Flood Geology and its whopper flaws

[Alyeska]

I am trying to compile a list of simple arguments against YEC claims, and Noah's Ark is a common once for YECs. Simple mathematical claims or engineering claims that trash YEC arguments. What I intend on doing with this simple list is create something that can immediately be thrown into the face of YECs who popup anywhere any of us visit.

Anyway, to start things off, I would like to get the nice big flaws and problems of Noah's Ark.

First, the means of getting the water into the air. I think its safe to assume any water streaming out of the mantel is going to be doing such in the form of steam. Using Mike's assumption on the amount of water, how much energy is this, and how much gets into the atmosphere in the form of heat? And to be conservative, lets use YEC figures assuming the Earth was much flatter (covering all bases you see)

Second, an example of how much energy would be released with the water previously calced falling back to the planet.

Third, the geology of the planet itself. One common YEC claim to reduce the required water needed is to claim that Earth was much flatter back then as compared to now and that the process of the water shooting into the air formed the mountain ranges and deep oceans we know today. What sort of energy is required to create such changes, and how much of that energy is going to be transfered into the atmosphere in the form of heat? CaptainChewbacca, your geology education is specificaly requested here.

4th, the engineering of the Ark itself. What is required to build a boat of that size with minimum technological capabilities, and at what level was Noah likely at.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Second, an example of how much energy would be released with the water previously calced falling back to the planet.

Third, the geology of the planet itself. One common YEC claim to reduce the required water needed is to claim that Earth was much flatter back then as compared to now and that the process of the water shooting into the air formed the mountain ranges and deep oceans we know today. What sort of energy is required to create such changes, and how much of that energy is going to be transfered into the atmosphere in the form of heat? CaptainChewbacca, your geology education is specificaly requested here.

4th, the engineering of the Ark itself. What is required to build a boat of that size with minimum technological capabilities, and at what level was Noah likely at.

Ok, here I go...

Basically YEC tries to compress 4.5 billion years of continental drift and uplift into about 9,000 years. Basically we're accelerating stuff by a factor of 500,000. Currently we measure continental drift and uplift at a rate of inches per year. Iceland is the fastest-spreading surface movement, at about 6 inches per year, while the San Andreas moves about .6 centimeters per year. The Himalayas are rising at 2 centimeters per year. Multiply those numbers by 500,000 and you get some rather intimidating movements. To move continental masses at rates of kilometers or tens of kilometers per year is not sustainable. The reason the surface moves so slowly is because it is brittle. Highspeed movements would severely damage the plates and seafloor, creating widespread geologic upheaval.

The frequency at which continental volcanoes erupt is directly related to the rate of subduction of ocean crusts beneath continents. If movement was as fast as necessary, you'd have massive lava flows covering the whole of the earth, as eruptive processes would be more dominant than wind erosion.

As for oceans deepening, there's no mechanism for that. Oceans are "lighter" than continents, and if continents were thickening/increasing in mass, they would push down and the oceans would actually be pushed UP, making them shallower.

As for heat-energy transfer, I'd say a LOT of heat transfer. I don't really know how much, because we're dealing with highly theoretical processes.

Basically, for that sort of rapid topographic change, you'd have to change the tensile strength of rock, making it far more ductile, as well as a few other physical laws.

I'd like to say as far as Noah building an ark goes, he did have about 600 years to do it

[Alyeska]

Flood Geology has 4.5 billion years of geology occuring in 40 days, not 6,000 years. They think that Earth as it is now is the same as it was with Noah, but that prior to the flood, Earth was mostly flat.

[Surlethe]

You been to talkorigins on this yet? The fine gentlemen over there have compiled an entire page on flood geology.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Flood Geology has 4.5 billion years of geology occuring in 40 days, not 6,000 years. They think that Earth as it is now is the same as it was with Noah, but that prior to the flood, Earth was mostly flat.

Well then, same problem only worse

[Duckie]

Noah's Ark, I am told, at the given size would have required iron bands encircling its wooden hull and constant pumping to remain afloat. Both of which are oddly enough not mentioned by God or technologically feasable at the time.

[Wyrm]

My personal favorite is how the minerals sort themselves by their (supposed, according to YECs) radioisotopic age in Noah's flood. Realize that most radioisotopes used in dating are present in very small amounts, so the boyancy of their host minerals is not going to be affected much by their "age" according to radioisotope dating. Yet, zircon crystals, which should not show any significant accumulation of lead (one of the daughters of U-238).

Of course, YECs would try to get away with this by saying that during the flood, radioactive decay was sped up. Well, that would have the affect of adding to Capt. Chewie's already broiling flood world, and it doesn't actually solve the problem, since then all the radioactive material is equally "aged."

A YEC might solve this by saying that the minerals were created throughout the flood cycle, but you still have problems. Igneous rock would require volcanoes to erupt throughout the flood. Sedementary rock would require that PLUS accelerated weathering (they have to explain how usually robust rock suddenly turns into chocolate icing in a deluge).

