Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gullwind · 08-27-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

3. Last I checked, nobody was advocating junking modern science on the basis of a religion focused on pyramids.

Remember Willowtree?

Sauron · 08-27-2007, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

3. Last I checked, nobody was advocating junking modern science on the basis of a religion focused on pyramids.

Remember Willowtree?

Well, yeah - but unless Merlin wants to be associated with the tinfoil-hat-wearing crowd.....:devil:

RED DAVE · 08-27-2007, 03:46 PM

The ones who did the Big Job in Egypt.

http://guardians.net/hawass/buildtomb.htm

RED DAVE

Joan of Bark · 08-27-2007, 06:49 PM

Remember too that an ark is not a boat-shaped object ... it's a box like the ark of the covenant. Would a box be stable in the ocean?

Sauron · 08-27-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Remember too that an ark is not a boat-shaped object ... it's a box like the ark of the covenant. Would a box be stable in the ocean?

Ask the box jellyfish:

Gullwind · 08-27-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Remember too that an ark is not a boat-shaped object ... it's a box like the ark of the covenant. Would a box be stable in the ocean?

For what it was supposed to do, the the arks dimensions would have been quite stable. Assuming it was loaded correctly, capsizing wouldn't have been a major problem.

The major sticking point is the structural strength of a wooden object that size. Wood simply isn't strong enough to withstand the stresses placed on a hull that big. The beams would splinter and break as it rolled, hogged, sagged and pitched.

Rhaedas · 08-27-2007, 07:19 PM

Plus, as someone pointed out in other threads, steel plates riveted together are much stronger and resist separation from twisting in a long structure more than wood planks would. Noah would have needed more than a lot of pitch to keep the water out, he'd have needed some large pumps.

Cege · 08-27-2007, 08:34 PM

Cedar and pine are mentioned as building materials for the contemporary small-scale version of the ark, but nothing about "pitch". Anyone know if pitch/tar is the sticking ingredient of the ark set to sail in a week or two?

Pappy Jack · 08-28-2007, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Perhaps Graham Hancock will make Wikipedia look more credible

Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

Simply put, one part of the equation is wrong. This is the equation:

4th Dynasty Egyptians + limited technology* + 20 years = pyramid

* copper chisels, stone hammers, ropes, sleds, muscle-power

Every part of the equation has been attacked by someone and we have no evidence that challenges the attribution to the 4th Dynasty or to the technology available. That means that the time alloted is most likely the crux of the issue. It took longer than 20 years. Egyptology, however, cannot give that up because it means that the "tombs and tombs only" theory goes out the window.

I'd just like to see some experimentation. That's what science is supposed to be all about. But don't cheat and call in the heavy cranes to help out.

Thirty years ago renowned physicist and self-taught Egyptologist Kurt Mendelssohn wrote The Riddle of the Pyramids (or via: amazon.co.uk) (ISBN 0 351 17349 8; my paperback edition published by Sphere Books Ltd under the Cardinal imprint) in which he effectively demonstrated how the century (or thereabouts) of pyramid building by the 3rd and 4th Dynasties could have been comfortably accomplished by a seasonal workforce of 70,000 men working full-time for three months of each year. To fully appreciate Mendelssohn's arguments about the political, economic and social impetus behind the pyramid-building age, it is worth getting hold of the book if you can.

Pappy Jack · 08-28-2007, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Remember too that an ark is not a boat-shaped object ... it's a box like the ark of the covenant. Would a box be stable in the ocean?

For what it was supposed to do, the the arks dimensions would have been quite stable. Assuming it was loaded correctly, capsizing wouldn't have been a major problem.

The major sticking point is the structural strength of a wooden object that size. Wood simply isn't strong enough to withstand the stresses placed on a hull that big. The beams would splinter and break as it rolled, hogged, sagged and pitched.

For devastating critiques of the ark's seaworthiness, etc you can do no better than read gladiatrix's posts at the Flood debate comment thread at RichardDawkins.net. A good place to start is here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2007, 03:46 PM	#43
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	The ones who did the Big Job in Egypt. http://guardians.net/hawass/buildtomb.htm RED DAVE

08-27-2007, 06:49 PM	#44
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Remember too that an ark is not a boat-shaped object ... it's a box like the ark of the covenant. Would a box be stable in the ocean?

08-27-2007, 07:19 PM	#47
Rhaedas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,440	Plus, as someone pointed out in other threads, steel plates riveted together are much stronger and resist separation from twisting in a long structure more than wood planks would. Noah would have needed more than a lot of pitch to keep the water out, he'd have needed some large pumps.

08-27-2007, 08:34 PM	#48
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	Cedar and pine are mentioned as building materials for the contemporary small-scale version of the ark, but nothing about "pitch". Anyone know if pitch/tar is the sticking ingredient of the ark set to sail in a week or two?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.