Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 5.4

← Archive 5.3

Archive 5.4

Archive 5.5 →

Wyoming, part I

There's a major problem with the paragraph on the Wyoming:

'...literalist websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long. This is considerably longer than the schooner Wyoming, launched in 1909 and the longest documented wooden-hulled vessel ever built: it measured only 329.5 feet (100 m) and needed iron cross-bracing to counter warping and a steam pump to handle a serious leak problem.'

This paragraph claims the Wyoming was 'only 329.5 feet (100m)', yet the Wikipedia article to which it links says the Wyoming was '137.16 m (450 ft)'. This is a classic case of people not checking facts, and demonstrates why Wikipedia articles are not supposed to cite other Wikipedia articles as authorities. A couple of books I have checked confirm that the Wyoming was in fact 329 feet long ('Plotting the Globe: Stories of Meridians, Parallels, and the International Date Line', Avraham Ariel, Nora Ariel Berger, 2006, page 176, and 'The archaeology of the Roman economy', Kevin Greene, 1990, page 25).

This means three things. Firstly it means that the Wikipedia article 'List of world's largest wooden ships' is in need of correction. Secondly it means that this paragraph in the 'Noah's Ark' should not use the Wyoming as a comparison of the Ark to 'the longest documented wooden-hulled vessel ever built', it should use the Thalamegos (documented, 377 feet, 200 BCE), the great obelisk barge of Hatshepsut (documented, modern estimates range from 311-450 feet, about 1,480 BC), and the Tessarakonteres (documented, modern estimates range from 390-420 feet, 200 BCE). These are all documented vessels, and appear as genuine historical ships in Lionel Casson's authoritative works 'Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World' (1995), and 'Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt' (2001). Thirdly, it means that the Ark was not 'considerably longer' than 'the longest documented wooden-hulled vessel ever built'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thalamegos and Hatshepsut are documented? You've got the blueprints?PiCo (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are documented, which is why they appear in standard historical authorities. Did you note my citation of Lionel Casson? No we don't have 'blueprints', but the Thalamegos is recorded in historical accounts which are considered valid sources by standard academic works such as:

• Lionel Casson's 'Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World' published in 1995: on page 342 he says 'It was over 300 feet long'
• Michel Robert's 'Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity' published in 2000: on page 347 he says the Thalamegos is 'well known from historical sources'
• George Sarton's 'Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C.' published in 1993: on page 121 he says the dimensions of the Thalamegos as given by Athenaios 'must have been an eye-witness or a person who obtained measurements and other details from a contemporary'

As for Hatshepsut's barge, there's a massive contemporary depiction of it, which is as close to a blueprint as you can get. Let me be clear on what you are saying. Are you disputing that the ships to which I have referred are recognized by standard historical authorities as genuine historical vessels? Or are you saying that they are wrong to consider these genuine historical vessels? Or are you saying something else? And what about the reference to the Wyoming? Why it is it even in here, and why have its dimensions been misrepresented? --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not documented to a standard acceptable for inclusion in this article - blueprints only please.PiCo (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What standard is that? It's clear you were completely unaware of the fact that they are documented, and that they are accepted as such by academic works which all meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and verifiability. Find me all the blueprints cited in the Wikipedia article List of the world's largest wooden ships (hint, you won't). If you had any academic grounds for doing so, you would have given them. Given these facts, and the fact that you have not answered my questions, you have no valid objection to these references. You're just inventing an imaginary objection. Why does everything about this article have to be a constant struggle against people with personal agendas? --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in the Boys Big List of Ships. My problem with the ancient super-ships is that the standard of documentation is drastically different frkm that applied to the Wyoming - it's based on second-hand reports of soi-disant eyewitnesses (tho no actual eyewitnesses). In other words, the so-called "documents" are thoroughly subjective and unreliable compared with 19th century ships like the Wyoming. It's comparing apples and oranges. PiCo (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you have any interest in 'the Boys Big List of Ships' or not. I am demonstrating that your requirement that blueprints be provided of the ancient vessels in question before they are permitted to be included in this article is blatantly POV, and your rejection of the academic sources I have cited is in violation of Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.

I also don't care if you think the 'the so-called "documents" are thoroughly subjective and unreliable ', since your opinion means zero in the academic community, and the academic community says the opposite. Your personal objections mean nothing, and the fact that you're objecting in bad faith is a serious problem.

I am not claiming that these ships are better documented than the Wyoming, or even as well documented. I have demonstrated, however, that they are sufficiently documented to be accepted in the academic community and recorded in standard authorities as genuine historical vessels. You have not even begun to address this fact, nor have you even acknowledged it.

As for comparing apples to oranges, I'm comparing ancient ships to ancient ships, Bronze Age to Bronze Age (Hatshepsut), timber barges to timber barges, dateable construction techniques to dateable construction techniques. You on the other hand want to compare a Bronze Age entirely timber barge to an iron clad 19th century schooner with a steam pump, built using different construction techniques. That is 'apples to oranges' if anything is.

Once again, I have cited academic works which all meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and verifiability, and you have raised no valid objection for rejecting them. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you should assume bad faith on my part - we should always assume good faith. Anyway, that aside, you put your finger on the point I'm making when you say that the ancient ships are not as well documented as modern ones. By the standards of documentation which apply to the Wyoming et al, the ancient ships can hardly be said to be documented at all. Tghe works you mention are by historians, and are works dealing with naval history. The authors are forced to use the best sources available to them, and I don't think they'd claim that these documents - ancient histories - compare remotely with what modern naval architects would call good documentation. That's what I mean by comparing apples and oranges. (Incidentally, the Wyoming was wooden hulled, not iron-clad). PiCo (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You forfeited assumption of good faith by consistently acting in bad faith. First you claimed that these vessels were not documented, despite the fact that I cited standard academic works which demonstrate that they are documented (you simply ignored them).

You then claimed these vessels are insufficiently documented to establish historicity, and cannot be included in the article unless their blueprints could be provided. This was an arbitrary standard of your own making, which is not in agreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and not required by standard historians as evidence of historicity. I then provided direct quotes from standard academic works which demonstrated that they are documented to the academic standard of historicity, and that the academic sources I quoted meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.

Next you simply repeated your claim that unless blueprints could be provided these vessels cannot be included in the article (again, your completely fabricated excuse). Once more you ignored the academic sources I quoted, all of which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.

I then proved that your 'standard acceptable for inclusion in this article' was entirely fabricated and not in agreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. I also pointed out that you had still not addressed any of the academic works I had cited, all of which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.

Then you came up with a new argument, which is that since these vessels cannot be included in the article because they aren't documented to the extent that the Wyoming is documented. This was yet again a fabricated excuse, which is not in agreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. You claimed that the documentation for these vessels is inadequate to establish their historicity, which is a claim contradicted by the scholarly consensus. I responded to all this yet again.

You have now repeated your argument that these vessels cannot be included because they are not as well documented as the Wyoming. This is a completely fabricated excuse of your own POV, and not in agreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. By the standards of documentation which are agreed on by the scholarly consensus, these vessels are documented and their historicity is accepted. The fact that you don't like that is irrelevant, as is your comparison to the documentation of the Wyoming. The documentation of the Wyoming is not used in the academic community as the standard of historicity. Yes, the works I cited are written by authors who are 'forced to use the best sources available to them', and their consensus is that these vessels are all documented historical vessels. You have not yet addressed this fact. That this documentation does not compare with 'what modern naval architects would call good documentation' is irrelevant (not that you would know). It is a level of documentation accepted by professionals in the relevant field, namely historiography, including naval historiography. Please note that Casson is an authority on naval historiography, as is Björn Landström who estimated the barge of Hatshepsut at 95 meters ('Ships Of The Pharoahs', 1970). I note that you have still not cited any academic references whatever in support of your views. The academic consensus is against you. The historicity of these vessels is undisputed, and their sizes are debated to within margins which are irrelevant for the purposes of their inclusion in this article.

Yes you're right about the Wyoming, it was iron braced not ironclad. Thanks for the correction. It still does not belong here as a point of comparison, for the reasons stated (read 'iron braced' for 'ironclad'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

River barges are vastly different from sea-going ships and can't be used as evidence that a boat the size of the Ark could survive even a normal sea voyage.Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence please that the Ark was a 'sea going ship'? As I've already pointed out, the Ark was (putatively), a Mesopotamian river barge (look at the dimensions and where it was built, there's no talk of it being launched from the Philistian or Egyptian coast, it was built inland, in the Mesopotamian flood plain). It was putatively a Bronze Age barge constructed with Bronze Age techniques. Don't tell me that a valid comparison to a Bronze Age barge is a 19th century iron braced seven masted schooner made using completely different construction techniques. The two are nothing like each other. If you really want a modern comparison instead of an ancient comparison, you should compare the Ark with the Santiago (336 feet long, unmasted and unpowered timber barge without iron bracing, which lasted from 1899 to 1918), but even that was built using a completely different design and different construction techniques.

In any case, the issue in the original paragraph under discussion is the comparison of the Ark to the size of other entirely timber vessels, and whether or not it was the 'significantly larger' than the largest timber vessel ever built. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The putative Ark had three putative internal decks, which makes it a putative ship, not a barge. Plus it was built in a little more than a putative month by a putative man aged exactly 600 (with help from three putative sons all aged 500). That's quite a lot of putativity. How do decide which putative bits you believe and which you feel are perhaps a bit of a stretch? PiCo (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of decks is usually used to distinguish boats from ships, not barges from ships (though I see no relevance to this point in any case). You have fabricated a number of irrelevant details. The record nowhere says Noah had only a month (and no you can't reach that conclusion by comparing Genesis 6:6 with 6:11), nor that he was only assisted by his three sons, and since Genesis 5:32 informs us that Noah had his three sons when he was 500, they cannot possibly all have been any more than 100 by the time Noah was 600 in Genesis 6:6. If anyone here was attempting to assert the historicity of these details you might have a point. They aren't. You don't. The only issue under discussion here is the historicity of vessels of analogous size and shape to the description of the Ark given in Genesis 6 (regardless of whether or not the Ark existed). The historicity of those vessels is a matter already determined by the academic consensus and already cited. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only would a flood put stresses on a boat the Nile, for instance, won't, any ship that can float on a global ocean has to bear the stresses of a seagoing ship. So unless you are arguing that the Ark just had to navigate a river, it had to be a sea going ship. Doug Weller (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue under discussion has nothing to do with whether or not the flood was local or global which is an entirely separate issue. I personally believe the flood was local, but my view isn't relevant. The only issue under discussion here is the historicity of ships of analogous size and construction techniques. To date no one has provided a valid argument against their inclusion, and no one has provided a valid argument in favour of including the Wyoming. Instead, attempts have been made to contradict and overthrow the scholarly consensus based on nothing more than personal opinion and POV. Nothing meaningful has been added to this discussion by either you or PiCo. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the article cites a modern wooden-hulled ocean-going ship, and notes that it had a leak problem so bad it needed a steam pump to stay above water. While we don't note it, other 19th century wooden ships of similar length had the same problem - they flexed in ocean swells, and as a result they leaked. We do note an opinion that the experience of these 19th century ships demonstrates that these ships were pushing the extreme limits of safety for wooden hulls. And you want to put in something about some ancient ships. What do we know about them? Not much, really. That they existed is probable. That they were as long as the ancient authors say is untested and untestable. That they leaked like sieves is a certainty, given what we know from the Wyoming and other ships - it's a matter of physics. Did they ever put to sea? Not like the Wyoming, no - they went out on rivers, or cruised around the harbour, or at the very most they were towed across the Mediterranean, which in summer is flat as a millpond (I know, I've been there). How did the crews handle the leakage problem? Lots of slaves with lots of buckets is a good guess, but that isn't a viable option for Noah and his three centenarian sons. So in sum, the standard of "documentation" of these ancient ships and barges isn't equal to that of the Wyoming and its peers, and there's no reason to include them. PiCo (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You are simply repeating points I have already addressed. The Santiago of 336 feet in length was an entirely timber barge which operated on the Great Lakes (notorious for their storms, not exactly 'flat as a millpond'), for 20 years without any steam bilge pumps or mention of constant leaking. Schooners and barges are very different vessels, and a 6 masted schooner such as the Wyoming is subject to completely different stresses to a timber barge like the Santiago. That's why the Wyoming had a tough time every voyage, but the Santiago lasted a comfortable 20 years and needed no steam bilge pumps. You are not comparing like to like.

The rest of what you wrote is simply personal opinion, and uninformed personal opinion at that. I note that you provide absolutely no reference to any academic sources (as with all your posts on this subject). There is no mention by naval historians of these vessels 'leaking like sieves', and not only do you invent this objection you're also forced into inventing ideas about how they could stay afloat if they leaked as much as you claim (when you're forced into inventing new unsubstantiated theories to overcome problems caused by previous unsubstantiated theories, you should realise your reasoning is flawed). There was absolutely no room in a standard trireme for a bucket crew, let alone in something the size of the Tessarakonteres. There is absolutely no mention of bucket teams or chronic leak problems in any of the ancient sources, despite the fact that they note other problems such as almost complete lack of maneuverability in the case of the Tessarakonteres, and extreme difficulty in launching.

The Egyptian obelisk barges provided no access to the hull below the deck, which would have been impossible in any case with the top deck covered by huge monoliths or obelisks. Egyptian sources mention many difficulties experienced by obelisk barge crews (running aground, foul weather, darkness, difficulties in towing), but never mention leakage as a problem, nor any 'bucket crews'. Egyptian construction techniques (studied in detail for over 100 years), didn't even include caulking like their European counterparts, since their method of construction resulted in a watertight seal which was actually assisted by the pressures on the hull (remember they used a completely different hull construction technique to the Europeans). This is all well documented in an abundance of scholarly sources such as 'An Analysis Of Tomb Reliefs Depicting Boat Construction From The Old Kingdom Period In Egypt' (Edward Rogers, 1996), and 'Boat-building and its social context in early Egypt: interpretations from the First Dynasty boat-grave cemetery at Abydos' (Cheryl Ward, Antiquity, 80 (2006): 118–129), which I have read and you clearly haven't.

What we know about the ancient ships is that they are documented to the academic standard of historicity, and that the academic sources I quoted meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. This is relevant because the entire point of the paragraph under question is to compare the size of the Ark to comparably sized wooden vessels (whether or not you think it could have survived the flood is irrelevant to this point).

As I have already noted, Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources do not require these ships to be documented as completely as 'the Wyoming and its peers', that is simply a fabrication of yours which you are repeating, and it is the only argument you are raising. Your personal interpretation of Genesis 6 is likewise irrelevant (as is mine, though I've kept mine out of this discussion). You are carrying out original research and representing it as fact, in an attempt to justify an objection to relevant information being included in this article from academic sources which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. I have borne with the discussion to this point, but now you are saying nothing new, and indicating that your only objections are personal, so the article will be amended as I have proposed. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wyoming, part II

(This is a continuation of the previous thread, broken up to make navigation easier)

Put your proposed amendment here so we can discuss it. PiCo (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing it. It's the third paragraph in my original post in this section. We can play with the wording if you like but up to this point I've simply had to defend the very idea of such an amendment being made. The cartels which govern these articles are becoming ever more dictatorial. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'dictatorial' comment is verging on violating WP:AttackDoug Weller (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, I had another look at your third paragraph at the head of this section, but can't see anything that looks like a proposed amendment. To make clear what I mean, I'm asking you to put here the actual words you want to add to the article (or take away). And incidentally, I agree with Dougweller that a little more civility and a little less paranoia would make life better for all of us. PiCo (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had made it clear which words I wanted taken away from the article and which added. But if you want to read a verbatim rewrite, then I'll write something up and post it here as soon as I can. And incidentally, there is no 'paranoia' here. Edits to this article which illustrate arguments for the historicity of the flood narrative have been repeatedly resisted by a number of members here, and on no valid grounds whatsoever (claims and objections have even been fabricated in the process). This is not paranoia (how civil!), it is completely documented here in the Talk page. It's ironic that I'm accused of paranoia (would you call that a personal attack Dougweller?), when you've been able to get away with blocking a single amendment for almost a week on no valid grounds. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wyoming (schooner) article lists three lengths for the Wyoming: "450 ft (140 m) overall, 350 ft (110 m) on deck, 329.5 ft (100.4 m) between perpendiculars". The longest length is described as "from jibboom tip to spanker boom tip". As Noah's Ark (and the various barges) would not have had these features, it appears that we should be using the deck length, which is 350 feet (110 m). This still makes the Wyoming the longest documented wooden seagoing vessel ever built (river barges aren't a good comparison). I propose we add the word "seagoing", and mention the possible existence of (non-seagoing) river barges that were larger. Not quite sure what to do about the Tessarakonteres: Plutarch says "But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger". So, even if we assume it existed and was as big as claimed, its status as a "seagoing vessel" seems dubious (did it even venture out into the Mediterranean at all?) --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not saying anything which hasn't already been discussed. The issue in the paragraph under question is whether or not ships of analogous size have been built, not whether the Ark was a sea going vessel. Please see the previous discussion.

By the way, measuring the Wyoming from 'from jibboom tip to spanker boom tip' is exactly the wrong way to go about determining whether or not it is 'the longest documented wooden seagoing vessel ever built'. Ship length is measured from stern to prow, or by decklength, not from extremity to extremity:

'The most used measure in length for registering a ship is the "length of the topmost deck" - the :::"length on deck" (Lod) - 'measured from leading edge of stem post to trailing edge of stern post on deck level' :::or the "length between perpendiculars" (LPP, LBP) - 'measured from leading edge of stem post to trailing edge of :::stern post in the construction waterline (CWL)'.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the previous discussion (why do you assume that I have not?). I have just agreed with you regarding the most appropriate way of measuring ship lengths, and edited the article to give the Wyoming's length as 350 feet ("deck length" is essentially the overall length of the boat, excluding spars: the most direct comparison with the overall length given for Noah's Ark). The largest comparable (documented) seagoing ship is clearly the Wyoming. Much of the discussion above is of dubious relevance, as it's about non-seagoing vessels: which is a very relevant issue, as the main hazard to a wooden hull is "sagging and hogging" due to ocean swells. This is the main factor limiting the size of wooden vessels. River barges (and even vessels on large lakes) don't face this problem. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you had read the previous discussion because you simply restated what has already been said before, without addressing why it has previously been identified as irrelevant to the discussion. For example, you still claim that the Wyoming is 'the longest documented wooden seagoing vessel ever built', when it is not (I have already cited the relevant academic sources).

I apologize for misreading you, I read too quickly and I just spent several hours on a rewrite of the paragraph under discussion. I have now spent about four hours on it and it's still not complete, not because it's extraordinarily long, but because I am retaining all the information which was in the original paragraph as well as balancing it.

You insist on including the Wyoming (reference to which I am actually retaining), simply because it's a seagoing vessel and you assume the Ark was also. That's where you beg the question. But that aside, you're still comparing a 6 masted North American schooner to an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge. You can't say 'Well the Ark was a seagoing vessel, so it must have been built like a 19th century North American schooner, not an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge'. The Ark is, by any reconstruction of the given details, a barge. There's no getting around it. It is also an Ancient Near East vessel putatively made using Bronze Age technology. You can't get around that either. So comparing it to Ancient Near East vessels made using Bronze Age technology is comparing like to like. Comparing it with a 19th century North American tall masted schooner made using completely different construction techniques, is not.

You are free to argue 'The Ark was a Bronze Age timber barge, and such a barge would not have been seaworthy in the flood described by the Bible', but that's an entirely separate issue and if you wanted to include it in the article you would have to cite the arguments of others, not your own personal opinion or Original Research.

Yes, both sagging and hogging are typical problems faced by timber ships. But contrary to your claim, river barges and vessels on lakes do also face this problem. The lake bound Appomattox had a timber hull but metal bracing (such as metal keelsons and cross bracing), specifically to combat sagging and hogging. Likewise, Ancient Near East river barges did indeed suffer hogging and sagging, and were built specifically to withstand these forces. If you were familiar with the Egyptian river barges I have cited from sources such as 'An Analysis Of Tomb Reliefs Depicting Boat Construction From The Old Kingdom Period In Egypt' (Edward Rogers, 1996), and 'Boat-building and its social context in early Egypt: interpretations from the First Dynasty boat-grave cemetery at Abydos' (Cheryl Ward, Antiquity, 80 (2006): 118–129), you would know that one of their most distinctive features (and indeed one of their most remarkable technological achievements), is the use of incredibly large hogging trusses specifically to counter the very forces you claim river barges do not encounter. The hogging trusses are clearly visible overhead on this relief of Hatshepsut's barge, the largest recorded Egyptian obelisk barge.

Comparing Ancient Near East or even Classical age Greek and Roman timber vessels to 19th century English and North American tall masted timber vessels is completely invalid given the totally different construction techniques used (especially 'shell first' versus 'hull first'). Going by the 19th century 'Lloyd's Rules & Regulations for the Construction and Classification of Vessels' (used as a guide for shipbuilding), the Classical Greek triremes had a waterline length to hull depth ratio which was twice the supposed practical limit. The only way 19th century timber vessels were able to overcome this was with iron cross bracing and strapping. Yet the Greeks used no such reinforcements in their triremes, and should therefore have sunk every time they were launched (and remember, they were seagoing vessels). But not only did the triremes survive the seas despite breaking 'Lloyd's Rules' (breaching an alleged limit by 100%), they were among the most successful ships in the Ancient World. Clearly no one told the Greeks that their triremes couldn't float without iron cross bracing and strapping. The fact is that the Greek method of constructing triremes was totally different to the English method of constructing tall masted schooners and other timber vessels, so this supposed limit didn't actually apply to them. The mortise/tenon joinery and 'shell first' construction method they used (the same method used in ancient Mesopotamian and ancient Egyptian shipbuilding), overcame this problem without the need of the metal reinforcements, hence the amazing success of the Olympias trireme reconstruction, the construction of which which blithely ignored 'Lloyd's Rules' and breached them completely.

It's worth noting that English timber ships well over 200 feet in length were made possible not by metal reinforcement but by the use of cross bracing and hogging trusses, innovatively proposed by Robert Seppings (‘On the great strength given to Ships of War by the application of Diagonal Braces’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, pages 1-8, 1818), but already used for centuries in the Ancient Near East. Even Caligula's Nemi ships (at around 229 feet), were longer than typical English ships before Seppings' redesign, because of the different design and construction techniques they used (no iron reinforcements here either). Previously such sizes were considered totally impractical for timber vessels, but a change in English construction techniques raised the limit considerably. It's also worth nothing that whilst some timber ships of 300 feet in length leaked badly and suffered severe structural weaknesses, other timber ships even longer (like the Santiago at 336 feet in length), did not suffer from the same problems because of their different design. That's why it's important to carry out proper research of the topic, and compare like to like. This is a far more involved and complicated subject than the average Wiki keyboard warrior imagines. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Wow! Taiwan boi knows his ships! Nevertheless, where is it taking us? The Wyoming was the largest (longest) wooden-hulled ship for which comprehensive and reliable records exist. With all due respect to the historians of ancient shipping, they have to fill in with a lot of supposition and guess-work. And where do we end up? With ships all pretty much the same size. Except, of course, that we know some things about the Wyoming that we don't know about the ancient ships. We know she leaked badly. We don't know whether the ancient ships leaked, although we can assume so. How would the Ark, with only 4 crew members, all of them aged at least a hundred, have coped? (The wives could have helped, of course).

