Did Evolutionists Lose on Noah's Ark Debate?
Andrew Glasgow
jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
> My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> were made of laminated wood.
You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly twice
the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
available to Noah given the technology of the time.
Your hand-waving about "He was a genius, he could have single-handedly
invented chemistry that we didn't figure out for thousands of years" is
just stupid. If Noah invented laminated wood, why didn't people continue
to use laminated wood after the flood?
> (At this juncture some Talk Originists
> lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> Ark was laminated").
Well, note that laminated wood is not mentioned in the Bible, so you are
adding your own extraneous, non-biblical, ideas into the mix.
> So on this point the argument shifted and the
> point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
Nope. The point will not be made unless you can demonstrate, either
through appropriate engineering modeling, or by actually building the
thing, that such a humungous boat can be made seaworthy using only
bronze-age technology.
> (B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
> stones. These drogues stones could add stability to ships during time
> of rough weather, and infact, to confirm this, a TO found a website
> that actually proved my point. If you do an internet search, the word
> drogue stone will lead to sites that make this point and suggest using
> them for safety. Thus, once again, an inadequate comparison has been
> made, with Talk Originists giving inadequate comparisons between
> modern wooden ships and the Ark. Hence, the question of feasibility
> still remains. Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
> feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
> this point.
The point will not be made by speculating that droges stones *might*
have been used, or that they *might* have been sufficient to allow the
ark to survive. Again, the point will not be made until you demonstrate
this.
> (C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
> has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
> idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
> formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
> were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
> water would flood the ship. 2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
> water level to prevent said flooding. 3. The argument was made that a
> moon pool would make the structure unsound. On the first and second
> points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
> level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
What's the point of a moon pool, then, if you have to drag everything up
to the deck of the ship anyway? Might as well just throw it overboard.
> The third point was that the moon pool would make the ship
> structurally unsound. This argument is fallacious in that the reasons
> as to why moon pools are built into ships in the first place, is to
> make the ship sea worthy. The moon pool actually slows the ship down,
> adds stability to the structure, and prevents the ship from straddling
> across the waves. At this point some TOs have abandoned the moon pool
> argument. They've focused on animal toiletry, and the feasibility of
> that. Others have put forth generic accusations that the flood was
> instable, and resurrected all ready refuted arguments.
Again, you've not demonstrated that a moon pool will actually do these
things, and there are no mentions of a moon pool in the Bible. You're
adding to God's word, and last time I heard, that was blasphemy.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> Note: address in header munged. |
| "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human |
| history, with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila." |
| -- Mitch Ratcliffe, Technology Review, April 1992 |
Adam Marczyk
news:5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com...
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
Well, gee, John, if you were going to declare yourself the winner you should
have just done it right at the start and saved all this pointless debating.
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
> Number one. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible
> because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
>
> Number two. Talk originists have said that the crew members could not
> feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
>
> Back to number one.
>
> Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
> 1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
> Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
> that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
>
> My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> were made of laminated wood.
You have no evidence for this, not even any numbers, just bald assertion. As
I pointed out, if a 500-foot-long wooden ship is not essentially stable
under its own weight, and it wouldn't be, then adding a few coats of
laminate won't solve the problem. The problem you're dealing with is the
ship snapping in half when it hits the water, and no laminate, no matter how
strong, will be able to hold the ship together if its own superstructure
can't even do that. Just what sort of laminate do you propose Noah used? How
did he make it? What were its properties?
> (At this juncture some Talk Originists
> lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> Ark was laminated"). So on this point the argument shifted and the
> point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
No one said that. You're making up arguments and attributing them to us
because you can't deal with the ones we actually used.
> (B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
> stones. These drogues stones could add stability to ships during time
> of rough weather, and infact, to confirm this, a TO found a website
> that actually proved my point. If you do an internet search, the word
> drogue stone will lead to sites that make this point and suggest using
> them for safety. Thus, once again, an inadequate comparison has been
> made, with Talk Originists giving inadequate comparisons between
> modern wooden ships and the Ark. Hence, the question of feasibility
> still remains. Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
> feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
> this point.
It doesn't matter how many anchor stones you have. A wooden ship isn't
strong enough, especially under the conditions that would be required to
create a global flood. It's an open question whether the Ark would sink
before it could be smashed into splinters. You obviously have no
comprehension of the level of the problem you're dealing with that you think
a coat of paint and a few anchor stones will allow you to make a 500-foot
wooden boat sturdy and seaworthy in storm conditions so severe they make
today's strongest tropical hurricanes look like a mild drizzle.
> C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
> has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
> idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
> formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
> were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
> water would flood the ship. 2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
> water level to prevent said flooding. 3. The argument was made that a
> moon pool would make the structure unsound. On the first and second
> points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
> level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
Does this make any sense to anyone? John, a moon pool is a *hole in the
bottom of the boat*. This works on submarines because they're enclosed, the
air can't escape, and so the pressure it exerts keeps water out. This will
not work on a wooden ship. Try sailing out on a lake sometime and drilling a
hole in the bottom of your boat and see what happens. I haven't the
slightest idea why you think it matters how many decks the hole penetrates.
If it cuts through the bottom of the hull, then your boat sinks.
> The third point was that the moon pool would make the ship
> structurally unsound. This argument is fallacious in that the reasons
> as to why moon pools are built into ships in the first place, is to
> make the ship sea worthy. The moon pool actually slows the ship down,
> adds stability to the structure, and prevents the ship from straddling
> across the waves.
Wild assertion without evidence. Provide supporting evidence or retract it.
> At this point some TOs have abandoned the moon pool
> argument. They've focused on animal toiletry, and the feasibility of
> that. Others have put forth generic accusations that the flood was
> instable, and resurrected all ready refuted arguments.
Funny, I don't recall you refuting any of them. I only recall you ignoring
arguments you found inconvenient, such as when you were asked to explain how
a global flood produced rock strata containing preserved footprints.
[snip]
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843
R. Baldwin
of about 4,500 mammal species, 5,400 reptilian species, over 700,000
arthropod species (mostly insects), dwelling on all the continents, and kept
them alive on a little boat for 40 days. This despite the fact that they
were carrying numerous parasites and disease-causing viruses and bacteria
that managed to survive the food.
"John McCoy" <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com...
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
>
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
> Number one. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible
> because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
>
> Number two. Talk originists have said that the crew members could not
> feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
>
> Back to number one.
>
> Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
> 1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
> Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
> that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
>
> My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> were made of laminated wood. (At this juncture some Talk Originists
> lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> Ark was laminated"). So on this point the argument shifted and the
> point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
> (B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
> stones. These drogues stones could add stability to ships during time
> of rough weather, and infact, to confirm this, a TO found a website
> that actually proved my point. If you do an internet search, the word
> drogue stone will lead to sites that make this point and suggest using
> them for safety. Thus, once again, an inadequate comparison has been
> made, with Talk Originists giving inadequate comparisons between
> modern wooden ships and the Ark. Hence, the question of feasibility
> still remains. Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
> feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
> this point. (C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
> has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
> idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
> formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
> were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
> water would flood the ship. 2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
> water level to prevent said flooding. 3. The argument was made that a
> moon pool would make the structure unsound. On the first and second
> points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
> level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
> The third point was that the moon pool would make the ship
> structurally unsound. This argument is fallacious in that the reasons
> as to why moon pools are built into ships in the first place, is to
> make the ship sea worthy. The moon pool actually slows the ship down,
> adds stability to the structure, and prevents the ship from straddling
> across the waves. At this point some TOs have abandoned the moon pool
> argument. They've focused on animal toiletry, and the feasibility of
> that. Others have put forth generic accusations that the flood was
> instable, and resurrected all ready refuted arguments.
>
> To summarize, the TO arguments regarding the feasibility of Noah's Ark
> in regard to the use of 1.wood are insufficient, based on faulty
> comparisons that are not qualified (ie. no laminated wood used on
> modern wooden ships, ie.no moon pool, ie. no drogues stones.) The
> argument against a moon pool are insufficient in that 1. they are
> built into modern ships for stability.
>
> Over all, the greatest weakness in TO's attack on the feasibility of
> Noah's Ark was to switch arguments from feasibility,(when it became
> apparent that an inadequate comparison was being made) to actuality -
> ("Prove that Noah did this from the Bible"). So in this sense, the
> TO's actually lost the debate.
>
> NUMBER TWO - THE FEEDERS
>
> The arguement that I had attacked was, "How could Noah and his three
> sons, and three wives take care of all the animals?"
>
> The TO's lost on this one as they assumed that all the crew would be
> busting their butt's all day long trying to feed the animals. When in
> reality feeders could be made. 1. Some TOs, surprisingly, attacked
> the notion of the complexity of the feeders themselves. I answered
> that it would not matter because the TOs were using a fallacious
> argument - one of begging the question. Some TO's countered that it
> was asking the questions. I put forth the idea that the bird seed
> feeders, found commonly in back yards, aren't really that complicated
> to make. And that since humans have the mental capacity to devise all
> sorts of contraptions, it would not be impossible for Noah to devise
> various feeders.
>
> All said and done, the debate was interesting. But unfortunately, for
> the TOs, it's not wise to beg the question, and certainly, to assume
> that something cannot be done, is to limit the intelligence and
> capacity of the human mind.
>
> John McCoy
>
John McCoy
Derek Stevenson
news:5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> All said and done, the debate was interesting. But unfortunately, for
> the TOs, it's not wise to beg the question, and certainly, to assume
> that something cannot be done, is to limit the intelligence and
> capacity of the human mind.
You're saying that the people who correspond with you believe there to be
limits to the intelligence and capacity of the human mind?
Odd coincidence, that.
Louann Miller
>Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
>1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
>Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
>that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
>
>My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
>comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
>were made of laminated wood. (At this juncture some Talk Originists
>lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
>feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
>Ark was laminated").
While on the other hand, some TO's with woodworking experience pointed
out the problems with laminated wood (LESS tensile strength than solid
wood, not more, plus the sensitivity of most glues to water.) which
make it unsuitable for building large boat hulls. Which you ignored.
> So on this point the argument shifted and the
>point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
>(B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
>stones. These drogues stones could add stability to ships during time
>of rough weather, and infact, to confirm this, a TO found a website
>that actually proved my point. If you do an internet search, the word
>drogue stone will lead to sites that make this point and suggest using
>them for safety. Thus, once again, an inadequate comparison has been
>made, with Talk Originists giving inadequate comparisons between
>modern wooden ships and the Ark.
That was me, and I would appreciate you not lying in my name. I
pointed out that a drogue, stone or otherwise, is simply a type of sea
anchor. (The subsequent discussion revealed that you don't know what a
sea anchor does or why a ship adrift in choppy water would find one a
stabilizing influence.) I also pointed out that a sea anchor is a
simple and well-understood technology still in use today, ergo your
statement that other people's estimates of seaworthiness were based on
an ignorance of sea anchors was simply wrong. It's like saying that a
racecar driver's estimates of his car's maneuverability are _obviously
_ based on his never having heard of brakes.
> Hence, the question of feasibility
>still remains. Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
>feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
>this point. (C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
>has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
>idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
>formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark.
You have never addressed the various bits of evidence presented to you
that Mr. Fasgold was not being entirely honest in these claims.
>The arguments that
>were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
>water would flood the ship. 2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
>water level to prevent said flooding.
Again, it's me you misquote. That was an either-or proposition. I was
trying to make sense of your argument, which was probably mistaken
kindness.
>3. The argument was made that a
>moon pool would make the structure unsound. On the first and second
>points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
>level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
>The third point was that the moon pool would make the ship
>structurally unsound. This argument is fallacious in that the reasons
>as to why moon pools are built into ships in the first place, is to
>make the ship sea worthy. The moon pool actually slows the ship down,
>adds stability to the structure, and prevents the ship from straddling
>across the waves. At this point some TOs have abandoned the moon pool
>argument.
I don't recall you providing any evidence that this would work.
>They've focused on animal toiletry, and the feasibility of
>that.
Which you never addressed. Animal toiletry happens. If you doubt it, I
suggest you look after a housecat -- or better yet, a horse -- for a
couple of days.
>Others have put forth generic accusations that the flood was
>instable, and resurrected all ready refuted arguments.
Look, it's not our fault that the Floode story violates a _lot_ of
laws of nature in a lot of different ways. We're just pointing this
stuff out.
>Over all, the greatest weakness in TO's attack on the feasibility of
>Noah's Ark was to switch arguments from feasibility,(when it became
>apparent that an inadequate comparison was being made) to actuality -
>("Prove that Noah did this from the Bible"). So in this sense, the
>TO's actually lost the debate.
The reason your various remarks were met with criticism on both
feasibility and actuality is that they were both infeasible _and_ not
supported by the text you claim as your source. Either you're a
Biblical literalist or you're not. Pick one. If you're a literalist,
then adding undocumented sea anchors and moon pools and
super-laminates to the text of Genesis is as dishonest as adding an
eleventh commandment "Thou shalt not win arguments with John McCoy, it
is an abomination" to Exodus. If you're not a literalist, then why are
we having this conversation?
>NUMBER TWO - THE FEEDERS
>
>The arguement that I had attacked was, "How could Noah and his three
>sons, and three wives take care of all the animals?"
>
>The TO's lost on this one as they assumed that all the crew would be
>busting their butt's all day long trying to feed the animals. When in
>reality feeders could be made. 1. Some TOs, surprisingly, attacked
>the notion of the complexity of the feeders themselves. I answered
>that it would not matter because the TOs were using a fallacious
>argument - one of begging the question. Some TO's countered that it
>was asking the questions. I put forth the idea that the bird seed
>feeders, found commonly in back yards, aren't really that complicated
>to make. And that since humans have the mental capacity to devise all
>sorts of contraptions, it would not be impossible for Noah to devise
>various feeders.
And you skimmed over the point -- which was made to you several times
-- that not everything eats food like birdseed which is stable at room
temperature and easy to gravity-feed. Very few creatures do, in fact.
A superficial list of animals with special dietary requirements:
Koala -- fresh eucalyptus leaves, no substitutes
Alligator/crocodile -- fresh meat, either alive or being wiggled
around by skilled keepers to make it look lively
Snakes, all types -- small live animals or a similar faking with
_very_ fresh chunks of meat of appropriate size.
Army ants -- wide choice of diet, but must swarm over it in thousands
Penguins -- fresh fish
Various birds -- live insects
We're still waiting for your explanations of how these problems might
be dealt with.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
Interesting how self-delusional creationists can be...
[snip distortion of arguments]
Paul
that side's self-appointed, demagogue - er - champion), think it appropriate that
you should not only moderate the debate, but decide it's who the 'Winner' is. How
wonderfully f@X%-ing arrogant of you.