And finally, there's the fact that if the flood proceeded according to the YEC suggestions (most notibly, Kent Hovind's "model"), the geological column would look VERY different from what we'd actually see.

[LMSx]

Island-specific animals. There's no logical reason, for instance, why Kangaroos would swim across the ocean to Australia when they can just chill in Central Asia. If all animals spread out from Noah's Ark, they should be found all over the world.

[LMSx]

Edit- oops, it's not a simple mathematical/engineering argument. Oh well.

[Stark]

The hydrodynamics argument, whereby YECs think dinosaurs et al are further down because they couldn't swim so well and drowned. Humans are pretty much one of the worst swimmers in the world, and circa the flood only a tiny proportion of humans could swim at all, so surely they should be at the bottom, not at the very top.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Noah's Ark, I am told, at the given size would have required iron bands encircling its wooden hull and constant pumping to remain afloat. Both of which are oddly enough not mentioned by God or technologically feasable at the time.

Noah's Ark would've been unable to stay afloat, period, unless it was both powered, and hermetically sealed. The vast majority of the kinetic energy of the Flood's rains will be dissipated into the atmosphere by frictional heating. The resultant sustained winds will be those of at least a major hurricane, especially as the mean sea-level continues to rise. This will give rise to freak waves (Properly: extreme storm waves) of well over a hundred feet in height (and computer models suggest that a sufficiently powerful storm could generate a 200+ foot (61+ meter) tall wave if the conditions were just right.

Quick Googling shows that the Ark was 450 feet long, and 45 feet high, and had no obvious means of changing course. The Queen Mary was 1019 feet long and 237 feet high. The Queen Mary was struck amidships by a freak wave at the end of World War II, which rolled her "within a degree or two of capsizing."

In short, the smaller, unpowered, unsteered, primitively built, and heavily laden Ark would've been very fucked.

[Gil Hamilton]

I think my favorite is the fact that if you add that much water to the air in order to flood the entire planet, then the air pressure increases enough to crush anything on the surface.

[Darth Wong]

The hydrodynamics argument, whereby YECs think dinosaurs et al are further down because they couldn't swim so well and drowned. Humans are pretty much one of the worst swimmers in the world, and circa the flood only a tiny proportion of humans could swim at all, so surely they should be at the bottom, not at the very top.

Not to mention the fact that Bronze Age artifacts are not particularly good swimmers, so they should be found at the very bottom of the fossil record.

[Surlethe]

The hydrodynamics argument, whereby YECs think dinosaurs et al are further down because they couldn't swim so well and drowned. Humans are pretty much one of the worst swimmers in the world, and circa the flood only a tiny proportion of humans could swim at all, so surely they should be at the bottom, not at the very top.

Not to mention the fact that Bronze Age artifacts are not particularly good swimmers, so they should be found at the very bottom of the fossil record.

Didn't you hear? Bronze Age man lived at the tops of the mountains, so the artifacts are exactly where you'd expect them: at the top of the fossil record!

On a more serious note, I've heard it seriously argued the fossil record is determined by how quickly animals made it to high ground. I'm sure I don't have to elaborate further on the suspect nature of that argument.

[Gil Hamilton]

Not to mention the fact that Bronze Age artifacts are not particularly good swimmers, so they should be found at the very bottom of the fossil record.

I saw a funny graphic from a Geology v. Creationism debate where the pro-Geology side had trees running pell mell up hill past dinosaurs once.

[Wyrm]

On a more serious note, I've heard it seriously argued the fossil record is determined by how quickly animals made it to high ground. I'm sure I don't have to elaborate further on the suspect nature of that argument.

Especially why there are so many damn fish fossils, as well as other swimming types. God must have had it in for the scaly ones, too!

[DPDarkPrimus]

On a more serious note, I've heard it seriously argued the fossil record is determined by how quickly animals made it to high ground. I'm sure I don't have to elaborate further on the suspect nature of that argument.

Especially why there are so many damn fish fossils, as well as other swimming types. God must have had it in for the scaly ones, too!

Killed by the churning waters!

That's an actual "explanation" I've been told.

[Wyrm]

Especially why there are so many damn fish fossils, as well as other swimming types. God must have had it in for the scaly ones, too!

Killed by the churning waters!

That's an actual "explanation" I've been told.

You mean the same churning waters that would smash a small, unpowered, leaky wooden ship like Noah's Ark to pieces?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Especially why there are so many damn fish fossils, as well as other swimming types. God must have had it in for the scaly ones, too!

Killed by the churning waters!

That's an actual "explanation" I've been told.

You mean the same churning waters that would smash a small, unpowered, leaky wooden ship like Noah's Ark to pieces?

No, it was only churning under the surface!

I wish I had thought of that response myself, Wyrm.

[Darth Wong]

Honestly, the biggest whopper flaw in "Flood Geology" is that every "Flood Geology" theory requires miracles sooner or later, and these imbeciles actually think that you can patch up the holes in an idea by calling them "miracles" and seriously expect others to consider this behaviour "scientific".