Why is that interesting?
Noah's Ark found?
- Thread starter Madouc
- Start date
Why is that interesting?
Possibly the most irrevalent post in this thread, and there have been many. The new Queen Mary is probably bigger than the fictional ark, but I can't be bothered looking it up.
Hold up right here. Reading this, I can see you don't quite understand the results achieved in model testing and what you can get from it.
When testing an Aeroplane in a windtunnel , yes the are testing design stability, but not of the internal design, Using solid models they are testing the Aerodynamic shape and looking at what stresses the profile create, areas of air resistance etc. What they are not testing is how well they have built the internal structure. No aircraft company in the world would design a model, test it, and then put it straight into manufacture without doing exhausting tests on actual crafts afterwards.
Having an exact model of the ark work fine in a water test does not mean the same model scaled up would work just as well, The strengths of materials do not scale like that. A model test of the Ark would tell us what kind of drag etc the ark of that design would face, but not that the wall design would hold when scaled up, or that the beams would not snap etc.
You come across the same problems in the 9/11 truth forum. truthers can not understand their "models" of the world trade centres can not accurately model the stresses the construction materials faced on that day. Dropping one cardboard box onto another and saying "see, it did not pancake" does not invalidate what happened. The same as having a wooden model of the ark and saying, see it floats fine, So it must work full size, does not make this any more true.
Engineering and science do not work that way, As much as you may like it to
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
Are you in the habit of posting things and immediately backtracking from them once it's revealed to you how ridiculous they sound in context?
Or are you posting things you don't agree with for some reason?
If you didn't find it interesting, why post it at all? For some reason it seemed pertinent to you.
You know what? Don't answer that. It's rhetorical.
Or are you posting things you don't agree with for some reason?
If you didn't find it interesting, why post it at all? For some reason it seemed pertinent to you.
You know what? Don't answer that. It's rhetorical.
Just one thing...this was an IRON ship. NOT WOOD.
I now suspect you don't bother to read your own references, let alone any we give you.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Well, you quoted the author (or provided a link to what he wrote - no difference).
Unless you clearly state otherwise (or your use of it is obviously parody, etc.), it is reasonable to assume that you endorse the author's words.
You certainly bring enough of them to our attention. You wouldn't ask us to waste our time on words that you don't stand behind, would you?
You are trying to weasel your way out of the consequences of your bad habit of quoting and linking to (and writing) fundie idiocy.
.My response was to the objection that nothing about seaworthiness could be known about the ark unless one built a full sized one. I then informed the person that scale models are built in order to assess seaworthiness. That of course would include structural integrity under varying types of stress such as sudden strong currents strong winds or high waves. Of course to test a structure without making an exact replica, would be pointless. So those who test make the scaled models as close to the intended or full sized one as possible.
In Japan where earthquake proof buildings are a necessity the scaled down models are subjected to what amounts to equivalent seismic stresses in order to assure that the real one will not collapse. If indeed the test is pointless as you say, why use it?
I'm familiar with the Twin Tower event and subsequent analyzes by engineers.
The Twin Towers were rested and approved for normal stresses and heat variations. They were not tested for jumbo jet impact and the kind of heat generated. However that doesn't mean the engineers were ignorant about the limits of the materials used. They simply assumed those limits would not be exceeded.
In Japan where earthquake proof buildings are a necessity the scaled down models are subjected to what amounts to equivalent seismic stresses in order to assure that the real one will not collapse. If indeed the test is pointless as you say, why use it?
I'm familiar with the Twin Tower event and subsequent analyzes by engineers.
The Twin Towers were rested and approved for normal stresses and heat variations. They were not tested for jumbo jet impact and the kind of heat generated. However that doesn't mean the engineers were ignorant about the limits of the materials used. They simply assumed those limits would not be exceeded.
Last edited:
Just one thing...this was an IRON ship. NOT WOOD.
I now suspect you don't bother to read your own references, let alone any we give you.
I read the article--OK? I assumed identical material was used.
BTW
I don't like to be the target of constant false accusations as I assume you don't either.
Last edited:
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Interesting that the SS Great Britain is conveniently deemed to be "almost" the same dimensions as the bible ascribes to Teh Ark. Anyone been to Bristol? She's a lovely ship, especially considering how ugly the later (early generation) steamships would be.
Here's a model.... Who wants to guess which tall thin sticky-uppy elements pictured below the author left off when he said "almost" the same dimension. But that wouldn't matter. I mean sails and masts and funnels have no weight or mass and certainly don't offer a profile to the wind. Or, do they?
Here's a model.... Who wants to guess which tall thin sticky-uppy elements pictured below the author left off when he said "almost" the same dimension. But that wouldn't matter. I mean sails and masts and funnels have no weight or mass and certainly don't offer a profile to the wind. Or, do they?
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Here's a thorough, if indirect, pass / fail test for the story of Noah's ark:
Since all land life, or at least all land fauna, would have dispersed from Mr. Ararat, or at least the mountains of Ararat (i. e. Urartu, the Hurrian kingdom that eventually became what is now Armenia), then patterns of genetic drift for a variety of animal types, such as, say, the great cats or the cat family in general, whose genomes could be recorded, should show the same pattern of genetic drift, all leading back to the region of Ararat. Show that consistent pattern across the globe and you will have gone a long way toward proving the truth of the dispersal of land life from the ark's resting place in the mountains of Ararat.
However, the question I would put to Radrock and 154 is this: Will you accept the story of the dispersal of all land fauna from the ark in Ararat disproven if such patterns of genetic drift fail to materialize? If not, why not?
