The Impossible Voyage Of Noah's Ark

Farrell Till presents some interesting information concerning Noah's ark and the Genesis flood---from creationists. From the Errancy Discussion List, 1-5-97:

One of the best works I have read on Noah's ark is Robert Moore's 

"The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark," which was published in the

Winter 1983 edition of *Creation/Evolution.* I highly recommend 

it. So far, we have discussed only the 300-foot limit in our 

exchanges, but Moore discusses at length many problems that 

the ark would have encountered. While you are trying to find 

reputable naval architects who will confirm that the 300-foot 

limit would not have been a barrier to building a seaworthy 

barge 450 feet long, I want to present some of the other 

problems to you. You have insisted that the ark floated "gently" 

on the water, whereas the science of meteorology would require 

a scenario that would make hurricanes seem like mere soft 

breezes.

In "Impossible Voyage..." Moore presented the scenarios that even
creationists themselves have stated as the type of forces that the 
ark would have had to endure. In *The Creation Explantion,* 
Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Segraves said this about the flood: 
"The Flood was accompanied by violent movements of the earth's 
crust and by volcanic activity of momentous proportions. 
Tremendous tidal waves and rushing currents scoured and deeply 
eroded the continental surface. Entire forests were ripped up and 
transported large distances to be dumped where the currents 
slowed" (p. 226).
  
John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris certainly need no 
introduction to creationists. In "The Genesis Flood,* they 
presented the following scenario: "Even after the forty days, 
when the greatest of the rains and upheavals diminished, 
the Scriptures say that the waters 'prevailed' upon the earth 
for one hundred and ten days longer. This statement... would 
certainly imply that extensive hydraulic and sedimentary 
activity continued for a long time, with many earlier flood 
deposits perhaps re-eroded and reworked.... The only way in 
which land could now appear again would be for a tremendous 
orogeny to take place. Mountains must arise and new basins 
must form to receive the breat overburden of water imposed 
upon the earth" (pp. 266-267).
  
Would such forces at work on the earth's crust have caused 
turbulance? Whitcomb and Morris certainly thought so: "Yielding 
of the crust at even one point, with resultant escape of magmas 
and water or steam, would then lead to earth movements causing 
further fractures until, as the Scriptures portray so graphically, 
'the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up' 
(Genesis 7:11). Truly this was a gigantic catastrophe, beside 
which the explosion of the largest hydrogen bomb, or of hundreds 
of such bombs, becomes insignificant" (pp. 242-243).
  
The creationist J. E. Schmich presented this scenario: "The 
worldwide ocean of the Genesis flood was swept by wind storms 
that would make modern tornadoes seem lik a zephyr" ("The 
Flood and the Ark," *Creation Research Society Quarterly,* 
11:2, pp. 120-122).
  
These are not the claims of despicable atheists. These are 
statements that have been published by men who are recognized 
as the foremost spokesmen for the scientific accuracy of the 
Genesis flood record. Some of us on the errancy list tried to get 
you to investigate the meteorological implications of a flood like 
the one described in Genesis, but you ignored our statements. 
Now I have presented to you statements from leading creationists, 
who agree with our claim that meteorological conditions in Noah's 
flood would have subjected the ark to unimaginable forces and
stresses. If anything, their scenarios are far more extreme than 
anything skeptics have proposed, because, of course, they are 
trying to present scenarios that would have the flood as an 
explanation for the geological record. If you want the discussion 
to continue, I am going to insist that you address this issue and 
present evidence that the leading arkeologists are wrong in the 
scenarios they presented and that the ark merely floated
"gently" on the water.

Farrell Till