Well, roomie, tonight, and yesterday, my terrible rotten horrible self has been trying to make the last moments of one of my rescued 20-year-old alley cat kitten sisters as comfortable as can be while I say goodbye to my dear little friend. Thanks for your always kind words...
Noah's Ark found?
- Thread starter Madouc
- Start date
Well, roomie, tonight, and yesterday, my terrible rotten horrible self has been trying to make the last moments of one of my rescued 20-year-old alley cat kitten sisters as comfortable as can be while I say goodbye to my dear little friend. Thanks for your always kind words...
What you believe or what I believe is irrelevant to the seaworthiness of the described vessdel. What is relevant are the test results. So you found no test results to counter the ones given? In that case then, such a vessel if constructed would be seaworthy.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Excuse me! I gave you a reference!
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Nonsense. You did so. You said someone built a vessel to the specifications of the ark. That's like saying that the contractor built Falling Water to the specifications of Wright's blueprints and the Kaufmans' decorating ideas, but I didn't say it was a house. It was a "structure".
You claimed it and you can't state otherwise. You are free to retract it, however. Be a mensch!
Points to their reliability and methodology, though.
Tests done independently need peer review to determine which is right, don't they. Fundies have all those bucks out there (I've seen those crystal cathedral thingies out there in Teh Carolinas and Oklahoma and California). Why not a peer review? What you show is approval by fundie birds of a feather.
We see a mythical book being offered up as based on sound science and math. I knew a guy who insisted that Icarus' plan was scientifically sound, also. Do you believe that. Careful. If you say "no", then by your logic you're going to have to build a set of wings and fly up to the sun (and fail) in order to disprove it.
In short. No. Skeptics don't have to prove it. I haven't mounted any unicorn hunting expeditions lately, nor gone mermaid fishing, either.
I have no idea what you're saying and I don't have a picture of a bunny with a pancake on his head.
Ditto above.
Only on matters not involving claims that one is PROVING atheism. To have Randi review Bertrand on the topic would be a bit superfluous. OTOH if Hawkings is an atheist (I know not) and he wants to review Bertrand(Russell) on math, that'd be acceptable. Their atheism has nothing to do with the study in question. It's two maths guys going at it.
You're offering up fundies as acceptable confirming/reviewing sources for fundie material couched in scientific terms. THAT is not acceptable.
That's not an accusation. That's a statement of fact. You said that in the two articles you linked to there was mention of someone who'd built a vessel to the ark's specifications and that he was praised for his excellent design. You have been called on this lie several times, yet you keep adding the lie that you never said it.
THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. MENTION. IN. EITHER. OF. THOSE. ARTICLES.
Show us otherwise.
sigh! I was really hoping for some kind of specific objection to the explanations they provide. Instead, for reasons I can well imagine, you prefer to take the easy way. Well, OK. But hey, each to his own modus operandi. The problem on this forum is that people imagine skepticism is merelly objecting to things considered impossible. However, the genuine skeptic will provide reasons why he or she rejects some explanation and not easily and conveniently shove it aside with time-wasting and irrelevant "Are you joking?" excuses.
Last edited:
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Nonsense.
An intelligent person will not waste their lives discussing idiocy and ravings.
A careful rebuttal is appropriate only to arguments that are worthy of attention and time.
Your scribblings are not worthy of attention or time, and barely merit the contempt that I so freely dish out.
The only reason that I pay attention to you is to mark you as 'ignorable - delusional and dangerous' for the innocents that may visit these forums.
Your statements, while not worthy of serious discussion or rebuttal, should not be allowed to stand unopposed.
He designed a ship and it turned out to be close to the specifications of the ark. You assume that he had the ark in mind and purposefullly copied. Nowhere does it say that. That is YOUR interpretation. In any case, that also is irrelevant to the test results.
So when atheists review atheist its not bird of a feather thing? That's the fallacy of inconsidtency of policy or criteria. Or more simply said, convenient selective blindness.
snipped because irrelevant
snipped because obscure
snipped for redundant irrelevant verbosity
So instead of providing counter evidence you want me to read your increasingly hysterical diatribes? Nice try but no cigar.