Incidentally, it's not quite true that the Ark was a Bronze Age vessel - the Bible clearly states that Tubal-Cain had already invented iron-working. And of course, when the entire world was covered with water, that must surely count as an ocean, and the Ark as an ocean-going ship. PiCo (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Where it's getting us is demonstrating that objections raised as to why the Ark should be compared with Ancient Near East and Classical barges are fabricated. You are repeating once more your invalid point regarding the documentation of the Wyoming. The other ships mentioned are documented to the necessary academic standard. No we don't have to 'fill in with a lot of supposition and guesswork'. It is ridiculous that you, Robert, and Dougweller can sit here inventing random statements like this, whereas someone who is actually informed on the subject is simply ignored even when citing standard academic works which explain in detail all the relevant issues and contradict your objections. No we don't end up with 'ships all pretty much the same size'. Yes we know that the Wyoming leaked badly. But we also know that this was due to her construction techniques, design, and the stresses on her hull. Other ships didn't suffer from these problems. Speculation about how the Ark and its crew would have coped can be included in the article as long as it is cited from a notable source which meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability (though it's probably in the article already).

I'm sorry, but your suggestion that the Ark was not a Bronze Age vessel because 'Tubal-Cain had already invented iron-working' is certainly not remotely credible. Please find me any relevant authority which says this. In any case you're simply increasing the level of technology available to Noah, not decreasing it, and that only increases the likelihood of the Ark's construction, which is the opposite of your aim.

Once more you claim the Ark must have been an ocean going vessel on the basis of your personal opinion that 'the entire world was covered with water'. Not only does this beg the question, it's irrelevant. As I have demonstrated repeatedly, the Ark was a barge and you cannot escape that fact. As I have also stated, you can certainly ask how a barge could survive a flood which apparently covered the entire world, but to have this included in the article you would have to cite a notable source which meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In calm water, the only "hogging" force is the increased buoyancy of the midsection compared to the bow and stern. In the open ocean, there is also the effect of ocean swells, which don't occur on rivers or lakes. These alternately lift the midsection relative to the bow/stern, and lift the bow/stern relative to the midsection: see Hogging and sagging. And I still don't see where any seagoing ships have been mentioned which exceeded 350 feet in length: the Greek triremes weren't that large (and didn't traverse an ocean), the Santiago was shorter and not "seagoing", the Thalamegos was a riverboat, the Tessarakonteres might have qualified but its "seagoing" status is at best questionable. The Wyoming is still the largest wooden vessel in history (other than possibly the Chinese treasure ships) that was unquestionably built to withstand the full force of the ocean. It is the best analogy to Noah's Ark that we have available, in terms of what it would have to withstand: which is what that paragraph is all about (it is, after all, entitled "Seaworthiness"). The primary issue here is whether or not ANY wooden vessel (especially one without pumps and with a crew of 8) could plausibly have survived the Biblical Flood, regardless of how it was constructed (as the Bible gives us few details of that). The Ark was only a "barge" in the sense that it lacked motive power: it was a "ship" in other respects. --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Originally you claimed barges didn't suffer from any hogging or sagging at all (they did, and the forces on a ship the size of an obelisk barge, carrying several hundred tons of cargo, were significant). Now at least you've realised you were wrong about that and you want to change the subject and talk about about ocean swells and seagoing ships. I have addressed this issue several times previously.

The Wyoming is not the largest wooden vessel in history (I have cited at least three academic authorities which say otherwise), and it is certainly not the best analogy to Noah's Ark that we have available, in terms of what it would have to withstand'. Noah's Ark was differently designed, differently constructed, did not have a huge set of 6 masts (the weight and leverage of which place huge stresses on the hull), nor a steam engine shaking the hull boards apart with constant vibration. The idea that a North American 6 masted schooner with a steam engine is 'the best analogy to an unpowered Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge doesn't even deserve a second glance. As I have also stated, you can certainly ask how a barge could survive a flood which apparently covered the entire world, but to have this included in the article you would have to cite a notable source which meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability.

Once more I note that neither you, nor PiCo, nor Dougweller have provided anything in the way of authoritative verifiable academic sources for your arguments, you've simply made things up on the fly and invented a new objection every time I've disproved a previous objection. I have spent at least 30 hours on this discussion in the last week, including hours carefully checking my sources and references, and at the end of the week I'm receiving nothing more than the same ad hoc fabricated arguments unsubstantiated by any academic authorities that I was hearing at the beginning. I'm also still seeing the complete rejection of academic consensus and standard scholarly works. Until a new argument is raised which is appropriately substantiated from a scholarly consensus and academic works, there exists no reasonable objection whatever to the inclusion in the article of the material to which I have referred. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the seaworthiness (or otherwise) of the Ark isn't really a major issue, given the pretty overwhelming evidence that the Ark is fictional anyhow (in particular, because we're not talking about a real boat here, we need not get into too much detail about how real Mesopotamian shipbuilders built real Mesopotamian boats). There was no global Flood in historical times: and, while the story may well have been based on accounts of a local flood, this humongous vessel would not have been needed for that (Noah could simply have walked to safety with his family and livestock, and there would have been no need to preserve all species of wildlife). So, any actual boat involved in such an incident would not have been "Noah's Ark" as described in the Bible (maybe an ordinary river barge that happened to be available?), and arguments pertaining to its supposed size and construction would be moot. --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this part is entirely personal opinion and valueless to the discussion. All you're doing is exposing your bias and demonstrating the real reason for your objections, which is that you personally don't believe in the historicity of the Ark, and want to suppress any information in this article which contributes to arguments for its historicity. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Boi, your attitude is not at all helpful. Every post I have made to this discussion has stressed the importance of the word "seagoing", and I have pointed out the importance of "sagging and hogging" due to ocean swells. Not once have I ever claimed that river barges don't experience ANY "hogging" forces: so please stop trying to pretend that I don't know what I'm talking about. Also, the Wyoming IS still apparently the longest documented seagoing wooden vessel in history, and you have presented no counterexamples: so please stop claiming that you have done so. And the paragraph in question isn't about the feasibility of building a large wooden vessel: it's entitled "Seaworthiness". Furthermore, if you're now trying to claim that Noah's Ark only had to survive the same conditions that a river barge would have to survive, YOU are exposing a bias: choosing to ignore the Bible (the only primary source) in order to perform Eisegesis, projecting your own views (or the views of other modern apologists) into the Bible and into the article. Regardless of whether it was inspired by a local flood, the Biblical Flood (on which the Biblical Ark would have floated, if it had existed) was worldwide. This is clear from the context (the need to drown everyone except Noah's family, and the need to preserve breeding pairs of all life on Earth). It is also specifically stated in the Bible: "all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered". Yes, I know some apologists like to pretend that this could refer only to the "visible sky", arguing that the water might only extend to the horizon: but if you've researched this, you should know why this interpretation is incorrect. Now, I have no objection to mentioning other large wooden vessels, and I DO understand the differences between a 6-masted schooner and an unpowered barge: but I ALSO understand the differences between a river/lake barge and an oceangoing vessel. This article NEEDS the Wyoming. Initially, you tried to argue that it did not: "...this paragraph in the 'Noah's Ark' should not use the Wyoming as a comparison... And what about the reference to the Wyoming? Why it is it even in here... ...It still does not belong here as a point of comparison...". But I am glad to see you've had a change of heart: "You insist on including the Wyoming (reference to which I am actually retaining)..." We need the Wyoming because it was a seagoing vessel. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being helpful? Have a look at this Talk page and see who is contributing constructively to the article and who isn't. Yes, I know you've been pushing your 'seagoing' barrow, and I have been explaining why it is irrelevant.

You didn't simply claim that the Wyoming is 'the longest documented seagoing wooden vessel in history' (as I pointed out, the Tessarakonteres was launched at sea), you also claimed more boldly later that the Wyoming was 'the largest wooden vessel in history', without any qualification at all.

You're making much of your reference to ocean swells with regard to hogging and sagging, if you only meant to refer to the hogging and sagging then your next sentence 'This is the main factor limiting the size of wooden vessels' is totally inaccurate, since it would only be 'the main factor limiting the size of ocean going wooden vessels'. If by 'River barges (and even vessels on large lakes) don't face this problem' you did not mean 'they do not face hogging and sagging', then I apologise, that was by no means clear. Previously you had even attempted to deny that the Ark was a barge, so it was very clear to me that you have little or no knowledge of the nautical engineering issues at hand, and this remains clear.

Yes the paragraph in question is about 'Seaworthiness' (though in both its original and current form it also discusses the practicality of building a timber vessel over 300 feet in length), and you're welcome to quote or cite any arguments from a notable source meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability, which makes any arguments concerning the Ark's seaworthiness. Hey, I've done this myself to save you the time! How about that? What you can't do is simply insert your own ideas, which constitute Original Research (not to mention personal opinion).

Yes I have a bias, which I have freely acknowledged in this Talk page. Other people haven't been so honest about their bias. But unlike other people, I don't permit my bias to affect negatively my contributions to the main article. You have yourself acknowledged the reasonableness of my proposed amendment, which gives equal weight to both skeptical and Christian arguments and retains all the information which was in the original paragraph. It does not make the article itself argue one way or the other, which is what the original paragraph attempted to do (see NPOV).

No the article does not 'need the Wyoming'. That is simply an expression of your personal bias. What the article needs is evidence that the Wyoming is relevant to certain arguments raised against the practicality and historicity of the Ark. I have provided that evidence, in the correct context and in the correct manner. I have cited it in the context of skeptical arguments against the practicality and historicity of the Ark, which actually use the Wyoming as an example. No, I haven't changed my mind and I still believe the Wyoming is an utterly ludicrous comparison, but because I don't let my personal bias to affect negatively my contributions to the article I have deliberately included reference to a skeptical article which uses the Wyoming as part of its argument against the practicality and historicity of the Ark. What the original article did (and which you want to do), was entirely improper, having the article itself argue against the practicality of the Ark using the Wyoming as a basis of comparison.

If you understand the difference between a 19th century North American 6 masted schooner and an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge, that's good (remember, previously you tried to deny that the Ark was a barge at all). You'll understand completely why comparing the two is invalid (they are built differently and thus experience different stress issues). As I've said, you can't deny that the Ark is explicitly defined as an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge. What you can do (as I have also said), is cite any arguments from a notable source meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability, which make any arguments that such a barge could not have been seaworthy on the basis of the failure of similar all timber barges. Do of course remember Caligula's 340 foot giant barge, which crossed the Mediterranean.

Your personal comments accusing me of Eisegesis constitute a personal attack, but that doesn't particularly concern me. I am fully aware of what the Biblical text does and does not say, and I am fully aware that the two earliest Jewish extant expositions of the flood (Josephus and Philo), both describe it as geographically local. I am also fully aware that the ancient Hebrews had absolutely no concept of the entire globe any more than they had any concept of the entire galaxy, and that analogous Ancient Near East texts used exactly the same apparently global language to describe what was obviously a local area (the Sumerians for example sometimes described their kingdom as 'the entire universe', despite knowing full well that there was something outside their kingdom). --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Boi: again, why are you misrepresenting me, and stating falsehoods about me? This does seem to be a habit of yours, and does nothing to improve the tone of this discussion. At no point have I ever claimed that the Wyoming was the largest wooden vessel (of any sort) ever built: so please stop claiming that I have done so, when anyone reading this discussion can see that I have not. On every occasion I have either used the word "seagoing" or the expression "built to withstand the full force of the ocean". Stop blaming others for your own careless reading. Also, your statement "you can't deny that the Ark is explicitly defined as an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge" seems rather odd, as the Bible says no such thing, there is no historical record of the Mesopotamians (or the Hebrews, who wrote the Biblical version of the story) building anything of comparable size, and the multi-decked structure isn't characteristic of typical river barges. In particular, the vessels familiar to the Hebrews would probably have been fishing boats or simple rafts. And the opinions of Josephus and Philo, writing centuries later at a time when the size and roundness of the Earth was well-known among the educated, tells us little about what the Genesis author intended: what we know about the Shamayim (the actual Hebrew word used here) tells us much more. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware that I am misrepresenting you or stating any falsehoods about you. If you want to express yourself more clearly, please go right ahead. Previously you've leaped from one ad hoc argument to the next, whilst representing yourself as not having changed arguments (previously you claimed the Ark wasn't a barge at all, remember).

If you think it's odd to claim that the Ark is explicitly defined as an Ancient Near East Bronze Age barge, please go and argue with the scholarly consensus. Remember, you'll have to take on quite a few atheists in the process, who will be annoyed at your attempts to move the Ark into a technologically more sophisticated age. The very suggestion that 'the vessels familiar to the Hebrews would probably have been fishing boats or simple rafts' is utterly ludicrous. It's clear you know nothing of Ancient Near East nautical history, still less that pertaining to early Israel. In the 10th century BCE Israel already had international trading routes using ocean going ships which traveled from one end of the Mediterranean to the other, and even outside the Mediterranean. Fishing boats or simple rafts indeed! You should stop just making things up to suit your prejudices and then representing them as facts to defend ad hoc arguments. That there's no evidence the Hebrews built anything of comparable size is irrelevant, since the Ark is not attributed to the Hebrews, it's attributed to a pre-Hebrew civilization in Mesopotamia. That there's no record of the Mesopotamian's building a barge of comparable size is equally irrelevant, what is relevant is whether they could. Hatshepsut's is the only large obelisk barge of which there is epigraphical evidence, yet we know that the Egyptians had to have built more than one given the number of obelisks and monuments they shipped. Prior to the discovery in the 20th century of Caligula's Nemi ships and giant barge, scholars ridiculed the idea that the Romans were even capable of building a ship even approaching 200 feet. They were proved completely wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Look up 'negative proof'.

The opinions of Josephus and Philo are relevant, because even if (as you claim), they knew of the 'size and roundness of the earth' (what has the 'roundness of the earth' to do with the flood?), this defeats your own argument since they still interpreted the flood as local. What they demonstrate is that this interpretation was not simply an apologetic invention of the 19th century, it is about the earliest extant Jewish interpretation of the flood on record. As for the ancient Hebrews, from whom the Ark narrative came, you've completely neglected the fact that they had no concept of the entire globe, and you've also ignored the fact that the language of the flood narrative has Ancient Near East analogues which agree with a local interpretation. You've thrown out the word Shamayim as if it has anything to do with the discussion, which it doesn't. That's a Hebrew word meaning 'heavens', and has nothing to do with what the Hebrews conceived of as the 'erets' (the word used in the Genesis narrative for the 'earth', or 'land'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the evidence that a giant barge built by Caligula crossed the Med? You wouldn't need it to transport an obelisk that was what, 106 feet long?Doug Weller (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cited an authority below (predictably you rejected it, just as PiCo has rejected standard academic authorities). --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, this is an article about Noah's ark - the one described in Genesis 6-9. It's not about Josephus's ark, or Philo's. It's about the one in Genesis. The flood in Genesis is global - it covered "all the high mountains", not some of them. It covered "all the high mountains under the skies", not all the high mountains in Babylonia. In short, it covered the entire world. It was not local. In fact it's very interesting to see what Genesis actually describes: iron-working had already been invented (Tubal-Cain), so it wasn't built with Bronze Age technology. It had no hull, despite the popular depictions - it was just a huge rectangular chest, flat on all sides (and there was a reason for that). Noah had somewhere between a week and 47 days to build it, and into that time he had to fit trips all over the world to collect the animals. And he was 600 years old, and he built it alone. That, and more, is the story in Genesis. Please stop inventing your own version. PiCo (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your personal interpretation of the account in Genesis, nothing more. You can disagree with my interpretation all you please, but don't represent the disagreement as significant in any way. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wyoming, part III

(continuing the voyage of the good ship Wyoming)

Taiwan Boi: it is qite pointless to pretend that you have not misrepresented me, when your false claims are plain for all to see. You have falsely claimed that I said the Wyoming was the largest wooden vessel in history "without any qualification at all", when "...that was unquestionably built to withstand the full force of the ocean" is a major qualification! You are also falsely accusing me of "changing my argument" when I have actually argued consistently about the importance of seaworthiness on the open ocean rather than rivers etc.

If you meant that phrase to qualify the claim 'The Wyoming is still the largest wooden vessel in history', then I'll accept that (although it was certainly not clear to me), and apologize. I don't ever misrepresent you intentionally, so stop claiming I do. It's incredible that you want to try and claim the high moral ground given your behaviour in this talk page and your repeated fabrications (not to mention your numerous attempts to prevent scholarly information from being included in the article).

When I mentioned you changing your argument, I referred specifically to your comments regarding the Ark being an barge ('Previously you had even attempted to deny that the Ark was a barge'), nothing to do with it being an oceangoing ship. You are not reading my posts. Read my posts, please. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Biblical Flood was not local: it covered all the high mountains under the sky, and there was no "horizon effect" in Hebrew cosmology (the sky is a dome over a flat Earth, the whole sky is visible from any point under it, the visible sky covers the whole world). Later apologetics don't change that (regardless of who is using them).

Now you're deliberately running from the fact that the ancient Hebrews had no concept of the entire planet, and trying to fabricate a new argument based on their cosmology of the sky. Once more you demonstrate an ignorance of the subject on which you're attempting to speak, and simply making things up as you go along. This is (ironically), typical Fundamentalist behaviour.

The Hebrews were very well aware or a 'horizon effect', whatever their understanding or explanation of it was. They knew full well that objects became more difficult to see at a distance, and eventually became impossible to see. They did not believe that anyone, standing anywhere on a level plain, could see the entire world. On the contrary, they understood that you could only see more by reaching a higher elevation, demonstrating a clear knowledge of the horizon effect. With regard to the 'whole sky', you've completely misunderstood the phrase to which you're appealing, which the Hebrews also used to refer to a limited local area (for example, in Deuteronomy 2:25 'the nations that are under the whole heaven' refers only to the nations in Canaan, see also ‘all flesh’ in Psalm 145:21, Isaiah 40:5; 66:23, Jeremiah 45:5, Ezekiel 20:48; 21:4, Joel 2:28 and ‘the face of the earth’, in Genesis 4:14; 41:56, Exodus 10:5, Numbers 11:31; 22:5, 11, Isaiah 23:17, Jeremiah 25:26, Ezekiel 34:5; 38:20).

As for 'apologetics', neither Philo nor Josephus was writing an 'apologetic' for the flood or the Ark, the historicity of which were completely accepted in their day not only by the Jews but by the Greeks and Romans. Josephus even cites approvingly the Roman deluge legend, pointing out that their description of the flood was also local. These men weren't attempting to write apologies for the flood and 'scale it down' for that purpose, they were simply commenting on the text as it read naturally to them. The fact that they didn't interpret it as global is a complete refutation of your claim that such an interpretation is merely ad hoc modern apologetics. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As for Israel having "international trading routes with oceangoing ships": I presume you're conflating the Hebrews with the Phoenicians there, but in doing so you've torpedoed your own argument.

No I am not conflating the Hebrews with the Phoenicians. Clearly you're ignorant of this history as well. The 10th century Hebrews certainly had strong trading relations with the Phoenicians, but also had their own sea going fleets which traveled to distant destinations such as Tarshish and Ophir. See for example 'Seafaring and the Jews' (edited by Nadav Kashtan, 2001), 'A Hebrew Seal Depicting a Sailing Ship' (Nahman Avigad, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 246, (Spring, 1982), pages 59-62), and 'Long-Distance Seafaring in the Ancient Near East' (Robert Stieglitz, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 47, No. 3, (Sep., 1984), pages 134-142). I should be charging a tuition fee for the amount I’m having to teach you about history here on Wikipedia. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though the Flood story was originally Sumerian, this differed in many ways from the Genesis version: and the Genesis version was written by the Hebrews, who (by your own argument) were familiar with oceangoing SHIPS (and even the vessels the Hebrews were themselves accustomed to building, in their coastal fishing ports, would have been primarily boatlike rather than bargelike). So why should they concieve of the Ark as a "Mesopotamian river barge" if they were familiar with oceanging vessels that were not built like Mesopotamian river barges?

I’m glad you acknoweldge the many differences between the Genesis flood narrative and the other ANE flood narratives (a point I address further below). But you've actually forgotten your previous argument (or else simply abandoned it). Previously you claimed that 'the vessels familiar to the Hebrews would probably have been fishing boats or simple rafts', in order to argue that they would not have conceived of the Ark as a barge. Having been proved wrong on that point, you're hastily dumping that argument and switching to a new one, that they were familiar with 'oceangoing vessels', but that since these vessels were 'not built like Mesopotamian river barges', they would not have conceived of the Ark as a river barge.

This is a ludicrous argument given the clear description of the Ark as a barge. Just look at the dimensions and shape. You can't get around it. Why would the Hebrews have conceived of the Ark as a barge? Because that's what the entire purpose of the vessel was! Why would they conceive of it as a Mesopotamian river barge? Because that’s exactly what everyone used to carry massive loads within the Mesopotamian flood plain! The very shape of the vessel indicates that the Hebrews conceived of it NOT as a fully rigged seagoing clipper with a team of rowers, but as a massive cargo barge. This is internal evidence that the flood narrative was understood to refer to a local event. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your whole argument hinges on the belief that the story was based on an actual giant wooden vessel that was actually built in ancient Mesopotamia, rather than a fictional giant wooden vessel written about by people who would more likely have envisaged a giant oceangoing vessel as a scaled-up Phoenician ship!

My argument doesn't hinge on that at all. My argument is simply that the way to test the Ark's practicality is to compare it with ANE analogues, which is exactly what I am doing. This requires no unwarranted assumptions, no personal faith beliefs, and does not even prove the Ark was ever built. Your claim that the Hebrews would 'more likely have envisaged a giant oceangoing vessel as a scaled-up Phoenician ship' contains the unwarranted assumption that the Hebrews believed the Ark was an oceangoing vessel, and completely ignores the fact that the dimensions and shape of the Ark are absolutely nothing like any of the oceangoing vessels well known to the Hebrews. It's not just a 'scaled up' Phoenecian vessel, it's a completely different shape. It's a barge, and I know of absolutely no recognized academic commentary (whether religious or secular), which even attempts to describe or reconstruct it as anything else. You're simply making things up to fit your prejudices. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, IIRC, the Sumerian/Babylonian Ark was more like a giant box than a "river barge". But this is an article primarily about Noah's Ark, from the Hebrew Book of Genesis: not the ark of Ut-Napishtim or whoever. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither the Sumerian or Akkadian arks are described, either in terms of size or shape. You're thinking of the much later Assyrian 'ark' described in Tablet XI, inserted into the Gilgamesh Epic by Assyrian scribes in about the 7th century, which was a 55x55x55 meter cube. The Genesis flood narrative clearly did not use the Sumerian or Akkadian descriptions, since neither of them describe shape or dimensions, and clearly did not use the late Assyrian description either, since the Genesis narrative describes a vessel which is totally different in size and shape. The Assyrian flood narrative is the most wildly unrealistic and exaggerated of all the Ancient Near East flood narratives, and was clearly written by someone who had no clue whatever about the practicalities involved. There are only 2 days to build a completely enclosed cube of wood or reeds (55x55x55 meters), full of animals, people, silver and gold, as well as thousands of measures of oil, without tension trusses, with 9 rooms in seven decks, which must survive heavy storms for 6 days (which has to cover Mesopotamia using only 6 days of rain), equipped with punting poles for propulsion and steering (which cannot be used), handled by a man who cannot see where he is going while the ship is under way and who sends out the wrong birds to sight for land.

