Noah's Ark

AV1611VET said:

Yes.

Of inspiration, revelation, and illumination: inspiration and revelation ended with the completion of the Scriptures in 96 AD.

Click to expand...

It's no wonder your growth us stunted. That is the evil of doctrine formation.

AV1611VET said:

Mr. Nye says he imagines you'll hear about the Grand Canyon later.

The Flood has nothing to do with the Grand Canyon.

Click to expand...

I agree, however, Creation Science and Ken Ham says it does.

Kenny'sID said:

He's expecting to find them concentrated at higher levels but what he neglected to understand, once all these animals are dead they are going to wash every which way as the water recedes. No way are any concentrated bodies going to stay where they died.

Click to expand...

I agree that Mr Nye didn't express that the best way, but the point he was making is that if the fossils in the Grand Canyon were deposited by the flood is that we would not find them distributed in layers with no species out of order. In other words, if the Grand Canyon is a result of the flood then we should not only find fossils mixed (not separated) in all stratigraphic layers of the the Grand Canyon and throughout the entire world. The fact is we do not.

Subduction Zone said:

You should have read the article:

"Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands."

Click to expand...

I read the article. Apparently Nye didn't. The Wyoming served for 12 or so years of heavy service. It was a ship, not an ark. The ark was wider and deeper, and most importantly didn't need to navigate, which is the primary source of stress on a vessel. The bible account says the ark was "lifted up" not washed away, and "went on the flood" not against the water's current as ships must often do.

RickG said:

I agree that Mr Nye didn't express that the best way, but the point he was making is that if the fossils in the Grand Canyon were deposited by the flood is that we would not find them distributed in layers with no species out of order. In other words, if the Grand Canyon is a result of the flood then we should not only find fossils mixed (not separated) in all stratigraphic layers of the the Grand Canyon and throughout the entire world. The fact is we do not.

Click to expand...

The stratigraphic layers of the Grand Canyon and the flood are two separate phenomenon. The layers indicate a series of sudden destructive events or epochs. The 'canyon' is just the big ditch that reveals those epochs. The flood may indeed have begun the process of erosion. The remaining drainage system, the Colorado and other small rivers, may have finished the job.

Another intriguing question is the formation of desert "buttes" such as found in Monument Valley and other such places. Where did all the dirt and sand go from the vast areas surrounding those widely scattered buttes? It is clear from the uniform height of the buttes that the whole area was once a flat plain.

OldWiseGuy said:

The stratigraphic layers of the Grand Canyon and the flood are two separate phenomenon. The layers indicate a series of sudden destructive events or epochs.

Click to expand...

That isn't how sedimentology works. There are layers of rock within the Grand Canyon that indicate exceptionally long periods of time of relatively calm water. There are various layers of limestone which are hundreds of feet thick. Those don't necessarily form in "sudden destructive events". There are different layers between these (shale layers) which also do not form in sudden destructive events. Shales are usually made up of clay sized minerals which are very small and take relatively calm water to fall out of and collect in a layer.

Can you imagine the sanitation on Noah's ark after a year of thousands of animals going to the toilet?

How large would Noah's family have had to be to dispose of the massive amount of manure? And don't forget about the buildup of methane, one spark and...

OldWiseGuy said:

The stratigraphic layers of the Grand Canyon and the flood are two separate phenomenon. The layers indicate a series of sudden destructive events or epochs. The 'canyon' is just the big ditch that reveals those epochs. The flood may indeed have begun the process of erosion. The remaining drainage system, the Colorado and other small rivers, may have finished the job.

Click to expand...

There is an enormous difference between the composition and formation of flood debris/layers, and that of the Grand Canyon. There is also a terrestrial layer with fossilized foot prints in between marine layers. Did the flood completely recede then flood again?

