Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   animals on the ark
galon
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 196 (22299)
11-11-2002 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by no2creation
03-06-2002 7:14 PM


Another problem that we run into with the Ark is the shipbuilding knowledge of the people of that time period. The descriptions of the Ark in the Bible give it a length of 450 feet, a beam (width) of 75 feet, and a height of 45 feet. Apart from the obvious problems of its incredible cargo, consisting of huge amounts of food as well as all those animals, large and small, we run into the problem of the limited engineering knowledge of the people of that day. We're talking about a vessel somewhat larger than a World War II destroyer, but with a much greater overall tonnage when fully loaded. Such a large vessel requires expansion joints to allow it to "bend" with the movement of the water. Without expansion joints, the Ark would have quickly broken up and sunk,even on a normal sea, regardless of the shape of its hull (and especially since it was constructed of wood!) I seriously doubt that Noah knew anything at all about expansion joints, especially since a ship this large had never before been built, and indeed would not be built for millenia! I also doubt that the concept of weight distribution of the cargo and its effects on the structural integrity of the vessel were very well-known, again considering the unprecedented size here. A major shift in cargo during a storm would have sent the Ark to the bottom...this has caused the destruction of much better-built cargo ships in recent history. So the Ark, in all likelihood, really couldn't have been very seaworthy at all!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by no2creation, posted 03-06-2002 7:14 PM no2creation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 11-12-2002 1:18 AM galon has replied

  
galon
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 196 (22390)
11-12-2002 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Quetzal
11-12-2002 1:18 AM


Thanks for the info on the Roman frumentariae! I was unaware that the Romans built such large boats...I'd like to learn more about ancient seagoing vessels--though I did see an outstanding example of a Roman boat (a small one) that was well-preserved in the lava at Herculaneum from the Mt. Vesuvius eruption in 79 AD. National Geographic did an article on it back in '84, I think. At 180 feet long, the frumentariae was, of course, well within the structural limits of wood for ships. The longest wooden ship I've heard of is the Wyoming, built around 1900--she was about 325 feet long, which is beyond wood's structural limits, so she was reinforced with steel crossbeams and supports (steel of course, didn't exist in Noah's time!) Even then, the Wyoming's structure wasn't up to the rigors of the sea. I agree with you on the creationists--they can dodge any legitimate argument against the feasibility of the Ark with a supernatural explanation which takes us outside the boundaries of science--yet many of these folks claim to be Creation "scientists"! Oh, well Cheers!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 11-12-2002 1:18 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by John, posted 11-13-2002 12:55 AM galon has replied

  
galon
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 196 (22585)
11-13-2002 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by John
11-13-2002 12:55 AM


That's very interesting! How in the world did these ships not break up? I very much look forward to seeing your links...I did some checking around too, and found that these were sailing ships (treasure ships) which also were used for military purposes. A rudder from one was found, which indicated a length of over 450 feet. If the sizes are not exaggerated, I may have to stand corrected on the structural limits of wood (which I based on an article by a boat builder on the Wyoming). I have emailed naval-architecture.co.uk asking about the validity of the 400-500 foot length claim and will let you know what they think about it. Again, thanks for the post, John!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by John, posted 11-13-2002 12:55 AM John 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