Creationist group sues Kentucky over $18 million in tax rebates for Noah’s Ark theme park

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

A floating barge will capsize in a storm. You have to be able to direct it to crest waves. We are talking about a supposed storm that flooded the earth. Naturally there will be some pretty tall and nasty waves in such a storm. A barge wouldn't be able to fight such waves. Heck, most ships BUILT to handle storms wouldn't be able to handle a storm of that magnitude, let alone a rudderless barge. First wave that sideswipes it will capsize it.

Then you didn't read the experiments, the study used a 1/50 scale model in a wave tank system and it showed the ship would have survived intact from waves of at least 30 meters. And you couldn't capsize the ark, it had a closed roof. It was basically a floating wooden box.

Just set aside your presuppositions for 15 minutes and read the links. It's actually pretty fascinating.

No, the links are very amusing. They make a massive series of assumptions, rely on input from a mythical deity and ignore a lot of basic reality, including facts that we know about building wood vessels. And by the way, a) you can capsize anything given the right conditions and b) the roof is irrelevant because large wooden ships work, or twist, in large seas. Hell even in medium seas. The more it works then the more it leaks. A large floating wooden box is not something that is that seaworthy.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

When I repeatedly see a website make demonstrably false claims and promote ideas and concepts that have been proven wrong, it is indeed logical to dismiss them as a source. Circumstantial Ad hom does not apply here, plus there is no actual science on that website. Much like the other Christian apologist site that you linked me to that has 90% bible quotes, and no actual scientific studies or figures aside from "kinds" of animals numbers (arbitrarily decided by them). They don't account for food, nor gathering the animals from all over the world, nor the dozens of other major problems with the global flood concept, that I mentioned in my previous post that was not addressed.

Classification . . . . Number of Species . . . . Number of Kinds on the Ark
Mammals . . . . . . . . .3,700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,700 (a few live in water).
Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,200 (seven pairs according to Gen. 7:3)
Reptiles. . . . . . . . . . .6,300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,300
Amphibians. . . . . . . .2,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500
Fishes. . . . . . . . . . . .20,600. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero
Other marine life . . . 192,605. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero
Insects . . . . . . . . . . . 850,000 . . . (Since insects are very small, and a great many could be stored in a small area, calculation would be difficult.)
Total . . . . . . . . . . . .1,072,305 . . . . . . . . . . . . .72,700

So let's assume those number are correct (they aren't, the total is off by 500,000). So how exactly were 8 people able to feed, care for and clean up after 72,700 animals on a daily basis? These are the numbers from YOUR site. That's roughly 9000 animals to care for per day, per human. Assuming they slept 6 hours a day that's 500 animals per hour per person (8 per minute). Yeah good luck with that.

www.factmonster.com...

Then there's this. Gee, there's a surprise. Your biased source low balled every single number. Where did they get their numbers? They are either way outdated or intentionally misleading people. Gee I wonder which one. I know the source above contains estimates, but I give exacts below.

By 2006, there were 5416 known species of mammal.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now there are 10,038 species of reptile

www.reptile-database.org...

Amphibians are up to 7,388.

amphibiaweb.org...

So, should I keep trusting that apologetic website now that I just proved their numbers wrong? Or is that all just circumstantial ad hominem?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Then you didn't read the experiments, the study used a 1/50 scale model in a wave tank system and it showed the ship would have survived intact from waves of at least 30 meters. And you couldn't capsize the ark, it had a closed roof. It was basically a floating wooden box.

Again, the researchers DIDN'T account for open seas and steering. We are talking about a global flood here. So you HAVE to take into account how the ship would behave in the middle of the ocean (it would be the same thing).

And a closed roof is ridiculous in regards to capsizing. For one the roof isn't made to support the weight of the ship when all the stuff falls on it upon capsizing. And for two, even in the case of capsizing, all the occupants would be thrown all over the place causing MUCH wreckage and problems. There would also have to at the very least be doors to get inside the ark and back in those times doors weren't waterproofed so water would leak through.

