Originally posted by Schmidt1989
Haha this is a joke. Assuming that natural formation were a ship, surely it's too small to fit every living and ever-have-lived creature.
Edit to add: You want a solemn moment? Lie on your back this summer and look at the stars. Nothing calms the mind more. (nor boggles it for that matter! )
[edit on 3/3/2010 by Schmidt1989]
Originally posted by nazukeoya
1) By the way, in reference to Noah not being able to carry all of the animals on the Ark:
Scripture clearly states in Genesis 6:19-20 that God sent 2 of every kind to Noah to be put on the Ark. That means that in terms of dogs, Noah did not take 2 german shepards and 2 poodles. God sent Noah 2 dogs, and variation happened again after the flood.
It seems to me that God programmed the ability of genetic variation and adaptation into every animal to prepare for the flood. God would have the necessary foresight to do so.
2) For those of you arguing that Noah couldn't of gotten all of the animals:
Genesis 6:20 clearly states that the animals came to Noah and Noah did not go out and get them. Clearly God directed the animals to Noah. I'm sure Noah had his daily planner full with other things, such as BUILDING A BIG BOAT.
It is estimated that the ark could easily have survived even the largest of ocean waves
the vast majority of scientific evidence points to a global, catastrophic flood in Earth's past.
6. Implications of a Flood
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
Where did the Flood water come from, and where did it go? Several people have proposed answers to these questions, but none which consider all the implications of their models. A few of the commonly cited models are addressed below.
Vapor canopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.
* How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
* If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
* If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
* A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
* Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.
Hydroplate. Walt Brown's model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.
* How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
* Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
* Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.
Comet. Kent Hovind proposed that the Flood water came from a comet which broke up and fell on the earth. Again, this has the problem of the heat from the gravitational potential energy. The water would be steam by the time it reached the surface of the earth.
Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]
* The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
* Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
* Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
* Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]
New ocean basins. Most flood models (including those above, possibly excepting Hovind's) deal with the water after the flood by proposing that it became our present oceans. The earth's terrain, according to this model, was much, much flatter during the Flood, and through cataclysms, the mountains were pushed up and the ocean basins lowered. (Brown proposes that the cataclysms were caused by the crust sliding around on a cushion of water; Whitcomb & Morris don't give a cause.)
* How could such a change be effected? To change the density and/or temperature of at least a quarter of the earth's crust fast enough to raise and lower the ocean floor in a matter of months would require mechanisms beyond any proposed in any of the flood models.
* Why are most sediments on high ground? Most sediments are carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediments there. Baumgardner's own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins [Baumgardner, 1994], so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick. [Poldervaart, 1955]
* Where's the evidence? The water draining from the continents would have produced tremendous torrents. There is evidence of similar flooding in the Scablands of Washington state (from the draining of a lake after the breaking of an ice dam) and on the far western floor of the Mediterranean Sea (from the ocean breaking through the Straits of Gibralter). Why is such evidence not found worldwide?
* How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of the earth's topography, compressed into just a few months, would have produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth. The aftershocks alone would have been devastating for years afterwards.
How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.
Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark? According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.
It is also worth pointing out that the number of extinct species is undoubtedly greater than the number of known extinct species. New genera of dinosaurs have been discovered at a nearly constant rate for more than a century, and there's no indication that the rate of discovery will fall off in the near future.
In conclusion, an ark of the size specified in the Bible would not be large enough to carry a cargo of animals and food sufficient to repopulate the earth, especially if animals that are now extinct were required to be aboard.
The Council of the Garden Tomb Association (London) totally refute the claim of Mr Wyatt to have discovered the original Ark of the Covenant or any other biblical artifacts within the boundaries of the area known as the Garden Tomb Jerusalem. Though Mr Wyatt was allowed to dig within this privately owned garden on a number of occasions (the last occasion being the summer of 1991) staff members of the Association observed his progress and entered his excavated shaft. As far as we are aware nothing was ever discovered to support his claims nor have we seen any evidence of biblical artifacts or temple treasures
Ron Wyatt is a person with above average intelligence.
During this first trip, according to his written account, he did not actually get to the site to do any investigation. However, he did manage to turn up a good number of artifacts that he associates with Noah.
Among these are: (1) stone sea anchors that he believes were used by Noah to steer the vessel into the wind, (2) petrified timbers from the Ark that were used as memorials in an Armenian graveyard, (3) a house that Noah built, and (4) on this house stones containing inscriptions which recorded details about the Deluge, (5) a pictograph depicting eight people leaving a large wave of water with a boat perched above it, (6) and the burial place of Noah.
Wyatt says he arrived at the latter conclusion after close study, prayer, and reflection (p.9).
Ron returned to Ararat for the second time in 1979, but prior to going he prayed that an earthquake would split the Ark so he could investigate the interior. Sure enough, according to Wyatt, before he departed he heard on the news that an earthquake had struck eastern Turkey.
When he arrived there, it was split down the middle from bow to stern. When Ron peered into the crack he claimed he saw petrified timbers.
Furthermore, geologists have offered credible explanations as to their probable formation: The next time you are near a swift moving mountain stream observe how the water flows around an exposed rock. Generally you will observe an almost perfect almond shape as the water passes around the rock. This object results from similar action of mud flowing around basement rock.
4. Soil samples indicate the residue of a decayed wooden vessel with sophisticated metals used for bracing. Wyatt shows lab test reports from the Galbraith Laboratories in Knoxville, TN. He interprets these as indicating that a slightly higher carbon content inside the formation indicates that it was once a wooden vessel. He also believes the metal content revealed in these tests indicates that Noah used such metals as aluminum, titanium, and iron!
Rock specimens and soil samples were also tested by geologists Clifford Burdick and John Morris on separate occasions. Thin sections of rock samples were examined with petrographic microscopes and in no case was there any hint of decayed or petrified wood.
They concluded that the elevated elemental carbon levels were due to the presence of calcium carbonate in some of the rocks. The metallic levels were consistent with the ores found in the region.
When in our office several weeks ago--at which time we extensively questioned Ron about his claims--he produced a black rock which he claimed was a ballast stone taken from the formation. According to tests, the rock was manganese dioxide. This again is a mineral fairly common to the region.
When Wyatt paid us a visit to discuss the evidence he had found, he produced a very heavy rock approximately 18 inches in length and about 12 wide. He claims it to be a piece of petrified wood from the deck of the Ark. I looked it over pretty closely, and to my untrained eye it certainly looked like petrified wood. I might even go a step further and say it looked like the wood had been hand-tooled.
My response to Ron was: "If you can prove this came from the formation you may have an Ark on your hands." Ron's reply was that there was a train load of the stuff on the site! We stick by our initial response. If that is indeed petrified wood, and if it can be proven that it came from the "ship", then we may have something.
However, Ron does not seem to understand scientific protocol. He consistently violates the procedures for verification. Right now we do not know where that rock came from. He has had it analyzed by the Galbraith laboratories and the tests indicate that it is silicate replacement.
Ron was offered the free services of Los Alamos National Laboratories who would not only test its mineral content but view a thin section under a microscope. So far, he has not availed himself of the offer.
Dr. John Baumgardner, Dr. John Morris, Dr. Clifford Burdick, and a Turkish geologist have examined the site and have not seen any evidence of petrified wood. Wyatt, however, claims there is trainload of it there. If this is the case, hopefully, Ron will produce more under the proper procedures for excavation.