Author Topic: Noah's flood...again  (Read 3833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Noah's flood...again
« on: November 10, 2011, 12:14:58 AM »
This is a summary of your time here:
And really, the longer you stay here, it's just going to be continuing all of the above.
Hey, as long as I get my steak knives.

Since you seem to have trouble with addressing like, 10 points, with evidence, failing to actually discuss or debate on a coherent and intellectual level and since you're replying back to multiple people, how about we start on ONE point between you and me? Or we can even create a new thread where we can keep all of our "discussions" there.

The Question, which we've touched on before and you only said "nephilim" as evidence:

Is the story of Noah's Ark true?

If yes, provide actual evidence. Don't dodge. I can wait as long as you want.

If no, then why is it not true as said in the Bible?
What point would you like to begin with?

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2011, 06:23:13 AM »
I will repeat again:

Is the story of Noah's Ark true?

If yes, provide actual evidence. Don't dodge. I can wait as long as you want.

If no, then why is it not true as said in the Bible?


The story of Noah's Ark is the point.
The Second C

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2011, 07:22:48 AM »
This is a summary of your time here:
And really, the longer you stay here, it's just going to be continuing all of the above.
Hey, as long as I get my steak knives.

Since you seem to have trouble with addressing like, 10 points, with evidence, failing to actually discuss or debate on a coherent and intellectual level and since you're replying back to multiple people, how about we start on ONE point between you and me? Or we can even create a new thread where we can keep all of our "discussions" there.

The Question, which we've touched on before and you only said "nephilim" as evidence:

Is the story of Noah's Ark true?

If yes, provide actual evidence. Don't dodge. I can wait as long as you want.

If no, then why is it not true as said in the Bible?
What point would you like to begin with?

Where did Noah gopher wood?
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2011, 09:58:30 AM »
This is a summary of your time here:
And really, the longer you stay here, it's just going to be continuing all of the above.
Hey, as long as I get my steak knives.

Since you seem to have trouble with addressing like, 10 points, with evidence, failing to actually discuss or debate on a coherent and intellectual level and since you're replying back to multiple people, how about we start on ONE point between you and me? Or we can even create a new thread where we can keep all of our "discussions" there.

The Question, which we've touched on before and you only said "nephilim" as evidence:

Is the story of Noah's Ark true?

If yes, provide actual evidence. Don't dodge. I can wait as long as you want.

If no, then why is it not true as said in the Bible?
What point would you like to begin with?

Where did Noah gopher wood?
Silly question...Home Depot. ;)
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2011, 10:43:24 AM »
I wouldn't expect much from whatcha.  He has ignored my posts on the subject and still repeats his baseless nonsense. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2011, 01:37:33 PM »
I wouldn't expect much from whatcha.  He has ignored my posts on the subject and still repeats his baseless nonsense.

This will make it much more clear if he's still inclined to do so.
The Second C

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2011, 08:08:53 PM »
I will repeat again:
Is the story of Noah's Ark true?
I believe the story is true.

If yes, provide actual evidence. Don't dodge. I can wait as long as you want.
Why would I dodge such a simple topic?

I gave you the option of choosing one point to discuss about Noah and you opted not to take it. It is necessary to talk about this one point at a time, as this will ensure the subjects are not clouded by other issues, but are answered thoroughly. It is preferable to me that others not be allowed into this debate, as juvenile questions detract from the discussion. Also, it will be easier this way for those reading to see just whose ass is getting kicked. If you have no problem with my terms, a simple yes will do.

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2011, 08:17:04 PM »
I will repeat again:
Is the story of Noah's Ark true?
I believe the story is true.

Okay. Swell. Then perhaps you could answer the following questions. I'll start with just a few.

1.)How does one go about fitting approximately 2 to 20 million species of animals (this includes insects), anywhere from 4 to 140 million individual animals depending on what you're reading, onto a boat that's only 450 feet long?

