Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,630 Year: 3,887/9,624 Month: 758/974 Week: 85/286 Day: 1/84 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 34 of 453 (520381)
08-21-2009 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Peg
08-21-2009 3:00 AM


Not 300 ft boards! Doh!!
but i though you said that the structural limit stops at 300 ft. If thats the case, then several shorter lengths would not reach their structural limit. There is nothing to say that Noah used peices of over 300 ft. They could have been shorter pieces that were somehow connected together.
Nobody is saying that each piece of wood is 300 ft long. That is ludicrous to even consider. Could you at least attempt to read the posts, so you actually know what people are saying.
It is the joining together of the(as you say) "shorter pieces" that is the problem. The structural limit is not of an individual piece of wood, it is of a structure that long made of lots of pieces of wood.
Why don't you just admit what you think? It was magic. Godidit. Skip the science forums and stick to the faith forums. Because all your arguments go back to godidit.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Peg, posted 08-21-2009 3:00 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Peg, posted 08-22-2009 4:28 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 60 of 453 (520453)
08-21-2009 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by iano
08-21-2009 1:56 PM


Re: Let's be resinable
The unanswerable question is whether this vessel had to manage storms and significant waves.
If there was no land then the storms and waves would be very significant.
Did you read the post earlier about the roaring 40's? Message 21
RAZD writes:
Note that the size of waves are proportional to the reach of the winds as well as their strength. The "roaring 40's" are called that for a reason -- the reach there circles the globe. With a global flood this would be a universal condition. Wind and waves unimpeded as they circle the globe.
The waves that broke up the boats in your OP were peanuts by comparison.
That about answers it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 1:56 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 3:05 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 68 of 453 (520499)
08-21-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by slevesque
08-21-2009 6:10 PM


Please supply sources so I can look at them to verify.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 6:10 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 69 of 453 (520504)
08-21-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by slevesque
08-21-2009 6:10 PM


hmm in interesting.
I see what your source was.
Answersingenesis
As for the Ussher ship, Leontifera. It seems Ussher is the only source I can find. Though now days creationists like to call his work The Annals of the World, it was written in Latin and its true title is Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world. I wonder why the creationist publishing house decided to change the title.
Interesting how the current publisher New Leaf Publishing touts itself as
quote:
The world's largest publisher of creation-based material for all ages.
Ussher seems to be referencing a work by Memnon, but I can find no reference anywhere. I do not have direct access to any historical research libraries but I may know someone that does. Unfortunately, this may be so obscure it may take a professional researcher with latin skills to actually find the original reference. If that is truly what he was referencing. Also, I might point out. This was a period when there was a lot of exaggeration and isn't it amazing that a ship this big and this is the only reference.
The next ship referenced is a laughable example. From your source.
quote:
Athenaeus gives us a detailed description of a very large warship, built by Ptolemy Philopator (c. 244—205 bc).7 It was 130m (420 feet) long, 18m (57 feet) wide, and 22m (72 feet) high to the top of her gunwale. From the top of its sternpost to the water line was 24 metres (79.5 feet). It had four steering oars 14m (45 feet) long. It had 40 tiers of oars. The oars on the uppermost tier were 18m (57 feet) long. The oars were counter-balanced with lead to make them easier to handle. It had a double bow and a double stern and carried seven rams, of which one was the leader and the others were of gradually reducing size. It had 12 under-girders 275m (900 feet) long. The ship was manned by 400 sailors to handle the rigging and the sails, 4,000 rowers and 2,850 men in arms for a total of 7,250 men. This ship was too large to be of much practical use.
My bold. Gee even admits it wasn't a real boat.
Lets look at the original description by Plutarch of this same ship Athenaeus talked about.
quote:
Ptolemy Philopator built [a ship] of forty banks of oars, which had a length of two hundred and eighty cubits, and a height, to the top of her stern, of forty-eight; she was manned by four hundred sailors, who did no rowing, and by four thousand rowers, and besides these she had room, on her gangways and decks, for nearly three thousand men-at‑arms. But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger. However, in the ships of Demetrius their beauty did not mar their fighting qualities, nor did the magnificence of their equipment rob them of their usefulness, but they had a speed and effectiveness which was more remarkable than their great size.
Source
You know you should really do some independent research. These creationists sites make stuff up and twist facts so bad that they arent facts anymore.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 6:10 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 7:34 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 71 of 453 (520509)
08-21-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by slevesque
08-21-2009 7:34 PM


