Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Not at all. The two of us, both qualified engineers, laughed at it because the Koreans' document could only have been written by fools. Being as unfamiliar with naval architecture as you are with biology, you may not be able to see this. Trust me on it!Your laughter is about as relevant as a modern bricklayer laughing at the idea that the multi-million tonne Great Pyramid in Giza could never have been built by a 'stone age' people.................because all he had ever built was a semi-D in Tallaght.......and he found it difficult to lift anything heavier than a breeze block!!!!!
Ha, ha, haaa. Haa, haa, haa,. HHHAAAA, Hhaaa, hahhahahh!!Many of the animals could have entered a type of 'hibernation' phase during the Flood. The feed could have been rationed. Providing water to them certainly wouldn't have been a problem.....and the dung could have easily been allowed to flow overboard!!!!
:D:D:D:D:D:D
Wiping away more laughter, I have this picture of you, surrounded by the floating and comatose bodies of stunned horses, gorillas, chickens and all the rest, swimming down through the dark crap- and vomit-laden water, and amongst a maze of dangerously creaking and splintered transverse truss-work, to drill a hole in the bottom of the boat to, er, let it all out.
Dude, not only are you not at the starting line, you're not even in the right stadium!
.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I take it you have reported these dangerous men then?If the ships they design are as poorly engineered as the ark is in this report, then these guys aren't competent to design bath toys.
Briefly, the first and largest part of the report concerns the center of gravity and seakeeping characteristics of the boat. Well, it's a box and if there's no holes, it's going to float and probably not capsize if they make it wide enough. No surprises there.
Then comes the curious bit where they document their "structural analysis" of the boat. Now, I've no idea what kind of structural analysis happens in the far east, but in this part of the world, you have to draw up your design, then do your finite element analysis. The details of neither are included in this document, which contains an amazingly vague and hand-wavey description together with the sudden, unexpected and totally unsubstantiated conclusion that the boat "could be said to have had safe structural performance.". This could be said by a clown or a creationist but certainly not by a naval architect who values his reputation. It's not worth listing the individual omissions, since they have omitted everything from their "design".
Incidentally, I was speaking with a good mate of mine this evening about this. He was one of the structural engineers working on the Mirabella V, the world's largest single-masted sailing vessel which was designed in Ireland (bet nobody knew that
)
So, this evening, the two of us wept with laughter at the idea of Noah floating around in a 450 foot log cabin, with water pouring in through every joint, the whole edifice creaking and wailing like a banshee from the huge shearing forces, while surrounded by ten thousand animals intent on eating each other while flapping, crawling and swimming about in five feet of manure and ten feet of vomit, and the whole miserable show drifting without power in an ocean rising by nine feet per hour from rain and battered by 90 foot waves.
Creationism is always good for a laugh, but never as much as when it tries to be serious.0 -
-
Unless I've missed the announcement, I don't believe that these clowns are actually planning to build this boat. Hence, reporting them to their regulatory authorities or any of their professional bodies, is a waste of time (even if I spoke Korean, which I don't).I take it you have reported these dangerous men then?
In any case, as I pointed out, the report didn't actually say that the boat is safe, but simply that it "could be said" to be safe, and this is something that could be said, truthfully, by a clown or a creationist. While their engineering might be up its ass, their legal antennae are wiggling away very healthily! In the context of an engineering report, this "could be said" phrase a rather obvious copout as any qualified engineer will tell you. In the context of an engineering report on a boat that doesn't exist, and the details of whose construction is hand-waved in two vague sentences, this silly piece of pie-in-the-sky won't do much more than it did yesterday, which is to make professionals laugh out loud
BTW, have you actually read and understood the text yourself? Since you seem to think that this text proves that the boat is structurally sound, I assume you haven't, but am willing to be corrected.
.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
happily ignorant?
Are you????
:)
....you musn't have read my posting....so I will repeat it for you:-It seems that an all wooden ship of the proportion needed to carry a planetary ecosystem cannot be built given modern day technology. I may be wrong, but given the example of the Wisconsin, the evidence from robindch, historical precedent, and common sense, that it is impossible for such a ship to exist.
One of the largest moden wooden ships, the Appomattox, is often compared with the Ark. Measuring 319 feet long, with a beam of 42 feet, it was reinforced with steel bracing to keep it together, and it had to be bilged continuously by steam pumps in order to battle constantly leaking beams as stresses on the hull caused the timbers to separate.
Skeptics frequently point to this as an example of the vulnerability of wooden ships over 300 feet long, and argue that this demonstrates that Noah's Ark (carrying no steel bracing or steam bilge pumps), could not possibly have been practical. However, the Appomattox was designed completely differently to the Ark, being a steam powered ship and not a barge. It was also subjected to different stresses caused by having to tow a large unpowered barge behind it.
It is noteworthy that whilst much is made of comparisons between the Appomattox and the Ark, the unpowered barge which was towed by the Appomattox is never mentioned by the Skeptics. This is particularly odd since this ship (the Santiago), is a far more relevant vessel with which to compare the Ark.
Like the Ark it was made entirely of wood, carrying no steel bracing. Like the Ark it was not powered either by steam or sail. Like the Ark it was built as a barge. Not only this, but its dimension are even larger than those of the Appomattox, being 324 feet long, with a beam of 46 feet.
Unlike the Appomattox, the Santiago DID NOT SUFFER FROM LEAKING PROBLEMS. It served on the Great Lakes as a towed barge for almost 20 years (1899-1918), before finally being swamped in a gale. This wooden barge (though not as large as the Ark), WAS LARGER THAN the Appomattox which towed it, BUT SUFFERED FROM NONE OF THE STRUCTURAL DEFECTS of the Appotomox and had a service history over twice as long as that of the Appomattox, despite serving on the Great Lakes, notorious for their storm conditions and unpredictable waters. This is a far more accurate comparison to draw with the Ark, and demonstrates that wooden barges over 300 feet long are entirely practical.
….and of course we should not forget the fact that Noah’s Ark was constructed by Noah under the direct inspiration of God……and He knows all there is to know about Marine Engineering and Ship’s Architecture!!!:)0 -
Are you????:)
....you musn't have read my posting....so I will repeat it for you:-
One of the largest moden wooden ships, the Appomattox, is often compared with the Ark. Measuring 319 feet long, with a beam of 42 feet, it was reinforced with steel bracing to keep it together, and it had to be bilged continuously by steam pumps in order to battle constantly leaking beams as stresses on the hull caused the timbers to separate.
Skeptics frequently point to this as an example of the vulnerability of wooden ships over 300 feet long, and argue that this demonstrates that Noah's Ark (carrying no steel bracing or steam bilge pumps), could not possibly have been practical. However, the Appomattox was designed completely differently to the Ark, being a steam powered ship and not a barge. It was also subjected to different stresses caused by having to tow a large unpowered barge behind it.
It is noteworthy that whilst much is made of comparisons between the Appomattox and the Ark, the unpowered barge which was towed by the Appomattox is never mentioned by the Skeptics. This is particularly odd since this ship (the Santiago), is a far more relevant vessel with which to compare the Ark.
Like the Ark it was made entirely of wood, carrying no steel bracing. Like the Ark it was not powered either by steam or sail. Like the Ark it was built as a barge. Not only this, but its dimension are even larger than those of the Appomattox, being 324 feet long, with a beam of 46 feet.
Unlike the Appomattox, the Santiago DID NOT SUFFER FROM LEAKING PROBLEMS. It served on the Great Lakes as a towed barge for almost 20 years (1899-1918), before finally being swamped in a gale. This wooden barge (though not as large as the Ark), WAS LARGER THAN the Appomattox which towed it, BUT SUFFERED FROM NONE OF THE STRUCTURAL DEFECTS of the Appotomox and had a service history over twice as long as that of the Appomattox, despite serving on the Great Lakes, notorious for their storm conditions and unpredictable waters. This is a far more accurate comparison to draw with the Ark, and demonstrates that wooden barges over 300 feet long are entirely practical.
….and of course we should not forget the fact that Noah’s Ark was constructed by Noah under the direct inspiration of God……and He knows all there is to know about Marine Engineering and Ship’s Architecture!!!:)
You didnt write any of that, you are just copying and pasting.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement