SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

Welcome to the fray kishan, As has been noted all science is observational, the basis of the scientific method starts with observation. Are you claiming that an hypothesis cannot be formed based on observations? That an hypothesis cannot be formed? That a prediction cannot be tested by further observations?For instance the finding of Tiktaalik was predicted by observing where there was a gap in our knowledge of the evolution of tetrapods, what kind of environment where the transition from water to land most likely took place, and where on earth the strata was old enough and of the right environment to match. Did finding Tiktaalik validate the hypothesis?see Tiktaalik roseae: The Search for TiktaalikDoes this finding show that paleontology is only an observational historical science?Enjoy

The fact that the Sun exists is only observational.What's the word "only" doing in there?

My guess is that the word "only" is supposed to mean that you cannot say things happened if somebody was not there to see them.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Going back to the original idea of this thread:The proposed (and false) dichotomy between "real" science and "historical" science is just another attempt by creationists to discredit or destroy the fields of science that do not agree with their ancient tribal beliefs.But it is interesting that creationists claim one one hand to be doing "creation science" (looking for a free and undeserved ride on the good name of science) while on the other hand trying to destroy legitimate sciences with which they don't agree.It is lies either way.

The root of this is the, 'same data, different interpretation' tactic that is widely used by many Fundagelicals. They cannot deny the useful application of science in the modern age and indeed, many of them make a good living from Science however, there are creationists that do science but, they do not do 'Creation Science'. They reconcile this with their dogmatic disbelief in 'Deep Time' by trying to differentiate certain types of Science as just speculation and therefore their speculation is as good as anyone else's.In my humble opinion, the best approach to this is to immediately call these people out on the 'Deep Time' issue. To deny 'Deep Time' they have to deny not just Geology but, practically every field of modern science. Until they accept the reality of this then there is nothing further on the table to discuss and they are essentially no better that any conspiracy theorist nut job on the Internet.

Fundagelical - I like it. Hadn't seen it before, but Googling it I see it's apparently been around a while.But it doesn't really roll off the tongue. I'd prefer "fundgelical", which I see has also been around a while but isn't as widely used.Randomly now, while Googling I came across this image: This is, of course, from promotional material for the AIG ark that is still seeking funds in Kentucky. Raised as I was surrounded by Christian imagery this image evokes one heck of an emotional response, but a modern crane made out of wood? Really? I think we should debate how strong that boom could be. Obviously if a wooden boat the size of the ark could exist, so could that boom.--Percy

Is that based on historical science or observational science? If we can't do observational science on the past -- including on the way the ark was constructed (which is not in the purported "history" book), then they must be using observational science on past events ...... the way observational science has been used to study how pyramids were built, how stonehenge was built, etc etc etc ...And what is the size of the workforce moving all that lumber ... ?jez askin ...Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : ...

The picture is a fantasy; I will say with little fear of contradiction that the Ark will not be built on Biblical principles and will have steel and/or concrete reinforcements because a wooden structure of that size is not viable on land let alone the sea. More plastic Christianity from the most plastic Christians on the planet.This Dutch attempt is a steel reinforced frame with wood decoration for that authentic old time biblical feel...Dutchman Johan Huibers launches life-sized Noah's Ark replica in Dordrecht | Daily Mail Online...oh, and it is kept afloat on 25 lash barges.Hilarious, I am eagerly anticipating Ham's hammed up version.

More Ark news.Ky. rejects $18M in tax incentives for Noah's Ark park

quote:

---

FRANKFORT, Ky. A proposed Noah's Ark theme park in northern Kentucky has been turned down for around $18 million in state tax incentives amid concerns that it will promote religion and violate the separation of church and state.

​

But the group behind the project Answers in Genesis says it is considering legal action in federal court.

​

The state Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet said in a letter Wednesday that the Ark Encounter theme park has changed its position on hiring policies since it originally filed for incentives in 2010 and now intends to discriminate in hiring based on religion.

