Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Audie]

What did I claim? Did I say tropical? I think I indicated a warm climate, at the time they died. That doesn't necessarily mean, tropical.....does it?

You dont know what you said?

You said "temoerate". Kinda vague,
though still incorrect.

But for clarity, why dont you just take 2 minutes
and describe the climate and vegetation?
One minute?

Oh, and do you hold that erosion /westhering cannot
produce spires and sharp ridges?

 

[blü 2]

Global Flood evidence:

The OP? Indeed I read it. Now I'm reading your links, and hard work it is too.

1.Vast herds, comprising perhaps millions of grazing animals, discovered within the muck fields by gold hunters in the Alaskan and Yukon regions. In the Siberian permafrost, a few have been discovered upright, with food (delicate flowers like buttercups, that only grow in temperate climates) discovered still unchewed in their mouths, like the Berezovka Mammoth. (They died instantly, not from a slow-moving ice age!)

Of Hibben in Alaska (as cited in Mr Kroll's article), Wikipedia tells me "They found that the strata in which Hibben reported finding Folsom- and Yuma-like projectile points and mammoths bones all accumulated during the Late Holocene [the last 4,200 years] in "a muddy, intertidal environment". As result, they concluded that the projectile points are not associated with any Paleo-Indian cultures and the identification of the bones as being those of a mammoth is questionable."

Incidentally, where in Mr Kroll's article does it refer to animals standing up? I didn't notice it on the way through, so it must be towards the end where I was skipping more and more..

His conclusion that the biblical flood could be the cause of animal extinctions in Alaska at a time (the Late Holocene) when the civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus valley and perhaps China were flourishing is just a polishing of the absurdity of taking the Flood legend seriously in the first place.

http://www.amendez.com/Noahs Ark Articles/NAS Worldwide Mammal Massacre.pdf

The question is raised — and properly so: “How could a Global Flood cause such freezing temperatures?” Keep in mind, some of the water (not most...most were from the “vast springs” underneath the ground) came from above, from the atmosphere....the troposphere?...the mesosphere?...the stratosphere? The Bible doesn’t say, it is silent. (Maybe from all five.) But the waters above the Earth caused temperatures to be very mild, and pleasantly warm.... similar to a greenhouse effect, worldwide. (That’s why Adam & Eve could go naked, and be very comfortable.) Yes, the Bible indicates there were seasons, but apparently mild ones.

All of that drastically changed, with the break in this canopy! Temperatures would drop suddenly!

So where is that calculation of the energy released by the rainfall required if we imagine the Flood? You said it was in your OP, but to put it kindly, you're mistaken. Please now provide it.

And what 'waters above the earth'? Are you seriously saying 1.113 bn cubic miles of water were up in the air above the earth, three times the amount of water presently here? That's simply false.

2.This project, completed by physics students of the University of Leicester, provides an interesting conclusion:
‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’.

The Smithsonian report supposes an ark 300 x 50 x 30 cubits (taken to be 19" / 48.2 cm) which is 144.6 x 24.1 x 14.5 m, with a footprint of 3,485 sq m and a volume of 50,530 cu m. The article doesn't say how much of that volume is reduced by the thickness of the structure nor the internal bracing and fittings. They did however point out the obvious:

"A boat sunk to its max in the water while still staying afloat could easily take on water from any breaching waves. And according to Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, the strength of a wooden beam decreases with its size, so because when things get bigger they break more easily, the beams that held this huge ark together might have been extremely fragile. Else the beams were short, which would also introduce structural weaknesses due to the higher number of seams between wood planks."

The largest wooden boat was the Wyoming (1909), 137 m (deck length 107m) and 27m wide. Her cargo capacity was 8,600 cu m / 6,000 tonnes. "built of yellow pine with 6" planking and [with] 90 diagonal iron cross-bracings on each side." [W] "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." [W]

Of course, Noah didn't have metal technology to reinforce his ark, so you can see the problem.

