Did a World-Wide Flood in Noah's day Happen? (hell, quote, Biblically)
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.
Sorry, but making puerile remarks only established the fact you are not capable of following my instructions. It has nothing to do with me or my pride. I made a simple request. If you can't prove those scientists wrong by their own methodologies then you needn't post.
Scientists? LOL.
Plank on frame or carvel construction
Carvel construction probably derives from the Portuguese word "caravela" or caravel, a ship type that was current iin the 15th century. It a boat and ship building system where the planks are flush: the edges meeting and giving the shell a smooth surface instead of overlapping as in the clinker system. The planks are fastened to transverse frames, ribs, with nails or wooden pegs called trunnels (treenails). The seam between two adjacent planks is caulked by driving home fiber strands made of cotton or hemp and then covering or paying the seams with putty or hot pitch. It is practical to build larger vessels with carvel construction then it is with the lapstrake method, but the upward practical limit is really about 40 m LOD and 500 tons displacement. Larger vessels were indeed built with this method but they inevitably had huge structural problems.
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
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.
You insult your own intelligence posting such tripe. I really hope that your job does not involve any science such as medical treatment of patients or building bridges that people drive across every day, for your comprehension of reality is so grossly distorted you would prescribe leaches to cure cancer and out of date yogurt to build a bridge.
Noah's ark would have to be more complex to enable it to navigate the historic world-wide flood which did occur.
Yes, far more complex than a iron or bronze age grandpa and his sons could ever hope to construct.
Not even for you (un)historic world-wide flood which never did occur.
(Folks, isn't it time we stopped going around and around in circles trying to educate this creationist doorknob? All we need to worry about is keeping their garbage out of our schools and government until they die off like the dinosaurs they are...)
Man! You just can't follow simple instructions! can you?!
You need to use their methodologies to prove they are wrong.
Saying it was made of "Gopher wood" does not disprove their methodologies. Saying Gopher wood grows to 3 feet does not disprove their methodologies. You just can't understand the most basic of instructions! Besides, it was not Gopher wood it was constructed of. That is just what the King James translators called it. Concordant Literal translated it differently. But that is going beyond my instructions. You are bringing in red herrings! Stick to the instructions or just don't post your infantile tripe.
Actually, if you read the web page you'd have read this:
Conclusion Here is their final evaluation:
"In conclusion, the Ark as a drifting ship, is thus believed to have had a
reasonable-beam-draft ratio for the safety of the hull, crew and cargo in the high
winds and waves imposed on it by the Genesis Flood."
and
"The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated from modern passenger ships’ criteria
reveals that it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30
metres."
Their first conclusion means that even though the ark was
economical it could still survive the treacherous conditions of a
global flood. The second part means it could even handle waves
that were 98 feet high!" (end of quote)
Now please stick to my requirements. You have to disprove them using their methodologies.
No I don't btw. You don't make teh rules around here, as apparently neither do I, else you'd have to red the things I asked you to look at. At least I thoroughly read your freidns' treatise (if you know that word: we just learned it on Friday in Advanced Fourth Grade language arts, something I think you must have slept through...) into some fake marine engineering by an uncredible, incredible source (that Korean Creationist Fringe group. ).
But Yup. That was their conclusion. Weel an invigorating educated La-Tee-Dah for them! Unrelated to the real world, where continuous broadside wave battering will reduce everything into a bunch of (thx 4 this 1sanspeur!) matchsticks!
Even full-time steel-on-steel, welded-hull ships thus exposed for just a few hours, not 18 months, have given in, and they were not burdened with a few million wandering non-lashed down (Quick, dad; let's lash down the T-Rex herd!) all-sizes herds of starving, sodden, sheizze-soaked and dehydrated animals of every known species!
Just who, exactly, would find that stuff credible? Answer: No-One!
Nope. No ship, even a self-righting lifeboat sized one, could withstand it! No even for one month, or one week!
Such astounding and illiterate madness, to suggest a square-shaped (not curved-surface) barge could withstand this!
BTW, others with significantly better credentials, who might have bothered to mention the alternate possibilities in their dissertation (typical of a true scientific paper with no biases) have obviously made different conclusions.
Finally, When we assess all the accumulated evidence, some pro, most con, we in the end have to conclude something rational. And if we also roll in the other compelling evidence against a globally inundating flood itself, including it's devastating ecological consequences [which you, Eusebius the Grandé Inellectuoso refuse to consider, well then... nolo contenderé, as we fourth graders all used to say on our intro Latin classes…
My Quicky 4th Grade read on the Immutible Equation Of Proof!!