John McCoy <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com...
Bob Pease
>
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
> Number one. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible
> because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
>
> Number two. Talk originists have said that the crew members could not
> feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
>
> Back to number one.
>
> Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
>
> Over all, the greatest weakness in TO's attack on the feasibility of
> Noah's Ark was to switch arguments from feasibility,(when it became
> apparent that an inadequate comparison was being made) to actuality -
> ("Prove that Noah did this from the Bible"). So in this sense, the
> TO's actually lost the debate.
>
snip
> All said and done, the debate was interesting. But unfortunately, for
> the TOs, it's not wise to beg the question, and certainly, to assume
> that something cannot be done, is to limit the intelligence and
> capacity of the human mind.
>
> John McCoy
It seems that John does not really see the folly of this style of rhetoric.
The major problem is that no limits have been agreed on as to what types of
things are feasible.When demonstrated conclusively that a McCoy scenario was
not only Not Feasible, but impossible according to any reasonable SCIENTIFIC
models, McCoy introduces "Suprising New Rules and Conditions" (James
Randi..Flim Flam),
legitimizing this goofy tactic, in his own mind, at least, by claiming that
it's OK to postulate anything you can think of as a "Well,Maybe" and expect
it to go unchallenged.
For example. why is it OK to speculate that "Gopher wood" was a substance of
miraculous physical propreties, but not to speculate that assistance was
given by extraterrestials?
Or to assume that "Moon Pools" could have been created in a leaky structure
,violating any known method to do this today.
It is OK to claim "Victory" in a debate with these sort of rules.
But who wants a victory like this?
It's like a kid claiming victory by saying
"I bet I could beat the Denver Broncos by myself.. All I would need is a
Cloak of Invisibility and a very speedy broomstick to ride on"
Have fun in your world Mr. M.
Bob Pease
Barrett Richardson
On 13 Dec 2001, John McCoy wrote:
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
>
That makes one of you.
How does one become so impervious to information?
-
B
Henry Barwood
John McCoy wrote:
>
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
snip
> Back to number one.
>
> Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
> 1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
> Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
> that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
>
> My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> were made of laminated wood.
Laminated wood products depend on having glues to laminate them with.
Please provide even a single biblical description of anything laminated.
I suppose Noah set up a plant that manufactured resorcinol glues and
pressure laminators to provide his boat materials? Perhaps with a
significant factory to manufacture carbon fibers for composites?
Providing that your first argument is as substantial as air, I've
deleted the rest as non-contributory to our understanding of the issue.
Barwood
Eric Gill
John McCoy wrote:
>
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
Yes, but then that would be expected, as you have demonstrated amply
your disconnect with reality.
<snip>
Pat James
(in message <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>):
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
you can, if you want to. But you'd be wrong.
Of course, you should be used to being wrong by now...
>
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
> Number one. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible
> because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
Ye Arke _isn't_ feasible. One reason is because it's wood. That's not the
only reason. Others include size, stability, and crewing.
>
> Number two. Talk originists have said that the crew members could not
> feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
Nope.
>
> Back to number one.
>
> Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
> 1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
> Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
> that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
>
> My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> were made of laminated wood.
ah... nope. without modern epoxies, plus the heat and pressure possible only
with machine-age tools, the wood would delaminate on contact with water.
> (At this juncture some Talk Originists
> lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> Ark was laminated").
Nah. I, for one, pointed out the absence of Du Pont Chemical and General
Dynamics in Bronze Age Palestine.
> So on this point the argument shifted and the
> point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
> (B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
> stones. These drogues stones could add stability to ships during time
> of rough weather, and infact, to confirm this, a TO found a website
> that actually proved my point. If you do an internet search, the word
> drogue stone will lead to sites that make this point and suggest using
> them for safety. Thus, once again, an inadequate comparison has been
> made, with Talk Originists giving inadequate comparisons between
> modern wooden ships and the Ark. Hence, the question of feasibility
> still remains. Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
> feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
> this point.
you _still_ don't know what a sheet anchor is, do you?
> (C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
> has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
> idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
> formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
> were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
> water would flood the ship. 2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
> water level to prevent said flooding. 3. The argument was made that a
> moon pool would make the structure unsound. On the first and second
> points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
> level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
If the moon pool goes to the top level of the ship, you have a hole right
through the centre of the ship. This reduces the volume available for
carrying cargo... and Ye Arke is _already_ too small.
There are other problems, but they've already been pointed out, so skip it
for now.
> The third point was that the moon pool would make the ship
> structurally unsound. This argument is fallacious in that the reasons
> as to why moon pools are built into ships in the first place, is to
> make the ship sea worthy.
Nope. They're built into ships so as to allow the lowering of assorted items
(drills, grapples, small subs) through the hole.
> The moon pool actually slows the ship down,
> adds stability to the structure, and prevents the ship from straddling
> across the waves.
Nope.
> At this point some TOs have abandoned the moon pool
> argument. They've focused on animal toiletry, and the feasibility of
> that. Others have put forth generic accusations that the flood was
> instable, and resurrected all ready refuted arguments.
Hey, nameless, I moved to the toilet-trained elephants when you bailed from
the moon pools and brought it up.
>
> To summarize, the TO arguments regarding the feasibility of Noah's Ark
> in regard to the use of 1.wood are insufficient, based on faulty
> comparisons that are not qualified (ie. no laminated wood used on
> modern wooden ships, ie.no moon pool, ie. no drogues stones.) The
> argument against a moon pool are insufficient in that 1. they are
> built into modern ships for stability.
but, nameless... they're _not there for stability_.
>
> Over all, the greatest weakness in TO's attack on the feasibility of
> Noah's Ark was to switch arguments from feasibility,(when it became
> apparent that an inadequate comparison was being made) to actuality -
> ("Prove that Noah did this from the Bible"). So in this sense, the
> TO's actually lost the debate.
nah.
>
> NUMBER TWO - THE FEEDERS
>
> The arguement that I had attacked was, "How could Noah and his three
> sons, and three wives take care of all the animals?"
>
> The TO's lost on this one as they assumed that all the crew would be
> busting their butt's all day long trying to feed the animals. When in
> reality feeders could be made.
you haven't had to feed large numbers of animals...
> 1. Some TOs, surprisingly, attacked
> the notion of the complexity of the feeders themselves. I answered
> that it would not matter because the TOs were using a fallacious
> argument - one of begging the question. Some TO's countered that it
> was asking the questions. I put forth the idea that the bird seed
> feeders, found commonly in back yards, aren't really that complicated
> to make. And that since humans have the mental capacity to devise all
> sorts of contraptions, it would not be impossible for Noah to devise
> various feeders.
seed flows. other items, including most vegetable matter, does not.
>
> All said and done, the debate was interesting. But unfortunately, for
> the TOs, it's not wise to beg the question, and certainly, to assume
> that something cannot be done, is to limit the intelligence and
> capacity of the human mind.
>
amazing.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Raymond P. Freeman-Lynde
[large snip]
And since you know shit about geology, you still think that there was a
global flood.
Dr. Raymond P. Freeman-Lynde
Associate Professor of Geology
University of Georgia
Gyudon Z
>I would have to say "yes" on this one.
It must be opposite day.
>There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
>Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
>reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
>question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
>Number one. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible
>because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
>
>Number two. Talk originists have said that the crew members could not
>feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
>
>Back to number one.
>
>Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
>1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
>Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
>that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
>
>My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
>comparison was inadequate and false.
Except that laminating wood cannot raise its strength to the point where it is
anywhere near how strong it would have to be, and you have not shown any
evidence to the contrary.
>The Ark could be feasible if it
>were made of laminated wood.
And yet you failed to demonstrate this in any meaningful way.
I think I will declare you the loser now.
>(At this juncture some Talk Originists
>lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
>feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
>Ark was laminated"). So on this point the argument shifted and the
>point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
Except that you never actually showed that laminated wood would have worked.
>(B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
>stones. These drogues stones could add stability to ships during time
>of rough weather, and infact, to confirm this, a TO found a website
>that actually proved my point. If you do an internet search, the word
>drogue stone will lead to sites that make this point and suggest using
>them for safety. Thus, once again, an inadequate comparison has been
>made, with Talk Originists giving inadequate comparisons between
>modern wooden ships and the Ark. Hence, the question of feasibility
>still remains.
Yet you never actually did demonstrate that drogue stones would have any
significant effect, especially if they add weight to the regions of the ark
which would not be supported by water owing to the waves in the ocean, which is
why wooden ships have stability problems to begin with.
Again, I hereby declare you the loser.
>Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
>feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
>this point. (C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
>has to do with a moon pool.
You know, there is a very good reason why ships don't have holes in the bottom.
The ones that do have a disturbing tendency to sink.
>I've argued that David Fasold derived his
>idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
>formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
>were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
>water would flood the ship.
Any hole in a ship beneath the water line has the capacity to sink it unless
the parts of the ship that remain above the water line taking the pool into
account are still less dense than water.
This is not the case with most cargo ships.
>2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
>water level to prevent said flooding. 3. The argument was made that a
>moon pool would make the structure unsound. On the first and second
>points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
>level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
If there isn't water in it, then it isn't really a pool, now is it?
>The third point was that the moon pool would make the ship
>structurally unsound. This argument is fallacious in that the reasons
>as to why moon pools are built into ships in the first place, is to
>make the ship sea worthy.
Are moon pools built into ships that often? What kind of ships? Again, you
assert but give no support.
Again, I declare you the loser.
>The moon pool actually slows the ship down,
>adds stability to the structure, and prevents the ship from straddling
>across the waves.
In what way?
>At this point some TOs have abandoned the moon pool
>argument. They've focused on animal toiletry, and the feasibility of
>that. Others have put forth generic accusations that the flood was
>instable, and resurrected all ready refuted arguments.
>To summarize, the TO arguments regarding the feasibility of Noah's Ark
>in regard to the use of 1.wood are insufficient, based on faulty
>comparisons that are not qualified (ie. no laminated wood used on
>modern wooden ships, ie.no moon pool, ie. no drogues stones.)
But you haven't made any conclusive demonstration to the effect that any or all
three would have had any significant effect.
To summarize, you are three times the loser.
>The
>argument against a moon pool are insufficient in that 1. they are
>built into modern ships for stability.
Would these be modern *steel* ships? As you're not trying them on enormous
wooden ships, your analogy fails.
And so do you.
>Over all, the greatest weakness in TO's attack on the feasibility of
>Noah's Ark was to switch arguments from feasibility,(when it became
>apparent that an inadequate comparison was being made) to actuality -
>("Prove that Noah did this from the Bible"). So in this sense, the
>TO's actually lost the debate.
But for those of us who did not switch modes, you lost the debate.
>NUMBER TWO - THE FEEDERS
>
>The arguement that I had attacked was, "How could Noah and his three
>sons, and three wives take care of all the animals?"
>
>The TO's lost on this one as they assumed that all the crew would be
>busting their butt's all day long trying to feed the animals. When in
>reality feeders could be made.
Except that you gave no specifics as to how.
>1. Some TOs, surprisingly, attacked
>the notion of the complexity of the feeders themselves. I answered
>that it would not matter because the TOs were using a fallacious
>argument - one of begging the question.
Actually, we were taking your own argument to its conclusion. If your position
actually is that feeders of any complexity could not have existed, I don't
understand the point of your bringing it up.
Some TO's countered that it
>was asking the questions. I put forth the idea that the bird seed
>feeders, found commonly in back yards, aren't really that complicated
>to make. And that since humans have the mental capacity to devise all
>sorts of contraptions, it would not be impossible for Noah to devise
>various feeders.
Assuming his entire ark was populated by birds. Your analogy fails, and so do
you.
>All said and done, the debate was interesting. But unfortunately, for
>the TOs, it's not wise to beg the question, and certainly, to assume
>that something cannot be done, is to limit the intelligence and
>capacity of the human mind.
But to assert something without demonstrating it accomplishes nothing in this
sort of debate, and hence we find that it is you who deserve the title of
loser.
Arrogant loser, as well, for declaring yourself the winner despite all evidence
to the contrary.
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
macaddicted
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
I followed the discussion. I will leave the explaining of the physical
necessities to those more knowledgable than I. I would simply argue
this: Which Noah story are you discussing? There are, after all, two
interwined from the Priestly and Yahwist sources.
Secondly, from a source critical perspective, the center of the story is
in Gen 8:1- "...and God remembered Noah." The story is sandwiched around
this one element. Each part leading up to this is echoed in the same
position after the high point of the story. This chaism is a common
element, and is useful in unifying a long narrative, especially one told
in an oral culture.
--
Dave
macaddicted
"The secret of life is enjoying the passage of time"
James Taylor
RHertz
There are many angles that one could focus on the the loss of marbles
debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether John has a grip on
reality, but whether he ever had any marbles to begin with. And even in
this question, the focus was on two specific items.
Number one. Mr. McCoy has said that his arguments make any sense. We all
took this question to task.
Number two. Mr McCoy has troll-like qualities, and it is important not to
feed the trolls. But, we do this all the time, so we have only ourselves to
take to task.
Back to number one.
Mr. McCoy hasn't said one thing that makes any sense. He thinks that he has
won arguments, when none of what he says follows any known principle of
logic or science. However, he is very good at laminating logic. His ideas
are sticky and gooy, even if they are made from modern materials, they are
more appropriate to the bronze age. Thus, using bronze age laminated logic,
his arguments could make sense, but only if one has also lost one's marbles.
In fact, his logic resembles a stone that could be thrown from a freeway
overpass onto tractor-trailers, or used as a bronze-age sea anchor. These
things are feasible, so we must conclude that it is true. Just because it
is feasible.
NUMBER TWO: FEEDING THE TROLLS
The question is how we Talk.originists can feed all the trolls that come
along, all by ourselves? Well, we could use automated bird-feeder type
posting devices, and not bust our butt feeding trolls all day. Any time a
known troll, such as Mr. McCoy posts something, we automatically respond
BULLSHIT. No fuss, no muss. This does beg the question, should we?
"John McCoy" <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com...
Bill Hudson
<jm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
>
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
> Number one. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible
> because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
>
> Number two. Talk originists have said that the crew members could not
> feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
>
> Back to number one.
>
> Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
> 1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
> Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
> that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
>
> My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> were made of laminated wood.
Hmm, I missed that one. So Noah had access to waterproof glues? What
happens to laminated wood when you immerse it for a year?
[remainder snipped]
Bob Pease
Bill Hudson <huds...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20011213.160159....@yahoo.com...
According to the conditions set forward by McCoy, he would assert that you
cannot disprove that Noah MIGHT have had access to waterproof glue,
extracted from a plant that no longer exists.
