What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

Uphill Battle said:

nor do you, to demonstrate an old earth. You would probably look at the same cliffs, and declare it to look old. Appearence is subjective.

Click to expand...

Multiple independent lines of dating that confirm the old age of the earth are not, however.

The young earth theory falls apart when you look at the theory and evidence in toto and when one uses it for predictability.

When people want to find diamonds, fozzil fuels and minerals they use old earth theory because it works. One has great difficulty predicting with the young earth theory.

Young earth theory hypothesizes that the Grand Canyon was created in a very short time by a large amount of rapidly flowing water. YET proponents often point to the rapidly formed canyon that was created shortly after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. These are some of the things one would expect to find from a rapidly formed canyon:

large number of large boulders, especially at the end of the canyon (downstream) (rapidly flowing water breaks off rock in larger pieces)
mostly rough edged rocks (no time to be worn smooth)
an extremely large delta (no time to be eroded away)
evidence of a large amount of water at the beginning of the canyon (upstream)

The Grand Canyon is lacking these pieces of evidence.

Another piece of damaging evidence is that there were two volcanic eruptions that caused lava to flow into the canyon and created large natural dams. If the canyon was formed in a very short amount of time, the amount of water flowing through the canyon would not have allowed the dams to form. Not only were the dams large enough to form large lakes but they were eroded to what are now a series of rapids.

Also, think about the amount of water that would be needed to form the Grand Canyon in a very short amount of time. The Niagara Falls has a tremendous amount of water flowing over it and it is not eroding very rapidly. Of course, now its flow is requlated by a Canadian-US group. But, if there was that much water to rapidly form the Grand Canyon it would have left much more evidence than just the Grand Canyon.

If Noah's flood did occurred there would be more than one Grand Canyon. The places where I would look would be China, Brazil, Australia, India and probably Central Europe. But when you look at those locations you see that other forces of nature than water were prominent in there formations. Northern China, for instance, was greatly shaped by winds depositing dust over a tremendously large amount of time.

The YET does not account for the formation of the Hawaiian Islands. The islands were formed as that area of the earth moved over a hot spot. The western Islands are older than the eastern islands. An a new island, Lo'ihi, is starting to form at the bottom of the ocean. Scientist estimate that the new island will reach the surface in 50,000-200,000 years. If YET is correct there should be only one or two Hawaiin islands of the same age.

The YET does not account for the formation of the series of caldera volcanoes in Western United States (From Washington to Wyoming). Yellowstone National Park is in the youngest of the calderas. This series was formed as the North American plate moved over a hot spot. The hot spot is now under Yellowstone National Park.

Now here is something interesting. The Grand Canyon and this series of calderas are relatively close together. Now if a large amount of water was in the area to form the Grand Canyon, these caldera's would show some evidence of this water. They don't. Now, if you hold to the YET and the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was formed by large amount of water in a very short amount of time, you'll have to say that the caldera series was formed after the Grand Canyon was formed.

So, here's a scenario: A huge lake forms over western US and then rapidly drains to form the Grand Canyon. Then the continental plate rapidly moves 700 miles but stops periodically to allow a caldera to blow. Ok, but here's another piece of evidence to consider, the successive ash layers from each caldera eruption don't support this scenario.

Ok, new scenario: A huge lake forms over western US and then rapidly drains to form the Grand Canyon. Then the continental plate rapidly moves 700 miles but stops periodically to allow a caldera to blow, the ash to settle and to allow plant and animal life to firmly reestablish before the next caldera blows.

Now add the formation of the Hawaiian Islands, the rise and fall of the North American inland sea, the cratering of the moon, and other major geological and biological events. The Yough Earth Theory falls apart under the weight of evidence in toto.

For those who need to know, in toto means: completely or in total

nvxplorer said:

Forget the cargo. I’m not convinced that a wooden ship of such size would be structurally sound in itself.

Click to expand...

...in the words of A.M. Robb, there was an "upper limit, in the region of 300 feet, on the length of the wooden ship; beyond such a length the deformation due to the differing distributions of weight and buoyancy became excessive, with consequent difficulty in maintaining the hull watertight." Pollard and Robertson concur, emphasizing that "a wooden ship had great stresses as a structure. The absolute limit of its length was 300 feet, and it was liable to 'hogging' and 'sagging'." This is the major reason why the naval industry turned to iron and steel in the 1850s. The largest wooden ships ever built were the six-masted schooners, nine of which were launched between 1900 and 1909. These ships were so long that they required diagonal iron strapping for support; they "snaked," or visibly undulated, as they passed through the waves, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly, and they were only used on short coastal hauls because they were unsafe in deep water.

