Was the Ark Too Long for a Wooden Ship? Local Flood—Yes. Global Flood—No.

The takeaway would be, as I've said previously, it's significant that SS Wyoming sank close to land, in Nantuckett Bay, where the medium depth or shallowest depth (forget which) is c. 9 meters. It's equally significant that the Kon Tiki didn't sink over the Pacific Ocean. Now, a Global Flood, if pre-Flood mountains aren't all that high and if "15 cubits above" was not the highest level, but the highest level Noah could know, since he had built the Ark on top of the Highest Mountain and the water line was 15 cubits, in other words, a water level 1—2 km above the ground and the Seas and not much shallower over the highest mountain while it last, that is a lot like a Pacific Ocean. But a Local Flood is necessarily if not as shallow as Nantuckett Bay, at least too shallow for the Ark to be safe.

To make it clear, this is not a strawman, the pretence the Ark was too long is really being made.

Bill Nye (prior to or in 2016)

"In a debate with a creationist, evolutionist Bill Nye (the “Science Guy”) argued that a wooden boat as largeas the Ark would sink—and especially a large, wooden ship built by an amateur like Noah. So, he said, the story of Noah and the Ark cannot be true. As proof for his claim, he talked about a large wooden ship that was built by professionals in the early 1900s—the Wyoming. The Wyoming was not even as large as the Ark, and yet the length of the wooden planks from which it was made twisted and bent so much while on the ocean that it finally sank. Does the sinking of the Wyoming disprove Noah’s Ark? Was Noah too much of an amateur to even make such a vessel?"

I do not have Bill Nye's debate directly. I have this quote tracing the argument to him from an answer in 2016:

Could the Ark Stay Afloat?
JEFF MILLER, Ph.D. | From Issue: Discovery 6/1/2016
https://apologeticspress.org/could-the-ark-stay-afloat-5311/

Jeff Miller will correctly state that Noah was not necessarily incompetent, technology lost to us would have been accessible to him, however, the builders of the Wyoming weren't incompetent either. He will also correctly state that an Ark just floating is a very different story from a ship with three masts and the sails not taken in. But he will not state that Wyoming actually did refute a Flood story, a very modern one, back then, that of a Local or Regional Flood. It was taught by the Day-Ager Fulcran Vigouroux, though fortunately not from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, only from his handbook of OT theology.

Reddit

The HMS Mersey in the years 1856 - 1858 was 336 feet long and suffered constantly from the ship's seams splitting up due to its length.

The Wyoming in the year 1909 had a Length 450 feet and even with steel reinforcement suffered from severe leaking due to the hull bending from the ship's extreme length.

r/DebateReligion | 1 year ago [deleted]
You Can't Build A Seaworthy Wooden Ship Of The Dimensions Given For Noah's Ark
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15bjdmg/you_cant_build_a_seaworthy_wooden_ship_of_the/?rdt=40102

The Reddit debate was archived and made impossible to comment or vote on after a suppressed user was actually arguing cautiously, but still, in defense of Noah's Ark. In the parallel with the Wyoming, he mentioned the elephants on the ark as a parallel for pumps. I wonder why the debate was discontinued. If I hadn't seen so much cancel culture setting in after a successful argument for YEC or some other now unpopular with MSM and public school systems thesis, I just might consider the answer I'm considering as a conspiracy theory. But, I think I'll say it. Some guys love debates, as long as they aren't losing them.

Now, before we leave the pumps and get to the sinking, the issue with the Ark having no sails is actually connected. In order to make sailing ships work, you need thin planks so they slightly bend while going through the water, if not they would break. The idea of a box floating with the water is different, and allows for a thicker layer of wood around the space and therefore for better water tightness.

But, here we go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_wooden_ships

I'll go with the ones that sunk. And didn't burn first. I'm not quoting the word sunk, and I'm giving circumstances in the line below.

140 m (450 ft), 15.3 m (50 ft 1 in) Wyoming 1909–1924
This ship had a tendency to flex in heavy seas, causing the planks to twist and buckle due to their extreme length despite being fitted with metal bracing. Water was evacuated nearly constantly by steam pumps. It foundered in heavy seas with loss of all hands.

108 m (356 ft), 15.4 m (50 ft) Columbus 1824–1825
First timber ship or disposable ship[2] with a four-masted barque rigging. Built in Quebec to avoid taxes on timber, her cargo and components were intended to be sold after the ship's arrival in London; however, the owner had only the cargo sold and ordered the ship back for a second voyage with a timber cargo; the ship broke apart and sunk in the English Channel.

105.8 m (347 ft), 15.2 m (50 ft) Eleanor A. Percy 1900–1919
Six-masted schooner with hull measuring 323.5 feet and 347 feet including the bowsprit,[5] that foundered off Ireland on December 26, 1919.[6]

Final Voyages of the “Queen” of All Wooden Sailing Ships
Allan Wood | December 1, 2024
https://www.nelights.com/blog/tag/eleanor-a-percy/

With the Great War nearing its end, the Eleanor A. Percy was showing her age with needing necessary repairs on her aging wooden hull. Sailing to Argentina in South America or across the Atlantic takes a couple of months for those ships that would make this challenging journey. The collier left New York with her cargo bound for Buenos Aires on October 11, 1918, and arrived there around January 3, 1919. She waited for another charter before returning to New York and had some necessary repairs made before making the journey. Some months later, on July 4, 1919, the Eleanor A. Percy left Buenos Aires for New York and developed a severe leak in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in early August. The schooner had to turn back and safely reached the dry dock in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

So, this may be sth different, here we have wood rotting after 19 years at sea.