BYE!
There is nothing so beautiful as the peacfulness of an uncluttered screen!
Last edited:
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
Who provided evidence of the ark's design?
According to the KJV it is:
300 cb x 50 cb x 30 cb.
One window, "finished above" to a cubit.
One door set in the side, with lower/mid/upper decks.
THAT'S IT.
Any other speculation about pitch, keels, seaworthiness, design issues, is not Biblical.
Modern shipbuilders use this ratio? Hell it doesn't even say that it was rectangular, or had a keel, or had watertight bulkheads, or bilges, or a prow, or anything that you need to take a vessel out on the open ocean for the better part of a YEAR.
I seriously doubt any of you who believe in the validity of this tale are now, or have ever been, sailors.
According to the KJV it is:
300 cb x 50 cb x 30 cb.
One window, "finished above" to a cubit.
One door set in the side, with lower/mid/upper decks.
THAT'S IT.
Any other speculation about pitch, keels, seaworthiness, design issues, is not Biblical.
Modern shipbuilders use this ratio? Hell it doesn't even say that it was rectangular, or had a keel, or had watertight bulkheads, or bilges, or a prow, or anything that you need to take a vessel out on the open ocean for the better part of a YEAR.
I seriously doubt any of you who believe in the validity of this tale are now, or have ever been, sailors.
I didn't look so of course I found none.
The seaworthiness of such a vessel is irrelevant.
The animals, now, are another story..
roger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2002
- Messages
- 11,466
8600m/40days/24 hrs/day = 9 m/hr.
1 cubic meter = 264 gallons = 2112lbs of water
so, 9*2112, or 19,000lbs of water per hour falling on your body.
sorry for mixing metric/english, I'm just going with constants that I know.
Quibblers will point out that the body's cross section is not 1m^2, and they would of course be right. The point is merely to give the scale of this supposed rain - 20K lbs of water per hour dumped in a very small box around you. I sincerely doubt you could breathe.
In comparison, a typical fire hose rate is 170 GPM, or 10200 GPH. Compare this to the 2376 GPH of the supposed rain. A garden hose can maybe do 5 GPM or so, so the rain would be equivalent to 8 garden hoses pointed at your nostrils at once (should you look up at the sky).
Ya, I believe this.
1 cubic meter = 264 gallons = 2112lbs of water
so, 9*2112, or 19,000lbs of water per hour falling on your body.
sorry for mixing metric/english, I'm just going with constants that I know.
Quibblers will point out that the body's cross section is not 1m^2, and they would of course be right. The point is merely to give the scale of this supposed rain - 20K lbs of water per hour dumped in a very small box around you. I sincerely doubt you could breathe.
In comparison, a typical fire hose rate is 170 GPM, or 10200 GPH. Compare this to the 2376 GPH of the supposed rain. A garden hose can maybe do 5 GPM or so, so the rain would be equivalent to 8 garden hoses pointed at your nostrils at once (should you look up at the sky).
Ya, I believe this.
Last edited:
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
For the love of...something.
You cannot tell with any reasonable degree of certainty the seaworthiness of a vessel based ONLY on the information I posted above, which is the ONLY biblical reference for the ark's design. Was it flat-bottomed or keeled? Doesn't say. Did it have lateral/medial trusses to reduce stress? Doesn't say. How were the planks joined together? Doesn't say.
All we can do is make inferences about what it would take for a vessel of those dimensions to actually BE seaworthy, and the only reason we can do that is because we have the benefit of hundreds of years of ship design and sailing experience telling us what does and does not work. And none of these things were around during the time Noah is claimed to have built this thing.
Where the creationist and Biblical literalist FAIL are when they ASSUME that the craft had to have been constructed in such a manner as to make it scientifically viable, even though the assumption has no basis in fact - or even biblical fiction in this case. God's instructions for the design of the ark are exactly as I laid out, and assigning more information to them than was put out in the bible is ridiculous, and shows exactly how bad the confirmation bias is at work here.