2.)How does one keep track of all 600,000 different species of beetle? 60,000+ species of spider? Even the conservative estimation of 50,000 species of beetle... Carefully labelled matchboxes perhaps? And that's a LOT of bug dung to clean up. Not even considering the multiple thousands of tons of dung from the other animals of course.

3.)How does one go about feeding these animals? Every animal on Earth eats either some kind of plant, or another animal. What did the carnivores, like the lions eat? They couldn't eat other animals, right? Since there were only 2-7 of each? Was there a Eucylptus forest on-board for the Koalas? Fresh carrots for the wascally wabbits and their kin?

4.)How did Noah, his family, and the rest of the animals survive when the Earth was supposedly wiped clean of all oxygen producing plant life?

5.)Why is there absolutely *no* archeological evidence for a global flood? As in *none*?

Bonus question: Where did Noah keep all the world's bacteria?

I would very much appreciate your answers to these questions, as they are some of the big ones that stopped me from believing this story... Back when I was a little kid.

Thank you in advance for your time.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2011, 08:28:54 PM by RaymondKHessel »
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline superfly

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • go ride a bicycle
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2011, 08:34:45 PM »
i'd like to answer your questions, RKH...

it was a miracle.  ;)

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!
Kurt Vonnegut

Offline Xero-Kill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wait... what?
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2011, 08:48:05 PM »
I will repeat again:
Is the story of Noah's Ark true?
I believe the story is true.

If yes, provide actual evidence. Don't dodge. I can wait as long as you want.
Why would I dodge such a simple topic?

Ummm... nice dodge. That takes a special level of mental agility right there. I assume you are currently compiling the comprehensive list of evidence that you are going to use to finally end this debate, once and for all... right?
"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

~Tyler Durden

Online mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 925
  • Darwins +30/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2011, 09:05:05 PM »
Boy, the whole Noah's ark story is the gift that keeps giving.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2011, 10:45:15 PM »
Can you guys imagine how many calories Noah and his sons burnt with not only hacking, sawing, carrying, and lifting of the wood and pitch to build the ARK and to gather all of the animals and any other stuff they needed, but as well they would have had to have worked hard to make their own food and do their own normal chores which were quite significant at the time. Now just imagine how much those boys would have had to have eaten at one sitting! That must have been something, seeing a 600 year old man on a 4 million calorie a day diet would have been fun to watch. I wonder why they don't include that in the children's bible story videos? Imagine their out-house! It must have been five stories tall!
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Spit

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Darwins +8/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2011, 10:59:11 PM »
Steroids for sure.  ;D

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2011, 02:08:31 AM »
Quote
Why would I dodge such a simple topic?

No one wou-

Quote
I gave you the option of choosing one point to discuss about Noah and you opted not to take it.

Never mind. You would.

Quote
It is necessary to talk about this one point at a time, as this will ensure the subjects are not clouded by other issues, but are answered thoroughly.

I asked you a question:

Is the story of Noah's Ark true? If YES, provide YOUR evidence. If NO, why is it not so according to the Bible?

How fucking simple can I get? Just give your evidence, then we can start from there.

Quote
It is preferable to me that others not be allowed into this debate, as juvenile questions detract from the discussion.

Okay Mr. Dodger, first off, I don't give a shit, just ignore the others in this "debate". Or if you REALLY want to formalize things then go here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,11385.0.html

Quote
Also, it will be easier this way for those reading to see just whose ass is getting kicked. If you have no problem with my terms, a simple yes will do.

LOLOLOL. Yes.
The Second C

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2011, 06:50:35 AM »
.. others not be allowed into this debate, as juvenile questions detract from the discussion.

Woohoo! Whatchamean complemented me on my youthfulness, how sweet of him! I hope his infantile dodges and concordance spouting doesn't distract from the discussion either.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2011, 06:52:02 AM »
If yes, provide actual evidence. Don't dodge.
Why would I dodge such a simple topic?

Hmm.  So whatcha is going to provide evidence as requested!  Excellent!

