Comments on: Noah’s Ark: Flooded with Facts

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:03:11 +0000

I was doing some similar maths re the rainfall. If we assume constant rainfall, the water would not rise at a constant rate. The last meter in height would take longer to “fill” than the first meter as the volume in that meter is greater due to the radius being larger.

Anyway to cut a long story short, I calculate that the rain would have fallen (at sea level) at the rate of 30 cm a minute about twice your 725 feet a day estimate.

I also calculate that the force of that rainfall would comfortably offset the buoyancy an ark of the alleged size would have and the ark would be submerged approximately 45 minutes after the rain started.

Shame after all the work that went into building it and rounding up the animals,

By: The Monkey

The Monkey — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:51:55 +0000

Kyle, your point about tsunamis in deep water is absolutely true. If the ark was in deep ocean as a tsunamis passed underneath, the ship would barely recognize. If, however, the land underneath the ark was more shallow, the wave would start to rise.

The tsunamis idea was a wild card, since we can’t tell where the ark was floating. But given the amount of land covered (what if it was floating over the Sahara desert at one point?) and the amount of tectonic activity required to make the flood scenario happened, we included it.

Your point, however, it true. Thank you for pointing it out!

By: Kyle

Kyle — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 05:45:52 +0000

Just a quick note regarding tsunamis. Most people think of tsunamis as these huge crashing waves, but that can only occur in shallow water as a tsunamis approaches shore. In deep water a tsunamis takes the form of a rise in water level that is only a few feet, but extends for 100s of square miles. Ships ride out tsunamis without problems. It is only ships close to shore that are in danger. So tsunamis would would not be a danger to the ark.

By: steven kramar

steven kramar — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:50:35 +0000

ok… thanks for your time.

By: The Monkey

The Monkey — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:32:53 +0000

Steven you’re right, we could go on forever.. and that’s what looks like is starting to happen.

RE: the ark collapsing, I’m sure you know that all known types of wood are somewhat porous. The ark would absorb an amount of water and eventually collapse under the brunt of its own weight once it got going (read: this wouldn’t happen right away; it would initially float). The Bible mentions gopher wood which is not around in today’s day and age to test, so the flood story gets a free pass.

If you’re questioning the validity of carbon dating, we should bring it up with a scientist or someone who’s much more familiar with it than you and I. I’d say a majority of the scientific community supports it’s use as a tool and agree that, while it can’t pinpoint years exactly, carbon dating does not support a young earth. I think this paper (on AnswersInCreation.org, no less) pretty much buries that. Besides, where are the secular scientists claiming evidence for a young earth?

Overall Skeptical Monkey has given you evidence against the literal interpretation of the Bible’s flood story. So has Talk Origins. A lot of science has to be undone to convince me that a global flood happened.

This evidence doesn’t cut the mustard for you. You seem to be starting at the finish line and working backward to explain it. And with the WWW, there is no shortage of like-minded sites who will publish what you’re looking for. I don’t know what could possibly happen to make you believe.

So I’m going to leave this comment thread open for now. I don’t want to be that guy who gets the last word and then closes it off from rebuttal… but I’m really hoping you don’t continue the debate here. I suggest we agree to disagree on this one.

By: steven kramar

steven kramar — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 04:18:37 +0000

Hey, we can go back a fourth forever, but as long as we are learning more about the subject, it cant be bad. I’m sorry that the sites I linked you too were questionable. All I can say is that I was just trying to learn a little about the way trees are dated. I’m not trying to find a way to prove you wrong. My mission was to learn how to date trees so that I can explain it. If there’s not an objective way they came to the age of the pando trees, they cant exactly serve to prove anything.
I don’t understand your arguments about the boat… I think we could make a boat out of wood that works on the open sea. It has been done for thousands of years. As far as the boat being that big… is it impossible or even improbable? Remember, the arc is presumably just a big floating barge. Some of these people site problems in larger wood boat construction because the mast has serious problems when it gets too big. The ark doesn’t have a mast. It just needs to float, like a floating house.
About the carbon dating…. Your right that it would presumably work for samples that are within a range that is less than the amount of time it takes for full decay of the atomic particle. But you have to remember, that carbon 14 is made in the atmosphere as sunlight clashes into the nitrogen creating an unstable carbon 14 particle. If you assume that the atmosphere is millions of years old, the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere should be at equilibrium don’t you think? Anyways, carbon 14 dating doesn’t serve to rule out young earth creation scientifically, because if the atmosphere is young, there would have been a very small amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere, and the living things, of the recent past. Can still explain how carbon 14 dating invalidates the young earth creation hypothesis, in light of these facts?
When I look at the “talk origins,” the evidence being sited… (here’s some quotes I’m finding in your site)..
“genetic information specifies everything about an organism and its potential… This obviously should be one of the areas where evolutionary change is seen, and genetic change is truly the most important for understanding evolutionary processes.”
This statement is absolutely true. I just don’t think there is an aknowledgement that there are no examples of genetic information being increased, and thereby making common decent of all living things possible. Here are some of the observed genetic change that happens as quoted in talk origins…
“Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions.”
Note that none of these mechanisms are able to “create” unique and new functions that were not somehow already present in an ancestor. Changing genetic expression though the given mechanisms don’t make new genes. Every example in the articles is factual science, I would not disagree with that, but the kinds of change you need are changes in the actual genes. A change in the expression of the genes are not enough to prove common decent. This is why new animals don’t come out of these processes. Speciation happens, but remember, a dog and a wolf are different species, but they are still the same kind of animal. I don’t see a problem with the science in this source. I only see a problem with the conclusions.

