AiG, Good on Flood Topic, Less Good on Soteriology

Don’t Think the Biblical Flood Really Happened? Watch THIS!
Answers in Genesis | 21 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw5FDIuHUeY

I

16:31 Vessels ride over the waves because they move, and that is an additional strain on the construction.

I very clearly picture the sidways existence of the Ark, and as to motion sickness, I calculated the rolling period. 11 seconds or so.

So, unless I totally got the way of calculating radius of gyration wrong, the rolling period of the Ark, according to the formula given in wiki, would have been between 11.71 and 12.82 seconds. Recall that first sentence?

.. A passenger ship will typically have a long rolling period for comfort, perhaps 12 seconds while a tanker or freighter might have a rolling period of 6 to 8 seconds.

In other words, God saw to it, they were fairly comfy on the Ark, whenever the natural rolling period prevailed!

The long rolling period would counteract motion sickness. I just quoted what I wrote in 2018, eight years ago.*

A

Science Rules

@sciencerules2825

It was wrong then, it's just as wrong now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@sciencerules2825 care to be specific?

Settle Down**

@settledown444

@hglundahl How high were the waves during the Flood? Remember the waves were supposedly powerful enough to scrub the top two miles of material off the Earth's entire surface, sort the material, then redeposit the two miles as distinct sedimentary layers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@settledown444 The destructivity of a wave to a vessel is not just about how high it is, but also about how abrupt it is.

A mile above the remaking of the earth, that would have been pretty non-abrupt waves, like on the Pacific. Dunes, not breakers.

The reason is, "abrupt" means, there is much height to little width (maximally equal), and the width and height ration depend on how far down the centre of the radius is.

In shallow water, the bottom can pose severe limits on the width, not so on a world wide ocean.

Settle Down

@hglundahl In other words you have no explanation for how a wooden vessel would survive mile high waves that destroyed the top two miles of the planet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@settledown444 In other words you either forgot all I just said, or you disqualified yourself from speaking on vessels or on waves.

Settle Down

@hglundahl What is your professional experience with sailing vessels and/or waves that qualifies you as an expert?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@settledown444 I didn't say I was an expert.

I do say I know what waves work like.

If the bottom is very low below, that means that the radius of the wave (yes, mathematically they are circle segments) is long which means the parts on the top are not abrupt.

That's how a large radius works.

B

Sam Burns

@samburns3329

I hope you realize the Noah's Flood / Ark story was scientifically proven impossible to happen well over two centuries ago and the evidence against it has only piled higher ever since. Arguing the seaworthiness of a mythical boat is like arguing if the Starship Enterprise could defeat the Death Star.

i

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Seaworthiness has objective and mathematical parameters.

If the Ark were mythical, how come some myth maker gave just the right proportions for seaworthiness?

Sam Burns

@hglundahl The floating box Ark as described in the Bible would immediately capsize and sink in even a moderate ocean storm.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You miss what actually capsises ships.

Wyoming sank in Nantucket Bay, average 9 meters deep.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Mile high waves in the supposed strongest storm ever on Earth would flip the Ark and smash it into kindling. Kind of a moot point since the Flood /Ark story is still mythological.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Have you heard of "strawman"?

The Ocean was miles deep. Underwater currents, not storms on the top did the erosion.

Kind of what you miss in your very mythical reconstruction.

ij

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 "scientifically proven impossible to happen well over two centuries ago"

Details?

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Details? A literal Noah's Flood / Ark was scientifically disproven over two centuries ago. For example:

1. The world is full of geologic features (angular unconformities, the vertically incised meanders in Goosenecks State Park, the Columbia Basalt Group) impossible to form in a one year one time Flood.
2. We have lots of archaeological evidence of cities and cultures (Jericho is 11,000 years old, The Jiahu culture in China is 9500 years old) which lived right through the Flood without noticing.
3. Modern genetics shows no extant species underwent a severe genetic bottleneck only 4500 years ago. If the Ark story were true ALL extant species would show such a bottleneck.
4. Besides well established radiometric age determination we also have lots of non-radiometric proxies (tree rings, lake varves, ice cores) showing the Earth is way older than 6000 years, certainly older than the claimed 4500 year ago Flood.
5. The fossil record shows five major mass extinction events with a radiation of entirely new species into the open ecological niches after each event. Impossible for a single Flood to do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Thank you.

1) Dispute the "impossible to form in one year" argument.
2) Carbon dating is off, Jericho and Göbekli Tepe started around 2600 BC
3) How do you date the bottlenecks?
4) tree rings and so on are circular if you go back far enough
5) The fossil record is from the Flood and the "new species in open ecological niches" are just contemporaries with "previous" misdated by layers of the Flood.

Carbon dating is also not way over 200 years old.°

Sam Burns

@hglundahl I see you completely ignored the geologic evidence besides crying NUH-UH! and the multiple civilizations which lived right through the Flood without noticing. Also 14C dating is calibrated by over a dozen independent proxies to 55,000 years before present so you got that one wrong too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You gave no specific geologic evidence apart from claiming it couldn't have been formed by the Flood.

You missed that our only clue to the chronology of the civilisations is carbon dating. The carbon date of the Flood is 39 000 BP. Before them.

The independent proxies become circular with carbon well before that old.

II

50:49 Where in the Bible do you see "Jesus took our punishment" or "was punished for us" ???***

* Rolling Period of Ark?

** Seems like someone is using channel names to bring home "paedagogic" points to me. Including one pretending I'm refusing to settle down. I have been refused by such people to settle down on terms I can accept, i e as a writer, including a Creationist one.

*** "He bore His wrath for me" — Did He?

° The technology of carbon dating is from the 1940's.