There isn’t enough time to build the ship, or for the rain to flood Mesopotamia. The ship’s shape and dimensions are nothing like ships either of the early Mesopotamian era or even of the later Assyrian era, it's totally impractical for use on any body of water at all (inland or at sea), and the ship wouldn’t have the strength to survive the heavy storms described in the narrative (’the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land... the storm was pounding, the flood was a war’). The punting poles could not have been used in a ship which is completely enclosed, the navigator can’t see anything while the ship is under way, only opens a hatch after the ship has run aground, and is completely unqualified for the task, showing an ignorance of standard nautical procedures. The Genesis flood narrative is nothing like this. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's another rather crucial problem with your argument: the civilization that allegedly built the Ark was wiped out in the Flood. And even though the "Mesopotamians" known to the Genesis authors were considered to be the descendants of Noah: so was everyone else. There would have been nothing specifically, culturally "Mesopotamian" about the Ark-builders. If we assume Genesis is true, then Noah and his culture were just as much Greek, Chinese, Olmec etc. as "Mesopotamian". The agument only works for a local flood that didn't wipe out the actual Mesopotamian culture: and that contradicts Genesis. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're manufacturing a problem which doesn't actually exist by insisting that the Genesis flood narrative must be referring to a global flood. In order to assert this you have been reduced to fabricating the claim that the people who wrote the Genesis flood narrative had a level of scientific knowledge which they simply did not have (as has been well documented). Once more I note a complete lack of any academic references in your posts on this matter. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Utnapishtim's vessel was a model of a Babylonian ziggurat (it wasn't actually a cube, it was a pyramid), it's 7 levels corresponding to the 7 heavens; Noah's ark is a model of the idealised Temple in Jerusalem described in Ezekiel's vision, its 3 levels corresponding to the 3-fold levels of Creation described in Genesis 1 (and the Temple itself is a model of the world, long and thin as conceived by the Egyptians and Canaanites rather than circular or square as conceived by the Babylonians).

What does 'Ten dozen cubits the height of each of its walls, ten dozen cubits each edge of the square deck' mean to you'? That's a 120x120 cubit cube. Note that the deck is 'square', and it is 'ten dozen cubits' along each edge. The deck being the top floor, this cannot be a pyramid. See 'Studying the Ancient Israelites: A Guide to Sources and Methods' (Raphael Patai, 1998, page 3), 'Middle Eastern Mythology' (SH Hooke, 2004, page 47), 'The Pentateuch: A Story Of Beginnings' (Paula Gooder, 2005, page 41), 'The Names of God' (Herbert Chanan Bricht, 1998, page 117, note that Bricht actually argues that the Assyrian flood narrative is supposed to be a comedy), 'The Creation: Secular, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and Muslim Perspectives' (Everette Jenkins, 2003, page 278), and any number of other standard works in the field which identify the 120x120 cubits as a cube. You are probably thinking of Origen's interpretation of Noah's Ark as a great pyramid. If you aren't, then wherever you found this 'Utnapishtim's vessel was a pyramid' idea, it's almost certainly fringe and not represented by the majority of mainstream literature. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither Utna nor Noah needed navigation - they both had God to guide them.

Clearly you haven't read either narrative. In the Assyrian Tablet XI Utnapishtim equips his ship with punting poles, which cannot possibly be used if you can't see where you're going (clearly the intention was that he should know which way he is going, but the rest of the story contradicts this), and they can't be used in an entirely enclosed cube in any case (unless there were punters hanging off the side of the ship). Not only that, but there is no mention whatever (in either Tablet XI or the Genesis narrative), of Utnapistim or Noah being 'guided by God' (you seem completely unaware that there are many gods in the Tablet XI narrative, not just one 'God'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Utna had 2 days to build his ark, Noah had a week to a month (tho Noah had the additional task of travelling all over the world collecting the animals - he must have thanked God that the birds came unaided). The waters for Noah's flood came from the cosmic ocean which surrounds the world (that's why God opens the "windows of heaven" - to let in the outer waters); God does this on the 2nd month (corresponding to the 2nd day of Creation, when the firmament which keeps them out was put in place - God is now removing the separation between the world and the outer waters), and rose until the 7th month, at which point the Ark, like God on the 7th day, rests (and Noah's name also means "Rest"); the waters then fall for 7 more months, completing the cycle of two sets of seven, each mirroring the 7 days of Creation in Genesis 1. Does this really sound like a description of a historical event, or even a memory of a legendary one?

This is all simply personal opinion mixed with a few bits and pieces of various different interpretations, but all of it is irrelevant to the discussion between Robert Stevens and myself. As I've already demonstrated, your claim that Noah had a week to a month to build the Ark is totally inaccurate (the Genesis narrative says no such thing), and so is your claim that Noah had to travel all over the world to collect the animals (again, the Bible says no such thing).

A number of the other ideas you mentioned are also fringe, especially the alleged parallels between the Ark and the Hebrew cosmology and Temple. I see you've simply ripped off Holloway ('What Ship Goes There: The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis Considered in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Temple Ideology', 1988), without checking the facts or considering the criticism. How many scholars out there agree with Holloway? Well, you wouldn't know (have you read any of the standard criticism?). Others claim the Ark is modeled on the Tabernacle, not the Temple! Of course, when you're making it all up as you go along then you can say what you like. Maybe the Ark is modeled on the box which Josiah put out for the Temple reconstruction fund! There's no consensus even on which parts of the Genesis flood narrative were the product of which source, or which dates, and some would place the description of the Ark's dimensions in the pre-Temple era. The numerical 'parallels' you list are demonstrably contrived (though I've seen worse), following the usual practice of 'grab the numbers which fit the theory and ignore the rest', hence the selection of the '2nd month' as if it's significant, whilst totally ignoring the '17th day', there's no mention at all of the 40 days and nights of the rain falling, nor the 40 days of the flood engulfing the earth (despite the fact that 40 is one of the most oft used representative/theological numbers in the Old Testament), no mention of the 150 days, the 7th month is identified as significant though the 17th day is ignored (again, selective reading), the connection between God 'resting' on the 7th month and Noah's name is imaginary (there is no mention of the waters rising until the 7th month, and the significance of the meaning of Noah's name has already been identified in Genesis 5:29), and no mention of the waters taking seven months to recede.

That the Genesis flood narrative is told using various chiastic constructions and stylized narrative features is certainly not disputed. That this means it is not a historical record, is simply ludicrous. If that's what you believe then you certainly are not familiar with what is 'well-established in the scholarly literature'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Bible is full of wonky numbers - there are 20 generations from Adam to Abraham, corresponding to 20 kings from Solomon, who built the Temple, to its destruction, etc etc. And if you think there really were 20 kings of Judah, what about the odd fact that there are also 20 kings of Israel - and each list is interrupted at number 7 by an Evil Queen? (Coincidence, sheer coincidence). All this is well-established in the scholarly literature, and I'm surprised taiwan boi seems not to be aware of it.PiCo (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There are scholarly terms for the use of numbers as ritual, symbolic, or narrative devices, and 'wonky' is not one of them. Please do a little reading before you try to speak on the subject (and preferably a little learning).

You slide in 'All of this is well-established in the scholarly literature', as if you're referring to everything you've written (I hope you weren't, as this actually applies to almost nothing you've written). In the list of the kings of Judah the 'wicked queen' Athaliah comes in at number seven, but in the list of the kings of Israel there are no wicked queens ruling at all, in the entire list of 19 monarchs (sorry, Ahab was on the throne not Jezebel, there was no 'interruption' of the monarchy by a 'wicked queen', check the standard king lists). So that's 21 kings for Judah (not 20), 19 kings for Israel (not 20), and only one 'wicked queen' ruling in the entire list of 40 monarchs. Do you even bother to check what you read? Apparently not. So much for 'coincidence' and so much for what you think is 'well-established in the scholarly literature'.

When it comes to Noah's Ark and the Genesis flood narrative there is surprisingly little which is 'well-established in the scholarly literature', as consensus on most interpretative issues doesn't even exist. If you meant 'All of these ideas are found aired within the full range of scholarly literature', I would agree with you. That's something of which I’m very well aware, contrary to your entirely unsubstantiated claim (I have a personal collection of 25 scholarly journals on my computer alone, not to mention my access to JSTOR). I've read all kinds of interpretations of the Genesis flood narrative in the scholarly literature, from the rational to the simply idiotic, and it's clear from your posts in this Talk page (and your list of edits of Bible related pages, together with people's various objections), that your sympathies are with the latter. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Boi: I see that your fabrications are continuing. I didn't merely "mean" to qualify my claim, I DID qualify my claim. And now you've added a bogus charge of "repeated fabrications" (where?) and "numerous attempts to prevent scholarly information from being included in the article" (where?). There is a saying: "when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, it's time to stop digging".

And you're still insisting that Noah's Ark was a "Mesopotamian river barge" despite NO reason whatsoever to assume that this was how the Hebrews envisaged it, and completely disregarding every indication to the contrary! And I certainly never claimed that the Ark was "fully rigged" or had a "team of rowers": only that there is no indication that it would have used the same construction techniques (hull design etc) as the Mesopotamians used for their river barges. And the assumption of a worldwide Flood (and hence an ocean) is certainly not "unwarranted", and indeed the story makes no sense otherwise (you evidently cannot explain why Noah needed to build an Ark rather than simply leave the area, or why Noah had to preserve breeding pairs of all the wildlife: after a local flood, new wildlife would move in from the surrounding area MUCH more quickly than single breeding pairs could replenish it). BTW, you have misunderstood the "horizon effect", which is NOT merely the observation that you can't see forever: it is a specific phenomenon that is dependent on a round Earth, which the Hebrews had no concept of. And under Hebrew cosmology, the entire SKY can indeed be seen from anywhere, even if the entire EARTH cannot (unless part of the sky-dome is hidden behind a nearby mountain or whatever: but as the Flood covered "all the high mountains", this clearly cannot apply here). Therefore all the world under the sky-dome is... well, the whole world.

You have also failed to address my argument that the civilization that allegedly built the Ark was wiped out in the Flood (and was therefore not the same civilization that you know of as "Mesopotamian"). This argument is NOT specifically a global-flood argument: if we assume that Genesis is true but the Flood is nevertheless local, then the purpose of the Flood was to WIPE OUT that civilization. If that civilization survived, then God FAILED in his stated purpose. There are (at least) two versions: one is that all humanity lived in the affected region, and the other is that God wasn't targeting those humans who lived elsewhere: but the civilization from which Noah came would have been wiped out. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwanboi, I really do wonder what it is you're reading - I gather you're an undergraduate at a small bible college somewhere in America, so you should be becoming increasingly acquainted with at least some of the literature.

I know a bluff when I see one PiCo, and in this case we both know that I'm the one who regularly reads the standard academic journals, when you're a freelance journalist who doesn't. You found Holloway somewhere online, ripped off bits and pieces of his work (without attribution, to make it seem as if this was some kind of scholarly consensus), and you're not even aware of the standard criticisms (I myself kicked it apart in 15 minutes). You didn't even stop to check basic facts such as the dimensions and shape of Utnapishtim's vessel. No I am not 'an undergraduate at a small bible college somewhere in America', I've never even lived in the US and I graduated about 12 years ago (not from 'a small bible college', but from a standard secular university). I'm also far more studied and well read on this subject than you are (not to mention better academically qualified).

You know the kind of works I'm reading, because unlike everyone else here I've cited and quoted a wide array of mainstream scholarly works. A list of what I am reading would take up a page on its own, but suffice it to say that it includes William G Dever, Thompson L Thompson, Israel Finkelstein, Philip Davies, Niels Lemche, BibSac, Vetus Testamentum, and JNES. Even you should know that this is where the mainstream scholarly Bible commentary is to be found. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the consensus among mainline bible scholars (as distinct from those popular in evangelical colleges in the American boondocks) is that there never was a Flood or Ark, and that the first 11 chapters of Genesis don't represent real history.

Another carefully unqualified statement. The consensus among mainline Bible scholars is that there was a flood, and possibly an ark (both of which came down to the Biblical authors by way of older sources), and that the first 11 chapters of Genesis contain certain historical details from earlier oral or textual traditions. So what? --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The theories you advance (they seem to be OEC) are definitely marginal.

That's another attempt at a bluff, simply because I exposed your use of fringe arguments (you didn't even know you were so wrong about the king lists and the 'wicked queens', did you?). Most of the arguments I've raised are in fact completely mainstream, and as a regular reader of the mainstream journals I'm in a position to know (I'm also perfectly aware which arguments are marginal). This is highly ironic coming from someone who tried to foist Holloway on me. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(Frankly, I have more respect for YEC views that OEC - once you start down the OEC path of picking out particular bits to believe and rejecting others, you start down the slippery slope that leads to Lemche and Whitlam) PiCo (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how many people have no understanding of the modern historiographical method. Look over at the Battle of Kadesh page for an example of what you call 'picking out particular bits to believe and rejecting others', and what modern scholarship calls 'correct historiographical method'. By the way, Lemche and Whitlam arrive at different conclusions, on the basis of different methodologies (but clearly you didn't know that either). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't quite a bluff - I was wondering whether your academic qualifications are so solid as you would have us believe.

It was certainly a bluff, because you were trying to give the impression of a lot more knowledge than you have, and trying to give the impression that the views you were giving belonged to some kind of consensus. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to lay the cards on the table: I have a PhD in history (dissertation on the breakup of the British Raj), served in the Australian diplomatic service for 18 years (I was Charge in Baghdad in 1990 - that was fun!), then went to the UN as a political officer in South Africa (the 1994 elections), Iraq, and finally Morocco, before retiring. My journalism is more in the nature of a hobby than a career - I don't earn my income from it. So that's me. What about you? Why so coy about your background?

In other words, you're a retiree whose last scholarly work was more than 30 years ago and wasn't related to this field, you dabble in the articles here on the Old Testament despite the fact that 'my interest in the OT is fairly minimal', despite the fact that you have no relevant qualifications, despite the fact that you don't keep up with any of the scholarly journals, you don't know mainstream from fringe, your reading on the subject is almost completely limited to what you can Google in your idle moments, and you have a history of people objecting to your self-interested edits to Wiki pages on the Bible and related subjects,

I haven't been 'coy' about my background. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I've simply rejected your inaccurate description of me. I have a double classics major and that's it (at least it's relevant to Biblical studies). My Masters degree is in information management, and I'm still completing it (though my training in this field is the major reason why I'm far better at the proper research and use of academic data than you are). I haven't claimed any specific qualifications in this field. I've simply pointed out that I'm better informed on it than you are, and better academically qualified for it as well (and what do you know, it turned out to be true). For someone with a PhD in history, you made an incredibly ignorant comment regarding historiography. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe that someone like Ken Kitchen is a mainstream authority (he's actually quite marginal)?

I never said any such thing. Read what I wrote:

A list of what I am reading would take up a page on its own, but suffice it to say that it includes William G Dever, Thompson L Thompson, Israel Finkelstein, Philip Davies, Niels Lemche, BibSac, Vetus Testamentum, and JNES. Even you should know that this is where the mainstream scholarly Bible commentary is to be found.

But yet again we have a completely unqualified statement from you. Kitchen is most certainly a mainstream authority in the field of Egyptology and ancient Semitic inscriptions. But you wouldn't know that (I own and have read his works, you do not and have not). --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist that the 2-sources-in-theFlood-narrative is contested, when it's universally accepted?

I wasn't actually the one who said this. Read the posts, please. I said very explicitly 'I am not contesting the use of multiple sources in the flood narrative' and 'For what it's worth I personally believe the entire Pentateuch is the product of multiple sources' (you're as bad as Robert Stevens, he almost never reads my posts properly). But however you want to define 'contested', the fact is that it's not 'universally accepted'. Surely you must know that there are almost as many theories on this as there are scholars. If you had read any of the criticism of Holloway for example, you would have found three source theories. I personally hold to one of the multi-source theories as I have been very clear to state, though I believe the narrative as it has come down to us is one literary unit (if you had read Thompson L Thompson on Genesis-Exodus as a literary unit you would have understood this). --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but of course, I already know the answer: you're an OEC, well out of the mainstream yourself!

Ah, but you're wrong! You're simply trying to turn the discussion to me in order to avoid the academic sources I've quoted. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(Incidentally, a lady doesn't have to reign to be a queen, she just has to have a husband in the right line of work - Jezebel was the Wicked Queen of Israel...and there were 20 kings of Israel and of Judah: this isn't my personal theory, it's a well-known puzzle in the Good Book - well known to everyone except, apparently, you...) PiCo (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation, 'Ooops, that was a bad mistake, now I'll have to try and dig myself out with more bluffing'. You said interrupted, remember? You can't dig yourself out of that. Find me a scholarly regnal list which replaces Ahab with Jezebel (you both know we won't find one). Athaliah was certainly an interruption, Jezebel most certainly was not. I didn't claim that '20 kings of Israel and of Judah' was your invention, on the contrary I said it was something you had read somewhere and accepted uncritically (as I have pointed out, standard academic king lists differ from this claim). The only real 'puzzle' with regard to the regnal lists is not to do with the number of kings, it's to do with the regnal years (see Thiele, etc). --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this does also raise the question of just how divorced Taiwan Boi's "mainstream Biblical scholarship" is from other mainstream historical (and other) scholarship.

It isn't (not that you would know what constitutes 'mainstream scholarship' any more than PiCo):

A list of what I am reading would take up a page on its own, but suffice it to say that it includes William G Dever, Thompson L Thompson, Israel Finkelstein, Philip Davies, Niels Lemche, BibSac, Vetus Testamentum, and JNES. Even you should know that this is where the mainstream scholarly Bible commentary is to be found.

This is why I'm better informed on the subject than you are. I read the current literature. You don't. You don't even know what's mainstream and what isn't. I spend a lot of time here correcting your errors and exposing your fabrications, and you just keep blithely continuing regardless. From your Talk page, it's clear I'm not the only one who has experienced your special brand of editing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel definitely had a seafaring tradition because Solomon (unknown to history), in Israel's "golden age" (unknown to history), traded with Ophir (apparently about as historical as Atlantis or Eldorado)? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe I am reading this. Firstly that is not what I said. Secondly I cited no less than three academic sources as support for what I said (predictably, you simply ignored them):

See for example 'Seafaring and the Jews' (edited by Nadav Kashtan, 2001), 'A Hebrew Seal Depicting a Sailing Ship' (Nahman Avigad, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 246, (Spring, 1982), pages 59-62), and 'Long-Distance Seafaring in the Ancient Near East' (Robert Stieglitz, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 47, No. 3, (Sep., 1984), pages 134-142).

Thirdly Solomon is not 'unknown to history' (again you demonstrate an ignorance of historiography), and nor is Israel's 'golden age' (even Dever says this). Fourthly Ophir is not 'apparently about as historical as Atlantis or Eldorado'. This is precisely what I mean by fabrications. You don't have any knowledge of this subject, and you just make things up as you go along, totally ignoring all scholarly work and academic authorities. At least PiCo acknowledges the scholarly work and academic authorities, he just keeps insisting that they're wrong and he's right (except when he needs one, then he'll find a fringe article by someone like Holloway and try and represent it as the mainstream consensus). By the way, I noticed you eagerly made a completely inaccurate post about what I had written concerning the Assyrian flood narrative, and then had to embarrassingly delete it all because you suddenly realised that you hadn't read my post properly. Let that be a lesson. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. According to Dever, "The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence". So, no "golden age" as presented in the Bible. And, of course, there is no consensus that anything from Solomon's reign has ever been found. Incidentally, Dever has more recently said "I wrote to frustrate Biblical minimalists, then I became one of them"... --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see all you've done is visit the Wikipedia page on Dever, and quickly copy/paste a couple of sentences. Well, that's all I should have expected. Not only is there no rational argument here, you've completely misrepresented Dever because you havne't actually read his works (as I have), and you don't know what he actually argues (which I do). This is precisely what I mean by fabrications. You don't have any knowledge of this subject, and you just make things up as you go along, totally ignoring all scholarly work and academic authorities.

For your information, although Dever believes that the Biblical histories contain exaggerations and embellishments, he still argues for the historicity of Solomon, that he did preside over a 'golden age' (though less glorious than the Biblical descriptions would appear to say), and specifically argues that the most glorious achievement of Solomon (the huge and ornate temple), was a genuine historical building. Here are some actual quotes from Dever ('What Did The Biblical Authors Know, And When Did They Know It?', 2002):

• 'We have used this evidence of centralization at Gezer, as well as at Hazor and Meggido, as proof of a Solomonic "state" in the 10th century' (page 133)
• 'The Solomon-Shishak destruction-layer synchronism is so secure that most archaeologists take it for granted, arguing at most over exactly which layer in a given mound is the best candidate for Shishak's raid' (page 137)
• 'Indeed, the "fabulous" nature of Solomon's temple in the Bible is largely what prompts the revisionists and others to dismiss it as a figment of later writers' and editors' imaginations, fired by the old legends the "Golden Age of Solomon". But is the biblical temple really "fabulous", that is, nothing but a fable? Hardly. It might have been regarded so a generation ago; but the fact is that we now have direct Bronze and Iron Age parallels for every single feature of the "Solomonic temple" as described in the Hebrew Bible, and the best parallels come from, and only from, the Canaanite-Phoenician world of the 15th-19th centuries' (page 145)
• 'Before leaving Solomon, perhaps a bit diminished now, let me emphasize that every single detail of the Bible's complicated description of the Jerusalem temple can now be corroborated by archaeological examples from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Ages. There is nothing "fanciful" about 1 Kgs. 6-8' (page 155)

Once again you are attempting to speak on a subject concerning which you know nothing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...And as for those Bible verses: "With regard to the 'whole sky', you've completely misunderstood the phrase to which you're appealing, which the Hebrews also used to refer to a limited local area (for example, in Deuteronomy 2:25 'the nations that are under the whole heaven' refers only to the nations in Canaan, see also ‘all flesh’ in Psalm 145:21, Isaiah 40:5; 66:23, Jeremiah 45:5, Ezekiel 20:48; 21:4, Joel 2:28 and ‘the face of the earth’, in Genesis 4:14; 41:56, Exodus 10:5, Numbers 11:31; 22:5, 11, Isaiah 23:17, Jeremiah 25:26, Ezekiel 34:5; 38:20)." Is that more "mainstream Biblical scholarship"? There's a surprising amount of obvious eisegesis in there: verses which make perfect sense given the small-world view of the Hebrews (e.g. hoping that God would be feared/worshipped by all nations) but can't really be applied to a local area of the world without injecting knowledge that the Middle East was a small region, plus obvious ignoring of context (e.g. references to stuff covering the "face of the Earth" in Israel or Egypt, clearly indicated in a previous verse). If this is "mainstream Biblical scholarship", it's in a terrible state... --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again you demonstrate a breathtaking ignorance of the subject and standard works. There is no 'eisegesis' here. It is well known that the Israelites had no concept of the entire planet, and that such phrases as these were often used for a limited location (you can't get around such passages as Deuteronomy 2:25, which is specific to Canaan). You've even shot yourself in the foot acknowledging that a number of these passages make it clear that 'the whole earth' or 'the face of the earth' refer to a local area such as Israel or Egypt. Yet you claimed they were always universal, and necessarily indicated a knowledge of and reference to the entire planet. Now you're backflipping completely. And still no academic sources cited by you, I see. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the text expresses the wish that the campaign against the Caananites will be the beginning of what will eventually be a reign of terror over the whole world. There is no indication to the contrary.

