2nd Edition

Noah’s Flood

Evidence from science, evidence from reason- a non-fictional Noah!                                                     

M. Akridge;  akridge5@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2015 U.S.  All rights reserved.  Do not duplicate or retransmit.


Chapter 1: the introduction

1.1   The end result of this book.

1.2   Is the Bible common mythology?

Chapter 2: the descendants of Adam and Eve 

2.1   Where did Cain’s wife come from?

2.2   The lineage of Cain.

2.3   The lineage of Seth.

Chapter 3: Noah’s flood

3.1    Noah’s flood story evidence.

3.2    Noah’s ship design.

3.3    Noah’s shipyard.

3.4    The ship’s construction.

3.5    Launching a ship.

3.6    Biblically discernible data on the cause of the flood.

3.7    The site of Noah’s shipyard.

3.8    More data from the flood story.

3.9    An impression of Noah’s ship or an anomaly?

3.10   How did a ship land 2000 meters above sea level in Turkey?

3.11   The rainbow as data.

3.12   A Noah’s flood hypothesis.

3.13   Why not Noah’s cave?

3.14   Bottle neck in human development.

3.15   Age difference of humans after the flood.

3.16   Evidence in the Americas of a Homo sapiens population bottleneck.

3.17   Is there a God?

3.18   The world’s problems solved?


Appendix A:  Another of the many contributions to archaeology made by Dr. William H. Shea.

Appendix B:  Atmospheric Considerations.

Appendix C:  The unspecific meaning of water in Genesis.


                     NOAH’S FLOOD

Chapter 1: the introduction

Older movies had always portrayed the Noah epic as true but never in an entirely believable way.  It had been unsupported technically and seemed more like a fable than a true story.  More recently, the film industry has portrayed the Noah epic as a complete fiction.  Turning the tide requires new evidence and clarity.

The flood of Noah in Genesis Chapter 6 is at the end of the biblical stories about human origins.  By design, the flood had culled all unwanted life globally.  All are descendants of the original flood survivors.  All are descendants of Noah and as such, all are descendants of Adam.

Everyone knows the story: forewarned by God of an upcoming deluge, Noah was instructed to build a great ship.

Noah’s motive for building his ship is clear.  The ship would serve as the only safe haven for Noah and his family and for a sampling of all air breathing land dwelling life for the duration of the deluge.  An instruction from God is the only realistic motive for Noah’s timely construction effort.

However, if the biblical account of Noah’s shipbuilding project is authentic, along with the story’s motive for construction there should also be a means of construction.

For his means of construction, one should expect Noah had a wealth of help from his relatives.  First, he needed a ship design and a suitably solid foundation for his ship’s construction.  Then, he needed a great deal of lumber, pitch, fasteners, rope, food provisions for his family and for all animals that would be transported on the ship- enough for about a year.

To establish Noah’s source of technological knowhow and his access to a labor force, Cain, and Cain’s descendants are covered first in this discussion of Noah’s epic flood.  Coverage of Cain and his offspring sets the stage for the flood of Noah.  In addition, the origin of Cain’s wife is telling about the four wives that survived the flood.

Where and how did Noah build his ship?  Where did the ship end up at the flood’s end?  What caused the flood?

To discover where Noah built his ship, it is helpful to know what to look for as evidence of what was by any measure a massive endeavor.  A lifetime of shipbuilding expertise and technical study is applied to the biblical account of Noah’s flood with good result.

The location of Noah’s shipyard has been identified and its location explains a great deal about the global deluge.  As recorded by Moses, the biblical wording of the event specifies the flood’s level as 15 cubits.  Knowing the flood’s ultimate level at the shipyard, the ship’s final resting place becomes a matter of deduction.

New archaeological evidence exists as to the ship’s final resting place.

Noah’s ship did not land at frozen altitudes.  Evidence exists as to a biblically specified flood level, and Noah’s journey ended in the mountains of Ararat at about two kilometers above sea level.  At altitudes not perpetually frozen, one should not expect an ancient wooden ship to have survived intact much more than a few hundred years; even pitch-covered lumber eventually rots away to dust.