Especially since, for the first 40 days, 87 tonnes of water fell on the ark every second, and 313.2 million tonnes in 40 days ─ a colossal pounding, you'll agree, especially for a wooden structure.

BUT that doesn't include the momentum of the falling water. A large raindrop might have a diameter of 6mm, and a terminal velocity of 10m/sec / 36 km/h (the smallest, say 0.4m/sec / 3 km/h). I think we're talking large here, so the impact weight of each kg of rainwater falling at 10m/sec is (allowing for splattering time) maybe 8 kg. So that's 696 tonnes worth of impact on the ark every second, and 2.5 bn tonnes of impact in 40 days. (Those again are quick'n'dirty sums, so feel free to provide your own calculation.)

5.Furthermore, the Bible clearly states, in Psalms 104, that the Flood was the cause of Earth’s mountains reaching such great heights. (Due to the underground waters spewing upward, and the land settling downward.) This would mean the high mountainous ranges we have today, like the Alps, the Himalayas, the Andes, and others, did not exist before the Flood; they are relatively young in formation. Some were even underwater prior to the Flood — see #6. (Not that the rocks are young, but that the features they form, are new, geologically speaking. What do we see? We observe crisp, well-defined features! If these mountains were millions of years old, we would see weathered, rounded features, due to the extreme wind and other erosion forces that they constantly endure. But we don’t! (This evidence is the easiest of all the geological facts to see...yet to me the most overlooked.)

Psalm 104 says that at or after the subsidence of the Flood, 'the mountains rose, the valleys sank down'. That's a claim about reality, hence a falsifiable claim. And the falsification is lavishly provided by the science of geology, which (like all the other evidence) says that there never was a Flood, and that the mountains rose and sank for other reasons to do with tectonics, erosion and so on, long before H sap walked the earth. So, since you've read up on that geology, you know the psalmist is (a) simply wrong, taken as a statement about reality, but (b) perhaps reflecting the understanding of his time and place, or perhaps engaging in a poetic metaphor for the power of God.

It’s been determined that if the Earth was smoothed out like a billiard ball, the present water in all the ocean and lake basins would cover the planet to a depth of 2.5 miles! More than enough.....yet, scientists have discovered even more water in the Earth’s mantle, estimated to be almost 10 times as much as exists on our surface! So, that presents no obstacle!

Yes, it presents a tremendous obstacle ─ to explain (as we try to imagine a real Flood) how it could get out the mantle, cover Mt Everest, and get back down again. Describe the process in geological terms, please.

8.The Chinese character for "boat" comprises three radically different symbols: 'vessel', 'mouth' (representing a person), and the number ''8'. Why is this significant? Because there were 8 people who survived the Flood in the Ark. Some ancient Semitic person thought the Flood Event was worthy enough, to incorporate it into their language, helping others to remember the Chinese word for boat. They didn't have a Bible to get the idea from, and I doubt Moses knew any Chinese people, to get his writing from!

LOL!!! For a moment I thought you were serious! Well done!

Are you of the mindset that, when reading about God causing a global Flood, you don’t think He’d use His power throughout other aspects of the event? Or afterwards? Does Jehovah God have to reveal / explain everything He does?

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me what a real God is, so that should I find a candidate I can tell whether it's God or not. Perhaps you can enlighten me, and then I can consider your question.

 

[nPeace]

It would seem you actually do not know anything about genetics, evolution, and even basic biology. We can splice genes together in a lab, we do it all the time. Insulin which bacteria or yeast do not need is produced by bacteria or yeast which have had the insulin gene spliced into them. That has nothing to do with evolution.

Had me wondering why you felt you needed to mention it.

Making a dog from a bacteria in a persons life time has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a slow process. We see changes in genetic makeup through mutations in a lifetime but major changes in organisms is slow. It has taken about 3500 million years for life to evolve into what we see today and now it is asked why can't you prove it by creating a dog from bacteria in a persons lifetime? All that request proves is a complete lack of understanding. The proof has been discussed so often that only someone who does not want to understand it and actively decides to remain ignorant about the subject would make such statements.