What a bizarre interpretation. Talk about 'fringe'. I've never even heard that before. How about you publish it in a peer reviewed journal? I'm sure people will be interested to know that the specific boundary limited land defined in explicit detail as a particular area of Canaan really meant 'the beginning of what will eventually be a reign of terror over the whole world'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No such limit is specified for Deuteronomy 2:25, which is quite distinct in tone from the surrounding verses. It comes after a list of conquered nations, refers to this as the beginning of a greater process (that would eventually cover the world), and then the author gets back to more immediate matters and starts talking about messengers (and eventually gets back to the typical bloodshed).

This is completely false (and only your interpretation in any case). It's a quote from Moses' own words concerning their initial conquests of the Canaanites, and in fact speaks of what had already happened in the past. The entire section is speaking of their entry into the land and their conquest of the inhabitants. As I have pointed out, the borders of the land are clearly demarcated. There is no 'reign of terror over the whole world'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And I note that you have not cited a single authority in support of your claim that this verse doesn't mean exactly what it says. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to? How many do you want? Every time you attempt to make this claim in an argument I bury you in references and you then proceed to ignore them. Given that you never cite any yourself, this is irony indeed. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And there is no "backflip" here (stuff can cover the ground anywhere), and you're not even using the right Hebrew phrase anyhow (under the whole sky etc).

Of course there's a backflip. You previously claimed this language had to be universal not local, now you've acknowledged it is local. These phrases are relevant because they demonstrate the Hebrews used a range of apparently universal terms for local areas, substantiating my argument and ruining yours. Now do this article a favour for a change, and go and read my latest proposal. --Taiwan boi (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand which phrase is being used for which purpose in Genesis. The definitive whole-Earth phrase is not "face of the Earth" (that's just water covering the ground: context indicates what part of the "face" is being covered by something), it's "under the whole sky" (i.e. every part of the world below the sky-dome). --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

...But we've gone far into WP:NOTAFORUM territory by now, I've long since lost track of what all this has to do with the article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Documentary Hypothesis" section and projected new section on contemporary scholarship

I have deleted the rather long additions on the structure of the narrative. These had grown up on the end of the Secular Scholarship section, but had the effect of detracting from the original intention of that section, which was to describe the role of the Ark narrative in the development of secular biblical criticism during the 19th century. The Ark story played a very important role in the Higher Criticism (as it was called at the time - the term is distinctly frowsy today), and deserves to be treated in its own right. Indeed, the entire articler takes a historical approach - it begins by setting out the narrative itself, then runs through the three major religious interpretations in chronological order, then moves on to describe the impact of the Enlightenment and the European exploration of the Americas. Irt was meant to move then to the 19th century and the development of secular biblical scholarship, as I mentioned above, but recent additions have destroyed the clarity of this structure. So I've renamed the section as Documentary Hypothesis and restricted it to the DH alone.

What's needed now is a new section on contemporary knowledge about the Ark narrative. I believe this should touch on the following points (and I put these ideas here for discussion with other editors):

• The ANE context of the Ark story - meaning the Babylonian and possibly Egyptian stories behind it
• The literary analysis of the narrative - it's place in the Primeval History, the role of chiasmus, etc.
• Its theological meaning - by which I mean the meaning it held for its original audience.

I'd be glad to have input on these ideas. PiCo (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds sensible to me. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because the extensive deletions included much more than just the referenced discussion of the "structure" of verses, which appears only at the very end of the removed section. Much more crucial and reliably referenced information was also removed. (When I saw the summary at first I thought something about the physical dimensions of the ark had been removed, but I looked a little more closely) But at any rate, the information in question is all properly referenced and should not be suddenly removed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Til, I'm not proposing the permament deletion of this material but it's removal to a new section which will take in a rather wider range of subjects, summarising contemporary thinking on the Noah's Ark narrative. PiCo (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, it would be much more preferable if you do not "temporarily remove" something until you are ready to replace it somewhere else. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

The following is my proposed rewrite of the section 'Seaworthiness'. Please note that it retains the information which was in the original version of this section, and actually adds superior references (including two new atheist Websites, one of which specifically cites the Wyoming and Great Republic). Please also note (and note well), that it does not argue for the practicality of the Ark, it simply notes Christian apologetic arguments for the practicality of the Ark. I repeat, please note this well because I do not want to have to spend hours saying this three or four times to people who don't read properly.

*Seaworthiness: The Ark is described as 300 cubits long, the cubit being a unit of measurement from elbow to outstretched fingertip. The ancient cubit was from 17.5 inches to 21.5 inches, giving a length in the range 437.5 feet (133 m) to 537.5 feet (164 m);. As a result, many different assessments of the Ark's length have been posited. An extreme length of 680 feet was suggested in the 19th century, but most earlier estimates were considerably shorter than this. The dimensions are generally understood as indicating that the Ark was over 400 feet long. Current Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long, , whilst other Christian sources posit slightly smaller dimensions, or merely cite the cubits in the Biblical account without calculating the size in modern terms.. With a generally agreed on length of over 400 feet, the Ark was noted as late as the 19th century as 'larger than any modern ship'. It has been pointed out by skeptics of the Genesis narrative that the Ark's length is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming and the clipper Great Republic (two of the largest all timber vessels ever built), and claimed that the chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation from which such ships suffered (despite reinforcement with iron bracing), proves the Ark could not have survived the flood. Modern shipbuilding commentaries note that similar late 19th century ships such as the HMS Orlando and Mersey experienced the same problems, and cite them as evidence that timber ships beyond these dimensions are likely to be impractical.

Christian apologists generally reply to these objections by claiming that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark. From as early as the 17th century comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered analogous in dimensions and construction. Defending the praticality of the Ark, Walter Raleigh argued the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia (a ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse), and the giant fighting ship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. The Tessarakonteres (recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.

Other ancient ships used as points of comparison by Christian apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships, the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.

A Korean paper published by Answers In Genesis claims the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic, and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'. Typically cited by Biblical literalist Websites, this paper does not appear to be widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

...Not bad. I think all it needs is this, added to the end of the second paragraph: "However, none of these ancient vessels was required to survive conditions on the open ocean, as the more modern wooden ships did". And maybe a "see also" link to Hogging and sagging, to provide further information on the forces at work (for those who might be interested). BTW, TalkOrigins is not an "atheist website", but that's a nitpick... --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you generally approve. I see no reason to add the information you suggest, since it is irrelevant to the subject of the paragraph (which is 'Christian apologists generally reply to these objections by'), and since it is Original Research. It also assumes that survival on 'the open sea' is somehow relevant to the topic under discussion in the paragraph (which it isn't). As I've said before, if you want this information in the article by all means quote or cite a notable source making this argument, which meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability, and then place it in the relevant section (which is not the 2nd paragraph of my suggested amendment).

Survival on the open sea is absolutely crucial to this issue, and I will ensure that this is mentioned in some form, somewhere. It's not "original research", and is even brought up in two of the references you have already provided:

"It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered."

"It is said that she could be seen to snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to the midship) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to the midship) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any calking that could be devised..."

"...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..."

"...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." --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't understood my argument, and you've just destroyed your own. My argument has never been that such information cannot be included in the article. My argument has been that you cannot insert this information in the article as an original composition of your own. As I've said before, if you want this information in the article by all means quote or cite a notable source making this argument, which meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability, and then place it in the relevant section (which is not the 2nd paragraph of my suggested amendment). I don't know how many times I have to say this.

As you note, my amended paragraph actually mentions information this specifically (because I'm so incredibly reasonable and broad minded), and as you note it 'is even brought up in two of the references you have already provided'. The information is already in there, in the correct context and presented in the correct manner (if you want add additional sources which make the same argument please go right ahead). What you wanted is to have it included in an incorrect context and an incorrect manner. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you still trying to argue that this is "original research" when you also admit that the references already provided support it? I think it would be a good idea to actually draw out some quotes from those (and maybe other) references into the article.--Robert Stevens (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the Wikipedia definition of Original Research, and read what I wrote? As I said, you cannot insert this information in the article as an original composition of your own. That's Original Research. If you are citing references which make an argument, that is not Original Research. Original research takes place when people write their own arguments into Wikipedia, instead of citing arguments made by notable sources meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability. In this case I replaced a personal argument made by someone, with a notable source which made the same argument. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right, TalkOrigins isn't strictly speaking an atheist Website, though the bulk of the material is atheist and it has gone beyond its original intention of explaining evolution. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never found any "atheist material" on TalkOrigins: rather, I have found various explicit statements that evolution is NOT "atheistic", plus citations to that effect from religious authorities. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't found any atheist material on TalkOrigins, then I wonder when you last looked? Do you honestly think all the contributors are Christians and all the arguments are compatible with theism? --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not all the contributiors are Christians, but all the arguments are compatible with theism, as far as I can see. From your ongoing failure to provide any "atheist material", I will conclude that you have none. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, it's clear you've misapprehended my meaning. By 'atheist material' I mean material written by atheists specifically against Christian positions. If you haven't found any on TalkOrigins, then you haven't read the site. Try 'below is the thought process that led me to atheism and a disbelief in creationism by godhead'.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

One other thing: you describe the Tessarakonteres as a "giant fighting ship", but it's pretty clear that the Tessarakonteres wasn't actually a "fighting ship". Maybe "giant showpiece galley" would be better. --Robert Stevens talk) 09:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Every source I've read describes the Tessarakonteres as a warship, which was absolutely full of soldiers. You are probably referring to the fact that it never saw maritime warfare, and that it was almost completely totally impractical as a warship, but you can't classify it as anything else. It wasn't a cargo vessel or a floating palace, it was designed and constructed as a warship. The link I provide to the Tessarakonteres makes it perfectly clear that it was for all practical purposes useless in maritime conflict. It's not like I'm misrepresenting it, or pretending it was some amazingly successful battle cruiser. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On the linked page, Plutarch is specifically quoted as stating "But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger". So, not a fighting ship. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not addressing my point. It was designed and constructed as a warship (I can cite at least three authorities which classify it as such). You're also neglecting what Athenaios says about it (he says it carried 400 sailors, and 2,850 soldiers). By the way, the article linked to also describes it as a galley 'designed for sea battles with catapults and could carry 3 to 4 thousand marines'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Plutarch specifically says otherwise. Sure, it's designed to look like a warship, but it wasn't built to actually do any real fighting (according to Plutarch). Therefore it was not an actual "fighting" ship. Are you saying Plutarch was mistaken? Only one other historical source is mentioned: so how did Callixenus of Rhodes describe it? --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying Plutarch is giving his opinion (a couple of hundred years later). It wasn't simply built to 'look like' a warship, it was designed as a warship. designed for sea battles with catapults and could carry 3 to 4 thousand marines' says it for me. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This definitely needs something like Robert Stevens suggests about seaworthiness. And I'm not yet convinced, even by Aldrete, that Caligula's giant barge ever crossed the Med. I'll have access to better resources next week and can research this.Doug Weller (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read the paragraph, and follow the links, you will find seaworthiness is specifically addressed. Robert has even acknowledged this. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

...But it shouldn't be hidden away in the references, it needs to be laid out in the article. I propose using Taiwan Boi's example, with two minor changes (from "ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark" to "ancient timber vessels which they consider to be comparable to the Ark", as the actual validity of the comparison is disputed: and the Tessarakonteres may be described as a "giant showpiece trireme" rather than a "giant fighting ship" to avoid directly contradicting Plutarch), and one new paragraph inserted after "Other ancient ships...":

Firstly it isn't hidden away in the references'. On the contrary, I make a far stronger statement than your proposed amendment. The paragraph I suggested says that skeptics claim the Ark could not have survived the flood, not simply that it couldn't have survived a global flood. The very title 'Seaworthiness' has to go anyway (to be replaced with 'Practicality'), since the paragraph both currently and in the proposed amendment covers more than seaworthiness, and the title assumes that the case for seaworthiness is made in the flood narrative itself (it isn't, that case is made by proponents of a global flood). I suggest leaving the word 'skeptics' instead of replacing it with 'critics', since 'critics' is a word with a pejorative tone and sounds loaded as a result.

Secondly, it's clear you haven't read my paragraph properly. I say that Christian apologists claim 'that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark', not that there are such vessels. I then go on very carefully to say that 'comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered analogous in dimensions and construction', that is considered by the Christian apologists (see the first part of the sentence). That is exactly the distinction you want me to make, and it is already there in my paragraph (please read it).

Thirdly, you've given no reason why we shouldn't contradict Plutarch, especially as standard historical authorities define the Tessarakonteres as a warship (though impractical), and at least one authority I read argued directly against Plutarch's description, saying that there is no way that such ship would have been built and armed simply for show, as Plutarch claims. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Critics of the Ark's supposed seaworthiness argue that the problems experienced by large wooden vessels on the open ocean is a major factor, as such forces would also be experienced by Noah's Ark borne on a worldwide flood: "It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered."'... "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." (see also Hogging and sagging for a description of some of the forces at work). Ancient examples of large wooden ships operated on rivers, lakes, or inland seas, with the possible exception of the Chinese treasure ships, the size of which is disputed. One explanation for their size is that the largest Treasure Ships were merely used by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats to travel along the relatively calm Yangtze river. The Treasure Ships are not known to have traversed a major ocean (Chinese records indicate that they skirted the coast of the Indian Ocean as far as East Africa, but a claim that the fleet reached the New World remains controversial).

If you want to make reference in the paragraph of skeptical arguments specifically concerning the Ark's seaworthiness, then I will say 'Sure let's do that', and then include in the next paragraph the Christian apologetic responses which argue against this, saying that there's nothing in the Bible which says the Ark had to be seaworthy. Note that the TalkOrigins article you quote specifically states that it does not argue against local flood models, only against global flood models, so its concerns relating to the Ark's seaworthiness are confined to global flood models. The other link also explicitly argues against the Ark surviving ocean waves in a global flood. In any case your problem with regard to the inclusion of this material is not me, your problem is with PiCo who think that I've already given too much detail and that the paragraph should be shortened not lengthened. Please argue it out with him, I'll be happy to include your quotes from the article I provided will balance the second paragraph accordingly.

I saw no reason to include arguments for or against the Chinese treasure ships, since they are not a comparison commonly used by any Ark apologists. At present your inclusion of them is original research since you are not citing third party skeptical arguments which argue against their historicity in any way relevant to the flood. If you want to include arguments against their historicity in a manner relevant to the flood, please cite or quote such arguments from skeptical sites, don't carry out original research. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that some of this was lifted from the "Treasure Ships" article (and slightly condensed), and the lack of references for the "Yangtze river" and "New World" claims reflects a lack of citations in the original (though the amateur historian mentioned does have his own page). --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: there were references elsewhere. Zheng He contains a reference to the Yangtze River claim, and Gavin Menzies contains 4 references to the controversy regarding his theory. These should be added to the paragraph. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, I don't think that the Chinese treasure ships are sufficiently common a point of comparison to be mentioned here, either for or against, but if you can find arguments against their historicity in a manner relevant to the flood, please cite or quote such arguments from skeptical sites, don't carry out original research. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being told to 'actually read' anything.

Then please read more carefully next time. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote deliberately said "something like Robert Stevens suggests", which is not just something in the references.Doug Weller (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And what he had suggested is already in the article, as I noted (and he agreed). He has now suggested something else. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan boi is to be congratulated for the work and thought that has gone into this proposal. It contains a lot of good information. So please, don't feel that I'm being negative in my comments here - I'm genuinely appreciative of the effort to improve our article. Anyway, that said, I feel this is a little too long and detailed for our purposes. At the moment, we have three bullet-points, one each on gopher wood, seaworthiness, and capacity. We arrived at these three after considerable discussion - they seemed to represent the essentials of a very voluminous literature, and they were agreed by user rossnixon, who is a YEC and more or less or resident literalist. We were trying to keep the number of bullet points as low as possible, and the entries as short as possible, to avoid bloating the article. I would prefer that the details be left out, and referenced through footnoted links to the relevant places where interested readers can find them. As an encyclopedia, we only need to record a point, not prove it. PiCo (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments PiCo. So far that's one vote against the amendment (PiCo), and three votes in favour of it (myself, Dougweller, Robert Stevens). I note that Robert Stevens didn't have to have his recent change to the article approved, and you happily removed an entire section without seeking anyone's approval (the fact that I had no problems with it doesn't change the fact that other people did, and you saw no need to seek anyone's permission for such large removal), in liu of replacing it with new material which you intended to write, also without seeking anyone's approval. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, I'm not against, I'm in favour. I'm suggesting shortening it by removing some detail, that's all. PiCo (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when you say 'I feel this is a little too long and detailed for our purposes', and 'I would prefer that the details be left out' that conveys exactly the opposite impression to me. As it stands, the vote is three in favour of including the amendment as it is, and Robert Stevens actually wants to include more details. There's nothing to prevent the entire 'Biblical Literalism' section being rewritten, which it needs in any case since at present it's trying to classify any Christian who believes in the historicity of the flood narrative as a 'Biblical literalist' who believes in a 450 foot Ark and a global flood. We need to make proper mention of the diversity of Christian views on the flood narrative, including the local flood views and different interpretations of the Ark's dimensions. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Try removing some of the detail. Our job as an encyclopedia is to state a case, not prove it. PiCo (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but other people think it's fine, and two people want to add more detail (which I'm happy to do). If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I am stating first the skeptical case, and then the apologetic case. I am not attempting to prove either (that's what Robert Stevens is trying to do in his attempt at inserting original research into the paragraph). --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary to state any case at all - this section is describing beliefs, not making cases. Specifically, it's describing the beliefs of literalists. We don't have to prove those beliefs, nor disprove them, just describe them. But my point is something else: we have constraints of space in the article, and your proposal is simply too long. It needs to be shortened. This can be done by deleting your secondary details and sticking to the essential beliefs of literalists regarding the Ark's seaworthiness.17:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, you need to remember what you write. First you said 'Our job as an encyclopedia is to state a case, not prove it', now you say 'It's not necessary to state any case at all'. I don't care if you call it a 'case' or a 'belief', it doesn't affect the fact that the content belongs here (the skeptic view, the apologetic view). The paragraph does not attempt to prove either view (unlike Robert Stevens' last edit). I have worded the paragraph very carefully specifically to describe them, not prove them. The original paragraph detailed skeptic arguments against the seaworthiness of the Ark, yet omitted any details concerning apologist arguments for the seaworthiness of the Ark. This is far from balanced, and no one objected to the level of detail given to the skeptic argument (indeed, Robert Stevens has even added to it).

I have been extremely patient over the last week, despite being met with any number of completely spurious and even fabricated objections. I have watched others freely edit the article without asking anyone else for permission (Robert Stevens even added a little original research of his own), and no one has raised any objections (other than one objection to you removing an entire section without rewriting it first). I have written my paragraph and made my case for it in absolute conformity to Wikipedia guidelines, I have refrained from editing the article without asking others first, I have taken hours to write up a correctly balanced paragraph which has even been acknowledged as such, and yet I have been asked to meet standards which don't exist in Wikipedia and to conform to the personal opinions of other editors. No one else here is faced with this kind of behaviour.

Thus far other people are happy with the paragraph's length, and two people even want to add more detail (which I'm happy to do, as noted). Your are the only one who has objected to this level of detail. Thus far you are in the minority. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Boi, it appears that you are attempting a classic strawman argument. "Firstly it isn't hidden away in the references. On the contrary, I make a far stronger statement than your proposed amendment. The paragraph I suggested says that skeptics claim the Ark could not have survived the flood, not simply that it couldn't have survived a global flood." That is NOT the argument the skeptics are making! Indeed, I have never seen ANY skeptic argue that Noah's Ark could not have survived a local flood. Therefore counter-claims based on local-Flood apologetics, involving vessels that never had to survive on the open ocean, miss the point of the actual argument that the skeptics are making! And your version did not present that actual argument in the article. It is simply not acceptable for the actual argument to remain hidden in the references: hence my paragraph.

There is no strawman here, because I'm not attacking a misrepresentation of your argument. If you had read as many skeptic articles on the flood as I have, you would know that a common argument made is that the Ark could not have survived the flood, regardless of whether it was local or global, on the basis that it was too large to support its own weight and could never have been launched (see here 'There is no possible way Noah could have built a boat 450 feet long which held together under its own weight', here 'How could a boat made entirely of wood be so much larger than any wooden ship could ever be without collapsing under its own weight?', and here 'If I'm wrong, and it is possible to build a 450 foot wooden vessel, by all means demonstrate it', none of which make any argument for the practicality of the Ark based on the flood being global, they say it couldn't survive the flood because it would collapse under its own weight). Furthermore, if you actually read my post to you, you will see very clearly that I am completely happy to have included the direct quotes you suggest:

'If you want to make reference in the paragraph of skeptical arguments specifically concerning the Ark's seaworthiness, then I will say 'Sure let's do that', and then include in the next paragraph the Christian apologetic responses which argue against this, saying that there's nothing in the Bible which says the Ark had to be seaworthy.'

...I'll be happy to include your quotes from the article I provided [and] will balance the second paragraph accordingly.

So you have nothing to complain about here. You just didn't read my post properly (yet again). --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the paragraph commencing "Christian apologists generally reply...", it isn't clear which of the following statements are merely the claims of those apologists, and which are being stated as fact: especially as the paragraph ends with declaration which are plainly NOT intended to be mere apologetic claims (unless you want to imply that "naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals" don't actually say what you're claiming they say, but the apologists merely claim that they do?). In particular, are there actual vessels comparable to the Ark (statement of fact) that the apologists claim to be sufficient evidence (statement of belief), or is "comparable to the Ark" itself a statement of belief? My suggestion would have clarified that.

Are you joking? My paragraph says exactly what you claimed it doesn't say. Let's look:

• 'Christian apologists generally reply to these objections by claiming that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark':

This says very clearly that Christian apologists claim there are ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark. Which part of that is confusing you?

• 'The Tessarakonteres (recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities[11][12]), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals'

This says that The Tessarakonteres remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals. That sentence makes it very clear that this comparison was made by Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals, as carefully documented in the references given. It says very clearly that this comparison was made by Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals. Which part of that is confusing you?

• 'Other ancient ships used as points of comparison by Christian apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships,[17][18] the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.[19][20][21][22][23]'

This says very clearly that giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships are all used as a point of comparison by Christian apologists, and that the historicity of these ships is recognized by standard historical authorities. Which part of that is confusing you?