103 m (338 ft), 13.4 m (44 ft) Pretoria 1900–1905
A barge built for use on the Great Lakes. To strengthen the wooden frame and hull, steel keelson plates, chords, and arches were included, and was also diagonally strapped with steel. A donkey engine powered a pump to keep the interior dry.[7]

How many donkeys, oxes, elephants and so on could Noah dispose of?

102.1 m (335 ft)[8], 16.2 m (53 ft) Great Republic (later Denmark) 1853–1872
The largest wooden clipper ship ever built. It used iron bolts and was reinforced with steel, including ninety 36-foot (11 m) 4x1-inch cross braces, and metal keelsons.[9] The MIT Museum noted that "With this behemoth, McKay had pushed wooden ship construction to its practical limits."[10] The ship was abandoned leaking after encountering a hurricane near Bermuda.

102 m (335 ft), 15 m William D. Lawrence (later Kommandør Svend Foyn) 1874–1891
Largest wooden cargo ship ever built in Canada. It passed to Norwegian ownership in 1883 and was converted into a barge in 1891. Sank while under tow at Dakar.[11]

Wyoming, Nantucket Bay. Columbus, English Channel. Pretoria, Great Lakes. William D. Lawrence, under tow at Dakar. What do these have in common? Shallow water.

Eleanor A. Percy and Great Republic, however, the problem was leaking. In both of these cases it took 19 years for the timber to rot that much.

For 90—100 meters, the sunk ones not involving burning are:

Santiago, A schooner-barge on the Great Lakes ...
Appomattox, A Great Lakes steamship ...
L.R. Doty, A lake freighter that sank on Lake Michigan ...
Iosco, A lake freighter that sank on September 2, 1905, on Lake Superior ...

I think there is a common theme. Shallow water.

However there is another detail. 12 m to a little above 15 m. Like thin planks, like sails, very good if you want to get somewhere. But not the best choice for stability while drifting with the waves.

Fifty cubits = 50 * 17 inches = 850 inches = 21.59 m. Broader than any of the ships that sunk. What did I say again on Noah's Ark, yesterday?*

10:00 The faith of Noah was the one thing that allowed mankind and land animals to survive the Flood.

We can know, even if Noah possibly couldn't, that the Ark was amply seaworthy.

Those who dispute that are citing a ship that was wrecked in too shallow waters. That same ship had sailed safely in deeper waters. Why are shallow waters more dangerous? They are more turbulent.

Indeed, we have no reason to believe Noah's Ark was not seaworthy. At least on High Ocean, which is, in a Global Flood, everywhere.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Immaculate Conception of the BVM
9.XII.2024

PS, for landlubbers who unlike myself have only landlubbers in the family, here are two facts I should perhaps have borne out.

1. Having a ship as narrow as possible makes sense since the water is displaced sideways less, which makes for less resistance, the sailing going in the direction from aft to fore, from the back to the front, as quickly as possible, and resistance obviously slows this down.
2. The Ark was however a floating box. It was not navigating independently of the waves. It was probably typically set in a wave trough between two wave crests, one on the port side and one on the starboard side, one on the left, one on the right. Having it broader than a ship makes sense. If the cubit was what we call 17 inches, it was 21.59 m broad. The cubit could perhaps have been as big as 25 inches. This would make 31.75 m the maximal breadth of the Ark. Why is breadth important? The weight inside the ship is distributed along the sideways dimension, and the further out, the more leverage momentum a unit of weight has. So, the more it resists the vessel rolling over around the length axis.

For people not familiar with Fulcran Vigouroux and his role, both as a Seminary Teacher in the time around 1880 and as one of those judging in the Pontifical Biblical Commission, where in 1909 in a certain sense he greenlighted "day age" but not all of the other compromises he had taught, I have already written on him. What About the Fulcran Vigouroux Solution?, What Extension to Old Age do Old Agers Permit Themselves?, 1909 vs § 390 and a few more./HGL

PPS, I did very well to send this to Dr. Jeff Miller, he answered that the quoted article was for a younger audience and sent me a fuller debate overview, which also gave the date as 2014, February 4th in Petersburg, Kentucky:

Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review: Tying Up Really Loose Ends
JEFF MILLER, Ph.D. | From Issue: R&R – April 2014
https://apologeticspress.org/bill-nyeken-ham-debate-review-tying-up-really-loose-ends-4819/

If you do and F-search for Wyoming or scroll roughly speaking to the middle, the overview of the Wyoming argument is basically double that of the article I referred to. However, it still didn't involve the shallow water argument, which blows a local or regional Flood out of the water.

Just above it, he's adressing the room of the Ark problem, and while he mentions an 18 inch cubit, he also mentions a 25 inch one.

It could also explain the large size of ancient, fossilized humans, such as homo heidelbergensis. A 25-inch cubit versus an 18-inch cubit would more than double the volume of space within the Ark (1,518,750 cubic feet vs. 4,062,500 cubic feet).]

I think it more probable that Homo Heidelbergensis was in fact a form of giant. And that the Egyptian royal cubit, which according to a childhood memory of a lecture was 25 inches, instead of 24, was the cubit of this giant./HGL

* Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Saying No to the Antichrist
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/12/saying-no-to-antichrist.html