Bobby D. Bryant
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
Well, everything else you've ever said here has been self-delusional,
so this claim doesn't come as any surprise to anyone.
However, you can console yourself with the knowledge that you have
followed the grand creationist tradition of posting a bunch of
incorrect, unsupportable, and extra-biblical claims, having your clock
cleaned, and then declaring 'victory' in spite of having done nothing
more than make a fool of yourself.
That's a great way of bringing undecided lurkers around to your cause,
no doubt about it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Dick C.
<5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>:
This is a strange coincidence. 5 years ago, between the first
of November and mid January, I was home sick fighting cancer.
I had a lot of fun arguing with Nameless over these same points.
Now, I am once again home sick. I won't be going back to work until
a week after new years. I went into the hospital in Mid November.
And now, Here is nameless, same arguments, same arrogance, same
ignorance, and same results. Getting his butt kicked and trying to
pretend those shoe prints are really stamps of approval.
See end for reason for being off work, if you are interested,]
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
>
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
> Number one. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible
> because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
>
> Number two. Talk originists have said that the crew members could not
> feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
>
> Back to number one.
>
> Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
Since when does the word refuted mean that someone makes a bald
assertion with no evidence, and then tries to support the assertion
with hand waving and more assertions?
>
> 1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
> Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
> that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
Try again, the ark was not feasible because it was too big to be
built of wood.
>
> My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> were made of laminated wood. (At this juncture some Talk Originists
> lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> Ark was laminated").
You claim that people lose when they demand evidence? My, you have a
nice fantasy world.
HInt, making a claim with no evidence, and then being unable to support
the claim means you lose.
Now, tell us how Noah and co. laminated the wood, and what kind of glue
the used. And then show us how that would have increased the ability
of the ark enough to keep from breaking up, or to keep the planks from
spreading apart and letting in water,
So on this point the argument shifted and the
> point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
> (B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
> stones.
These are the massive stones that would have reduced the arks capacity?
Reduced it so that fewer animals and/or food could have been carried?
And, IIRC, the stones found by Wyatts yacht were actually mined nearby.
snip
>(C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
> has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
> idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
> formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
> were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
> water would flood the ship. 2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
> water level to prevent said flooding.
One and 2 go together. Any opening in the bottom of a ship will
allow water into the ship. The sides of any opening must extend to
above the water line in order to keep the water from filling up the
ship. One alternative is to increase air pressure so that it is equal
to the water pressure at the point of the opening. Somehow, I doubt
that Noah had the technology to do that.
3. The argument was made that a
> moon pool would make the structure unsound.
Duh, poke a hole in a piece of wood and it is weaker. Unless massive
bracing is made the hole weakens the ship.
On the first and second
> points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
> level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
Fasolds so called ark is nothing more than a common rock formation,
a graded syncline, I think it is called. Fasolds imagination in no
way validates your arguments, nor does it make the ark possible.
snip
> To summarize, the TO arguments regarding the feasibility of Noah's Ark
> in regard to the use of 1.wood are insufficient, based on faulty
> comparisons that are not qualified (ie. no laminated wood used on
> modern wooden ships, ie.no moon pool, ie. no drogues stones.) The
> argument against a moon pool are insufficient in that 1. they are
> built into modern ships for stability.
They are? Please name these ships. Not the ones with moon pools, but
the ships that use them to increase stability.
>
> Over all, the greatest weakness in TO's attack on the feasibility of
> Noah's Ark was to switch arguments from feasibility,(when it became
> apparent that an inadequate comparison was being made) to actuality -
> ("Prove that Noah did this from the Bible"). So in this sense, the
> TO's actually lost the debate.
Ah, once again we lose because we demand evidence for your wet dreams.
snip
> John McCoy
Nameless, once again, the same arguments, the same reasoning, nothing
new. Come on, I need some cheering up, come up with some new and
entertaining.
>
What is wrong with me, in case anyone cares. on Nov 14 I woke up with
pains around where my appendix would be, if I still had one. I went in
to see the doctor at 9:00 am. I belong to a medical coop, has doctors
offices close to the hospital, so I was on one campus for all procedures
She examined me, sent me off to get
a blood test, then had me have a Cat scan. For that I had to drink
3 pints of white colored, awful tasting liguid. In the cat scan the
techs were very efficient. But after the scan was done I suspected
that something was seriously wrong when the techs suddenly became
extremely solicitious. Putting my shoes on and tying them for me,
helping me up and so on.
Back to the dr's office where I was informed that I had an aneurism
on a vein in my abdomen, and that it could go at anytime, killing
me instantly. I went out to the lobby and called my wife, letting
her know what was wrong. She immediately started up to be with me.
I started back to the dr's office when I needed to throw up, I
ended up throwing up blood, so I was rushed to the emergency room
and then into the operating room. The Doctor replaced the vein with
a synthetic one, from just under the diaphragm down into my legs.
Consequently I was opened up like a fish being gutted. I spent 2
weeks in the hospital, and have been home for 2 weeks, slowly getting
my strength back.
In all the panic over this a news hit a nerve while trying to give
me an I.V. My right hand and arm are partially numb, sometimes very
painful, and sometimes feeling like my arm went to sleep.
Another side note, when I got home from the hospital I discovered
my car had been stolen. :-(. It has been recovered and is currently
sitting in the body shop. Over $2400 worth of damage. Luckily I have
insurance, the 500 deductable is better than what it could be, but
still, I do not really need that now.
I will also get a handicapped parking tag when I get my car back.
It will be good for a couple of months.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Ethan D. Rogati
bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu wrote on 12/13/01 8:08 PM:
As an undecided semi-lurker, <sarcasm>he's definitely won _me_
over</sarcasm>.
e
John McCoy
> In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
> jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>
> > My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> > were made of laminated wood.
>
> You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly twice
> the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
> available to Noah given the technology of the time.
It's a triple combo - Laminated wood, moon pool *and* drogue stones.
>
> Your hand-waving about "He was a genius, he could have single-handedly
> invented chemistry that we didn't figure out for thousands of years" is
> just stupid. If Noah invented laminated wood, why didn't people continue
> to use laminated wood after the flood?
Simply put, we assume that laminated wood hasn't been used after the
flood. But if laminated wood hadn't been used, I would assume that it
was not necessary. Consider also, that there are ships that are held
together with no glue at all. At any rate, your argument concerns
actuality and not feasibility. I believe in terms of arguing
feasibility, I have the upper hand. In terms of actuality, I really
haven't made a strong case on this. Yet.
>
> > (At this juncture some Talk Originists
> > lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> > feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> > Ark was laminated").
>
> Well, note that laminated wood is not mentioned in the Bible, so you are
> adding your own extraneous, non-biblical, ideas into the mix.
Argument from actuality. I win on feasibility. We'll look at that
question later.
>
> > So on this point the argument shifted and the
> > point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
>
> Nope. The point will not be made unless you can demonstrate, either
> through appropriate engineering modeling, or by actually building the
> thing, that such a humungous boat can be made seaworthy using only
> bronze-age technology.
According to Biblical genealogy, Tubal Cain, a man who lived before
the flood, invented iron works. But your argument is from actuality.
Not feasibility.
>
> > (B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
> > stones. These drogues stones could add stability to ships during time
> > of rough weather, and infact, to confirm this, a TO found a website
> > that actually proved my point. If you do an internet search, the word
> > drogue stone will lead to sites that make this point and suggest using
> > them for safety. Thus, once again, an inadequate comparison has been
> > made, with Talk Originists giving inadequate comparisons between
> > modern wooden ships and the Ark. Hence, the question of feasibility
> > still remains. Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
> > feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
> > this point.
>
> The point will not be made by speculating that droges stones *might*
> have been used, or that they *might* have been sufficient to allow the
> ark to survive. Again, the point will not be made until you demonstrate
> this.
Argument from actuality. Remember, T.O's were attacking the
feasibility of the Ark and I was responding to that. T.O's argued that
wooden ships are not feasible. I was countering that.
>
> > (C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
> > has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
> > idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
> > formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
> > were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
> > water would flood the ship. 2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
> > water level to prevent said flooding. 3. The argument was made that a
> > moon pool would make the structure unsound. On the first and second
> > points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
> > level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
>
> What's the point of a moon pool, then, if you have to drag everything up
> to the deck of the ship anyway? Might as well just throw it overboard.
Good. Now you're addressing feasibility. A moon pool is just used to
allow ship into the middle part of the ship. This would allow the hull
to sink into the water and not straddle (ride the top of the waves).
And it would release stress on the hull.
>
> > The third point was that the moon pool would make the ship
> > structurally unsound. This argument is fallacious in that the reasons
> > as to why moon pools are built into ships in the first place, is to
> > make the ship sea worthy. The moon pool actually slows the ship down,
> > adds stability to the structure, and prevents the ship from straddling
> > across the waves. At this point some TOs have abandoned the moon pool
> > argument. They've focused on animal toiletry, and the feasibility of
> > that. Others have put forth generic accusations that the flood was
> > instable, and resurrected all ready refuted arguments.
>
> Again, you've not demonstrated that a moon pool will actually do these
> things, and there are no mentions of a moon pool in the Bible. You're
> adding to God's word, and last time I heard, that was blasphemy.
This is not blasphemy. I didn't say that Noah's Ark had a moon pool.
I said that if it did, it could work. Also, I've said that it wasn't
my idea, but David Fasold's idea. He came up with that idea from
looking at the radar scans that he and Wyatt had obtained.
John McCoy
Carl M
John McCoy wrote:
>
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
<PLONK>
--
** Remove obvious spam block from the email address
Paul
seem to think (or at least convey to *me*) that it means removed from reality in
some way (I'd say hypothetical - but that's too sophisticated for your ideas). It
doesn't. According to the Cambridge online dictionary ( ) it means:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
feasible - adjective SLIGHTLY FORMAL - able to be made, done or achieved;
possible or reasonable.
Now that we have the extra resources, the scheme seems
politically/financially/technically feasible.
The Government wants a 3% inflation rate, but is this a feasible objective?
It's quite feasible (=possible) (that) we'll get the money.
feasibly - adverb SLIGHTLY FORMAL - He has already hurt two people and therefore
he could quite feasibly attack someone else, perhaps more viciously.
feasibility - noun [U] We're studying the feasibility of building a new shopping
centre outside town.
The council is making/doing a feasibility study (=examining the situation to decide
about the possibility) of/on the shopping centre proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically, it means that you determine if something can *actually* be done. Yet you
give the two similar words 'actually' and 'feasibility' two different definitions
by your context. Learn the language you are trying to use before you use it....
John McCoy <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com...
Dana Tweedy
It must be strange living by yourself in that little world of yours. Do you
ever have visitors?
>
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
> Number one. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible
> because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
No, you made a lot of silly claims and then skedaddled.
>
> Number two. Talk originists have said that the crew members could not
> feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
No, ad hoc rationalizations are not "taking to task"
>
> Back to number one.
>
> Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
> 1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
> Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
> that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
>
> My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> comparison was inadequate and false.
Yet you never showed any evidence that the Ark could have been laminated.
Nor does lamination fix all the problems of building an overly large wooden
boat.
>The Ark could be feasible if it
> were made of laminated wood.
Unsupported assertion.
(At this juncture some Talk Originists
> lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> Ark was laminated").
If you make such a claim, it's reasonable to expect you to back it up. If
the ark were made of titanium and held together with force fields, it might
work, but there is no reason to beleive that either.
> So on this point the argument shifted and the
> point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
No ,we were showing you how silly that claim really was.
> (B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
> stones. These drogues stones could add stability to ships during time
> of rough weather, and infact, to confirm this, a TO found a website
> that actually proved my point.
Drouge stones don't add longitudinal strength to wood. They would simply
cause the boat to break up faster.
>If you do an internet search, the word
> drogue stone will lead to sites that make this point and suggest using
> them for safety.
lacking any better sea anchor. They don't solve the problem of lack of
longitudinal strength of the wooden structure.
>Thus, once again, an inadequate comparison has been
> made, with Talk Originists giving inadequate comparisons between
> modern wooden ships and the Ark. Hence, the question of feasibility
> still remains.
You never backed up your claims of feasibility. There aren't any
comparisons because there aren't any large ships made of laminated wood. No
shipbuilder would be so foolish as to try.
>Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
> feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
> this point.
You keep forgetting, you never adequately answered either the actuality or
the feasiblity arguments.
(C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
> has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
> idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
> formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
> were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
> water would flood the ship.
Never answered by you.
>2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
> water level to prevent said flooding. 3. The argument was made that a
> moon pool would make the structure unsound.
You never answered either of these.
> On the first and second
> points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
> level of the top deck,
How did you determine that ? Why would that make the boat more stable,
rather than less?
>and thus the water could not flood the ship.
Why not? The thing would have leaked like a sieve, and torn itself apart.
Also a "moon pool" would reduce the cargo carrying capacity.
> The third point was that the moon pool would make the ship
> structurally unsound. This argument is fallacious in that the reasons
> as to why moon pools are built into ships in the first place, is to
> make the ship sea worthy.
Again, that's ridiculous. Moon pools are built to allow sea access in ships
that require them. They do not make a ship more seaworthy, they make it
LESS.
>The moon pool actually slows the ship down,
> adds stability to the structure, and prevents the ship from straddling
> across the waves.
Where are you pulling this nonsense from? Since, in your own words, you
claim the Ark wasn't for travel, why would slowing it down be a factor? How
would a moon pool keep the ship from straddling the waves?
> At this point some TOs have abandoned the moon pool
> argument.
No, you abandoned it.
>They've focused on animal toiletry, and the feasibility of
> that. Others have put forth generic accusations that the flood was
> instable, and resurrected all ready refuted arguments.
You never answered the problems of waste managment, which would be
considerable.
>
> To summarize, the TO arguments regarding the feasibility of Noah's Ark
> in regard to the use of 1.wood are insufficient, based on faulty
> comparisons that are not qualified (ie. no laminated wood used on
> modern wooden ships, ie.no moon pool, ie. no drogues stones.) The
> argument against a moon pool are insufficient in that 1. they are
> built into modern ships for stability.
Large wooden ships don't do well in any seas, no matter what manner of
construction. Nor have you shown it was possible for Noah to have laminated
the wood, nor have you backed up you contention that moon pools and drouge
stones would have saved this turkey from immediately breaking it's back and
sinking like a stone.
>
> Over all, the greatest weakness in TO's attack on the feasibility of
> Noah's Ark was to switch arguments from feasibility,(when it became
> apparent that an inadequate comparison was being made) to actuality -
> ("Prove that Noah did this from the Bible"). So in this sense, the
> TO's actually lost the debate.
You wish. You failed to support your claims, you ignored evidence to the
contrary, and you ran away from arguments that you couldn't answer. Hardly
a win.
>
> NUMBER TWO - THE FEEDERS
>
> The arguement that I had attacked was, "How could Noah and his three
> sons, and three wives take care of all the animals?"
>
> The TO's lost on this one as they assumed that all the crew would be
> busting their butt's all day long trying to feed the animals. When in
> reality feeders could be made. 1. Some TOs, surprisingly, attacked
> the notion of the complexity of the feeders themselves. I answered
> that it would not matter because the TOs were using a fallacious
> argument - one of begging the question. Some TO's countered that it
> was asking the questions.
Do you even know what the phrase "begging the question" means? Asking how
these feeders would work is not begging the question. Since you don't
answer the question, it remains.
I put forth the idea that the bird seed
> feeders, found commonly in back yards, aren't really that complicated
> to make. And that since humans have the mental capacity to devise all
> sorts of contraptions, it would not be impossible for Noah to devise
> various feeders.
Talk about inadequate comparisons! Dry birdseed in small quantaties flows
adequately for a simple gravity feed to work. The vast variety of different
animal feeds that would have been required to feed the ark passengers would
in no way flow so easily. Add to the problem of the food rotting, clogging
and caking up makes feeders on the scale of the Ark an impossiblity. Since
Noah didn't have access to Purina Animal Chow, the problem of storing,
providing and distribuiting all the specialized food needed would be
insurmountable. You don't address any of these problems, so your "feeders"
simply don't work.
Nor does your pat answer deal with the problems of biogeography inherent in
the Ark story.
You also don't answer why we don't see a population bottleneck in all
species simultaneously, which would exist if the ark story were true.
>
> All said and done, the debate was interesting. But unfortunately, for
> the TOs, it's not wise to beg the question, and certainly, to assume
> that something cannot be done, is to limit the intelligence and
> capacity of the human mind.
Its unwise to make up stories, run away, and then declare victory.
DJT
Adam Marczyk
news:<amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
> > In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
> > jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
> >
> > > My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> > > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> > > were made of laminated wood.
> >
> > You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly twice
> > the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
> > available to Noah given the technology of the time.
>
> It's a triple combo - Laminated wood, moon pool *and* drogue stones.
This is a joke, right?
> > Your hand-waving about "He was a genius, he could have single-handedly
> > invented chemistry that we didn't figure out for thousands of years" is
> > just stupid. If Noah invented laminated wood, why didn't people continue
> > to use laminated wood after the flood?
>
> Simply put, we assume that laminated wood hasn't been used after the
> flood.
That's not an answer. He asked why people didn't continue to use this
ultra-strong laminated wood after the flood. You said that we assume people
didn't continue to use this ultra-strong laminated wood after the flood.
> But if laminated wood hadn't been used, I would assume that it
> was not necessary. Consider also, that there are ships that are held
> together with no glue at all.
Yes. They're made of a substance called "metal", which you can weld. You
can't weld wood.
> At any rate, your argument concerns
> actuality and not feasibility. I believe in terms of arguing
> feasibility, I have the upper hand. In terms of actuality, I really
> haven't made a strong case on this. Yet.
No, in terms of feasibility you still lose miserably, because even the
*strongest* waterproof modern laminates, which Noah could not possibly have
made, still wouldn't be nearly strong enough.
> > > (At this juncture some Talk Originists
> > > lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> > > feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> > > Ark was laminated").
> >
> > Well, note that laminated wood is not mentioned in the Bible, so you are
> > adding your own extraneous, non-biblical, ideas into the mix.
>
> Argument from actuality. I win on feasibility. We'll look at that
> question later.
No, you lose on feasibility, because Noah could not possibly have produced
waterproof laminates, and even the strongest ones just wouldn't be enough.
> > > So on this point the argument shifted and the
> > > point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
> >
> > Nope. The point will not be made unless you can demonstrate, either
> > through appropriate engineering modeling, or by actually building the
> > thing, that such a humungous boat can be made seaworthy using only
> > bronze-age technology.
>
> According to Biblical genealogy, Tubal Cain, a man who lived before
> the flood, invented iron works. But your argument is from actuality.
> Not feasibility.
It's both impossible and unfeasible.
> > > (B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
> > > stones. These drogues stones could add stability to ships during time
> > > of rough weather, and infact, to confirm this, a TO found a website
> > > that actually proved my point. If you do an internet search, the word
> > > drogue stone will lead to sites that make this point and suggest using
> > > them for safety. Thus, once again, an inadequate comparison has been
> > > made, with Talk Originists giving inadequate comparisons between
> > > modern wooden ships and the Ark. Hence, the question of feasibility
> > > still remains. Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
> > > feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
> > > this point.
> >
> > The point will not be made by speculating that droges stones *might*
> > have been used, or that they *might* have been sufficient to allow the
> > ark to survive. Again, the point will not be made until you demonstrate
> > this.
>
> Argument from actuality. Remember, T.O's were attacking the
> feasibility of the Ark and I was responding to that. T.O's argued that
> wooden ships are not feasible. I was countering that.
With a vague handwaving argument about drogue stones that in effect said,
"Well, they just might be enough to solve every problem with the ark" even
though you haven't presented any figures or evidence for that?
> > > (C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
> > > has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
> > > idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
> > > formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
> > > were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
> > > water would flood the ship. 2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
> > > water level to prevent said flooding. 3. The argument was made that a
> > > moon pool would make the structure unsound. On the first and second
> > > points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
> > > level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
> >
> > What's the point of a moon pool, then, if you have to drag everything up
> > to the deck of the ship anyway? Might as well just throw it overboard.
>
> Good. Now you're addressing feasibility. A moon pool is just used to
> allow ship into the middle part of the ship. This would allow the hull
> to sink into the water and not straddle (ride the top of the waves).
> And it would release stress on the hull.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why this hypothetical moon pool would
not cause the ark to take on water and sink.
craig
1) Buy hammer
2) Hit hammer on head
3) Repeat step 2 until reason for doing so is forgotten
4) Spout gibberish and hand wave any objections made regarding the
ark.
5) If any arguments start to make make sense, return to step 2
This has the added advantage of not having to hold your fingers in
your ear, allowing typing.
Cheers
Craig
Bobby D. Bryant
> Do you even know what the word 'feasibility' means, McCoy?
It means that if Noah had access to 20th Century technology and enough
supporting miracles, then something vaguely similar to the bible story
might have been possible, if you ignore all the other problems with it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
John McCoy
> Do you even know what the word 'feasibility' means, McCoy? The way you use it, you
> seem to think (or at least convey to *me*) that it means removed from reality in
> some way (I'd say hypothetical - but that's too sophisticated for your ideas). It
> doesn't. According to the Cambridge online dictionary ( ) it means:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> feasible - adjective SLIGHTLY FORMAL - able to be made, done or achieved;
> possible or reasonable.
There you go. Note the word "possible"? Ever heard of it expressed
"is it feasible"?
What you're bringing up is a moot point. If we're talking about was
it feasible for George Washington to cross the Delaware, versus, did
George Washington actually cross the Delaware, then we're talking
about two separate understandings.
It just amazes me as to what extend T.O.s will try to weasel out of an
argument.
John McCoy
Boikat
John McCoy wrote in message
<5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>...
>Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote in message
news:<amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>> In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
>> jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>>
>> > My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
>> > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
>> > were made of laminated wood.
>>
>> You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly twice
>> the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
>> available to Noah given the technology of the time.
>
>It's a triple combo - Laminated wood, moon pool *and* drogue stones.
>
>>
>> Your hand-waving about "He was a genius, he could have single-handedly
>> invented chemistry that we didn't figure out for thousands of years" is
>> just stupid. If Noah invented laminated wood, why didn't people continue
>> to use laminated wood after the flood?
>
>Simply put, we assume that laminated wood hasn't been used after the
>flood. But if laminated wood hadn't been used, I would assume that it
>was not necessary. Consider also, that there are ships that are held
>together with no glue at all. At any rate, your argument concerns
>actuality and not feasibility. I believe in terms of arguing
>feasibility, I have the upper hand. In terms of actuality, I really
>haven't made a strong case on this. Yet.
What a dink! As usual, arse backwards!
[snip]
Boikat
-"It is a capital offense to theorize
before one has data. Insensibly
one begins to twist facts to suit
theories, instead of theories to
suit facts."
Sherlock Holmes, "A Scandal in Bohemia", A. C. Doyle-
Boikat
Dana Tweedy wrote in message ...
>
>John McCoy <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com...
>> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
>
>It must be strange living by yourself in that little world of yours. Do
you
>ever have visitors?
Yes, he does. Little yellow invisable guys wearing tutu's, that wisper
strange things in his ears after a beer or two...
Boikat
Bob Pease
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HygS7.33732$AR6.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> John McCoy wrote in message
McSnip
>>At any rate, your argument concerns
> >actuality and not feasibility. I believe in terms of arguing
> >feasibility, I have the upper hand. In terms of actuality, I really
> >haven't made a strong case on this. Yet.
>
> What a dink! As usual, arse backwards!
>
It's not EVEN backwards.
Here he has stated his peculiar of rhetoric quite clearly.
In essence it says.
" I can make up any weird scenario that I wish.
I declare that it is at least feasible.
My evidence is to speculate on the existence of technology that has not been
shown to have existed at the time. "
My question, which (obviously ) remains unanswered, is (among others)
***************
Why is it OK to speculate on the existence of magic wood and magic glue
which does not exist now, but NOT to speculate the intervention of
Extraterrestials, for whom there is more evidence than for magic
materials.??
****************
IMO this comes down to the Judgement of the speculator is defined to be
correct im these matters.
How can this type of mad solipsy be described, even in the throes of vain
imagining,
to be DEBATE??
Then he has the Gall to declare himself the "Winner" and accuse the
confounded and amazed victims of chicanery!
Fie, sir, Fie!
RJ Pease
Dobbs University
Paul
news:<oOdS7.33948$Xb7.2...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com>...
> > Do you even know what the word 'feasibility' means, McCoy? The way you use it,
you
> > seem to think (or at least convey to *me*) that it means removed from reality
in
> > some way (I'd say hypothetical - but that's too sophisticated for your ideas).
It
> > doesn't. According to the Cambridge online dictionary ( ) it means:
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > feasible - adjective SLIGHTLY FORMAL - able to be made, done or achieved;
> > possible or reasonable.
>
> There you go. Note the word "possible"? Ever heard of it expressed
> "is it feasible"?
feasibilty is contingent on having the resources do do it. If you do not actually
have the resources, it is not actually feasible. If in actuality, you have the
resources then it is actually feasible. See how easy it is to bandy words about?
How plastic the language is? Feasibility and actuality can be the same thing given
the context - you use them as if they are neccesarily mutually exclusive. They are
not.
>
> What you're bringing up is a moot point.
A moot point? ARE YOU KIDDING? You don't deny that your context creates an
incorrect defintion of the word, and you call it MOOT???!! You obviously don't
understand the definition of a word that is critical to your argument and you call
it a moot point???!!! Pardon my language, but I can only label an attitude like
that as fucking idiotic.
[snip]
> It just amazes me as to what extend T.O.s will try to weasel out of an
> argument.
It amazes me what you think is irrelevant. Your smug, stubborn ignorance amazes me.
And the extent to which you are making an ass of yourself amazes me too.
Geoff Offermann
stuff all by yourself...it's hilarious!!!
--
Geoff Offermann
"To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition."
- Woody Allen
Cheetah
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
>
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
Four Billion Years ago an advanced race of bioelectric devices, calling
themselves "The Zorg" visited a brown and blue planet, third in order from
a young M class yellow star. They arrived in their ten mile wide stellar
transport, and entered orbit around the planet.
For ten years they examined the planet, the chemistry of the atmosphere,
the composition of the oceans, and the geography of the land. Carefully
they prepared their plans for the mammoth engineering task of transforming
the planet into a biosphere on which they could live and thrive.
The most advanced of The Zorg engineered the most fantastic transformation
agents developed to date. The agents were designed to be released into the
atmosphere, and replicate using local materials. The agents would act as
minature chemical conversion factories, converting raw materials into
advanced bioligical materials by special catalytic transformations powered
by the energy of the local star.
The agents were released, and moved over the surface of the planet as they
replicated. Soon the atmosphere and seas of the planet was filled with
Agents. After 2000 years of slow conversion the process was nearing
completion. The Zorg eager to make the planet a new host for their
colonies sent ten thousand Zorg to the surface to begin new habitations.
Its wasn't soon after that the infestations broke out among Zorg. Blue
boils over the entire surface of their pale green membranes begun to
appear. Many Zorg stopped their electrical activities, and began to erode
into the environment. The Zorg primary node on the planet surface informed
the central electrode on the stellar transport of thier dire situation.
Quickly the Zorg Transport engauged its gravity drive, wrapped itself in a
graviton shield, and instantly transported itself to another mearby star,
and away from the Dangerous planet.
On the planet surface the last of the Zorg collonists used the last of
their electrical charge, and begun to collapsed and decompose into the
salty water. Their remains were quickly used by the now teaming agents
that were adapting to the full range of environments over the surface of
the planet.
Four million years later the Agents wonder where they came from. How could
the know the reality of the birth of their living world?
Hope someone enjoyed this little peice of creative writing. The point is
we can easily create stories which are plausable but impossible to check
through lack of evidence.
The Ark is exactly such a story - except that apart from being improbable
and totally lacking any real evidence, it also specifies things that are
more or less physically impossible. In other words I would feel better
about believing the fiction above than the Ark Story.
We should not believe in something just because it is *possible*. If you
present us with a fantastic story you claim is true, expect to provide
exceptional evidence.
Regards,
Peter Harrison
Nick Keighley
> John McCoy <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com...
> > "Paul" <asfadgd@no-spam_xczxczc.com> wrote in message
> news:<oOdS7.33948$Xb7.2...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com>...
<Paul attempts to explain the meaning of "Feasibility" to John McCoy>
> [...] Feasibility and actuality can be the same thing given
> the context - you use them as if they are neccesarily mutually exclusive.
> They are not.
>
> > What you're bringing up is a moot point.
>
> A moot point? ARE YOU KIDDING? You don't deny that your context creates an
> incorrect defintion of the word, and you call it MOOT???!! You obviously don't
> understand the definition of a word that is critical to your argument and you > call it a moot point???!!! Pardon my language, but I can only label an
> attitude like that as fucking idiotic.
perhaps he doesn't understand what a "moot point" is either...
--
Nick Keighley
Nick Keighley
Either that or John is full of flub.