So your suggestion doesn't clarify anything which isn't already very carefully clarified in my paragraph. It says explicitly that Christian apologists claim that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark. As described clearly in the paragraph, the historicity of these ships is undisputed by standard historical authorities, whilst the idea that they are meaningfully comparable to the Ark is the claim of Christian apologists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the Chinese treasure ships: I suggest you re-read WP:OR. Presenting facts which are directly related to the subject of the article is not OR: specifically drawing conclusions from those facts is OR. Large wooden boats are relevant to the subject of the article (indeed, note your own references to the Orlando and the Mersey, and various citations you have provided which apparently don't mention Noah's Ark at all). Nowhere in my paragraph have I specifically compared the Chinese treasure ships to Noah's Ark: that would be WP:SYN (though others have done, and it would be simple enough to add [1]: I will do so). There is no Wikipedia policy which states "Thou Shalt Not Provide Relevant Factual Information Which Might Allow The Reader To Infer Something". --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the original paragraph in the article now, you will find that the information on the Orlando and Mersey is already referred to in one of the references given. All I was doing here is including information which was already in the original paragraph and making explicit what it was referring to by '[late 19th-century wooden European]', vague text inserted by whoever wrote the original paragraph instead of the specific vessels referred to in the article. That is not 'Original Research', it's making explicit what is in the reference already provided (and I made that clear). Did you even read the link?

I didn't claim you had compared the baochuan to the Ark. My point was that the way you included them constituted original research, and wasn't directly relevant to the paragraph (read my second statement in the context of this first statement):

'I saw no reason to include arguments for or against the Chinese treasure ships, since they are not a comparison commonly used by any Ark apologists. At present your inclusion of them is original research since you are not citing third party skeptical arguments which argue against their historicity in any way relevant to the flood. If you want to include arguments against their historicity in a manner relevant to the flood, please cite or quote such arguments from skeptical sites, don't carry out original research.'

So you have nothing to complain about here either. I haven't argued against their inclusion altogether, I've simply argued for their inclusion in a relevant way which does not constitute original research. It would help if you provided a link from Christian apologists which used them as a point of comparison, together with your other link, since the link you provide does not cite any specific Christian use of the baochuan as a comparison. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed this in my response: "Thirdly, you've given no reason why we shouldn't contradict Plutarch, especially as standard historical authorities define the Tessarakonteres as a warship (though impractical), and at least one authority I read argued directly against Plutarch's description, saying that there is no way that such ship would have been built and armed simply for show, as Plutarch claims." Until now, you have been opposing Plutarch's view by quoting that of an unknown Wikipedian, and indulging in OR to apply general comments about catapult-ships to the specific case of the Tessarakonteres. Now you've progressed to "at least one authority I read" who is contradicting Plutarch's view. We still have no actual reference, and if this unknown person is a modern commentator, who is he to say that Plutarch was mistaken? Also, we shouldn't be misleading readers here. Describing it as a "fighting ship" implies that it was quite seaworthy, as a fighting ship has to be: this was evidently not the case, as the Tessarakonteres article makes clear, but readers shouldn't have to go to the Tessarakonteres article to discover that this was not the case, when the Tessarakonteres is being presented in THIS article as an example of the practicality of large wooden ships. My own wording is more neutral, and indeed does not convey just how impractical the Tessarakonteres was! --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Until now I have demonstrated that the Tessarakonteres is commonly spoken of as a fighting vessel or warship (you'll probably have a fit when I point out that most modern authorities believe it was a twin hulled catamaran, with each hull at least 100 meters long), and I have not used simply 'an unknown Wikipedian' ('Every source I've read describes the Tessarakonteres as a warship, which was absolutely full of soldiers', 'I can cite at least three authorities which classify it as such'), I even included Athenaeus. I don't always have the time to copy out complete references for you. Do you have any idea how much time it takes me to look up these references in my research library and then copy/paste or (more frequently), type them out by hand for you? It's ridiculous anyway. I shouldn't have to spend half my time here teaching you people about the relevant subjects related to this article simply because you're trying to comment learnedly on subjects you know nothing about:

• Jean MacIntosh Turfa, and Alwin G Steinmayer Junior: Under the heading 'cargo type' in a comparative table of large ancient vessels, the Tessarakonteres is described simply as 'warship, probably catamaran' ('The Syracusia as a giant cargo vessel', The International Journal of Nautical Archueology (1999) 28.2: 105-125). The same article says 'A giant ship known to ancient scholars (Athenaeus 5.203e-204b= Casson, 19711 86,108-1 12, 140) was of course the famous Forty warship commissioned under Ptolemy IV (Philopator, 221-203 BC)', and 'As a warship, it was ungainly, intended for display (Plutarch Dem. 4 3 3 , but its measurements lend credence to the scale of a functional Syrucusiu (Table 6)' (page 119). Note that despite agreeing with Plutarch that it was intended for display, they still call it a warship. As I said, these are not mutually exclusive descriptions.
• Andre Wegener Sleeswyk, and Fik Meijer: Describe the Tessarakonteres as 'the enormously long oared fighting ship, the tesserakonteres or ‘forty’, which Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-203 BC) caused to be built' ('Launching Philopator’s ‘forty’', The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (1994) 23.2: 115-1 18'). They are the ones I cite as having said 'Of course, it is hardly probable that it was the original intention to have a ship only for show and not for use', though they say it 'must have been a failure' (page 115).
• Lionel Casson: Classifies the Tessarakonteres as a warship, 'all the way up to a monster tessarakonteres "forty-fitted" (cf. 108 below)5', the footnote to which sentence is '5. Trieres, tereres, and the others in the -eres series refer to warships of more or less fixed specifications: fixed as to general length, breadth, number of rowers' ('Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World', 1995, page 78), though he agrees with Plutarch that it was 'intended for display not action' (page 98). As I said, these are not mutually exclusive descriptions.

That's all I have time to cite now. I don't even need an argument as to why we can contradict Plutarch (though I gave a valid reason), you actually need a reason as to why we shouldn't. Who are you to say that Plutarch is correct, and that modern authorities are wrong to contradict him? What you want to do is include in the article your own specific arguments against Christian apologist claims. That's original research, and a result of your desire include your personal opinions in the article.

Contrary to your claim, my paragraph does not present the Tessrakonteres in this article as an example of the practicality of large wooden ships. READ THE PARAGRAPH. It is presented as an example of what Christian apologists claim are 'ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark'. My paragraph ensures the article itself makes no such clam, nor any comment on whether or not such a comparison is vaild, since the article is not supposed to evaluate whether the arguments of the skeptics or apologists are valid (in this case whether or not the Tessarakonteres is an example of practicality), that's for the user to decide, and in this specific case they are directed to an article which describes the Tessrakonteres as utterly impractical as a fighting vessel, so you have nothing to complain about. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another strawman argument. I am quite aware that the Tessarakonteres was "a warship" rather than a cargo vessel or whatever.

You clearly don't know what a Strawman is. I am not attacking a misrepresentation of your argument. I am addressing your original specific objection to the Tessarakonteres being described as warship. If you agreed with me, then why did you specifically argue against it being a warship (you claimed the only source I had to support this definition was 'an anonymous Wikipedian'), and specifically object to it being described as either a 'fighting ship' or a 'warship'? You're forgetting your own argument, or else simply changing it yet again. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also quite aware that it was a catapult-armed catamaran (why do you imagine I'd "have a fit"? Less of the histrionics please).

Er, I think you mean that you're quite aware that 'catapult-armed catamaran' is the current 'best guess' as to what it really was (we don't actually know if this is true, so we can't be 'quite aware' of this). I thought you'd have a fit because you were the one so skeptical of a ship over 350 feet in length, yet standard scholarship reckons the best guess for the Tessarakonteres is a catamaran of two hulls each at least 300 feet long, and some believe it consisted of two 420 foot hulls, up to 100 feet apart. Yet you don't even blink at the credibility of this. Ironic indeed! --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But it was a "warship" that apparently couldn't fight, and both Plutarch and Casson say that it was built for display.

We've already been through this. See my previous post. These are not mutually exclusive descriptions, as you had previously claimed. Note that Casson still describes it as a warship. At least you've had to stop claiming that it's wrong to call it a warship and that I don't have any support for this other than an 'anonymous Wikipedian'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As for those who say otherwise: you didn't cite them until now.

No, I didn't quote them until now. I already made mention of the fact that all the sources I had read described it as a warship or fighting ship, and that I could cite you at least three academic source saying this. You refused to believe me, so I was compelled to go through my personal library, look it all up for you, and write it out. You really ought to be tremendously grateful for the lengths to which I go to educate you. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But "trireme" actually conveys more information than "fighting ship" (in addition to not conveying a misleading impression) and is therefore preferable.

Unbelievable! It seems you haven't read anything I've written. The word 'trireme' describes a completely different model of ship, and isn't remotely an accurate description. This was a tessarakonteres, not a trireme. Read the quote from Casson. The term 'trireme' is not even remotely valid here, stil less 'preferable'. It's completely misleading. Do you even know what a 'trireme' is? --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also I suggest you drop the ongoing insinuation of OR regarding the Chinese treasure ships, given the fact that your "'Christian apologists generally reply..." paragraph contains references which are not "Christian" and apparently don't mention Noah's Ark at all.

Another case of not reading me, and of fabricating charges. I have already explained why your sentence is original research, and I have very helpfully explained to you how to change it so that it is not. I have also made it clear I am perfectly happy for it to be included in the article when it has been corrected. As for my paragraph, you're still not reading either it or what I write subsequently. There is nothing in that paragraph which is claimed to be what 'Christian apologists generally reply' which is not actually what 'Christian apologists generally reply'. I identify specifically what 'Christian apologists generally reply', and what material comes from other sources. Read the paragraph. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And note that the TalkOrigins article IS in fact a response to creationist claims, and therefore has more direct relevance than those. Or do you intend to remove all references that don't mention the Ark?

You really aren't reading what I wrote. I know it's a response to creationist claims. What I said was that it is not a response to specifically identified creationist claims. To which creationist are they responding? You don't know, because they don't say. Which creationist publication are they critiquing? You don't know, because they don't say. Read what I wrote, please. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, you seem to be using "Christian apologists generally reply..." as an excuse to shut out all qualification of those claims, while nevertheless supporting them yourself with non-Christian sources and apparent declarations of fact: please desist from this double standard. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in that paragraph which I identify as what 'Christian apologists generally reply' and then represent it as being supported with non-Christian sources or 'apparent declarations of fact'. I've proved you wrong on this twice now. It's so interesting that you're only raising this charge now, when initially you said 'Not bad. I think all it needs is this, added to the end of the second paragraph', and wanted a mention of the baochuan as well. As I've responded to these objections, you've invented new ones.

I can see that once more I am going to have to do the work which you are not doing. I am going to have to chase up proper referenes and write up a new section for you properlly, since you won't do it yourself. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a strawman. So please desist from using it. You are still misrepresenting my argument: I never sought to deny that the ship was a "warship" in the sense that you are implying, so you can quit posting all the descriptions of it as "a warship". OK?

This is a strawman. What I wrote was not. You did not say 'The Tessarakonteres is not a warship in the sense that you are implying'. You denied that it was a warship at all:

• 'One other thing: you describe the Tessarakonteres as a "giant fighting ship", but it's pretty clear that the Tessarakonteres wasn't actually a "fighting ship"'
• 'So, not a fighting ship'
• 'Therefore it was not an actual "fighting" ship'
• 'Describing it as a "fighting ship" implies that it was quite seaworthy, as a fighting ship has to be: this was evidently not the case' (this was nonsense, as I demonstrated)

You objected specifically to it being referred to as a warship or fighting ship. You wanted it referred to as something completely different. You said Plutarch called it something completely different. You said I had only an 'anonymous Wikipedian' to support my view. I referred to the fact that at all sources I had read referred to it as a warship, and you still wouldn't accept the term. I told you that I could provide at least three academic sources which referred to it as a warship, and you still wouldn't accept the term. Then I quoted them in full, and suddenly you started to back down ('I am quite aware that the Tessarakonteres was "a warship" rather than a cargo vessel or whatever'). Now you're trying to rewrite history and claim you never objected to the use of the term in the first place, only to its use in the sense that I am implying. But I made it clear that the only sense I was implying was that the Tessarakonteres was built and designed as a warship (those were my specific words), despite being a failure as one. You now say you agree with this and claim you always did! --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion would progress much more smoothly without your constant bad-faith misrepresentations of the positions and arguments of others. This isn't some high-school debate club, where you think you can score points by "catching out" others: this is supposed to be a discussion about the article (something you plainly forgot in our previous discussion too).

The irony is strong with this one. I haven't made any 'bad-faith misrepresentations'. I've simply been carefully and consistently correcting both you and PiCo (using standard academic resources), when you've tried to make spurious arguments and raise spurious objections. You've both been acting in very bad faith. Yes, let's talk about discussing the article, and while we're at it let's talk about who has kept his edits out of the article until they are agreed on (I have, not you or PiCo), who has actually taken the time to write a fully referenced, detailed and well balanced new paragraph (I have, not you or PiCo), and who has been completely willing to see that paragraph include various changes suggested by other editors (I have, not you or PiCo). I'm the one contributing to this article and to this discussion, not you or PiCo. You're only here for the thrills, I'm here for the work. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not call it a "giant showpiece warship"? You want to claim that it wasn't a "showpiece"?

We have been through this, please read the scholarly quotes I provided and note yet again what the linked Wikipedia page says about it. There's no evidence that it was only built for show, and the one ship we know was also this size was also built for use not for show (the Thalamegos). The reader is not going to receive the impression you claimed. They are going to understand that this was built as a warship, and when they click on the link they will learn all about its impracticality for the purpose. If you really want to make a point of this, then find a specific skeptical source which argues against the relevance of the Tessarakonteres as an analogue to the Ark, and quote it properly in the relevant section of my paragraph. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And you're now denying that your "Christian apologists" paragraph includes the words "standard historical authorities", or "naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals"?

No I am not, and I never denied this. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You want to argue that all of these are "Christian apologists"?

No I do not, and I never argued this. Read my posts. I made an explicit distinction between what Christian apologists say, and what 'standard historical authorities' say. I also made it very clear when something was done by Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals (in this case, drawing comparisons between the Tessrakonteres and the Ark, read the references I provided). You're fabricating arguments again. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am only raising this now to highlight your hypocrisy here. I DON'T actually object to their inclusion: I'm using them to illustrate the hypocrisy of your ongoing objection to the Chinsese treasure ships! Drop that baseless allegation, and I will stop accusing you of the same when you use non-Christian or non-Ark-related references (in general, not just in that paragraph). Do you understand this now? Especially as I have already provided one reference specifically linking those ships to the Ark, and others won't be difficult to find!

I understood you the first time, which is why I raised no objection to them being included, as long as they were included in a manner relevant to the article and citing relevant sources. I have said this three times now. You are not reading my posts. There is no 'hypocrisy' here. I have cited third parties and what they say concerning subjects relevant to the article. I have asked you to do the same. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And you could certainly "do the work" better if you spent less effort on wasting everyone's time, including your own. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you really thought I was wasting your time, you wouldn't bother responding. The only time I have to waste is when I'm correcting you and PiCo because neither of you are sufficiently educated on the relevant subjects, and you just make things up as you go along. But let's look at who is really doing the work here. Who's the one who spent hours writing a new paragraph, and who is soliciting changes to it from other editors? That's right, me. Not you. Not PiCo. Me. I'm contributing to the article, you two are just spamming your opinions. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand the distinction between a "warship" and a "fighting ship". It's the difference between a noun and a verb. "Fighting" is something a ship does, but the ship in question could not do. Whereas "warship", in this context, is a ship category. I cannot understand why you would object to describing the Tessarakonteres as a warship (and even a "showpiece warship"), except to give the misleading impression to the casual reader (who doesn't click on the link) that the ship was sufficiently seaworthy to fight. Why are you so determined to mislead the reader? If this is NOT your intent, why object so strenuously to such a trivial change? And the Thalamegos was most definitely "built for show": a floating palace, only used on the Nile, that apparently was towed along from the banks of the Nile! It certainly wasn't a "fighting ship", or even a "warship"! --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read nothing I've written? I am the one who was describing it as a warship, and you were the one arguing it shouldn't be described as a warship. Now you're tryhing to say you think it should be described as a warship, and that you were arguing this all along. As I've demonstrated, it is described as both in scholarly articles (even using the same terms in the one article), and no one suggests or implies even removely that using the term 'fighting ship' means it was some kind of success (the phrase 'fighting ship' is a noun phrase, not a verb). There is nothing remotely misleading here, and the link is provided so people can find out all about it. Yes, 'warship' is a ship category, and so is 'fighting ship'. They're synonymous. See the references I provided. Casson uses the term 'warship' of ships which actually fought, so are you going to complain to him that he shouldn't be calling the Tessarakonteres a warship? This is ridiculous.

The Thalamegos was not simply for show, it was actually used. The phrase 'for show' means that it is not used, it's only for looking at. The Thalamegos was built as a floating palace, and used successfully as a floating palace. Your quibbling over this point is ridiculously tendentious. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Amended paragraph suggestion

Here's my newly edited paragraph suggestion:

*Seaworthiness: It is commonly assumed by skeptics and Christian apologists that the Ark would have needed to be a seaworthy vessel in order to survive the flood. Critics of the Ark's supposed seaworthiness argue that the problems experienced by large wooden vessels on the open ocean is a major factor, as such forces would also be experienced by Noah's Ark borne on a worldwide flood:

"It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered."'... "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." (see also Hogging and sagging for a description of some of the forces at work).

Another common skeptical argument is that the Ark was too large to sustain its own weight and could never have been launched. The Ark is described as 300 cubits long, the cubit being a unit of measurement from elbow to outstretched fingertip. The ancient cubit was from 17.5 inches to 21.5 inches, giving a length in the range 437.5 feet (133 m) to 537.5 feet (164 m);. As a result, many different assessments of the Ark's length have been posited. An extreme length of 680 feet was suggested in the 19th century, but most earlier estimates were considerably shorter than this. The dimensions are generally understood as indicating that the Ark was over 400 feet long. Current Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long, , whilst other Christian sources posit slightly smaller dimensions, or merely cite the cubits in the Biblical account without calculating the size in modern terms..

With a generally agreed on length of over 400 feet, the Ark was noted as late as the 19th century as 'larger than any modern ship'. It has been pointed out by skeptics of the Genesis narrative that the Ark's length is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming and the clipper Great Republic (two of the largest all timber vessels ever built), and claimed that the chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation from which such ships suffered (despite reinforcement with iron bracing), proves the Ark could not have survived the flood. Modern shipbuilding commentaries note that similar late 19th century ships such as the HMS Orlando and Mersey experienced the same problems, and cite them as evidence that timber ships beyond these dimensions are likely to be impractical.

Different Christian apologists reply to these objections in a range of ways. In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, apologists claim that the Genesis flood was only local, and that the Ark therefore did not have to survive a catastrophic global storm or the open seas, or that the Ark was made using construction methods which rendered it seaworthy regardless of the size of the flood. A Korean paper published by Answers In Genesis argues for the seaworthiness of the Ark, claiming the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'. Typically cited by Biblical literalist Websites, this paper does not appear to be widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists.

Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality is responded to by apologist claims that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark . From as early as the 17th century comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered analogous in dimensions and construction. Defending the praticality of the Ark, Walter Raleigh argued the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia (a ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse), and the giant fighting ship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. The Tessarakonteres (recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.

Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by Christian apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships, the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities. A point of comparison used less commonly by apologists is the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan'. Skeptics object that the design and size of these ships is not in fact sufficiently analogous to the Ark.

OK, let's have a look:

Firstly, "Another common skeptical argument is that the Ark was too large to sustain its own weight and could never have been launched." This is not a "common" claim, and your three references are all pretty obscure: suggest you drop "common". It also seems a bit out of place tacked onto the front of a paragraph about the Ark's dimensions, which does not otherwise raise or address any problems.

It is a common claim (I included three sites out of a number I could have used, how many do you want, half a dozen?), and the references are not 'obscure' (one of them is the TalkOrigins Google Group, which is the complete opposite of 'obscure'). It's also not out of place in a section on the Ark's dimensions, since that is exactly what it's talking about. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, "In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, apologists claim that the Genesis flood was only local..." Obviously only some apologists claim it was local, and only some use such a claim against that problem (others just say it was tough enough to survive). Suggest insertion of "some" there. There may also be a WP:UNDUE issue, due to the apparent prominence given to local-Flood apologetics there (placing it first, as if "Big Ark, local Flood" was the dominant approach).

Read the sentence properly. There's the word 'OR' in there. Apologists claim X, or apologists claim Y. These are the two basic responses which encompass all apologists (local and global flood positions), and the phrasing avoids the weasel word 'some'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thirdly, "Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality are met by apologist claims that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark". Again, the global-Flood skeptical position isn't actually being met by the riverboats and suchlike being presented here, so there's a POV implication.

The word 'met by' simply means 'are responded to by'. Why do you think 'met by' means 'correctly answered or refuted by'? It means nothing of the sort. If you really can't understand the phrase 'met by', then I'll dumb down the language. What else are you finding difficult? --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fourthly: "giant fighting ship" -> "giant showpiece warship" as described previously. A fighting ship that cannot fight is not a fighting ship: this is simply a contradiction. Trivial change, and no good reason for NOT making it has been provided.

It is not a contradiction, as I have already pointed out using academic references which refer to it both as a fighting ship/warship and as a showpiece. This is meaningless. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fifthly, the Chinese treasure ships have almost disappeared, and the text is confusing.

Absolute nonsense. I included all the skeptical claims concerning the Chinese treasure ships, along with the TalkOrigins link. The only text I didn't include was your personal writing, which as I already explained to you nearly half a dozen times previously, was original research. I told you that you needed to find a third party source which made the argument for, and another making the argument against. You found the second, I provided the first. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

'"Skeptics object that the design and size of these ships is not in fact sufficiently analogous to the Ark": that claim doesn't explain why not, and isn't even clear (until the reference is clicked) on who the "skeptics" are (they could be Christian apologists skeptical of the claim that the treasure ships are sufficiently analogous to the Ark to be used for comparison).

Firstly the text explains that they are not sufficiently analogous in design and size. That means we are being told very clearly that the objection being raised is that their size and design are not sufficiently similar to the Ark to be relevant. What is unclear about that? That's the very argument being made. Secondly, even when clicked on there is no way to identify whether the skeptical position is being made by Christians or not (didn't you notice?). That is why they are referred to as 'skeptics'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It also seems very strange to relegate them in this fashion, as they are the only comparable ancient oceangoing wooden vessels (subject to the caveats regarding whether the biggest actually crossed the ocean), and are therefore more relevant to the mainstream skeptical position (as illustrated at the beginning with the quotes) than all the other riverboats etc. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have explained in detail previously, they are given here all their due weight. Since they are not commonly used as a point of comparison by apologists, this is all the mention they deserve, one reference for and one reference against. They're almost never mentioned on skeptical sites either, and since that is what you're really objecting to then I suggest you start a campaign encouraging skeptics to refer to them more frequently. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I’d like to make comments on part of the proposed paragraphs:

"It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered."Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998...