That's a lot of ignorant uses.
If it has already occurred it would not require millions of years to do it in a lab, with all the genes in place, and the ability to edit genes.

How long did they speculate it took for a cell to evolve?
How long would it take for scientist to build a cell?
Scientists build DNA from scratch to alter life's blueprint
From chemicals to life: Scientists try to build a cell from scratch

I did not have in mind bacteria to a dog either. Fish to tetrapod is fine.
Anyways, forget it. No need for added speculation.

There is no proof for genesis or Noah's ark so people create fake proofs or make the statement faith is all they need but then demand proof from everyone else. Blind faith is exactly what you would need to have to believe that the story of genesis or Noah's ark is the only explanation. Believing in evolution is the opposite of blind faith. This theory has been questioned more than any other theory and yet the evidence continues to grow and support the theory. Every step of the way has been questioned and tested. That is not blind faith that is being open to understanding our world without preconceived beliefs controlling inquiry or an arrogance of over self-worth not to see just how connected we are with the rest of life. I want you to get beyond your blind faith and finally see the truth about our world and who we are.

You are barking up the wrong tree. ...but keep barking if it makes you happy.
You still have no proof of evolution.

@Bob the Unbeliever None of the links you provided says there is proof of evolution.
Since you disagree pick out one sentence that give you such a wrong idea... please.

 

[nPeace]

How about settled science? The theory is here to stay.

Imagine if a falsifying discovery were made - the precambrian rabbit, for example, or a partially digested human being in a T. rex's stomach. The mountains of evidence that we have accrued to date doesn't go away. How would we account for the existence of all of the evidence that supports Darwin's theory?

The mountain of evidence we have is ignored.
Not every Creationist believes man and dinosaurs lived together.
Even if they did, what do we know, other than what we are trying to figure out.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Incidentally, science deals in evidence, not proof.

That's all I said, and I got called ignorant for it.
So thank you for clarifying, so that @Wild Fox @Bob the Unbeliever would understand what I am saying, and perhaps in the future properly represent science.

It is sufficient that the theory of evolution be useful - that it unifies observations, that it offers a plausible mechanism for evolution consistent with the observable laws of nature, that it accurately predicts what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature if the theory is correct, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has technical applications such as in medicine and agriculture that improve the human condition. The theory does all of that.

So no proof is needed. We'll use the theory because it works - its empirical validation.

Those things you mentioned are enough for you. Okay.
The other things - for example, how bacteria got on earth - are not a problem for you, but all - the whole cake is important to us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The mountain of evidence we have is ignored.
Not every Creationist believes man and dinosaurs lived together.
Even if they did, what do we know, other than what we are trying to figure out.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Yes, we know that there are all sorts of levels of delusion. And no, no evidence has been ignored. Most creationists do not even understand the concept. Would you like to discuss the nature of evidence? It seems to scare almost all creationists to death.

And the fat lady sang and packed her bags over 100 years ago.

That's all I said, and I got called ignorant for it.
So thank you for clarifying, so that @Wild Fox @Bob the Unbeliever would understand what I am saying, and perhaps in the future properly represent science.

It is often not what you say, but how you say it. For example your earlier claims about "evidence" indicate a lack of education. Creationists always are claiming that but they can never present any.

Those things you mentioned are enough for you. Okay.


The other things - for example, how bacteria got on earth - are not a problem for you, but all - the whole cake is important to us.

Now it appears that you have changed the subject to abiogenesis. That is a related but separate topic and one that is in the process of being solved right now. Huge advances have been made over the last twenty years. This problem will probably be answer in our lifetime. One thing that made it take so long was that we did not really know how existing life worked. Until we knew how life actually works on the molecular level understanding abiogenesis was very unlikely.

