Noah and the Ark

[Esther]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It clearly states that the ark was 450 feet in length. Why has NO ONE ever tried to build an all wooden structure 450 feet in length? Why is it, in fact, illegal to do so?

They are referring to literature that everyone was already familiar with. Even in that day there were disputes as to whether the story of the Flood was supposed to be understood as literal or not. The Talmud records debates on the subject going back long before Jesus Christ.

For whatever reasons, neither Jesus nor Peter take a position on that debate. Instead they go for the truths that are in the story and bring those things out. "God is longsuffering and patient... yet when it's time for judgment, judgment will come..."

It is your own mindset that causes you to read those passages as "proof." Read them again without the prejudice.

AGAIN (and again!) - I's not a question of "WHAT CAN GOD DO...???"

It's a question of "WHAT DID GOD DO...???"

What really happened? What does the evidence show?

Nobody saw O.J. Simpson kill those people. The only possible "eyewitness" was O.J. himself and he said he didn't do it.

Yet, what conclusions do you reach about that case - based upon the evidence?

We rely upon evidence for helping us to formulate all sorts of very important views about the world. Why is there no evidence for a global flood in the geologic record? Why hasn't anyone even tried to make a case for it?

Instead there's just been some "Well, I BELIEVE..." type statements and a couple of taunts. If this was some sort of BIBLE DOCTRINE surely there would have been something brought forward by now... but nothing.

There simply is no evidence whatsoever that the continents were covered by a global flood some 4,000 years ago.

None.

So why try to drown the Bible and its message in those waters?

Actually I have heard they found fossils of fish bones at the top of one of the mountains. It has been so many years ago, I don't recall who gave the information, I know it was a minister many years ago.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Genesis 7:8 tells us that the arthropods (insects) were on the Ark as well. It's not mentioned in the story, but a literal global flood such as you want to see would also necessitate that all freshwater fish, shrimp and thousands of other species of freshwater critters be stored aboard the ark as well to prevent the mixing of salty sea water with all of the rest of the waters killing them.

As far as insects and various small animals of that nature I believe it is possible that they weren’t on the ark. The flood would have produced massive platforms of floating biomass (uprooted foliage, floating masses of trees with interconnected root systems, carcasses, etc.) all pact together. These massive platforms of biomass could sustain some species of animals. These floating platforms of biomass would also become “vehicles” of travel for some species as the biomass floated from one region to another and then settled upon the receding of the waters.
As far as salinity is concerned your point has the presupposition that salinity was the same in pre-flood oceans as it is today. I believe that salinity levels were lower globally than they are today. During the flood there would have been massive extinctions of sea life. Maybe even the majority of sea life. However, those capable of adapting to greater levels of salinity would have done so. Also surviving species would have migrated to other areas of the oceanic ecosystem where the environment was more fitting for survival.
I don’t believe that the majority of the flood waters came from rain. Some have proposed a theoretical “vapor canopy” from which the waters of the flood would have originated. I disagree. I believe that it was most probable that the majority of the flood waters came from the undersea geysers (fountains of the deep) that burst forth. I believe that the majority of the flood waters were salt water, not fresh water. Those water born animals facing the most serious threat would have been fresh water species. However, I believe there were regions where the salinity levels were “boarder” line and hardy species survived.

Also, you haven't addressed the "Three Hundred Foot Limit" for wooden ships. See this link. The vessel described in Genesis 6 was over 450 feet in length.

I do not know what form of weights or stabilizers could have been used on the ark. Certainly while Noah supervised the building of the ark (legend states that Noah was a city king who employed workers to build the ark). I’m certain that God’s instructions were VERY basic and there were no doubt necessary measures taken throughout the building and preparation process that weren’t directly commanded of God. The building of stabilizers would have been one of these measures.

