Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

Zzyzx and I have agreed to do a head-to-head debate on the Biblical flood.

The question for us to debate:
Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

Time out. Hold your horses. 2 minute break.

I would ask that you suspend judgement on the FM for now. Also please allow time for me to present the information fully. As you have realized, this is a huge topic. Precisely because it touches on so many areas.

Also, since my time is extremely limited right now, I cannot present massive amounts of information in a short period of time. Though I have already presented some information to explain the FM and to provide some supporting evidence, there will be more.

All I ask is that you simply ask questions where things are unclear and I'll slowly try to answer them. You might've noticed that I actually do not post to the debate topics very frequently on the forum. But, I do try to fully engage with the participants of the threads. And I value the quality of the posts so I try to take my time constructing them. When people read this thread in the future, they really won't care how long it took for the conversation to occur. But, it will matter how well crafted the posts are. This is the perspective I'm coming from in answering all posts.

So, I ask that we take this thread slowly and methodically. I realize that as I answer more questions, it will generate even more questions. I also realize that what I present is counter to many areas of science influenced by evolutionary thinking. But, I'm willing to tackle all those issues.

[Zzyzx]

I would ask that you suspend judgement on the FM for now. Also please allow time for me to present the information fully. As you have realized, this is a huge topic. Precisely because it touches on so many areas.

I have difficulty “suspending judgment on the FM”; however, I will hold off with the questions for a bit (if I can contain myself). Instead, I give you a “two minute break” while I present some information.

I agree that this is a HUGE subject, so I will condense and summarize. However, I am prepared to explain in detail anything that is unclear and to cite reasons or evidence to support what I state as factual.

My concept of the Earth is straightforward. The Earth exists in a form that we can observe and measure. Processes occur on and within the Earth that shape and change its surface – gradually (in terms of human lifetimes). The Earth surface, its continents and ocean basins have changed over time, mountains have formed and have been eroded; the atmosphere has been warmer and it has been cooler than at present; continents move slightly and slowly with respect to one another (at a rate of movement approximating the rate of growth of human fingernails); streams erode their valleys and drainage basins.

Given millions of years, these changes are sufficient to account for changes in continental positions, climate, topography, etc. Anyone interested in these subjects can find abundant evidence with Internet searches – particularly interesting might be the topic “Plate Tectonics”.

I see no evidence to suggest that the Earth was radically different a few thousand years ago, that its atmosphere was “a blanket of water”, that “mountain ranges did not exist” or that the surface of the spherical planet was “flooded to the tops of mountains”. The massive changes in very short times that are suggested by apologists for the Biblical flood and other tales from Genesis do not square with what we know of nature – but require a whole series of “miracles” or “divine interventions” or setting aside the real processes of nature and the Earth – ignoring what we have learned about the Earth in favor of theories designed to support fanciful Bronze Age tales about invisible beings and nature-defying events.

Proponents of such theories have the difficult assignment of providing evidence to verify their claims of that the Earth was radically different are credible and valid. The ONLY objective of such non-scientific theories is, IMO, to attempt to “prove” that the biblical flood could have occurred – and the “explanations” involve even more departures from nature and from what we can observe or learn about the Earth (in the real world).

I KNOW that certain geological processes are occurring on the Earth at the present time because I have observed and measured them. For instance, streams (flowing water within channels on continental surfaces) erode their valleys and drainage basins, transport sediments, and deposit sediments when water velocity decreases.

I see no reason (no evidence) to suggest that the process itself is any different now than it was in the past. Stream erosion is adequate to explain most sculpturing of valleys and landscape features of the continental landscapes – PROVIDED adequate time for the processes to produce the effects.

I do not accept artificially applied limitations placed upon the age of the Earth UNLESS convergence of evidence mandates that the limit is valid, accurate, and true. Affixing a “limit” in order to meet some religion’s claims from ancient literature is NOT valid IMO. Those who prefer dogma over evidence are welcome to their “Young Earth” theories, which, IMO, should remain in churches and in personal, private beliefs (and not be advertised to the public without evidence that the limit is actually valid).

