[__ Science __ ] How Could the Ark Have Survived the Stresses of the Flood?

[Uncle J]

Impacting Lives—and How You Can Help!

Partner with us in our end-of-year campaign to continue to defend the truth of God’s Word and the gospel.

answersingenesis.org

Barbarian

the belief in millions of years of death and disease before man’s sin is an attack on the authority of Scripture and the character of God. And we believe it’s been a major factor in contributing to the catastrophic generational loss from the church and the lack of teaching in church to equip people to defend the Christian faith. Less than 9% of Gen Z attend church—something is wrong with much of the church!
Regardless of such attacks, I just want to remind all our friends and supporters that the solution to America’s problems (the rampant moral relativism, etc.) is not ultimately government or legislation. Don’t get me wrong; we need more Christians in government who have a true biblical worldview and who therefore can be salt in the way they vote and craft legislation. But the ultimate solution to the problems in our world has always been the truth of God’s Word and the saving gospel. This was the solution proclaimed by God in Genesis 3:15 after Adam rebelled and brought sin and death into the world.
And that’s why everything we do at AiG, the Creation Museum, and Ark Encounter is to impact people with God’s Word and the gospel. And that’s why we keep upgrading the attractions, adding new exhibits, using new technology for good, and producing new resources—all so we can equip Christians and see hearts and minds changed for eternity.

That's an interesting perspective, and it makes me wonder what it's based on.

I'm in a bit of a unique situation, where I grew up in an evangelical church, studied the biological sciences in college, and have worked as a biologist for over 25 years. And I have to say, my experiences were pretty much the opposite of what Ham describes.

I've never once had a professor, colleague, supervisor, or anyone else in either the academic or scientific realm tell me that a person cannot accept the conclusions of science about the age of the universe/earth, or the evolutionary history of life on earth, and also be a Christian. I've asked some of my colleagues who are Christian if they ever heard that from a professor or scientist and they haven't either.

On the other hand, I regularly heard that from the pastor of our church, my Sunday School teacher, our youth leader, and some of my Christian family members.

So from my perspective, the "you can't be a Christian if you accept the conclusions of science" message isn't coming from professors and scientists, it's coming from evangelical Christians.

Are you experiences different? Have you had professors and/or scientists tell you that? If so, I'd be very interested to hear who they were and what they said.

 

[Uncle J]

Oil and organic-based fuel resources were made in mass quantities by the Flood.

If that were so, you'd think the oil and gas companies would utilize a flood-based model to find and extract those resources. Instead, they have always based their exploration and extraction work on standard old earth, evolution based models (e.g., using index fossils to age and identify strata).

So if the young earth creationists think a flood based model would be more accurate and would therefore work better, they should develop one and demonstrate its superiority to the oil and gas companies. They'd jump on it in a heartbeat.

 

[Barbarian]

If that were so, you'd think the oil and gas companies would utilize a flood-based model to find and extract those resources. Instead, they have always based their exploration and extraction work on standard old earth, evolution based models (e.g., using index fossils to age and identify strata).

So if the young earth creationists think a flood based model would be more accurate and would therefore work better, they should develop one and demonstrate its superiority to the oil and gas companies. They'd jump on it in a heartbeat.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism

In memory of Glenn Morton (1950-2020), Peaceful Science is republishing his personal account and testimony of leaving Young-Earth Creationism.

peacefulscience.org

 

[KV-44-v1]

answersingenesis.org/bible/general-revelation-special-revelation-and-science/
answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2024/12/17/aig-resources-used-reach-ukrainian-refugees/

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/birth/wintertime-worship-santa-claus-or-Jesus-Christ/

https://answersingenesis.org/bible/isaiahs-response-to-Gods-glory/

December 22, 2024

Life in the City

Animals and other wildlife are moving into urban areas. How are they adapting to life in the big city?

answersingenesis.org

https://answersingenesis.org/Jesus/the-Messiahs-birthplace-foretold/

 

[KV-44-v1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1870822385592721919

Previously, I challenged you: what kind of legacy are you leaving?A strong spiritual legacy doesn’t just happen by accident. Be intentional about what kind of legacy you want to leave behind. Let how you spend your time and money speak clearly to what that legacy will be. If you have children and grandchildren, pour into them. Spend time with them. Engage in meaningful, spiritual conversations. Encourage them; share your story; offer wisdom; always point them to Christ and God’s Word.Too many grandparents waste the precious years they have with their grandchildren. Instead of recognizing that their race is not yet finished, they leave the spiritual instruction of their grandchildren completely up to the child’s parents or church and instead focus solely on building memories or retirement. But God doesn’t say age 65 is when our race is run! We have a calling to declare God’s works to our children and their children (Deuteronomy 4:9). You have a unique perspective and wisdom you can pass along to encourage the next generation. Don’t waste your latter years!What will your legacy be?“Only take care, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. Make them known to your children and your children’s children” (Deuteronomy 4:9).