The original statement in talkorigins has no references to back it up. As such it is simply a foundationless OR assertion by author Mark Isaak, who is not a naval architect and has no background with wooden ships. Therefore it is a very weak argument. I recommend finding a better source.

"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."Noah's Ark

This source also has no references to support any of its assertions. This is simply the authors OR opinion, and he too is not an naval architect nor engineer.

"(see also Hogging and sagging for a description of some of the forces at work).

I recommend these pages for extensive detail for hogging and sagging concerning Noah’s Ark. These actually have a better explanation than Wikipedia. The author/s of these pages are naval architects and a mechanical engineer.

http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/basic_hull_design/monocoque_vs_truss.htm

http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/hull_calcs/wave_bm1.htm

http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/hull_calcs/still_water_bm.htm

"...Skeptics object that the design and size of these ships is not in fact sufficiently analogous to the Ark.Claim CH508

The web link to the quoted source on this talkorigins page is broken. The quote may be accurate, but cannot be confirmed on-line. The worldwideflood site above points out that using the smallest unit length for the Chinese ship still put it at ~400 ft. Also, since next to nothing is known about the design of the Chinese ship, it is very difficult to say that the design is or is not analogous to the Ark. The Worldwideflood site authors simply point out that large ships have been built of wood. Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is not to assess whether or not the arguments for or against are valid. The purpose of this article is to present the arguments for and against. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

CS: The TalkOrigins references regarding ocean stresses are actually being used to support the existence of the skeptical claim that the Ark would have needed to survive a worldwide flood. Hence, it doesn't actually matter if Isaak was wrong. Taiwan Boi had insisted that I support the claim that skeptics consider the Genesis flood to be global (!!). --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's completely untrue. The reference under question is a reference to the Chinese treasure ships. I insisted you provided a link proving skeptics consider the Chinese treasure ships insufficiently analogous to the Ark. That's what I asked for, not that you 'support the claim that skeptics consider the Genesis flood to be global'. I was the one who provided almost every other skeptic link, because I'm the only one around here who does any real work. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the QUOTES in the beginning of the article, which do NOT refer to Chinese treasure ships. Will you PLEASE pay attention? --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you're the one not paying attention, because Christian Skeptic is referring specifically to the article on the Chinese treasure ships. You've switched to talking about a completely different article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, he was initially referring to the quotes regarding hogging and sagging etc: NOT the Chinese treasure ships. THAT is what I was referring to in my reply. Again, you have blundered, and refused to accept correction. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Boi: Of the three references you have provided for the "common claim" that the Ark could not be built or could not survive calm water, NONE is acceptable: all breach Wikipedia policies. The first is a personal website of someone called "Colin Frayn". The second is a personal website of someone who doesn't even give his name: "Flux -- That would be me, AKA Fluxypoo, Fluxster, and even sometimes Eric". The third is a post on the TalkOrigins discussion group (not TalkOrigins "proper"). Please read WP:RS and WP:V. At present, you have nothing at all: no valid references for this "common" claim.

You have (as usual), completely misunderstood Wiki policy. These are not being cited as authoritative sources for an assertion of fact. They are being cited as sources for what skeptics argue. As such, they are entirely valid. If they were being cited in the manner you mistakenly thought, then none of the skeptic arguments, since they are all self-published. And I was the one who told you (twice), that the TalkOrigins site is a Google Group (where this argument used by numerous skeptics in plenty of different threads). But you've only just realised now? You haven't been reading my posts. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Personal websites (of non-notable persons) are unacceptable for several reasons: the content might change tomorrow, and the non-notable person is neither an authority nor a representative. "Flux" could be cited as a source for what "Flux" thinks (if anyone cares), but not what "skeptics" commonly think. Your inability to find a valid reference for this alleged "common" claim is your problem. Heck, if I could just grab a few discussion-forum posts and toss them into the article as examples of "common" arguments, that would be a lot easier: but I cannot. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And by pursuing this fantasy, you're still falsely arguing that calm-water river barges "meet" the global-flood claims of skeptics. They do NOT. They don't ADDRESS the claims at all: hence there is no question of them either "correctly" or "incorrectly" refuting them. They're predicated on an entirely different scenario!

This is utterly false. I have said no such thing. You are still not distinguishing between what is stated as fact, and what is stated as the claims of Christian apologists. Read the paragraph. I have cited some Christian apologists responding to skeptics of the Ark's practicality and seaworthiness:

• 'In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, apologists claim that the Genesis flood was only local, and that the Ark therefore did not have to survive a catastrophic global storm or the open seas[44], or that the Ark was made using construction methods which rendered it seaworthy regardless of the size of the flood'
• 'Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality is responded to by apologist claims that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark'

I see you didn't even notice that I had changed the wording to 'is responded to by apologist claims', from the previous 'is met by'. Again, you're not even reading what I write. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile you have apparently relapsed into describing my writing on the Chinese treasure ships as "original research" when it is not. (Indeed, most of it wasn't even mine, and it wasn't OR on the article I copied from either). You badly need to learn Wikipedia guidelines on this!

You don't understand what original research is, despite me going through this with you several times and linking you to the relevant Wikipedia page. Original research doesn't mean it has to have been written entirely by you, it means that an editor is including material which they have put together themselves (using whatever sources), and they are including it as a statement of fact when it is simply an argument they are making. That is what you did. I told you over and over again that the reference to the Chinese treasure ships needed to be included using a third party source, and I even went to all the trouble of finding a relevant source for you. Then I included the material in the correct manner. I have done all this for you because you wouldn't do it yourself, and you still complain. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I found my own sources regarding the Chinese treasure ships: from the Treasure Ships article (and 2 other linked articles) and TalkOrigins. You're getting confused (as usual): what YOU provided (earlier) were the skeptic quotes regarding Ark seaworthiness (which did not mention Chinese treasure ships). --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You've also failed to respond on the WP:UNDUE issue regarding "Big Ark, Local Flood" apologetics (and falsely claimed to have covered all apologetic positions, entirely omitting "Small Ark, Local Flood", "No Ark, Local Flood" and "that part of Genesis is entirely myth": yes, these are Christian positions too, and even "apologetic" positions).

Read the paragraph. It explicitly addresses all Christian apologetic claims defending the practicality of the Ark in the flood, specifically against the claim that it would not have been seaworthy. The two typical responses to this argument are 'It didn't have to be seaworthy because it never went to sea', and 'It did go to sea but it was entirely seaworthy because of it's design and construction'. If you can find a reference to an apologetic argument which says 'The Ark was so small it would have survived the flood' which is specifically in response to the skeptic claim that it wouldn't have been seaworthy, I'll include it by all means. The position 'No Ark' is not a defence of the practicality of the Ark in the flood, it's a claim that there was no Ark at all. Similarly, the position 'that part of Genesis is entirely myth' is not a defence of the practicality of the Ark in the flood, it's a claim that there was no Ark at all. You're not even reading the paragraph, let alone thinking about what you're writing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a better suggestion. I will go ahead and put your previous contribution into the article (we've discussed that enough), along with my addition (and the trivial clarifications to your text) also discussed. That will give us something to move forward with (even if others argue that the details are excessive: let's see how it looks first). --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a better suggestion, that's an incredibly poor suggestion and yet again an entirely willful breach of Wikipedia policy, especially where disputed articles are in question and the paragraph is still under discussion. You are not contributing anything useful to this article. You're even ignorant of standard Wikipedia policies and conventions. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...OK, it does look pretty big. I suggest that discussion of cubits, and the size of the Ark, ought to be established elsewhere in the article: the size should have been established before the actual discussion of the seaworthiness of a vessel of that size. One nitpick I didn't notice before: the Korean paper "does not appear to be widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists"... sez who? No reference.

Says who? Says a thorough check on the Internet. Look for yourself. It is 'typically cited by Biblical literalists', which is why it seems that it is not widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists. The paragraph already included a link to a Biblical literalist site which appeals to it. This is no different to the earlier statement (not written by me), which says 'Current Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long', and then provides a single reference. What do you want me to do, include a huge list of sites which don't refer to it? --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Says who? Says a thorough check on the Internet. Look for yourself." A thorough check by whom? By you? That is Original Research. I am prepared to let it through, because I've had exactly the same "proving a negative" problem myself in the past (on another article: I did, however, get fact-tagged for it): but it's OR, by definition. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of references: something has gone badly wrong with the bottom end of the references list in the article! --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Article said <Ref> where it should have said </Ref>. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Robert for moving this to the main article - it's more convenient to look at it there. I still have problems with the length of this piece - it overbalances the entire article - and I would also like to point out that the section is on what biblical literalists say about seaworthiness: quoted refs should be to modern literalists. But overall, this gives us some good material to work with. PiCo (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire 'literalist' section already completely unbalanced the article, as I have said more than once over the last few months. The problem is that there's an incredible resistance to including anything other than the YEC 'Biblical literalist' position. The 'local flood' interpretation for example has been carefully excluded from this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it just wasn't in the version that I used. I have no objection to it going back in (other than maybe WP:UNDUE: got any data on acceptance of "Big Ark, Local Flood" apologetics?). --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

This is the last time I am going to make an effort here before I take this article to arbitration. Despite including all the material from the original paragraph, and despite including all the material requested for addition in subsequent discussions, my proposed paragraph has been totally hacked up almost beyond recognition, thrown into the article itself (whilst in the middle of a discussion about it), and then hacked about some more. You Robert, and you PiCo, have been willfully editing the article however you pleased without any reference to any other editors, even in the middle of a discussion over which changes to be made. You are not paying any respect whatsoever to standard Wiki policies for article editing and conflict resolution. Note the header of this Talk page:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

You have both disregarded this completely, and taken over the editing of the article between the two of you. The paragraph now included is a badly organized and unwieldy mix of unconnected sections which doesn't even have a coherent flow. Whole sentences no longer make sense because they refer to previous sentences which no longer exist. It's a shocking editing job, and it has been carried out totally without any regard for Wiki policies. The proposed amendment needs to be settled on before being included. I have been absolutely rigid in my obedience to Wikipedia's editing policies, and I've had to watch in disgust as you both flout them willfully. Enough is enough. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...I see that all the changes have been reverted by Taiwan Boi, citing "Ask first, edit later (it's Wikipedia policy))". However, while that might arguably be applied to PiCo's shortening (though I agreed with PiCo regarding the appropriateness of shortening the Ark dimensions stuff, and personally I see no problem with his other subsequent edits either), it seems to have been taken a step too far with the removal of everything we've been discussing. I will revert to PiCo's last edit, as this has my approval. Taiwan Boi, please be careful regarding WP:OWN, and if you have any specific objections to the stuff removed by PiCo, let's discuss those (for instance, the reasoning behind the Ark dimensions could maybe go elsewhere in the article). Or, if you insist on reverting to the stage before PiCo's shortening: OK, let's proceed from there. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually made two reverts of minor changes, and then realised the entire paragraph should be replaced with the one which was in there before we started discussing my amendment. That is what should be in there. It is completely illegitimate for you to claim that both of you can simply make any changes you like on the basis that the other approves. Between the two of you, this article's content is being dictated by a minority, and a minority not even prepared to contribute meaningfully to the article.

Your citation of WP:OWN is highly ironic given that it is you and PiCo who are claiming ownership of the article and amending it as you please without consultation, whereas I have followed Wikipedia editing policy absolutely to the letter. Read this:

Since working on an article does not entitle you to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her—regardless of whether or not he or she "owns" the article.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're really going to take this to arbitration, histrionics and (more) baseless assertions aren't going to help your case. Your (initial) proposed addition has been accepted and used almost completely unchanged, except for the addition of another distinct paragraph from myself.

That is exactly what I am saying. My proposed paragraph has been totally hacked up almost beyond recognition, thrown into the article itself (whilst in the middle of a discussion about it), and then hacked about some more. My proposed paragraph, not the one initially proposed, but the second one (and note I now have a third one on the Talk page). You are also trying to ignore the fact that you have made edits without consultation, in an article which is under dispute, during an actual discussion of a specific issue, all of which breaches standard Wiki policy. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And you're now actually trying to claim that you (one user) are a "majority", and everyone else that has ever argued against you on this talkpage is a minority?

I have never said any such thing. I have said that the content of this article is being dictated by a minority, namely you and PiCo. You are only two out of the many editors of this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, my incorporation of your material (prior to trimming) and your deletion of mine is positive action by you and negative action by me? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting the case. I have not objected to your incorporation of 'my material', I have objected specifically to you incorporating material without consultation (a negative action), hence my deletion is positive. I have also specifically objected to you failing to incorporate what I actually want in the article, and instead incorporating a paragraph which I had already abandoned for a new proposal, then claiming you were simply incorporating what I wanted. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, your statements don't seem to match reality here. If we're still talking about the major amendment, my paragraph has generated much discussion and you have tried to incorporate stuff from it yourself.

In every edit I have proposed I have incorporated material from other editors, which is in harmony with the Wikipedia principle of cooperation. The fact that your paragraph has generated 'much discussion' is irrelevant, what's relevant is what is agreed to. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My previous edit has been superseded by these changes: indeed, I'm the one who deleted it from the article when I added the newer stuff! And I didn't "hack up" your second attempt, I used your first attempt, plus MY take on the extra stuff I wanted (your second draft was mostly your partial incorporation of my material anyhow).

That's exactly what I'm talking about, you hacked up my second proposal by incorporating only some of the material in it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And you are in a minority of one regarding the section under discussion.

Currently only two editors have been in favour of your edit, and you have totally ignored any suggestions by me to the contrary. You are not even pretending to try and cooperate. That's the point here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite apparently having read WP:OWN, you seem to be imagining that everything has to be passed by you before going into the article.

What absolute nonsense. As I have already demonstrated, it is you and PiCo who are the ones actually editing the article as you please without reference to others, whereas I have consistently proposed my amendments here for discussion first. I do not believe that everything has to be passed by me first, and I have even included material from you and PiCo in my paragraph despite disagreeing with you that it should even be in there. What I wanted to see from you both is cooperation, discussion, and some agreement before changes to the article were made, but it is clear you are going to continue to refuse to undertake this process. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember that improving articles is an iterative process: there's no requirement that a revised section should sit here forever with no significant developmental stages being reflected in the main article.

No one is suggesting that, but you are ignoring the warning at the top of this talk page:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, having said all that, here's another suggestion: I note that the previous section, "Gopher wood", links to a spinoff article with more information on that. This could be done with "Seaworthiness" too. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Finding the Ark

The section on searches for the Ark opens with this curious statement:

Believers in the historicity of the Genesis account feel that finding the Ark would validate their views on a whole range of matters, from geology to evolution.

What evidence is there for this? It is accompanied by a single quote from Morris (at the Institute for Creation Research), indicating that this is specifically a view held among Christian fundamentalists, not anyone who believes in the historicity of the Ark. On the contrary, standard published works arguing in favour of the Ark's historicity (such as Bible dictionaries and notable journal articles), deny that it is even possible to find the Ark today. I believe in the historicity of the Genesis account, but I don't believe that finding the Ark would validate my views on a whole range of matters, from geology to evolution. How about this as an amendment:

Christian fundamentalists generally feel that finding the Ark would validate their views on a whole range of matters, from geology to evolution.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly would it mean to you if someone were to find the Ark on top of a mountain? That the Ark was historic, but the Flood was not? That the Ark and Flood were historic, but Noah was not? I'm curious. PiCo (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what this question has to do with anything. As phrased, it's meaningless to me since if the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel is true then the Ark cannot be discovered (still less on top of a mountain), and if the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel is false then the Ark equally cannot be discovered (still less on top of a mountain). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So you believe that the Flood deposited the Ark on a mountaintop in the region of Ararat just a few thousand years ago, but that it doesn't exist? Weird. PiCo (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Er no, I never said any such thing. I certainly don't believe the flood deposited the Ark on a mountaintop in the region of Ararat just a few thousand years ago. What I said was that if the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel is true then the Ark cannot be discovered (still less on top of a mountain), and if the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel is false then the Ark equally cannot be discovered (still less on top of a mountain). This is because if the historicity of the Ark is true then it cannot have survived intact to this day and therefore cannot be found, and if the historicity of the Ark is false then it never existed and therefore cannot be found. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"What I said was that if the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel is true then the Ark cannot be discovered" - why not? What about the historicity of the Ark as a genuine vessel decrees that it cannot be discovered? Various other ancient ships have been. Are you saying that history records the Ark's destruction? Why could it not have "survived intact to this day" somewhere? --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert, the Genesis narrative says the Ark was made of timber. Given this fact, and its dimensions, it cannot possibly have survived intact to this day (TalkOrigins, please argue your case with them and to tell me what happens). Timber vessels do not last intact this long, still less a timber structure the size of the Ark. No ancient timber ships around 4,500 years old have been found intact. That's simply untrue. The oldest ship to have survived is the Khufu solar barge (only about 40 metres long), and that was found disassembled, in over 1,000 pieces and carefully sealed in a waterproof and airtight tomb. Even Caligula's giant barge and the Nemi ships didn't survive intact, despite being around 2,500 years younger. Neither has anything of the Tessarakonteres survived, or Hatshepsut's obelisk barge, despite the fact that there is no record of their destruction. If the Genesis record described Noah as having carefully disassembled the Ark into thousands of pieces and buried it in a waterproof and airtight tomb, or taken any similar steps to preserve it, you might have half a point. As it is, you're simply being argumentative for the sake of it. You're not even making a rational argument. If you were debating a Young Earth Creationist (which I am not), or a Christian Fundamentalist (which I am not), you would be the one arguing hotly that the Ark could not possibly have survived intact. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying it's likely to have survived intact, especially on Ararat. It's just that you seem to have a gap in your chain of reasoning there. Especially in a local-Flood scenario, where the keel of the Ark could have ended up preserved under silt near the mouth of the Euphrates or whatever. Somewhat off-topic though. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no gap in my chain of reasoning. If the historicity of the Genesis record is correct, then the Ark landed among the mountainous region of Urartu, where it could not possibly have survived. This also means that it cannot possibly have landed 'near the mouth of the Euphrates' to be 'preserved under silt'. How much silt would you need to bury the Ark and preserve it, do you think? This isn't even rational. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

New article on the Flood needed?

I just deleted a sentence from the lead because it dealt with the Flood and not the Ark. I know it's difficult to separate the two, but from the length of this article on the Ark you can see how inflatred it could easily become. I'm amazed that there's no article on the Flood/biblical Deluge on Wiki, and I think one should be created - the deleted material would find a natural home there. PiCo (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I accept your deletion as valid on the grounds you state. Like you I'm amazed there's no article specifically on the Deluge in Wikipedia (the only Deluge article contains very little on the Genesis flood narrative). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we can finally agree on something. One problem might be the title of the article, but I'm sure that can overcome. Would you like to start it? PiCo (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do in the next few days. I would suggest the title 'Genesis Flood', with a redirect from the 'Deluge' article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28mythology%29 Christian Skeptic (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the general Deluge article has been noted. What we're talking about is a separate article specifically for the Genesis flood. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to call it Genesis Flood, as it needs to deal with the Book of Enoch and Jubilees as well - perhaps Noah's Flood is still best. (The Book of Enoch is a 2nd century BC work expanding on Genesis - it was extremely influential around the time of Christ, and is quoted in the New Testament; Jubilees is from roughly the same period, but the chronology it contains may be much older - it forms the basis of the timetable used in the Genesis flood).

I don't mind including Enoch and Jubilees, but since they are both expansions of the flood narrative in Genesis I see no reason not to call the article 'Genesis Flood'. It will, after all, be an article specifically discussing the flood narrative in Genesis. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. PiCo (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ziusudra's ark of reeds

Shouldn't there be some mention of this? Robert Best is in the references, but that's all. He isn't the only one who has made the connection of course, and David Fasold thought at one point that's what he'd found. Best's book is outlined here, http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/contents.htm Doug Weller (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Noah story seems to be based more directly on Utnapishtim (Gilgamesh) than on Ziusudra. I'm not quite sure just why you think the reeds thing is important - is it because of the possibility that the word "gofer" (as in the material from which Noah made his ark) may possibly come from the Akkadian word for reed? It may, but then again it may not - the connection is unproven. More interesting is that the Mesopotamian ark was in the shape of a Babylonian ziggurat (cube-shaped), whereas Noah's reflected the Tabernacle and the Temple in Jerusalem, which was a model of the Hebrew universe. (The three levels of the ark copy the three levels of the cosmos as described in Genesis 1 - heavens, earth, underworld). The best book on this is S.W. Holloway's "What Ship Goes There: The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis Considered in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Temple Ideology." With any luck it might be available in Googlebooks. PiCo (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All this should be included in your proposed section comparing the Genesis flood narrative to the other ANE flood narratives. There's a large amount of relevant literature on this, and it may well end up included in the 'Documentary Hypothesis' part of the article, or even in an entirely separate article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how important it is but I think it is worthy of mentioned . Evidently the Jewish Encyclopedia thinks that gopher wood was a translation of an Assyrian word for reed, which would make it a reed boat, right? And as I said, Best is in the reference but his ideas don't seem to be covered in the article, or have I missed something? He thinks Noah's ark was actually a commercial river barge. His ideas are noteworthy enough to be included. See http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ Also did you see http://www.associated content.com/article/175321/noahs_ark_the_true_story.html (url broken to avoid spam filter)? Doug Weller (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like Best's views included here (along with the views of more notable sources), but I have to ask if Best was self-published and if he's sufficiently notable for inclusion. He doesn't turn up on Wikipedia, which is telling, and I don't know any scholarly sources which cite him. We need a WP:RS check. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

His first book may have been, leading to the comments I presume you've read. This book is published by Eisenbrauns, and to quote their website, "Eisenbrauns has been serving the academic community for more than 25 years with quality publications in ancient Near Eastern studies, archaeology" -- so that should not be a problem. I wish there were transcripts of the Discovery documentary and this one.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3524676.stm Doug Weller (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've opnly read the website Doug directs us to, but I can assure you the ideas there are not scholarly, in that they have no following at all in the scholarly community. For example, the 2900 BC local flood: this idea was first raised by Leonard Woolley in 1929 as a result of his excavations at Ur, where he discovered a thick silt layer separating two strata containing Ubaid material; the finding of silt layers at other sites throughout Mesopotamia seemed to confirm it; but the whole theory was examined and disproven by John Bright in 1942 and is now no lomnger spoken of outside popular and literalist circles. The problem is that these silt layers come from widely different time period, covering several thousand years, and are not continuous even over small areas - Woolley's Ur layer, for example, doesn't cover all of Ur (the usual conclusion now is that it represents an old bed of the river). There are many other problems as well. But Best could certainly go in the projected article on the Biblical Flood, under a section dealing with popular theories. PiCo (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the different ideas of what the 'ark' might have been I'm referring to. I agree with the comments on Woolley.Doug Weller (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No mention of where the Ark was built??