Of course, a 40 level boat is totally useless in a battle. Even at 420 feet long, its height makes it very unstable, and so it is of no surprise that it was just a 'show-off'.
Then why did you use it? Did you know it was a 'show-off" before I posted my response.
I of course, did not do any extensive research on the subject, because of a lack of time and access to the adequate information.
Maybe you should before you blindly repost something from a creationist website.
I think it should be interesting to view in history if boats of comparable sizes to the ark have been built.
Is it a boat if it really doesn't do anything or go anywhere. The Ark had to withstand heavy seas and winds, to use a ceremonial boat that didn't really move as an example that the Ark could have been built and could have floated is ingenuous at best.
I remember a few years ago, my friends father had participated in a bridge-making competition in which the bridge had to support the most weight possible within restriction in material and weight put into the bridge itself. Now he only had a bachelor's degree in ingeneering, and every single other contestants were university teams who were led by PhD scientists in the domain. When they saw his bridge, they laughed out laud to the fact that his strings, as he had put them, were totally useless. These people all had a PhD, with years of experience in bridge-building competition. Yet my friends father's bridge turned out to finish in second place.
The point of all this is that ingeneering is never short of new concepts which makes things stronger and better. The simple fact that some people in this discussion thought that the proportion of height-lengtth-depth could not impact the stiffness of the ship is indeed laughable, and shows a lack of understanding of how complex ingeneering can be.
No your anecdote has nothing to do with the topic. Of course practical knowledge can out do book knowledge. Thinking outside the box can be a very good thing.
Could it be possible that the ancient civilisation were more advanced in boating ingeneering then we are today ? I think it is a distinct possibility, and one that should not be discarded in this discussion.
I do not thnk anyone is claiming such a thing. No one alive today could control a fleet like Nelson at Trafalgar, It is a skill that is not needed and has died. Building of wooden ships in the style of the ancients is also a lost art. That all said the ancients could not defy the laws of physics. The structural limitations we see today existed then also.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 7:34 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 8:05 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 73 of 453 (520526)
08-21-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by slevesque
08-21-2009 8:05 PM


Also, a very important point if the Leontifera or others were built they were not seagoing vessels in any real sense. Galleys hugged the coast they did not venture into the open seas.
Also, all of the large galleys are thought to have been of a catamaran configuration.
Source Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Lionel Casson, 1995
So your points are irrelevant for a couple reasons. One, your examples were not vessels that plied the open sea, which the Ark would have had to do. Two, the ark was not of a catamaran.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by slevesque, posted 08-21-2009 8:05 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 08-22-2009 12:11 AM Theodoric has replied
 Message 75 by pandion, posted 08-22-2009 12:13 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 76 of 453 (520539)
08-22-2009 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by slevesque
08-22-2009 12:11 AM


Furthermore, the Leontifera battled in the Aegan sea, and as per Ussher's description, it had absolutly no problem engaging in battle. It's not as if it was 'fragile'
Please provide evidence that it was in the battle. As I said before Ussher is the only source known. You should not speak in absolutes if you do not have solid evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 08-22-2009 12:11 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by slevesque, posted 08-22-2009 1:40 AM Theodoric has replied
 Message 78 by pandion, posted 08-22-2009 1:48 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 79 of 453 (520546)
08-22-2009 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by slevesque
08-22-2009 1:40 AM


There is no evidence for it all besides Ussher. Critical historical analysis never takes just one source. There needs to be some corroborating evidence. Without multiple sources it is just a tale an anecdote. Nothing more.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by slevesque, posted 08-22-2009 1:40 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 80 of 453 (520547)
08-22-2009 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by pandion
08-22-2009 1:48 AM


Yes it is the same Ussher. Creationists think he is a great historian that shows all of their ideas are true. His history was written to confirm the bible. It is not now and never has been thought of as an objective history. The purpose of his "Annals" was to provide evidence for his idea for the age of the earth. Though he got a lot right, he did do some embellishments in order to get his dates to work out. As I said earlier, we need the original source material and we have to look at to see if the original source is reputable. Ussher was not clear what his source for this was. Without any corroborating evidence all it is is a nice story. Nothing more.
Jules Vernes stories are nice stories too. But in the future historians will not think they are true because there will be no other sources for the fantastical things in them. A 400' war galley should have some corroborating evidence for its existence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by pandion, posted 08-22-2009 1:48 AM pandion has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 82 of 453 (520549)
08-22-2009 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by slevesque
08-22-2009 2:36 AM