As an example of the inaccuracy (or impossibility) of the Flood Model; the proposal that water existed in vast “interconnected caverns ten miles below the Earth surface” encounters great conflicts with what is known about conditions of the Earth’s interior. First, there is the matter of pressure on the roof of the supposed caverns – a simple calculation yields:

Weight of common crustal rock = 2.65 specific gravity (compared to water) X 62.4 pounds per cubic foot for water = 165.36 pounds per cubic foot of common crustal rock X 52800 feet per ten miles (the proposed depth) = 8,731,009 pounds per square foot pressure. Thus, each square foot of the “roof” of the proposed gigantic caverns must support approximately nine million pounds.

Next is the matter of temperature. The geothermal gradient refers to an increase in temperature that is encountered (actually measured in deep mines and bore holes) with increasing depth in the Earth. Deep mines are hot, very deep drilling encounters temperatures beyond the melting point of steel. As a general rule the geothermal gradient of the upper crust is about fifteen degrees Fahrenheit per 1000 feet (beginning at about 60 degrees average ground temperature a few feet below continental surfaces near sea level). Ten miles of increase beyond that produces temperatures in the range of 800 degrees F.

Yes, there are unknowns in our understanding of the nature of the Earth. We cannot “prove” that huge caverns full of water never existed ten miles below the surface (i.e., proving non-existence is a foolish pursuit). However, we can state that no evidence has been provided that demonstrates that such caverns full of water existed – and show that physical characteristics of the Earth make it unlikely that such “cavities” existed. Those who propose their existence have the obligation to provide a convergence of evidence to support their theory (and dispute the convergence of evidence from many fields of scientific study).

I propose that we go on to simpler matters regarding the literal or non-literal flood, but keep open the conflict of physical theories for later discussion if necessary.


Point #3 The Ark

Biblical accounts claim that the ark was 300 cubits long, 75 cubits wide and 50 cubits high and evidently contained three decks and one window. The exact size of a cubit is unknown, but conservative estimates approximate 17.5 inches.

If the cubit is approximately seventeen and a half inches, the length of the supposedly literal ark would be approximately 450 feet, the width approximately 110 feet and the height approximately 75 feet. That exceeds the largest known wooden ship ever built, even thousands of years later. Structural limitations of wood as a shipbuilding material are well understood by marine engineers – the people who engage in shipbuilding. Information is readily available with an Internet search.

The largest wooden ships known by actual historical records were about 300 feet long – only two-thirds the proposed size of the ark. They were nine-masted schooners of the 1800s – ships that were too fragile for open ocean sailing and which were, therefore, restricted to coastal routes – ships constructed using iron straps (which were not available to ark builders) – and ships which were said to leak badly and require constant bailing (quite a chore for eight people for months).

Yet, the ark is proposed to be half again as large as the largest wooden ships ever constructed, built by a few people thousands of years earlier during an era when ships were much, much smaller. How was that possible?

Even at that impossibly large size, the ark would contain less than three and a half acres of floor space on three decks. Calculations:110 feet wide x 450 feet long = 49,500 square feet per deck x 3 decks = 148,500 square feet total / 43,560 square feet (one acre) = 3.409 (less than three and a half acres).

And, the ark would be ventilated by ONE window according to “god’s building directions”. That should have provided an interesting environment for millions of animals.

It does NOT sound reasonable to contain every animal on the face of the Earth in twos or sevens (depending on whether they are “clean” or “unclean”), to keep them for months, and to store all the food necessary – in less than three acres of floor space.

It takes a very creative imagination to visualize or accept the ark as being literally a boat that held all the world’s animals, crewed by four men (at least one of which was supposedly 600 years old) and four women, afloat for months, feeding tens of thousands or millions of animals.

It seems to make a lot more sense to acknowledge that the ark is figurative – not literal.

[otseng]

Evidence of a young Earth/Solar System

Earth's magnetic field
The Earth's magnetic field is rapidly decreasing.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcript ... netic.html
"Today something very strange is going on with the Earth's magnetic field: its strength is rapidly decreasing, so fast that at the current rate it will last only into the next millennium."