Science solves the problems that it knows how to solve today. And continues to work on the ones that it cannot solve until tomorrow. Complaining about abiogenesis which still has plenty of questions does not mean that we have solved many of the problems of evolution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The mountain of evidence we have is ignored.

Is that a good idea? How can we possibly understand our world by ignoring evidence?

The rational, skeptical empiricist does not ignore evidence, and doesn't have use for methodologies for determining what is true about the world that do.

Incidentally, my question to you was: "Imagine if a falsifying discovery were made - the precambrian rabbit, for example, or a partially digested human being in a T. rex's stomach. The mountains of evidence that we have accrued to date doesn't go away. How would we account for the existence of all of the evidence that supports Darwin's theory?"

That's an especially significant problem for Christian creationists - or ought to be. My question was rhetorical, meaning that it was not an effort to collect information, but to make a statement in the form of a question. I already know the answer: If you could falsify Darwin's theory, it would not do a thing for Christian creationism. One would be forced to assume that the evidence that had come before leading to the theory of evolution must have been planted by an extremely powerful and sophisticated source to appear as if evolution had occurred, which could conceivable be a god or gods, or an advanced alien race, which seems like a pointless and trivial thing for such agents to expend effort and resources on.

So, for the Christian creationist, the same mountain of evidence that is being ignored now would need to continue to be ignored even if the theory were falsified, meaning that assailing it does the believer much good even if he is correct that the theory is wrong.

The other things - for example, how bacteria got on earth - are not a problem for you, but all - the whole cake is important to us.

The problem of how the first life appeared on earth is of great interest to the scientific community and the rest of us that respect its core beliefs, methods, and achievements. Separating it from evolutionary science and tackling the two problems separately is as natural as NASA studying.

It seems like you are finding the scientific method inferior to the faith based method because it hasn't solved the problem of abiogenesis yet, whereas Christianity says God made the first life. Do you see that as an advantage to the faith-based method - that it can give answers where science must remain mute for now?

We're not looking for answers of any kind, but rather, for useful answers - answers we can use. I described the usefulness of the theory of evolution - unifying observations, offering plausible mechanisms, accurate predictions, accounting for the similarities and differences of the tree of life, and applications to areas life medicine and agriculture.

What useful contributions have creationists made in the areas of understanding where the universe came from, where the earth came from, how the first life appeared in the universe and on earth, and how did the family of life that we see on earth today come to be? None at all, correct?

Perhaps you see the biblical answers as useful.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

@Bob the Unbeliever None of the links you provided says there is proof of evolution.
Since you disagree pick out one sentence that give you such a wrong idea... please.

LMAO! The title is clickbait. But I see it DID NOT WORK-- as you have not read ANY of those many-many links.

Of course you didn't read them: You must maintain your near-total ignorance about all things Evolution.

On the other hand, the links DO point to PROOF of evolution for a certain meaning of the word 'proof'.

There is 100% more PROOF in those links, than what is available for 'proof' of the bible using ALL of HISTORY.

Seeing as how there is zero actual evidence in support of anything IN the bible.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The mountain of evidence we have is ignored.

What "evidence"? If you had any? Any at all? You'd be splashing it all over the place, and collecting your Nobel Prize.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That's all I said, and I got called ignorant for it.
So thank you for clarifying, so that @Wild Fox @Bob the Unbeliever would understand what I am saying, and perhaps in the future properly represent science.

Oh, the word "proof" has many flexible meanings.

I thought you'd appreciate me using the word as YOU (creationists) use the word!

You don't like it when people use your own words?

hmmmmmm........................

 

[Audie]

The mountain of evidence we have is ignored.
.

What evidence are you referring to, and who
ignores it?

 

[Audie]

Had me wondering why you felt you needed to mention it.


That's a lot of ignorant uses.
If it has already occurred it would not require millions of years to do it in a lab, with all the genes in place, and the ability to edit genes.

