(September 28, 2015 at 5:07 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Here's the thing, Just because we don't understand how something was built doesn't mean it didn't happen. If we had no surviving examples of the pyramids, you'd be hard pressed to prove that they could be build using modern technology, let alone ancient.
So, just to recap: we have claims of boats of a size that we cannot replicate with modern technology and no firm evidence that they ever existed in the first place beyond those claims, and it is your position that purely because the claims exist, it is more probable than not that the ships existed too? And to get there you shift the burden of proof by asserting that we can't show you it's impossible?
You can find accounts of almost anything, if you look hard enough. Rational people, when they see a claim and then see modern, documented evidence that seems to suggest that the claim is impossible, do not go on to accept the claim. That's not the same as outright rejecting it, but to do as you seem to be doing and accepting the claim as plausible when the only evidence we have indicates that it might not even be physically possible, is entirely irrational. Possibility is a necessary precondition to plausibility, and when we have ships like half the size of the ones you're proposing buckling and sinking despite being made of demonstrably stronger materials, we'd need more evidence than old claims to accept that this is possible.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!