Young comets
http://casonline.org/focalpoint/0700.html

Evolutionary thinking tells people the solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago but the oldest comets in our solar system appear to have orbital periods only a few thousand years. In other words, comets only revolve around the sun only so many times because the solar activity propels off so much matter every time the comet makes a revolution around the sun and this is the reason we call them short period comets. (Periods of thousands of years is very short compared to the idea the solar system is 4.5 billion years old.) Comets are believed to be made of ice and dust and are also referred as dirty snowballs. Eventually, as the comet travels around the sun it will run out of material and dissipate or break into pieces altogether. If these are the facts about comets then there should not be any short period comets left in our solar system if the solar system has been here for billions of years.

Hypberbolic comets
All hyperbolic comets are seen to leave our solar system. We have not detected any comets originating from outside our solar system.

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/10/13 ... r-a-comet/
"Comet Swan has a hyperbolic trajectory that has untied it from the solar system- Comet Swan is now bound for the stars."

http://nai.nasa.gov/astrobio/astrobio_d ... fm?ID=1865
"However, while the solar system ejects comets, we have never detected a comet entering the solar system on a hyperbolic orbit."

Mercury
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/ja ... .As.r.html

Thermal models of Merucry indicate that the iron core should have cooled and solidified long ago. This is something of a problem, as Mercury has a magnetic field, which requires at least part of the core to be liquid iron.

However, they don't quite explain the very high density that Mercury has. I think that the most successful model for explaining Mercury's density, at the moment, is probably the impact theory, which postulates that Mercury was stripped of much of its crust by a giant impact, early in the history of the Solar System.

Venus
http://www.nyas.org/publications/scienc ... _07_93.pdf

But there is something quite strange, almost unnatural, about the Venusian craters. Nearly all of them appear pristine, as if planted there recently. Indeed, virtually every geological feature of the planet appears brand-new, even though the surface is quite old.

Planetary rings
Planetary rings can not be stable for more than 10-100 million years. Yet, we find them on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... omers_say/
"Among the most surprising findings is that parts of Saturn's innermost ring -- the D ring -- have grown dimmer since the Voyager spacecraft flew by the planet in 1981, and a piece of the D ring has moved 125 miles inward toward Saturn."

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ ... l&edu=high
"Jupiter's rings are different - they are very dark and difficult to see. They are made up of small bits of dust."

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/uranus.htm
"Uranus' rings are distinctly different from those at Jupiter and Saturn. The outermost epsilon ring is composed mostly of ice boulders several feet across. A very tenuous distribution of fine dust also seems to be spread throughout the ring system."

http://pds-rings.seti.org/neptune/
"The existence of arcs is very difficult to understand because the laws of motion would predict that arcs spread out into a uniform ring over very short timescales."

Faint Young Sun Paradox
The_Paradox_of_the_Faint_Young_Sun

Astrophysicists are in general agreement that as star like the Sun ages, the fusion processes at its core gradually intensify. Looking backwards, this means that around 4 billion years ago, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today.

This in turn means that Earth should have been completely covered with ice for most of its history. The paradox arises from the fact that all geological evidence shows that there was plenty of liquid water as far back as about 4 billion years ago.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercur ... radox.html

As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 °C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Solar Neutrino Problem
If the sun produces energy entirely through nuclear fusion, then a certain amount of neutrinos should be emitted. However, only a third of the predicted amount have been measured.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2524466
"Nuclear physics predicts that, assuming we understand stellar physics, we should see neutrinos streaming from the Sun at a particular rate. Unfortunately current observations using neutrino telescopes show this not to be the case, in fact the actual number observed turns out to be about a third of that predicted by the current standard solar models (SSMs)."

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0106/20sno/

The results were surprising: the experiment detected only about one-third the neutrinos expected based on models of nuclear fusion in the Sun. Later experiments conducted elsewhere also found far fewer neutrinos than predicted. This meant that either the models for nuclear fusion in the Sun were wrong, or that something was happening to the neutrinos between their creations deep in the Sun and their arrival at the Earth.

Unlike past experiments, the SNO detector is sensitive to not only the neutrinos generated by the nuclear fusion process, known as electron neutrinos, but two other types, called mu and tau neutrinos. The SNO data showed that the total number of neutrinos detected was equal to the number of electron neutrinos predicted to come from the Sun. Thus, some of the neutrinos changed, or oscillated, to the other neutrino types during transit from the Sun to the Earth.

