Quote by:
The Theist
Okay. It has been difficult to distinguish, in many cases, on this forum, who is theist and who is atheist etc. nomenclatures infinity . . . but who here besides myself couldn't give a rodent's rectum about science, huh?
I think that only those who are ignorant and wish to remain so don't give a rat's tootie about science. Science is the explanation for the world around us. Science has yielded the internal combustion engine, the light bulb and the power grid to support it, computers, increased agricultural yields and more efficient harvest methods, artificial satellites that give us GPS, satellite TV and radio, prosthetic shoe inserts to correct foot problems, artificial joints that turn cripples into functioning people again, X-rays, CAT scans, MRIs, bone grafts, nerve grafts, hydraulic brakes, electronic ignition systems, ABS, LED, LCD, and plasma TV displays, HD TV, 3D HD TV, and on and on - from your sh*t, shower and shave in the morning to the linen on your bed at night. Science pervades your very being from the tomatoes, corn, and beef you eat, to the paper you use to wipe your ass. But you're a user - not one who contributes.
Adams wrote fiction, and comedy to boot. Not relevant to your point. But I suspect that you don't understand that.
Frank Herbert was my favorite writer,
Herbert also wrote fiction that had nothing to do with science.
but really, science class?
You've pretty much revealed you intellectual capacity. It seems that science is somewhere above that.
Actually I got detention in science class for reading Douglas Adams and laughing out loud in class, long before LOL was all the craze!
So you prefer fantasy to reality, like Adams, Herbert and the Bible.
Oh! Lets!
The Bible is often criticized from the atheistic science minded folk as being not only out of sinc
[sic] with science but even opposed to it. Nonsense! Although the Bible is by no means a science text book, when it touches on science it is accurate.
How narrow minded! Atheism does not mean science. Nor does science mean atheism. I have never seen the the Bible criticized by anyone as being either "out of sinc [sic]" or "opposed to science." The Bible isn't scientific by any consideration and doesn't touch on science. The Bible is the mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen. Only those who are blinded by faith in mythology claim that the Bible ever touches on science and is accurate when it does so. Can you give me 10 examples?
Indeed. I await your 10 examples.
Quote by:
The Theist
Hmm. Interesting, el ايمان, I've never come across that sort of explanation. Elaborate or introduce me to this shipbuilder or whatever, just don't leave me a link. I can't read everything on the Internet.
I don't think it was a ship builder - I think it was me and a article that I posted and that has been around the web. I'm not a shipbuilder but I at least took the time to research the topic. Something that you don't ever seem to do. It isn't that the ship would collapse. It would leak. The title of the article is That Boat Don't Float. Here it is.
In 1909 the schooner Wyoming was launched from the Percy & Small shipyard in Bath, Maine. She was state-of-the art in wooden hulled shipbuilding. She was a six masted schooner and, at 329 ft., the longest ship with an all wood keel and hull ever built. She was the last of nine wooden hulled, six-masted schooners built between 1900 and 1909, and one of seven built by Percy & Small. All were 300 ft. or more in length. They were all state-of-the art.
The Wyoming had 90 steel crossbraces. Even while she was yet on the drawing boards the marine engineers who designed and built her knew from experience with shorter ships that the length of the Wyoming would exceed the structural limits of wood. For this reason they attempted to defeat, or at least support, the laws of physics and the principles of marine engineering with steel. It was to no avail. Not even the steel bracing could prevent the flexing and twisting that resulted in the separation of the hull planking. The Wyoming required constant pumping, as did her sister ships. The Wyoming leaked from the day she hit the water until the day, 14 years later, when she foundered and broke up off of Monomoy Island while riding out a storm at anchor.
It is said that she could be seen to snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to the mid-ship) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to the mid-ship) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any caulking that could be devised. The Wyoming and her sisters were used, for the most part, for short, close-in coastal hauls, generally in sight of land. At the first sign if inclement weather, they could run for port. The Wyoming served for several years as a coal hauler, as did several of her sisters.
I have always had a great love for windjammers. I have some very expensive books that deal with the minutia of their construction and for years my hobby was to build full rigged wooden models. I spent hours climbing over the decks of the U.S.S. Constitution in Charleston Navy Yard, admiring her construction. The Wyoming must have been a beautiful vessel. But she was a beautiful anachronism. At about 300 ft. the structural capabilities of wood were exceeded beyond the abilities of engineering and design to remedy
Few other ships of this size were built of wood. One exception was the four-masted medium clipper barque, Great Republic built in 1853. She is sometimes reported as the longest wooden ship ever build with a length of 334 feet, but more usually it is claimed that she was 325 feet. The Great Republic also had 90 steel cross braces, 4 inches wide, 1 inch thick, and 36 feet long. Nevertheless, she sprung her hull in a storm off of Bermuda. She was abandoned when the water in the hold reached 15 feet.
And yet, creationists want me to believe that a 450 ft. (minimum) vessel of ALL wood construction was able to withstand a storm of 40 days and then remain at sea for almost a year, manned by only eight people, without the efficient pumps of the turn of the century, chalked with nothing more than "pitch inside and out". Not to mention the overwhelming necessity of the limited crew to feed and water thousands of animals and to muck out thousands of pens (and then carry the result of the mucking up two decks in order to throw it overboard). When was there time for pumping (24 hours a day if the above is any indication) and the constant recalking in a futile attempt to stem the flow.
You may perceive this as an argument from incredulity similar to those that are so typical of creationists, but I just can't believe such a fairy tale. Experience with real wooden ships sailing in real oceans indicates that Noah's ark would not have survived many days of the 40 day storm.
My opinion of Noah's ark is that that boat don't float.
ETA: Oh, and good point about the clarification of "touching on science." Lets leave it open to interpretation.
Let's not. Either you discuss science or you don't. You don't. You discuss mythology. The Bible doesn't "touch on science." The Bible is a book of mythology and religious law. Nothing more. Get a grip.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks