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.
Funny, I'm finding the opposite to be true. Psychics graduates studied and deemed that the Ark would be seaworthy.
Nope. They deemed that assuming a wooden box of those dimensions, it could float. To which I say, duh. Lots of people have learned to their loss that "can float" is very different from "seaworthy" - it's the difference between a pontoon and a boat. Took us thousands of years to learn to build seaworthy wooden ships a fraction of the Ark's size. There's a reason it takes years to become a naval architect.
Merely building a wooden structure of Ark dimensions is an engineering challenge - you might have noted that Ham's Ark is made with tons and tons of structural steel, because the square-cube law is a very harsh mistress. Building a floating wooden structure of Ark dimensions merely out of wood - that is to say, one with useful internal volume - is way harder. And building one that could handle currents, let alone waves... A wooden ship sailor would ask " Who manned the pumps?", because flex-induced leaking would require permanent attention to dewatering.
Quote:
That's the thing I find intriguing. If Noah's Ark is just a myth story or legend like others from that time period, why would it have such premise details like measurements? Did the Greeks record the exact measurements of the Trojan horse? I believe they just said it was a big horse.
The Norsemen outlined Valhalla down to the number of doors in Odin's hall, but it's still a myth. Trekkies can tell you the dimensions of the Enterprise in excruciating detail (don't let them), because details add immersion and a feeling of veracity.
Of course, you can always argue that a higher power took care of all that, and peace be upon you.
Who are you to tell God what tools he can use in creating His world?
Even the largest denomination of Christianity accepts evolution, they just think that God is involved. I did refer Jeff to a small, neat little book by Stephen Jay Gould, The Rock of Ages that speaks about science and religion getting along because of both working in a non overlapping fields however Jeff, although he claims to be open minded, appears to refuse to read anything that does not support his literal Bible, anti science worldview. The real shame if it to me anyways is that if he was more knowledgeable about things like evolution or geology, his defence of creationism would be more interesting for everyone.
Nope. They deemed that assuming a wooden box of those dimensions, it could float. To which I say, duh. Lots of people have learned to their loss that "can float" is very different from "seaworthy" - it's the difference between a pontoon and a boat. Took us thousands of years to learn to build seaworthy wooden ships a fraction of the Ark's size. There's a reason it takes years to become a naval architect.
Merely building a wooden structure of Ark dimensions is an engineering challenge - you might have noted that Ham's Ark is made with tons and tons of structural steel, because the square-cube law is a very harsh mistress. Building a floating wooden structure of Ark dimensions merely out of wood - that is to say, one with useful internal volume - is way harder. And building one that could handle currents, let alone waves... A wooden ship sailor would ask " Who manned the pumps?", because flex-induced leaking would require permanent attention to dewatering.
The Norsemen outlined Valhalla down to the number of doors in Odin's hall, but it's still a myth. Trekkies can tell you the dimensions of the Enterprise in excruciating detail (don't let them), because details add immersion and a feeling of veracity.
Of course, you can always argue that a higher power took care of all that, and peace be upon you.
Your argument is baseless. If the Ark can float then the possibility that it is sea worthy most certainly exists. OTOH, you have ZERO proof that the Ark 100% absolutely was not sea worthy. Typical desperate grasping at straws.
Here is a naval architect who studied this very question and believes that the Ark was sea worthy.
Quote:
The research team found that the proportions of Noah’s Ark carefully balanced the conflicting demands of stability (resistance to capsizing), comfort (“seakeeping”), and strength. In fact, the Ark has the same proportions as a modern cargo ship.
The study also confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 100 ft (30 m). Dr. Hong is now director general of the facility and claims “life came from the sea,” obviously not the words of a creationist on a mission to promote the worldwide Flood. Endorsing the seaworthiness of Noah’s Ark obviously did not damage Dr. Hong’s credibility.
Dr. Seon Won Hong was principal research scientist when he headed up the Noah’s Ark investigation. In May 2005 Dr. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI (formerly KRISO). Dr. Hong earned a B.S. degree in naval architecture from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Even the largest denomination of Christianity accepts evolution, they just think that God is involved. I did refer Jeff to a small, neat little book by Stephen Jay Gould, The Rock of Ages that speaks about science and religion getting along because of both working in a non overlapping fields however Jeff, although he claims to be open minded, appears to refuse to read anything that does not support his literal Bible, anti science worldview. The real shame if it to me anyways is that if he was more knowledgeable about things like evolution or geology, his defence of creationism would be more interesting for everyone.