While the results are a vindication for solar physicists, the results raise new problems for particle physicists, who can¹t yet explain why neutrino oscillation takes place.

Instead of proposing that neutrinos somehow get changed during its travel to Earth, it could also be that the Sun's energy is not entirely from fusion, but also from gravitational collapse. If this is true, then the Sun cannot be very old.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981A&A...102....8R
"It is proposed that a part of the energy emitted by the sun and other stars is due to a gravitational energy release (L/GN/), induced by nuclear energy generation processes."

[otseng]

The forum was hacked this morning and all the posts got corrupted. I was able to restore to a backup from Aug 9, so all posts after that got deleted. However, I save all my posts so I'll be reposting my entries since then. So, from here on, some of my posts might be referring to non-existent posts.

[otseng]

2) Are you fairly sure that dinosaurs and humans existed on the Earth at the same time? Why? Are you open to consider that they did not?

In the FM, there'd be no way for the dinosaurs and humans to not exist at the same time.

3) Please explain how “Earth time” is different from “Space time”. Is there evidence to support the idea that two time “systems” exist?

This could yet be another long rabbit trail.

I'll quickly say this. Einstein showed that there is no such thing as absolute time. Time is only relative to observers. Time is affected by how fast one moves and also by gravitational strength. So, time will be different between a person sitting in an airplane and a person sitting in the airport. Also, a clock on top of a mountain will be different than a clock at the bottom of a mountain.

http://www.npl.co.uk/publications/einst ... _time.html

Two clocks initially ticking at exactly the same rate will change when one is taken to the top of a mountain. Someone in the valley will see the mountain clock to be running fast, while someone on the mountain will see the valley clock to be running slow.

So, unless objects A and B are moving at the exact same speed and experience the same gravitational strength, their time systems will be different.

That's the quick answer, but it gets more complicated than this. More is explained in the Is the universe bounded or unbounded? thread. If you wish, I can go more into detail about it in this thread.

4) Are geologists, geophysicists, anthropologists, physicists, paleobotanists all WRONG when the conclusions drawn from their studies are different from the accounts in Genesis?

I'm not sure if I can answer this diplomatically. But, everyone is entitled to believe what they think the evidence leads them to believe.

5) Is there ANY chance that the accounts in Genesis are wrong?

Certainly. But, let's for the purpose of this thread assume that the Bible doesn't mention a flood. Let's go strictly with the evidence. I likewise will not use the Bible as evidence for this thread.

6) Is a book written with the level of understanding characteristic of the level of knowledge of people living thousands of years ago – one book – RIGHT and all disputing evidence and conclusions WRONG if they disagree with the book’s pronouncements (which are offered with no independent verification)?

Same as 5.

[Zzyzx]

.
After the Flood --- err, after the Hack.

Perhaps this thread has benefited by being set back a month. The seven pages and seventy posts that were lost were devoted almost exclusively to “Flood Model vs. Standard Geology” rather than to matters related more directly to whether the flood was literal.

I have started a thread in General Chat entitled “Flood Model” where those arguments can be presented in as much detail as desired without affecting this thread.

We had briefly discussed other matters, such as the “Fish Problem”, wherein I pointed out that most fresh water fish do not tolerate salt water and vice versa. The response was to cite a few anadromous species and to suggest that pre-flood fish might have been adapted to both fresh and salt water and that fish had evolved very rapidly in the few thousand years since the supposed flood.

That argument was not backed by any evidence that fish a few thousand years ago were actually more adaptable to various environments – or that fish had evolved rapidly since (which seems to be a strange argument to be made by a creationist). Surely there is an explanation.

We had also briefly touched on the “Ark Problem” in which the supposed size of the ark was pointed out to have exceeded the known structural limits of wooden ship construction – by a factor of 50%. The largest known wooden ships to have been actually constructed were 300 feet long rather than 450, were too fragile to sail open oceans, and required constant bailing. The response was to cite other legends of larger-than-life ships to support the legend of the ark – and to suggest that people two thousand years ago knew “secrets” of wooden ship construction that have not been known since to marine architects and ship builders.