I gave you the option of choosing one point to discuss about Noah and you opted not to take it. It is necessary to talk about this one point at a time, as this will ensure the subjects are not clouded by other issues, but are answered thoroughly. It is preferable to me that others not be allowed into this debate, as juvenile questions detract from the discussion. Also, it will be easier this way for those reading to see just whose ass is getting kicked. If you have no problem with my terms, a simple yes will do.

Oh dear.

Whatcha, C has asked you to provide actual evidence that shows the Biblical story of Noah is true.  I honestly don't see how much more straightforward he can be.

The ball is very firmly in your court.  May I suggest that you simply select your best/favourite/simplest piece of evidence, and outline it here.  Simple, surely? 


<<EDIT: Fixed quotes>>
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 08:47:22 AM by Anfauglir »
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline violatedsmurf80

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2011, 08:18:05 AM »
Hundreds of myths from around the world suggest there was a great flood, possibly local or possibly global, depending on the story. The scientific community doesn't wholly doubt the possibility of a great flood.  there are two scientific theories in existence, one suggesting flooding around the area that is now the Black Sea and the other attributing devastating floods to a comet that struck the Earth. The ancients just did not know how to explain it, so they incorporated it into the GoD did it because of “insert reason here”.  So does this make the other myths true?
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”--- Sinclair Lewis

I believe there is something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2011, 10:04:21 AM »
Hundreds of myths from around the world suggest there was a great flood, possibly local or possibly global, depending on the story. The scientific community doesn't wholly doubt the possibility of a great flood.  there are two scientific theories in existence, one suggesting flooding around the area that is now the Black Sea and the other attributing devastating floods to a comet that struck the Earth. The ancients just did not know how to explain it, so they incorporated it into the GoD did it because of “insert reason here”.  So does this make the other myths true?

the problem is that scientists do discount totally the claim of what is claimed in the bible, a worldwide flood that covered everything.   there is also the problem that not all culture have a flood myth.  The ancient Egyptians for one. 

There is nothing to support that some magical comet struck the earth and caused floods. and creationists claim that it "brought the water", not that it was simply an impactor.  That's simply nonsense that doesn't make sense on so very many levels.  This is the one that is postulated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater  but why not say that it was simply another big Boxing Day style earthquake? There are theories that this how water got to earth billions of years ago.  There are  also indeed theories that the flood idea could have come from a Black Sea flood, or other sources, and catastrophic floods do occur, but nothign to the scale that the bible claims.  Can things get blown out of proportion? Yep, but the fact that most civilizations are on rivers make floods an easy grab for a "reason" why various gods use them for exterminating "evil". And failing miserably again and again.  It also gives a good reason why the Egyptians didn't have such a myth, they saw floods as beneficial.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 10:06:57 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline violatedsmurf80

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2011, 07:29:11 PM »
Hundreds of myths from around the world suggest there was a great flood, possibly local or possibly global, depending on the story. The scientific community doesn't wholly doubt the possibility of a great flood.  there are two scientific theories in existence, one suggesting flooding around the area that is now the Black Sea and the other attributing devastating floods to a comet that struck the Earth. The ancients just did not know how to explain it, so they incorporated it into the GoD did it because of “insert reason here”.  So does this make the other myths true?

the problem is that scientists do discount totally the claim of what is claimed in the bible, a worldwide flood that covered everything.   there is also the problem that not all culture have a flood myth.  The ancient Egyptians for one. 

There is nothing to support that some magical comet struck the earth and caused floods. and creationists claim that it "brought the water", not that it was simply an impactor.  That's simply nonsense that doesn't make sense on so very many levels.  This is the one that is postulated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater  but why not say that it was simply another big Boxing Day style earthquake? There are theories that this how water got to earth billions of years ago.  There are  also indeed theories that the flood idea could have come from a Black Sea flood, or other sources, and catastrophic floods do occur, but nothign to the scale that the bible claims.  Can things get blown out of proportion? Yep, but the fact that most civilizations are on rivers make floods an easy grab for a "reason" why various gods use them for exterminating "evil". And failing miserably again and again.  It also gives a good reason why the Egyptians didn't have such a myth, they saw floods as beneficial.