How long did they speculate it took for a cell to evolve?
How long would it take for scientist to build a cell?
Scientists build DNA from scratch to alter life's blueprint
From chemicals to life: Scientists try to build a cell from scratch

I did not have in mind bacteria to a dog either. Fish to tetrapod is fine.
Anyways, forget it. No need for added speculation.


You are barking up the wrong tree. ...but keep barking if it makes you happy.
You still have no proof of evolution.

@Bob the Unbeliever None of the links you provided says there is proof of evolution.
Since you disagree pick out one sentence that give you such a wrong idea... please.

I did not have in mind bacteria to a dog either. Fish to tetrapod is fine.
Anyways, forget it. No need for added speculation.

Give us a harder one. No need for any speculation!

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess, by “magic”, you mean God’s ability to suspend or alter the laws of physics?
Why not? Since Jehovah created the laws governing the Universe (Job 38:33), why would He not use both to accomplish His purpose?

(However, the after effects of His influence would no doubt leave “tracks”, ie., evidence...at times. He’d have no reason to hide it! Although, there were instances where He did, probably. Definitely if it could be used as an idol...like maybe the Ark. I don’t know. It’s why He had the idol Serpent destroyed.)

If you're trying to prove the flood from a scientific standpoint, then inserting God magic into it is cheating and you might has well just scrap the science and go with magic the whole way.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Global Flood evidence:

1.Vast herds, comprising perhaps millions of grazing animals, discovered within the muck fields by gold hunters in the Alaskan and Yukon regions. In the Siberian permafrost, a few have been discovered upright, with food (delicate flowers like buttercups, that only grow in temperate climates) discovered still unchewed in their mouths, like the Berezovka Mammoth. (They died instantly, not from a slow-moving ice age!)

http://www.amendez.com/Noahs Ark Articles/NAS Worldwide Mammal Massacre.pdf

The question is raised — and properly so: “How could a Global Flood cause such freezing temperatures?” Keep in mind, some of the water (not most...most were from the “vast springs” underneath the ground) came from above, from the atmosphere....the troposphere?...the mesosphere?...the stratosphere? The Bible doesn’t say, it is silent. (Maybe from all five.) But the waters above the Earth caused temperatures to be very mild, and pleasantly warm.... similar to a greenhouse effect, worldwide. (That’s why Adam & Eve could go naked, and be very comfortable.) Yes, the Bible indicates there were seasons, but apparently mild ones.

All of that drastically changed, with the break in this canopy! Temperatures would drop suddenly!

2.This project, completed by physics students of the University of Leicester, provides an interesting conclusion:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479.

And this one:
Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes | Science | Smithsonian

Further information:
Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the world-class ship research center KRISO, based in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong’s team compared twelve hulls of different proportions to discover which design was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design. In fact, the Ark’s careful balance is easily lost if the proportions are modified, rendering the vessel either unstable, prone to fracture, or dangerously uncomfortable.
The research team found that the proportions of Noah’s Ark carefully balanced the conflicting demands of stability (resistance to capsizing), comfort (“seakeeping”), and strength. In fact, the Ark has the same proportions as a modern cargo ship.


The study also confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 100 ft (30 m). Dr. Hong is now director general of the facility and claims “life came from the sea,” obviously not the words of a creationist on a mission to promote the worldwide Flood. Endorsing the seaworthiness of Noah’s Ark obviously did not damage Dr. Hong’s credibility.

Dr. Seon Won Hong was principal research scientist when he headed up the Noah’s Ark investigation. In May 2005 Dr. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI (formerly KRISO). Dr. Hong earned a B.S. degree in naval architecture from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

3.Coupled with that, the dimensions of the Ark, a 6-to-1 ratio of length to width, and 10-to-1 ratio of length to height, are exactly what is needed for a non-powered vessel of that size to maintain stability! Only in the last 2 centuries have ship builders recognized that this ratio is perfect for non-powered barge-like ships to be seaworthy. This is powerful evidence supporting a literal interpretation: How could Moses have known, in recording the event, that Noah was given such ideal dimensions? Fortunate guessing?