By: The Monkey

The Monkey — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:52:22 +0000

Steven, I can grasp the big picture of what you're talking about, but there's too much to ignore for your vision to be accurate. Wood is porous... and would not be able to sustain a boat that size in open water; it would fall apart (I found a TON of creation sites claiming the boat was waterproof. Even if it was, it's the material vs. dimensions that seems to be the ark's achilles heel). I don't think carbon dating is perfect but it gives us a ball park of a few thousand years. I don't think the Bible is a better tool for dating artifacts. If you don't think pando trees or anything else is more than 6,000 years old, then what can possibly be said to have you reconsider your stance? You've gone to amazing (yet sometimes admirable) lengths to find things on the web that justify your stance on creation. Yet many of your sources are quite questionable. (in fact you might double-check The Big Site of Amazing Facts since it's a 2 1/2 year old Wordpress blog edited Wikipedia-style. I wouldn't consider it proof for or against anything at all). If you'd like one good collection of evidence for Evolution, I will again point you to Talk Origins. The site might look amateur, but it's content has been tested, updated, and stood a good test of time. I encourage you to comb through the site and evaluate the claims. Personally I think they're more believable that creation claims. Overall you've given me some things to think about and re-review what I've written, both of which are always good. But ultimately I haven't really swayed in my stance and don't think I've swayed you at all either. I hope you continue to do the research, but perhaps just upgrade what you chose to look at. Cheers!

By: steven kramar

steven kramar — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:54:27 +0000

I’ll try my best. Thanks for checking up on your evidence in ice cores. If I have to explain the overall purpose of this discussion it is this… you are telling me that I am ignoring a mountain of evidence while at the same time I am just searching for little things to show how some microscopic thing doesn’t fit. If that’s how you feel I totally understand. It’s a bit overwhelming when you really grasp the big picture of what I’m talking about. But even though it might sounds foreign, think of it as scientifically and un bias as possible. Maybe it can be invalidated and I’m open to that.
You now site the pando trees that are 40000 years old as evidence and are frustrated because it appears that I don’t consider ALL the evidence… I believe the reason you feel this way is because you are confused about what constitutes evidence. I mentioned this in my last comment, but let me elaborate… to say that old trees, annual ice rings, vestiges, or any of the plethora of citations for evidence for evolution are “evidence”, is not correct. Let me explain why. As I just illustrated with annual rings in ice core samples, there is a significant difference between “evidence” and “the interpretation of evidence”… the ice core samples are the “evidence”, but the “interpretation” that these ice core samples are “annual rings” is not evidence, it is the “interpretation”, and an illogical one. As you can see there was no test to decide scientifically how quickly the rings in the ice were forming. Instead the “assumption” that the world is millions of years old is reason to “”assume” that the ice rings must be annual. Just like the “evidence” cited of pando trees that are 40k old. Everything I can find in my search just states that the pando trees are 40k years old but doesn’t explain how they arrive at that “interpretation.” I did find some information on dating tree rings, http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/how-can-you-tell-how-old-a-tree-is but this doesn’t help me with the pando trees.
It appears to me that someone is making claims to have proof and evidence, but so far there is no reason believe that the “evidence” has been evaluated very scientifically. Try not to think of evidence as: one pile of evidence on this side for the evolutionist, and another pile on the other for the creationist. We all are evaluating the same evidence together and arriving at different conclusions. Many people would conclude from the ice core samples and the study of how quickly ice forms, that the glacier is very young. I’m not saying you have to believe it but just evaluate it scientifically and decide.
Thus I challenge an evolutionist to cite the best evidence for evolution. When evaluated, you find that the evidence has an illogical interpretation. For me that is sufficient reason to throw out that interpretation at which time I am free to look at how others, (i.e. creationists) interpret the same evidence.
I hope this helps you with my perspective…
————————————————————————
Im glad you guys fixed the bug in the comments. To answer your last question, do i believe there is nothing older than 6000 years old? my answer is yes. There is nothing older than 6000k.
I think theres alot of good science that can be learned from carbon dating. Do you understand how the process of carbon dating works? From what i can tell about the carbon dating process, it assumes that the atmosphere has always had the same amount of carbon 14. The research shows that this assumption is incorrect. I don’t think scientists are carbon dating the earth. Are they? Its more of a secondary dating process on artifacts they already know a general date range on for some reason. Maybe the scientists are, in fact, working backwards to arrive at the dates in an impartial way. I just don’t know how they have done it.
I’m sorry i didn’t address the other evidence.
- the amount of water that it took to require a global flood did in theory kill alot of humans and animals. The bible says all but 8 people died in the flood. This is why there are so many dead animals (fossils) found in the mud (layers). But of course these are interpreted differently.
-The bible says the arc was made of gopher wood. Can you elaborate why a boat cannot be made big enough? I have not yet found a problem with the size or proposed purpose of the arc.
-you are correct that the earths surface doesn’t change that fast. But if you look at the changes that happened, it seems that they can be accounted for by a world wide flood as the bible appears to record it.
I’m sure you have tons of questions as to why I disagree with you on this. I also have, maybe even the same number of questions you do.
If the flood didn’t happen, i’m going to need to know why in a way that i can defend it to others of my persuasion.