John J. Rockwell, the designer of the first of this class, confessed that "six masters were not practical. They were too long for wood construction." Yet the ark was over 100 feet longer than the longest six-master, the 329 foot U.S.S. Wyoming, and it had to endure the most severe conditions ever encountered while trasporting the most critically important cargo ever hauled...

So it should be clear by now why... people somehow see a "problem" in building of the ark.

Resource: National Center for Science Education (ncseweb.org), The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark, by Robert Moore

Donkeytron said:

Multiple independent lines of dating that confirm the old age of the earth are not, however.

Click to expand...

I've already stated my postion on those.

BelovedSonofRock said:

...in the words of A.M. Robb, there was an "upper limit, in the region of 300 feet, on the length of the wooden ship; beyond such a length the deformation due to the differing distributions of weight and buoyancy became excessive, with consequent difficulty in maintaining the hull watertight." Pollard and Robertson concur, emphasizing that "a wooden ship had great stresses as a structure. The absolute limit of its length was 300 feet, and it was liable to 'hogging' and 'sagging'." This is the major reason why the naval industry turned to iron and steel in the 1850s. The largest wooden ships ever built were the six-masted schooners, nine of which were launched between 1900 and 1909. These ships were so long that they required diagonal iron strapping for support; they "snaked," or visibly undulated, as they passed through the waves, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly, and they were only used on short coastal hauls because they were unsafe in deep water.

John J. Rockwell, the designer of the first of this class, confessed that "six masters were not practical. They were too long for wood construction." Yet the ark was over 100 feet longer than the longest six-master, the 329 foot U.S.S. Wyoming, and it had to endure the most severe conditions ever encountered while trasporting the most critically important cargo ever hauled...

So it should be clear by now why... people somehow see a "problem" in building of the ark.

Resource: National Center for Science Education (ncseweb.org), The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark, by Robert Moore

Click to expand...

Great information, thanks.

It should also be noted that the U.S.S. Wyoming at 329 feet was considered a structural failure.

Reason dictates that the idea of a man not terribly experienced in ship-building, working with relatively primative tools, building a wooden ship over 100 feet longer than the best attempts of the military, and being successful must be dismissed as fable.

Uphill Battle said:

I've already stated my postion on those.

Click to expand...

The position that despite cross-confirmation from both radiometric and non-radiometric systems, that were you to accept what can't reasonably denied it would interfere with your preferred belief system and therefore must be categorically dismissed with or without argument?

Beastt said:

The position that despite cross-confirmation from both radiometric and non-radiometric systems, that were you to accept what can't reasonably denied it would interfere with your preferred belief system and therefore must be categorically dismissed with or without argument?

Click to expand...

cross- confirmation you call it, but it simply isn't so. They depend on each other, not corroborate eacho other.

Uphill Battle said:

cross- confirmation you call it, but it simply isn't so. They depend on each other, not corroborate eacho other.

Click to expand...

oh? how does plate tectonics depend on radiometric dating? hmm?

RightWingGirl said:

ChrisPelletier--I can try to answer the animal distribution question for you if you are interested.

Click to expand...

I'm interested. Please addresss why we only find Marsupials in Australia, the South East Asian islands and the Western Hemisphere, Monotromes only in Australia, Dodos were found only on Mauritius, Lemurs on Madagascar, etc.

caravelair said:

oh? how does plate tectonics depend on radiometric dating? hmm?

Click to expand...

how do plate tectonics comfirm radiometiric dating? hmmm?

they only do if, as usual, you start with your usual set of assumptions.

assumptions that I do not adhere to, as you do.

Uphill Battle said:

cross- confirmation you call it, but it simply isn't so. They depend on each other, not corroborate eacho other.

Click to expand...

This simply isn't true. When a specimen is unearthed and samples are taken from it for multiple forms of radiometric dating and the results documented, then soil samples are taken from the location of the original find, additional specimens are unearthed in like proximity and strata and subjected to faunal dating, compared to archeological finds and all independently arrive at the same age, that is cross-confirmation. Each of the dating techniques produces the same date range and does so without comparison to the others. When all of the results are documented and compared, they confirm one another.

You can't claim they rely on each other when each dating technique arrives at the same general conclusion and does so independently.

Uphill Battle said:

I've already stated my postion on those.

Click to expand...

