Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh so now I have to find boat builders engineers. But then you would just shift the goal posts again and say I need wooden boat builders. Then you would say I need only wooden boat builder with a degree in ancient sea craft construction. Oh wait, degrees don't mean you have any intelligence. I forgot that one.
First of all, 303Guy said nothing of the sort. He only pointed out that there are questions that need to be addressed to satisfy certain credibility issues. If you and I can find common ground on anything, it's probably that if we're going to test something, we should at least do it properly.
That does mean finding someone who can replicate the design and (alleged) sea-worthiness of the Ark. It does probably mean finding an engineer with an expertise in ancient seagoing vessels; it's plainly obvious that the Ark wasn't an ocean liner and, degree or not, modern engineering methods and materials won't create an accurate model of a two-thousand-year-old boat.
303Guy is correct in pointing out that the people you quoted are physicists, not boat-builders. One does not equate to the other. You wouldn't ask an anthropologist to give an undergraduate lecture on string theory, would you? There's a world (excuse the pun) of difference between the two disciplines.
All that being said, this argument is entirely academic (again, pardon the pun), because no matter what strictly-controlled tests are performed, you'll find some way to wriggle out of actually admitting that the criteria were fair and objective.
First of all, 303Guy said nothing of the sort. He only pointed out that there are questions that need to be addressed to satisfy certain credibility issues. If you and I can find common ground on anything, it's probably that if we're going to test something, we should at least do it properly.
That does mean finding someone who can replicate the design and (alleged) sea-worthiness of the Ark. It does probably mean finding an engineer with an expertise in ancient seagoing vessels; it's plainly obvious that the Ark wasn't an ocean liner and, degree or not, modern engineering methods and materials won't create an accurate model of a two-thousand-year-old boat.
303Guy is correct in pointing out that the people you quoted are physicists, not boat-builders. One does not equate to the other. You wouldn't ask an anthropologist to give an undergraduate lecture on string theory, would you? There's a world (excuse the pun) of difference between the two disciplines.
All that being said, this argument is entirely academic (again, pardon the pun), because no matter what strictly-controlled tests are performed, you'll find some way to wriggle out of actually admitting that the criteria were fair and objective.
Goal post moving again. That's all we are doing here. These students published a peer review study on the topic. They don't have to be directly involved with boat building to know a thing or two about the elements involved. If the argument is entirely academic then you lose the right to boldly claim as fact that the Ark could have never been sea worthy.
Goal post moving again. That's all we are doing here. These students published a peer review study on the topic. They don't have to be directly involved with boat building to know a thing or two about the elements involved. If the argument is entirely academic then you lose the right to boldly claim as fact that the Ark could have never been sea worthy.
For clarity, this is McMasters Univeristy's definition of 'peer review':
Quote:
Peer review is the process used by publishers and editors of academic / scholarly journals to ensure that the articles they publish meet the accepted standards of their discipline. Manuscripts being considered for publication are sent to independent experts in the same field (the author's scholarly or scientific peers). They evaluate the quality of the scholarship, reliability of findings, relevance to the field, appropriateness for the journal, etc. Most, but not all scholarly journals are peer reviewed.
So, let's look at the meat of the material:
The article was written by physicists. According to the standards of their discipline (physics), the peer-review process has determined that the article contains no significant flaws (again, we're talking about physics, not engineering).
Note that I did not say that the paper was wrong. I accept that the physics of the article are valid; I'd be a fool to argue otherwise given that they're educated physicists (and I'm not, much to my disappointment; physics intrigues me to no end and I'd love to be involved in that field).
The fact remains that they are not structural engineers. Regardless of whether physics allows for a boat of that size to float, if it's not sound from an engineering perspective, it's not going to be sea-worthy, regardless of a peer-reviewed physics paper.
For illustrative purposes: to promote the Simpsons movie, Fox hired a construction company to recreate the Simpson family home. That construction company, in consultation with a team of engineers, determined that the house (as conceptualized by the animators) was completely unsound, because it had no load-bearing walls (that is, the house would have collapsed if it was built according to the specifications seen on the show).
