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

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 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

Humans do not use just 7% (usually stated as 10%) of their brains. Like the worldwide flood of Noah this is myth.If you are not just a troll, you may actually believe that the science achievements of the "antediluvians" far surpass anything we know today. This seems totally ridiculous to me and I suspect to any other people who haven't fallen for whatever scam you have apparently fallen for. First there was no worldwide deluge so there were no antidulivians and second I don't really think the Bronze Age sheep herders who borrowed Babylonian flood mythology and incorporated it into their origin myths had science that surpassed anything we know today. You seem to have gotten Atlantis myths mixed in with Genesis myths. I would think that anyone who used even 5% of their brain could figure out that this claim is total nonsense.I suppose that God could have recreated the earth to look as if it were billions of years old and that there never was a worldwide flood but that seems a bit deceptive to me. Of course we are talking about a Supreme Being who allegedly destroyed nearly all life on earth with a big flood in a fit of pique because his botched creation didn't turn out quite the way he wanted it to so I suppose deception is not out of bounds.Added in Edit: If you really want to discuss antediluvian science myths I suggest opening another thread somewhere. The subject of this thread is the conflict properties YECs attribute to the flood.
Randy[This message has been edited by Randy, 03-09-2003]