4.The numerous Flood legends (exceeding 250, one anthropologist says near 1,000), that share many similarities, some strikingly so, that indicates a common source.

5.Furthermore, the Bible clearly states, in Psalms 104, that the Flood was the cause of Earth’s mountains reaching such great heights. (Due to the underground waters spewing upward, and the land settling downward.) This would mean the high mountainous ranges we have today, like the Alps, the Himalayas, the Andes, and others, did not exist before the Flood; they are relatively young in formation. Some were even underwater prior to the Flood — see #6. (Not that the rocks are young, but that the features they form, are new, geologically speaking. What do we see? We observe crisp, well-defined features! If these mountains were millions of years old, we would see weathered, rounded features, due to the extreme wind and other erosion forces that they constantly endure. But we don’t! (This evidence is the easiest of all the geological facts to see...yet to me the most overlooked.)

6.[related to #5]The marine creatures discovered on the tops of many mountain ranges, even on Mt. Everest — gigantic clams, some measuring 5 feet or more across, found in the closed position, indicating (again) that these creatures experienced a catastrophic event, leading to their quick death. (Clams in natural death, die w/ their shells open.) All remain exposed....if they’re millions of years old, why aren’t they eroded, also? Because these particular ones died at the Flood!!

7.Where did all the water go? Apparently, it’s still here, at the Earth. If we again take into account what Psalms 104 reveals — that it was the Flood that caused our current topography, the very high mountains and low valleys, then the Earth’s terrain was somewhat smoother than now. (And Genesis tells us, the highest mountain was covered by around 22 ft. of the water.) It’s been determined that if the Earth was smoothed out like a billiard ball, the present water in all the ocean and lake basins would cover the planet to a depth of 2.5 miles! More than enough.....yet, scientists have discovered even more water in the Earth’s mantle, estimated to be almost 10 times as much as exists on our surface! So, that presents no obstacle!

8.The Chinese character for "boat" comprises three radically different symbols: 'vessel', 'mouth' (representing a person), and the number ''8'. Why is this significant? Because there were 8 people who survived the Flood in the Ark. Some ancient Semitic person thought the Flood Event was worthy enough, to incorporate it into their language, helping others to remember the Chinese word for boat. They didn't have a Bible to get the idea from, and I doubt Moses knew any Chinese people, to get his writing from!

Are you of the mindset that, when reading about God causing a global Flood, you don’t think He’d use His power throughout other aspects of the event? Or afterwards? Does Jehovah God have to reveal / explain everything He does?


I’ve presented a lot of evidence. Are you open-minded enough, to consider it now?

EDIT: Well, it’s been over a day since I posted, and it’s obvious some simply aren’t open-minded enough; they are so biased even to the point where they attack the poster....me....rather than debate the evidence.

Sad but expected.

You have no evidence. Where are all the bodies? The human ones?

A water canopy is just plain nonsense. And if there was one, Noah and everyone would be boiled alive like a lobster!

 

[Audie]

You have no evidence. Where are all the bodies? The human ones?

A water canopy is just plain nonsense. And if there was one, Noah and everyone would be boiled alive like a lobster!

Wouldnt it at least make Siberia tropical?

 

[Jose Fly]

No, I didn't say we were through. I did answer your response, that tectonics plays a role now.

But let me ask you: can you tell when some natural object has eroded? Now, do the Himilayas exhibit an eroded appearance? Or do they display distinct, well-defined characteristics?

No, it doesn't work that way. Again, you're claiming that your Biblical flood model better explains the data (i.e., the geologic conditions of the Himalayas) better than the current model. Thus, it falls on you to show how that is so.

Another question: how come the 'ancient earth' had less water? Where did the present water come from?