Of course you would still have to explain how it was that. starting in Armenia, the marsupials, with the exception of the opossum, all ended up in Australia, with none left on places like Madagascar or anywhere in the Eurasian continent. That pattern of genetic drift alone will be a problem.
Since all land life, or at least all land fauna, would have dispersed from Mr. Ararat, or at least the mountains of Ararat (i. e. Urartu, the Hurrian kingdom that eventually became what is now Armenia), then patterns of genetic drift for a variety of animal types, such as, say, the great cats or the cat family in general, whose genomes could be recorded, should show the same pattern of genetic drift, all leading back to the region of Ararat. Show that consistent pattern across the globe and you will have gone a long way toward proving the truth of the dispersal of land life from the ark's resting place in the mountains of Ararat.
However, the question I would put to Radrock and 154 is this: Will you accept the story of the dispersal of all land fauna from the ark in Ararat disproven if such patterns of genetic drift fail to materialize? If not, why not?
Of course you would still have to explain how it was that. starting in Armenia, the marsupials, with the exception of the opossum, all ended up in Australia, with none left on places like Madagascar or anywhere in the Eurasian continent. That pattern of genetic drift alone will be a problem.
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
He suspected that you didn't, which is a lot different than accusing you of not.
I take it you're not very good at Clue.
BTW, this is what most Fundamentalists are talking about when they whinge about the "persecution of the faithful."
Last edited:
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
You still haven't told us where one would even begin making a model of the Ark, since we don't know what building techniques or structural design was used.
By the way, I'm sure you probably sound a lot smarter to other Christians.
Last edited:
You give an awful lot of evidence that leads to the one conclusion.
Here's the thing: You referenced the Great Britain as an example of a ship the same size as the ark (and let's not even test the size aspect yet). Why? Supposedly because it was made of wood and it worked, ergo the ark being reputedly made of wood also could have been similarly feasible/seaworthy.
The problem was that you failed to do your homework. 0.2 seconds on Google and Wikipedia and 10 seconds of reading would have revealed Great Britain was an iron ship - one of the first of its type. Iron is not wood, they do not have similar materials properties at all, and the shipbuilding techniques of the two materials are significantly different. This doesn't take rocket surgery to appreciate.
Consequently your post was not only irrelevant, it showed clearly your failure to do your own research.
I can only assume that most of the other "supporting evidence" for any of your points is similarly unresearched and merely "faith-driven". I could be wrong, but that's the story as I see it so far.
Incidentally, here is the list of the biggest wooden ships: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_largest_wooden_ships
No need for carbon dating, just a DNA test on the wood..It will be easy to prove.
Using the suggested 40000 animals, let say on average they do 2 ounces of poo per day each, thats 80000 ounces or about 2 and a quarter tons of poo per day in the bottom of that "ark".
Don't know how anyone could get rid of that much poo on a daily basis for a year but it surely would have soaked into the wood. Test the wood for poo, if you can find poo from any animal other than something that is or was local (platypus, alpaca ?), I will open my eyes a bit wider.
Whole place would have smelt like a two-hole toilet in the outback.
Suggest the only poo they will find, will be from the well known Bull.
Plus, the statement that the wood is in great condition, would mean that lots and lots and lots and lots of hair will still be there. Possibly another DNA test subject.
Using the suggested 40000 animals, let say on average they do 2 ounces of poo per day each, thats 80000 ounces or about 2 and a quarter tons of poo per day in the bottom of that "ark".
Don't know how anyone could get rid of that much poo on a daily basis for a year but it surely would have soaked into the wood. Test the wood for poo, if you can find poo from any animal other than something that is or was local (platypus, alpaca ?), I will open my eyes a bit wider.
Whole place would have smelt like a two-hole toilet in the outback.
Suggest the only poo they will find, will be from the well known Bull.
Plus, the statement that the wood is in great condition, would mean that lots and lots and lots and lots of hair will still be there. Possibly another DNA test subject.
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
There's several warehouses' full of reason's why the Ark legend is ridiculous.
Start with this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogging_and_sagging
Of course, if you just want to say the the tale is an allegory - I'd probably have a lot more respect. At least you'd be intellectually honest in that case rather than jumping up and down pretending to be a scientist.
Start with this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogging_and_sagging
Of course, if you just want to say the the tale is an allegory - I'd probably have a lot more respect. At least you'd be intellectually honest in that case rather than jumping up and down pretending to be a scientist.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
No need for carbon dating, just a DNA test on the wood..It will be easy to prove.
Using the suggested 40000 animals, let say on average they do 2 ounces of poo per day each, thats 80000 ounces or about 2 and a quarter tons of poo per day in the bottom of that "ark".
Don't know how anyone could get rid of that much poo on a daily basis for a year but it surely would have soaked into the wood. Test the wood for poo, if you can find poo from any animal other than something that is or was local (platypus, alpaca ?), I will open my eyes a bit wider.
Whole place would have smelt like a two-hole toilet in the outback.
Suggest the only poo they will find, will be from the well known Bull.
Plus, the statement that the wood is in great condition, would mean that lots and lots and lots and lots of hair will still be there. Possibly another DNA test subject.
Silly skeptic! He had a breeding pair of every creature on earth. That included the dung beetles! I figure roughly 1000 offspring every 20 days - roughly 18,000 dung beetles a year - that's a little under 87 million dung beetles that originated in that area. What'd they eat? That's right. All the poo!
OTOH, When a mommy termite and a daddy termite love each other very much..... (Fast Forward to End >>>>>) Presto! No wood!
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
In 2007 a company called Airbus built a jet airliner that was also mighty big.
Oh, the relevance to Noah's Ark, you ask? Same as Brunel's steamship. Zero.
Where is the dung beetle poo, or were they constipated? What goes in, has to come out eventually.