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
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.