quote: 6:15 The dimensions of the ark are themselves an evidence of the accuracy of the Scriptures. On the basis of a cubit as 18 inches, the ark was 450 ft. long with a beam of 75 ft. and a depth of 45 ft. Similar to the proportions of a modern ocean liner, these dimensions are in marked contrast with descriptions of the ark found in ancient mythology. Compare the cuneiform representation of it as shaped like a six-storied cube of 262 ft. with a mast and pilot on top; or the Greek legend, according to Berosus, that it was 3000 ft. long and 1200 ft. wide.
A) The wood. As has already been pointed out, this was built of Gopher Wood, and possibly an ancient and strong wood. If the water canopy theory was correct, it may have affected tree growth. Nevertheless, it's a stretch to suggest this could have affected ship strength to much extent, but could've resulted in bigger or longer trees.
B) The crew. Keep in mind that people beforehand lived hundreds upon hundreds of years. They went through a drastic change after the flood when God stated they would from then on live only 120 years. After the flood, human lives began dramatically declining. It is possible our 'missing links' are merely skeletons of human beings in this period of decline when their bodies were changing to shorter lives. At any rate, they may have been shorter and stouter, better able to singlehandedly man a large ship. Bear in mind also it talked about giants and men of extraordinary valor in those days (Genesis 6:4, 10:9) and the longer lives (and inferrably stronger bodies) may have had something to do with this. There were also likely fewer diseases then as well.
C) The measurements. Keep in mind a cubit is based on forearm length. But as mentioned, human bodies before the flood were different. If shorter and stouter with shorter arms, then cubits would be smaller, and the ark smaller. If bigger and taller, the ark could be bigger than believed. At any rate, it's another factor at play here.
quote:There is no evidence of a global flood in historic times (or ever for that matter).
This at least is incorrect. There are numerous ancient flood legends worldwide bearing resemblance to that of the Bible. There are numerous Native American flood legends seen at firstpeople.us which have similarities to the Biblical flood legend:
* Acoma: According to the Acoma Creation of Summer and Winterp myth, "The oldest tradition of the people of Acoma and Laguna indicates that they lived on some island; that their homes were destroyed by tidal waves, earthquakes, and red-hot stones from the sky. They fled and landed on a low, swampy coast. From here they migrated to the Northwest, and wherever they made a long stay they built a 'White City' (Kush-kut-ret)."
* Algonquin: Flood legend describes world flood with raven sent to find soil before sending a muskrat. Earth then repopulated. Their legend, 'The Great Flood', mentions a canoe filled with many animals and birds used to escape a huge flood sent after the prophet. A beaver sent out for earth was unsuccessful but the muskrat sent next succeeded. A raven was sent to fly over as dry land appeared, and the earth was then repeopled.
* Apache: Apache Creation Legend tells about people surviving a flood in a tree covered with pinion gum and a flood receding in 12 days. It also says the flood changed plains into mountains, hills, valleys, and rivers. Interestingly, says the sky was made during the time of the flood. The Jicarilla Genesis also tells of great storms and waters with people sending out a polecat and raven to find dry land, and of many dead creatures lying about afterward.
* Blackfoot: The Making of the Earth legend tells of a flood with 'old man' sitting on the highest mountain sending an otter, beaver, muskrat, and then duck to bring back earth.
quote:There is no evidence of a global flood in historic times (or ever for that matter).
This statement is also at odds with current scientific discoveries (the following largely repeated from my posts on this topic):
A) The world's ancient marine life was simultaneously extinguished by an underwater volcanic eruption near China. This is interesting since in Genesis it talks about 'the fountains of the deep breaking up' which to me has always been suggestive of underwater volcanic activity. Such a flood has always seemed to me a plausible possibility for the breaking up of Pangaea, and it's a shame scientists have refused to consider that or even mention its possibility. Sources: New York Times, Bloomberg.com, ScienceDaily, National Geographic
D) It is recognized from the 'Permian Triassic Extinction Event' that a large extinction did in fact wipe out much of the earth's life by at least 70-95%. The debate is not on whether it happened, but when it happened.
Additionally, there is the mere act of fossilization, which requires covering something so fast bacteria can't destroy it. Sinking down gradually into swamps doesn't allow for this. And how do you fossilize footprints if not covering them rapidly from above? Josh McDowell in his book 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity' addressed these points as well as others, including the mixing of fossil deposits worldwide from different strata (one example given is a quote by Wilfred Francis about the Amber beds of East Prussia, "Within the lumps of amber are found insects, snails, coral and small portions of plant life. These are of modern type that are now found in both tropical and cold temperature regions. Pine leaves are present, of the types now growing in Japan and North America...").