The funny thing about confirmation bias, is that one usually has to find something.
This is exactly the same reasoning you see coming from the 9/11 Truth Movement, gasping and grasping at anything and everything, inventing technologies and physical properties to support their already-arrived at and ridiculous conclusion when the real world doesn't.
You cannot tell with any reasonable degree of certainty the seaworthiness of a vessel based ONLY on the information I posted above, which is the ONLY biblical reference for the ark's design. Was it flat-bottomed or keeled? Doesn't say. Did it have lateral/medial trusses to reduce stress? Doesn't say. How were the planks joined together? Doesn't say.
All we can do is make inferences about what it would take for a vessel of those dimensions to actually BE seaworthy, and the only reason we can do that is because we have the benefit of hundreds of years of ship design and sailing experience telling us what does and does not work. And none of these things were around during the time Noah is claimed to have built this thing.
Where the creationist and Biblical literalist FAIL are when they ASSUME that the craft had to have been constructed in such a manner as to make it scientifically viable, even though the assumption has no basis in fact - or even biblical fiction in this case. God's instructions for the design of the ark are exactly as I laid out, and assigning more information to them than was put out in the bible is ridiculous, and shows exactly how bad the confirmation bias is at work here.
The funny thing about confirmation bias, is that one usually has to find something.
This is exactly the same reasoning you see coming from the 9/11 Truth Movement, gasping and grasping at anything and everything, inventing technologies and physical properties to support their already-arrived at and ridiculous conclusion when the real world doesn't.
Last edited:
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
(deleted) Never mind. I'd have better results explaining the origins of the Paris Commune to a zucchini.
Last edited:
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Now, now, Joey. They got excellent advice on the vessel design from the assumptions made by a bunch of liars who had previously claimed that they'd located the ark in Turkey. Yeah, that's what the article says. I'm repeating because it's just so flippin' absurd.
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
This is getting as bad as Van Impe's repeated Second Coming predictions.
Interestingly, British civil and mechanical engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel built a steamship (the Great Britain) in 1843 that had almost the same proportions as the Ark, although it was smaller. This was regarded as a remarkable feat of Victorian and maritime engineering. The Great Britain was the first large vessel to be propelled by a screw propeller.http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html
[bolding mine]
The Great Britain
Length: 322 ft (98.15 m) Beam (width): 50 ft 6 in (15.39 m) Height (main deck to keel): 32 ft 6 in (9.91 m) Weight unladen: 1,930 long tons (2,161 short tons, 1,961 tonnes) Displacement: 3,018 long tons (3,380 short tons, 3,066 tonnes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Britain
Above is the statement I referred to. It's the size alone he is referring to as considered impressive for those times I suppose since the materials are different.
The comparison is in reference to the dimensional ratios of 30:5:3. Actually “the ugly duckling”—a barge-like boat built to carry tremendous amounts of cargo, and one that had the same ratio.
[bolding mine]
The Great Britain
Length: 322 ft (98.15 m) Beam (width): 50 ft 6 in (15.39 m) Height (main deck to keel): 32 ft 6 in (9.91 m) Weight unladen: 1,930 long tons (2,161 short tons, 1,961 tonnes) Displacement: 3,018 long tons (3,380 short tons, 3,066 tonnes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Britain
Above is the statement I referred to. It's the size alone he is referring to as considered impressive for those times I suppose since the materials are different.
The comparison is in reference to the dimensional ratios of 30:5:3. Actually “the ugly duckling”—a barge-like boat built to carry tremendous amounts of cargo, and one that had the same ratio.
Last edited:
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
What does that have to do with the design specifics of the Ark?
You think that because somebody made a vessel thousands of years later taking advantage of metallurgy, shipbuilding tech, and the end result of a couple hundred years of seafaring and navigation advancements - that it makes the story of the Ark more plausible?
Distraction engagement failed.
You think that because somebody made a vessel thousands of years later taking advantage of metallurgy, shipbuilding tech, and the end result of a couple hundred years of seafaring and navigation advancements - that it makes the story of the Ark more plausible?
Distraction engagement failed.
Last edited: