14
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 86:
Line 86: − − == problematic use of reference - the graph == − − Dear ladies and gentlemen, − − apart from the general questionable character of the Noah's Ark article, I as a historian have to object to the graph presented. Obviously methods of ship construction evolved during the first millenium B.C., wherefor the equation of technolgy levels presented is inacceptable. The graph, whereever it may come from, is clearly not based on scientific grounds. The succession of "Roman era, Dark Ages, Renaissance" is clearly made up in regards to general history, history of technology and history of ship-building. − − The presented "model" of the Ark is absurd at the least. If one feels the urge to present the Ark as anything other as an allegory, it should be done another way. I would suggest a whole fleet for the beginning... − − With best regards, − − J.F.H.
no edit summary
I recently received my copy of Woodmorappe's Ark Feasibility Study and I see that it comprehensibly addresses all of the criticisms listed. I would like to address each criticism with a '''Response'''. Is there any chance of this article being unlocked? [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 12:27, 29 January 2009 (EST)
I recently received my copy of Woodmorappe's Ark Feasibility Study and I see that it comprehensibly addresses all of the criticisms listed. I would like to address each criticism with a '''Response'''. Is there any chance of this article being unlocked? [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 12:27, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: I've unlocked it. It's been locked too long anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:00, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: I've unlocked it. It's been locked too long anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:00, 29 January 2009 (EST)