I've not seen specific information on that, so any info you could provide would help.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The OP? Indeed I read it

You may have have some of it. You didn’t read all of it!

You keep making strawman arguments.......

And what 'waters above the earth'? Are you seriously saying 1.113 bn cubic miles of water were up in the air above the earth, three times the amount of water presently here? That's simply false.

You keep showing your ignorance of what I posted...here’s an excerpt from the OP:

“Keep in mind, some of the water (not most...most were from the “vast springs” underneath the ground) came from above, from the atmosphere”

That’s from Genesis 6:11...”In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. “

The Smithsonian report supposes an ark 300 x 50 x 30 cubits (taken to be 19" / 48.2 cm) which is 144.6 x 24.1 x 14.5 m, with a footprint of 3,485 sq m and a volume of 50,530 cu m. The article doesn't say how much of that volume is reduced by the thickness of the structure nor the internal bracing and fittings. They did however point out the obvious:

"A boat sunk to its max in the water while still staying afloat could easily take on water from any breaching waves. And according to Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, the strength of a wooden beam decreases with its size, so because when things get bigger they break more easily, the beams that held this huge ark together might have been extremely fragile. Else the beams were short, which would also introduce structural weaknesses due to the higher number of seams between wood planks."

As if Jehovah would use His power to cause the greatest cataclysm the Earth ever experienced, but wouldn’t do anything to protect the Ark’s contents during and after!

That just reveals a lack of reasoning. Does God have to reveal every particular facet of His actions?

Of course, Noah didn't have metal technology to reinforce his ark, so you can see the problem.

Oh, but he did....Genesis 4:22, describing a little of society before the Flood: “And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.”

Your objection has been answered and debunked.

Especially since, for the first 40 days, 87 tonnes of water fell on the ark every second, and 313.2 million tonnes in 40 days ─ a colossal pounding, you'll agree, especially for a wooden structure.

If all the water came from above; but it didn’t.

BUT that doesn't include the momentum of the falling water. A large raindrop might have a diameter of 6mm, and a terminal velocity of 10m/sec / 36 km/h (the smallest, say 0.4m/sec / 3 km/h). I think we're talking large here, so the impact weight of each kg of rainwater falling at 10m/sec is (allowing for splattering time) maybe 8 kg. So that's 696 tonnes worth of impact on the ark every second, and 2.5 bn tonnes of impact in 40 days. (Those again are quick'n'dirty sums, so feel free to provide your own calculation.)

See above.

Yes, it presents a tremendous obstacle ─ to explain (as we try to imagine a real Flood) how it could get out the mantle, cover Mt Everest, and get back down again. Describe the process in geological terms, please.

Again, this is yet another toothless argument. Psalms 104 explains what the Flood caused.

(“All the Flood water fell down”, LOL!)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Regarding the water on the earth...

I've not seen specific information on that, so any info you could provide would help.

Grief, the articles I’ve just read on this!

There’s too many conflicting pov’s among scientists, to support any idea! Let alone conclusive evidence. That just reveals an extreme lack of understanding.

Some prefer an out-of-this-world cause...like ‘comets and asteroids’!

Yeah I’ll agree it was an “out-of-this-world” cause!

 

[Audie]

Regarding the water on the earth...


Grief, the articles I’ve just read on this!

There’s too many conflicting pov’s among scientists, to support any idea! Let alone conclusive evidence. That just reveals an extreme lack of understanding.

Some prefer an out-of-this-world cause...like ‘comets and asteroids’!

Yeah I’ll agree it was an “out-of-this-world” cause!

You may have have some of it. You didn’t read all of it!

You keep making strawman arguments.......




You keep showing your ignorance of what I posted...here’s an excerpt from the OP:

“Keep in mind, some of the water (not most...most were from the “vast springs” underneath the ground) came from above, from the atmosphere”

That’s from Genesis 6:11...”In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. “



As if Jehovah would use His power to cause the greatest cataclysm the Earth ever experienced, but wouldn’t do anything to protect the Ark’s contents during and after!