Here are some quotes from Josh McDowell and Don Stewart about the flood as seen in 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity' (1981):
quote:The process of fossilization is itself an evidence of abnormal deposition. Today, when an animal dies, whether on land or sea, the body immediately begins to rot. Then scavengers, such as vultures, usually eat the carcass. These two agencies, bacteria and scavengers, are very efficient at recycling the material contained in the body. The bones of the animal will dissolve in the sea or be weathered away on land, so not even the bones are sure to be preserved. Thus, there are two agencies which tend to prevent the fossilization of any animal - biological scavengers and weather.
The only manner in which a carcass can be preserved is to remove it from these two agencies. This means that for an animal to be preserved, it must be buried deep enough so scavengers can't get to it and deep enough so oxygen, which bacteria need, is excluded. This implies, however, that the animal must be buried shortly after its death or there will be nothing left to preserve. As Beerbower states, "In general, the more rapidly an organism is buried and the tighter the seal of its sedimentary tomb, the better the chance of preservation."
J.B. Birdsell estimates that during the last geologic epoch (the Pleistocene), the average rate of deposition was only .024 inches per year. If depositional rates like this had prevailed through geologic history, and Birdsell contends that they did, then how can there be any fossils at all? As we saw earlier, to preserve an organism, one must bury it deeply - .024 inches cannot be classified as deep.
Thus it can be seen that the mere presence of a fossil indicates deposition of sediments had to have been thousands of times faster than the normal estimated rates of deposition in order for a fossil to be preserved. If you wished to cover a dead fish with two and one-half inches of sediment, hoping that would be enough to preserve him, you would need a 100-year supply of sediment. And it is uncertain whether two and one-half inches would be deep enough since worms can easily reach that depth and bring the bacteria and oxygen which causes decay. When you look at the major fossil deposits in the world, it becomes obvious that tremendous quantities of sediment were required to preserve them.
"Robert Broom, the South African paleontologist, estimated that there are eight hundred million skeletons of Vertebrate animals in the Karroo formation."
Try to preserve that number of dead animals with only .024 inches of sediment and you will utterly fail. Yet that is the average one-year depositional rate.
Other places with fossils -- Like the Karroo formation -- are easily found. The Monterrey shale contains more than a billion fossil fish over 4 square miles. The Mission Canyon formation of the northwestern states and the Williston Basin are estimated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. A crinoid is a deep sea creature. Clark and Stearn conclude,
"How many millions, billions, trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination."
With these and other examples, is it really reasonable to believe slow deposition preserved these fossils? How much more reasonable to assume they were deposited rapidly in a worldwide flood such as described by the Bible.
Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity". "Is fossilization evidence of a catastrophe?", Section 3, pp 196-197.
A) Ironically, that 250 million year estimate is based upon the concept of Uniformitarianism developed by Lyell. If not for this belief that slow changes in plate tectonics, deposition, and evolution caused everything, scientists would've believed instead in mass catastrophes changing things instead. As noted by Berkeley.edu,
quote: "Catastrophism," as this school of thought came to be known, was attacked in 1830 by a British lawyer-turned-geologist named Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyell started his career studying under the catastrophist William Buckland at Oxford. But Lyell became disenchanted with Buckland when Buckland tried to link catastrophism to the Bible, looking for evidence that the most recent catastrophe had actually been Noah's flood. Lyell wanted to find a way to make geology a true science of its own, built on observation and not susceptible to wild speculations or dependent on the supernatural.
Gradual change For inspiration, Lyell turned to the fifty-year-old ideas of a Scottish farmer named James Hutton. In the 1790s, Hutton had argued that the Earth was transformed not by unimaginable catastrophes but by imperceptibly slow changes, many of which we can see around us today. Rain erodes mountains, while molten rock pushes up to create new ones. The eroded sediments form into layers of rock, which can later be lifted above sea level, tilted by the force of the uprising rock, and eroded away again. These changes are tiny, but with enough time they could produce vast changes. Hutton therefore argued that the Earth was vastly old — a sort of perpetual-motion machine passing through regular cycles of destruction and rebuilding that made the planet suitable for mankind.
Uniform Processes of Change Lyell's version of geology came to be known as uniformitarianism, because of his fierce insistence that the processes that alter the Earth are uniform through time. Like Hutton, Lyell viewed the history of Earth as being vast and directionless. And the history of life was no different.
Yet geologists today also know that some of the factors that changed the Earth in the past cannot be seen at work today. For example, the early Earth was pummeled by gigantic hunks of solar debris, some as big as Mars. For the first one or two billion years of Earth's history, plate tectonics didn't even exist as we know it today.