Another problem with the ark relates to its construction. According to the tale four men and their wives cut the timber, hauled the logs, hewed the timbers and built a ship one and a half football fields long and as high as a five story building – without machinery of any kind. That seems to strain credibility. There must be an explanation for this too.
.

[otseng]

I have started a thread in General Chat entitled “Flood Model” where those arguments can be presented in as much detail as desired without affecting this thread.

I respectfully decline using another thread to debate the Flood Model. I believe it is entirely appropriate to argue for the Flood Model and against the SGM here.

We had briefly discussed other matters, such as the “Fish Problem”, wherein I pointed out that most fresh water fish do not tolerate salt water and vice versa. The response was to cite a few anadromous species and to suggest that pre-flood fish might have been adapted to both fresh and salt water and that fish had evolved very rapidly in the few thousand years since the supposed flood.

What I had posted on this is below:

Let’s discuss how fish survived the flood. It is indisputable that salt water fish do not tolerate fresh water and vice versa (with few exceptions). In addition, many fish have very specific habitat requirements regarding oxygen levels, temperature, turbidity, nutrients, flow velocity, light conditions, etc.

I would answer this with microevolution. Fish have evolved to specific niches. We do have examples of fish that survive in both saltwater and freshwater (eg Salmon, White perch, American Eel, Blueback Herring, Pacific Lamprey, White Sturgeon, Steelhead, Cutthroat Trout, Smelt, Striped Bass). So, it is possible that fishes could've had the ability to survive in a wider environment in the past.

That argument was not backed by any evidence that fish a few thousand years ago were actually more adaptable to various environments – or that fish had evolved rapidly since (which seems to be a strange argument to be made by a creationist). Surely there is an explanation.

I don't see why it would be strange for me to bring up microevolution.

We had also briefly touched on the “Ark Problem” in which the supposed size of the ark was pointed out to have exceeded the known structural limits of wooden ship construction – by a factor of 50%.

I would disagree with the factor of 50%. I had posted this before:

There are records of wooden ships built that approach 450 feet in length.

In 210 BC, a 420 ft catamaran was built.
http://www.4to40.com/recordbook/index.a ... egory=land
"The giant ship Tessarakonteres, a three banked catamaran galley built for Ptolemy IV 210 BC in Alexanderia, Egypt, measured 128 m 420 ft."

And Zheng He's ship was 130 m (425 feet) in length.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/ ... tship.html
"Zheng He's own ship was a technological marvel; by some accounts it was more than 130 m long, almost 60 m wide and sailed under the power of nine masts. Nobody had ever built a wooden sailing ship that big before—nor have they since."

So, it could've been theoretically possible to build a ship of that size with only wood. And it's interesting that these large wooden ships built at different eras and by different cultures all basically have the same length.

According to the tale four men and their wives cut the timber, hauled the logs, hewed the timbers and built a ship one and a half football fields long and as high as a five story building – without machinery of any kind.

I don't see how you would know that they didn't use machinery of any kind. It would be like saying the Egyptian Pyramids were constructed without using any machinery.

[Zzyzx]

.

I have started a thread in General Chat entitled “Flood Model” where those arguments can be presented in as much detail as desired without affecting this thread.

I respectfully decline using another thread to debate the Flood Model. I believe it is entirely appropriate to argue for the Flood Model and against the SGM here.

I respectfully decline to further discuss introductory level geology in this thread. After about 100 posts and ten pages the attempt to discredit geology in favor of the thinly supported “Flood Model” has evidently not been adequate – since an effort is being made to continue its discussion.

I am willing to consider teaching an introductory course in Earth Science on line if there is sufficient sincere interest. However, debating the topic on and on in an environment completely devoid of understanding of basic concepts is pointless.

What would be the response if a complete computer novice announces to a group of professional programmers that they are all wrong and he has the right answers – then begins to talk about programming in a way that leaves no doubt that he knows nothing about computers or programming?

Of course, the novice may be quite certain that he “has seen the light” and that he knows exactly how to go about programming as he read in an old programming book. He has never attempted to apply his theories – and has not discovered that they do not work at all.