How come there is no mention of where the Ark was supposed to have been built? I thought the New Testament clearly states it was created in a Sumerian city of Shuruppak, which is now in South-Central Iraq in the Al-Qādisiyyah province. Anyone care to clarify? Gamer112 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a Shuruppak flood myth involving Zisudra, maybe you are thinking of that. --Doug Weller (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the many global indicators in the description of the flood it has been proposed by some that the preflood geography was very different from the postflood geography. So the construction site is thought to have been destroyed and so unknown today. The appearance of preflood names for postflood things and places may be explained by the naming of new world locations with familiar old world names (much as many USA places are called after European name-sakes, just google most any European place name and see how many times they appear in the USA). Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just reread the relevant section of the bible and it doesn't say a location. Not that it would, given the origin of the myth. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another proposed amendment

This is my latest paragraph suggestion. Please read the notes which follow:

*Seaworthiness: It is commonly assumed by skeptics and Christian apologists that the Ark would have needed to be a seaworthy vessel in order to survive the flood. Critics of the Ark's supposed seaworthiness argue that the problems experienced by large wooden vessels on the open ocean is a major factor, as such forces would also be experienced by Noah's Ark borne on a worldwide flood:

"It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered."'... "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." (see also Hogging and sagging for a description of some of the forces at work).

With a generally agreed on length of over 400 feet, the Ark was noted as late as the 19th century as 'larger than any modern ship'. It has been pointed out by skeptics of the Genesis narrative that the Ark's length is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming and the clipper Great Republic (two of the largest all timber vessels ever built), and claimed that the chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation from which such ships suffered (despite reinforcement with iron bracing), proves the Ark could not have survived the flood. Modern shipbuilding commentaries note that similar late 19th century ships such as the HMS Orlando and Mersey experienced the same problems, and cite them as evidence that timber ships beyond these dimensions are likely to be impractical.

Different Christian apologists reply to these objections in a range of ways. In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy apologists claim that the Genesis flood was only local, and that the Ark therefore did not have to survive a catastrophic global storm or the open seas, or that the Ark was made using construction methods which rendered it seaworthy regardless of the size of the flood. A Korean paper published by Answers In Genesis argues for the seaworthiness of the Ark, claiming the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'. Typically cited by Biblical literalist Websites, this paper does not appear to be widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists.

*Physical Practicality: Another common skeptical argument is that the Ark was too large to sustain its own weight and could never have been launched. Current Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long, , whilst other Christian sources posit slightly smaller dimensions, or merely cite the cubits in the Biblical account without calculating the size in modern terms..

Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality is responded to by apologist claims that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark . From as early as the 17th century comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered analogous in dimensions and construction. Defending the praticality of the Ark, Walter Raleigh argued the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia (a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. The Tessarakonteres (recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.

Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by Christian apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships, the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities. A point of comparison used less commonly by apologists is the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan'. Skeptics object that the design and size of the Chinese ships is not in fact sufficiently analogous to the Ark.

Please note:

• I have removed the following discussion of the Ark's size, which can be included earlier in the article as it is unnecessary for this paragraph:

The Ark is described as 300 cubits long, the cubit being a unit of measurement from elbow to outstretched fingertip. The ancient cubit was from 17.5 inches to 21.5 inches, giving a length in the range 437.5 feet (133 m) to 537.5 feet (164 m);. As a result, many different assessments of the Ark's length have been posited. An extreme length of 680 feet was suggested in the 19th century, but most earlier estimates were considerably shorter than this. The dimensions are generally understood as indicating that the Ark was over 400 feet long.

• The paragraph now refers to the Tessarakonteres as a 'giant warship', which is extremely generous of me (and Robert you claimed you had no objection to the term 'warship')
• The paragraph includes my previous change of 'Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality is responded to by apologist claims', from the original 'Skepticism of the Ark's size and practicality is met by apologist claims' (a change which you Robert totally ignored or else simply didn't read)
• The paragraph includes two more references to skeptic arguments that the Ark would have collapsed under its own weight
• The paragraph includes specific reference to the Wyoming and the Great Republic because they are cited by skeptical arguments (PiCo, you may not think that the Great Republic is a good point of comparison, but that is irrelevant, the fact is that it is a commonly used point of comparison by skeptics)
• The paragraph clarifies the identity of the specific ships cited in the reference 'Asia's Undersea Archeology' (they should be included, not covered up with the meaningless phrase '[i.e. modern timber-hulled]', there is no reason not to be specific here
• Robert, please understand again that the information your section referring to whether or not the Chinese treasure ships ever crossed a 'major ocean' has to be included legitimately. I have told you over and over again how to include this information correctly. Firstly it has to be presented in a manner which is relevant to skeptical arguments concerning the Ark. You didn't do this. Secondly it has to be cited specifically from a third party skeptical source which raises the specific argument that the Chinese treasure ships are not a valid comparison because they didn't cross a major ocean. I have looked online for such an argument (since you wouldn't do the work yourself), but I have been unable to find any skeptic Websites at all which make this argument. If you find one, please included it.
• I have divided the information into two sections, 'Seaworthiness' and 'Physical Practicality', since these are the two issues raised in the paragraph.

Remember, discuss first, edit later. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

TB, I'd really prefer it if you edited the version currently in the article. Given the huge size of your contributions, it really would make it easier on the rest of us.

The whole point of Wikipedia policy is to get people to edit here first, so that the article itself doesn't get changed every 15 or 30 minutes, which has a severely detrimental effect on the reader's experience, especially if they want to refer to it later. If you really want me to put in what I've added above, I'll need a few more people to say so. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Now some dot-points:

• If you want to go to arbitration that's up to you, but I think we're all quite happy to keep working with you. Testy at times perhaps, but relations haven't broken down yet.

If you want to work with me, please start doing so. You can stop your 'at will' edits of the main article without consultation, for a start. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still very concerned about the sheer size of your proposed addition. The various sections of the article are all the same length, more or less, and we should try to keep it that way - this is one way of ensuring balance.

The way to ensure balance is to ensure that each section is properly balanced, not to make sure that each part of the article is the same length. Different parts of the article will always require different depths of treatment. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• You don't have to worry about putting up the ark-skeptical arguments - this section is about literalist beliefs, we only have to describe those beliefs.

I put them up because they were there in the original article to start with. I'm simply taking it from there, and Robert Stevens is insistent that they be included (which I don't have a problem with). --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a requirement of WP:NPOV. Once we start citing arguments for the Ark's supposed seaworthiness (beyond simply "the Bible says it floated"), we are required to provide the opposing arguments. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm the one agreeing you. PiCo is the one disagreeing, take it to him. But let's get one thing straight. This started because the article originally contained only arguments against the Ark's seaworthiness, and no reference to arguments for. That's WP:NPOV. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Whenever you put forward a point, make sure the supporting references are from literalist sources, not academic ones - we're describing what literalists say, not what academics say.

I have done this absolutely every time. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, you have academic references in there too (books about ancient ships etc). Personally, though, I think that's OK. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have told you before, you are confusing two separate issues. When my paragraph puts forward a point about what Christian apologists claim, it cites Christian apologist sources. When it puts forward a point about what academics say, it cites academic sources. That's precisely why it is ok. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I gather you feel that Old Earth Creationist views are not represented. I'd be quite happy to include a sentence or two about them, but are they really that prominent in literalist circles? - I was under the impression, from my reading of Creationsit websites, that Young Earthers had the majority. (Incidentally, the article on Old Earth Creationism has a section on OEC views on the Flood that we could link to).PiCo (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually mention OEC views at all. What I mentioned was other interpretations such as the local flood interpretation. They don't need to be included in the 'Literalist' section (I have already explained why this is a misnomer, it's trying to describe all who believe the Genesis narrative describes a historical event as 'Biblical literalists'), but they should be given at least a passing mention somewhere in the article (a link can then be given to a page which describes them in depth). The same could be done for relevant OEC views.

By the way, if you were reading 30+ academic journals as I am, you would know that the YEC view is not the majority (though it may be in North America, but only just). You need to think outside North America. The statistics I've seen cited indicate that less than 10% of Christians are YECs. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

PiCo seems to be referring to the YEC majority among creationists, not Christians in general. It appears that the majority of "Big Ark" defenders are YEC: that has certainly been my experience, and it's also apparent from TalkOrigins articles etc (in the sense that they don't seem to mention OEC-related points much, they appear to be almost exclusively directed at YEC beliefs). --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if that's what he's talking about, he's still wrong. YEC is a minority view among creationists, though it may be a majority view among North American creationists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Three more points to add: firstly, more personal websites don't improve the "common argument" claim. The Internet is a big place: personal websites, blogs and discussion board posts can be found to support just about any view (e.g. George W. Bush is a shape-shifting lizard: not actually a common view in anti-Bush circles). If this argument is common, it should be on TalkOrigins (proper) or a similar site (where, even then, the "common" qualifier may be dubious). This does not belong until at least one valid reference supports it.

I have been through this before. The issue at hand is about providing sources for what skeptics say. As such, these sources are entirely appropriate. If your objection was valid then nothing on TalkOrigins would be acceptable, as it is all entirely selfpublished. In fact many of the links in the article (including almost every single skeptic link), would have to be removed, since so many of them are selfpublished or personal pages, such as:

• http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html
• http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/gopherwood.html
• http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9246.htm
• http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
• http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Noahs_ark.html
• http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#building
• http://www.worldwideflood.com/objections/ancients_incapable.htm
• http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/the-genesis-flood-34
• http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH508.html
• http://www.1421exposed.com
• http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/safety_aig/safety_aig.htm
• http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp
• http://www.icr.org/article/209

In this case I am presenting an argument which is certainly common among skeptics of the Ark, as I have demonstrated with plenty of sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, TalkOrigins etc. are not "selfpublished" in the WP:SPS sense. This is a common claim against TalkOrigins in particular (by those who confuse TalkOrigins proper with the discussion group), and it has failed every time. This is a notable, science-award-winning, reliable organization with a peer-review process.

Perhaps you haven't actually read the site:

Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

TalkOrigins is a Usenet newsgroup.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in the talk.origins newsgroup. There is no 'organization' here called 'TalkOrigins' with a team of scientists producing all these papers. You cannot possibly claim that this is not self-published or was 'peer reviewed' in scientific journals. Nor can you make such a claim about this. Both were written by one person, Mark Isaac, who is not to the best of my knowledge an authority on either subject, and self-published them by putting them online. All he does is grab bits and pieces from the talk.orgins newsgroup, and makes articles and FAQs out of them. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Articles approved and reproduced by an organization (regardless of where they came from) aren't "selfpublished" anymore: however, personal websites are.  From WP:CK: "A frequent justification in casual conversation is that a certain fact is "common knowledge". It often turns out that most people don't actually share this knowledge. Even claims that are widely believed often turn out to be anywhere from only mostly true to the complete opposite of what is actually the case.  

I haven't appealed to 'common knowledge', and Mark Isaac's articles were neither 'approved' or 'reproduced' by an 'organization'. He wrote them, he put them online. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to find reliable sources to support their edits, and to cite them. Citing sources when your edit is challenged by another editor is Wikipedia policy, and any unsourced edits may be removed."

I cited my sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, from WP:V: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Since Mark Isaac is not 'an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications', find me all the reliable sources which have made his argument regarding the Chinese treasure ships. Remember, I'm not the one objecting to this kind of source, you are. I note that you haven't commented on any of the other links. Why not? --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So, what reliable source has done so? Why has no reliable source made this argument? See also "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources".

This claim is not 'surprising', and it has been presented in the mainstream more than once. See this BBC news article ('The traditional shape of Noah's Ark comes from the imaginations of 19th Century artists. It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'). See also here ('the odds are that the technology of the time and the reputed material (gopher wood or shittim wood = ?acacia) would have made such a structure too flimsy for the purpose'). See also this article in the Skeptical Inquirer ('Many writers (e.g., Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysticism, Mayfield, 1990) point out that the construction of the Ark, given the conditions stated in the Bible, would probably have been impossible'). A related argument, presented here by the National Center for Science Education, argues that neither the necessary technology nor knowledge was available to even build the Ark ('Noah would have needed a thorough education in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for thousands of years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The notion that the Ark could not have floated even on a dead-calm pond is a surprising and apparently important claim that no notable skeptic source has ever actually made, as far as we can tell. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not citing what I wrote. The claim cited has been that the Ark could not support its own weight. Read what I wrote. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you're still repeating the same arguments against TalkOrigins that have been found to be invalid every other time they have been raised anywhere on Wikipedia. TalkOrigins is NOT the personal website of Mark Isaac.

No Robert, you've forgotten the whole point of this. You put forward a definition of 'reliable sources' which would exclude a large number of sources used in the article, as I have shown. I am defending all of them, including Mark Isaak's papers. You are defending none of them except for Mark Isaak's papers, arguing that they don't meet your definition. I am showing that Mark's papers do meet your definition. I have never said that TalkOrigins is the personal Website of Mark Isaac. Once more you are fabcricating claims. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He's part of a team that collates and approves material from the TalkOrigins discussion group, plus the stuff they've written themselves. Indeed, "Problems with a Global Flood" thanks the following people for their contributions and advice: Ken Fair, Bob Grumbine, Joel J. Hanes, Paul V. Heinrich, Bill Hyde, William H. Jefferys, Andrew MacRae, Thomas Marlowe, Glenn R. Morton, Chris Nedin, Kevin L. O'Brien, Chris Stassen, Frank Steiger.

Yes, it acknowledges help from other people, whilst giving Mark the responsibility of authorship. It does not tell us who contributed what, or what their qualifications are, and does not in any way enable us to identify any of these people as a reliable source. Nor does it identify Mark as a reliable source (according to your definition). --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And many have contributed to the "Index of Creationist Claims" too. It's this cooperative effort, the shared fact-checking and approval process, that separates TalkOrigins from personal websites written by just anyone. Plus the notability aspect, of course: regardless of qualifications, Isaac and the others are now notable sources, not just random strangers whose names fall out of a Google search.

You're not responding to my argument. I'm pointing out that TalkOrigins fails your requirement for reliable sources. Now how about all those other Websites you want write off? --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to find alternatives to the personal websites of lone strangers. You're beginning to do that, but your latest sources still don't support the claim that you are making, because they don't say that the Ark would have "broken apart" merely when lying in still water:

Stop fabricating claims. I said the argument was that the Ark would collapse under its own weight. I never said the argument was that it would 'break apart merely when lying in still water'. Your deliberately repeated fabrications are dishonest. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

the BBC site is initially talking about a global flood (local-flood comes later).

Irrelevant. The section cited is specifically saying that the Ark could not be built, not that it couldn't survive the flood. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, "a structure too flimsy for the purpose"... of surviving a global flood while heavily laden.

It doesn't say that. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Similary, "the construction of the Ark would have been impossible": unless they're talking about a shortage of wood to build the thing (entirely possible), they're talking about the construction of a vessel that was capable of surviving... a global flood, apparently (all advocates mentioned are global-flood YEC's).

Read what it says. It says the construction of the Ark would have been impossible, not its survival in a global flood. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE article specifically says "How could he anticipate the effects of roll, pitch, yaw, and slamming in a rough sea? How did he solve the differential equations for bending moment, torque, and shear stress?"

The NCSE article specifically says that Noah 'would have needed a thorough education in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for thousands of years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis' before he could even have built the frame for such a large craft ('Where did he learn the framing procedure for such a Brobdingnagian structure?'). Your omission of this is very telling. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We still have NO reliable source for any skeptical claim that the Ark could not have floated even on calm water! --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given several. You're way behind in any case. Look at the main article for my latest edits. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, Chinese treasure ships. As far as I can tell, Gavin Menzies and his supporters are the only ones claiming that the treaure ships DID traverse a major ocean, and refutation of this claim is extensively referenced (but my wording leaves the possibility open anyhow). Everyone else thinks that they went around the southern coast of Asia as far as East Africa. Sure, I'll put in a reference that mentions the Ark if I ever find one, but as nobody is saying that they traversed any other ocean, this isn't controversial.

I am not talking about whether or not Menzies' claims are controversial. I am pointing out (yet again), that the information regarding the treasure ships does not, as it stands, have any direct relevance to the Ark and is not being presented correctly. It needs to be presented in the form of a cited argument by Ark skeptics claiming that the Ark could not have been a seaworthy vessel and specifically refuting the claim that the treasure ships prove such a large vessel could have navigated the oceans successfully. I have told you this at least three times now. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thirdly, structure and grouping. I think the mainpage article is currently better (though not perfect) than your current proposal, because there's some apparent mixing-up of different views within the same paragraph. Let's try to separate out global-flood-relevant stuff and local-flood-relevant stuff into distinct paragraphs (and, yes, specifically mention local-flood apologetics in the process). Big non-oceangoing ships don't belong with global-flood stuff, whereas arguably the treaure ships (which, despite the caveats, did at least skirt around the edge of at least one ocean) do, and modern theoretical Ark designs are claimed to be oceangoing too: that's significant.

The current paragraph in the article not only includes information which at least two of us have agree doesn't belong there (a section on the size of the Ark), but also lacks coherence. As I already pointed out, it contains sentences which used to refer to previous sentences which have now been removed, so the sentences which remain don't make sense. My paragraph made a clear separation of the various skeptical arguments and the various apologetic responses. Big non-ocean going ships are, as I pointed out, a common apologetic response to the claim that the Ark had to be a seaworthy ocean going ship, and I specifically included two references demonstrating that modern theoretical Ark designs are claimed to be oceangoing also. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE would appear to imply that global-Flood stuff gets priority, due to this being the main skeptical position and apparently the main creationist position too. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the main creationist position actually. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when? Can you document that? Both for 'scholars' and 'believers' please. I think most Creationist believers believe in a global flood.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean both for 'scholars' and 'believers'? I spoke specifically of creationists. See here ('More widely held by Christians than Young Earth creationism is Old Earth creationism, which is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of geology, cosmology and the age of the Earth'). In the UK 'We have identified 463 individual churches that endorse young earth creationism in public – given that we calculate that there are 45,300 churches in the UK, this represents 1% of the total', and 'Creationism appeared to be virtually absent from the mainstream denomination churches such as Anglican, Catholic, Baptist Union, Methodist, United Reformed Church and the Church of Scotland.' (here). See US statistics here ('Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education!'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert, PiCo wants me to place my new amendment proposal in the main article while it is being discussed here. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree, I am going to keep following standard Wikipedia editorial polices regardless of your disobedience to them. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He said no such thing! He actually said "I'd really prefer it if you edited the version currently in the article" (i.e. no need to devise an entirely new version).

Er, editing the version currently in place is exactly what I'm talking about. I put a new proposal here, and he suggested instead that I edit the current article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My own action was to copy across stuff that was discussed HERE first. In doing so, I have used these DISCUSSED changes as a new basepoint for further improvement. Let's move forward from here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your own action was to copy across stuff that was discussed days ago and not agreed on, which is precisely why I wrote a second version of the paragraph, which is what was being discussed at the time of your copy/paste. So you deliberately didn't copy across what was currently being discussed, and you didn't copy across a paragraph which was agreed on. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"this paper does not appear to be widely accepted among Christian Ark apologists."

I'd like to see a reference for this statement. It seems to be just an observation rather than a quote from a reliable source. My experience as a Creationists and Flood Catastrophist has been that others like myself feel that the Korean paper is an excellent paper although perhaps it has not been well understood. Perhaps that is one reason why it may not be quoted much. The worldwideflood web site explains the Korean paper so that most anyone can understand it. Among Ark apologists, the worldwideflood site is considered the ultimate Noah's Ark information source given the fact that it is done by naval architects and a mechanical engineer. No one else has the education and experience to do a better job. I have yet to find ANY skeptical web site that is supported by naval architects and the like. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine by me. But I don't see what distinction TB intends by referring to "Biblical literalists" and "Christian apologists" - or rather, I can't see that Christian apologetics has anything to do with the Ark story (Christ isn't even mentioned). I gather that TB is trying to distance himself from the label "Biblical literalist," but I can't see why - he believes the Flood story refers to a literal flood, if only a local one.PiCo (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian apologists are the people defending the historicity of the ark. If you think that Christian apologetics only has reference to Christ, then I suggest you look up the definition of 'Christian apologist'. I have explained more than once why 'Biblical literalist' is not a correct description of every Christian apologist (let alone every Christian apologist who defends the Ark). A 'Biblical literalist' is synonymous with 'Fundamentalist', and Biblical literalists use the historical grammatical method of interpretation, which is not held to by the majority of Christians. So a 'Biblical literalist' believes in the most extreme position, a very large Ark, a global flood, all people on earth killed except for 8, all animals in the Ark, etc. As I have explained more than once previously, the term 'literalist' was being used in the article to refer to all those who believe in the historicity of the Ark, though it was actually the 'Biblical literalist' view which was being presented under this title, so the term 'literalist' was misleading. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also: Ark apologists do not only appeal to ancient wood ships. A major part of the worldwideflood web site is the development of a wood ship design for Noah's Ark by naval architects. Here is found required structural data, calculations of expected forces, strength of materials, design features and requirements, and a proposed design. I have yet to find ANY source on-line (or elsewhere) who is duly qualified (i.e. an experienced naval architect or even mechanical engineers) that has challenged any point raised by the naval architects of worldwideflood. If skeptics want to do us all a service, get some qualified naval architects to review the worldwideflood data set. But they had better truly be qualified.

So: I propose the following additional paragraph to this section.

"In addition to appealing to ancient wood ships, naval architect apologists have proposed a design for the Ark based on expected forces, strength of materials, ship design requirements, etc. Their on-line results are available for review and analysis by skeptical naval architects and engineers." Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, but rather than putting it into a separate paragraph, I think it belongs in an expansion of the current last paragraph of "Seaworthiness" (in the article). That already discusses the Korean paper and nothing else, and is rather short. A dedicated paragraph specifically for everything pertaining to theoretical ocean-capable Arks seems appropriate. --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved the Korean material up into the top of the section as it's about the most directly relevant thing I've sen on the Ark's seaworthines. I also tried to integrate ChristianSceptic's material (just above me here in this thread) into it. And I tried to shorten the whole thing. So if your sentences aren't there, please pause before re-inserting them, as I'm trying very hard to make this as succinct as possible. Cewrtainly you shou8ld find that ALL your refs are still there - let the reader go to the references if he wants more information on any specific point. For TB: I've marked off the remainder of your material between two rows of crosses. It needs to be drastically shortened. And it can be: you have a whole sentence on hogging and sagging, for example, and I managed to get it into the first para as just two words. Please ask yourself, just what point are you trying to make? I believe you're simply trying to say that some Ark-believers find support for the seaworthiness of the Ark in ancient vessels. It really doesn't need all those words to say that. Try to boil it down. PiCo (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, that whole section on hogging and sagging isn't mine, it was written by Robert. I didn't think it needed to be in there, but he insisted so I followed Wikipedia policy regarding being as cooperative as possible, and included it in my proposed paragraph. During the editorial process here on the Talk page you raised absolutely no objection to that section of Roberts, which you should have done if you objected to it.

Your edit is an improvement on what was there, but there is no mention whatever of other important issues, such as that a number of Christian apologists argue that there was no need for the Ark to be seaworthy since the flood was local and the Ark did not go to sea. In addition, the section on the Chinese treasure ships is still not in a relevant or acceptable form according to Wikipedia editorial policy. Firstly it is not identified as a marginal comparison (found uncommonly among apologists and almost never commented by skeptics), and secondly it is not presented in a manner which is directly relevant to the Ark. As it currently stands, it's an editor's personal comment and their own research, not the citing of a skeptical argument. I will edit it now to show what should be there.