Finally, there should be adequate technical evidence that such a flood could and did occur.

How did the flood occur?  God is said to have caused the flood yet a little modern science demonstrates how he may have done it- not creation science mind you.

Although the focus will be on the biblical account, consistent with the occurrence of a real event, there are varied accounts of a flood in virtually every civilization.  However, if convinced that the creation story of Genesis Chapter 1 is mythology then the reader likely believes Noah’s flood is just more of the same.

A literal decoding of Genesis beginning with its creation story and completely supported by all of science provides tremendous insight into all other biblical stories.  Insight is borrowed from the book GENESIS DECODED to improve the discussion of Noah’s Flood herein in just such a way.

The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is used throughout.  The book of Genesis in KJV is a direct translation from the Masoretic Text and it predates influence by modern science and modern religion.  It is also considered the only valid translation by many who are fundamentalists; those same fundamentalists who are often avidly anti science.

Understanding and believing the details of Noah’s flood does not require mysticism.  This book considers only that which the literal wording of the Bible describes, and only in the bright lights of science.

Noah’s flood is not mythology.  Noah’s flood has proven consistent with all of modern science; and proves consistent with modern shipbuilding reason.  Those who have retained old beliefs in the Noah story may be interested to see how just one exaggeration can convert any true story into a truly mythological one.

Although, wise people are grateful when proven wrong, others are insulted and even angered by information contrary to their existing beliefs (Proverbs 9:8, 9).  It is hoped that gratitude prevails.

1.1 The end result of this book.

After reading this book, expect a no nonsense understanding of the literal biblical Noah flood account that is simple yet in complete and profound agreement with modern science.  This analysis is extensive and covers, with modern science and with shipbuilding expertise, every discernible detail in the biblical flood story.

The sites of the construction of Noah’s ship, its final resting place, and ancient memorials to Noah and Noah’s family complete with human bones have been located.  The known sites, four of them, all have similar carvings and writings showing their connection to Noah and to the biblical flood.

There are a few widely circulated misunderstandings about the flood.  They stem from biblical errors preached as truth over many centuries.  Eliminating the misunderstandings has rendered the story completely plausible and believable to all- it has eliminated the mythology.

Comfortably within the story’s literal wording, and comfortably within modern science, technical reason supports the entire literal biblical flood account.  The preponderance of evidence is clear: the biblical flood account proves factually accurate in every way.

1.2 Is the Bible common mythology?

The word myth has evolved a new meaning in the last century and as per the new meaning, much of the Bible is in fact mythology.  However, when applied to biblical stories, the word mythology is an insult to believers.

By modern definition, a myth is any ancient story whether true or false, but generally not provably true.  It is the broadest of categories.  It follows by modern definition that the Bible is a collection of myths, whether true or false.  For instance, one may never be able to prove as true and factual a story such as the biblical Samson story- it is common mythology by modern definition.

Perhaps the only evidence that will ever exist supporting the Samson story is its inclusion in the Old Testament (Tanach).  Gone are the days when a story is fact simply because it is in the Bible.  Can one ever regain that level of confidence in the Bible?  Is the Bible indeed a revelation from God?

As to the inclusion of gods in ancient stories, everyone has an innate desire to believe in the supernatural.  People throughout history have wished for and created gods.  Most people want to worship something.  For many, beliefs are in cattle, crop circles, pyramids, statues, or ancient circular arrangements of stones.  It is no wonder that others strive to overcome those innate beliefs.  However, if the flood of Noah is true as written, the existence of the God of Noah becomes an inescapable matter of fact.

Modern Judeo-Christian theologians face numerous scientific findings that are contrary to common biblical interpretations- interpretations of Genesis Chapters 1 through 11.  To counter the contradictions, often with well-meaning intent, some theologians have added dignity to the term mythology for the sake of salvaging the Bible as a holy book.