--
Nick Keighley
Timsn274
amusement from it.
I can think of a couple of comments that might not yet have been made :
1. With the "moon pool", I conceive that the Arke would have been extremely
stable -- at the bottom of the water.
2. Even if it didn't break up on "launch", surely it would bang around into a
hill or mountain while the waters were still rising.
Also, isn't it convenient that, after a year at sea, it returned more or less
to its original position?
Tim Norfolk
John McCoy
Talk about idiocy! If the word feasibility is so plastic, then why do
City Councils have feasibility studies before a project is built? The
answer is simple, to determine the possibility thereof!
And, according to you, the words feasibility and actuality can mean
many things because the language is plastic. Which means to me that
you need to determine meaning from context. And if you couldn't
understand the meaning of the words that I chose, from the context of
my sentences, then it is you who has a problem. Seems to me that some
shrink needs to do a feasibility study on you.
(Grin)
In jest of course.
John McCou
Seppo Pietikäinen
That's gotta be the *least* of his problems.
Seppo P.
Louann Miller
>And, according to you, the words feasibility and actuality can mean
>many things because the language is plastic. Which means to me that
>you need to determine meaning from context. And if you couldn't
>understand the meaning of the words that I chose, from the context of
>my sentences, then it is you who has a problem. Seems to me that some
>shrink needs to do a feasibility study on you.
>
>(Grin)
>
>In jest of course.
It's your responsibility to make your posts understandable. Not house
rules to beat up on creationists -- it's the responsibility of ANY
writer to make ANY given piece of prose understandable. Grow up.
colinfindlay
>I would have to say "yes" on this one.
i would have to say that you probably have this moinths black knight award
already won
cf
---------------------------
some things have to believed to be seen
-- hoyle
---------------------------
howard hershey
----------
In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:<amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>> In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
>> jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>>
>> > My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
>> > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
>> > were made of laminated wood.
>>
>> You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly twice
>> the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
>> available to Noah given the technology of the time.
>
> It's a triple combo - Laminated wood, moon pool *and* drogue stones.
For this to be "feasible" you have to demonstrate that 1) Noah could
actually have had access to lamination techniques using waterproof glues, 2)
that laminated wood made with these techniques would actually allow the
building of 500' long boat (of appropriate Biblical proportions in the other
dimensions) which would be seaworthy, 3) that a moon pool would contribute
to stability or some other vital function without offsetting problems, 4)
that drogue stones would actually significantly stabilize such a wooden
boat. You have presented no evidence whatsoever to support your assertions
that these changes would make the Ark seaworthy, that is to support the
"feasibility" of your assertions. Others have presented evidence that 1)
there is no evidence for the use of waterproof laminates in Noah's time, 2)
that such laminates as exist today would not solve the problem of a keel
that would likely crack and break and sideboards that would likely twist and
open up in even modest seas, 3) that ships built in this time did not even
use nails or bolts or screws, making assembly of a stable boat that size
that much more difficult (cordage and wooden pins and tenoning will not do),
5) that a moon pool, if constructed, would only weaken the structure of the
Ark, 6) that drogue stones do not magically stabilize a boat. They have
also pointed out that no ship of this size, constructed of wood using even
much more modern techniques has been successful in even modest seas. They
all leaked and were unstable. "Feasible" means that you are saying the ark
could *actually* be built using *actual* *available* materials. You have
not presented any evidence that this could be the case.
>
>>
>> Your hand-waving about "He was a genius, he could have single-handedly
>> invented chemistry that we didn't figure out for thousands of years" is
>> just stupid. If Noah invented laminated wood, why didn't people continue
>> to use laminated wood after the flood?
>
> Simply put, we assume that laminated wood hasn't been used after the
> flood. But if laminated wood hadn't been used, I would assume that it
> was not necessary. Consider also, that there are ships that are held
> together with no glue at all. At any rate, your argument concerns
> actuality and not feasibility. I believe in terms of arguing
> feasibility, I have the upper hand. In terms of actuality, I really
> haven't made a strong case on this. Yet.
"Feasibility" *means* an analysis of whether or not this construction could
*actually* be done using the materials then at hand. Hand-waving the idea
that there is some sort of magic laminated wood of the requisite strength
that was never used before and not used afterward is not a "feasibility"
argument. It is a "fantasizing" argument where you simply wish the
requisite materials you need into existence. If you get to resort to
"fantasizing" whatever you need whereas others are limited to actual
evidence, there is no argument you cannot win.
>
>>
>> > (At this juncture some Talk Originists
>> > lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
>> > feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
>> > Ark was laminated").
>>
>> Well, note that laminated wood is not mentioned in the Bible, so you are
>> adding your own extraneous, non-biblical, ideas into the mix.
>
> Argument from actuality. I win on feasibility. We'll look at that
> question later.
No. You win by resorting to "fantasizing" the requisite materials into
existence. That has nothing to do with feasibility.
>
>>
>> > So on this point the argument shifted and the
>> > point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
>>
>> Nope. The point will not be made unless you can demonstrate, either
>> through appropriate engineering modeling, or by actually building the
>> thing, that such a humungous boat can be made seaworthy using only
>> bronze-age technology.
>
> According to Biblical genealogy, Tubal Cain, a man who lived before
> the flood, invented iron works. But your argument is from actuality.
> Not feasibility.
>
Iron is not steel. Cast iron is not particularly good in large ships. As I
remember (not from personal experience, I am not *that* old), one of the
reasons that the Titanic sank was that it had a batch of steel that was more
brittle than it should have been. Rather than bending when it struck the
berg, the plates shattered. Bending would have caused a leak. Shattering
caused a gusher.
>
>>
>> > (B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
>> > stones. These drogues stones could add stability to ships during time
>> > of rough weather, and infact, to confirm this, a TO found a website
>> > that actually proved my point. If you do an internet search, the word
>> > drogue stone will lead to sites that make this point and suggest using
>> > them for safety. Thus, once again, an inadequate comparison has been
>> > made, with Talk Originists giving inadequate comparisons between
>> > modern wooden ships and the Ark. Hence, the question of feasibility
>> > still remains. Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
>> > feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
>> > this point.
>>
>> The point will not be made by speculating that droges stones *might*
>> have been used, or that they *might* have been sufficient to allow the
>> ark to survive. Again, the point will not be made until you demonstrate
>> this.
>
> Argument from actuality. Remember, T.O's were attacking the
> feasibility of the Ark and I was responding to that. T.O's argued that
> wooden ships are not feasible. I was countering that.
You were "fantasizing" that perhaps drouge stones might magically have been
sufficient to 'stabilize' the ship. Actually, drouge stones (and sea
anchors) would only be useful wrt possible capsizing and would have little
effect on the ability of a long wooden keel and boat to sustain the stresses
of twisting and, especially, the problem of a mid-ship trough. Indeed, they
likely would add to that stress. You have presented no evidence that the
addition of drouge stones will make such a ship "feasible".
>
>>
>> > (C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
>> > has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
>> > idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
>> > formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
>> > were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
>> > water would flood the ship. 2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
>> > water level to prevent said flooding. 3. The argument was made that a
>> > moon pool would make the structure unsound. On the first and second
>> > points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
>> > level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
>>
>> What's the point of a moon pool, then, if you have to drag everything up
>> to the deck of the ship anyway? Might as well just throw it overboard.
>
> Good. Now you're addressing feasibility. A moon pool is just used to
> allow ship into the middle part of the ship. This would allow the hull
> to sink into the water and not straddle (ride the top of the waves).
> And it would release stress on the hull.
A moon pool (unless it were very small in dimensions, in which case it would
have little effect wrt stabilizing) would necessarily weaken the hull
midships. Especially to twisting stresses that would be the bane of a long
wooden ship. Besides, having the ark ride too low in these heavy waters
would be just as serious a problem as it riding too high. Remember that
there are no electric pumps in those days.
>
>>
>> > The third point was that the moon pool would make the ship
>> > structurally unsound. This argument is fallacious in that the reasons
>> > as to why moon pools are built into ships in the first place, is to
>> > make the ship sea worthy. The moon pool actually slows the ship down,
>> > adds stability to the structure, and prevents the ship from straddling
>> > across the waves. At this point some TOs have abandoned the moon pool
>> > argument. They've focused on animal toiletry, and the feasibility of
>> > that. Others have put forth generic accusations that the flood was
>> > instable, and resurrected all ready refuted arguments.
>>
>> Again, you've not demonstrated that a moon pool will actually do these
>> things, and there are no mentions of a moon pool in the Bible. You're
>> adding to God's word, and last time I heard, that was blasphemy.
>
> This is not blasphemy. I didn't say that Noah's Ark had a moon pool.
> I said that if it did, it could work.
For it to reach the level of "feasibility", you need to present evidence
that a moon pool in a wooden ship *would* (not could) make the ship more
stable and better able to withstand the stresses of the sea. So far you
have simply made the unevidenced assertion that this would be the case. An
argument based on unevidenced assertions that some sort of magical,
unavailable material or some additions (for which you have presented no
evidence that they would significantly affect survivability) would magically
strengthen the boat sufficiently and one that ignores the inability of even
relatively modern builders to build such a wooden ship is not a
"feasibility" analysis, it is a "fantasy" analysis.
> Also, I've said that it wasn't
> my idea, but David Fasold's idea. He came up with that idea from
> looking at the radar scans that he and Wyatt had obtained.
Isn't Wyatt the guy who claimed to have found some artifact containing
Christ's blood because he (or someone else) did a karyotype on the red blood
cells and found them to be haploid (evidence of a virgin birth)?
>
> John McCoy
>
Ann Broomhead
> >
> >1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
> >Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
> >that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
> >
> >comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> >lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> >feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> >Ark was laminated").
>
> out the problems with laminated wood (LESS tensile strength than solid
> wood, not more, plus the sensitivity of most glues to water.) which
> make it unsuitable for building large boat hulls. Which you ignored.
John McCoy even refused to say how Noah *might* have performed
lamination, so the entire field of "So how long does it take Noah to
prepare 1,000 feet of surface (500 feet times two boards) for
lamination to result in *one* lamination of *one* board for *one* side
of the ark?" questions was never addressed by John McCoy.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
harvest dancer
By selectivly contexting your opponents argruments, you can make it
appear that they said whatever you want them to have said. On the
other hand, that does not mean that you are right.
You forgot the third and fourth specific items, by the way.
Third: How was there room for all the animals and their food on the
ark? The beetles alone would overfill the ship.
Fourth: Why is Christian mythology the only alternative to Evolution?
What about Hindu or Egyptian or Asatru or Native American or
Australian Aborigine or Greek Mythology?
Harvest Dancer
jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote in message news:<5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>...
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
>
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
> Number one. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible
> because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
>
> Number two. Talk originists have said that the crew members could not
> feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
>
> Back to number one.
>
> Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
> 1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
> Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
> that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
>
> My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> were made of laminated wood. (At this juncture some Talk Originists
> lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> Ark was laminated"). So on this point the argument shifted and the
> point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
> (B), the second argument that I've made was that the Ark used drogues
> stones. These drogues stones could add stability to ships during time
> of rough weather, and infact, to confirm this, a TO found a website
> that actually proved my point. If you do an internet search, the word
> drogue stone will lead to sites that make this point and suggest using
> them for safety. Thus, once again, an inadequate comparison has been
> made, with Talk Originists giving inadequate comparisons between
> modern wooden ships and the Ark. Hence, the question of feasibility
> still remains. Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
> feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
> this point. (C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
> has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
> idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
> formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
> were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
> water would flood the ship. 2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
> water level to prevent said flooding. 3. The argument was made that a
> moon pool would make the structure unsound. On the first and second
> points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
> level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
> The third point was that the moon pool would make the ship
> structurally unsound. This argument is fallacious in that the reasons
> as to why moon pools are built into ships in the first place, is to
> make the ship sea worthy. The moon pool actually slows the ship down,
> adds stability to the structure, and prevents the ship from straddling
> across the waves. At this point some TOs have abandoned the moon pool
> argument. They've focused on animal toiletry, and the feasibility of
> that. Others have put forth generic accusations that the flood was
> instable, and resurrected all ready refuted arguments.
>
> To summarize, the TO arguments regarding the feasibility of Noah's Ark
> in regard to the use of 1.wood are insufficient, based on faulty
> comparisons that are not qualified (ie. no laminated wood used on
> modern wooden ships, ie.no moon pool, ie. no drogues stones.) The
> argument against a moon pool are insufficient in that 1. they are
> built into modern ships for stability.
>
> Over all, the greatest weakness in TO's attack on the feasibility of
> Noah's Ark was to switch arguments from feasibility,(when it became
> apparent that an inadequate comparison was being made) to actuality -
> ("Prove that Noah did this from the Bible"). So in this sense, the
> TO's actually lost the debate.
>
> NUMBER TWO - THE FEEDERS
>
> The arguement that I had attacked was, "How could Noah and his three
> sons, and three wives take care of all the animals?"
>
> The TO's lost on this one as they assumed that all the crew would be
> busting their butt's all day long trying to feed the animals. When in
> reality feeders could be made. 1. Some TOs, surprisingly, attacked
> the notion of the complexity of the feeders themselves. I answered
> that it would not matter because the TOs were using a fallacious
> argument - one of begging the question. Some TO's countered that it
> was asking the questions. I put forth the idea that the bird seed
> feeders, found commonly in back yards, aren't really that complicated
> to make. And that since humans have the mental capacity to devise all
> sorts of contraptions, it would not be impossible for Noah to devise
> various feeders.
>
> All said and done, the debate was interesting. But unfortunately, for
> the TOs, it's not wise to beg the question, and certainly, to assume
> that something cannot be done, is to limit the intelligence and
> capacity of the human mind.
>
> John McCoy
Bob Pease
Ann Broomhead <broo...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:7418dcc4.01121...@posting.google.com...
Easy.
He MIGHT have extracted
SUPERCRACK(TM) from the leaves of a native plant, which, conveniently, no
longer exists !!!
RJP
macaddicted
"RHertz" <rhe...@aol.com> wrote:
> Any time a
> known troll, such as Mr. McCoy posts something, we automatically respond
> BULLSHIT. No fuss, no muss. This does beg the question, should we?
can the Ed Conrad bot be modified to do this?
--
Dave
macaddicted
"The secret of life is enjoying the passage of time"
James Taylor
Ferrous Patella
says...
"...contexting...."
ptht... ptht... ptht...
--
Ferrous Patella
"Jimmy, go to the chalkboard and write 'Rote memorization is the lowest form
of learning.' a hundred times."
