SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

You have to understand how the land came to lie that way and how the rocks came to have that relationship before you can understand how the oil got there. When you understand how, there's no way it could happen except slowly.Young-earthers have no explanation for how the oil could get there so fast, which is why they're not the ones who are finfing the oil.

I'd call that an excuse for not having an explanation.

Exactly. There's no such thing as "Old Earthism"; there's just normal science. My point is not that you "need" to know the origin of the rocks. My point is that when you do know the origin of the rocks, that origin had to be a long time ago. The processes that created the rocks take a long time. Old age is a byproduct of geology, not a prerequisite.

I know it's a different point. The point is, once again, that practical geology goes hand-in-hand with an old earth. The practical geology leads to an understanding of how the rocks formed and that formation required long ages. The practical geology produces the long ages as a byproduct.Everybody doing practical geology has the same understanding of how the rocks formed over long periods of time. You can't separate practical geology from the implications of practical geology.

Hm.... You're wrong today. You were wrong yesterday. You were wrong a week ago. You were wrong a year ago.Based on these observations, I predict you will be wrong tomorrow.I hope my predction is not confirmed.

It's the nurturing instinct. We have to feed somebody. If she won't come here, then it's meals on wheels.

Wooden cranes are no problem:

quote:

---

The Roman Polyspastos crane, when worked by four men at both sides of the winch, could lift 3000 kg. In case the winch was replaced by a treadwheel, the maximum load even doubled to 6000 kg at only half the crew, since the treadwheel possesses a much bigger mechanical advantage due to its larger diameter.

---

It's a non-problem. The crane doesn't have to lift very heavy loads. The pieces of the ark are no bigger than the pieces of the crane.

You're taking issue with a drawing. Maybe the drawing has the wood a little too thin but there's nothing wrong with the principle. I've used wooden A-frames much like that myself.

The boom itself would be an A-frame, although it might not be clear in the drawing. That might reflect on the artist's understanding but not on the viability of the idea. The "mast" from which the boom is suspended would also be an A-frame if seen from a different perspective. I'm no engineer but in the drawing the load would be along the length of the boom, in compression. There's little bending stress at all. As I said, I've used 'em.

You're making far too much of a drawing. It's a drawing.

As I said, the artist's rendering may not be perfect. Noah would, most likely, have used an A-frame design. I'm willing to concede that many figments of your imagination are impossible. My only point here is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the picture.

Neither do I. I think it's a case of the artist not knowing much about wooden cranes. We could probably find a lot of other things to nit-pick in the drawing - or we could give our heads a shake and remember: it's a drawing. A few details in a drawing are a complete non-issue.

I'm afraid your point is lost in the poor illustration that you chose. A Trojan bunny is quite plausible from an engineering point of view.