The Amazing Violent/Non-Violent Flood

On one of the threads here Tranquility Base is trying to tell us that massive flood surges deposited alternating layers of sediment over half the continent as it surged up and down due to either tectonic activity or maybe massive tides. In their page on the Coconino sandstones Snelling and Austin claim that the flood picked up 10,000 cubic miles of sand and carried it at least 200 miles before dumping it over 200,000 square miles. I listened recently to a lecture by Kurt Wise in which he said that after the flood became global there would have been tides as high as 300 feet while the earth essentially turned under the ocean bulge due to the moon. I have also seen a simulation, I think from Baumgardner showing how the friction between the earth and the oceans with tides this high would lead to the formation of giant whirlpools hundreds of miles across. I’ll look for that one. Of course Baumgardner also proposes that the oceans would boil. Hurricanes form because of energy transferred to the air as the sun heats ocean water. Image what the weather would be like if the water were actually boiling! (Not to mention autoclaving the earth but that was another thread) In fact, I think Woodmorappe has written something about Hypercanes during the flood. So according to creationist the flood was an incredibly violent event that rearranged all the world’s geology.But wait! While these massive tides, huge flood surges and tsunamis carrying masses of sediment were occurring all over the flooded earth, we had a 600 year-old man, his family and a really big bunch of animals floating around in a wooden boat far bigger that any other ever built to sail the ocean. This boat had no rudder so it could not be steered into the waves to avoid being turned over. It had a big window to let in the rain for 40 days and nights and it was sure to leak like a sieve. Wooden boats around 300 feet long were notorious for flexing and leaking even during moderate waves and they were braced with iron and this one was supposedly 450 feet long. Some creationists have told me that there was no problem for the ark because the flood was really gentle. How does this gentle flood that protected the ark square with the ultra-violent flood that rearranged all the world’s geology? Does it seem to anyone else that creationists flood accounts are totally inconsistent with ark survival?Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randy:

​

Does it seem to anyone else that creationists flood accounts are totally inconsistent with ark survival?

​

---

I don't think that there's too much problem. The ark might have been launched, but there is no evidence that it survived. In fact, you do not need to consider a violent sea - I suspect that, with little knowledge of stresses and balance the ark may well not have survived a gradual launch. There was no chance to test, after all. It might be interesting to examine a shipwright's analysis of the design requirements and the available raw materials. I think the creationists have spent some time on this problem.Actually, that's not completely true - this thread here:http://EvC Forum: Genetic 'Bottlenecks' and the Flood -->EvC Forum: Genetic 'Bottlenecks' and the Floodindicates that perhaps one animal survived. We had thought that it had survived a predatory battle on the ark, but your new 'evidence' (I use the word in the creationist sense) suggests that it might have survived a shipwreck![This message has been edited by Me, 09-06-2002]

I have just found a site where there is some discussion of the ark's capabilities:Page not found – — ’ ’You will see that it is claimed that it was tested in a tank, and passed stability tests - I would like to see the assumptions which were made about loading! I suspect that the stability tests were pretty meaningless - they would just show that a weighted plank of wood would float. And of course there is a difference between a ship surviving a 90 degree excursion and the animals in it doing the same!It is also pointed out that all calculations suggest that the ark would break up in heavy seas, so 'gopher wood' must have been much stronger than any other wood, or perhaps iron was used. Perhaps their design was much better than ours. (Perhaps Isambard Kingdom Brunell's great...great grandfather was consulted!)There are huge issues about all aspects of the ark - provisioning, waste management, etc. I am interested in the loading - a critical aspect of todays ferries. I suspect it could not be done in the time available with the staff available, and I have grave doubts about the sea-worthiness of an ark with a large door in it.

If the seas were boiling it is also inconsistent with marine life survival...the sea would be one big bouillabaisse

Incidentally, it is an impossibility for the ark as designed to survive, but quite possible for small ships and rafts to survive a reasonable flood, particularly if there was some warning. So the creationists have to explain why no other craft survived. Has there been any discussion of this? William Bligh kept his crew alive for 41 days in an open boat.

Perhaps the original Hebrew word which has been translated
into 'gopher wood' can also mean 'rivetted and welded plate steel'

I also think it would be impossible for the ark as supposedly constructed to survive a year at sea even under normal sea conditions.Gallo has written about thishttp://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Noahs_ark.htmland of course boiling even a small fraction of water in the oceans would kill off most or all life as has been discussed in detail on the John Baumgardner thread.The point I am trying to make here is that creationists are quite willing to say on one hand that the flood was gentle enough that this impossible wooden boat and its passengers somehow survived for a year and on the other hand that the flood was violent enough to rearrange all the world's geology invoking boiling oceans, tsunamis, massive tides, hypercanes and giant whirlpools. This seems amazingly inconsistent to me.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Perhaps the original Hebrew word which has been translated
into 'gopher wood' can also mean 'rivetted and welded plate steel'

---

Ah, no. here I have a site which shows that 'gopher wood' is really reed, and the Ark was actually the forerunner of the Egyptian reed boats.http://www.lookandlive.com/noahsarkpart2.htmlAs a design this actually has a lot more going for it, but I still suspect it is going to fail. The creationist advantage here is that a lot less is known about reed boats, so assertions are much harder to disprove.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Perhaps the original Hebrew word which has been translated
into 'gopher wood' can also mean 'rivetted and welded plate steel'

---

​

Ah, no. here I have a site which shows that 'gopher wood' is really reed, and the Ark was actually the forerunner of the Egyptian reed boats.

​

http://www.lookandlive.com/noahsarkpart2.html

​

As a design this actually has a lot more going for it, but I still suspect it is going to fail. The creationist advantage here is that a lot less is known about reed boats, so assertions are much harder to disprove.

​

---

A 450 foot long three story boat made of reeds. Wow who'd a thunk it! This page would be quite hilarious if it wasn't that some people take it seriously.
Another little inconsistancy here is that creationists commonly say that there were to really tall mountains before the flood. This helps to enough water to cover everything, but the ark landed high up on a mountain that is over 5000 meters tall. Hmm.
Randy

I agree in any case (despite my odd sense of humour).I also wonder that if there were boiling oceans, and
raising mountains, that this isn't expressly mentioned
in the account ... isn't it the sort of thing that would
normally be included ... kinda hard to forget that little
detail when your telling it to your kids, or writing it
down one would think.

Just wondered what stopped the animals eating the ark from inside out
if they ate it waiting for new grasses to grow ... I mean
that would have been some wait anyhow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Just wondered what stopped the animals eating the ark from inside out
if they ate it waiting for new grasses to grow ... I mean
that would have been some wait anyhow.

---

One of the nice things about this 'theory' is that the animals ate the reed boat once it had landed. They would have had to be in stalls inside the boat - if they were on reeds they would probably trap their legs and break them.if you believe that all the animals could eat reeds, then you could imagine a system whereby Noah just pulled down some parts of the stall wall to feed the animals, thus minimising the amount of moving fodder around. They would gradually eat themselves free!One reason I like the reed theory is that it avoids the huge problem Noah would have had moving and shaping the wooden planks, with few people to help. Reeds can be cut and moved by anyone. It would be interesting to hear Tranquility Base or one of the other competent creationists arguing for a reed boat.

That's pretty neat really I guess.Not sure you could have more that one deck though. :0)

That's the funniest thing I've read on this site - thanks ME.The ark was launched but didn't survive.LOL

--I found it quite amusing as well ------------------