Pollock Rip Channel and Great Round Shoals Channel converge in Nantucket Sound at Cross Rip. The only "safe" route for ships at sea between northern New England and New York, a need for an extraordinary number of light vessels emerged to mark a safe passage on through Vineyard Sound making this area known as "lightship alley". In fact, this channel had the most prolific number of lightships in the world. The "Monomoy Passage" route was heavily used by coastwise shipping to avoid an offshore passage seaward of Nantucket Shoals, but was subject to prolonged periods of heavy fog in the spring and summer months.
Pollock Rip Lightship stationed 3.5 miles east of Monomoy Beach. Between 1849 and 1969 eight different light vessels served at this dangerous open water station.
(color for emphasis)
See Monomoy Beach (google maps)
So the location where the Wyoming was believed to have foundered is ~3.5 miles offshore and to the east side of the exposed beach, which puts her in open waters exposed to a northeaster\gale, and NOT the lee of an island. In addition, as this is not technically in Nantucket Sound, she must also have weighed anchor (she wouldn't drift towing her anchor in this direction), and she likely had storm sails set for steerage.
The lightships were there because of numerous sandbars and shifting shoals. There are many shipwrecks in the area, so the fact that the Wyoming foundered here is not necessarily due to her design.
You just can't assume that because the Wyoming foundered in that location, that the ark -- a different design AND exposed to different conditions -- would.
Especially since the Cora F. Cressy, a 273' five masted schooner by the same builders, survived the same storm by going to sea. It survived the same gale, so you need to account for this: you haven't.
Haze Gray & Underway Photo Feature: Maine's Last Big Schooners
quote:
Cora F. Cressy was a massive five-masted schooner built at the famed Percy & Small yards at Bath in 1902. She was 2499 tons (GRT), 273 feet long, and could carry some 4000 tons of coal. She was of very stout construction, with very high bows, but was a good sailer, and fast. After surviving a 1924 gale that claimed two other schooners (including the mighty six-masted Wyoming), she was known as "Queen of the Atlantic Seaboard". In 1928 she lost her sails in a gale and was laid up; she was expensive to operate and the repair costs could not be justified.
(color for emphasis)
So a second vessel foundered in the same gale, yet it did not have the structural problems of the Wyoming?
Grounded on an exposed beach in Maine the hull remained intact for several decades (I saw it in late 1980's). The dimensions for the Cressy are listed in Lloyds: 273' length (deck) 43.4' beam, 27.9' depth.
quote:
Schooner Wyoming. On Verso Schooner "Wyoming" of New York, the largest schooner in the World at the L & H Docks, Pensacola. 93 days from Africa with mahogany. Will now load lumber and turpentine, etc. for France.
Note that this picture was taken in 1917, that the vessel was launched in December 1909, and foundered in March 1924 -- surviving 14+ years afloat, much longer than the ark needed to remain afloat, and she crossed the ocean several times.
It would appear that the foundering was caused by the specific location and specific encountered conditions, not necessarily to the design of the vessel, as this is an area notorious for shipwrecks.
You are conflating this particular shipwreck with the design of the vessel when that does not necessarily mean that the vessel was not safe for open ocean voyages.
If the design was inadequate for ocean voyages then logically it would have broken up on one of the first of the many voyages it completed. This did not happen.
Just to ram this home a little more, I will revisit the calculations and add the Cora F. Cressy to the mix:
Bending stress of a beam = M/S (psf)
Where M = moment =wL^2/8 (lb-ft) ∝ {L^2}
      w = load per foot of the beam, and
      L = length of the beam,
and Sv = vertical section modulus = BD^2/6 (ft^3) ∝ {{BD^2}
and Sh = horizontal section modulus = DB^2/6 (ft^3) ∝ {{DB^2}
      B = breadth of the beam, and
      D = depth of the beam,
Thus vertical stress ∝ {L^2}/{BD^2}
And horizontal stress ∝ {L^2}/{DB^2}
Ark Wyoming Cressy
L (ft) 515 350 273
B (ft) 86 50.1 43.4
D (ft) 52 36 27.9
L/B 6.0 7.0 6.3
L/D 9.9 9.7 9.8
Sv:{L^2}/{BD^2} 1.14 1.89 2.21
Sh:{L^2}/{DB^2} 0.69 1.36 1.42
Now extrapolations are notoriously questionable, especially when conditions apply to two examples and not the third (the rigging loads, for example), however, in addition to these stress calculations we can also extrapolate linearly what they would be for a schooner with rigging based on Wyoming, Cressy and length:
{L(Wyoming)-L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)-L(Wyoming)} = 2.14
{Sv(Cressy)-Sv(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)-L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)-L(Wyoming)} = 0.69
{Sw(Cressy)-Sw(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)-L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)-L(Wyoming)} = 0.13
Sv(Ark) ≈ Sv(Wyoming)-{Sv(Cressy)Sv(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)L(Wyoming)} = 1.20 (> 1.14 from the block analysis)
Sv(Ark) ≈ Sw(Wyoming)-{Sw(Cressy)Sw(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)L(Wyoming)} = 1.23 (> 0.69 from the block analysis)
Lower stresses means (a) more resistance to breaking up and (b) less working of the parts of the vessel.
Note that in BOTH comparisons, the proportionate stresses for the purported ark are LESS than the Wyoming (as previously noted) and further that the proportionate stresses for the Wyoming are less than the Cressy. Both schooners were capable ocean crossing vessels, but the Wyoming was known for flexing and leaking underway compared to the Cressy. What was the difference? You have argued that it is due to the increased length of the Wyoming, however she also had 20%+ more rigging load than the Cressy, and you have not accounted for that factor.
Apples and Oranges.
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.