Just about every major religion in the acenit times had a flood story of some sort. In Europe the Norse, Scandinavian, and the Celtics had the Blood Legends which was the equivalent to the bible flood. The Totonac  in Mexico also used an arch in the same way that the biblical flood did. In North america the Squamish and Pawnee used a canoe but the difference would be the aminal helper but according to them it was the same as the biblical flood. In  East Africa, the Masai also have a tale that is the same as the biblical flood. The Egyptians live in an area were the nile river flooded the plains so to them it was a way of life but to the others it must of devastated them in some way. These are only the ones I can think of off hand.

Now I am not saying that this whole thing is true. I am just stating the facts that something must of happened during their time. whether is was the rising of the oceans from the ice age or a comet who knows but something did happen to make such an impact on their life for them to record this. 
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”--- Sinclair Lewis

I believe there is something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2011, 08:54:35 PM »
How fucking simple can I get? Just give your evidence, then we can start from there.
Sea Worthiness of Noahs Ark.

Atheists believe the size of the ark would have caused it to break apart in the stormy seas, but the Bible never says the waves were raging or even that the water was choppy. The Bible simply says it rained until nobody had a ladder tall enough and they all drowned. The sea upon which the ark floated was as calm as your grandmother on valium. Aside from this, ship building experts (see web site below.) have determined that a craft the size of the ark could have easily made the voyage described in the Bible.
www.worldwideflood.com/ark/safety_aig/safety_aig.htm

Rebuttal?

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2011, 11:21:57 PM »
Quote
I’m sorry, but this entire story is simply outrageous. Anyone who can actually read this and believe it is an idiot. I mean, remember back in first or second grade when they began teaching “reading comprehension?” Yeah, this is a simple exercise in that skill.

http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/noahs-ark-refuted-update/

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2011, 11:27:29 PM »
How fucking simple can I get? Just give your evidence, then we can start from there.
Sea Worthiness of Noahs Ark.

Atheists believe the size of the ark would have caused it to break apart in the stormy seas, but the Bible never says the waves were raging or even that the water was choppy. The Bible simply says it rained until nobody had a ladder tall enough and they all drowned. The sea upon which the ark floated was as calm as your grandmother on valium. Aside from this, ship building experts (see web site below.) have determined that a craft the size of the ark could have easily made the voyage described in the Bible.
www.worldwideflood.com/ark/safety_aig/safety_aig.htm

Rebuttal?
http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/noahs_flood.htm
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 11:32:11 PM by ungod »
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2011, 12:25:28 AM »
Atheists believe the size of the ark would have caused it to break apart in the stormy seas, but the Bible never says the waves were raging or even that the water was choppy. The Bible simply says it rained until nobody had a ladder tall enough and they all drowned. The sea upon which the ark floated was as calm as your grandmother on valium. Aside from this, ship building experts (see web site below.) have determined that a craft the size of the ark could have easily made the voyage described in the Bible.
www.worldwideflood.com/ark/safety_aig/safety_aig.htm

Rebuttal?
From:
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showpost.php?p=985297&postcount=6

Analysis by George W. Herbert, moderator of sci.space.tech and holder of a degree in naval architechture:

Quote:
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home..._arksafety.asp

Sure...

On first inspection:


0. Editorial comment

This paper was written by people who looked at a naval
architecture text book and did not understand what they
were seeing; it uses terminology from the profession
but not correctly, and does not use the right analysies.
Either the translation was grossly incorrect or the
paper was the work of not particularly attentive undergrad
students, given that the authors were supposedly at the
Korea Research Institute for Ships and Engineering.