Many suggest that those same biblical stories somehow transcend common truth.  They have found a medium ground in which they can celebrate the Bible as a great and true book while shrugging off as irrelevant the seemingly obvious scientific contradictions.  They say that the Bible is above petty scientific facts- hence the evolved definition of the word “myth.”

Other theologians believe Genesis is simple fiction- an ancient literary work.  “After all,” they think, “How could it be true?”

Much of the confusion stems from the creation story’s interpretations- old and new.  Stories such as “Earth was surrounded by shells and God put stars in one of the shells on day 4,” and “Eve was tempted by a snake to eat an apple invoking God’s punishment, “and “Adam had a wife before Eve,” etc…, sound like mythology, don’t they?  Where did those stories come from?  They are a direct result of ancient theology and are acceptable depictions of actual Genesis stories to some in modern theology.  To some, the stories define and clarify the mythology of Genesis.  Never mind that the stories are not biblical!

In the form of brief stories or Midrash, ancient theologians and historians had often attempted to add their understanding to the creation, Adam and Eve, and Noah stories.  Then, it would seem, given that the added stories are old enough, what is obvious mythology today must truly represent each story’s true original meaning- perhaps because those ancients would surely know better than us what Moses, the author of Genesis, really meant!  What else could those writings of Moses have described if not the common beliefs of the time?  Is that how it all works?

The word myth, as used in this writing, is in reference to the false myth type.  Frankly, Genesis is the foundation of the Bible and most agree that if it is common mythology, the entire Bible is suspect.

Chapter 2: the descendants of Adam and Eve

Of Adam and Eve’s children, only three are biblically remembered: their first child Cain, who was exiled for murdering their second child Abel, followed by their third child Seth.  Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters after Seth.  Genesis chronicles the lineage of Seth, which includes Noah, and curiously, Genesis includes Cain’s lineage as well.

All known history had filtered through Noah at the floods end.  The stories in Genesis were memorized, not written.  Noah might just as well have deemed Cain’s lineage unnecessary, as was the case for other children of Adam and Eve.  Had Noah excluded Cain from his teachings, Cain’s descendants would be unknown.  One should assume that Noah had reason to protect with care the memory of Cain and Cain’s descendants.

For Noah, there was one notable reason to save the memory of Cain’s lineage.  Noah received significant help from Cain’s descendants in the construction of his ship.  They were likely responsible for food stores and supplies, and for technology involved in the ship’s construction.  In a sense, Noah owed Cain’s descendants for his shipbuilding success and for his life- the redemption of Cain perhaps.

2.1 Where did Cain’s wife come from?

Recall that Cain, the first son of Adam and Eve, murdered his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8).  As per the story, Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve’s only children, were required to give a sacrifice to God.  God preferred Abel’s sacrifice to Cain’s, and so Cain jealously murdered Abel.  God, it would seem, prefers one to sacrifice something one cares about, otherwise it is not a sacrifice at all.

As punishment for the murder of Abel, Cain was forced to leave the presence of his family and went to live in the land of Nod; Genesis 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.  Cain found a wife in Nod; Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare E’-noch; …

Did Cain take his unnamed sister with him as his wife?  Was incest okay back then?  Why didn’t the Bible speak of early daughters of Adam and Eve?  Would it be okay with Adam and Eve to have one of their daughters leave with their murderous son?  Wouldn’t this have been a noteworthy point in the genealogy of Adam and Eve?

It is obvious in modern times why incest is a bad thing.  It causes serious genetic problems.  Those same problems would have occurred in Adam and Eve’s time as well.  This is an inescapable reality of genetics.  This is perhaps a reason incest is a sin!

For those in some modern religions: with faith in their religion, they must accept a sort of foggy haze surrounding the question of the origin of Cain’s wife.  They stand faithfully by their lack of understanding.  For those who want answers, open your eyes.

The only reasonable explanation for the existence of Cain’s wife is that other humans that God had let the “earth bring forth” were in the land of Nod, and there Cain found a wife.  This is biblical, and agrees perfectly with scientific findings.