As they stand, both new paragraphs are now incoherent because the original flow of argument has been abandoned, and some current sentences do not make sense because they refer to sentences which have been removed. I have said this at least three times now. The current edit makes it appear that Christians respond to skepticism of the Ark's seaworthiness with appeals to non-sea going vessels. This is a complete misrepresentation. The issue of the Ark's practicality and its seaworthiness should be separated to prevent this confusion, as I have suggested.

I haven't been trying to say some 'Ark-believers find support for the seaworthiness of the Ark in ancient vessels'. I specifically relocated information regarding ancient vessels under 'Practicality', identifying the fact that it was not discussing seaworthiness. This is an example of how my material is being misrepresented as a result of being copy/pasted out of context. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of my newly proposed material (and some of what is already in the 'Biblical Literalism' section), should be relocated under 'The Ark in scientific and critical scholarship', which has received very little attention given that there is a huge body of scholarship specifically on this subject. The 'Biblical literalism' section should be confined to discussion of the views of Biblical literalists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the people at Answers in Genesis regard themselves as scholars. PiCo (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, please confine yourself to relevant comments. If you're not aware of the critical scholarship on the Ark, then you shouldn't even be contributing to this article. Either respond meaningfully to what I wrote, or don't respond at all. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Back to who has the majority, old or young earth creationists -- YEC is clearly the majority in North America -- and I'd be surprised if there were many OEC in Afrida or South America.Doug Weller (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

According to a 1998 Gallup poll, YEC is the majority in North America by a massive 5%. Not exactly 'clearly the majority'. But of course, the original claim was that they are in an absolute majority among all creationists. That is completely untrue. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to argue if Mark Isaak's papers are acceptable, please do so at WP:RSN. So far as I'm concerned, his flood paper is very well referenced and that is key. It should be used.Doug Weller (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the posts. I am not arguing that Mark Isaak's papers are unacceptable. Robert has put forward a definition of 'reliable sources' which would exclude a large number of sources used in the article, as I have shown. I am defending all of them, including Mark Isaak's papers. He is defending none of them except for Mark Isaak's papers, arguing that they don't meet his definition. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you provided a list of sources that WERE NOT personal websites and WOULD NOT be affected by this enforcement of Wikipedia policy! I have now removed from the article the only references I have found that DID violate this Wikipedia policy. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No Robert, I provided a list of sources which met your definition for unreliability, which was not simply 'personal Websites', but self-publishing and notability. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you not read my posts? Not a single site in your list met Wikipedia's (not "my") definition, as far as I can see. Would you mind explaining your new claim that Answers In Genesis (for instance) is the personal website of one person who can post whatever he/she likes on that entire site, answerable to absolutely nobody else, and with nobody else to advise him/her? Can you name this one person who controls all content on AiG? Is it Ken Ham? Is it Jonathan Sarfati? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I never made any such claim Robert. You're making things up again, just as you made things up about ancient Hebrew seafaring, then made things up about Solomon, and then made things up about Dever. Every time I met you with scholarly evidence you abandoned your old argument, fabricated a new one, and kept on running. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, wrong on every count.

Really? You want to claim you were right about ancient Hebrew seafaring, Solomon, and Dever? Are you really going to dare to do that? --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But, on the point you're still missing: everything I have just said about AiG actually applies to the sites I removed, which is why I removed them. YOU are the one insisting that the sites on your list (such as AiG) also fail the same criteria as those I removed. So, yes, that's what you are implicitly claiming. Do you understand this now? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not insisted that they all fail all the criteria you set forward. That's the part you are fabricating. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I’d like to make a couple points about some references in the article. They both make the claim that a wood ship the size of Noah’s ark would fall or break apart:

The first is by Colin Frayan PhD, Astronomy http://www.frayn.net/evolution/claim4.html dated 2 December 2005:

“Finally, the largest wooden ship ever built was the U.S.S. Wyoming, built in the first decade of the twentiath century with modern shipbuilding methods. It was more than 100 feet shorter than Noah's ark is claimed to have been. This ship represented a tremendous feat of engineering, and posed several substantial construction problems. Most notably, it required large iron strapping for support, just to hold the boat together. There is no possible way Noah could have built a boat 450 feet long which held together under its own weight, let alone also carried hundreds of thousands of animals, and floated on the tempestuous seas of the Biblical flood!”

Apparently Frayan makes the assumption that Noah’s Ark would have been made of a similar design as the Wyoming. Why? What does he base that on? Then, without any mathematical calculations claims the Ark could not hold itself together. Does Frayan have any knowledge, training or expertice to back up such claims? He is an Astronomer, not a naval architect. And he does not make any reference to any real experts in the field.

The second is Jeremy Bowen, Special Correspondent, BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3524676.stm March 19, 2004:

“It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart.”

What experts? Bowen does not give any sources. We are expected to just believe him.

Obviously neither Frayan nor Bowen are competent sources not having had any training in the field. If you are looking for competent, reliable sources to back up the assertions in this article, you really need to look elsewhere!

But then, if you want mere uneducated opinions, these are about a useless and any.

Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the purpose of this article is not to judge whether or not the arguements referred to are valid. We have been through this over and over again for the benefit of Robert. Secondly, the two links to which you refer are not being used as proof of a statement of fact, so they do not have to come from competent sources any more than the skeptic opinions cited here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree. The first, incidentally, is an invalid reference (personal website of a non-expert) that I had already deleted, and now I have had to delete it again. The second is a notable non-personal website, but in addition to your own criticisms, it didn't support the claim that Taiwan Boi originally used it for (that the Ark would simply fall apart), because it was being used in a global-Flood context (hence, ocean swells etc) - the article later moved on to discussing local-Flood. Hence, even Bowen isn't claiming that the Ark was quite as fragile as was originally implied. --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

See above. Neither link is being used as proof of a statement of fact so you have no complaint to make. And the BBC Website does not say what you claim. It does not say experts think it would have broken apart because of ocean swells. It says it would have been 450 feet long, and experts say it would have broken apart. It is the very size of the ship which is being used as the reason why it would have broken apart. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal websites are always invalid references, except when quoting experts. I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but that's policy, and technically Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between "facts" and "opinions" in any case (a fact is merely the opinion of a notable source: hence the slogan "verifiability, not truth"). There is also the problem of variable content, which could affect any site but is more of an issue with personal websites (and open blogs and wikis). And it was indeed being used to support a statement of fact: the "fact" that this is a common skeptical argument (as I pointed out earlier, I could provide numerous references for the claim that George W. Bush is a shape-shifting lizard: but this is NOT in fact a common argument against Bush). At least that claim has now gone.

The BBC reference says "experts say it would have broken apart", but it doesn't actually say why it would have broken apart: and it mentions the Ark's length, but not its weight. As the article is plainly discussing the global-Flood scenario at this point, this is probably just another reference to wave action on a hull of that length: certainly there is no reason to assume otherwise. We still don't have any valid reference which specifically says that (according to skeptics) the Ark wouldn't even float in calm water. I'd rather leave the question in without a reference, as a sort of rhetorical question, or half of the compound question "Could the Ark have supported its own weight? Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible?" and move the BBC reference to the end of that more general question (with the other two references). Then we're not trying to impose any specific interpretation on what the author meant. Also, there's a more dubious reference in there: the article "the age of the supergalleys" doesn't even mention Noah's Ark at all, therefore including it here is technically a WP:SYN violation. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

...Actually, it appears that the problem of off-topic references (i.e. those that don't apparently mention Noah's Ark at all) goes deeper. "Technology along the Nile: Ancient Egyptian Boats" (reference 55) doesn't either. Some references can't be checked online, but aren't being used to talk about Noah's Ark, and no quotes mentioning the Ark are provided from these (references 47, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60). Looks like a massive outbreak of WP:SYN here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Stylistic comment on the section Biblical literalism and the Ark

It looks a mess right now, what are all those symbols on the left supposed to mean? And I see no point in the image - "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic." and this one isn't (in my opinion of course).Doug Weller (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Pico added the rows of crosses. So they are just meant to be temporary, ok. The image should still go.Doug Weller (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for TB to edit the fenced-off material - I don't want to do it myself and be accused of distorting his intentions. PiCo (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have explained how I want it edited. I want to put it in a new section. I'll do that now if you're asking me to edit it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(Deleting my first comment, written before looking at the actual edit - sorry) Your latest version looks pretty acceptable to me. I'd just make a few alterations, such as not leading with an overt reference to what ark-skeptics say. (I'll make a small edit to show you what I mean - you can both get your point across, and avoid sounding so defensive). 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. By the way, you missed your signoff here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationists

Starting a new section to make it clearer. According to our Creationism article,

"According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." I'm not sure you can call the 37% OEC.

Er, 'millions of years' isn't OEC? Come again? --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the view that 'Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process' is known as Theistic Evolution not old earth creationism (so actually you can call the 37% theistic evolutionist).--Fang 23 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to take into account the ambiguity of the poll. OECs had no choice but to take this option, because they couldn't take the other (and comparing this data with other polls, it's clear that there are plenty of OECs in North America). Unless you want to claim that no OECs answered the poll at all, which is not remotely likely. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you did, the YEC still have an absolute majority. Doug Weller (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, a 12% majority. That's not an 'absolute majority'. That's a simple (and very slender), majority. And that's only North America, remember? --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you are defining absolute majority, but you are clearly assuming that everyone who thinks a deity was involved in evolution is an Old Earth Creationist and I don't think that argument is sustainable. And outside of North America, most Creationists are almost certainly less educated and more likely to believe in a global flood.Doug Weller (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An absolute majority is a majority of more than 50% of total membership (that would have to be more than 50% of all those polled). That's not my definition, that's what an 'absolute majority' is. I am not assuming that 'everyone who thinks a deity was involved in evolution is an Old Earth Creationist'. That is not what the poll asked. The poll asked if people agreed with the statement 'Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'. That's 'millions of years', not YEC. And that's 'God' not 'a deity'. That's OEC regardless of how you look at it (oh, perhaps you weren't aware of all the different models of OEC). --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the population in question is just Creationists, YEC and OEC.

A Christian who believes in evolution guided by God is not necessarily any kind of Creationist.

But as I pointed out, unless you want to claim that no OECs answered the poll, then they'll be included in the second option. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Among Creationists, the YEC have an absolute majority, and it is bigger than 8%.Doug Weller (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In order to be an absolute majority of all creationists, it needs to be more than 50%. What's your source please? So far the best evidence we've seen for a YEC majority of any kind (and a simple majority at that), only has to do with North America, and there's nothing there which suggests a greater than 50% majority. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In the poll, 45% thought humans were created less than 10000 years ago, those are, reasonably, YEC. 37% thought god guided evolution over millions of years ago. Some of them must be OEC but there is no reason to think all or even most of them are. And the others aren't Christian creationists at all, right? So clearly more than 50% of the Creationists are YEC. I don't understand your math.Doug Weller (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly you need to understand that polls taken in North America are not equivalent to polls taken of the world (your national pride notwithstanding). Secondly, you need to demonstrate that this poll proves that out of all creationists, more than 50% believe in YEC. In this case you need to prove that of the 37% who answered 'Yes' to the second option, less than 27.5% are OECs. That's the math, and you know you can't do it. So you understand this poll better, read this:

'Between 1982 and 2006, the number subscribing to the creationist view has ranged from 44 to 47 percent, while those who buy the naturalist take on things account for 9 to 13 percent. The middle-ground theistic position gets 35 to 40 percent of the vote. There's no clear trend over the 24 years; if anything, the naturalists have gained a few percentage points. Polls by the Pew Research Center and NBC News have found similar support for creationist belief, while surveys by CBS News from 2004 to 2006 and a 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll give it a slim majority, at 51 to 53 percent.'

See the link to understand why the numbers fluctuate, and how they are influenced by the way the question is posed. For a more detailed analysis, see here:

Instead, Gallup gives respondents two choices: atheistic evolution, and creationism, defining the term so incompletely as to make many theistic evolutionists, intelligent designers, and Old Earth Creationists choose the Young Earth oriented creationism definition over the atheistic evolution option.

Note that he makes the useful point that only four colleges in North America still offer a YEC curriculum. Only four. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this discussion has to do with the ark - can someone enlighten me? PiCo (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded to an offhand comment by Doug which he then though warranted an entirely new section and a new discussion here on the Talk page. Ask him why, I have no clue. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of clarifications as I understand it:

YEC Young Earth Creationists, the entire universe and life on the planet are only 6000 years old, There is no Evolution by common descent, There was a global flood some 4000 years ago.

OEC Old Earth Creationists, The universe and planet earth is very old, Life has evolved over millions of years started and directed by God, If there was a Flood, it was only local not global.

The YEC tend to be quite uniform in their beliefs on origins, while OEC tend to have a rather wide range of beliefs.

Polls: There have been many polls about creation/evolution over the last 20 years or so. In general, the US population is about 40% YEC, about 40% OEC and about 15% Atheist (the other ~5% represents all other positions). I saw a poll taken in about 1920 which had nearly the same results as todays polls. Despite, over 80 years of public education touting Evolution, the US population position has remained about the same. This is one reason why evolutionists (and the news media) are frustrated. They believe that the education system must be deeply flawed [despite the fact that they have been in charge], or that science teachers must be poorly trained or poor excuses for teachers, or that the US population is scientifically challenged, or that religion has a mind numbing grip on scared, weak-willed believers.

Go figure: --Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's another definition of Old Earth Creationist -- any Christian that isn't a YEC. That would surprise some Christians I know. My sister-in-law for one. Then there are my Mennonite friends in northern Indiana (computer consultants) -- that would give them a good laugh.Doug Weller (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the relevance to the article: I think Taiwan Boi is trying to claim that his local-Flood interpretation has priority over global-Flood because more people subscribe to it.

Wrong. I have said no such thing. I have made it clear that I believe the flood should be in a completely different article. There's only one mention of the local flood interpretation in this article, and that's exactly where it should be. Read my posts. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If so (and it might not be so, it could be a digression: not exactly unknown around here), that would require some massive and unwarranted assumptions: that all Christians who aren't YEC's are OEC's, all Christians now classified as OEC's accept a local Flood, and all now classified as local-Flood believers accept an OEC view that Noah still floated a Genesis-style Ark on that Flood. This would indeed be VERY startling news to... well, every Christian I've ever met in real life, I think. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not a chain of reasoning I follow. As for 'every Christian I've ever met in real life', that would be less than 100, all in North America, and I doubt you asked them all how they interpreted the flood. So another useless comment. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What a bizarre statement!PiCo (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that it was me who was responding to a comment from Taiwan boi, not the other way around.

Read what I wrote. I said that you started this new section after I responded to a comment you made. That is what happened. I wasn't talking about how the original discussion was started. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, he makes it very difficult to work with him when he insults people. WP:Civility explains in detail the problems behaviour like his causes.Doug Weller (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is completely untrue. Regardless of how uncivil you think I am, I have been the easiest editor to work with on this article. I have consistently offered my amendments here for discussion instead of just editing the article as I pleased (unlike Robert). I have consistently re-edited and resubmitted my amendments here in response to the discussions here. I have also consistently included material which other editors wanted (even if I disagreed), removed material which other editors didn't want (even if I disagreed), and reworded phrases to which other editors objected (even if I disagreed). Over the last week I have spent more time actually working on and contributing to the article than anyone else. So don't try and claim that I've been difficult to work with, especially after you've done nothing but snipe from the sidelines, without even spending 5 minutes improving the article itself. I have spent at least 4 hours on every single edit I've suggested. My work here has resulted in significant improvements to the article, which have been approved even by those who think I'm uncivil and difficult to work with. You, on the other hand, have done nothing. You're not editing, you're not contributing, you've spent your whole time here arguing in the talk page. Go and find a Google Group, this place is for workers. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The "bizarre statement" was TB's comment that he thinks you never met more than a hundred Christians in your life - and yes, it's highly uncivil.

Why do you think that's bizarre? I have every reason to think so. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But TB's incivility is at least democratic - he's rude to everyone, without fear or favour. PiCo (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is highly ironic given the personal abuse to which I have been subjected here day after day by yourself, Robert, and Doug. I haven't made any personal comments about anyone, I've simply addressed arguments. In return I've experienced personal attacks, had my qualifications questioned, and had idiotic beliefs falsely attributed to me. But I don't go whinge about it to the administrators, since I know it's to be expected on Wikipedia and none of you are going to change your behaviour regardless of Wikipedia's guidelines. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet more insults from TB. Anyone can look at my contributions and see I spend a lot of time editing other articles, including finding new and good references (for instance, I recently subscribed to Antiquity at the highest rate just to be able to get access to back issues). Don't say I'm not a worker, the evidence is there to prove that I am. The talk page is meant to be a place to work on improving the article, so hopefully my posts here are mainly aimed at that (except when I get diverted as is happening now).The fact is TB's behaviour puts me off editing this article. I've got other articles to work on where I don't have to face this sort of thing or my motivation to work on the article is higher so I don't care about the attitude of other editors (well, I always prefer them to be civil of course).

Doug, I was referring specifically to this article. I'm sure you contribute extremely well to other articles. As for being put off contributing to this article, look through this Talk page and imagine how I feel having to put up with Robert inventing wild arguments and contradicting standard scholarly sources, trying to rewrite history according to his own imagination. Imagine how I feel having to justify to PiCo citations from standard academic authorities, when they are considered by Wikipedia's reliability policy to be the highest form of source. Imagine how I feel when I spend 4 hours working on a paragraph amendment, incorporating the material other editors have suggested, and then see other editors blithely hacking up the article as they please with 10 minute edits on the fly which aren't even accurate. Let's talk about being put off, shall we? --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I used to work for the Episcopal church by the way, I've met a lot of Christians, certainly more than 100.

That's great, I believe you. My previous comments were directed to Robert, not you. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

...And they were about as accurate as all your other personal attacks on me. FYI, I am a former Christian (I was raised as such), I was educated in Christian schools, I am a citizen of a nation with Christianity as the official state religion, my mother is still a Christian, most of my relatives are at least nominally Christian, my wife's mother and many of her relatives are Christians, most of the people I went to church with were presumably Christians... and I know very few people in North America, as I am British. My experience of Christianity is that most Christians believe the New Testament but have very little interest in the Old, and the Genesis creation and flood stories are considered myths. Most Christians here are still pretty much unaware of the existence of people who take Genesis literally. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment about most Brits being unaware of the existence of people who tajke Genesis literally: ditto for Australia. I remember reading somewhere of some American literalist boasting that Australia had the most literalists after the US - a massive 5% of the population!PiCo (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what he means by not whingeing to administrators by the way? It's tempting, but no one seems to have suggested that and I'd certainly prefer not to.

TB, you work very hard on the articles you contribute to and I admire you for that. I've been looking at the Battle of Kadesh one (something that interests me, especially since an Egyptologist I know showed me around Abu Simel) where I see you've been working and may work on that at some point if I feel I can add anything. I've better resources on that than I do on this article.Doug Weller (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate any work on the Battle of Kadesh article, and so would the other editors there. As you can see, there's a vote on an edit war there right now, and I don't have sufficient knowledge of the subject to make an appropriately informed decision. A contribution from someone with your understanding of the subject and the resources you have would certainly help. I suggest you contact Publik or SuperKnuckles.

Further to my post above about the varieties of religious belief: I found an interesting poll done in the UK which avoids the social pressures inherent in a man in a thin black tie and a clipboard asking you ton your face whether you believe in God, answer yes or no within the next five seconds: from this YouGov poll it appears that just 22% of Brits believe "in a personal God who created the world and hears my prayers"; a further 6% believe in a God who created the world and then went on vacation (a point of view which seems to accord with the observed facts of life as we know it). And the rest could not, in all conscience, be called believers in God, even if they might describe themselves as such if put on the spot. The 6% are obviously not biblical literalists; the 22% might or might not believe in the bible to the extent of believing in that the Ark really existed, one really can't tell from the evidence. Anyeway, the figures are way below those for the US. Yet I wonder whether the US responses also betray a social effect - saying what you think you're expected to say, rather than what you really think. After all, I imagine the rare atheist in officially God-fearing societies anywhere, from Texas to Isfahan, would prefer to live a quiet life. (The poll data can be found buried towards the end of this link: [2]PiCo (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Some work needed on this subsection

I'm addressing this mainly to Taiwanboi, since it's his particular concern. TB, there are some points in the subsection on practicality that need addressing. I'll paste the whole paragraph in first, then list my comments.

Practicality: Could the Ark have supported its own weight?[41]Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible?[42][43] Such questions are responded to by apologist claims that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark [44]. From as early as the 17th century comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered analogous in dimensions and construction. Defending the praticality of the Ark, Walter Raleigh argued the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia (a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. [45] The Tessarakonteres (recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities[46][47]), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.[48][49][50][51] Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by Christian apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships,[52][53] the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.[54][55][56][57][58][59] A point of comparison used less commonly by apologists is the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan'.[60] Skeptics object that the design and size of the Chinese ships is not in fact sufficiently analogous to the Ark.[61]

Now here are the comments on points that I feel need further work:

• Raleigh's comparison of the Ark and the Syracusia: Since nobody is sure how long the Ark was, how can it be said to have been longer or shorter than the Syracusia? And just how long was the Syracusia? (this should be added in brackets). And are we sure that data on the length of the S. is reliable?

I included a link to the Syracusia which gives its size. As to the rest, you're trying to assess the worthiness of Raleigh's apologetic. That's not the task of this article. The task of this article is to mention what people believe. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• More broadly, I'm not sure we should be referencing Sir Walter at all - this section is about modern literalist beliefs. If some modern literalist source quotes Sir Walter, that's fine, but of himself he's not strictly relevant.

I hadn't noticed that this section is only about modern literalist beliefs. The section on gopher wood cites the LXX (2nd-3rd century BC), the Latin Vulgate, and the 17th century KJV for different literalist interpretations of gopher wood. My reference was simply following the same pattern. If you're interested, the Syracusia is still used as a comparison by Ark apologists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Your other ancient ships could also have lengths added in brackets. Otherwise, the reader is left a bit in the dark.

Well I do provide links which give specific details. The link to the Tessarakonteres gives the modern estimate, as do the links to Caligula's barge and Nemi ships. The size of Hatshepsut's barge is contained in a reference link at the end of the sentence. The only ship missing a specific reference to size is the Thalamegos. If you want me to include specific sizes in brackets after each ship, I can do that. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the Chinese ships, for similar reasons - i.e., our article is about literalist beliefs. This is what I meant when I wrote earlier about the difference between making or stating a case (ours) and describing one (the literalist beliefs) - NPOV means we should restrict ourselves to describing other people's beliefs/arguments, not making our own. And yes, I'm aware that you didn't add the Chinese material.

PiCo (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the paragraph you will see that the Chinese ships are mentioned as a point of comparison made by current literalists (a link is given). This is describing other people's beliefs/arguments ('A point of comparison used less commonly by apologists'), not making our own. Then a reference is made to current skeptics who object that they are not sufficiently analogous to the Ark (a link is given). This is describing other people's beliefs/arguments, not making our own ('Skeptics object'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)