did Noahs Ark really happen?

[Deamiter]

For the record - there is a huge amount of evidence for a global flood. Most of the geologic column was formed in the flood.

So - we have evidence (the geologic column). We have two groups of people interpreting the evidence differently. Rather than making dogmatic disputed statements, the conversation is better served by working through the evidence together and seeing which model fits the evidence better.

This is a great bit of propaganda, but quite misleading. What you have in the creationist camp is not a model but a series of disconnected questions about scientific models. You have no explanation for the selective sorting of pollen and other fossils (i.e. pollen is never found below a certain layer whereas spores are -- true of hundreds of different types of pollen, and no they're not sorted by weight or density).

The global-flood position relies solely on picking little problems into current scientific models -- problems that are easily answered by the experts in geology. You will not find any cohesive "alternate explanation" anywhere. This is perhaps why in the last few centuries science has vastly advanced our understanding of geology whereas creationists have through that whole time been talking about how evolution is losing support -- instead of actually doing the research necessary to support (or disprove) a position, creationists instead skim through scientific papers, pick quotes or sections that seem to support their latest ideas and quickly claim victory.

Of course when scientists actually bother to respond, the creationist community takes no notice and you find old and outdated claims repeated on hundreds of websites. It seems that the vast majority of creationists aren't so concerned about being able to feel right as they are about honestly and thoroughally developing a consistant and disprovable model.

 

[Mallon]

For the record - there is a huge amount of evidence for a global flood. Most of the geologic column was formed in the flood.

This is, like, the third or fourth time you've said that this week, pop. But when I asked you to specify which formations were deposited by the Flood (and there should be many if "most of the geologic column" can be attributed to it), you have been very reluctant to actually provide any specific examples.
There is not one geologic sequence you can name that can be attributed to a global flood. That's a challenge.

 

[laptoppop]

The most common flood/preflood boundary is set at the precambrian/cambrian transition.

From http://icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/

The definition of the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the geologic column is a subject of considerable dispute among creationists. Estimates range from the Carboniferous [86] to the Pleistocene [79,117]. For our purposes here we would like to define the Flood/post-Flood boundary at the termination of global-scale erosion and sedimentation. Based upon a qualitative assessment of geologic maps worldwide, lithotypes change from worldwide or continental in character in the Mesozoic to local or regional in the Tertiary. Therefore, we tentatively place the Flood/post- Flood boundary at approximately the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary. We believe further studies in stratigraphy, paleontology, paleomagnetism, and geochemistry should allow for a more precise definition of this boundary.

I am doing more study on this topic - but you did deserve at least a preliminary answer.

 

[elsbeth]

From http://icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/

The definition of the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the geologic column is a subject of considerable dispute among creationists.

You're qouting as support for the flood an article that states that there is "considerable dispute" about the details EVEN AMONG CREATIONISTS? There really isn't any good scientific support for a global flood.

 

[laptoppop]

Correct. Creationist scientists are no more a monolithic block of agreement than TEs. I'm quoting a source that is honest enough to portray it accurately. The "best" positioning right now appears to be at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary.

I'd rather have folks be honest about levels of agreement than not - wouldn't you?

 

[Mallon]

The most common flood/preflood boundary is set at the precambrian/cambrian transition...
"Therefore, we tentatively place the Flood/post- Flood boundary at approximately the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary."

Thanks for your long-awaited answer, pop. It seems from your post that most creationists accept those rocks composing the Paleozoic and Mesozoic (post-Cambrian/pre-Cenozoic) as having been deposited by the Flood. Finally, something to work with!
Unfortunately -- and this may explain why a creationist answer has been so long in coming -- this admission is damning. It is easy to point to any number of geological features that contradict a rapid, global flood. Again, I will point to the sequential fossil forests of the Carboniferous of Joggins, whose trees in many cases still preserve rootlets embedded in soil.
I will also point you to the many examples of palaeosols present in the fossil record. The kinds of palaeosols we see at places like the Cambrian Lamotte Sandstone, the Jurassic deposits of the Morrison Formation in the western US, and again, the Carboniferous beds of Joggins, NS. What in the world were Jurassic termites doing building underwater nests in the middle of the Flood???