Well, let’s take a quicky fourth-grade math check, shall we?
(Sorry: I could not for the life of me re-post that simple little equation back here to point things out directly,. So nonetheless, here 'tis: (refutations welcomed by Eusebius' upcoming math seminar...)
But...first-off: seemingly Big-A$pp Equations do not a proof make, esp. when you examine them in any sort of detail. The Krass posters (see below) are claiming, with a host of assumptions according to their every paragraph...
That the form function is dependent on the tangent function (meaning the waves come in at an angle which they assumed in resolving their equation), they assumed the draft (depth of the ship that was under water), divided by the (oh… yup again, )assumed Beam (meaning, logically [at least from my engineering degree math. Oooooos again; I've let that cat out of the educational bag…] and from their simple formula, if the beam were perchance, uhmmm... OMG! even slightly smaller, then the self-righting force effect is significantlyreduced. That is, if that beam is in fact, reduced to actual possible buildable (Oh-ohhh) sizes.
(NOTE right here: the Krassists optimized everything in order to come to their conclusion, yet they do not even make a note of those self-determined limitations, instead just claiming that the Ark as they designed it might survive, assuming it held together, whhcih is a huge assumption.)
Hmmm... All a lot of assumptive stuff, eh, Eusebius? Or do you disagree? (Q: did YOU read and even lightly understand this article thoroughly before you proudly presented it as The Absolute Proof?)
In their equation, the self-righting righting arm function is additive to the other factor, in which, according to the considerable and ongoing non-absolute assumptions by the Korean Creationists Assembly (Krass for short…) the height is directly negative in it’s effect on that supposed stability. Taller is less stable, so let's assume a nice short height above the draft line, OK?
But as is so obvious here [well, to my infantile math skills anyhow...]it is all entirely dependent on the tangent of the impacting wave- angle, which, what the heck, how could they possibly know?
They have also (Oooh -oh again!) assumed a constancy of wave impact angle. ("So Solly, Chaahlee!" as the Korea-invading American GIs used to say!). Such waves can & do come straight down, or hit directly broadside, esp, if the ship is (OMG!) already heeled over slightly, to create a scenario where the wave is, wow, striking the ship @ 90˚. The tangent for 90˚ is "Undefined" btw, (goes to infinity!) rendering their equation itself undefined if and when we encounter such a regular phenom.
(Note to our more curious rearers: Please do open this next picture up. I suspect Eusebius does not have the courage...)
Which means the self-leveling forces would have been, the best word is… swamped, or overcome.
As well, they include this charming little assumption, and I quote:
"In this research, we defined the limiting heel angle flim as the heeling angle when the corner of the roof was flooded."
Well now: two problems on the most basic of evaluations: if they allowed for those likely much higher wave impact angles, the ship would have promptly rolled over and, uhmmm... sunk, and 2) all this self-righting rock and roll stuff sure sounds like a lot of fun to endure for 40 days, let alone 8 months, huh? Even if it only happened, let's say, only once every 15 minutes, or even once every hour! Hell; even once a day!
"Attention Everyone! Brace yourselves: Max Tilt Angle & Violent Self-Righting Action, back & forth, again! Here we go!"
(Cue the endless <significant barfing sounds>)...
Ahhh... to be constantly torqued & tossed about, up to the angle when the barge-roof edge was up to the waterline! Not to mention the obvious and constant bilge-pump-mandated leakage such wave action would bring on...
Too bad the mythologists who wrote this tall tale had literally no marine experiences to base their little fantasy on, huh? I guess they were dependingon the Greater Gullibility Factor that is still, obviously, prevalent in the bible's very scientifically illiterate readers!)
But Wow! I'll just bet that herd of antelope, plus the king-cobra snakes that were hanging on to the antelope's necks for fricking dear life, enjoyed that Disney Ride!
FYI, Eusebius, try this one on this evening to improve your understanding of this simple stuff:
And if there's any other trig-function, calculus based analyses you need, please do send them along. Even if you need to DM them me; I'll keep your educational levels a secret. After all, I'm just here to help! Anything to bring you up to "minimum mathematical operating speed" ! I'm ready.
After all, they make us do a lot of homework here in the Fourth Grade!
Well, let’s take a quicky fourth-grade math check, shall we?
(Sorry: I could not for the life of me re-post that simple little equation back here to point things out directly,. So nonetheless, here 'tis: (refutations welcomed by Eusebius' upcoming math seminar...)
But...first-off: seemingly Big-A$pp Equations do not a proof make, esp. when you examine them in any sort of detail. The Krass posters (see below) are claiming, with a host of assumptions according to their every paragraph...
