When Literalists have to literally lie to sell their literal truth (AKA Adventures in Ark-itecture)

[skepticalbip]

That doesn't work in the real world. Larger ships have very different and much greater stresses than smaller ships. Smaller ships ride the waves so can experience impacts and torquing. When ships become large enough that their bow is being buoyed by one wave and the stern by the next wave the bending force of the full weight of the ship is on the midships which are not being buoyed which can, and has, snapped the keels of large ships. This is in addition to to the increased pounding and torque that smaller ships experience.

The Ark after being built would obviously just stay stationary till the water rose around it eventually raising the ark. Now unlike a large ship in treacherous seas forcing forwards the Ark just floated along where the waters would flow.

This is the worse case scenario, a ship that loses maneuverability in rough seas. Losing power in high seas would be a nightmare for seafarers that almost guarantees that the ship will be swamped and sunk.

What I also meant by proportionate size is for example; you mentioned keels snapping of large ships. The keel for arguments sake in the Ark would take the strain because of its much larger size in diameter. Large trees are known to have reached 25+ feet in diameter.

Hand waving is nice but real ship designers and builders have already confronted this problem with real world constructions. They pushed the limits back in the days of the clipper ships and found those limits far short of the purported length of the Ark. The largest clippers experienced what I described. If the solution had been as simple as you assume then we would have seen clipper ships much larger than the Ark. They wanted larger ships for economic reasons but physics wouldn't allow it.

ETA:
You would be much better off saying that god always kept the water calm and flat around the Ark than to try to explain how the ark could be built sea worthy because it can't be.

 

[Learner]

This is the worse case scenario, a ship that loses maneuverability in rough seas. Losing power in high seas would be a nightmare and almost guarantees that the ship will be swamped and sunk.

I don't doubt you are right but I was suggesting the Ark was floating gracefully as a 100,000 metric ton Iceberg.

Hand waving is nice but real ship designers and builders have already confronted this problem with real world constructions. They pushed the limits back in the days of the clipper ships and found those limits far short of purported length of the Ark. The largest clippers experienced what I described. If the solution had been as simple as you assume then we would have seen clipper ships much larger than the Ark.

I'm not sure if they included gargantuan trees regarding the collosall structures that could be cut from them. They were probably calculating by known methods and materials used within last few humdred years. Honestly will have to look into it.

(Personally I believe God knew best with the Ark)

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't doubt you are right but I was suggesting the Ark was floating gracefully as a 100,000 metric ton Iceberg.

That might be a good example. Those large bergs (that are a hell of a lot more structurally sound than the ark as it is described) float gracefully in calm, flat seas. However when they enter rough water they break up into smaller bergs.

Hand waving is nice but real ship designers and builders have already confronted this problem with real world constructions. They pushed the limits back in the days of the clipper ships and found those limits far short of purported length of the Ark. The largest clippers experienced what I described. If the solution had been as simple as you assume then we would have seen clipper ships much larger than the Ark.

I'm not sure if they included gargantuan trees regarding the collosall structures that could be cut from them. They were probably calculating by known methods and materials used within last few humdred years. Honestly will have to look into it.

(Personally and not part of the discussion, God knew best with the design of the Ark I say as a believer.)

As I said, you would be much better off saying that god always kept the water calm and flat around the Ark (even though there is nothing I know of in the Bible to support that) than to try to explain how the ark could be built sea worthy.

 

[Learner]

That might be a good example. Those large bergs (that are a hell of a lot more structurally sound than the ark as it is described) float gracefully in calm, flat seas. However when they enter rough water they break up into smaller bergs.

Yes the iceberg seemingly solid and still to then be so vunerable or to then become a feared solid force, sinking modern ships made of metal.

As I said, you would be much better off saying that god always kept the water calm and flat around the Ark (even though there is nothing I know of in the Bible to support that) than to try to explain how the ark could be built sea worthy.

It is nice to discuss from perspectives but I say though, I feel I must of been guided by the holy spirit to mention the big trees!

to cont..

 

[funinspace]

Per Genesis (NASB) 7:18-20 "The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered." The highest altitude tree lines in the world are about 16,000 ft. The world has hundreds of mountain peaks that are thousands of feet higher than this. Do you really think that trees would survive being submerged in a muddy brackish mess for months like this.

The Flood account doesn't say the mountain tops were covered the whole time.
The Flood account doesn't say that all the pine cones were obliterated or rendered sterile.
In point of fact - if you actually read the Flood account - you will see that a bird brought back proof to Noah that there was now dry land emerging. Guess what the proof was?

I made no comment about how plants/trees would restart. Olive seeds germinate in less than 2 months...so the point about an olive leaf isn't very relevant. Ge 8:2 states that the water started to recede after 150 days. What do you think would happen to trees under thousands of feet water compression for a couple months?