Also, where did these researchers get their weight displacement figures? How did they calculate the weight of two of every animal on the planet, plus food, plus supplies, plus crew, plus Noah and family?

AGAIN all that needs to be done is to build the damn ark and see if it will float. No math calculations are necessary. Just build it and let it set sail.

Just set aside your presuppositions for 15 minutes and read the links. It's actually pretty fascinating.

I did read them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Again, the researchers DIDN'T account for open seas and steering.

I already broke that argument. Noah was never tasked with floating from point A to point B, his only task was to stay afloat. And the model study showed the craft would survive waves of 30 meters. I don't know of anywhere else you would see a wave like that other than the open seas.

There would also have to at the very least be doors to get inside the ark and back in those times doors weren't waterproofed so water would leak through.

Probably why God sealed the doors in the narrative, not Noah. Or he could have pitches from the inside. Generally boats only had pitch on the outside, if I remember correctly God told Noah to put pitch on the inside and out.

Also, where did these researchers get their weight displacement figures? How did they calculate the weight of two of every animal on the planet

There weren't two of every animal on the planet on the ark, read Genesis 6. And I'd assume Noah would be smart enough to take the babies, not the full grown animals. For one thing there are more fertile at an early age, and for two they eat a hell of a lot less food. That's simple.

I did read them.

Are you sure you didn't just scan them for something to criticize rather than read the entire study for context? You asked some questions that were covered in the study.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And a closed roof is ridiculous in regards to capsizing.

If a ship is watertight enough to keep it from flooding in from the roof wouldn't it also have a penchant to build up methane from the animals? There are cases of barns exploding from cow methane.

Even if they didn't blow it up by having a fire I think there would be a risk for asphyxiation. How many windows did it have?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Again, the researchers DIDN'T account for open seas and steering.

I already broke that argument. Noah was never tasked with floating from point A to point B, his only task was to stay afloat. And the model study showed the craft would survive waves of 30 meters. I don't know of anywhere else you would see a wave like that other than the open seas.

There would also have to at the very least be doors to get inside the ark and back in those times doors weren't waterproofed so water would leak through.

Probably why God sealed the doors in the narrative, not Noah. Or he could have pitches from the inside. Generally boats only had pitch on the outside, if I remember correctly God told Noah to put pitch on the inside and out.

Also, where did these researchers get their weight displacement figures? How did they calculate the weight of two of every animal on the planet

There weren't two of every animal on the planet on the ark, read Genesis 6. And I'd assume Noah would be smart enough to take the babies, not the full grown animals. For one thing there are more fertile at an early age, and for two they eat a hell of a lot less food. That's simple.

I did read them.

Are you sure you didn't just scan them for something to criticize rather than read the entire study for context? You asked some questions that were covered in the study.

(Faceplm)
No. You haven't broken anything. You still fail to understand basic nautical facts. You keep saying that I doesn't have to go from A to B and that all it has to do is stay afloat. That would doom it. It has to go from A to B, meaning that it has to go before the wind. If it doesn't then it broaches and sinks. It's that simple. The shape of it demands that.
I also note that you have failed to address my point about the ship 'working' or twisting in heavy seas, as such as large wooden vessel would. You can slap all the pitch you like on the ship or in the seams, it's still going to leak like a sieve in a medium to heavy sea.
Why are you taking this myth so seriously?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
I already broke that argument. Noah was never tasked with floating from point A to point B, his only task was to stay afloat. And the model study showed the craft would survive waves of 30 meters. I don't know of anywhere else you would see a wave like that other than the open seas.

It's not ABOUT getting from point A to point B. You have to be able to maneuver your ship in a storm or else a wave will capsize it.

Probably why God sealed the doors in the narrative, not Noah. Or he could have pitches from the inside. Generally boats only had pitch on the outside, if I remember correctly God told Noah to put pitch on the inside and out.

So if the inside was sealed the entire time, that means that Noah likely asphyxiated from carbon dioxide poisoning.