Obliquinaut said:

That isn't how sedimentology works. There are layers of rock within the Grand Canyon that indicate exceptionally long periods of time of relatively calm water. There are various layers of limestone which are hundreds of feet thick. Those don't necessarily form in "sudden destructive events". There are different layers between these (shale layers) which also do not form in sudden destructive events. Shales are usually made up of clay sized minerals which are very small and take relatively calm water to fall out of and collect in a layer.

Click to expand...

Those would be the "epochs" mentioned. And, are you saying the canyon escaped sudden destructive events altogether?

RickG said:

There is an enormous difference between the composition and formation of flood debris/layers, and that of the Grand Canyon. There is also a terrestrial layer with fossilized foot prints in between marine layers. Did the flood completely recede then flood again?

Click to expand...

The flood barely affected the surface but may have begun the process of erosion. Those layers go back millennia before the flood.

OldWiseGuy said:

I read the article. Apparently Nye didn't. The Wyoming served for 12 or so years of heavy service. It was a ship, not an ark. The ark was wider and deeper, and most importantly didn't need to navigate, which is the primary source of stress on a vessel. The bible account says the ark was "lifted up" not washed away, and "went on the flood" not against the water's current as ships must often do.

Click to expand...

The ark would have still been hit by many of the same forces as the Wyoming, and the Wyoming needed heavy duty pumps to stay afloat. Far worse weather than the Wyoming ever hit would have sunk the Ark.

OldWiseGuy said:

The flood barely affected the surface but may have begun the process of erosion. Those layers go back millennia before the flood.

Click to expand...

The problem is that we see evidence of floods far weaker than the Flood would have been and we see no evidence at all of Noah's flood itself. This is a case of lack of evidence being evidence against.

Subduction Zone said:

The ark would have still been hit by many of the same forces as the Wyoming, and the Wyoming needed heavy duty pumps to stay afloat. Far worse weather than the Wyoming ever hit would have sunk the Ark.

Click to expand...

That's a common perception of the flood, but the bible narrative doesn't support it. We have medieval and other artists to blame for that. While the flood would have been quite violent in some areas it would not be in others, the plain where the ark sat for example. Floodwaters much more violent have carried fully intact houses for miles before they finally come apart, and then mainly by hitting other objects. The ark faced no such challenges and was carried along quite intact by the slow moving floodwater.

Subduction Zone said:

The problem is that we see evidence of floods far weaker than the Flood would have been and we see no evidence at all of Noah's flood itself. This is a case of lack of evidence being evidence against.

Click to expand...

Noah's flood wouldn't have presented evidence of a single flood, but of many local floods with differing evidence left behind; just what you describe.

Science has never constructed a flood model using the actual bible narrative (sadly neither have many believers), something I believe they are loathe to do. 'Pandora's box' and all that.

OldWiseGuy said:

The flood barely affected the surface but may have begun the process of erosion. Those layers go back millennia before the flood.

Click to expand...

I can understand a regional flood which does have supporting evidence, but global, all the physical evidence is just the opposite.

OldWiseGuy said:

Science has never constructed a flood model using the actual bible narrative (sadly neither have many believers), something I believe they are loathe to do. 'Pandora's box' and all that.

Click to expand...

The breech of the Bosporus Straight increasing the size of the Black Sea and encroaching the Mountains of Ararat is supported by science.

RickG said:

The breech of the Bosporus Straight increasing the size of the Black Sea and encroaching the Mountains of Ararat is supported by science.

Click to expand...

I've read about that, but that wasn't the biblical flood.

OldWiseGuy said:

I've read about that, but that wasn't the biblical flood.

Click to expand...

Why couldn't it be?

OldWiseGuy said:

Noah's flood wouldn't have presented evidence of a single flood, but of many local floods with differing evidence left behind; just what you describe.

Science has never constructed a flood model using the actual bible narrative (sadly neither have many believers), something I believe they are loathe to do. 'Pandora's box' and all that.

Click to expand...

Lets put aside all the problems and misconception you have about the physics of a worldwide flood for a second.

Where are all the water that would have been required?