Your figure for "7,000 species" contrasts with a scientific estimate of 1,877,920 species. http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-v... Those Animals

We arrive at 1,877,920 species from modern taxonomy. However, biblically speaking things may have been categorized differently, allowing what we would view as an entire species to die off. For example birds are considered “owf” (Hb.) or “winged creature”. This classification or wording is also applied to insects, bats, etc. I believe that we see a wider variety of species alive today than were preserved on the ark. This is due to the adaptations necessary to survive after the flood. Also due to breeding etc. For example there are new breeds of dog that have been engineered through breeding techniques. In just a few generations a given form of animal species can undergo significant changes. I believe that life always makes a way.

Your land bridge work however is actually really good. However, given the fact that we can now genetically trace the parentage and map out a phylogenic history of any creature possessing DNA, the idea of these species evolving in geologic isolation together with the plants and fungi that they exist in symbiosis with is much more plausible than saying they all migrated apart just 4,000 years ago.

I don’t believe phylogenic history is accurate and/or conclusive enough to bet my soul on it.

That being said, all of those critters still had to get around somehow at some point in time, and your explanation of sea level changes is a well documented fact - but over much longer periods of time.

Often the creation model and the evolutionary model have much wherein they agree… however the one point of contention would be periods of time. The creationist sees things often happening more rapidly.

For example, there are coral "reefs" scattered all over inland Florida. Since coral can only grow under shallow water we must conclude that the sea levels must have been much higher than they are today. This would have required that there be NO ICE CAPS AT ALL at some points in time over the past 100,000 years.

Interesting. I’m just thinking out loud here. What if the ice caps are frozen flood waters and aren’t naturally occurring formations? What if the earth originally had no ice caps? Just a thought.

AND... there are also "fossil" coral reefs found at great depths off the coast of Florida. These submerged "reefs" (really submerged!) are at a depth too deep for the coral to live. The coral making animals need sunlight and will die if submerged too deeply. The existences of these reefs tell us that the sea levels were once very, very much lower than they are today. About the only explanation for that would be massive ice sheets covering the poles - much more massive than anything we've seen today.

That’s why I believe that the cost lines we see today are primarily because the flood waters from the Deluge are pretty much still with us – frozen in ice caps and in our higher sea levels. That’s why I don’t see any serious issue when one asks about , “So where did all that water go?” My answer would be, “Look around. It’s still here.”

You're a careful thinker, Chris. You work out details and you examine issues well. I think that if you allowed yourself to be more exposed to the issues and data points related to the earth's natural history that you would come to similar conclusions as I have come to. And I got here with Young Earth Creationist presuppositions!

I used to be a serious advocate of the Day Age theory. I had read many books by Hugh Ross and one by Don Stoner advocating the Day Age theory. However, I continually found myself back tracking to defend science. For example, the most recent claim that they had found the ancestor of the earliest hominids. It was apparently the remains of a lemur or something! No real connection. God just dealt with me on the issue and so I accepted His Word on the matter and I’ll just let the chips fall where they will.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Esther

Actually I have heard they found fossils of fish bones at the top of one of the mountains. It has been so many years ago, I don't recall who gave the information, I know it was a minister many years ago.

They have indeed. Leonardo Di Vinci remarked about fossils of marine animals that he found in the Alps.

But this is evidence that the rocks now making up the mountains were once loose sediments, sand and silt at the bottom of the seas and not evidence that the mountains themselves were covered by a global flood.

If the "fish bone fossils" had been put down by a global flood 4,000 years ago then we would expect to find them as litter on the surfaces of the rocks across the mountains and other landscapes. Instead, we find the fossils embedded within sedimentary layers and those layers are tilted and thrusted up to form the mountains. We find marine fossils deep within mines high up in the Rocky Mountains.

Here is a picture of a road cut along the Interstate not far from my home -



Notice the bands of sedimentary rock that were horizontal when they were laid down along the coast of a sea that disappeared long ago.

The sediments in the layers near the circle mark "1" contain fossils of creatures that are not found in the other layers. When the environment changed, the creatures disappeared right along with the circumstances that were responsible for that particular color of rock. Geologists call this the Triassic Period.

The sediments near number "2" contain creatures that are not found anywhere else in the other layers as well. This is called the Cretaceous Period.

If you get out of your car and follow the path up and around this ridge line you will get to a spot where dinosaur footprints are preserved in the slanted rock right on the surface.



