slevesque writes: But the point is actually quite simple: if no one here can understand the math when it is presented to them, *then no one here can claim that the ark wouldn't float*, it really is as simple as that. |

Well, that's not quite right. We can form opinions on whether the ark would float independent of this article. Unless the article undercut the assumptions and basis for those opinions, then we would have two opposing opinions.

And no, we don't have to swallow the math just because we don't understand it. The article should be looked at with a critical eye by someone who *does* understand the math and physics, before we decide that it even presents a credible opinion.

Saying "Slevesque has no reason to disbelieve" does not cut it. We know that you aren't going to find anything wrong with the article before you even take out your calculator. Further you haven't credibly argued that you are qualified to assess the analysis.

If nobody here understands the analysis, including the math and the appropriateness of the assumptions, then the only reason for considering the paper to be plausible is the reputations of the scientists involved. Yet we know that you'd never accept a sinking ark analysis on that same basis.

I'm with you on the paucity of the analysis from people who say that the ark would definitely not float. I'd also be interested in continuing the discussion on the analysis. But saying that the paper is correct until we prove it is not goes too far.