Dana Tweedy
What a doofus. In that context, a feasibility study is not held to
determine if a project is "possible" it's done to determine if a project is
worth doing. It's a cost/benefit analysis. A city may want to build a new
high school for example. The feasibility study determines if A: the city
can afford such a building , B: If it might be better to fix the old
building, or C: If a new building will handle the number of students
projected. Anyone knows it's "possible" to build a school, feasibilty is
about if the city should build it.
Add Civics to the list of things John is clueless about.
>
> And, according to you, the words feasibility and actuality can mean
> many things because the language is plastic. Which means to me that
> you need to determine meaning from context. And if you couldn't
> understand the meaning of the words that I chose, from the context of
> my sentences, then it is you who has a problem. Seems to me that some
> shrink needs to do a feasibility study on you.
John obviously doesn't understand context either.
>
> (Grin)
>
> In jest of course.
>
> John McCou
The doofus can't even spell his "own" name. (or nameless)
DJT
eyelessgame
> > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> > were made of laminated wood.
>
> I pointed out, if a 500-foot-long wooden ship is not essentially stable
> under its own weight, and it wouldn't be, then adding a few coats of
> laminate won't solve the problem. The problem you're dealing with is the
> ship snapping in half when it hits the water, and no laminate, no matter how
> strong, will be able to hold the ship together if its own superstructure
> can't even do that. Just what sort of laminate do you propose Noah used? How
> did he make it? What were its properties?
>
> > C), The third part of the argument regarding feasibility,
> > has to do with a moon pool. I've argued that David Fasold derived his
> > idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
> > formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark. The arguments that
> > were given by TO's is that 1. if the moon pool were actually there,
> > water would flood the ship. 2. The moon pool had to be at least to the
> > water level to prevent said flooding. 3. The argument was made that a
> > moon pool would make the structure unsound. On the first and second
> > points TOs lost the debate in that David Fasold's moon pool is to the
> > level of the top deck, and thus the water could not flood the ship.
>
> bottom of the boat*. This works on submarines because they're enclosed, the
> air can't escape, and so the pressure it exerts keeps water out. This will
> not work on a wooden ship. Try sailing out on a lake sometime and drilling a
> hole in the bottom of your boat and see what happens. I haven't the
> slightest idea why you think it matters how many decks the hole penetrates.
> If it cuts through the bottom of the hull, then your boat sinks.
Actually, it makes some amount of sense to me; I think he's saying his
boat is shaped like a donut. There's hull on the inside of the pool,
in other words. I'm not sure what this buys you, other than
significantly reduced superstructure strength, but one could make a
ring-shaped boat float, so long as it had an inner hull as high as the
outer hull (at least above the water line).
I'd hesitate to call that a 'moon pool', though. Just a ring-shaped
boat.
Louann Miller
(re McCoy's postulated moon pool in the ark)
>Actually, it makes some amount of sense to me; I think he's saying his
>boat is shaped like a donut. There's hull on the inside of the pool,
>in other words. I'm not sure what this buys you, other than
>significantly reduced superstructure strength, but one could make a
>ring-shaped boat float, so long as it had an inner hull as high as the
>outer hull (at least above the water line).
>
>I'd hesitate to call that a 'moon pool', though. Just a ring-shaped
>boat.
That's very much the image that I had of one, although naturally the
outer shape of the "donut" need not be round but probably would be
normally ship-shaped.
McCoy's word picture, as I understood it, was of an inner-ring hull
that would be higher than the waterline but lower than the top of the
hold. His references to "a piston of air" assisting in the ventilation
of the hold seems to suggest that the water level would rise somewhat
in the inner well, pushing air out ahead of it. My critiques at the
time were more or less that the affected volume in the well would be
a tiny fraction of the total volume of the hold, which would make it
fairly useless as a ventilation device. I gave McCoy a free ride on
the risk that the water rising in the moon pool would rise high enough
to slop over and start filling the hold. On reflection, that was
probably too much coddling.
IIRC he was also trying to get double use out of the moon pool at that
point as a lower spot from which animal wastes could be dumped into
the ocean. My suspicion is that in waters calm enough for the moon
pool not to flood the hold, such waste wouldn't disperse but would
just float around inside the moon pool making the piston-of-air
portion of its function deeply nasty. The idea that a moon pool would
stabilize the ship in some way came later, and apparently out of thin
ether.
Louann
John Bode
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
>
I would have to disagree.
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
> Number one. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible
> because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
>
Not very convincingly.
> Number two. Talk originists have said that the crew members could not
> feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
>
> Back to number one.
>
> Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
> 1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
> Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
> that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
>
> My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> were made of laminated wood.
And I ask again, is laminated wood (I assume you are talking about
something much like plywood) as strong or stronger than steel of the
same thickness? I ask this because modern steel-hulled ships have
been snapped in half by nothing more than heavy seas. In at least a
couple of cases it was a single freak long-period wave that left half
the boat's structure unsupported. Note also that these seas would be
nowhere near as severe as what you described occuring during the
Flood.
How much torque can a laminated wood beam withstand before failing?
How does this compare to a steel beam? I never saw any satisfactory
answer to this.
[snip the rest]
Bobby D. Bryant
> Ann Broomhead <broo...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:7418dcc4.01121...@posting.google.com...
>> John McCoy even refused to say how Noah *might* have performed
>> lamination, so the entire field of "So how long does it take Noah to
>> prepare 1,000 feet of surface (500 feet times two boards) for
>> lamination to result in *one* lamination of *one* board for *one*
>> side of the ark?" questions was never addressed by John McCoy.
>>
>>
>>
> Easy.
>
> He MIGHT have extracted
> SUPERCRACK(TM) from the leaves of a native plant, which, conveniently,
> no longer exists !!!
"He" = "Noah", or "He" = "McCoy" ?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Matt Silberstein
> In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
> jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>
> > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> > were made of laminated wood.
>
> the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
> available to Noah given the technology of the time.
I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength. I doubt it is actually
much strong if at all. It is stronger in two dimensions, but it is not
as strong in either. Laminated wood has different properties, that is
all. The key issues with the ark is having wood for the keel and
bracing. Laminating (as in plywood_ does not help at all. What it can
help, to some small effect, is in getting long pieces. But that does
not give you stronger long pieces, it gives you pieces longer than you
get by letting trees determine the length.
> Your hand-waving about "He was a genius, he could have single-handedly
> invented chemistry that we didn't figure out for thousands of years" is
> just stupid. If Noah invented laminated wood, why didn't people continue
> to use laminated wood after the flood?
Because Noah could not pass down all of the pre-Flood techology.
> > (At this juncture some Talk Originists
> > lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> > feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> > Ark was laminated").
>
> Well, note that laminated wood is not mentioned in the Bible, so you are
> adding your own extraneous, non-biblical, ideas into the mix.
Nor does it particularly violate the Bible either.
> > So on this point the argument shifted and the
> > point made on feasibility and inadequate comparison was struck home.
>
> Nope. The point will not be made unless you can demonstrate, either
> through appropriate engineering modeling, or by actually building the
> thing, that such a humungous boat can be made seaworthy using only
> bronze-age technology.
I see nothing wrong with using other technology. Noah had God to guide
him. God could have told him more details about the construction, this
violates neither the laws of physics nor the Bible.
[snip]
howard hershey
----------
In article <e707421e.0112...@posting.google.com>, aa...@oro.net
(eyelessgame) wrote:
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message
> news:<u1i7kr7...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> John McCoy <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com...
>> > My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
>> > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
>> > were made of laminated wood.
>>
> Actually, it makes some amount of sense to me; I think he's saying his
> boat is shaped like a donut. There's hull on the inside of the pool,
> in other words. I'm not sure what this buys you, other than
> significantly reduced superstructure strength, but one could make a
> ring-shaped boat float, so long as it had an inner hull as high as the
> outer hull (at least above the water line).
>
> I'd hesitate to call that a 'moon pool', though. Just a ring-shaped
> boat.
Except that the Biblical prescribed dimensions (the Bible doesn't say much
about the Ark, but it does describe the dimensions) are not those of a
ring-shaped boat.
>
Louann Miller
wrote:
>Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote in message news:<amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>> Your hand-waving about "He was a genius, he could have single-handedly
>> invented chemistry that we didn't figure out for thousands of years" is
>> just stupid. If Noah invented laminated wood, why didn't people continue
>> to use laminated wood after the flood?
>
>Because Noah could not pass down all of the pre-Flood techology.
But after the Flood, everyone alive on Earth (all eight of them) would
be a member of Noah's family who personally participated in the
building of the Ark. They would have used this technology themselves,
so there's no reason they couldn't pass it on at least for some
generations. The plumber's kid usually has a fair idea of how a faucet
works.
howard hershey
----------
In article <G9sS7.4014$mF.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Dana
Tweedy" <redd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> John McCoy <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com...
It is also at least indirectly about whether a project is "possible", since
"impossible" projects are well-known to be money sinks and not worth doing.
A wooden bronze age Ark of the stated dimensions would fail a feasibility
study precisely because it is not possible to make one which would be
seaworthy (in addition to many other problems) without invoking magical
materials or magical devices or magical properties attributed to known
devices.
> A city may want to build a new
> high school for example. The feasibility study determines if A: the city
> can afford such a building , B: If it might be better to fix the old
> building, or C: If a new building will handle the number of students
> projected. Anyone knows it's "possible" to build a school, feasibilty is
> about if the city should build it.
Except, in this case it is more like a city wanting to build a large pyramid
(say, the size of the largest in Egypt) out of limestone on the top of a
mountain, but with a point of the pyramid facing down and the base facing up
(i.e., it would be balanced on one point). One can certainly imagine what
such a building would look like. Actually building it (at least until we
have anti-gravity devices to stabilize it) would be exceedingly difficult no
matter how much money you had. It is hard to conceive of any feasibility
study which such a building would pass because such a building could not be
built.
pz
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
About as much as I do, I suppose...
Besides, I don't think I've ever taught my kids about epiboly or growth
cone cytomechanics or transcription factors, but I think I know a little
bit about those things. I don't expect them to have spontaneously
absorbed the knowledge.
Wouldn't you suspect that Noah's kids had to get busy replenishing the
earth and so wouldn't have time or interest in his recipes for
super-duper plywood? I can imagine how the kids would have reacted to
his request to sit down and talk about water-resistant glues when they
really want to get down to making babies with their cousins.
I hear ol' Noah was on the sauce a lot, anyway.
--
pz
David Jensen
aa...@oro.net (eyelessgame) wrote in
<e707421e.0112...@posting.google.com>:
>Actually, it makes some amount of sense to me; I think he's saying his
>boat is shaped like a donut. There's hull on the inside of the pool,
>in other words. I'm not sure what this buys you, other than
>significantly reduced superstructure strength, but one could make a
>ring-shaped boat float, so long as it had an inner hull as high as the
>outer hull (at least above the water line).
>
>I'd hesitate to call that a 'moon pool', though. Just a ring-shaped
>boat.
So Noah really went tubing.
Adam Marczyk
news:43618c0e.01121...@posting.google.com...
It's magical laminated wood. It has whatever properties John wants it to
have to solve all the otherwise intractable problems with the ark story. And
of course, John's excused from having to present any evidence for its actual
existence or explain how Noah made it.
If a laminate of the requisite strength actually existed, I think there
wouldn't even be a need to make the ark out of wood. Just make a full-scale
model of the ark out of paper-mache or something, paint it with this magical
laminate, and when the stuff has hardened, take the paper-mache away. Fully
seaworthy ship, right there.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843
Adam Marczyk
news:e707421e.0112...@posting.google.com...
Hmm.. Okay, I get it now. He was talking about an enclosed shaft penetrating
through the boat. That wouldn't necessarily flood the ark, but I can't
possibly see how it gives him any advantage when it comes to stability. For
a moon pool to improve the stability of the ship, ISTM that its size would
have to be significant compared to the area of the keel, and then you'd have
even more severe structural integrity problems to contend with, not to
mention many more problems with leaking.
Steve
McCoy <jm...@hotmail.com> says...
> Good. Now you're addressing feasibility. A moon pool is just used to
> allow ship into the middle part of the ship. This would allow the hull
> to sink into the water and not straddle (ride the top of the waves).
> And it would release stress on the hull.
The thing is nameless, it would sink to the bottom of the sea.
Bob Pease
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:9vdlcr$60o$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
ya pays ya money. ya takes yer choice!!!
RJP
Jon Fleming
<ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote:
And less room for cargo.
newbie
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:76998029.01121...@posting.google.com...
> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote in message
news:<amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
> > In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
> > jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
> >
> > > My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> > > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> > > were made of laminated wood.
> >
> > You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly twice
> > the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
> > available to Noah given the technology of the time.
>
> I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength.
*Many* times more.
>I doubt it is actually
> much strong if at all. It is stronger in two dimensions, but it is not
> as strong in either. Laminated wood has different properties, that is
> all.
You really should read up on things before making unequivocal statements.
http://www.nbm.org/blueprints/90s/spring91/page3/page3.htm
"There are two major problems with wood engineering," says Bob Halford, owner
of Structural Wood Products in Portland, Oregon. "One is connections and the
second. is connections." For most of the past thirty years, he has dealt in
some way with glu-lams, from manufacture to design.
There is your answer to what is easier to put together, wood or steel.
Check out the size of the beam in the picture, and tell me again about the X16
limitation.
newbie
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:76998029.01121...@posting.google.com...
news:<amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
> > In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
> > jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
> >
> > > My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> > > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> > > were made of laminated wood.
> >
> > You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly twice
> > the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
> > available to Noah given the technology of the time.
>
> I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength.
From several to many times the strength.
>I doubt it is actually
> much strong if at all. It is stronger in two dimensions, but it is not
> as strong in either. Laminated wood has different properties, that is
> all.
You may want to consider this upper range of laminate wood you made a statement
about in another thread, the "X16" thing.
Take a look at the picture on this page:
http://www.nbm.org/blueprints/90s/spring91/page3/page3.htm
From the site, you may get a different perspective of what is "easier" to put
together, wood or steel.
"There are two major problems with wood engineering," says Bob Halford, owner
Bobby D. Bryant
> The Ark could be feasible if it
> were made of laminated wood.
You have a funny notion of 'feasible'. There's more to being 'feasible'
than your ludicrous claim that a Chalcolithic era patriarch was aware of
modern material design.
If by "laminated wood" you mean something even so simple as plywood,
your patriarch not only needs the modern glues (as mentioned by others),
but also the machinery for cutting wood in to large, thin, perfectly
flat sheets. And the machinery for building *that* machinery. And the
machinery for building **that** machinery, recursively back to the
copper ax and adz that Noah might actually have had access to. And the
chemical industy to develop and produce the glues in large quantities.