Lyell had an equally profound effect on our understanding of life's history. He influenced Darwin so deeply that Darwin envisioned evolution as a sort of biological uniformitarianism. Evolution took place from one generation to the next before our very eyes, he argued, but it worked too slowly for us to perceive.
As seen there, it was Lyell's concept that influenced Darwin's beliefs on evolution. Furthermore, Lyell originally abandoned the concept of catastrophism because he didn't want it linked to Noah's flood. Yet now, scientists recognize that huge catastrophes did indeed play the role Lyell once argued occurred solely because of uniformitarianism.
At any rate, my point is that we assume many of the factors on which dating methodologies, and thus the age of the earth, are based on, to be the way they are because of Uniformitarianism. Why has Carbon 14 decayed at the same rate? Because that's what it does now. We assume the concept of Uniformitarianism to be true, aka 'the present is the key to the past', and assume that such huge catastrophes - which not only fly in the face of Uniformitarianism but we've now been forced to recognize did actually occur - did not affect carbon levels and the atmosphere. Because if they did, then the dating methodologies would be thrown off.
We have often heard that such dating methodologies are unreliable past 10,000 or 100,000 years. And yet, still they are used to reach these exorbitant dates.
What happens when they are proven wrong? Oh just tack on a few million or billion more years - or subtract, whatever needs to be done. So obviously, the dating methodologies aren't working or so set in stone as evolutionists would have us believe, or this would not occur.
-Scientists question footprints in Mexican volcanic ash being 40,000 years old since it contradicts idea of when humans crossed Bering Strait 11,000 years ago. Upon further dating, another team decides it is 1.3 million years old. Slight discrepancy in dates. Source: LiveScience
-Discovery of octopus fossils pushes back belief on origins tens of millions of years. Source: LiveScience
-New discovery of amazingly complex early fossils push back earliest complex animals 40 million years. Source: WiredScience
Naturally, it doesn't fill one with confidence when new discoveries result in these supposedly reliable dating theories being amended by "oh, let's tack on another few million years or so".
They just fit the evidence to whatever works for their evolutionary theory worldviews, the exact same way they complain Creationists are doing. 40,000 years would not work for evolutionary theory, so it takes another team to get the result they want. Early life was too complex, so we need to take on another 40 million years to its start time.
Re: off-topic comments and threads to go to for further discussion
quote:You've made some assertions that have little to do with the topic of the thread, and newcomers generally don't understand the protocol here of sticking to the topic for each thread: if you want to discuss some other topic, then start a new thread.
Isn't the thread topic, as seen from the title, 'Geology and the Flood'? About the closest I came to deviating from that subject was mention of flood legends (which is still somewhat related, since it bears on geology based on ancient witness), so I'm not sure in what way I am violating protocol.
quote:Otherwise you will need to accept the fact that peat bogs have perfectly preserved the remains of many people from over 1000 years ago with no bacterial damage, that "Ötzi the Iceman" is a mumified corpse of a man buried in ice, complete with leather shoes, and that natural mummies have been found in the deserts of china and peru.
Yes, such mummification via peat bogs can occur. But how prevalent is it? Simply looking at this picture, it appears relatively easy to distinguish a peat bog produced fossil, as opposed to a different kind of fossil. To my knowledge, scientists don't claim most fossils to be the result of peat bogs. And the subject McDowell and Stewart focus most on, fossilized fish, probably did not die, in most cases, from mummification in peat bogs. Furthermore, as stated here, isn't it true that "natural mummification is rare"?
After all, simply proving that natural mummification CAN happen would not support the natural fossilization of all fossils through slow depositional rates. You would then have to prove prevalence. It would also not explain fossilized footprints:
quote: When a person walks across the sand on a beach, or when he walks across a muddy field, he obviously will leave footprints. Immediately following the laying down of the tracks, erosive forces -wind, rain, etc.-begin to destroy the footprints. How long can these tracks remain intact? On a sandy beach, or desert sand dune, the wind quickly erases the evidence that anyone had traversed the area. If one walks on a beach in a zone where the waves can cover the tracks, they will be gone after the passage of the first wave. Obviously, tracks are rather ephemeral phenomena.
Because of the fragility of the original tracks, it is obvious that they must be covered quickly or their existence will cease. The only way to keep the tracks long enough for them to be preserved is to cover them with a different kind of material until the sand or mud they are in turns to stone. One does not preserve a footprint in sand by covering the footprint with sand.
Now, how does one go about covering a footprint in sand with mud or vice versa? Normal explanations of the fossil record suppose that the whole area sank gradually into the ocean where more sediment was then piled on top of the footprints which turned to stone. However, it is unlikely the footprints could be preserved while sinking because the waves of the ocean would erode them.
