Duvenoy

Very interesting indeed.

Having spent a fair number of years on WW II era warships, I have a little experience with water tight compartments and how they‘re laid out. A large number of those compartments are voids. That is, they’re sealed and used for nothing but hull integrity.

Aside from helping a crippled ship stay afloat, they also add structural integrity. I can see where a wooden ship of the described size could be successfully taken to sea. Until the Cultural Revolution, where they screwed the kitty big-time, no one has ever slighted the Chinese on engineering.

But, this was an honest ship, using wind power and having steerage. The described “ark” was a floating (maybe) mess.

Ed has describes the barge design as more sea worthy than a ship. That’s nonsense. A 450 footer without the integrity of the Chinese ship wouldn’t have a chance in any sort of a sea. Without steerage, it wouldn’t stand a chance, even if it had that integrity. Barges are anything but more seaworthy than a ship. When was the last time you’ve heard of a barge hauling cargo across the Atlantic? Why, never! It just ain’t done and for excellent reason. Barges are strictly coastal and river, freight haulers. They are not designed for heavy weather.

The ark, without steerage, would have quickly broached, that is, turned sideways to the seas. The pound and twist stress on it’s hull would have been magnified tremendously. The ark would have soon broken up, and I‘ve gone through all this before.

So, ok, what if Noah, clever fellow, cast out a sea anchor, a drouge? This is a sort of a parachute lash-up that is rigged off the bow and holds the ship’s bow into the sea. It’s not steerage, but it works.

That might give the ark a little longer, but with a barge’s square bow, the pounding would be vicious. A modern barge MIGHT take it, but a wooden one 450 feet long? Built with the materials Noah was supposed to have had at hand? No way. Not a chance.

Sorry Ed, but we’ve got to do better than this.

doov

Camaban

Yes.

the HMS Victory (Nelsons Flagship for those that have little to no interest in this sort of thing) Was a 110 gun barge, dontchaknow?

Well, there was one that could be opened to the sea (and hold seawater) for fresh fish.

But, still...

MrDarwin

I keep asking creationists (and they keep avoiding the question) why one of them hasn't built another ark based on biblical specifications, sealed up a whole bunch of animals in it for a year or so, with just a handful of people to take care of them all. Not only would it prove that it's feasible, but it would also shut up all those "evolutionist" critics! So far, no takers...

Camaban

MrDarwin:

Read this thread:

<a href="http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2265" target="_blank">http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2265</a>

Duvenoy

"I keep asking creationists (and they keep avoiding the question) why one of them hasn't built another ark based on biblical specifications, sealed up a whole bunch of animals in it for a year or so, with just a handful of people to take care of them all. Not only would it prove that it's feasible, but it would also shut up all those "evolutionist" critics! So far, no takers... "

Well Mr D., here's how it is. Not even the villiage idiot is stupid enough to try it. Even the most rabid bible literalist knows perfectly well that such a stunt would be doomed to failure within a very short time, even if all of the selected species were the size of rabbits and domesticated (to keep those eighty fingers intact, don'tcha know).

I too, would love to see someone go for it, though.

doov

Camaban

yeah.

I mean, you get other scientists doing such things as building rafts and recreating migration patterns on them to see if they can do it. (less money, but more risk to life and limb)

Heck, that's even a relatively common thing.

and it's hardly as if the Catholic, etc church is poor and underfunded.

Ed

He very well could have. However, according to the scriptures nature reveals his existence and if evolution occurs by natural selection then that would lessen the amount of evidence for his existence in nature.

Ed

But the age of the earth is not a very important concept and neither is the date of the flood. This can be determined by the scriptures never going into any detail about the subject.

Quote:

(the Universe mostly running on natural law...) Ed: It is implied. (only a small number of miracles...) lp: Ed dismisses some traditionally favorite parts of the Bible; these miracles are considered very worth presenting.

Yes, but in the possible 15 billion years covered by the scriptures the number of miracles recorded is actually relatively small.

Quote:

Ed: ... In science the thing that is most unexpected is often the correct answer to a problem. lp: Like evolution by natural selection? And how is this unexpected-is-best tendency supposed to be a general rule?

I am not saying it is a general rule, only that it often happens that way.

Quote:

Ed: Actually, the fact that other societies have moral codes is evidence for the existence of a moral God. For how can morality come from amorality? And there is no rational basis for morality if there is no God. lp: Which means that the Bible is wrong about being an exclusive revelation.