This is at an elevation of about 6900 above sea level. The peaks farther west rise as high as 14,440 feet. That means these dino foot prints should have been covered by 7540 feet of roiling flood water while the ground was still mud. That much water would have obliterated the footprints! AND we have to ask how the dinosaurs managed to walk up such a steep and muddy slope without using a rope like the gentleman in the picture is doing - and he's standing on hardened stone.

Here's a picture taken off the Oregon coast at a depth shallower than 7500 feet for comparison:



The sea floor is covered with a light silt that rises as smoke if it's disturbed even a little bit. How could the footprints have lasted in mud such as this?

When settlers first came to this area they found the footprints in the stone just as they are today. The "fish bone fossils" are not just ON the mountains. They are IN the mountains. AND they are sorted out by layer according to the specific time period when that particular layer was first laid down under a sea millions of years ago.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It clearly states that the ark was 450 feet in length. Why has NO ONE ever tried to build an all wooden structure 450 feet in length? Why is it, in fact, illegal to do so?

The answer to this question is quite simple, actually. The fact is, the best and most efficient way to float a structure on water is a wooden building 450 long. I'm surprised a man of your intellect doesn't know that. There's a giant worldwide conspiracy to discredit the story of Noah and the Ark by making it illegal to build a boat just like it. If someone were able to build it, it would be shown that Noah had it all figured out and the literal account of the flood would be proven!

Come on, Pel, get your facts straight! After all, experts built the Titanic and an amateur built the Ark (or whatever that saying is).

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by notofworks

The answer to this question is quite simple, actually. The fact is, the best and most efficient way to float a structure on water is a wooden building 450 long. I'm surprised a man of your intellect doesn't know that. There's a giant worldwide conspiracy to discredit the story of Noah and the Ark by making it illegal to build a boat just like it. If someone were able to build it, it would be shown that Noah had it all figured out and the literal account of the flood would be proven!

Come on, Pel, get your facts straight! After all, experts built the Titanic and an amateur built the Ark (or whatever that saying is).

I don't believe Noah was an amature. Mostly likely Noah was a skilled craftsman and city king who employed hundreds for the building of the ark.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

They have indeed. Leonardo Di Vinci remarked about fossils of marine animals that he found in the Alps.

But this is evidence that the rocks now making up the mountains were once loose sediments, sand and silt at the bottom of the seas and not evidence that the mountains themselves were covered by a global flood.

If the "fish bone fossils" had been put down by a global flood 4,000 years ago then we would expect to find them as litter on the surfaces of the rocks across the mountains and other landscapes. Instead, we find the fossils embedded within sedimentary layers and those layers are tilted and thrusted up to form the mountains. We find marine fossils deep within mines high up in the Rocky Mountains.

Here is a picture of a road cut along the Interstate not far from my home -



Notice the bands of sedimentary rock that were horizontal when they were laid down along the coast of a sea that disappeared long ago.

The sediments in the layers near the circle mark "1" contain fossils of creatures that are not found in the other layers. When the environment changed, the creatures disappeared right along with the circumstances that were responsible for that particular color of rock. Geologists call this the Triassic Period.

The sediments near number "2" contain creatures that are not found anywhere else in the other layers as well. This is called the Cretaceous Period.

If you get out of your car and follow the path up and around this ridge line you will get to a spot where dinosaur footprints are preserved in the slanted rock right on the surface.



This is at an elevation of about 6900 above sea level. The peaks farther west rise as high as 14,440 feet. That means these dino foot prints should have been covered by 7540 feet of roiling flood water while the ground was still mud. That much water would have obliterated the footprints! AND we have to ask how the dinosaurs managed to walk up such a steep and muddy slope without using a rope like the gentleman in the picture is doing - and he's standing on hardened stone.

Here's a picture taken off the Oregon coast at a depth shallower than 7500 feet for comparison:



The sea floor is covered with a light silt that rises as smoke if it's disturbed even a little bit. How could the footprints have lasted in mud such as this?