And the social/economic system to produce the skilled workers to keep
the whole industrial system running (and to motivate them to actually
participate in it). [I would guess that this would require a cash-based
economy, though we know that coinage wasn't invented until around the
7th Century BCE.]
Do you really think Noah could just drive his caravan up to the
neighborhood carpenter's shed and say "Load 'em up with 80,000 square
cubits of grade A, waterproof, .04 cubit plywood. <afterthought>Put it
on my tab, heh heh heh.</afterthought>" ?
Your nonsensical claim provokes a generalization of some metacomments
that I've made in the past, namely that creationists (at least most of
the ones who post in t.o.) operate without any kind of model of the
world. Reality, for them, is just a flat checklist of facts, with no
interrelations between them whatsoever. McCoy thinks you can selectively
port specific elements of modern industry back 4300 years into the past
without having to take a substantial portion of the supporting
infrastructure with it. (My earlier observations were that a creationist
might claim X in one argument today and Y in another argument tomorrow,
even though claims X and Y are in direct conflict with each other,
because there is alwas an extremely narrow focus on winning the current
argument, with no broader notion of the implications of the specific
claims trotted out for that win. This, like McCoy's vision of
Chalcolithic society, is what makes me say that [many] creationists use
a flat truth-checklist rather than any actual model of the world.)
For the skeptical, imagine that you and all your friends were stranded
on an island with nothing but the kind of tools the Iceman had: a copper
ax and adz, a wooden mallet and a dolomite hammer stone, a wooden scoop
shovel, a potters' wheel, some wicker baskets, and the like. How many
millenia would it take you to bootstrap a civilization that could build
plywood of a quality that you would trust your life to in a huge
ocean-going vessel?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Gyudon Z
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:76998029.01121...@posting.google.com...
>> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote in message
>news:<amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>> > In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
>> > jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>> >
>> > > My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
>> > > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
>> > > were made of laminated wood.
>> >
>> > You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly twice
>> > the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
>> > available to Noah given the technology of the time.
>>
>> I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength.
>From several to many times the strength.
According to what?
Anyway, in order to have the same resistance to shearing forces as wood, it
would need at least thirty-two times the strength, in all directions. Against
really good steel, it would need about 100 times the strength.
Got anything to indicate that?
>>I doubt it is actually
>> much strong if at all. It is stronger in two dimensions, but it is not
>> as strong in either. Laminated wood has different properties, that is
>> all.
>You may want to consider this upper range of laminate wood you made a
>statement
>about in another thread, the "X16" thing.
>Take a look at the picture on this page:
>http://www.nbm.org/blueprints/90s/spring91/page3/page3.htm
>
>From the site, you may get a different perspective of what is "easier" to put
>together, wood or steel.
>
>"There are two major problems with wood engineering," says Bob Halford,
>owner
>of Structural Wood Products in Portland, Oregon. "One is connections and the
>second. is connections." For most of the past thirty years, he has dealt in
>some way with glu-lams, from manufacture to design.
Where in that site does it say that wood in any configuration is stronger than
steel?
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
John McCoy
Duh, I thought I just said that.
John McCoy
David C. Fritzinger
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Dana Tweedy wrote in message ...
> >
> >John McCoy <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com...
> >> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
> >
> >It must be strange living by yourself in that little world of yours. Do
> you
> >ever have visitors?
>
> Yes, he does. Little yellow invisable guys wearing tutu's, that wisper
> strange things in his ears after a beer or two...
I don't think that Nameless needs the beers. He's gone batty without
any help from substance abuse.
(Fade to the theme from The Twilight Zone)
Dave Fritzinger
>
> Boikat
David C. Fritzinger
<bobp...@concentric.net> wrote:
But remember, according to nameless, plants and animals were much
stronger before the Floode. So, there were many plants around with the
properties of scrith .
Dave Fritzinger
>
> RJP
Michael Painter
> flood. But if laminated wood hadn't been used, I would assume that it
> was not necessary. Consider also, that there are ships that are held
> together with no glue at all. At any rate, your argument concerns
> actuality and not feasibility. I believe in terms of arguing
> feasibility, I have the upper hand. In terms of actuality, I really
> haven't made a strong case on this. Yet.
>
Feasibility studies usually deal with reality. The given volume of the
alleged ship would not allow enough food for the animals, much less room for
them.
Your moon pool and rocks simply add to the volume problem.
It is a feasible to assume that it was a general dynamics #9 hull and the
pitch was put there so the animals might not be frightened by the wave
action.
Better yet would be to just say Godidit and be done with it.
newbie
Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011214211428...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> From newbie:
>
> >Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:76998029.01121...@posting.google.com...
> >> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote in message
> >news:<amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
> >> > In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
> >> > jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> >> > > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> >> > > were made of laminated wood.
> >> >
> >> > You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly twice
> >> > the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
> >> > available to Noah given the technology of the time.
> >>
> >> I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength.
>
> >From several to many times the strength.
>
> According to what?
According to anyone who has the faintest idea about laminated wood, or has the
ability to do a 3 second search.
>
> Anyway, in order to have the same resistance to shearing forces as wood, it
> would need at least thirty-two times the strength, in all directions. Against
> really good steel, it would need about 100 times the strength.
>
You must be losing brain cells fast. "really good steel" is not what is
mentioned above, and not what Matt responded to.
In case you are having trouble finding it, look for the words "laminated wood
has only roughtly twice the strength as normal wood"
You may want to step back to the basics before you start talking authoritatively
about shearing forces.
Gyudon Z
>Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20011214211428...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>> From newbie:
>>
>> >Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >news:76998029.01121...@posting.google.com...
>> >> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote in message
>> >news:<amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>> >> > In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
>> >> > jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus
>the
>> >> > > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
>> >> > > were made of laminated wood.
>> >> >
>> >> > You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly
>twice
>> >> > the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
>> >> > available to Noah given the technology of the time.
>> >>
>> >> I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength.
>>
>> >From several to many times the strength.
>>
>> According to what?
>According to anyone who has the faintest idea about laminated wood, or has
>the
>ability to do a 3 second search.
I have searched for exactly three seconds, and I have found no sources.
What source did you find, and what numbers did it give for the strength of
laminated wood?
>> Anyway, in order to have the same resistance to shearing forces as wood, it
>> would need at least thirty-two times the strength, in all directions.
>Against
>> really good steel, it would need about 100 times the strength.
>You must be losing brain cells fast. "really good steel" is not what is
>mentioned above, and not what Matt responded to.
You must be blind or illiterate. Steel is what we have noted that ships the
size of the ark are generally built out of. If, as McCoy seems to argue,
laminated wood is as strong as or stronger than steel, then comparing its
strength to that of steel is certainly in order.
>In case you are having trouble finding it, look for the words "laminated wood
>has only roughtly twice the strength as normal wood"
Which, again, is one-sixteenth the strength of the steel that modern large
ships are generally built out of.
>>You may want to step back to the basics before you start talking
>authoritatively
>about shearing forces.
You might want to familiarize yourself with the context of our discussion
before you jump in like some reflexively hostile baboon with a flaming spear up
its ass.
R. Baldwin
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message
This really gets to the heart of the matter. If you posit a Creator who
frequently interferes with the operation of his Creation, then there is
simply no room for science because events are no longer predictable by
forming hypotheses based on observation and experiment. If the ark was
feasible because with God all things are possible, then science and
engineering might as well close shop. We can leave technology to the
mystics. This does not appear to be how our Universe actually operates,
however.
stew dean
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
The boat, maybe given advanced computer simulation of the stresses and
straigns on a wooden structure. The optimal solution would have been a
collection of smaller boats rather than one large one. So maybe god
isnt that smart.
Building a boat very big floating construciton is one thing - houseing
animals on the boat to surve 40 days? With that few hands?
The whole logistics of the ark break down if you put all the bits
together. And even if you did get two of every animal on the boat what
about the impoverished gene pool?
> Number one. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible
> because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
>
As a single boat - no. As a 'raft' yes.
> Number two. Talk originists have said that the crew members could not
> feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
>
2 is impossible - do you know how many species there are? If you do
you know more than the rest of mankind.
> Here are the arguments made and how they were refuted.
>
> 1. Talk originists have said that the Ark was not feasible because the
> Ark was made of wood and (A) that this is proved by past wooden ships
> that were not functional because of their tremendous size.
>
> My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> comparison was inadequate and false.
Why does lamination make a difference? What technology do you need to
make lamination possible?
> Again, some TOs switched their arguments from
> feasibility to dealing with actuality, thus losing the argument on
> this point.
You where talking about the ark werent you? Feasability and actuality
are one and the same. If we can't do it today with all our technology
and if the inventions that could make the boat possible where not
available then then the research about if it's possible now is moot.
> I've argued that David Fasold derived his
> idea of a moon pool from scans that he helped take on a boat shaped
> formation in Turkey, that I believe is Noah's Ark.
You do?
Stew Dean
stew dean
> > Do you even know what the word 'feasibility' means, McCoy? The way you use it, you
> > seem to think (or at least convey to *me*) that it means removed from reality in
> > some way (I'd say hypothetical - but that's too sophisticated for your ideas). It
> > doesn't. According to the Cambridge online dictionary ( ) it means:
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > feasible - adjective SLIGHTLY FORMAL - able to be made, done or achieved;
> > possible or reasonable.
>
> There you go. Note the word "possible"? Ever heard of it expressed
> "is it feasible"?
>
> it feasible for George Washington to cross the Delaware, versus, did
> George Washington actually cross the Delaware, then we're talking
> about two separate understandings.
>
> It just amazes me as to what extend T.O.s will try to weasel out of an
> argument.
>
> John McCoy
This is central John.
Feasable means it can it's possible - that is it can actually be done.
Taking even on point - lamination - was that possible at the time?
Would the crude lamination process have been enough to support the
hugh stresses?
And please stop trying to avoid the question and claim false
victories.
Stew Dean
Jon Fleming
Well, you thought wrong. You mentioned only possibility. Feasibility
means more.
<snip>
Jon Fleming
dean) wrote:
>jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote in message news:<5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>...
>> "Paul" <asfadgd@no-spam_xczxczc.com> wrote in message news:<oOdS7.33948$Xb7.2...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com>...
>> > Do you even know what the word 'feasibility' means, McCoy? The way you use it, you
>> > seem to think (or at least convey to *me*) that it means removed from reality in
>> > some way (I'd say hypothetical - but that's too sophisticated for your ideas). It
>> > doesn't. According to the Cambridge online dictionary ( ) it means:
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > feasible - adjective SLIGHTLY FORMAL - able to be made, done or achieved;
>> > possible or reasonable.
>>
>> There you go. Note the word "possible"? Ever heard of it expressed
>> "is it feasible"?
>>
>> What you're bringing up is a moot point. If we're talking about was
>> it feasible for George Washington to cross the Delaware, versus, did
>> George Washington actually cross the Delaware, then we're talking
>> about two separate understandings.
>>
>> It just amazes me as to what extend T.O.s will try to weasel out of an
>> argument.
>>
>> John McCoy
>
>This is central John.
>
>Feasable means it can it's possible - that is it can actually be done.
IMHO it means more; something that is feasible is possible _and_
practical
Bob Pease
Michael Painter <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:LqBS7.164142$WW.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
In McCoy Land, there seems to be some criterion for rejecting an hypothesis
as absurd.
Although I cannot figure where this is, somehow Direct Miracles , Demon
assistance, Alien intervention seem not to be allowable, but practically
anything else goes.
For him it is politically correct to assume the existence of materials of
amazing physical properties which are, for some peculiar reason, no longer
available.
McCoy has been plonked, so I can't answer any response from him directly.
RJ Pease
newbie
Existing knowledge. From several to many times the strength.
>
> >> Anyway, in order to have the same resistance to shearing forces as wood, it
> >> would need at least thirty-two times the strength, in all directions.
> >Against
> >> really good steel, it would need about 100 times the strength.
>
> >You must be losing brain cells fast. "really good steel" is not what is
> >mentioned above, and not what Matt responded to.
>
> You must be blind or illiterate. Steel is what we have noted that ships the
> size of the ark are generally built out of. If, as McCoy seems to argue,
> laminated wood is as strong as or stronger than steel, then comparing its
> strength to that of steel is certainly in order.
Seems that is one tactic evolutionists use. What you write here is more properly
termed "bullshit".
Matt was not responding to a claim about wood vs steel. Matt was not, Gyudon.
Matt was talking about wood strength, Gyudon. He said he doubted that laminated
wood is twice as strong as "normal" wood.
>
> >In case you are having trouble finding it, look for the words "laminated wood
> >has only roughtly twice the strength as normal wood"
>
> Which, again, is one-sixteenth the strength of the steel that modern large
> ships are generally built out of.
And its half past the monkeys ass.
>
> >>You may want to step back to the basics before you start talking
> >authoritatively
> >about shearing forces.
>
> You might want to familiarize yourself with the context of our discussion
> before you jump in like some reflexively hostile baboon with a flaming spear
up
> its ass.
>
What does steel have to do with the Ark, Gyudon? And what does steel have to do
with Matts response to a claim about laminated wood strength???
Remind you of baboon behavior?
David Jensen
"newbie" <she...@uswest.net> wrote in
<mWLS7.234$fb1.1...@news.uswest.net>:
>Existing knowledge. From several to many times the strength.
A citation from a materials handbook would be useful here.
The Ghost In The Machine
<jm...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 13 Dec 2001 11:24:27 -0500
<5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>:
> I would have to say "yes" on this one.
>
> There are many angles of attack that one could focus on in the Noah's
> Ark debate. I chose one. The question was, not whether the Ark was a
> reality, but whether if it *could* be a reality. And even in this
> question, the focus was on two specific items.
>
> because it was made of wood. I took this question to task.
>
> feed all the animals. I also too this question to task.
Number three. Where did all the water come from? And why was
it water, instead of high-pressure steam? (Computations of
the energy of orbiting ice blocks available on request.)
Number four. Where did all the water go?
Number five, which could be a subpoint of number two. How did
the crew members muck out the boat? And a subpoint: was the boat
adequately ventilated for the task? A human breathes ~ 4,000 liters
of air a day (although a substantial fraction isn't absorbed, enough
carbon is "burned" to generate anywhere from 1,900 to 2,600 calories,
depending on a lot of factors; presumably someone's done the
computations for other animals).
Number six. Why didn't God just play "zap the evil"? Why go
to all of the trouble to have Noah build a boat to save a small
selected group of animals from extinction from a worldwide disaster.
Stay tuned on, "As The Gopher Wood Turns". :-)
[validation of points #1 and #2 snipped]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 7d:06h:13m actually running Linux.