No, it confirms the bible's teaching that we are all created in the image of a moral creator. Our consciences are part of God's revelation that helps to understand his word.

Quote:

lp: Also, "moral" behavior can be a result of evolution. Bees in a hive do not sting each other indiscriminately, wolves in a pack do not try to have each other for dinner, etc. There is adaptive value for "moral" behavior, because it enables successful cooperation.

No, moral behavior includes an ability NOT to act in a moral manner. Animals dont have that choice.

Quote:

LP: Also, Pharaonic Egyptian religion had female as well as male priests, which is more than could be said of nearly all of Christianity until recent decades. Ed: But most of the female priests were used as prostitutes. lp: Evidence: {} Also, what's so bad about being a prostitute?

Being treated as an object, ie physical and mental abuse.

Quote:

Ed: No, a gene is analogous to a sentence, so if you say "The dog chases a squirrel. The dog chases a cat." You are implying that it is the same dog so they cancel each other out and no information is communicated. Gene duplication would just be the same sentence repeated, thereby showing that gene duplication does not increase information. lp: Ed shows absolute ignorance of molecular biology; I wonder why his biology teachers never seem to have told him about how genes work. A gene does not really correspond to a sentence. Instead, it's more like some instructions for making a protein; sets of three nucleotides specify each amino acid. Gene duplication increase information, because the new gene can specify a protein with a different sequence. (there are also some RNA genes, but the principle is the same)

Instructions are written in sentences, right? How can gene duplication produce a different sequence? If the sequence is different then it is not a duplicate.

Quote:

(genes - language analogy) lp: Nice analogy, but it's only an analogy, and it does not prove that it was "designed" by anything. One can find other such hierarchies of structure in various other systems. Ed: Not where the information is unrelated to the mode of transmission, only language and the genetic code have that characteristic, so it is identical to language. lp: I still don't see the connection. Being languagelike need not indicate design; I note that much of human-language use might best be described as semiconscious, sort of like being well-coordinated. When you speak, you don't concentrate on how to move every single muscle in your mouth; your thoughts are more high-level, such as how to say some words or express some concepts.

Give an example of a language not produced by a mind. Also, DNA is more like a coded language, such a thing has only ever been produced by a mind.

Quote:

lp: But why are you advocating the occurrence of a planetwide flood? And accepting the existence of the Christian God does NOT make everything fall into place -- consider the numerous sects that Christianity is divided into. Ed: It makes the Flood a likely event to have occured. All Christian denominations that accept the primary authority of the scriptures agree on the basic essentials. lp: And what counts as "accepting the primary authority of the scriptures"? And what of the Christian sects that supposedly don't?

Trying to live by its teachings for one thing. They are on the road to heresy.

Quote:

Ed: Huh? I am not making a big issue out of the flood, you and the other atheists are. ... lp: But you've been talking about it for an awfully long time. Ed, stop whining and start accepting responsibility for your actions.

Check the number of times I initiated discussion about the flood and compare it to the number of times atheists initiated such discussions.

Quote:

lp: I'm somewhat familiar with the SETI concept, and "specified complexity" is not used anywhere. Instead, the SETI guys ask what an artificial radio signal might look like and what a non-artificial radio signal would look like. ... Ed: Exactly, see above about the arrowheads. lp: Sorry, still a non sequitur. Calling something "specified complexity" in some after-the-fact fashion does not prove very much.

What you call it is irrelevant, it is evidence for design.


This is the end of part I of my response.

lpetrich

Good Grief!

Try studying any kind of history while treating dates as irrelevant and see what you come up with. Hint: it won't be very pleasant.

So being virtuous does not count if one cannot help be virtuous?

But if being virtuous is so important, then one ought to be psychologically incapable of being wicked. That's the approach I take with my computer programs.

The duplicated gene has the same sequence as the original, but it or the original is now free to evolve in a different direction, since the other gene is still present to carry out its original function.

Imagine that you have one computer that you use for everyday use, but that you want to do open-source kernel and driver development on. If you had only one computer, you are stuck with an awkward dilemma, but if you have two, then you can have one of them be the everyday-use and development-environment computer and the other be the kernel-and-driver-test computer.

GunnerJ

THEY HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE, MAKE THEIR TIME!

HA HA HA HA!