That the form function is dependent on the tangent function (meaning the waves come in at an angle which they assumed in resolving their equation), they assumed the draft (depth of the ship that was under water), divided by the (oh… yup again, )assumed Beam (meaning, logically [at least from my engineering degree math. Oooooos again; I've let that cat out of the educational bag…] and from their simple formula, if the beam were perchance, uhmmm... OMG! even slightly smaller, then the self-righting force effect is significantlyreduced. That is, if that beam is in fact, reduced to actual possible buildable (Oh-ohhh) sizes.
(NOTE right here: the Krassists optimized everything in order to come to their conclusion, yet they do not even make a note of those self-determined limitations, instead just claiming that the Ark as they designed it might survive, assuming it held together, whhcih is a huge assumption.)
Hmmm... All a lot of assumptive stuff, eh, Eusebius? Or do you disagree? (Q: did YOU read and even lightly understand this article thoroughly before you proudly presented it as The Absolute Proof?)
In their equation, the self-righting righting arm function is additive to the other factor, in which, according to the considerable and ongoing non-absolute assumptions by the Korean Creationists Assembly (Krass for short…) the height is directly negative in it’s effect on that supposed stability. Taller is less stable, so let's assume a nice short height above the draft line, OK?
But as is so obvious here [well, to my infantile math skills anyhow...]it is all entirely dependent on the tangent of the impacting wave- angle, which, what the heck, how could they possibly know?
They have also (Oooh -oh again!) assumed a constancy of wave impact angle. ("So Solly, Chaahlee!" as the Korea-invading American GIs used to say!). Such waves can & do come straight down, or hit directly broadside, esp, if the ship is (OMG!) already heeled over slightly, to create a scenario where the wave is, wow, striking the ship @ 90˚. The tangent for 90˚ is "Undefined" btw, (goes to infinity!) rendering their equation itself undefined if and when we encounter such a regular phenom.
(Note to our more curious rearers: Please do open this next picture up. I suspect Eusebius does not have the courage...)
Which means the self-leveling forces would have been, the best word is… swamped, or overcome.
As well, they include this charming little assumption, and I quote:
"In this research, we defined the limiting heel angle flim as the heeling angle when the corner of the roof was flooded."
Well now: two problems on the most basic of evaluations: if they allowed for those likely much higher wave impact angles, the ship would have promptly rolled over and, uhmmm... sunk, and 2) all this self-righting rock and roll stuff sure sounds like a lot of fun to endure for 40 days, let alone 8 months, huh? Even if it only happened, let's say, only once every 15 minutes, or even once every hour! Hell; even once a day!
"Attention Everyone! Brace yourselves: Max Tilt Angle & Violent Self-Righting Action, back & forth, again! Here we go!"
(Cue the endless <significant barfing sounds>)...
Ahhh... to be constantly torqued & tossed about, up to the angle when the barge-roof edge was up to the waterline! Not to mention the obvious and constant bilge-pump-mandated leakage such wave action would bring on...
Too bad the mythologists who wrote this tall tale had literally no marine experiences to base their little fantasy on, huh? I guess they were dependingon the Greater Gullibility Factor that is still, obviously, prevalent in the bible's very scientifically illiterate readers!)
But Wow! I'll just bet that herd of antelope, plus the king-cobra snakes that were hanging on to the antelope's necks for fricking dear life, enjoyed that Disney Ride!
FYI, Eusebius, try this one on this evening to improve your understanding of this simple stuff:
And if there's any other trig-function, calculus based analyses you need, please do send them along. Even if you need to DM them me; I'll keep your educational levels a secret. After all, I'm just here to help! Anything to bring you up to "minimum mathematical operating speed" ! I'm ready.
After all, they make us do a lot of homework here in the Fourth Grade!
I also wonder just hot noah and his brood managed to repopulate the world with far more advanced concepts then before the flood.
I'd say it was just a (R)evolutionary moment for old Noah! My daddy, who died at an early 98 years of age comparted to old Noah's incredible 900 years of age (a feat never before or since duplicated, and frankly biophysioligally impossible absent some amazing new scientific finds...) always used to say "You're never too old to learn something new!" and I guess this proves it, huh?
BTW, my wife and I watched the very well done (and fact/observation based…) BBC docu-drama Krakatoa last night. The effects of that relatively minor event when compared to a rapid global inundation with it's resulting massive tectonic pressure changes [i](subsidence under all those imaginary vast caverns of water, the addition of pressure that an additional 30,000 feet of water would produce upon any unstable tecto-plate, resulting in massive volcanism and earthquakes down on the sea floor!) was truly minimal, and yet tens of thousands of innocent people died. No help from God was evident, even to those who were praying fervently in their churches. Whooshhhh... all washed away!