---

Okay I can see this happening, but...

quote:

---

It also said the park has evolved from a tourist attraction into an extension of the ministry activities undertaken by Answers in Genesis, which promotes a literal interpretation of the Bible's Old Testament and argues that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

---

Say what? So the state didn't originally see that a Noah's Ark theme park project led by Ken Ham was going to be one of AIG's "ministry activities". No judge is going to believe that.

Curiously I disagree now, as I have in the past, as a simple thought experiment readily shows that such a bald statement is false:Take a solid block of wood -- is it "viable" on land? in the sea? The answer would be yes unless you can demonstrate some unknown stress on wood after it reaches a certain size.Having established that then the question becomes how much you can carve out of that block and remain viable.So I consider the ark structural integrity as a rather unimpressive argument unless you are going to actually do the engineering and ship design calculations.However, I would rather use this as an example of the application of scientific methodology to determining if an ark could be built -- ie turn it into a science project that demonstrates to creationists the value of historical sciences as science.Whatever they do building this full scale model will be based on science, not on history, because the "rule book" only mentions size and type of wood.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : wording

Why would such stresses have to be unknown? Don't we already know about stresses on the beam of ships that increase with the length of the beam? That's certainly the case for the stress applied when waves pass under the keel.And surely we've done enough cantilever problems to be skeptical about a wooden crane?

That loading depends on the wavelength. It is worst when the wavelength matches the ship length; the ship undergoes hogging stress when a wave peak is under the middle of the hull and sagging stress when the wave trough is under the middle of the hull. The amount of stress is related to the amplitude of the waves.A block of wood with the dimensions of the ark

quote:

---

Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high!

---

Welcome creationtips.com - Hostmonster.comThe moment of Inertia I is bh^{^3}/12 = (50)*(30)^{^3}/12 = 112,500 cubits^{^4}The distance c to the furthest side from the neutral axis for a rectangular block is h/2 and the section modulus S = I/c = 112,500/(30/2) = 7500 cubits^{^3}.For loading you can assume a point load for the wave peak locations for simplicity, and a uniform load w on the beam for the weight of the wood, so the maximum bending moment M is wL^{^2}/8 = w(300)^{^2}/8 = 11250(w) (hogged I'll let you do sagged).Do you know w?The bending stress σ is M/S = 11250(w)/7500 = 1.5(w). That doesn't strike me as very dangerous.For the maximum allowable stress σall you need to know the yeild strength y of the material and the factor of safety you want to use.

​

Do you know y?

​

Now I bet you can go through all the known wood species and pick y's, and from their densities find w, and that you will have a large factor of safety left over.

​

The aspect ratio of length to width is 10 and I believe the average tree trunk has that and more. And the wind load on trees is likely considerably larger than this simple bending stress.

​

Wood is a very strong material when used properly.

​

And surely we've done enough cantilever problems to be skeptical about a wooden crane?

​

A simple stayed system would be large enough for this project and would be simple to design, but it isn't really a factor in the strength of the ship, which was the point I was responding to.

​

Enjoy

​

Edited by RAZD, : finished

---

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)

Wooden cranes are no problem:

quote:

---

The Roman Polyspastos crane, when worked by four men at both sides of the winch, could lift 3000 kg. In case the winch was replaced by a treadwheel, the maximum load even doubled to 6000 kg at only half the crew, since the treadwheel possesses a much bigger mechanical advantage due to its larger diameter.

---

Wrong issue. The problem isn't wooden cranes. Of course wooden cranes are real. The problem is that boom (see Message 561: "I think we should debate how strong that boom could be."). It's open structure is a little hard to see without magnification, so here's a magnified image of the boom: --Percy

What are the loads?This is still smaller than sail masts have been, which carried massive loads on clipper-ships, for example.Dividing the spar into three or four members can make it stiffer if they are periodically connected. This is why modern crane booms and spars are made from smaller section steel than from a single large pole. The same advantage applies to wood structures.A good straight grain wood can outperform steel for the same weight.A second year engineering student could design a wooden crane - that is not a problem.Enjoy