That is what we're trying to say, Jeff. It may look good 'on paper', but a physicist, like an animator, is not a structural engineer. They are vastly different fields with very different skill-sets. Until we can test the boat, we're not going to know if it is seaworthy.
Oh so now I have to find boat builders engineers. But then you would just shift the goal posts again and say I need wooden boat builders. Then you would say I need only wooden boat builder with a degree in ancient sea craft construction. Oh wait, degrees don't mean you have any intelligence. I forgot that one.
Well you outright reject ever single scientific claim and fact that might contradict your literal Bible. Flat out call it all lies.
As far as the physicists not being boat builders and the history of large wooden shios, why shouldn't we bring up other parts of the problem regarding the existence of the Ark. That is typical of creationists geology for example, look at a single rock outcrop and declare it supports the flood and ignore the millions of outcrops which contradict a global floid. Neither I nor anyone else denied the work of those students, simply bringing up some of the other problems in proving it could of existed. And as far as the ocean being different, yes if it didn't have any waves or such, but then comes the problem of the flood causing major sedimentation that does show active water movement. One must look at the whole oucture, not finding one piece of the jigsaw puzzle and then calming you know what the picture is.
No apology for not accepting what you say as the whole truth and nothing but.
Well you outright reject ever single scientific claim and fact that might contradict your literal Bible. Flat out call it all lies.
As far as the physicists not being boat builders and the history of large wooden shios, why shouldn't we bring up other parts of the problem regarding the existence of the Ark. That is typical of creationists geology for example, look at a single rock outcrop and declare it supports the flood and ignore the millions of outcrops which contradict a global floid. Neither I nor anyone else denied the work of those students, simply bringing up some of the other problems in proving it could of existed. And as far as the ocean being different, yes if it didn't have any waves or such, but then comes the problem of the flood causing major sedimentation that does show active water movement. One must look at the whole oucture, not finding one piece of the jigsaw puzzle and then calming you know what the picture is.
No apology for not accepting what you say as the whole truth and nothing but.
You claimed I was purposely being dishonest because I did not post about the entire content of the article. That is a flat out lie. Of course, you won't apologize. Atheists never do. They NEVER can admit to being wrong about ANYTHING.
Jeffbase40, I come into this late, but from a newbie's perspective, it seems you are so ingrained in your belief, that there is nothing that will change your mind, no matter how trivial a fact that might challenge the literal interpretation of biblical stories.
I'm not sure why those that believe a literal story won't accept what science has shown. I suspect the real reason is that if one element of the bible is shown not to be true, then all of it becomes into question, and then of course, the literal basis of one's faith is eroded.
It makes much more sense to me that those of a religious faith take their scriptures as allegory or metaphorical. Most Jews do now, except the very orthodox. They do not believe in the literal stories of the old testament, but seem them as an expression to thought starters, to a life, and a shared history. Not that they view that history as literal.
Does that make any sense to you?
Not when I know also there is a being who can appear as an angel of light also described as a roaring lion going about this earth seeking whom he may destroy. No it doesn't make sense at all does it.
You claimed I was purposely being dishonest because I did not post about the entire content of the article. That is a flat out lie. Of course, you won't apologize. Atheists never do. They NEVER can admit to being wrong about ANYTHING.
I claimed you were dishonest for reasons other than what you think. Evolution is science not a lie. No one claimed that you needed to prove the Ark seaworthy. No one said that peer review paper by physicists was wrong. No one claimed that theory means two different things in science. No one claimed that you could not be intelligent and have a degree. Those are all things you made up by twisting our statements. Ken Ham misrepresents science very often, it doesn't matter what his degree is in or how intelligent he is, his website has many dishonest statements in them. That you will accept anything or anyone that supports a literal Bible shows a very strong bias on your part.
The Greatest hurdle you face in faith is your face in a mirror.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