1. "Draft and center of gravity" section

Displacement is given as:
(delta) = 1.025 L B d

That is the correct formula, for a brick.
Perhaps a bad sign of things to come.

Real ships are not perfect rectangular prisms;
they have rounded shapes, and the actual
displacement is some fraction depending on
the curvature of the ship, keel deadrise,
and numerous detail factors. These combine
to give a 'block coeficient' Cb which is simply
the actual volume divided by the volume of
the rectangular shape of the same length,
breadth, and depth. Cb varies from about 0.9
(really blocky huge oil tangers) to 0.55
(light destroyers) but is not 1.0 even for
rectangular barges, which have *some* rounded
off parts...


2. also in "draft and center of gravity" section

These guys calculate the height of the center of
gravity... which is good, and they don't seem to
have completely blown it, but the simplicity of the
analysis jumps out.

*No* mention is made of the height of the center
of buoyancy (the geometric centroid of the displaced
volume).

*No* mention is made of the equally important
Metacentric Height. The metacenter (M) is the imaginary
point around which the geometric center of the
waterplane area rotates as the ship rolls and
pitches. As that area shifts, the actual dynamic
stability of a ship depends on how far above
the center of gravity the metacenter is found.
The metacenter is some distance above the center
of buoyancy, and has to be calculated.

No real ship other than a submarine has its
center of gravity under its center of buoyancy.

The actual moment arm for stability calculations
is the height from the center of gravity G to
the metacenter M (GM).


3. "Comparative hull forms" section

Huh?

Comparative hull dimentions table, maybe.
"Hull Form" implies looking at the curvature,
block coeficient, etc.


4. "Method of Evaluation" subsection in "Seakeeping Performance" section

"A widely used strip method"...

These guys have not even determined KB, BM, or GM, and they
are performing computational motions analysis?

Er.

Ok. This fails the scratch and sniff test, but the method used
is not grossly inappropriate.


5. "General" subsection of "Structural Safety" section

These people do not understand wooden shipbuilding.
Using the terms associated with steel ships is
a gross mistake.


6. "Structural analysis of Ark" subsection of "Structural Safety" section

This fails the scratch and sniff test.

They plug the numbers in to a FEA rather than presenting the basic
by hand back of the envelope calculation. Bzzt.

They assume that they could rigidly attach a 2 dimentional girder
structure to a wooden "shell" ... no mention of how this is made
strong in shear, which is why thick hulled wooden ships are not
made that way.

They do not list the scantlings (thickness and dimentions of
the hull, longitudional and transverse frames, etc).
Without knowing what the actual dimentions are nobody
can crosscheck their numbers. Showing computer program
output without scantlings is the equivalent of lying
with graphics.

"Structural Safety Index" is introduced without any
foundation for what it is supposed to represent
in the analysis and optimization.


7. "Righting Arm" calculations in "Overturning Stability" section

Ah, now we get the metacenter. Except they're calling it Z,
instead of M, and they *integrate* to find the height rather
than simply pulling "Principles of Naval Architecture" off the
shelf and plugging the one line formula in... D'oh.


8. "Overturning stability Index" in "Overturning Stability"

What is this 'overturning stability index' and where is it
coming from? The term is not defined, referenced, etc.
It is not a term of the art in the field.


9. "Voyage Limit of the Arc"

Calculated for rolling motion. Never calculate in roll;
always calculate in pitch and sagging/hogging moment.

"Thickness of wood..." thickness *where*?


10. conclusions

Yet more of these imaginary safety indexes, which are not defined.

Yet more graphs without any supporting explanation of what the
axies mean.


11. my conclusion

This paper fails to show its work.
Almost none of its stated conclusions are supported
with enough documentation to review and evaluate for
technical correctness. Were this a student paper
it would fail on that basis, and it would never
be published in a naval architecture journal for
the same reason.

This paper fails to show basic familiarity with the
standard terminology, rules of thumb, and standards
of practicing naval architects, much less student
naval architects.