No, please read for comprehension. What we can know about the purported ark is limited to what is in the bible, both in terms of vessel design and in terms of the conditions that were experienced. We don't know much more about the vessel design than overall length, beam and depth of the vessel. We don't know much more about the weather conditions experienced other than it rained: there is no mention of large wind, large waves, or of the vessel rolling over, so it is safe to say that you cannot assume that these were necessarily experienced, you need to actually demonstrate the flood and rain would cause these conditions. You haven't, you have only made assumptions that they do.
The information available is just not sufficient to make the case that the vessel in question would roll over or break up:
  1. Using a rough block analysis of beam strength (see above)
    1. The purported ark is stronger than the Wyoming in regards to hogging and sagging loads,
    2. The purported ark is stronger than the Wyoming in regards to snaking loads,
    3. The Wyoming did not break up at sea, and actually survived over 14 years at sea,
    4. Thus we could assume that the ark would survive those same conditions for at least 14 years.
  2. In addition we know:
    1. The Wyoming had additional loads due to rigging etc that added significant stress to the Wyoming that would not be experienced by the purported ark.
    2. This means that, when you subtract the structure needed to handle the rigging loads, the Wyoming was likely even weaker in comparison than is indicated by these block calculations.
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.
Really? Would you care to quote the post where you think I claimed that? Or have you moved from making up stuff about the ark to making up stuff about my arguments? Reading for comprehension means reading and understanding what people actually say, not what you make up about their arguments.
Curiously, it was common for the wooden schooner boat builders to use whole trunks or branches for structural members, such as transverse beams and knees.
That only increases the caulking problem - it doesn't stop the leaking.
The bible does say that the purported ark is caulked, it does not say that the vessel leaked. There are many caulked wooden vessels that do not leak, so the fact that a vessel is caulked does not mean it leaks.
The leaking and flexing problems encountered by the Wyoming was when she was under sail, and are highly likely to be due to the significant rigging loads of this type of vessel, rather than just to her size. The captains of the schooners were known for putting up as much sail as they felt the vessel could carry, and take routes known for winds, in order to deliver their cargo in the shortest possible time.
Apples and Oranges.
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.
We do know the stresses encountered by the Wyoming, we do know that it survived those stresses for 14+ years of ocean voyages, even with the high rigging loads, we do NOT know the stresses or conditions encountered by the purported ark.
We do NOT know the characteristics of the wood purportedly used to build the purported ark, because "gopher wood" is not identified with any known species of wood.
We don't know how it swells or how strong it is (modulus of elasticity, etc).
They don't get stronger with size.
Sorry, this is a false statement as made: double the depth and breadth of a beam and you increase the strength by a factor of 16.
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.
Curiously, I never claimed that the flood actually occurred: in fact if you actually read my posts you will see that they are among the ones with evidence that contradicts the possibility that a flood occurred.
The evidence for an old age for the earth is overwhelming, imho, and when coupled with a lack of evidence of a widespread flood occurring within those long ages, makes such an event highly unlikely, imvhasao.
However this is a red herring, because you are arguing about the conditions that would theoretically occur during such an event: we are discussing your theoretical assumptions, not whether the flood actually occurred or not.
AND, that still doesn't mean that I can't show your argument to be full of holes big enough to sink a battleship, with unfounded assumptions about things that don't necessarily apply.
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. ...
Did you add this comment in your edit? Bad idea.
Firstly, heavy rains do not produce waves, if anything they knock waves down. They provide no energy to cause waves.
Secondly, you don't know how heavy the rains were -- not all the flood water is claimed to come from the rain:
http://www.genesis.net.au/~bible/kjv/genesis/
quote:
7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
This says that there were "fountains of the great deep" in addition to rain, so you do not know how much of the purported flood can be attributed to the rain.
... And you're telling me that there wasn't any wind? ...
I'm saying that there is no mention of great winds, rather the significant events noted are rain and flooding. Thus your job is to show that high winds must necessarily have occurred, rather than just assume it. You have not done this.
quote:
7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Doesn't sound like gale conditions.
You just can't assume gale conditions without some foundation and objective evidence to support your argument. This does not mean cherry-picked evidence of extreme conditions in specific locations, and assuming that they necessarily apply across the board.
quote:
8:7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
Those birds apparently had no trouble flying back to the ark. No gale winds.
... You're telling me that without any land to interfere with the wind blowing across the flat water that the seas were calm?
(1) What causes that wind and how strong it is? The difference between heating and cooling of the land and water between day and night is the major cause of most wind we know. With no land masses you only have the heating and cooling of surface water between day and night, and this is significantly less than the effect of land heating and cooling. During the rain period there would be no daylight, and so there would be even less differential to generate wind.