Other explanations of preserved footprints suppose that the sand or mud hardened before it sank through the zone of waves. This view ignores the fact that waves easily erode solid rock; how much easier incompletely lithified sand or mud?
Figure 461 of the Text Book of Geology by Pirrson and Schuchert, shows a preservation in a block of sandstone which would be hard to explain. They say,
"Figure 461 - Slab of Triassic sandstone 6 x 3.5 feet, pitted by rain. A large dinosaur (Steopoides diversus) walked over the muddy ground before the storm, and a much smaller one (Argoides minimus) afterwards."
One will notice that raindrops have been mentioned in both of the last examples. The next layer of rock had to be deposited on top of these tracks before the raindrop imprints were erased. How long can you see them in the dirt after a rainstorm in your backyard?
Whatever the precise means by which these fossils are preserved, one thing is certain. They must be quickly protected from the erosive forces of the earth or they would not exist. This usually means that the sedimentary layer on top of the tracks had to have been deposited only shortly after the tracks themselves.
One more example will be cited, the Coconino footprints. The Permian Coconino sandstone covers parts of northern Arizona. Certain features in the sandstone indicate it was a dune deposit. Derek Ager reports,
"An intriguing feature of the Coconino footprints is that they almost always run uphill on the steeply inclined bedding planes of this dune sandstone."
Why are the animals all running uphill? Why do they not go down? They certainly weren't running from a forest fire in the middle of the desert. Could they have been trying to escape rising flood waters?
"Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity", Josh McDowell and Don Stewart (1981). "Are footprints evidence of the flood?", Section 3, pp. 208-210.
quote:In a nutshell your claim is shown to be false from this evidence alone. Interestingly, this means that Josh McDowell and Don Stewart are not good sources for valid information on reality.
I did not claim that natural mummification cannot occur, neither to my knowledge did McDowell and Stewart. Rather, the implication was that the large mass of fossils are not explained in this fashion, and that typical explanations involve sinking down gradually into swamps - which seems to be distinguishable from mummification in peat bogs.
For example, dinosaur mummies have been found as a result of such mummification, and it's resulted in obviously distinguishable results. As stated from this Creationist article,
quote: What is remarkable about this find is the incredible state of preservation, for a creature that has been fossilized and dead for (so says Murphy) some 77 million years. You can view the great photos of the dinosaur fossil at http://www.montanadinosaurdigs.com/brachleo.htm. Murphy, who is rather a unique character himself, told the audience about the unique features of the fossil. First, it was unique because it appears that the entire dinosaur is preserved, not just its bones. There are patterns of scales and skin, which are partially fossilized, but the patterns remain nonetheless. This means, says Murphy, that it may be able to determine the color pattern of the dinosaur.
Fifth, soft tissue was discovered in the dinosaur fossil. Not only did it have scales, but as I said it also had skin. Only parts of Leonardo’s body were fossilized. Some tissue was mummified. While this was not the first dinosaur where soft tissue has been reported (it’s the third), this fossil may yield the greatest amount, and demonstrate clearly that soft tissue has survived from dinosaurs.
Forgive my skepticism, but I find it hard to believe that soft tissue had not deteriorated, dissolved, or fossilized over the presumed 77 million years since this creature died! From the rock formation where Leonardo was discovered and the state of preservation at Leonardo’s death, it appears it was immediately covered in mud which usually solidifies into stone, only leaving bones. It’s one thing to mummify a body in a peat bog for 5,000 years or preserve a deliberately mummified Pharaoh for 3,500 years, but to have a mummified dinosaur body for 77 million years, begs credibility.
Also stated here,
quote: The Fairview Museum of History and Art is a unique small community museum with outstanding exhibits including a life-size replica of a Colombian Mammoth. This mammoth was discovered in the nearby mountains during a construction project in the summer of 1988. The skeletal remains were preserved in a peat bog where it died eleven thousand years ago. The bones were not fossilized, but were so well preserved that scientific testing has uncovered a great deal of information about the mammoth's physical condition, including that its last meal included pine trees.
My key point is that even mummified dinosaurs show different levels of preservation than dinosaurs fossilized in other ways. Is there any evidence to suggest most or even many dinosaurs were preserved as the result of peat bogs or natural mummification? And if so, wouldn't they show signs of more advanced preservation per the mammoth or Leonardo?
According to National Geographic concerning the Leonardo find, "It was an extremely fortuitous find, because the odds of mummification are slim, researchers noted."
The implication then being, that dinosaur fossils occur via other methods...