These things can take upwards of 50 years to build!

I could continue, making mention of in situ dinosaur nests, terrestrial animal tracks and burrows, mud cracks, aeolian deposits, etc., but I won't. I think the above picture alone is worth a thousand words.
I suspect the (ad hoc) answer will come, "But the Flood didn't act in the same way on a global scale. It deposited sediment in some areas, and eroded sediment in others." Regardless, such an explanation still does not explain away Jurassic termite mounds.

 

[KerrMetric]

Yet, it makes sense in light of the Bible.

So does Jesus being a 6' 8" by 3' by 3" piece of wood with a handle on it but I really don't think he was a door either.

Funny how 99.99% of geologists educated to the doctoral level think the global flood is a load of crap isn't it?

 

[laptoppop]

OK, I like the point about the termite mounds -- I need to do some research. One question -- in places where the mounds have been found, what layers are below them? As you know the "geologic column" actually consists of partial records in various places. One comment -- to be fossilized, they would have needed to be buried. This implies a huge gentle flood. If not a global flood, its a pretty amazing local one!

 

[Mallon]

One question -- in places where the mounds have been found, what layers are below them?

The Jurassic termite mounds originate in Jurassic strata.
If you're wondering whether the Jurassic termite mounds originate in Precambrian strata, though, I will be quick to point out that the answer is no. Termites, and traces attributed to them, do not appear in the fossil record until the Mesozoic.

 

[laptoppop]

No, I'm wondering what layers are below the termite strata. In some places the jurassic strata is the lowest strata available. If there are no layers below the termite mounds, then its a non-issue.

 

[Mallon]

One comment -- to be fossilized, they would have needed to be buried. This implies a huge gentle flood. If not a global flood, its a pretty amazing local one!

Having done a little more research, it seems termite mounds can be quite resistant structures and can withstand seasonal flooding along the edges of the Okavango River, for example. Such seasonal flooding deposits layer upon layer of sediment over time, so there is no reason for supposing that the Jurassic termite mounds must have been burried in one localized event. (Incidentally, sedimentologists agree that the Jurassic Morrison formation exhibited dry/wet seasonality, too.)

 

[laptoppop]

Yes, but they don't just have to be buried. One of the dirty little secrets of fossilization is that burial in ordinary dirt doesn't fossilize, it rots. You need the right combination of stuff to fossilize. I need to find out more about this (what mineral(s), etc.). Of course, the global flood model answers this just fine in that the needed materials could be dissolved in the general flood.

 

[KerrMetric]

The Global Flood model has NEVER answered a bloody thing scientifically ever. That's why it is complete CRAP from a geological standpoint and why the only pushers of the fantasy are not researching geologists.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

A few facts regarding Noah’s Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Genesis 6–8:

• In order to have the huge variety of genetically distinct populations of animals that exist today, it would have been absolutely necessary for there to have been several hundred thousand pairs of animals aboard the Ark, plus tens of thousands of additional clean animals (Gen. 7:2).

• It would have been genetically impossible for a few thousand “kinds’ of animals to evolve into the hundreds of thousands of genetically distinct populations we have today in a matter of thousands of years.

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would have been capable of displacing would have weighed very much less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark would have been too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would have weighed nearly as much as the animals (and in very many cases, much more than the animals) and would have required a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY LARGE fish) would necessarily have been taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive down to this day.

• The water in these tanks would necessarily have been continuously aerated by mechanical means that would have required the strenuous effort of tens of thousands of workers.

• The tanks of water would have been thousands of times too large and too heavy to be kept aboard even the largest ship we have today.

• The weight of the flood waters on the earth would have crushed to death any of the lower-altitude land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would have been no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained aboard the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not have all been released at once or in the same place because they would have eaten each other.

• It would have been a physical impossible for many of the kinds of animals to come to Noah (Gen. 6:20). The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not have been returned to their original habitats because all of the habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would have taken 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons over these many years.

• Until all the necessary habitats could have been reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would necessarily have been kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there had been, where did it go after the flood?