(2) There are patches in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans where there is little wind: ever hear of the Saragossa Sea? Thus open water on its own does not create high wind or waves.
(3) What affects the air should also affect the water, and with no land masses there is nothing to block vast currents of water flowing around the earth in sync with the day\night cycle (think tides). Wind blowing with currents cause lower waves than when against them.
(4) The long (infinite?) reach means that waves get longer wavelengths. Ocean swells, not whitecaps.
You have not shown why the waves should be significantly different from normal ocean swells.
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...
A bad argument is a bad argument, no matter who proposes it. You are comparing apples with oranges and assuming conditions that are not documented to have been experienced within the narrative, and with no reason given for making your assumptions.
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.
Amusingly, that doesn't answer the question actually asked. You keep making stuff up -- you don't know the wave height or length. You need to include what would happen when your if statements are NOT fulfilled to properly answer the question.
... If the waves exceeded the width, it would roll.
Interestingly there are two dimensions to waves: wavelength and wave height. Wavelengths can be very long but with little height. These are well rounded waves without steep slopes. Such waves are normal and they are typical of ocean swells. Such waves would not roll the block of wood. Tsunami waves in the open ocean are only a few feet high and often pass unnoticed under ships, yet they are of extremely long wavelengths.
Obviously there are other factors involved in creating waves that could roll over a solid block of wood with these dimensions, and you have not shown that they would exist in normal weather.
In relative calm and long rollers the block would not turn over. Even in fairly nasty weather the block would not roll over.
The tilt necessary is a function of the beam to depth and the location of the center of gravity. For a block of wood the center of gravity would be the center of the block.
Fascinatingly, a block of wood can float in waves where the wavelength is many times the beam without rolling, and a block of wood can float in ocean swells with wave heights taller that the block of wood is wide without rolling.
The rolling action you are talking about is caused by a number of additional conditions, not just wave size (height?).
With a beam of 86 ft and a depth of 52 feet, the center of gravity would be at 26 feet above the baseline, assuming a specific gravity for the wood of 0.50 (it varies between 0.5 and 0.9 for most woods used on ships) this gives us 50% depth for draft (26 feet), and a fairly stable condition (common to many barges that don't roll over on ocean voyages).
Why don't you do the math and tell me what is needed to actually roll that block over?
My calculations show that you would need a wave slope > 25°, with one side of the waterline for the block (ie the wave) raised > 45 ft above the other, and this would only be the steepest portion of the wave shape, not the total height of the wave.
Hurricane Irene did not generate waves this big.
Hurricane Bob did not generate waves this big, although it did generate breaking waves that washed boats up onto shore.
Hurricane Katrina did not generate waves this big, although it did generate breaking waves that washed many boats up onto shore along miles of the gulf coast.
The reason that (navy etc) ships will put to sea when hurricanes are due to land is because the waves and other conditions are less severe in the open ocean than they are along a coast (ie -- again, for emphasis -- where the Wyoming was purported to be when she foundered).
Please note that I specified normal weather. NORMAL weather does not include hurricanes, and does not have large steep breaking waves.
The weather outside right now is NORMAL weather, and a block of wood with the dimensions of the purported ark would not roll over in these conditions.
In fact the weather outside for the last 20 years would not have generated waves that would roll such a block over, including two hurricanes (Bob and Irene).
Interestingly, the "area outside" I am talking about is Nantucket Sound ... you know, that area where the Wyoming was anchored?
Seeing as that is much longer than the time period that the purported ark needed to survive, you cannot say that it would not have done so without showing that the weather necessarily was severly worse, and you have not done so and you have no information to base such an assumption.
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.
And yet they (gasp) survived sailing around on the open ocean?
Do you understand that you are talking about people that survived extreme conditions, yet you cannot show that such conditions were necessarily experienced by the purported ark?
And that you are now comparing anecdotal experiences of unknown\un-described ships? What is their stability compared to the purported ark? Totally unknown at this point.
Apples and oranges again.
Now, If I were a creationist, and if I was arguing that the conditions were necessarily calm and flat, you would likely scream bloody murder about unfounded assumptions, yes?
Yet what you have done is assume an extreme set of conditions at the other end of the spectrum, and your argument is just as unfounded and just as spuriously self-indulgent as the example creationist one.
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.
This is you once again assuming an extreme condition, not a normal condition, not a common condition, not some intermediate position that would allow you to argue that "in most cases" your scenario would occur. This means your argument is of very little value, if any.
If you wanted to prove that the vessel could not float, then you would need to show that this is necessarily so during the conditions that are the worst for your position: dead calm and flat seas. You have not done that. Curiously, I have shown that such conditions would be extremely hard pressed to cause the purported ark to break up, sink, roll or otherwise founder.
Epic fail.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : english
Edited by Zen Deist, : formula symbol fix