Is there a chance that a “messiah” could walk in and know all about programming without having studied the matter? Perhaps. There are reports that of an idiot savant that played classical music near perfectly the first time he played a piano.

A fundamental flaw in the Flood Model is that it is a theory set forth to “prove” that the flood could have been literal if one makes enough assumptions. It is promoted to people who do not understand Earth science, geology, hydrology, etc.

Truth is likely to be discovered when conclusions come AFTER research is done, NOT before.

We had briefly discussed other matters, such as the “Fish Problem”, wherein I pointed out that most fresh water fish do not tolerate salt water and vice versa. The response was to cite a few anadromous species and to suggest that pre-flood fish might have been adapted to both fresh and salt water and that fish had evolved very rapidly in the few thousand years since the supposed flood.

What I had posted on this is below:

Let’s discuss how fish survived the flood. It is indisputable that salt water fish do not tolerate fresh water and vice versa (with few exceptions). In addition, many fish have very specific habitat requirements regarding oxygen levels, temperature, turbidity, nutrients, flow velocity, light conditions, etc.

I would answer this with microevolution. Fish have evolved to specific niches. We do have examples of fish that survive in both saltwater and freshwater (eg Salmon, White perch, American Eel, Blueback Herring, Pacific Lamprey, White Sturgeon, Steelhead, Cutthroat Trout, Smelt, Striped Bass). So, it is possible that fishes could've had the ability to survive in a wider environment in the past.

That argument was not backed by any evidence that fish a few thousand years ago were actually more adaptable to various environments – or that fish had evolved rapidly since (which seems to be a strange argument to be made by a creationist). Surely there is an explanation.

I don't see why it would be strange for me to bring up microevolution.

I think it is strange that NO evidence is cited to verify that fish were actually able to “survive in a wider environment in the past”. Yes, it is possible. It may also be possible that they had less tolerance. You have stated a preference as though it was an explanation. Please document your evidence.

We had also briefly touched on the “Ark Problem” in which the supposed size of the ark was pointed out to have exceeded the known structural limits of wooden ship construction – by a factor of 50%.

I would disagree with the factor of 50%. I had posted this before:

There are records of wooden ships built that approach 450 feet in length.

In 210 BC, a 420 ft catamaran was built.
http://www.4to40.com/recordbook/index.a ... egory=land
"The giant ship Tessarakonteres, a three banked catamaran galley built for Ptolemy IV 210 BC in Alexanderia, Egypt, measured 128 m 420 ft."

And Zheng He's ship was 130 m (425 feet) in length.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/ ... tship.html
"Zheng He's own ship was a technological marvel; by some accounts it was more than 130 m long, almost 60 m wide and sailed under the power of nine masts. Nobody had ever built a wooden sailing ship that big before—nor have they since."

So, it could've been theoretically possible to build a ship of that size with only wood. And it's interesting that these large wooden ships built at different eras and by different cultures all basically have the same length.

As I have pointed out previously (more than once), citing myths that cannot be substantiated to support a myth that cannot be substantiated is circular reasoning. There is no evidence that such craft existed in reality. Just as there is no evidence that the ark actually existed or was 450 feet long as claimed. The longest actual wooden ships known were 300 feet long – the ark is claimed to be 50% longer – with NO evidence that such a thing was actually true.

Notice that the Golden Gate bridge could not be built of wood, nor could the Sears Tower, or the Saturn V – nor could a 450 foot long ark. Each of those is beyond the structural limitations of wood – which is well understood by people who actually build such objects (but is evidently not understood by theologians and creationists).

Even if it could be shown that building a super-large ship of wood “could’ve been theoretically possible” that is a LONG way from demonstrating that such a ship was ACTUALLY built. It is a nice yarn.

According to the tale four men and their wives cut the timber, hauled the logs, hewed the timbers and built a ship one and a half football fields long and as high as a five story building – without machinery of any kind.

I don't see how you would know that they didn't use machinery of any kind. It would be like saying the Egyptian Pyramids were constructed without using any machinery.

Anthropologists, people who actually study ancient civilizations, maintain that 6000 years ago humans did not even use as basic a “machine” as the wheel.