Are you suggesting that since he put a date on Creation (as did Newton, mind you) you have to throw out everything he wrote about history ?
As I remember Newtons most famous work was testable and scientifically accepted. There are other sources that confirmed what Newton wrote.
Now do you want to talk about Newtons true love, alchemy? So yes, I would throw out all of Newton's work on alchemy.
Therfore, yes I would do what you suggest. Anything that can not be corroborated, Newton's alchemy, Usshers big boat, should be put aside until there is corroborating evidence for either off them. Now the parts of both their works where the is evidence form other sources, yes I think we should seriously consider them.
Nothing is sacred. Now days quantum mechanics has shown Newton to not be correct to some extent.
Or just the parts that implies that an ancient civilisation were capable of building bigger wooden ships than Victorian shipbuilders ?
Also, a point you fail to consider or acknowledge is we are not talking about 200 BCE. The Ark would have been a much earlier time. It would be bronze age and built by a man and his sons. The galleys you are talking about were built with all of the resources of kingdoms, with the latest in ALL technology available to them. Technology that did not exist when Noah would have built his big boat. Your argument is that Noah had the resources and technology pf the Ptolemy's. Even if these galleys were as big as you claim, the argument gives absolutely no support for anything about Noah and his big boat. None at all. You are building a a false argument.
Using this argument, the US Navy during the War of 1812 could have had an aircraft carrier. I can show aircraft carriers existed in WWII and now, so there is no reason there could have not been one during the war of 1812.
Do you get a sense of how ridiculous your argument is? Because yours is even more ridiculous. It would be like saying a family on the coast of Maine, could have built an aircraft carrier in 1812.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by slevesque, posted 08-22-2009 2:36 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by slevesque, posted 08-22-2009 3:31 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 88 of 453 (520567)
08-22-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by slevesque
08-22-2009 3:31 AM


Remember that, we can never be 100% certain of the accuracy of any ancient document. But as with standard historical research, whenever a document purports to be giving sober history, one trusts the document in the absence of reasons to believe it is a fabrication.
According to what standard of historical research?
The original post was never about if Noah and his family could have done the ark all alone, or if they would have had all the ressources necessary, or the technological knowledge necessary.
The post is that we have no historical reference for a boat that size that could survive forty days of stormy seas. The building of the boats is a necessary premise of the OP. It is ridiculous to make the argument that the Ark was possible if you cannot account for how any possible comparisons were built.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by slevesque, posted 08-22-2009 3:31 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by slevesque, posted 08-23-2009 2:15 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 133 of 453 (520852)
08-24-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
08-24-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Limits of Wood
The tower’s structural system consists of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels pieced together to form load-bearing walls and floors. Even the
elevator and stair shafts are constructed of prefabricated CLT.
So you think Noah had the technology for CLT?
Yes this is an all wood structure, but it in no sense is it like the lumber Noah would have had. You really should check things out before you try to use them as evidence.
Do you have any idea what CLT(cross laminated timber) is?
This isn't a board like a 2"x10". This is engineered manufactured timber.
Now if you can show me that Noah had access to CLT I will give it to you. If not, then this is a really stupid example for you to use.
As for the 1300 year old wood building, which buildings re you referencing? Hopefully, not the Buddhist temple in Ikaruga, Japan.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 12:35 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 9:26 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 135 of 453 (520856)
08-24-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
08-24-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Limits of Wood
Oh I should have read the whole article before I posted. Your all wood building is not all wood. Unless you think metal brackets don't count. I assumed that they must have had to use metal supports and brackets, because unless you are going to build it like a log home(which would be impossible at this size), there is going to be a need for metal supports and brackets.
From the article you linked to.
The cross-laminated timber walls and floors are held together with steel angles and screws.
Hmm, kind of kills your whole argument there doesn't it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 12:35 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Peg, posted 08-25-2009 3:53 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 141 of 453 (520912)
08-24-2009 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by ICANT
08-24-2009 9:26 PM


Re: Limits of Wood
I have built 5' wide free standing circular stairs using this system.
Not a 300' boat is it.
He had lumber.
He had glue.
He had fastners.
Hmm, what kind of glue? Animal glues are soluble in water. I do not see how animal glues would be effective. Also, even if Noah had developed this eathshattering system for building, why did they abandon it after the flood. It just isn't logical.
What kind of fasteners? Wood? Your all wood building has metal fasteners and brackets. So how did Noah build it to stand the stresses? The building you mention is not 300 feet long and have to deal with the stresses of ocean swells.
Any chance you can give us an actual reference to the building with 200' center pole. The Japaneses temple building is only 120' tall. Also are you suggesting there has been no maintenance, that parts of the building have not been replaced in 1300 years? I wonder if I can find out the maintenance schedule for the building.
Oh this is interesting
quote:
Although the pagoda is five-storied, it does not function as such to allow one to climb up inside but it is rather designed to inspire people with its external view.
I find it very interesting that you suggest that there were 200' tall trees that Noah had access to. I guess you could claim the climate was anythig you want it to be, and gopherwood could have any characteristics you want it ot have. Do you think he cut 200' boards? or did he use them whole?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 9:26 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9174
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 166 of 453 (520991)
08-25-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Peg
08-25-2009 3:30 AM


Re: Anything Goes
we do know what gopher wood is
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
And that resinous wood is?
Now do you see the problem?

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

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