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 379 by pandion, posted 12-26-2011 1:32 AM pandion has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 395 of 453 (647967)
01-12-2012 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by saab93f
01-12-2012 2:39 AM


clarification
Hi saab93f,
Please no partial allusions without all the context, or do you want to be like the creationist quote miners?
ZD said that there was no mention of winds and thus there is no way of "knowing" (knowing now in the same sense that we know that Anakin was Lukes father) whether there were waves at all.
If I am not mistaken, no-one has claimed that earth stopped rotating before the flud. The rotation is one of the reasons winds exist to begin with so ergo the had to be winds and thus waves.
Rotation itself has little effect on waves, it affects tides. If you want to consider tides a global scale wave, then you must also realize that it would still appear as flat as the ocean does today.
What we don't know is how strong the wind or how high the waves would have been, and thus cannot definitively say that they would necessarily cause problems for a hypothetical vessel.
As far as I am concerned the feasibility of building a vessel of this size is a silly argument when compared to: (a) was there a flood? (b) how many species could fit in the ark? (c) how could all those species survive for the 100+ days aboard? and (d) how did all the species of plants and animals get distributed to their specific locations around the world?
Making bad arguments is no way to debate bad arguments.
Enjoy
Edited by Zen Deist, : hypo

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 392 by saab93f, posted 01-12-2012 2:39 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by saab93f, posted 01-12-2012 11:07 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 397 of 453 (647971)
01-12-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by saab93f
01-12-2012 11:07 AM


Re: clarification
Hi again saab93f,
Well, the Coriolis effect sure is one of the components behind certain winds and that is just because of the rotation.
And this would also affect the water. With no land one could easily balance the other with the effect that there would be little surface wind.
Storm strength winds on the other hand are due to differential heating and cooling of land and water masses and between day and night, one hot the other cold. With only water surfaces this effect would be very much reduced.
Without anything to hinder the airflow the effect would make waves even though the fountains of the deep had flowed peacefully and the rain had been dense mist
Indeed, but the question is how big those waves would be. Ripples don't cut it.
So do the math and show how large those waves would necessarily have to be. Anything less is speculation and assumption, things, curiously, that I set little store by.
Speculating about hypothetical waves and winds is to me even more pointless and self-indulgent mental masturbation than discussions of the structure of the ark. I have better things to waste my time on.
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 396 by saab93f, posted 01-12-2012 11:07 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by saab93f, posted 01-12-2012 11:39 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 399 of 453 (647973)
01-12-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by saab93f
01-12-2012 11:39 AM


Re: clarification
Hi again saab93f
A wooden boat the size suggested could not tolerate even average oceanic waves left alone stormy waves (as has been shown in earlier posts).
And refuted in Message 387.
Show that (a) they would be worse than the waves that were encountered by the Wyoming in 14+ years as a hard-pressed wind-jammer crossing the oceans, and (b) that the ark would be structurally inferior to the Wyoming.
We all have better things to do than mental gymnastics I hope - have a nice day.
Yeah, I have bills to pay, which curiously is more appealing.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : link

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 398 by saab93f, posted 01-12-2012 11:39 AM saab93f has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 452 of 453 (671564)
08-27-2012 2:54 PM


Summary for silly thread
This thread is silly because
(a) a block of wood the size of the ark will float
(b) the rest of the arguments are based on assumptions and opinions
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)

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024