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.
So, Eusebius: I'd love to hear your commentary and answers to my questions in several of the posts above, since you insisted that I read your posts, obey your "instructions", and "learn". So I did, out of , you know, mutual human respect!
Well I certainly did as you instructed!
Sadly, you post is just another bit of pseudo-fluff using big ol' equations to blind the uninitiated and easily pseudo-scientifically awe-struck, No such admiration and positive responses seem to attend when others(ahem...) with degrees and research backgrounds make their commentaries.
As well, I'd love to hear your excuse, er... explanation... as to why Noah's Ark could have so easily withstood a typical storm such as my picture clearly showed. And for month after intolerable pitching and rolling and slam-resisting endless month! All while powerless and unsteerable! And in a slab-sided and vastly oversized and under-strength box! Frickin' Amazing!
(Oh OK: Go ahead! Make up some new but biblically unstated technology that Noah "must have had on board!")
So... keep it coming! I do love a good debate, since on this sort of techno-topic, even if I'm unfairly restricted to arguing technical merits alone, I will always win against the likes of you, outright and hands-down! Ditto for geology, ecology, genetics, Evolution and basic engineering!
Why? Because you obviously don't know your stuff, and so have to rely on those soooo easily rebuked AiG, etc. pseudo-science sites! Their time has come and gone, POOF, extinct, like an Ark-bound T-Rex!
Whether a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark could be made seaworthy is in grave doubt. At 137 meters (450 feet), Noah's Ark would be the largest wooden vessel ever confirmed to have been built. In recorded history, some dozen or so wooden ships have been constructed over 90 meters; few have been successful. Even so, these wooden ships had a great advantage over Noah's Ark: their curved hull shapes. Stress loads are distributed much more efficiently over three dimensionally curved surfaces than they are over flat surfaces. But even with this advantage, real-world large wooden ships have had severe problems. The sailing ships the 100 meter Wyoming (sunk in 1924) and 99 meter Santiago (sunk in 1918) were so large that they flexed in the water, opening up seams in the hull and leaking. The 102 meter British warships HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey had such bad structural problems that they were scrapped in 1871 and 1875 after only a few years in service. Most of the largest wooden ships were, like Noah's Ark, unpowered barges. Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter Pretoria in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking. Noah's Ark: Sea Trials
Noah's Ark did not have flex-induced leaking. It was pitched on the outside and inside so there would be no leakage and the pitch would flex along with the flexing of the wood if there was much flexing at all.
I can't help it that the modern day wooden vessels didn't work. They didn't have a hundred years to build their ship and didn't build their ship like Noah built his ark. You can't say in any kind of debate that if a person built a modern wooden ship as such and such a size and it failed that Noah could not have built an ark larger and have it succeed in its mission. That is using false reasoning.
Besides that, you are not disproving the scientists methodologies by using their same methodologies!
Now, you can't just say, "the scientists are wrong." You have to actually prove by their methodology they are wrong. AREQUIPA, you can now add this scientific proof to my list of things proving my side to be correct.
Sorry mate, on one of the Other Ark threads, I already reviewed the page and pasted some of Rifleman's queries about some of the assumptions on which the Korean figures were based. I won't yet add it to your extensive list of epic non-scientific fails, though
Sorry mate, on one of the Other Ark threads, I already reviewed the page and pasted some of Rifleman's queries about some of the assumptions on which the Korean figures were based. I won't yet add it to your extensive list of epic non-scientific fails, though
Noah's Ark did not have flex-induced leaking. It was pitched on the outside and inside so there would be no leakage and the pitch would flex along with the flexing of the wood if there was much flexing at all.
I can't help it that the modern day wooden vessels didn't work. They didn't have a hundred years to build their ship and didn't build their ship like Noah built his ark. You can't say in any kind of debate that if a person built a modern wooden ship as such and such a size and it failed that Noah could not have built an ark larger and have it succeed in its mission. That is using false reasoning.
Besides that, you are not disproving the scientists methodologies by using their same methodologies!
News flash for you son, it's more than thirty years since I went to sea and I have experience with hundreds of wooden boats....I have yet to see one that doesn't depend on bilge pumps to keep them dry, and the seams on these boats are caulked with modern materials...Pitch alone would not last a single voyage.
No need to be sorry. You now have three (not two) very arguable points. All the rest is evidence strongly against. In your place, I'd be feeling very sorry, but then that would require some grasp of reality.
News flash for you son, it's more than thirty years since I went to sea and I have experience with hundreds of wooden boats....I have yet to see one that doesn't depend on bilge pumps to keep them dry, and the seams on these boats are caulked with modern materials...Pitch alone would not last a single voyage.
News flash for you son,
You were not on an ark built by Noah.
Noah's pitch was far better than modern materials
The pitch obviously lasted the voyage.
Your wooden ships depended on bilge pumps because they didn't know how to build their ships like Noah built his ark.
No need to be sorry. You now have three (not two) very arguable points. All the rest is evidence strongly against. In your place, I'd be feeling very sorry, but then that would require some grasp of reality.
Oh I have a very strong grasp of reality. That's why I don't believe in the fable of a critter crawling out of a skum pond, turning into a chimpanzee which had a desire to build a rocket ship so it developed a brain, hands and feet so it could.
Oh I have a very strong grasp of reality. That's why I don't believe in the fable of a critter crawling out of a skum pond, turning into a chimpanzee which had a desire to build a rocket ship so it developed a brain, hands and feet so it could.
Nor do I. I have told you that is a fantasy with no resemblance to evolution theory. That you repeat the same nonsense as well as come out with it in the first place is eloquent evidence of what sort of 'reality' you have a grasp.
Tests Show Drogue Stones Effectiveness on Noah's Ark - YouTube This shows that the ark probably would have survived in the ocean in storm conditions. However when they compensate from the leakage factor that a wooden ship would have it sinks. The fact is 6000 years ago the technology to build a waterproof ship that could withstand nearly a year in the sea just did not exist. Not to mention what the hell would they be drinking or eating for several months? How would they have enough room to store that many animals,plus food, plus maintain basic hygiene?
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.