Biblically, the ark was made of Gopher Wood, not reeds. As for whether or not it would turn broadside, I have seen articles such as this one examining construction possibilities, based on ships of ancient design (the inference being that ships might inherit the design of the ancient world), and how such features might account for stability.
quote:Greentwiga says the ark was made of reeds, not gopher wood. See Message 196 where Greentwiga says, "A careful reading of the Bible shows that it is a reed boat described."
You say the ark was made of gopher wood, not reeds.
Before continuing the discussion could you and Greentwiga get together and reach some kind of consensus on the construction material for the ark?
Ohhh, that's where that came from. I was wondering where the reed talk came from.
To make a long story short, I have NO idea where Greentwiga is coming from. The word reed isn't even mentioned in the KJV until 1 Kings, and in Genesis 6:14 it mentions clearly the construction material is Gopher Wood.
Maybe Greentwiga is thinking of Moses' basket, or another legend which does say it was a reed ark? I have no idea though, hoping someone else can elaborate.
quote:How Were the Animals Cared For? We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals’ comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal.
Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. As the old adage says, “Don’t work harder, work smarter.”
Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential. Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.
quote:What Did Noah and His Family Do with the Animal Waste? As much as 12 U.S. tons (11 m. tons) of animal waste may have been produced daily. The key to keeping the enclosures clean was to avoid the need for Noah and his family to do the work. The right systems could also prevent the need to change animal bedding. Noah could have accomplished this in several ways. One possibility would be to allow the waste to accumulate below the animals, much as we see in modern pet shops. In this regard, there could have been slatted floors, and animals could have trampled their waste into the pits below. Small animals, such as birds, could have multiple levels in their enclosures, and waste could have simply accumulated at the bottom of each.
The danger of toxic or explosive manure gases, such as methane, would be alleviated by the constant movement of the Ark, which would have allowed manure gases to be constantly released. Secondly, methane, which is half the density of air, would quickly find its way out of a small opening such as a window. There is no reason to believe that the levels of these gases within the Ark would have approached hazardous levels.
Alternatively, sloped floors would have allowed the waste to flow into large central gutters. Noah’s family could have then dumped this overboard without an excessive expenditure of manpower.
The problem of manure odor may, at first thought, seem insurmountable. But we must remember that, throughout most of human history, humans lived together with their farm animals. Barns, separate from human living quarters, are a relatively recent development.
While the voyage of the Ark may not have been comfortable or easy, it was certainly doable, even under such unprecedented circumstances.
The description of the Ark is very brief—Genesis 6:14–16. Those three verses contain critical information including overall dimensions, but Noah was almost certainly given more detail than this. Other divinely specified constructions in the Bible are meticulously detailed, like the descriptions of Moses’ Tabernacle or the temple in Ezekiel’s vision.
The Bible does not say the Ark was a rectangular box. In fact, Scripture gives no clue about the shape of Noah’s Ark other than the proportions—length, width, and depth. Ships have long been described like this without ever implying a block-shaped hull. Moses used the obscure term tebah, a word that is only used again for the basket that carried baby Moses (Exodus 2:3). One was a huge wooden ship and the other a tiny wicker basket. Both float, both rescue life, and both are covered. But the similarity ends there. We can be quite sure that the baby basket did not have the same proportions as the Ark, and Egyptian baskets of the time were typically rounded. Perhaps tebah means “lifeboat.”
For many years biblical creationists have simply depicted the Ark as a rectangular box. This shape helped illustrate its size while avoiding the distractions of hull curvature. It also made it easy to compare volume. By using a short cubit and the maximum number of animal “kinds,” creationists, as we’ve seen, have demonstrated how easily the Ark could fit the payload.7 At the time, space was the main issue; other factors were secondary.
However, the next phase of research investigated sea-keeping (behavior and comfort at sea), hull strength, and stability. This began with a Korean study performed at the world-class ship research center (KRISO) in 1992.8 The team of nine KRISO researchers was led by Dr. Hong, who is now director-general of the research center.
The study confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 98 feet (30 m), and that the proportions of the biblical Ark are near optimal—an interesting admission from Dr. Hong, who believes evolutionary ideas, openly claiming “life came from the sea.”9 The study combined analysis, model wave testing, and ship standards, yet the concept was simple: compare the biblical Ark with 12 other vessels of the same volume but modified in length, width, or depth. Three qualities were measured—stability, hull strength, and comfort.
Here are all the places where the word is used in the Bible, including the Interlinear (Hebrew) words. Basically about the best that can be done to figure it out is look at the different places it's used and see if there's any clues as to what it might mean.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : removing list of words put in next post, fixed glitch due to arrow tags