There weren't two of every animal on the planet on the ark, read Genesis 6. And I'd assume Noah would be smart enough to take the babies, not the full grown animals. For one thing there are more fertile at an early age, and for two they eat a hell of a lot less food. That's simple.

Ok.
Genesis 6:19-20
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Looks pretty clear to me. Nothing about baby animals either.

Are you sure you didn't just scan them for something to criticize rather than read the entire study for context? You asked some questions that were covered in the study.

The study was flawed. I already pointed this out. Plus they STILL didn't test to make sure the boat wouldn't leak in open waters. Which it undoubtedly would.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Genesis 6:14-16
14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.[d] 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[e] high all around.[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.

Uh... None it looks like.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

that is the problem with biblical literalism

the dimension stated dont tell you what shape the hullform is - just give the maximum dimension on each axis

as for " windows "

leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[e] high all around

the vessel is no longer watertight - as thje bible doesnt mention any protection for this " opening "

while i am ranting :

what about subdivisions ??? yup it specs 3 decks - but thats it no interdeck harches

nor bulkheads , nor hull bracing

as stated previously - despite the millions spent on " creationist ministry " no one has ever even attempted to build a ark

they have built sheds the dimensions of the alledged ark

oh they of little faith

Funny how my last post was completely ignored. I've come to expect this from creationists. You debunk something and they instantly change the subject and move on to something else as if it never happened. They are always right in their eyes, despite using completely cherry picked arguments that ignore 99% of the actual problems. Sorry but a 1/50 scale model in a wave pool can't compare to a real sized ark in the open ocean in flood conditions. If you wish to suggest all things are possible with god and that he used his powers to gather the animals and help build the ark, feed the animals and keep it afloat, I'm fine with that. Although, it seems a little silly for god to go through all of that when he could just snap his fingers and remove the bad people. If you'd like to say it was all god magic, then crunching numbers and figures is pointless, and there's no reason to try to argue it logically. Just say you believe in magic and call it a day. The ark story is literally 100% impossible without divine intervention and guidance for the entire process. Also why would god remove all the evidence of a global flood, if he expects us to believe it happened?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

(Faceplm) No. You haven't broken anything. You still fail to understand basic nautical facts. You keep saying that I doesn't have to go from A to B and that all it has to do is stay afloat. That would doom it. It has to go from A to B, meaning that it has to go before the wind. If it doesn't then it broaches and sinks. It's that simple. The shape of it demands that. I also note that you have failed to address my point about the ship 'working' or twisting in heavy seas, as such as large wooden vessel would. You can slap all the pitch you like on the ship or in the seams, it's still going to leak like a sieve in a medium to heavy sea. Why are you taking this myth so seriously?

So I guess you didn't watch the video about drogue stones.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not ABOUT getting from point A to point B. You have to be able to maneuver your ship in a storm or else a wave will capsize it.

You didn't account for the drogue stones either.

So if the inside was sealed the entire time, that means that Noah likely asphyxiated from carbon dioxide poisoning.

There were open airways all around the top and under the roof. Have you even read the Biblical account? These questions are answered in Genesis 6.

a reply to: Barcs

Sorry but a 1/50 scale model in a wave pool can't compare to a real sized ark in the open ocean in flood conditions.

LoL... THEY WHY DO SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS?

I mean, you just solved the Big Bang problem haven't you, email the astrophysicists and tell them to cease with their silly Physics models and theories to test because they can't recreate the exact circumstances present at the beginning of the universe.

Do you even know who conducted the expiriment that I've been referring to?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

(Faceplm) No. You haven't broken anything. You still fail to understand basic nautical facts. You keep saying that I doesn't have to go from A to B and that all it has to do is stay afloat. That would doom it. It has to go from A to B, meaning that it has to go before the wind. If it doesn't then it broaches and sinks. It's that simple. The shape of it demands that. I also note that you have failed to address my point about the ship 'working' or twisting in heavy seas, as such as large wooden vessel would. You can slap all the pitch you like on the ship or in the seams, it's still going to leak like a sieve in a medium to heavy sea. Why are you taking this myth so seriously?