All such macro-physical geological or hydrological events had large-scale consequences that remained biblically unaccounted for by the utterly incompetent and contradicting biblical authors, who wrote it all based on their imaginations or, in the case of this flood, the previously documented Sumerian flood, as well as other known myths from the past.
Now, a Krakatoa-like volcanic event could indeed have caused a near-global tsunami (but notably transient... I also note that Krakatoa's was 40 meters tall. For the metrically uneducated, that's about 120 feet) of vast wavefront hitting all Mediterranean seaside villages, which would have been pretty much ALL of them!
The barometric pressure wave alone from the major Krakatoa explosion circled the globe 5 times, and was duly and serially recorded by actual seismic and barometric instrumentation of the day which was, of course, unavailable in biblical times. Hence back then, they could only guess at reasons for everything they did not understand. Which was, pretty much, everything natural but astounding or frightening.
Their idea of an indicator of barometric pressure change was if the sheep bleated differently than they did the day before, but they would have then attributed that sort of behavior to whatever pet story of the day they needed to reinforce at the time!
"Abraham! The lambs are circling! No, it's not that pack of lurking desert wolves in the distance; I say it's the arrival of the prophet Jebezullah back from his trinket gathering trip across the unending and Godly earth-sea!! Oh.... Praise The Generous Gods! " (The Mediterranean, which was hardly unending unless you thought it was...)
Ahhh yes; the human mind; so easily manipulated when factual logic-based interpretation is lacking!
Well, let’s take a quicky fourth-grade math check, shall we?
I knew it!
Quote:
(Sorry: I could not for the life of me re-post that simple little equation back here to point things out directly,. So nonetheless, here 'tis: (refutations welcomed by Eusebius' upcoming math seminar...)
I asked for a refutation USING THEIR METHODOLOGIES. Get it?
Quote:
But...first-off: seemingly Big-A$pp Equations do not a proof make, esp. when you examine them in any sort of detail. The Krass posters (see below) are claiming, with a host of assumptions according to their every paragraph...
That the form function is dependent on the tangent function (meaning the waves come in at an angle which they assumed in resolving their equation), they assumed the draft (depth of the ship that was under water), divided by the (oh… yup again, )assumed Beam (meaning, logically [at least from my engineering degree math. Oooooos again; I've let that cat out of the educational bag…]
I asked for a refutation using their methodologies, not something you assume.
Quote:
and from their simple formula, if the beam were perchance, uhmmm... OMG! even slightly smaller, then the self-righting force effect is significantlyreduced. That is, if that beam is in fact, reduced to actual possible buildable (Oh-ohhh) sizes.
Since Noah's ship, animals and humans made it through the flood, it is safe to say, with my higher degree of I.Q., that he built the ship just right with length, width and height of the ark. So, no matter what you say, you are just guessing with the supposition that you have already assumed the ark could not work in the first place. Obviously Noah used the correct beam, otherwise, neither you nor I nor anyone would be here as well as no animals except the ocean kind. And we'd have to wait billions more years for a sea critter to want to leave the sea, sprout legs, arms, head, lungs and then hope another one left the sea that did the same but with female parts so they could mate and make humans.
Quote:
(NOTE right here: the Krassists optimized everything in order to come to their conclusion, yet they do not even make a note of those self-determined limitations, instead just claiming that the Ark as they designed it might survive, assuming it held together, whhcih is a huge assumption.)
What can I expect from someone like you who says they were on the ark for 18 months and Noah collected only two of every animal. You can't count and you are not a critical reader. Therefore all your higher learning is no more than a Cracker-Jack degree. If the Krassists optimized everything so it would work, don't you think Noah would do the same? Or do you think Noah said: Well, I KNOW this size beam will work but, oh, what the heck, I'll just use the size I know won't work and just rely on God for a miracle!?
Quote:
Hmmm... All a lot of assumptive stuff, eh, Eusebius? Or do you disagree? (Q: did YOU read and even lightly understand this article thoroughly before you proudly presented it as The Absolute Proof?)
Of course I read it. They are right and you are wrong. Swallow your pride. You are not a scientist. And you have not disproven what they said USING THEIR METHODOLOGIES.
Quote:
In their equation, the self-righting righting arm function is additive to the other factor, in which, according to the considerable and ongoing non-absolute assumptions by the Korean Creationists Assembly (Krass for short…) the height is directly negative in it’s effect on that supposed stability. Taller is less stable, so let's assume a nice short height above the draft line, OK?