By: The Monkey

The Monkey — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:13:45 +0000

Hi Steve, sorry our trusty little SPAM filter was triggered by your comments earlier. They should now appear above. (let me know if you'd like any deleted, if some are duplicates) Ice cores and panda trees aside, do you disagree that there is nothing on this planet more than 6,000 or 10,000 years old? For the sake of argument, let's say no tree lives more than 4,000 years old... what about other, non-biological things? Mountains, fossils, fossil layers, can anything be more than a few thousand years old? Do you think the process of carbon dating is flawed or sufficient? I mean yea... we're looking at the same evidence and arriving at different conclusions... but the creation version requires a leap of faith. I can't help but think that 'the science version' looks at present day and attempts to work backward... where as Christianity starts with Genesis and looks around for evidence to support that. I should say that you certainly do not fit this mold and I've enjoyed a productive conversation. But I still think you're ignoring a lot of evidence. To name a few:

• the amount of water require for a global flood would have killed humans, no matter how you slice it.
• No kind of wood exists that would have kept a ship the size of the Arc afloat.
• The earth's surface doesn't change that fast.

It's not like just one of those arguments in the article can be untrue and the whole argument fall apart, you know what I mean?

By: x

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:46:58 +0000

This is Steven Kramar but for some reason my posts arnt working so im trying something else…
I’ll try my best. Thanks for checking up on your evidence in ice cores. If I have to explain the overall purpose of this discussion it is this… you are telling me that I am ignoring a mountain of evidence while at the same time I am just searching for little things to show how some microscopic thing doesn’t fit. If that’s how you feel I totally understand. It’s a bit overwhelming when you really grasp the big picture of what I’m talking about. But even though it might sounds foreign, think of it as scientifically and un bias as possible. Maybe it can be invalidated and I’m open to that.
You now site the pando trees that are 40000 years old as evidence and are frustrated because it appears that I don’t consider ALL the evidence… I believe the way you feel this way is because you are confused about what constitutes evidence. I mentioned this in my last comment, but let me elaborate… to say that old trees, annual ice rings, vestiges, or any of the plethora of citations for evidence for evolution are “evidence”, is not correct. Let me explain why. As I just illustrated with annual rings in ice core samples, there is a significant difference between “evidence” and “the interpretation of evidence”… the ice core samples are the “evidence”, but the “interpretation” that these ice core samples are “annual rings” is not evidence, it is the “interpretation”, and an illogical one. As you can see there was no test to decide scientifically how quickly the rings in the ice were forming. Instead the “assumption” that the world is millions of years old is reason to “”assume” that the ice rings must be annual. Just like the “evidence” cited of pando trees that are 40k old. Everything I can find in my search just states that the pando trees are 40k years old but doesn’t explain how they arrive at that “interpretation.” I did find some information on dating tree rings, http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/how-can-you-tell-how-old-a-tree-is but this doesn’t help me with the pando trees.
It appears to me that someone is making claims to have proof and evidence, but so far there is no reason believe that the “evidence” has been evaluated very scientifically. Try not to think of evidence as: one pile of evidence on this side for the evolutionist, and another pile on the other for the creationist. We all are evaluating the same evidence together and arriving at different conclusions. Many people would conclude from the ice core samples and the study of how quickly ice forms, that the glacier is very young. I’m not saying you have to believe it but just evaluate it scientifically and decide.
Thus I challenge an evolutionist to cite the best evidence for evolution. When evaluated, you find that the evidence has an illogical interpretation. For me that is sufficient reason to throw out that interpretation at which time I am free to look at how others, (i.e. creationists) interpret the same evidence and, if it is scientifically arrived at, I accept it as a fact.
I hope this helps you with my perspective…