 

[Barbarian]

For centuries, natural philosophers, their scientific successors, and theologians alike sought to explain the physical and natural world. The now common cultural narrative of perpetual conflict between science and religion simplifies the arguments and struggles of the past and overlooks cross-pollination between those who embraced faith and reason as the keys to understanding earth history. When geologists unequivocally dismissed the idea of a global flood and recognized Earth’s antiquity, many conservative theologians acknowledged that there was more to the past than literally spelled out in Genesis, the opening chapter of the Bible. But some Christians—those we now call creationists—rejected this perspective and chose to see geology as a threat to their faith. In so doing, they abandoned faith in reason and cast off a long-standing theological tradition that rocks don’t lie.

GSA Today - The evolution of creationism

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

I'm not even clear on why we believe that the flood event in Noah's day would have been some cataclysmic event, as far as the rising of the waters and how 'rough' they might have been as the water laid upon the earth. I used to live in South Florida and floods were never particularly 'torrential' events. Florida is flat and so water just rises up and floods the land. Houses get water in them and cars get flooded, but there isn't any torrential tumultuous water that would tear stuff up.

Now yes, if you live in a mountainous region and you are at the bottom of a mountainous ravine water can be torrential, but that's because it's running out to seek level. If the entire area is being inundated with the same amount of water, then that is not generally the experience. As you go further up the mountain and there is more space between the mountain peaks than at some narrow valley only 3-400 feet wide, the water would also be less violent. And I don't see why the earth being covered with water, as far as the surface of the water, why it would be any rougher than our seas and oceans are today.

Yes, at the bottom of the water there is a lot of back and forth movement that tears things up that are on the ground underneath all those millions of tons of water... but on the top, what would cause the water to be particularly rough? How many of you have actually experienced a worldwide flood?

 

[miamited]

Ignorance is bliss ?

Hi follower

I agree with you. Here we have a group of people talking about something that they have no actual knowledge of 'how' it would have come about.

 

[KV-44-v1]

many conservative theologians acknowledged that there was more to the past

Actually, its the reverse. When nonbelievers and those who compromise with the Truth cast off goobles of time, their eyes are opened and the see past the untenable assumptions.

How many of you have actually experienced a worldwide flood?

None because God promised no more worldwide floods.
Cue Barbarian and his implication that Genesis 9:11 is a mere "revision!!!".

So far ive never seen him adequately address 9:11. It appears that he doesnt know what God is promising, because he has tejected the Genesis foundation and replaced it with some mysterious riddle that the Bible makes clear are facts, not riddles. OPEN ENDED allegories (as opposed to close ended ones) and unsolved riddles are functionally similar. But the former is for making a point.

But some Christians—those we now call creationists—rejected this perspective and chose to see

geology as a threat to their faith.

Ridiculous strawman. May as well claim "OEE's see ancestry as a threat to faith", and that holds the same weight as this quote.

In so doing, they abandoned faith in reason and cast off a long-standing theological tradition that rocks don’t lie.

Yes, youve cast off the long standing tradition that God began His reputation as an Objective Source, instead of a ""dealer in the mythical"".

Dont you know that the FIRST BOOK of the Bible gives people FIRST IMPRESSIONS about God?

If you want to write documentary films, what do you do? Throw allegories in front of your viewers as part of the first film you do? Or do you begin your reputation as a reliable guy?

 

[KV-44-v1]

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism

In memory of Glenn Morton (1950-2020), Peaceful Science is republishing his personal account and testimony of leaving Young-Earth Creationism.

peacefulscience.org

Thats the 3rd or 4th time youvr cited this, and this is not the last time itll fall apart.
Notice, what was he? Christian. Not muslim, buddist, etc.
It shows the opposite point of what youre claiming.

You say this is proof YEC makes athiests, I say its proof OEE makes athiests. Tell me, what was the belief that played an "offensive" role?? Right, oee.
There was YEC in the person but then oee comes crashing in like a drunken viking. YEC did not crash in, OEE did.

 

[KV-44-v1]

If that were so, you'd think the oil and gas companies would utilize a flood-based model to find and extract those resources.