Scientists have a continuum of tree ring records going back 7,400 years, a world wide deluge would not be unnoticed:
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:189273/FULLTEXT01.pdf

...Anywho, getting beyond another set of miracle cards... We have a continuum of ice core samples going back roughly 800,000 years. These would not survive a "Noachian Flood". So are you going for the Deluge happening even before 800,000 years ago? Or maybe your god is a trickster god? Or?

I'm sorry. Can you please explain to me why ice cores disprove the Flood?
How cold do you think it gets at the bottom of the ocean?

First I should not have said the ice core samples "would not survive", I should have said they "would not have been left unscathed". Ice core samples provide a record of the seasons. A world wide deluge would leave a massive scar in the ice core records. It would not be missed. Just when do you think this Deluge happened, even on rough order of magnitude? 3,000 BC +/- 500 years? 10,000 BC +/- 3,000 years? 50,000 BC +/- 20,000 years? A million years ago? Or?

 

[Learner]

As we came across previously in discussions about the means to build big things, (leaving aside very big people). It would be quite sensible to think that the proportionate scale many times bigger achieved here could be applied elsewhere. Noticing the human figures in the picture giving indication of the scaled proportions. Must be quite difficult to replicate today if at all.

With capable means and knowledge as seen in those buildings, an Ark strong and stable enough could be built.

 

[skepticalbip]

As we came across previously in discussions about the means to build big things, (leaving aside very big people). It would be quite sensible to think that the proportionate scale many times bigger achieved here could be applied elsewhere. Noticing the human figures in the picture giving indication of the scaled proportions. Must be quite difficult to replicate today if at all.

With capable means and knowledge as seen in those buildings, an Ark strong and stable enough could be built.

The problems confronted in designing large buildings and large ships are completely different. Try taking that "stable" building and continually tilt it thirty degrees one direction then thirty degrees the opposite direction while continually lifting one end several feet and dropping it. The forces that buildings experience during major earthquakes are nothing to what a ship experiences during a calm cruise, not even considering rough weather.

 

[Learner]

The problems confronted in designing large buildings and large ships are completely different. Try taking that "stable" building and continually tilt it thirty degrees one direction then thirty degrees the opposite direction while lifting it several feet and dropping it.

I see ..

 

[Learner]

The indication you would get from these old ruins is that there was the knowhow for humans to build big scaled things. Great weights and great sizes would be a doddle but strangely difficult for us today. Indeed it would not be a good idea to use blocks of masonry and push out to sea but one would use big trees!

 

[skepticalbip]

The indication you would get from these old ruins is that there was the knowhow for humans to build big scaled things. Great weights and great sizes would be a doddle but strangely difficult for us today. Indeed it would not be a good idea to use blocks of masonry and push out to sea but one would use big trees!

You are just hand waving. It is apparent that you have no understanding of ships, the forces they must deal with, or the physics involved. Do you really think that the designers of the clipper ships were that ignorant? They wanted much larger ships for economic reasons but the physics would not allow it. And NO, a more than 450 foot long log (if there were such a thing. The tallest tree today is less than 400 feet tapering to a point at the top.) for the keel wouldn't solve the problem. Wood doesn't have the strength.

Since you don't seem to have any appreciation for the kind of forces encountered at sea, here's a little peek.



As I said, forget the hand waving trying to make the ark seaworthy. It couldn't be. You would do better trying to claim god kept the sea flat and calm around the ark even though there is absolutely nothing to support the assertion.

 

[Learner]

You are just hand waving. It is apparent that you have no understanding of ships, the forces they must deal with, or the physics involved.

I think there is enough common sense in ordinary individuals (although underestimated) by their awareness,understanding and experience of the world with all the senses ,gradiently dependent on the amount of curiosity. This includes reading available results of tests done by experts. When summed up, we could make fair enough decent logical proposals for discussion, even without the intricate depths of knowledge like physics. Of course science is the crucial element to verify or make plausible the propositions in discussion.

Do you really think that the designers of the clipper ships were that ignorant? They wanted much larger ships for economic reasons but the physics would not allow it.

Not at all but there are difficulties with great bulks of metal that do not float normally and having no real buoyancy compared to wood. Wood being less dense than water.

And NO, a more than 450 foot long log (if there were such a thing. The tallest tree today is less than 400 feet tapering to a point at the top.) for the keel wouldn't solve the problem. Wood doesn't have the strength.

Ships are mentioned throughout the bible from Genesis to Revelations. Ships are distinct from other large vessells.

There has been only one Ark which has never been mentioned or descibed as a ship. It was not a ship! The construction would therefore be different from the specifications you describe in a ship.