That just reveals a lack of reasoning. Does God have to reveal every particular facet of His actions?



Oh, but he did....Genesis 4:22, describing a little of society before the Flood: “And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.”

Your objection has been answered and debunked.



If all the water came from above; but it didn’t.



See above.


Again, this is yet another toothless argument. Psalms 104 explains what the Flood caused.

(“All the Flood water fell down”, LOL!)

So applying all your knowledge, please describe the
climate and vegetation of the time and place wherre
the mammoths were frozen.

It would take you such a short time. Why dont you
go ahead? Commit yourself! Do not fear.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So applying all your knowledge, please describe the
climate and vegetation of the time and place wherre
the mammoths were frozen.

It would take you such a short time. Why dont you
go ahead? Commit yourself! Do not fear.

“Do not fear.”
OK, I won’t. Lol.

Tell me, how many grazing animals were living in those high Northern lattitudes? From the discovered graveyards in the permafrost, there were millions! There would have to be tonnes of crops growing, to meet their needs. It certainly doesn’t exist there, now. Not enough to meet those huge requirements!

 

[blü 2]

You may have have some of it. You didn’t read all of it!

You keep making strawman arguments.......

You say that about questions you don't want to answer, I've noticed. Perhaps you could ask yourself whether that's the most persuasive way of presenting an argument.

You said your OP answers the question, what energy is released / heat generated from a rainfall capable of lifting the earth's water levels from base to 9km in 40 days. That's simply untrue. There's no such calculation.

And in your link, where exactly is the part about the beasts remaining upright? Or did you misread it and it's not there?

“Keep in mind, some of the water (not most...most were from the “vast springs” underneath the ground) came from above, from the atmosphere”

So what? You have no geological evidence whatsoever that the water in the mantle ever left the mantle, came to the surface and covered Mt Everest. None.

If all the species of land animal had been reduced to a single breeding pair, or three breeding pairs, then (a) that's unlikely to contain the genetic variety necessary for the species to survive, and (b) each surviving land species would have a genetic bottleneck and all the bottlenecks would date to the same time; but again there's very simply nothing of the kind.

The Flood story requires a flat earth, a basic tenet of the cosmology of the times and places the bible was written, which are set out for you in the bible quotes on that link. It's absurd to apply the rules of the flat earth version to the globe of the earth.

The Flood story is earliest found in Sumerian folktale (and perhaps already a thousand years or more old by the time Yahweh was devised as a god in the Canaanite pantheon about 1500 BCE.

That’s from Genesis 6:11...”In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. “

And it will be true when you can back it with reputable geology, and until then it's what it looks like ─ folktale.

As if Jehovah would use His power to cause the greatest cataclysm the Earth ever experienced, but wouldn’t do anything to protect the Ark’s contents during and after!

There's another point ─

Question 1: How did the lemurs of Madagascar, the kiwis of New Zealand, the birds of paradise of New Guinea and the echidnas of Australia get to Turkey to board the ark? The ocean would have drowned them long before the Flood.

Question 2: After the Flood, why did they go back solely to where they came from? Why don't we find lemurs, kiwis, birds of paradise and echidnas or at the least their fossils, in Eastern Europe or the Middle East? Or in Africa or the Americas?

That just reveals a lack of reasoning. Does God have to reveal every particular facet of His actions?

In other words, you have no idea. Why not just say so? 'God did it' explains nothing ─ unless of course you can explain the techniques God used.

Again, this is yet another toothless argument. Psalms 104 explains what the Flood caused.
(“All the Flood water fell down”, LOL!)

If Psalm 104 were making an accurate statement about reality, there'd be a HUGE amount of physical evidence, not least but not only geological, to back it. There's NOTHING.

So which seems more credible to you ─
God set out to deceive later generations by deliberately magicking the evidence of his extraordinary powers away,
or
It's a folktale, exactly as it seems to be
?