If the mechanism for evolution (dino to bird kind) were found, and there was a solution to right hand vs left handed proteins, you'd figure someone would earn an award for it.
Why would they need any models about the past to find resources in the present? That makes no sense.

Instead, they have always based their exploration and extraction work on standard old earth, evolution based models (e.g., using index fossils to age and identify strata).

I doubt it plays as big a role as you claim.
Fun fact: Medicinal manuals, journals, etc. RARELY, if EVER, mention evolution. Its not as critical as is made out to be.
Actually, it hinders medicine, especially what with the vestigial organ fiasco which has snatched many helpful and potentially-helpful parts out of humans.
Vestigial organ belief is inherently anathema to science and discorages research. **Radical-style dino2bird-scale evolution is an antiquated Victorian idea that shoulda been left in the bin. YEC is the OG.

Allelic change, real - speciation, real - NaturalSelection - real, but **RSD2B-Scale, fake. No one i onow of has gotten an award for getting a whole new taxa out of the last one, which supposedly is caused by the previous three.

You know what, mabye we can see it this way: "The debate is not on the reality of evolution, defined as allelic change with time, but whether evolution does or does not make new families or taxa levels above family."

 

[KV-44-v1]

person cannot accept the conclusions of science about the age of the universe/earth, or the evolutionary history of life on earth, and also be a Christian. I've asked some of my colleagues who are Christian if they ever heard that from a professor or scientist and they haven't either.

When you phrase it in such a way as to conflate naturalistic worldview with reality, history, or science, then yeah, you wont hear that, because such a conflation comes just from you. Not them.

 

[KV-44-v1]

So from my perspective, the "you can't be a Christian if you accept the conclusions of science" message isn't coming from professors and scientists, it's coming from evangelical Christians.

No, its coming from those strawmanning YEC views plus conflating history and science.

 

[Barbarian]

Thats the 3rd or 4th time youvr cited this, and this is not the last time itll fall apart.
Notice, what was he? Christian. Not muslim, buddist, etc.
It shows the opposite point of what youre claiming.

Glenn, who I had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with, was a YE creationist, a graduate of the ICR graduate school. He very nearly lost his faith entirely, when employed as a geologist for an oil company, he discovered that everything he was taught that was contrary to conventional geology, turned out to be false. Some others, as he noted, weren't as lucky as he was.

This is the real damage that YE does to God's church.

You say this is proof YEC makes athiests,

That's what it did. Morton notes examples. He nearly became an atheist himself, as a result of the falsehoods that YECs told him.

Tell me, what was the belief that played an "offensive" role?

YEC. When those YE geologists went to work in the real world, their beliefs were shown to be false by reality. The rocks themselves showed that YEC could not be true.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

It's not Old Earth Creationism that wrecked their faith; it was God's creation that showed they were wrong. YEC is a very efficient athiest-maker.

 

[Barbarian]

If the mechanism for evolution (dino to bird kind) were found, and there was a solution to right hand vs left handed proteins, you'd figure someone would earn an award for it.

Watson and Crick got their Nobels for discovering the molecular mechanism of descent with modification. The discovery that abiotic amino acids have an excess of L-forms shows why they became the dominant (but not exclusive) form of amino acids in living things. D-aspartic acid and D-serine for example. The evidence from living things is that L-forms are more common than D-forms in abiotic amino acids and peptides, something since confirmed by the material found in meteorites.

New study provides novel insights into the cosmic evolution of amino acids

All biological amino acids on Earth appear exclusively in their left-handed form, but the reason underlying this observation is elusive. Recently, scientists uncovered new clues about the cosmic origin of this asymmetry. Based on the optical properties of amino acids found on the Murchison...

www.sciencedaily.com

Fun fact: Medicinal manuals, journals, etc. RARELY, if EVER, mention evolution.

Guess how we know you don't read a lot of medical and scientific journals. One important one was the warning by Sir Alexander Flemming (discoverer of penicillin) that overuse of the antibiotic would lead to the evolution of resistant form of bacteria, a prediction that was eventually verified by observed evolution of such resistance. Evolutionary theory showed how to employ antibiotic protocols to delay such evolution.

Evolutionary medicine or Darwinian medicine is the application of modern evolutionary theory to understanding health and disease. Modern biomedical research and practice have focused on the molecular and physiological mechanisms underlying health and disease, while evolutionary medicine focuses on the question of why evolution has shaped these mechanisms in ways that may leave us susceptible to disease. The evolutionary approach has driven important advances in the understanding of cancer, autoimmune disease, and anatomy.

