Summations Only

Well jar seems to be right even if he did use a naughty word.Heyerdahl made one voyage in the reed boat Ra and very nearly made it. Since he got so close, he saw no problem with his basic design, but had Ra II built along the same lines and succeeded.Here is a picture of Ra IIIt's not covered in tar.You can see video of Ra II here. Where's the tar? There is no tar. Where did you get the story about the tar?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I agree with Coyote, that's just rubbish. Hasn't the guy who wrote that ever talked to anyone who's tried to keep a diverse collection of animals alive? And below decks on a ship as well?I'd recommend a course of Gerald Durrell's books, he's both run a zoo and been responsible for the short-term (by which AiG mean over a year!) transport of animals on boats. They seem hopelessly naive about the whole thing. I mean, take this: NO.

But when AiG postulate that a mere 8000 species would have sufficed, they've already taken creationist fantasies of superduperevolution into account.

Well, sure, add a miracle if you like. One guy on these forums explained that everything would fit on the Ark because God miraculously made it bigger on the inside than on the outside.You can prop up anything with enough miracles. God just miraculously made the sky pink with green spots. Why didn't we notice it? Because he also miraculously made us all see it as being blue still.In the end, though, you wind up with something which looks like the Omphalos hypothesis but without its elegant simplicity --- Omphalos as designed by Rube Goldberg. As with the RATE project ...

They do however discard problematic theories when presented with alternate theories without any problems. When Einstein explained the precession of Mercury, for example, they abandoned their quest to justify Newton with respect to that phenomenon. When quantum mechanics explained black-body spectra, no-one went on trying to explain them on the basis that energy was not quantized. The heliocentric solar system put an end to the addition of ever more epicycles to the geocentric system. So while it is true that scientists don't abandon an idea just because it has one or two little problems, they'll drop it like a hot brick in favor of an alternate theory which doesn't have any problems.Now, scientists have a theory for why air-breathing organisms aren't dead which is superior to your problematic ideas about the Ark. Their theory is that there never was a global flood. This is superior to your notion in that it has no awkward problems to patch up and anomalies to explain; in that it is borne out by all the evidence; and in that it doesn't involve magic.If you want to make like a scientist, you would adopt this superior theory, abandoning your previous hypothesis with a gladsome cry of: "Oh, I get it ... if Genesis 6-8 is completely wrong, that explains everything!" If you don't do that, then it would be more dignified, not to say less hypocritical, for you to cease to draw parallels between the behavior of scientists and your stubborn adherence to the fables you learned in Sunday School.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.