This paper fails to reference any of the standard
textbooks in ship design (Such as, Principles of
Naval Architecture 1990 ed). While papers have
certainly been written without reference to PNA,
the inclusion of a bunch of more specific references
without any reference to or use of the basic methods
and overview survey in PNA is bizarre.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Poseidon

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
  • Darwins +24/-0
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2011, 12:52:05 AM »
My engineering background leads me to ask questions about basic structural components of the ark. Wooden boats of antiquity used wooden pegs (they are called trunnels) to fasten boats together. A bit of arithmetic  suggests that Noah and his helpers would have had to whittle a lot of trunnels.  If a person could have used his bronze age knife to whittle two trunnels per minute and that person worked continuously around the clock, he'd have enough of the trunnels when 2038 days and nights had expired.  Perhaps more than one person whittled trunnels. Say six people worked continuously, 24 hours a day, without stopping. It would then take only about eleven months to have all the needed pegs. One could imagine that the poor whittlers were tired and very hungry at quitting time.

It makes sense that Noah would have recruited as many ship building helpers as possible.  When all the creatures boarded the ark, the helpers would, presumeably, have been left to drown. Surely that arrangement would not have met with their approval. If Noah did not bother to tell the hepers about the assigned passenger list, he was a conniving, sneaky bastard.  Did god plan for this eventuality and did he set Noah up to be the fall guy?

Bottom line here is that the sixth and seventh chapter of Genesis is a crock of hockey, plain and simple.


Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2011, 01:54:39 AM »
.....the Bible never says the waves were raging or even that the water was choppy.....The sea upon which the ark floated was as calm as your grandmother on valium.

Great.  In which case, a culture that understood the technology for boat-building (as Noah's clearly did, given that god just had to say "builfd a big boat" without Noah replying "a big what?") would already have other boats available.  And the people would have got in the boats, and had no problems dealing with such a mill-pond of a flood.

If you want easy sailing conditions, you need to explain why nobody else from a boat-building culture, walking waist-deep in rising waters, thought "hmm - maybe time to get in the canoes".
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2011, 02:31:53 AM »
Looks like Brakeman got to it before me. Koodles to him for saving my time reading that trash source you gave Whatcha.
The Second C

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2011, 04:12:31 AM »
I contend that it is not possible for 6-8 people to construct a boat larger than an aircraft carrier in any reasonably amount of time.

I contend that any such boat would not have the structural integrity to be seaworthy even in calm sea.  It would have broken up spontaneously as wood does not have the strength to support a vessel of that size.  Creationists have an opportunity here to actually perform this experiment.  Using nothing but the tools and technology available to Noah, have 8 people build a boat that large, and load it down animals.  Easy enough.

I contend the fossil record contradicts the Noah story.  Floods are the BEST possible conditions for fossil preservation.  So, if the Flood happened, we should expect to see very few fossils before the flood, and then a MASSIVE bed of fossils containing all species that have ever lived (dinosaurs, rabbits, trilobites, camels, humans etc) and then a period of no fossils followed by a slow gradual increase in fossil again.  But this is NOT AT ALL what we see in the fossil record.  Instead we see a longgggggg progression of increasing complexity and order.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2011, 08:24:57 AM »
www.worldwideflood.com/ark/safety_aig/safety_aig.htm

Rebuttal?

For starters, you might want to take note of the "AIG" portion of the link you provided.  AIG stands for Answers in Genesis, a site that is legendarily infamous for how unscientific it is.  Coincidentally, Brian Dunning's most recent episode of "Skeptoid" did a "Top Ten Most Unscientific Web Sites" list.  Answers in Genesis came in at Number Five.  Whenever AIG makes a "scientific" claim about something, you would do well to take that claim with a grain of salt.

Now, regarding your ark... it's really quite surprising to me that anyone is still claiming that such a craft would be seaworthy.  It wouldn't.  It is simply not possible to build a boat that large out of wood; it is an engineering impossibility.

