About that Boat - Noah's Ark

quote:

---

Creationary Cataclysmists are looking to something else for which there is found evidence in the gologic record. Bolide impacts. Asteroids are invisible to the naked eye, and the first indication that an impact is going to happen is the 15 seconds it takes for one to streak through the atmosphere before impact. The results of such impacts are catastrophic -- fire storms, earthquakes, impact-tsunami, etc. If, as Creationary Cataclysmists believe, the geolgoic record is of the Flood, then hundreds of bolides impacted the earth throughout the Flood. Such a "storm" of asteroid impacts would certainly be an ambush through the windows of heaven. And not be rain.

---

And you think that all the effects of those impacts would have left any humans alive if they were compressed into a period of days, rather than eons? You and I don't need to do the math, because it's been done. Compacting all those impacts into the period you suggest would, in all likelihood, destroy life on earth.If you still think the flood is supported by the fossil record, tell me how this sequence of environments fits into that belief:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#columnNote the complex sequence of different environments preserved in one locale, and the number of different layers that each could not form in a short period of time or in anything but still water.It is the ignorance (willful or otherwise) of this kind of knowledge that sustains YEC, in my opinion. Had I had this information earlier in my life, I would not have wasted my time reading flood geology books.

quote:

---

If we are going to go with the Biblical account, we don't actually know how much rain fell. The Bible makes the weird statement that water rose from beneath the Earth as well. The objection was made-- not by me but by someone who really is a creationist-- that this water from the deep would negate the damage caused by the flood. Thus, my reply that with normal rainfall, the damage is not done by the falling rain but by the movements of water on the ground. Thus, water from any source would be damaging. This does not challenge any of your considerations and calculations, which I find interesting. I hadn't before thought of the sheer force of the falling water. However, it doesn't matter. Within the context of the discussion we can't assume that all of the water fell as rain. We can't really assume any figure for the rain or for the springs of water from the earth. All we know is that total volume must cover the Earth.

---

Let us also keep in mind that YEC tends to claim the flood was so violent as to deposit the entire geologic column as observed today. The Grand Canyon, for example, is supposedly the result of runoff from the flood. Now we have someone whose ideas rely on the same flood claiming that it wasn't turbulent. Which way is it: was the flood gentle enough for the ark to survive, or violent enough to erode and re-deposit thousands of feet of strata?