Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:49 am
by Fortigurn
Look at this, yet another example of someone not reading posts properly:
I think that it is also worth mentioning that the Chinese boats he mentions were not war ships or even open ocean vessels. The internal stress on those boats were so high that any bad weather or high waves would rip the boats apart, so they were mostly only used for transporting cargo along large rivers and coastal waters.

Even with 3500+ years of extra nautical engineering these boats were not open ocean vessels
It seems that even after I said it two or three times, some people still don't understand that I did not say that the Chinese baochuans were technologically analogous to the Ark, nor have I argued that the Ark was either designed for or used on the 'open ocean' (the Bible says absolutely nothing of it being on the 'open ocean, and confines its journey to the Mesopotamian flood basin).

I introduced the baochuans simply to demonstrate that it was possible to build a viable timber ship in excess of the 300 foot limit allegedly asserted by PV's unidentified 'naval architectural engineers'. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat myself.

I'm interested in the claim that the Chinese baochuans were confined to 'transporting cargo along large rivers and coastal waters'. I would like to see the evidence for that. They appear to have been massively over-engineered for such a purpose. You don't build a nine mast monster to float down a river.