I assume nothing like you assume. The ark made it through the flood no matter how one does the math. The length x width x height of the ship was in perfect proportions.
Quote:
But as is so obvious here [well, to my infantile math skills anyhow...]
It is humbling when you have to swallow your pride but I'm glad you finally see your skills as they really are.
Quote:
it is all entirely dependent on the tangent of the impacting wave- angle, which, what the heck, how could they possibly know?
And the above from someone who said they stayed in the ark 18 months and collected only two animals of each kind.
Quote:
They have also (Oooh -oh again!) assumed a constancy of wave impact angle. ("So Solly, Chaahlee!" as the Korea-invading American GIs used to say!). Such waves can & do come straight down, or hit directly broadside, esp, if the ship is (OMG!) already heeled over slightly, to create a scenario where the wave is, wow, striking the ship @ 90˚. The tangent for 90˚ is "Undefined" btw, (goes to infinity!) rendering their equation itself undefined if and when we encounter such a regular phenom.
The ark survived along with the humans and animals so all such speculations and assumptions are not helpful to you.
Quote:
(Note to our more curious rearers: Please do open this next picture up. I suspect Eusebius does not have the courage...)
I opened the link. That was nothing for the ark if, indeed the ark was hit with water like that. They made it through the WW flood.
Quote:
Which means the self-leveling forces would have been, the best word is… swamped, or overcome.
You can't swamp nor overcome a water-tight structure like the ark!
Quote:
As well, they include this charming little assumption, and I quote:
"In this research, we defined the limiting heel angle flim as the heeling angle when the corner of the roof was flooded."
Well now: two problems on the most basic of evaluations: if they allowed for those likely much higher wave impact angles, the ship would have promptly rolled over and, uhmmm... sunk, and 2) all this self-righting rock and roll stuff sure sounds like a lot of fun to endure for 40 days, let alone 8 months, huh? Even if it only happened, let's say, only once every 15 minutes, or even once every hour! Hell; even once a day!
No, you can't sink a water-tight ark. The ark never rolled over. If it did most likely many of the animals would have been gravely hurt or killed. They all made it off the ship just fine. I see you changed your earlier error that they stayed on the ark 18 months to now 8 month. You can't get your facts straight.
How long was Noah on the ark? Noah entered the ark in the 600th year of his life, on the 17th day of the 2nd month (Genesis 7:11-13). Noah left the ark on the 27th day of the 2nd month of the following year (Genesis 8:14-15). Therefore, assuming a lunar calendar of 360 days, Noah was on the ark for approximately 370 days.
From my college math days it is impossible for 370 days to equal either 8 months or 18 months.
Quote:
"Attention Everyone! Brace yourselves: Max Tilt Angle & Violent Self-Righting Action, back & forth, again! Here we go!"
(Cue the endless <significant barfing sounds>)...
Ahhh... to be constantly torqued & tossed about, up to the angle when the barge-roof edge was up to the waterline! Not to mention the obvious and constant bilge-pump-mandated leakage such wave action would bring on...
You don't need a bilge-pump for leakage if there is no leakage.
Quote:
Too bad the mythologists who wrote this tall tale had literally no marine experiences to base their little fantasy on, huh? I guess they were dependingon the Greater Gullibility Factor that is still, obviously, prevalent in the bible's very scientifically illiterate readers!)
How do you know they "literally had no marine experiences"? Did the makers of the first Apollo moon mission have to have moon landing experience to make their space ship?
Quote:
But Wow! I'll just bet that herd of antelope, plus the king-cobra snakes that were hanging on to the antelope's necks for fricking dear life, enjoyed that Disney Ride!
I see your wild imagination is just as wild as your ability to disprove the real scientists who proved Noah's ark could work.
Quote:
FYI, Eusebius, try this one on this evening to improve your understanding of this simple stuff:
And if there's any other trig-function, calculus based analyses you need, please do send them along. Even if you need to DM them me; I'll keep your educational levels a secret. After all, I'm just here to help! Anything to bring you up to "minimum mathematical operating speed" ! I'm ready.
After all, they make us do a lot of homework here in the Fourth Grade!
Telling me to try to "improve my understanding of this simple stuff" cannot be used to disprove the scientists who proved Noah's ark worked. That is not disproving those scientists by using their own methodologies. I realize you have a hard time understanding very simple instructions, so that is why I must repeat myself. I would not doubt you are in the fourth grade due to your inability to follow very simple instructions.
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.
Oh! Pick Me! Pick Me, teacher! Please?
