Re:
https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ar ... 00502.html
"Charred Wood Recovered from Deep Inside Durupınar Noah's Ark Site"
Modern analysis of the Noah's Ark story ...
Q: Since water had to exist for Noah's ark to reach higher dry land, how fast would the world's water have to recede to create more dry land with vegetation for the animals before the animals ran out of food stored on the ark?
(
Google Gemini) "To answer this question, we have to look at the intersection of three things: the narrative timeline provided in the flood account, the biological survival limits of animals on stored food, and the botanical reality of how fast plants can actually grow from bare, flooded earth.
1. The Timeline Constraints (How Long Did the Food Last?)
According to the chronology in Genesis (Chapters 7 and 8 ), Noah and the animals were inside the ark for a total of 370 to 371 days (just over a year).
The Stored Food Problem: The animals couldn't forage at all for the first several months because the entire globe was supposedly covered by water higher than the highest mountains. This means the food stored inside the ark had to last at least 10 to 12 months without replenishment.
If the water had receded too slowly - say, taking 3 or 4 years - the animals would have starved to death long before reaching dry land, as storing several years' worth of bulk feed (hay, grain, meat) for thousands of species would be physically impossible within the dimensions of the ark.
2. The Botanical Bottleneck (Why Speed Isn't the Only Factor)
It is tempting to think that faster water recession equals a quicker return of food, but biology creates a strict speed limit: plants do not grow instantaneously.
If the water receded too fast (e.g., draining all at once in a matter of weeks), it would leave behind catastrophic mudslides, eroded topsoil, and barren rock. Furthermore:
Submersion Kill-Switch: Most terrestrial plants and grasses cannot survive being completely submerged underwater for months. They drown, rot, or are killed by shifting sediment and salinity.
The Seed Germination Clock: For herbivores to have food upon disembarking, new vegetation had to grow from surviving seeds or roots. Even under ideal conditions, pioneer plants and grasses take anywhere from 1 to 3 weeks to germinate and sprout after water recedes, and months to form a sustainable pasture.
3. Calculating the Required Recession Rate
To get an idea of the physical scale, let's look at the vertical drop. If the floodwaters covered the highest mountains (such as Mount Ararat, which is over 5,100 meters or 16,800 feet high), thousands of meters of water had to vanish.
The Abatement Phase: In the biblical text, the water peaked and began steadily receding after 150 days. It then took another 74 days for mountain tops to become visible, and several more months for the valleys and lowlands to dry out entirely.
Biblical Authority Ministries
The Average Drop: Dropping roughly 5,000 meters of water over a period of about 7 to 8 months averages out to a recession rate of 20 to 25 meters (65 to 80 feet) per day initially, though it would slow down drastically as the water spread out over widening continental basins.
Summary: The Delicate Balance
For the animals to survive without exhausting their year-long food supply, the water could not recede instantly, nor could it take multiple years.
The narrative timeline solves this through a multi-month phased approach: the ark landed on the mountains roughly 5 months in, giving the water several months to drop, expose lowlands, and allow time for the first wave of vegetation (symbolized by the dove returning with an olive leaf) to sprout just as the ark's stored rations were running dangerously low."
Q: Since water is recycled as rain that becomes water and water did not cover the earth before Noah's ark floated, where did the extra water come from? Or did worldwide earthquakes lower the earth's elevations?
(
GG) "To explain how a global flood could happen given that the Earth's current surface water isn't enough to cover Mount Everest, creation scientists and biblical researchers have proposed specific models. This question touches on the two primary mechanisms debated in flood geology: hidden water sources and dramatic tectonic shifts.
1. Where Did the Extra Water Come From?
Mainstream geology notes that if the Earth's surface were completely flattened out, water would cover the entire globe - but only to a uniform depth of about 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles). Because mountains like Everest reach nearly 9 kilometers high, covering the planet requires far more water than currently exists on the surface.
To account for this, flood models rely on descriptions in Genesis:
The 'Fountains of the Deep' (Tehom): Genesis 7:11 states that 'all the fountains of the great deep burst apart'. Proponents of this view argue that vast reservoirs of water were trapped deep within the Earth's crust (mantle) and were violently released through global crustal rupturing. (Modern science has discovered deep-Earth water reservoirs in mantle minerals like ringwoodite, though vastly less than what a global flood would require).
The Vapor Canopy Theory (Historically): Older creationist models proposed a pre-flood canopy of water vapor surrounding the upper atmosphere, which collapsed to cause 40 days of torrential rain. However, most modern creation scientists have largely abandoned this model because calculations show it would trap too much heat and essentially boil the planet.
2. Did Worldwide Earthquakes Lower Earth's Elevations?
This intuition about earthquakes and tectonic movement is actually central to modern creationist flood models, though with a twist: they argue elevations were much lower before the flood, and mountains rose during or after it.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT): Developed by geophysicists like Dr. John Baumgardner, CPT proposes that the Earth’s tectonic plates moved at high speeds over the course of the flood year (rather than drifting slowly over millions of years).
The Tectonic Shift: According to this model, pre-flood topography was relatively flat and gentle, meaning less water was required to cover the land. As the tectonic plates crashed together during the cataclysm, the ocean basins sank deeper, and the modern mountain ranges (like the Himalayas, Alps, and Rockies) were forcefully thrust upward.