When settlers first came to this area they found the footprints in the stone just as they are today. The "fish bone fossils" are not just ON the mountains. They are IN the mountains. AND they are sorted out by layer according to the specific time period when that particular layer was first laid down under a sea millions of years ago.

How do we know the dinosaur tracks weren't laid down after the flood?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

As far as insects and various small animals of that nature I believe it is possible that they weren’t on the ark. The flood would have produced massive platforms of floating biomass (uprooted foliage, floating masses of trees with interconnected root systems, carcasses, etc.) all pact together. These massive platforms of biomass could sustain some species of animals. These floating platforms of biomass would also become “vehicles” of travel for some species as the biomass floated from one region to another and then settled upon the receding of the waters.

Genesis 7:8: "... and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Noah was told to take "every thing." Whether such a feat could even have been successful or not is one point, but he was told to gather "every thing that creepeth on the ground." So, his "faithful" actions must have been demonstrated by at least a hearty attempt to get it done. We have to make an allowance for this in our conjectural "Ark's" design here as well.

Originally Posted by Aquila

As far as salinity is concerned your point has the presupposition that salinity was the same in pre-flood oceans as it is today. I believe that salinity levels were lower globally than they are today. During the flood there would have been massive extinctions of sea life. Maybe even the majority of sea life. However, those capable of adapting to greater levels of salinity would have done so. Also surviving species would have migrated to other areas of the oceanic ecosystem where the environment was more fitting for survival.

Good call! http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2...ed-life-spread

However, for this to work it must be understood within the framework of an earth and sea billions of years old. The story under consideration (Noah's story) makes no difference between freshwater and salt water organisms. There are many species that move happily between the too (bull sharks, salmon, etc.); but just ask RandyWayne to do an "experiment" with his aquarium set up for us and have him start swapping fish around between salt and fresh water. It would be rather expensive for RW to do that and his cat would be the only winner here. (Or the neighbor's cat?)

If the seas were remarkably less saline just 4,000 years ago we should expect to find some sort of remarkable evidence for that. We have none.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don’t believe that the majority of the flood waters came from rain. Some have proposed a theoretical “vapor canopy” from which the waters of the flood would have originated. I disagree. I believe that it was most probable that the majority of the flood waters came from the undersea geysers (fountains of the deep) that burst forth. I believe that the majority of the flood waters were salt water, not fresh water. Those water born animals facing the most serious threat would have been fresh water species. However, I believe there were regions where the salinity levels were “boarder” line and hardy species survived.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I do not know what form of weights or stabilizers could have been used on the ark. Certainly while Noah supervised the building of the ark (legend states that Noah was a city king who employed workers to build the ark). I’m certain that God’s instructions were VERY basic and there were no doubt necessary measures taken throughout the building and preparation process that weren’t directly commanded of God. The building of stabilizers would have been one of these measures.

The problem with the 450' long wooden vessel is that wood is simply not rigid enough over spans that great. Even with adequate hypothetical stabilizers the serpentine wave motion across the length of the ark would open up gaps in the planking requiring continuous pumping of very large amounts of water (saline or not).

AGAIN - it's easy for one of the multi-billionaire TV evangelists to prove me wrong; just build a "recreation" of the Ark. Nobody has, and nobody will.

Originally Posted by Aquila

We arrive at 1,877,920 species from modern taxonomy. However, biblically speaking things may have been categorized differently, allowing what we would view as an entire species to die off. For example birds are considered “owf” (Hb.) or “winged creature”. This classification or wording is also applied to insects, bats, etc. I believe that we see a wider variety of species alive today than were preserved on the ark. This is due to the adaptations necessary to survive after the flood. Also due to breeding etc. For example there are new breeds of dog that have been engineered through breeding techniques. In just a few generations a given form of animal species can undergo significant changes. I believe that life always makes a way.

I don’t believe phylogenic history is accurate and/or conclusive enough to bet my soul on it.

hmm... are you making this salvific then?

"Modern taxonomy" follows the line of reasoning that a member of one species cannot reproduce with the members of another. This also seems to be the Biblical model, thus we have the "Two by two" breeding pairs as representatives of their various species.