The largest wooden boats ever built in modern times had a deck length of about 335 feet.  They had to be reinforced with iron straps (and Noah wouldn't have been able to make any such straps, because iron hadn't been discovered yet), and they leaked so badly that they had to be constantly pumped (and the ark wouldn't have had any pumps, because they hadn't been invented yet).

The Great Republic, the largest wooden clipper ship ever constructed, was about this length.  With its creation, the MIT Museum had this to say: "With this behemoth, [naval architect and shipbuilder Donald] McKay had pushed wooden ship construction to its practical limits."  I also note with some wry amusement that the Great Republic required, among other construction materials, over four million pounds of wood, and indeed, the ship's planned launch date had to be postponed because the shipyard ran out of timber.

How does Noah's Ark stand up against the Great Republic?  The Ark is reported to have been 450 feet long and would therefore have had structural integrity problems far worse than the Republic's, especially since the Ark would lack pumps and metal reinforcements.  Your say that this would not be a problem due to calm seas, but this is false.  The Ark would indeed have been so large that it would have broken up under its own weight, regardless of maritime conditions.  You can actually see an example of this portrayed in the film "Titanic".  One end of the ship got heavy with water, lifting the other end out of the water, whereupon the ship simply broke in half.  And the Titanic was a Twentieth-Century ship made out of steel, using modern shipbuilding techniques.

There are quite a few other problems as well.  For example, if the Republic, at 335 feet, required over four million pounds of wood, it is safe to assume that the Ark, at 450 feet, would have required at least that much wood if not significantly more, and it was built in an area not known for abundant timber resources.  Whence came this gargantuan supply of "gopher wood", whatever the heck that stuff is?

And I've barely even scratched the surface when it comes to all the problems with the Noachian Flood Myth.  I recommend this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

In any event, as has already been pointed out... if it's possible to build a boat as specified in Genesis, all the apologists have to do is go out and build one, and naysayers like me will be instantly silenced.  The fact that they have not done so is very telling.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 08:27:24 AM by pianodwarf »
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Grogs

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
  • Darwins +9/-0
Re: Noah's flood...again
« Reply #28 on: November 12, 2011, 08:26:54 AM »

Atheists believe the size of the ark would have caused it to break apart in the stormy seas, but the Bible never says the waves were raging or even that the water was choppy. The Bible simply says it rained until nobody had a ladder tall enough and they all drowned. The sea upon which the ark floated was as calm as your grandmother on valium.

The Bible doesn't say that it simply rained until nobody had a ladder tall enough. For people who claim to be absolute literalists when it comes to the book of Genesis, they sure don't seem to mind ignoring it when it's inconvenient to their argument (and their bottom line.) Here's what the text actually says:

Quote from: KJV
Gen.7
[17] And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
[18] And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
[19] And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
[20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

So, what it actually says is that all of the high hills, presumably including Mount Everest, were covered by the flood waters. Mount Everest is about 29,000 feet tall (above sea level.) It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. That amounts to 725 FEET of rain per day, or about 30 FEET of rain per hour. Now, according to Wikipedia:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Heavy rain describes rainfall with a precipitation rate of between 4 millimetres (0.16 in) and 16 millimetres (0.63 in) per hour. Very heavy rain terminology can be used when the precipitation rate is between 16 millimetres (0.63 in) and 50 millimetres (2.0 in) per hour. Extreme rain can describe rainfall with precipitation rates exceeding 50 millimetres (2.0 in) per hour.

So the rate of rainfall would be about 180 times greater than what is considered an extreme rate. I've been caught out in a heavy/very heavy rain before and it felt like I was being beaten about the head and shoulders by the rain drops. 180 times that would have to be the equivalent of a fire hose being opened on every single square inch of the Earth. Can you really claim, with a straight face, that under those conditions the water would be dead calm? I think the rain drops alone would be enough to cause structural damage to the ship before the waves caused by the pouring rain are even factored in.