So I guess you didn't watch the video about drogue stones.

Actually I did. Then I went away and laughed a lot. There's no evidence of any drogue stones and they don't answer the issues I mentioned. Which I note that you ignored. Again. Interesting.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

please cite the study that demonstrates the structural integrity of a wooden hull the dimensions of the aledged ark

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

(Faceplm) No. You haven't broken anything. You still fail to understand basic nautical facts. You keep saying that I doesn't have to go from A to B and that all it has to do is stay afloat. That would doom it. It has to go from A to B, meaning that it has to go before the wind. If it doesn't then it broaches and sinks. It's that simple. The shape of it demands that. I also note that you have failed to address my point about the ship 'working' or twisting in heavy seas, as such as large wooden vessel would. You can slap all the pitch you like on the ship or in the seams, it's still going to leak like a sieve in a medium to heavy sea. Why are you taking this myth so seriously?

So I guess you didn't watch the video about drogue stones.

Actually I did. Then I went away and laughed a lot. There's no evidence of any drogue stones and they don't answer the issues I mentioned. Which I note that you ignored. Again. Interesting.

Huge drogue stones are in Turkey near the mountains. Furthermore, your other questions have already been addressed in this thread.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: NOTurTypical

please cite the study that demonstrates the structural integrity of a wooden hull the dimensions of the aledged ark

It's already been linked. If you can't follow the presented dialogue then why are you trying to enter the discussion?

1. The team of nine research scientists were all on staff at Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering (KRISO) in Daejeon, Korea. Undertaken in 1992, the results were published in Korean the following year. The paper was translated to English and published Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):26–35, 1994. See Safety Investigation of Noah's Ark in a Seaway. Return to text

The Korean tests showed that Noah's Ark had among the best proportions possible. The study was headed by Dr S W Hong, who was principal research scientist at KRISO at the time. He listed the Noah's Ark study alongside other research papers on the company website until as recently as 2006

Dr Seon Won Hong

Dr Hong was principal research scientist when he headed up the Noah's Ark investigation. In May 2005 Dr. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI (formerly KRISO). Dr Hong earned BS degree in naval architecture from Seoul National University and PhD degree in applied mechanics from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Evolutionist Heads Ark Study.

The Korean tests showed that Noah's Ark had among the best proportions possible. The study was headed by Dr S W Hong, who was principal research scientist at KRISO at the time. He listed the Noah's Ark study alongside other research papers on the company website until as recently as 2006

Here is the 1993 study (again):

Link

Having looked at this and other parks similar to this there are a few things:

Could it have happened, maybe. Did it happen, we do not know. Most structures of wood from back then usually do not last that long, and it would have been hard to find such. Even now there is debate as to where such a structure was, and ultimately without proof it will remain in debate for years to come.

But beyond that, this is going to be nothing more than an amusement park, no less no more. Most parks like this, once the novelty wears off, tend to go under and end up abandoned or worse. To my knowledge there is one religious museum/park in the country that continues to operate today. However, unlike the others, there is actual work that could be considered to be scientific that goes on there. It exists in Florida, and what keeps them open, along with the tax benefits for such, is that they do offer real artifacts, namely historical printings of the bibles as part of the display.

Now if this new park were to not discriminate, and have real artifacts on display like a real museum and show historical stuff, and not be just an amusement park, then they could argue and win in a court of law for the tax breaks.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
You didn't account for the drogue stones either.

The stones discovered by Ron Wyatt the charlatan? Yea, sorry I don't account for hoaxes.

There were open airways all around the top and under the roof. Have you even read the Biblical account? These questions are answered in Genesis 6.

Didn't you tell me this on the other page?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
And you couldn't capsize the ark, it had a closed roof. It was basically a floating wooden box.

So did it have openings on the roof or was it closed? You can't have both.