Evolutionary medicine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Learn more about it here:

COVID-19 and Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health - PubMed

COVID-19 and Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Vestigial organs are well-known in biology. The appendix, for example, serves as a fermentation chamber in some other animals, but in humans is reduced in size and now functions as a source of lymphocytes and a place for normal gut flora to survive in cases of illness or poisoning. lt's a common misconception among YECs that "vestigial" means "useless." That does happen sometimes, as in the case of the wings of flighless beetles, permanently locked below fused elytra. But as Darwin pointed out, they more commonly evolved other uses such as the human appendix.

In the late 1800s, Huxley predicted transitional forms between birds and dinosaurs, based on archosaur anatomical details. As you know, (and your fellow YE creationists Kurt Wise and Todd Wood have pointed out) many, many such transitionals have been found. The discovery of traces of residual molecules in dinosaur fossils has again confirmed that birds are more closely related to dinsosaurs than either is related to other reptiles. In fact, as you discovered, there is no feature in birds that is not found in at least some other dinosaurs.

As you indicate evolution is a reality. Most creationists now admit the evolution of new taxa included species, genera, and sometimes families. They hypothesize some kind of barrier to further evolution, but so far, have completely failed to show such an imagined barrier. Moleclular biology shows that such a barrier does not exist. Indeed, the evolution of birds from other dinosaurs requires no huge changes at all.

The difference between mammals and therapsid reptiles is largely in the structure of the lower jaw, the middle ear, and cervical vertebrae. But as you fellow YE creationist, Dr. Wise admits, transitional between the two are well-documented.

 

[Uncle J]

I'm not even clear on why we believe that the flood event in Noah's day would have been some cataclysmic event, as far as the rising of the waters and how 'rough' they might have been as the water laid upon the earth.

It's because an earth with a surface that's 100% water would have nothing to stop winds, waves, storms, etc. Plus, a lot of creationists believe that entire mountain ranges were formed during the flood as tectonic plates jetted around the globe, which obviously would result in extremely tumultuous conditions.

Yes, at the bottom of the water there is a lot of back and forth movement that tears things up that are on the ground underneath all those millions of tons of water... but on the top, what would cause the water to be particularly rough? How many of you have actually experienced a worldwide flood?

Well, that's kinda the thing....from a purely scientific standpoint the notion of a relatively recent global flood that lasted a year and killed all life on earth except for what was aboard a wooden boat just isn't supported by the evidence at all, and is directly contradicted by the evidence in many ways.

As I noted earlier, it was Christian geologists of the 1800's who first moved away from the global flood model because, as they explored more of the planet and dug into more places, they saw features that forced them to change their framework. That's how science is supposed to work.

So (again from a purely scientific standpoint), the global flood framework isn't all that different than things like geocentrism. They're both views that were abandoned by scientists centuries ago, but some people still believe in for religious reasons.

And that's fine. I can understand how people who believe the Bible is literally the Word of God will also believe in the global flood. It's the Word of God after all, right? So believe away!

But as far as science is concerned, it's not even an open question. It was settled over 200 years ago and barring some historically unprecedented emergence of a trove of new data, it's going to stay that way.

 

[Uncle J]

Why would they need any models about the past to find resources in the present? That makes no sense.

Because oil and gas deposits are most often found in geologic strata that were laid down in specific geologic times and under specific conditions. So obviously knowing where those strata are and how to find them is very lucrative.

I doubt it plays as big a role as you claim.

Well you can doubt all you like but that doesn't change reality.

You can read this link if you're interested: https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/ONeill.html

 

[Uncle J]

When you phrase it in such a way as to conflate naturalistic worldview with reality, history, or science, then yeah, you wont hear that, because such a conflation comes just from you. Not them.

Sorry but that reply makes no sense.

No, its coming from those strawmanning YEC views plus conflating history and science.

Who? Names please.

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, its the reverse. When nonbelievers and those who compromise with the Truth cast off goobles of time, their eyes are opened and the see past the untenable assumptions.

The data seems to show the opposite.

None because God promised no more worldwide floods.

Actually, God never said there was a worldwide flood, so He never promised there wouldn't be another one.

 

[Barbarian]

It's because an earth with a surface that's 100% water would have nothing to stop winds, waves, storms, etc. Plus, a lot of creationists believe that entire mountain ranges were formed during the flood as tectonic plates jetted around the globe, which obviously would result in extremely tumultuous conditions.

The energy required to accelerate all that mass to such velocities and then slow them to the presently-observed rate would have to be released as heat. It would have boiled the oceans. I suppose I can't do the numbers if anyone is interested.