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

It can easily be seen that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the NATURAL MEANS of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water. The story of Noah’s Ark is a God-inspired epic tale written, not as a history lesson, but as a spiritual lesson.

The references to Noah and the Ark in the New Testament do NOT support the notion that Genesis 6-8 was interpreted literally by Jesus or any New Testament author. These references simply indicate that Jesus and the New Testament authors used this story to teach spiritual truths.

The vast majority of both Old Testament and New Testament scholars today agree that Gen. 6-8 is an epic tale and over 99.9% of biologist who are currently teaching biology in an accredited college or university agree with the biological principles that eliminate any possibility of Genesis 6-8 being an accurate account of an historic event.

I believe the Bible, but I do not believe the interpretation of it by those who interpret Genesis 6-8 to be an accurate account of an historic event. In order for any interpretation of the Bible to be the correct interpretation, it MUST be in harmony with all the facts, and the teaching that Genesis 6-8 is an accurate account of an historic event is out of harmony with a vast multitude of facts.

 

[busterdog]

There really isn't any good scientific support for a global flood.

Does that mean

a. there is no evidence for it anywhere;

b. we have not found evidence in every place we look for evidence;

c. no evidence counts unless it explains every single question raised by those who don't believe in a literal genesis or simply; or

d. there is some evidence, but not a preponderance of evidence for a global flood?

I think that helps to clarify the nature of the debate. I think the notion that "there isn't any support" is probably hyperbole. For example, there is some evidence that Oswald acted alone. There is some evidence that the Cubans were involved. There is some evidence that the US government was involved. Any one of those conclusions can be in serious doubt and unpersuasive, but they all have some evidence to support them, even if some of the evidence contradicts other pieces of evidence.

 

[Rut]

I`m little curious how You that don`t believe in a Global Flood explain the sudden death of animals that archaeology have found.I mean really suddenly because they had food in the mouth.They look like the chew the food in that moment they died

 

[DaApostle]

I`m little curious how You that don`t believe in a Global Flood explain the sudden death of animals that archaeology have found.I mean really suddenly because they had food in the mouth.They look like the chew the food in that moment they died

If you are saying"Why did a bunch of animals die at the same time and really quickly" , first of all, what time eriod are you talking about, where is the evidence of this happening, what did the people who found this have to say about it?

Provide any links to anything that said that and I will be thankful. Plus I will read it.

Sayin'

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Does that mean

a. there is no evidence for it anywhere;

b. we have not found evidence in every place we look for evidence;

c. no evidence counts unless it explains every single question raised by those who don't believe in a literal genesis or simply; or

d. there is some evidence, but not a preponderance of evidence for a global flood?

I think that helps to clarify the nature of the debate. I think the notion that "there isn't any support" is probably hyperbole. For example, there is some evidence that Oswald acted alone. There is some evidence that the Cubans were involved. There is some evidence that the US government was involved. Any one of those conclusions can be in serious doubt and unpersuasive, but they all have some evidence to support them, even if some of the evidence contradicts other pieces of evidence.

There is evidence, especially in the Bible but also from personal observations, that the earth is flat. Does that mean that it is possible that the earth is flat?

There is much more evidence that the earth is flat than there is that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate account of an historic event. There are still Christians today who believe with all their heart that the earth is flat based upon a literal and historical interpretation of several passages in the Bible. And there are, with even less evidence to support their belief, still Christians today who believe with all their heart that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate account of an historic event. However, I respect your right to believe as you choose to.

 

[DaApostle]

There is evidence, especially in the Bible but also from personal observations, that the earth is flat. Does that mean that it is possible that the earth is flat?

There is much more evidence that the earth is flat than there is that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate account of an historic event. There are still Christians today who believe with all their heart that the earth is flat based upon a literal and historical interpretation of several passages in the Bible. And there are, with even less evidence to support their belief, still Christians today who believe with all their heart that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate account of an historic event. However, I respect your right to believe as you choose to.

Although some people support the idea of a Flat Earth, and have "evidence," the earth is most likely spherical.

I am an avid poster on the FE site. It is very funny.

 

[DaApostle]

[