As far as "winged creatures" - remember, Noah's inventory made a distinction between ravens and doves. He wasn't the generalist that your resorting to the Law's classifications seems to imply.

The "modern taxonomy" actually appears to follow the Biblical taxonomy rather well. You appear to have "bet your soul" on a substitute.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Often the creation model and the evolutionary model have much wherein they agree… however the one point of contention would be periods of time. The creationist sees things often happening more rapidly.

Interesting. I’m just thinking out loud here. What if the ice caps are frozen flood waters and aren’t naturally occurring formations? What if the earth originally had no ice caps? Just a thought.

I'd say "of course you're correct about the earth originally not having ice caps." The earth was originally molten rock. There's also a great deal of evidence that the ice caps have come and gone over time. The scars in the bedrock in upstate New York show that one ice sheet came from the northeast. And other nearby scars show the direction of flow came from the northwest. There had to have been two separate ice sheets moving across the same piece of land at two different points in time.

As far as the current ones being laid down all at once by a flood - no. Drilling out ice cores shows us that eons are represented here. The pollen in the snow changes over time, the tiny air bubbles contain gases from ancient atmospheres which had different levels of radio isotopes. There are even different periods when sand dust layers are present and they alternate with "cleaner" layers showing that there were changing wind patterns over time and/or differing environments near the ice sheets.

Originally Posted by Aquila

That’s why I believe that the coast lines we see today are primarily because the flood waters from the Deluge are pretty much still with us – frozen in ice caps and in our higher sea levels. That’s why I don’t see any serious issue when one asks about , “So where did all that water go?” My answer would be, “Look around. It’s still here.”

Even if (or when?) the current ice sheets melt the sea levels would not rise all that much. And, I know, I'm speaking as someone who lives more than a mile above sea level. Still...

Manhattan would be a pretty much worthless steel and concrete bog (but how is that different from today?) The Bering Sea land bridge would open up and the Indonesian Archipelago would be reunited with Malaysia. The Florida Marlins would have to play home games in rotation with the Atlanta Braves...

But a global flood? Not even close.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I used to be a serious advocate of the Day Age theory. I had read many books by Hugh Ross and one by Don Stoner advocating the Day Age theory. However, I continually found myself back tracking to defend science. For example, the most recent claim that they had found the ancestor of the earliest hominids. It was apparently the remains of a lemur or something! No real connection. God just dealt with me on the issue and so I accepted His Word on the matter and I’ll just let the chips fall where they will.

God dealt with you to accept the findings of paleontologists from the University of Texas, Duke and the University of Chicago over the claims of the History Channel?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-raf030210.php

Well, I think that's great! Welcome to my club!

You do realize that the fossil under question was uncovered about 30 years ago, analyzed and assigned to the lemurs/lorises classification all along, right?

"Paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University thought the data could have been cherry-picked, and paleontologist Callum Ross of the University of Chicago considered the claim that Darwinius should be classified as haplorhine was "unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification."

"The opinion of Chris Beard, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, was that Darwinius was not a "missing link" between anthropoids and more primitive primates, but that further study of this remarkably complete specimen would be very informative and could reveal relationships amongst "the earliest and least human-like of all known primates, the Eocene adapiforms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwini...istic_analysis

God really dealt with you to start accepting the conclusions of modern scientists? I think that's wonderful!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

How do we know the dinosaur tracks weren't laid down after the flood?

The layers of volcanic ash can be dated via radio metric dating and are all older than 65 million years.

You appear to want a 4,000 year old global flood.

My comments, however, were really directed to the standard Young Earth Creationist claims. In order to facilitate the coal deposits and other geologic features along with the many "problems" of getting the dinos on the Ark, many of them balk at the idea that the dinos survived the flood.

Ken Ham is an exception. But his schemes of a "Vegan T-Rex" and all really stretches the imagination a bit too far. I can see Shem's wife pitching heads of iceberg lettuce into a T-Rex's mouth.

And, we've still got the problem of having triceratops rappelling up and down the slick mud of the steep slope without even leaving a single skid mark.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The layers of volcanic ash can be dated via radio metric dating and are all older than 65 million years.

