Orogeny:
Which has nothing to do with the structural strength of wood, which is important if you want to build a boat that you must live in.
Yes, actually it does. The same thing that affects the sound of the wood also affects its structure. I was only using instrument making as an example, but it’s a fairly widely known fact for people in the trades that wood used to be a lot stronger.
Don’t believe me? Go to the lumber yeard and try and put a thumbnail mark in a 2 x 4. It’s pretty soft material. Now rip apart your house and try and put your fingernail into one of the old studs that have been there for a century. It’s pretty dense, and it’s not because it’s old.
I don’t feel like I have to provide any more evidence for a known fact.
How big to support a ship in rough seas?
Big. How big? I don’t know exactly.
No, because it is not possible from an engineering standpoint. Ad we do know that they didn’t, because of those same engineering problems with wood applied then as they do now.
The fact that it’s improbable doesn’t mean nobody’s done it. Prove that they didn’t. You can’t say, “it’s impossible, nobody’s done it; and nobody’s done it because it’s impossible”. And it’s not completely impossible, just highly improbable and difficult to pull off.
Perhaps you are aware that impossible is not impossible? 1:10^50 is considered by scientists to be impossible, yet it is still not zero.
Ignorant, huh. First off, we do know something about it. There is NO GEOLOGICAL evidence a global flood has EVER occurred. Second, engineering principles do not change over time, so building out of wood then was just as impossible as it is now.
First, like I said, it’s debatable as to whether or not there actually is evidence. Second, it’s not as impossible as the primortial soup theory, which a lot of atheists blindly believe happened with literally no evidence whatsoever.
Where do you get off calling me ignorant? You are the one proposing everything from epoxy to genetic engineering of wood to back up your story without ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
I’m not saying they had epoxy, I’m saying it could have been ANYTHING. It could’ve been epoxy, engineered wood, or little green men from Mars. We simply have no idea the number of ways how they could made it possible.
Sure. I saw a pink fairy circling the moon with her friendly cow. Did you see it? Too bad, I am much more likely to be right, at least in your example.
-_-
I’m talking something within the realms of non-LSD-driven sightings, such as a car driving by. I didn’t see the car driving by, but someone else did, and just because I didn’t see it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
You see, there’s a difference here. Your scenario indicates that the subject matter did not happen, because the subject matter is crazy. All else is not equal, since not only did I not see it, but you’d have to be a lunatic
to see it. Since my subject matter is within the realms of this universe, the distinction is whether or not one
saw it. Just beacuse you don’t see something doesn’t mean it isn’t there, and all else being equal, seeing something is more credible evidence to its existence than not seeing is to its lack of existence.
**
