From A Storehouse of Knowledge

There are many arguments against the feasibility of the Great Flood. There are also many questions. This article provides an overview of criticisms of the possibility of a literal Great Flood, and reasoned explanations or rebuttals.

Contents 1 Issues 2 Bibliography 3 References 4 External links

Issues

The following are some objections to the feasibility of the biblical flood account, including Noah's ark itself, that critics have raised.

• How was the largest wooden ship in history constructed in a time of antiquity when even 20th century attempts to construct similarly-sized wooden vessels have failed?^{[reference required]}

Wooden ships the size of the ark are theoretically possible^[1] and wooden ships which may have possibly approached the size of the ark have been reported from as long ago as the 15th century AD^[2].

• Procuring the animals is difficult in the extreme.^[3]

The Bible says that God brought the animals to Noah.^[4]

• A vast amount of space would have been necessary.^[5]

The ark was large, and a vast amount of space was available. It's not possible to determine the exact space required, but calculations by Woodmorappe show that there would have been plenty of room. Woodmorappe allowed leeway in his calculations (for example, using a higher rather than lower figure for how much food each animal would eat)^[6], but TalkOrigins ignores this when they try to increase the space required by a small amount then claim that there would not have been enough room.

• The animals would have required care, specifically and near constantly.^[7]

Woodmorappe investigated unmechanised, intensive animal husbandry practices and demonstrated that it is feasible for 8 people (e.g. Noah and his family) to manage the care of the number and variety of animals on the ark.

• Where did the water come from?^[8]

The Bible specifically says that it came from subterranean sources and rain.^[9]

• Considering the lack of any plausible method for rapid subduction and the catastrophic effects if it somehow were possible, where did the water go?

The rapid subduction model is proposed by Dr. John Baumgarder, recognised even by secular scientists as one of the leading researchers of plate tectonics. The Bible indicates that in conjunction with the flood, the mountains rose and the valleys sank, which is taken to mean that the ocean basins deepened, and now hold the water that once flooded the land. If the surface of the Earth was smooth, there is enough water to cover the surface to a depth of about 2.7 kilometres.

• Considering Dr. Baumgardner's admission that "the Flood cannot be understood or modeled in terms of time-invariant laws of nature" ^[10], what are the plausible mechanism(s) for runaway subduction?

Baumgardner's "admission" is one detail (albeit an important one) in a larger model. Baumgarder has explained the mechanism, and believes that it works better than long-age explanations. Many scientific hypotheses have unresolved issues (including evolution itself), but that in itself is not reason to reject the hypothesis.

• Where is the geological evidence for the flood?^[11]

Over 70% of the surface of the Earth is sedimentary rock, and much of this has the remains of buried creatures, as one would expect from a flood.

• Why do the fossil-bearing strata not match the flood model?^[12]

They do. A general trend in the global flood would be to first bury the bottom-dwelling marine creatures, then other marine creatures, then coastal-dwelling creatures, and so on. However, other mechanisms such as hydraulic sorting and the ability of more agile creatures to escape flood waters for longer would also play a part. Many fossils of larger land animals, including dinosaurs, are in what would be post-flood deposits.

• How did various species of fresh and salt water fish survive changes in salinity?^[13]

Some fish can survive variations in salinity. Most creatures are expected to have become more specialised since the flood, and it's likely that before they became specialised, they could survive in greater variations of salinity. Also, there may have been pockets or layers with different salinity; there's no reason to think that the salinity would have been totally consistent around the world.

• How did plant life survive?^[13]

Plants could have survived by various means, including floating mats of vegetation and as seeds.

• How is species distribution explained?^[14]

By animals migrating differentially, and with post-flood speciation.

• Why are flood myths not universal or consistent?^[15]

Because not everyone is going to hand the story down to later generations to the same extent or with the same accuracy, especially given that some will do it in writing and others orally.

• Why are given models for the flood inconsistent with each other or the text from which they are derived?^[16]

Because people are fallible.

• Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?^[15]

That they existed at the time is part of the evolutionary/long-age viewpoint. This is begging the question, a logical fallacy.

• Why is there not a single, consistent fossil layer containing the remains of all of the creatures that were supposed to be alive together at the time, like humans, mammoths and dinosaurs? In contrast, evidence for theorized global events like the dinosaur-killing meteor are found worldwide (the K-T boundary).^{[reference required]}

This question is a typically-fallacious question in that it questions the lack of evidence for a claim that flood geology does not make.

Bibliography

• Woodmorappe, John, "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study", ICR, 1996.

References

External links

• Noah and his Ark: A critical examination, by Dr. W. Sumner Davis (2002)
• Problems with a Global Flood, by Mark Isaak (1998)
• Problems with a Global Flood?, J. Sarfati (1998) - a rebuttal of the link before this one