"::::Another strawman argument.  I am quite aware that the Tessarakonteres was ""a warship"" rather than a cargo vessel or whatever.  I am also quite aware that it was a catapult-armed catamaran (why do you imagine I'd ""have a fit""?  Less of the histrionics please).  But it was a ""warship"" that apparently couldn't fight, and both Plutarch and Casson say that it was built for display.  As for those who say otherwise: you didn't cite them until now.  But ""trireme"" actually conveys more information than ""fighting ship"" (in addition to not conveying a misleading impression) and is therefore preferable. 

 ::::Also I suggest you drop the ongoing insinuation of OR regarding the Chinese treasure ships, given the fact that your ""'Christian apologists generally reply..."" paragraph contains references which are not ""Christian"" and apparently don't mention Noah's Ark at all.  And note that the TalkOrigins article IS in fact a response to creationist claims, and therefore has more direct relevance than those.  Or do you intend to remove all references that don't mention the Ark?  As it stands, you seem to be using ""Christian apologists generally reply..."" as an excuse to shut out all qualification of those claims, while nevertheless supporting them yourself with non-Christian sources and apparent declarations of fact: please desist from this double standard.    

 "