The Usenet channel. All messages, all the time.
Gyudon Z
Do you have any sources you would care to cite, so I know you didn't just pull
that out of your...mind.
>> >> Anyway, in order to have the same resistance to shearing forces as wood,
>it
>> >> would need at least thirty-two times the strength, in all directions.
>> >Against
>> >> really good steel, it would need about 100 times the strength.
>>
>> >You must be losing brain cells fast. "really good steel" is not what is
>> >mentioned above, and not what Matt responded to.
>> You must be blind or illiterate. Steel is what we have noted that ships the
>> size of the ark are generally built out of. If, as McCoy seems to argue,
>> laminated wood is as strong as or stronger than steel, then comparing its
>> strength to that of steel is certainly in order.
>Seems that is one tactic evolutionists use. What you write here is more
>properly
>termed "bullshit".
>Matt was not responding to a claim about wood vs steel. Matt was not, Gyudon.
>Matt was talking about wood strength, Gyudon. He said he doubted that
>laminated
>wood is twice as strong as "normal" wood.
I say again that the context of the discussion was that McCoy seemed to think
that laminated wood could be as strong as steel.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vppa1ucc9hg7bhi88pjh3t5hpi4509479k%40
4ax.com
The topic of laminated wood and its strength has come up in a number of threads
lately.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=John%20McCoy%20laminated%20wood&as_ug
roup=talk.origins
At least four or five distinct threads, actually.
You may prefer to dance around context and pretend it isn't there, but the core
of those discussions on laminated wood, on which McCoy spoke on the first post
in this thread, was that the wood could perform as well as steel if it were
laminated.
>> >In case you are having trouble finding it, look for the words "laminated
>wood
>> >has only roughtly twice the strength as normal wood"
>> Which, again, is one-sixteenth the strength of the steel that modern large
>> ships are generally built out of.
>And its half past the monkeys ass.
I see you are unable to refute the proposition that laminated wood is still not
strong enough.
>> >>You may want to step back to the basics before you start talking
>> >authoritatively
>> >about shearing forces.
>> You might want to familiarize yourself with the context of our discussion
>> before you jump in like some reflexively hostile baboon with a flaming
>spear
>up
>> its ass.
>What does steel have to do with the Ark, Gyudon?
As the context of this discussion makes clear, steel is what the Ark would have
to have been made out of in order to survive its voyage.
>And what does steel have to
>do
>with Matts response to a claim about laminated wood strength???
Matt disagrees that laminated wood is as strong as steel.
>Remind you of baboon behavior?
I suppose baboons ignore the context of discussions too.
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>
>Michael Painter <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:LqBS7.164142$WW.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "John McCoy" <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >
>> >
>> > Simply put, we assume that laminated wood hasn't been used after the
>> > flood. But if laminated wood hadn't been used, I would assume that it
>> > was not necessary. Consider also, that there are ships that are held
>> > together with no glue at all. At any rate, your argument concerns
>> > actuality and not feasibility. I believe in terms of arguing
>> > feasibility, I have the upper hand. In terms of actuality, I really
>> > haven't made a strong case on this. Yet.
>> >
>>
>> Feasibility studies usually deal with reality. The given volume of the
>> alleged ship would not allow enough food for the animals, much less room
>for
>> them.
>> Your moon pool and rocks simply add to the volume problem.
>>
>> It is a feasible to assume that it was a general dynamics #9 hull and the
>> pitch was put there so the animals might not be frightened by the wave
>> action.
>>
>> Better yet would be to just say Godidit and be done with it.
>
> In McCoy Land, there seems to be some criterion for rejecting an hypothesis
>as absurd.
>Although I cannot figure where this is, somehow Direct Miracles , Demon
>assistance, Alien intervention seem not to be allowable, but practically
>anything else goes.
No, direct miracles are sometimes allowed, although he doesn't call
them miracles ... apparently he thinks that the Lord "showing up" is
not a miracle. From
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3674600532d&hl=en&rnum=10&selm=5f498a0a.0112022024.4376cad7%40posting.google.com>:
"> >Y'all forgets that calculations already fit the animals on the
Ark.
> >Now, as to how the animals get there, it says the Lord brought them
> >there. Y'all ignorant.
>
> Ah at last we have an explicit acknowledgement that a miracle is
> required.
It's nice to know that you've recognized that. But I hardly call the
Lord showing up as a miracle."
<snip>
newbie
David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ds4n1u49oafqphfa9...@4ax.com...
why do you think they make laminated wood?
Cause its pretty?
On another note, if you are interested in wood strength, you might look up balsa
wood.
David Jensen
"newbie" <she...@uswest.net> wrote in
<7TOS7.342$fb1.2...@news.uswest.net>:
>
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>news:ds4n1u49oafqphfa9...@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Dec 2001 12:40:40 -0500, in talk.origins
>> "newbie" <she...@uswest.net> wrote in
>> <mWLS7.234$fb1.1...@news.uswest.net>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Existing knowledge. From several to many times the strength.
>>
>> A citation from a materials handbook would be useful here.
>>
>David, if you don't think laminated wood is much stronger than "regular" wood,
>why do you think they make laminated wood?
I know that laminates are stronger, but often they get used because they
are _cheaper_ than comparable solid wood panels or joists. You are
making specific claims of the relative strength of laminates but you
have made it clear that you don't have any idea how much stronger these
laminates are.
>Cause its pretty?
Cause it's cheap.
>On another note, if you are interested in wood strength, you might look up balsa
>wood.
I suppose that your allergy to data forbids you from providing the
information that you think you are providing. Are you trying to tell me
how weak it is or how strong it is? Depending on what you are trying to
measure, balsa wood can be either.
newbie
http://www.gp.com/englumber/gplam.html
"High strength-to-weight ratio; more than 50 stronger than solid sawn products"
Bobby D. Bryant
> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
> news:ds4n1u49oafqphfa9...@4ax.com...
>> A citation from a materials handbook would be useful here.
>>
> David, if you don't think laminated wood is much stronger than
> "regular" wood, why do you think they make laminated wood? Cause its
> pretty?
The question isn't whether laminated wood is stronger than ordinary wood
in certain applications; the question is whether laminated wood is
suitable for building a transport the size of a Liberty ship.
In that regard I might mention that I've never heard of anyone trying it
during WWII when people were experimenting with other shipbuilding
materials, e.g. concrete. Is it just possible that laminated wood isn't
suitable for the job?
> On another note, if you are interested in wood strength, you might
> look up balsa wood.
Nice way to change subject. Did you have that reference to a materials
handbook that would let us compare your choice material to the materials
that people really do build large ships out of?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
newbie
McCoy: "You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly twice
the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
available to Noah given the technology of the time."
Matt in response: "I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength."
Put that in your context and smoke it.
Gyudon Z
<snip>
>McCoy: "You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly
>twice
>the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
>available to Noah given the technology of the time."
Doesn't sound like something McCoy would say...sounds more like Andrew Glasgow
to me.
How sloppy of you...
>Matt in response: "I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength."
>
>Put that in your context and smoke it.
I refer you to the other four or so threads where the discussion of laminated
wood came up. Those are the context of the discussion, especially since McCoy
was summing them up when he started this thread.
gen2rev
[Noah's Ark stuff snipped]
> What is wrong with me, in case anyone cares. on Nov 14 I woke up with
> pains around where my appendix would be, if I still had one. I went in
> to see the doctor at 9:00 am. I belong to a medical coop, has doctors
> offices close to the hospital, so I was on one campus for all procedures
> She examined me, sent me off to get
> a blood test, then had me have a Cat scan. For that I had to drink
> 3 pints of white colored, awful tasting liguid. In the cat scan the
> techs were very efficient. But after the scan was done I suspected
> that something was seriously wrong when the techs suddenly became
> extremely solicitious. Putting my shoes on and tying them for me,
> helping me up and so on.
> Back to the dr's office where I was informed that I had an aneurism
> on a vein in my abdomen, and that it could go at anytime, killing
> me instantly. I went out to the lobby and called my wife, letting
> her know what was wrong. She immediately started up to be with me.
> I started back to the dr's office when I needed to throw up, I
> ended up throwing up blood, so I was rushed to the emergency room
> and then into the operating room. The Doctor replaced the vein with
> a synthetic one, from just under the diaphragm down into my legs.
> Consequently I was opened up like a fish being gutted. I spent 2
> weeks in the hospital, and have been home for 2 weeks, slowly getting
> my strength back.
> In all the panic over this a news hit a nerve while trying to give
> me an I.V. My right hand and arm are partially numb, sometimes very
> painful, and sometimes feeling like my arm went to sleep.
> Another side note, when I got home from the hospital I discovered
> my car had been stolen. :-(. It has been recovered and is currently
> sitting in the body shop. Over $2400 worth of damage. Luckily I have
> insurance, the 500 deductable is better than what it could be, but
> still, I do not really need that now.
> I will also get a handicapped parking tag when I get my car back.
> It will be good for a couple of months.
Conpared to what's happened to you, my words won't seem like much, but
for what it's worth, I hope you recover as soon as possible, and that
there's no other surprises in store for you.
newbie
> From newbie:
>
> <snip>
>
> >McCoy: "You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly
> >twice
> >the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
> >available to Noah given the technology of the time."
>
> Doesn't sound like something McCoy would say...sounds more like Andrew Glasgow
> to me.
>
> How sloppy of you...
Yes.. Oink Oink. (no offense)
>
> >Matt in response: "I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength."
> >
> >Put that in your context and smoke it.
>
> I refer you to the other four or so threads where the discussion of laminated
> wood came up. Those are the context of the discussion, especially since McCoy
> was summing them up when he started this thread.
>
Oink Oink? Oink context Oink wood Oink discussion Oink context context Oink
Oink(snip Oink)?
C. Thompson
>
> Right again!(your sig file)
>
> McCoy: "You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly twice
> the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
> available to Noah given the technology of the time."
> Matt in response: "I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength."
>
> Put that in your context and smoke it.
You know, newbie, I did a Google search on the quote you wrongly
attribute to McCoy (it is diametrically opposed to his position).
_Your_ post turned up just fine- but no others did. Are you putting
things in quotes and attributing them to people who never said these
things? I think that's called libel in some places, especially if what
you attribute to them is nothing like what they believe.
Anyway, do you even >>think<< about what you write? Or are those
fingers completely disassociated from your CNS?
Chris
--
Remove the obvious spam-gagger when replying please.
Bobby D. Bryant
> newbie wrote:
>>
>> McCoy: "You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only
>> roughly twice the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof
>> laminates were available to Noah given the technology of the time."
>> Matt in response: "I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength."
>>
>> Put that in your context and smoke it.
>
> You know, newbie, I did a Google search on the quote you wrongly
> attribute to McCoy (it is diametrically opposed to his position).
> _Your_ post turned up just fine- but no others did. Are you putting
> things in quotes and attributing them to people who never said these
> things? I think that's called libel in some places, especially if
> what you attribute to them is nothing like what they believe.
I still have the whole thread. The statement attributed to McCoy was
actually a statement by Andrew Glasgow, arguing *against* McCoy's
claims.
My newsreader says Andrew's post was
<amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
newbie
C. Thompson <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C1CCF...@hotmail.com...
> newbie wrote:
> >
> > Right again!(your sig file)
> >
> > McCoy: "You never addressed the fact that laminated wood has only roughly
twice
> > the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
> > available to Noah given the technology of the time."
> > Matt in response: "I doubt laminated wood is twice the strength."
> >
> > Put that in your context and smoke it.
>
> You know, newbie, I did a Google search on the quote you wrongly
> attribute to McCoy (it is diametrically opposed to his position).
> _Your_ post turned up just fine- but no others did. Are you putting
> things in quotes and attributing them to people who never said these
> things? I think that's called libel in some places, especially if what
> you attribute to them is nothing like what they believe.
And in some places it's called a mistake. If you looked at what I wrote, you
would realize that I am questioning Matt, and that who said that laminate wood
has twice the strength is irrelevant to my point. Then you would realize that
your skirt is showing.
>
> Anyway, do you even >>think<< about what you write? Or are those
> fingers completely disassociated from your CNS?
>
You sound like a jerk.
David Sienkiewicz
Sheldon's inability to read for comprehenion and keep things in the
propery context should be nearly legendary by now.
Paul Yost
> In article <5f498a0a.01121...@posting.google.com>,
> jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>
> > My answer to (A) was that these ships were not laminated and thus the
> > comparison was inadequate and false. The Ark could be feasible if it
> > were made of laminated wood.
>
> the strength as normal wood, and that no water-proof laminates were
> available to Noah given the technology of the time.
> invented chemistry that we didn't figure out for thousands of years" is
> just stupid. If Noah invented laminated wood, why didn't people continue
> to use laminated wood after the flood?
We know that laminated wood is useful. But it also takes a lot of
work to make. You've got your plant extracts to prepare, big metal
planes to create the laminations, and so on. Before the flood Noah
lived centuries. He had plenty of time to experiment and prepare.
After the flood his laminating equipment was buried, rusted,
destroyed, unsalvageable. Remember, he probably landed thousands of
miles from his ship building yard. His equipment was underneath tons
of rubble.
Anyway, Noah's first business after disembarking was to plant a
vineyard, grow grapes, produce wine, and get shit-faced. While stone
drunk out of his gourd he was buggered by one of his sons. Noah had
other fish to fry, besides restoring preflood technology. Noah and
sons were busy preserving the animals for posterity. They had all
they could do just to erect simple shelters. Lamination, ship
building, cryogenics, gene splicing, recombinant DNA, and so on all
were technologies lost after the flood.
> > (At this juncture some Talk Originists
> > lost the debate in switching arguments away from from the question of
> > feasibility, to the question of actuality ("well then, prove that the
> > Ark was laminated").
> Well, note that laminated wood is not mentioned in the Bible, so you are
> adding your own extraneous, non-biblical, ideas into the mix.
The Bible doesn't mention waste disposal on the ark. It skips over
what Noah ate for breakfast each day. It omits a great many of the
tawdry, trifling, mundane details which you find of such keen
interest. For example, what did Noah's wife wear the first time they
made love? Where did they first meet? Who sang at Noah's bar
mitzvah? The Bible omits such trivial information, and rightly so.
Imagine how much papyrus costs. It would have cost countless scribes
far too much to record such details. That is the major reason the 15
billion year history of the universe was collapsed into a mere few
thousand years. Cost of papyrus.
C. Thompson
Ahh, but I cannot hope to compete with the consistency and eloquence you
exhibit in making an ass of yourself _whenever_ you post.
Please don't project your late-night sartorial habits onto others.