Yes, and you're wrong. Explain in detail how independent lines of evidence for dating "depend" on eachother. Is it a conspiracy? The first modern geologists picked a number out of a hat and ran with it? How are ice varves and dendrochronology and supernova measurement causally related in such a way as to make them look old but actually be young?

Any fundamental change in constants would either result in the desctruction of the Universe or are detectible.

Uphill Battle said:

nor do you, to demonstrate an old earth. You would probably look at the same cliffs, and declare it to look old. Appearence is subjective.

Click to expand...

But all I need is one demonstrably old feature (the Grand Canyon?). OEG can account for any number of young features as long as old features also exist.

In any case, I have done entirely too much talking and you entirely too little listening for me to worry about this any more. I think the vacuity of your position has been amply demonstrated.

TeddyKGB said:

But all I need is one demonstrably old feature (the Grand Canyon?). OEG can account for any number of young features as long as old features also exist.

In any case, I have done entirely too much talking and you entirely too little listening for me to worry about this any more. I think the vacuity of your position has been amply demonstrated.

Click to expand...

The Grand canyon does not seem demonstratby old to me.

Uphill Battle said:

The Grand canyon does not seem demonstratby old to me.

Click to expand...

To members of The Flat Earth Society, the Earth doesn't seem demonstrably spherical. I tend to think it's reasonable to believe that this has far more to do with the perceptions they allow themselves than the appearance of the Earth.

Beastt said:

To members of The Flat Earth Society, the Earth doesn't seem demonstrably spherical. I tend to think it's reasonable to believe that this has far more to do with the perceptions they allow themselves than the appearance of the Earth.

Click to expand...

again though, appearance is subjective, isn't it?

No, the Earth has been shown to be spherical. What do you think astronauts see when they're up there, a square?
"Appearance is subjective" is a stupid way to look at the world. That leads to ideas like spontaneous generation. I guess flies really do come from rotted meat since that is what they appear to do! Scientist don't go on subjective appearances. They take measurements. They don't look at a cliff and say "oh, it looks old so it is old!" They take samples and measure them in a lab.
BTW, if a YEC "archaeologist" actually finds the ark, what method would they use to date it? If scientists were to carbon date it to 4,000yrs, would the YEC's rejoice at the discovery or still complain on how inaccurate carbon dating is?
I can see it now:
YEC: "See! The dating on the ark shows it is around 4,000 years old!"
Scientist: "I though you believed that carbon dating was flawed and inaccurate?"
YEC: "Well, um... Now we have something to compare it to, the ark!"
Scientist: "So it's okay to use carbon dating as long as it fits your time frame? What about the fact that C14 dating has been correlated with dendrochronolgy, going back as far as 14,000 years or so?"
YEC: "TEH BIBLE IS RIGHT AND CORRECT AND TEH WERD OF GAWD!"
Scientis: Okay. *scoots chair away*

BananaSlug said:

No, the Earth has been shown to be spherical. What do you think astronauts see when they're up there, a square?
"Appearance is subjective" is a stupid way to look at the world. That leads to ideas like spontaneous generation. I guess flies really do come from rotted meat since that is what they appear to do! Scientist don't go on subjective appearances. They take measurements. They don't look at a cliff and say "oh, it looks old so it is old!" They take samples and measure them in a lab.
BTW, if a YEC "archaeologist" actually finds the ark, what method would they use to date it? If scientists were to carbon date it to 4,000yrs, would the YEC's rejoice at the discovery or still complain on how inaccurate carbon dating is?
I can see it now:
YEC: "See! The dating on the ark shows it is around 4,000 years old!"
Scientist: "I though you believed that carbon dating was flawed and inaccurate?"
YEC: "Well, um... Now we have something to compare it to, the ark!"
Scientist: "So it's okay to use carbon dating as long as it fits your time frame? What about the fact that C14 dating has been correlated with dendrochronolgy, going back as far as 14,000 years or so?"
YEC: "TEH BIBLE IS RIGHT AND CORRECT AND TEH WERD OF GAWD!"
Scientis: Okay. *scoots chair away*

Click to expand...

I love the use of hypothetical conversations.

Apperance is subjective. The adage, beauty is in the eye of the beholder holds alot of truth. You look at a painting and hate it, I look at it and love it. subjective. The same goes for looking at the earth, if you are talking about apperance. I look at it, and it DOES NOT look billions of years old. but it is a subjective observation. I never once claimed it was scientific.

That's totally different. Appreciating beauty is totally different from determining age based on appearance. That's why the term is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Go up to an older lady and guess her age based on appearance.