As I said, forget the hand waving trying to make the ark seaworthy. It couldn't be. You would do better trying to claim god kept the sea flat and calm around the ark even though there is absolutely nothing to support the assertion.

I just think an Ark is non refutable by the examples made including whats currently out there.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think there is enough common sense in ordinary individuals (although underestimated) by their awareness,understanding and experience of the world with all the senses ,gradiently dependent on the amount of curiosity. This includes reading available results of tests done by experts. When summed up, we could make fair enough decent logical proposals for discussion, even without the intricate depths of knowledge like physics. Of course science is the crucial element to verify or make plausible the propositions in discussion.

But you show no evidence of having "read the results of tests done by experts" and yet you are offering "solutions" which they have found to be nonsense.

Do you really think that the designers of the clipper ships were that ignorant? They wanted much larger ships for economic reasons but the physics would not allow it.

Not at all but there are difficulties with great bulks of metal that do not float normally and having no real buoyancy compared to wood. Wood being less dense than water.

Again, you really need to read what testing has found rather than hand waving that is nonsense in the real world.

And NO, a more than 450 foot long log (if there were such a thing. The tallest tree today is less than 400 feet tapering to a point at the top.) for the keel wouldn't solve the problem. Wood doesn't have the strength.

Ships are mentioned throughout the bible from Genesis to Revelations. Ships are distinct from other large vessells.

There has been only one Ark which has never been mentioned or descibed as a ship. It was not a ship! The construction would therefore be different from the specifications you describe in a ship.

True. The ark as described in the bible is what would be identified as a barge. Barges are inherently even less seaworthy than ships. You may notice that ships have sharp bows to slice through waves thus reducing the pounding to a more manageable level - barges must take the full pounding impact of the waves. The sharp bow of a ship is also much more structurally sound as it forms a triangle, the sturdiest shape available.

As I said, forget the hand waving trying to make the ark seaworthy. It couldn't be. You would do better trying to claim god kept the sea flat and calm around the ark even though there is absolutely nothing to support the assertion.

I just think an Ark is non refutable by the examples made including whats currently out there.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

Think Dunning Kruger.

 

[Keith&Co.]

One of my jobs in the Navy was to measure ship's flexure.

The submarine, made of HY80 steel, would dive beneath the waves and still twist a measurable amount just from the way water's forces struck different parts of the sub with different vectors. We had to measure the twisting to keep our missile accurate when we launched. The amount was small, but my point is that just floating in the ocean, it twisted.
Hell, we used to measure the flexure in the dry dock, then watch the ship twist just from being lifted when they sank the drydock to float the submarine.

This was over about 100 feet of 3/4 inch steel. The twisting on the ark would be much worse: 450 feet of wood. The weight distribution will be unequal, the forces at the surface that much greater, the timbers will twist like matchsticks. Even if individual frames and panels and planks might not snap like twisted matchsticks, the hull's watertight integrity will suffer as the planks part and water rushes in.



But aside from the salt-water-activated flotsam generator, there's other problems.
I once calculated the deck space of the ark to match 18 high school basketball courts. So imagine 18 religious high schools setting up an experiment. In each basketball court, set up cages to hold 100 sheep (someone told me that the average size of the animals on the Ark would be that of a sheep... As if that makes the three species of Elephants easier to deal with), and food for the sheep for one year.
Give them access to fresh water as necessary. Each day, allow each school to let 8 volunteers into the court to take care of the animals. Distribute food, remove waste, fix and repair cages, inspect animals for wounds or disease, etc. They have one hour. The next school cannot start their hour until the previous school finishes and evacuates the court.

This simulates Noah, three sons and their four wives working an 18 hour day to keep the arkanimals alive and healthy. See if they can manage it for a year.
To be more accurate, should probably demand that two people work some sort of bilge pump at all times during their hour, doing absolutely nothing but pumping leaks back over the side to keep the barge afloat.

 

[Learner]

But you show no evidence of having "read the results of tests done by experts" and yet you are offering "solutions" which they have found to be nonsense.

I was speaking in general and I was replying/using your expert testing so to speak.

Again, you really need to read what testing has found rather than hand waving that is nonsense in the real world.

If I did I would read it all day long but not find any relation to ancient proportionate sizes (building big) as previously mentioned and as to the previous quote they couldn't have found it to be nonsense if it wasn't accounted for in the testing. you know .. giant thingys are no no's in the field.

True. The ark as described in the bible is what would be identified as a barge. Barges are inherently even less seaworthy than ships. You may notice that ships have sharp bows to slice through waves thus reducing the pounding to a more manageable level - barges must take the full pounding impact of the waves. The sharp bow of a ship is also much more structurally sound as it forms a triangle, the sturdiest shape available.

