The continuation of art styles through a speculated flood

just for argument's sake, the reason the ptolemiac solar system model wasn't changed for about 2000 years was because it reasonably accurately predicted the orbits of the planets. i could probablem even put a man on the surface of mars using it. it's not right, though. i'm in florida. i don't see a flood anywhere. well that was a real elegant rebuttal. what the heck is that thing anyways? i remember seeing good evidence somewhere it couldn't have been an ark... but what is it?This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 09-16-2004 07:39 AM

[editted to remove duplicate reply]This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 09-21-2004 05:28 PM

i meant this one: i'm aware of a few other "findings" but they're even less convincing than this.

kepler's model was the most accurate (still pretty good today, right?), but which would you say is more accurate between copernicus and ptolemy? neither system worked with the degree of accuracy we require. but is one more right than the other, just because it has the right idea? or is it because the explanation is a little simpler? yes, i suppose that was exageration. nasa and russians both had lots of problems sending stuff to mars.although, the most recent error in approach was due to a stupid programmer using the wrong system of measure. wasn't trying to do otherwise. as someone who appreciates geology, that's a pretty cool outcropping.(personally, it's just never looked like a big boat to me)