The Amazing Violent/Non-Violent Flood

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.

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.

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 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.