Ok sure but how did you get the same scenario of pounding waves like for example the video? The bible does not mention any treacherous stormy seas .

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

Just take it as a religious disagreement.

 

[Learner]

One of my jobs in the Navy was to measure ship's flexure.

The submarine, made of HY80 steel, would dive beneath the waves and still twist a measurable amount just from the way water's forces struck different parts of the sub with different vectors. We had to measure the twisting to keep our missile accurate when we launched. The amount was small, but my point is that just floating in the ocean, it twisted.
Hell, we used to measure the flexure in the dry dock, then watch the ship twist just from being lifted when they sank the drydock to float the submarine.

This was over about 100 feet of 3/4 inch steel. The twisting on the ark would be much worse: 450 feet of wood. The weight distribution will be unequal, the forces at the surface that much greater, the timbers will twist like matchsticks. Even if individual frames and panels and planks might not snap like twisted matchsticks, the hull's watertight integrity will suffer as the planks part and water rushes in.



But aside from the salt-water-activated flotsam generator, there's other problems.
I once calculated the deck space of the ark to match 18 high school basketball courts. So imagine 18 religious high schools setting up an experiment. In each basketball court, set up cages to hold 100 sheep (someone told me that the average size of the animals on the Ark would be that of a sheep... As if that makes the three species of Elephants easier to deal with), and food for the sheep for one year.
Give them access to fresh water as necessary. Each day, allow each school to let 8 volunteers into the court to take care of the animals. Distribute food, remove waste, fix and repair cages, inspect animals for wounds or disease, etc. They have one hour. The next school cannot start their hour until the previous school finishes and evacuates the court.

This simulates Noah, three sons and their four wives working an 18 hour day to keep the arkanimals alive and healthy. See if they can manage it for a year.
To be more accurate, should probably demand that two people work some sort of bilge pump at all times during their hour, doing absolutely nothing but pumping leaks back over the side to keep the barge afloat.

Thank you Keith for explaining clear your professional findings. Despite my position to the Ark I will honestly find this interesting.

(Ok joedad you got me !)

 

[skepticalbip]

True. The ark as described in the bible is what would be identified as a barge. Barges are inherently even less seaworthy than ships. You may notice that ships have sharp bows to slice through waves thus reducing the pounding to a more manageable level - barges must take the full pounding impact of the waves. The sharp bow of a ship is also much more structurally sound as it forms a triangle, the sturdiest shape available.

Ok sure but how did you get the same scenario of pounding waves like for example the video? The bible does not mention any treacherous stormy seas .

The idea of rough seas comes from reality. That is what one would see quite a few times if they spent a full year floating on the ocean. Of course there would also be periods of calm where there were only long gentile ground swells which would also destroy a 450 foot long wooden barge. But the rough seas is more dramatic.

The Bible also doesn't mention Noah, his family, or Jesus and the disciples pissing and shitting (that I remember) but since reality is that people do, that it is probably safe to assume that they did.

But I see you have seen the light and are leaning toward claiming that god kept the seas absolutely calm and flat around the ark for that year (even though that isn't mentioned in the Bible either) rather than insisting that the ark was seaworthy.

 

[Learner]

The idea of rough seas comes from reality. That is what one would see quite a few times if they spent a full year floating on the ocean. Of course there would also be periods of calm where there were only long gentile ground swells which would also destroy a 450 foot long wooden barge. But the rough seas is more dramatic.

Yes its possible

The Bible also doesn't mention Noah, his family, or Jesus and the disciples pissing and shitting (that I remember) but since reality is that people do, that it is probably safe to assume that they did.

Can't comment this bit, obvious reasons.

But I see you have seen the light and are leaning toward claiming that god kept the seas absolutely calm and flat around the ark for that year (even though that isn't mentioned in the Bible either) rather than insisting that the ark was seaworthy.

What can I say? I'm a believer.


Been a pleasure discussing

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

(Ok joedad you got me !)

All this religious behavior fascinates me. My intent was not to get you in some way but to actually point out what Dunning Kruger is. If you have read up on it you can appreciate how it operates, and the point I was trying to make vis a vis you and Keith when it comes to ship construction.

 

[Sarpedon]

Pumping bilges? You mean buckets, Kieth: Pumps would not have existed in the time period we are talking about. Neither would have iron nails and fittings, trusses, clinker hulls, arches, or really any form of basic structural knowledge. This is the pyramid era of building. Post and lintel, ropes and pegs. Between the butt joints sealed with pitch (standard for the period) and the flexure, that barge would have leaked so much it would have been too much for all eight humans to lug buckets all the way up to the top to empty.