Biblical Connection: Proponents often point to Psalm 104:6–8 to support this concept, which describes the flood waters covering the mountains and then states: 'The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them'. In this view, the water didn't necessarily have to vanish into space; instead, the deep ocean basins opened up to hold the water that currently fills them, while the land rose out of the water.
Summary
If a global flood occurred, it could not have happened on the Earth's current geography without immense amounts of extra water. Therefore, flood models rely on a combination of subsurface water release (the fountains of the deep) and radical topographical reshaping driven by catastrophic tectonic activity that raised mountains and deepened oceans as the event concluded."
Q: Such tectonic shifts happen over a very long period of time! Was this not true in Noah's era?
(
GG) "That is one of the primary sticking points where biblical creationists and mainstream geologists completely part ways.
Mainstream science and the overwhelming consensus of modern geology agree with your intuition: tectonic plates move at an agonizingly slow pace - about the speed your fingernails grow (a few centimeters a year). At that rate, moving continents and building mountain ranges takes hundreds of millions of years.
To reconcile a global flood with this scientific reality, proponents of flood geology developed a specific counter-model. Here is how they explain it, and why mainstream science rejects it.
1. The Creationist Answer: 'Catastrophic Plate Tectonics' (CPT)
Proponents of young-earth creationism (such as the team behind the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model developed in the 1990s) do not deny that tectonic plates moved - they argue that they moved at runaway speeds during the flood year.
Runaway Subduction: In modern geology, old oceanic crust slowly sinks (subducts) back into the Earth's mantle. CPT theorists proposed a mechanism called thermal runaway. They suggest that as the pre-flood oceanic crust began to sink, the friction and heat caused the surrounding mantle rock to weaken dramatically and become slippery (losing its viscosity).
The Feedback Loop: This created a runaway feedback loop: the hotter it got, the faster it sank; the faster it sank, the hotter it got. Instead of taking millions of years, the entire ocean floor supposedly sank into the mantle over the course of weeks or months, tearing the continents apart, causing violent global volcanism, and pushing up massive mountain ranges as the continents violently collided.
2. The Mainstream Scientific Objection: The 'Heat Problem'
While CPT provides a mechanism to make tectonics happen fast enough for a one-year flood, mainstream geophysicists point out a catastrophic side effect: it would literally melt the planet.
The Physics of Friction: Moving entire continental landmasses and sinking thousands of miles of crust in a matter of months releases an unfathomable amount of kinetic and thermal energy.
Boiling Oceans: Calculations on rapid subduction show that the friction generated would release enough heat to boil away all of Earth's oceans multiple times over, turning the planet into a molten wasteland. For life to survive on an ark during such an event would violate known thermodynamic laws unless a massive, continuous miracle intervened to dissipate the heat.
Summary
To answer your question: No, mainstream science says rapid tectonics were not true in Noah's era (or any other era), because the laws of physics and thermodynamics make rapid plate movement impossible without turning the Earth into a ball of lava.
Flood geologists argue that the physical rules governing the Earth were temporarily altered or experienced a catastrophic failure during the flood, while mainstream geologists view the slow, uniform pace of plate tectonics as proof that the Earth's crust has operated under the same physical laws for billions of years."
Q: All this suggests that the Noah's Ark story is not going to be proven by science!
(
GG) "This sums up the conclusion reached by the vast majority of mainstream scientists, historians, and archaeologists.
From a scientific standpoint, a global flood and a literal Noah's Ark face a series of insurmountable physical, geological, and biological hurdles - ranging from the massive 'heat problem' of rapid tectonics and the lack of a geological layer showing a simultaneous global extinction/re-emergence, to the genetic bottlenecks of repopulating the Earth from a single pair or small group of animals. Because science relies on testable, repeatable evidence and natural laws,
a literal worldwide flood is viewed not as a historical event, but as a profound piece of ancient religious literature.
However, the perspective looks very different depending on the framework you use:
The Scientific View: The story is classified as a myth or a legendary epic (sharing many structural similarities with older Near Eastern flood stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis Epic), likely inspired by massive, localized catastrophic floods in river valleys (like the Tigris-Euphrates or the Black Sea) that felt like the 'whole world' to ancient people.
The Faith-Based View: Proponents of young-earth creationism argue that standard science looks at the past through uniformitarian assumptions ('the present is the key to the past') and therefore misses the unique, miraculous nature of a global cataclysm. In this view, science won't 'prove' the ark in a secular laboratory because the event involved divine intervention that transcended normal physical limits.
Ultimately, looking at the evidence through the lens of modern science leads to the conclusion that
the story cannot be historically or scientifically verified as written. It remains a matter of faith, theology, and how one interprets ancient texts versus empirical data."
Rod
Update on Burger Bergère, ongoing culinary cabaret ...
Perhaps, this "base" and "butt" share mythological association ... 
Very good video about once thriving Hollywood Boulevard 
Life is getting too confusing say some older maxxers
So, "delicious, tuna-infected, parasitic worms" is the message of this story?
Re: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ_oCpKYQJ0
New cart-before-horse insight ...