The oldest wheel found in archeological excavations was discovered in what was Mesopotamia and is believed to be over fifty-five hundred years old.
http://inventors.about.com/od/wstartinv ... /wheel.htm

A construction management study (testing) carried out by the firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall in association with Mark Lehner and other Egyptologists, estimates that the total project required an average workforce of 14,567 people and a peak workforce of 40,000. Without the use of pulleys, wheels, or iron tools, they surmise the Great Pyramid was completed from start to finish in approximately 10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyra ... n_theories

What machines, exactly, do you propose were used by Noah and family?

Please explain how Noah and family could cut, transport, hue, place, align, secure the vast amount of “gopher wood” required to build a ship as long as one and a half football fields and as high as a five story building -- using only muscle power, no iron, no wheels, and none of the tools of shipbuilders even as far back as the Middle Ages.

A quick calculation of the volume of wood required for six inch thick sides of such a vessel, without considering ends or bottom would be approximately six million cubic feet of wood. If "gopher wood" weighs about 45 pounds per cubic foot (a reasonable amount for average wood -- some is much heavier and some is lighter), that would equal about 280 million pounds. Quite a lot for four men and their wives. Check my calculations, I may be off a few million pounds.

It is beginning to appear as though another “miracle” will be required to “explain” the ark.
.

[Zzyzx]

.
Let’s talk about the oceans themselves.

Where did the water come from? It takes one billion cubic miles of water to flood the Earth to the elevation of Mt. Everest. If the claim is made that it is “only” necessary to flood the Earth to the top of Mt. Ararat (because mountains “were lower then”) the elevation is still 16,000 feet which would require something on the order of half a billion cubic miles of new water.

According to Genesis, it rained for 960 hours. To produce “only 16,000 feet” to flood Mt. Ararat, would require a rainfall rate of something in the vicinity of twelve feet per hour on every square foot of Earth surface including oceans. If it is claimed that half the water came from deep caverns (yet to be shown to exist or to have existed), that would require a quarter billion cubic miles of rainwater and a rainfall rate of six feet per hour. The Earth’s wettest climates have only about thirty feet of rainfall PER YEAR. Six feet per hour is a veritable waterfall on every square foot of the Earth’s surface.

If continents were rapidly shoved apart by water pressure and if comet material was ejected from the Earth at that time (as has been postulated) the world’s oceans would be terribly violent. Material supposedly ejected from the Earth requires a velocity 25,022 mph or about Mach 37 (that is how fast an object must be traveling to leave the pull of the Earth’s gravity – a number well known to those who orbit satellites and who plan space missions). Would the surface of the ocean perhaps be a bit of a hostile environment when materials were moving through at 25,000 mph?

Was all the new water fresh or salt water? What is the evidence? Speaking of salt, the Earth’s salt beds are formed when water slowly dissolves salt from near surface rocks and deposits it as an evaporite (as in Great Salt Lake and Bonneville Salt Flats). Many thick strata are known to exist deep within the Earth’s sedimentary strata from earlier periods of accumulation and are being mined regularly. How were those salt strata deposited as a result of a year of flooding?

Another factor that would render the oceans terribly inhospitable is the projected movement of continents (caused by “gushing” water according to creationist theory).The distance from New York to London via a great circle course is 3500 miles, which means that to fulfill the requirement of producing that separation distance during the one year of the supposed flood requires that the continents move apart ten miles per day. Would that likely produce any violence within the oceans?

Water from deep within the Earth would be very hot – calculated to be about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. What would be the effect on aquatic plants and animals (and all flooded land plants) of large volumes of such water being added to the oceans very rapidly?

And the ark sailed merrily along containing every animal on the face of the Earth. Every individual of the pairs had to survive or the animals became extinct.

Does that make any sense?
.

[Zzyzx]

.
Let’s talk about an olive leaf. Supposedly a dove flew away from the ark, found an olive leaf and returned. A couple questions arise:

1. Where did the leaf come from? Olive trees and all other plants had been submerged for a year in ocean water, vast sedimentation and erosion occurred, mountains formed, continents moved and an olive tree survived to provide a leaf?????

2. Is returning with a leaf typical dove behavior in the real world? If not, what would account for it happening as described?
.