You appear to want a 4,000 year old global flood.

My comments, however, were really directed to the standard Young Earth Creationist claims. In order to facilitate the coal deposits and other geologic features along with the many "problems" of getting the dinos on the Ark, many of them balk at the idea that the dinos survived the flood.

Ken Ham is an exception. But his schemes of a "Vegan T-Rex" and all really stretches the imagination a bit too far. I can see Shem's wife pitching heads of iceberg lettuce into a T-Rex's mouth.

So Pel, do you give any plausibility to my college-days view that "In the beginning, God created...." and He made it exactly as it appears complete with aged appearances, coal, diamonds, etc.?

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I'm just guessing here but
1)I'm guessing that Genesis doesn't contain the exact detailed instructions of how to build the Ark, but gives us a general description.
2)I'm guessing that if God specifically told Noah how to build it, it would work for the purpose He planned it
3)I'm guessing that if God didn't want it to sink, it wouldn't sink if it had wide open gaping holes in it.

Basically I don't see how any Christian can say the flood story is just allegorical. The Bible doesn't present it as an allegory, but as something that actually happened. Jesus refers to it in Matthew 24, and Peter does in 1 Peter.

Frankly, the God who created all things, who created the universe, the stars, the oceans, and is present even to the depths of those oceans, is more than able to simply keep a boat afloat some water, and make all situations work out according to his purpose, whether or not there are still I beams and concrete.

This is an interesting post. All 3 of your first statements start out with; I'm guessing.

You say that it (Noah's Ark and the Flood) actually happened. My question is, what is your basis for having such a strong feeling that it did?

Another question is this; Is it possible it didn't? Will you even consider it didn't?

I think it is dangerous and irresponsible to follow an Ancient writing (s) that can't be proven. Another post in this thread talked about many other "Miracles" that can't be proven, yet we believe them without question even though our own experiences and good science counters what has been handed down to us as Facts.

The more I live, the more I see that people of yesterday could be told many things with no way to prove otherwise. But now, we are well able to look at our whole Globe doing research that brings accountability to those who've been guilty of presenting outlandish claims that defy common sense, the balance of nature, and a God of mercy and love.

I haven't talked much about other problems with the Flood other than a scientific response, but I also have a very deep problem with portraying God as wanting to wipe the Earth clean of evil, leaving only 8 people as survivors. To me, this is not only heartless but makes no sense. God is all knowing and could see into the future that this plan wouldn't work.

Wiping out the entire human race was, and is, really the only cure to stop man’s continued failure. And, if we believe in the Great Flood, we see that man just got off the boat to start all over again with his evil agenda.

The Great Flood carries a host of moral and ethical problems that taint God as a tyrant, and I refuse to feel this way about a Father in Heaven who made us, knowing we are pitiful and are in dire need of mercy. Humans are weak and we fail miserably. There's no rocket science in knowing that. We cycle in and out of moral chaos and our struggles to maintain an honest existence is always dipping into the doom of failure.

When I see children, the handicapped, crying mothers, and helpless elderly people screaming as waters drown them, my heart breaks trying to conceive that Jesus, the one who said, "Allow the little children to come unto me" is being labeled the person responsible for this mass slaughter. I more than struggle with this and refuse to darken my heart with concepts that can't be proven to be true.

You can call this heresy, doubt, or rebellion, but in this life I’ve learned how helpless we are at times and that people can be so unfortunate. My wife was sexually abused for the first 9 years of her life by her father. He recently died in prison as a sex offender. She told me it took over 20 years to be able to call God her Father. You think about this. Her mind is a delicate place and one thing said in the wrong context can leave her in a mental war for days, if not weeks.

The World is full of people like this (past and present) and we are in desperate need of a Savior. I’ve fallen on my face and pleaded with God to help my heart to understand that the World doesn’t need a Great Flood, the World needs the “Great Blood”. Calvary I can conceive, the Flood of Noah I cannot.

I think Christianity needs to stop looking at life through an "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" lens.