You again are making the mistake to think that more people = truth. So what if the biggest denomination accepts it? They supposedly think God spoke and created the universe, but that he had to use the cruel process of evolution? Yeah...that makes sense.
I've read that study. The authors conclude that a hull with the Ark's dimensions could be seaworthy. No big surprise, seeing as all we have to go on is hull dimensions. Can you postulate a seaworthy hull shape that fits within that box? Sure.
The structural analysis is a complete joke, though. Very obviously, nobody thought to talk to anyone who'd ever done any wooden ship building. The fools state that 800 trees would be sufficient. (Not making that up, it's right there in the text.) For comparison, HMS Victory took the timber from about 6,000 trees.
And the structural stress was computed - direct quote here: "structural designs only for the longitudinal members were carried out using the method of wave load analysis". Brilliant! We assume the joints, the diagonals and the crossmembers will just, y'know, work - and what do you know? The longitudinal members handle the stress just fine. Ships fail at the joints, FFS!
It's a nice theoretical exercise with lots of fancy math that completely sidesteps the problem.
To say nothing of the basic issue of keeping the damn water out when the boat works in the seas, a problem never solved in a millennium's worth of shipbuilding.
Being able to float is a bit of a precondition for seaworthiness, so...
I've read that study. The authors conclude that a hull with the Ark's dimensions could be seaworthy. No big surprise, seeing as all we have to go on is hull dimensions. Can you postulate a seaworthy hull shape that fits within that box? Sure.
The structural analysis is a complete joke, though. Very obviously, nobody thought to talk to anyone who'd ever done any wooden ship building. The fools state that 800 trees would be sufficient. (Not making that up, it's right there in the text.) For comparison, HMS Victory took the timber from about 6,000 trees.
And the structural stress was computed - direct quote here: "structural designs only for the longitudinal members were carried out using the method of wave load analysis". Brilliant! We assume the joints, the diagonals and the crossmembers will just, y'know, work - and what do you know? The longitudinal members handle the stress just fine. Ships fail at the joints, FFS!
It's a nice theoretical exercise with lots of fancy math that completely sidesteps the problem.
To say nothing of the basic issue of keeping the damn water out when the boat works in the seas, a problem never solved in a millennium's worth of shipbuilding.
Just wanted to point out it was pitched between the boards/joints. Peace
Your argument is baseless. If the Ark can float then the possibility that it is sea worthy most certainly exists. OTOH, you have ZERO proof that the Ark 100% absolutely was not sea worthy. Typical desperate grasping at straws.
Here is a naval architect who studied this very question and believes that the Ark was sea worthy.
You obviously choose to ignore all the science behind what makes a wooden ship seaworthy, as well as the actual experiences and knowledge gained from centuries of building and using wooden vessels. That you think as long as something can float it means it must be sea worthy is only justified by your need for it to be true. Seaworthy or not, geology and biogeography disprove the Noah Flood story anyways. But sticking with the floating Ark, you said the ocean might have been different back then and you are right no one knows how the ocean would act if it was to be raising up 700 inches each and every hour for over a month. You are one twisting what the students postulated in such a way to make it appear that they are supporting your claims that the Ark was a seaworthy vessel that could have handled all those animals and their needs and to keep the vessel intact. You have also ignored the bulk of the paper that did not support your claim.
Personally I am a little surprised but definitely not shocked that the Ark would be able to float with all those animals aboard. But in thinking about it, it is just a wooden box so it should be able to. I just don't see how it can hold each species of animals that ever lived but I guess that is where kind can be used to greatly lessen the numbers.
If creationism was a real science, their next step would be to build a model of the ark, complete with animals and test it in calm waters and if that succeeded then build a full size Ark and test it under normal ocean conditions. The Wyoming demos rated that size is a very limiting factor in building wooden ships. You cannot truthfully claim the Ark as seaworthy until it has actually been tested as such. Otherwise it is simply wishful thinking. Also a note that in looking at your link it linked to another religious site hence I could not fine either the actual methodology or any mention that the Ark was sea worthy in a peer reviewed journal. That is problematic as neither of us know about shill design so how can we tell if he is accurate or if he is spinning a tale without a peer review? Oh I forgot, the vast majority of scientists have dedicated their lives in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy the faith of Bible Believers Not.
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.