With Abel dead and Cain gone, Adam and Eve had no children around.  Eve then had Seth.  After Seth, Adam and Eve had other “sons and daughters“.  There were no daughters born to Adam and Eve before their son Seth was born.  Unless one contorts the wording of the Bible, the existence of ancient humans separate from Adam and Eve is an obvious biblical reality.

Wisely, some who preach avoid the topics of Genesis while holding it in quiet reserve as the truth.  They avoid the controversies of Genesis but correctly council caution against doubting its validity.  They have found that many who practice rational reason throughout the week refuse their continued attendance at churches known to uphold irrational beliefs.  Other would be church goers have given up all spiritual beliefs over modern mythology; they have become casual atheists over unsubstantiated religious beliefs stemming from Genesis.

It will be interesting to see if preachers will risk taking a reasonable and rational stand on Noah’s flood aimed at winning back those that are lost.  Nothing about Noah’s flood or Genesis is illogical, irrational, or mythological.  Instead, all too often, religion is illogical, irrational, and mythological.  There is a disappointing difference between religion and the Bible.

If one is to understand Genesis 1-11, a look beyond common religious tradition is essential.  After a look with open eyes, Genesis becomes perfectly understandable and becomes perfectly and precisely true.  For those that do not reject science, Genesis is perhaps the most provable book in the Bible; wouldn’t that be a world changer!

Those who are anti science should consider that God creates any way he pleases.  Loving and cherishing a religious belief is not a factor in whether or not it is of the Truth.

Does a concept of humans separate from Adam and Eve somehow reduce God’s authority over creation?  Biblically, God made the other beings as well and they were nearly identical to Adam and Eve genetically.  God allowed the earth to bring them forth, or stated more clearly, instead of handmade, they were more a result of life’s natural processes- processes that were designed by God or were designed under God’s authority.

Often imagined to be about out of this world beings, Gen 6:2 describes the sons of God mating with the daughters of men.  Then, from Gen 6:4,There were giants (Nephilim) in the earth…”  The sons of the lineage of Adam and Eve are the sons of God- although fallen.  The daughters of men were from the neighboring tribes of Nephilim.

Some still preach that “giants” resulted from the mating of “angels” with humans.  Nephilim was wrongly translated as giants; is better translated as cave dwellers or cave men; or perhaps is best translated as outlanders that were less civilized and different.  Those preachers may as well be preaching about Hercules and other fabled beings- it is the continuing mythology of religion yet the Bible is perfectly accurate.

Biblically, we are all said to be descendants of Adam.  Noah was a descendent of Adam and we are all descendants of Noah.  After the biblical flood, only the descendants of Noah remained and all descendants of Noah are descendants of Adam.  All other bloodlines were eliminated.  Except perhaps for the wife of Noah, and perhaps the wives of Noah’s sons, all other ancient humans were gone.  Completely consistent with a literal Genesis and with the findings of science, before Noah‘s flood there were many non-descendants of Adam.

The flood also ended much of the diversity of the rest of animal life if only one to seven pairs of each kind of animal survived.  This was the largest mammalian die off ever, but because of Noah’s ship, it was not extinction.

Many skeletal remains of humans that lived before Adam have been discovered.  This is an undeniable truth.  Beware of the ramifications of denial, Exodus 20:16.  Adam was handmade but lived amongst Nephilim.

The mitochondrial DNA of one such skeletal find was inconsistent with all other people on Earth.  It makes sense that some of the remains of humans that predated biblical Eve would have had different mitochondrial DNA- some but not all.  There would likely have been at least three mitochondrial DNA strains from the origins of the Nephilim=Homines sapientes= humans.  Some sources suggest that even fewer than three mating pairs are essential to a viable population.

However, the traces of the so-called mitochondrial Eve from over 140 thousand years ago will show up even in Noah’s descendants (us) since Noah and his sons probably had wives outside the Adam and Eve bloodline.  This is why geneticists using their modern findings project back to a mitochondrial Eve from about 140 thousand years ago.  There is no evidence against literal biblical Genesis in mitochondrial findings, only support.

Beginning in Genesis 4:17, Adam and Eve’s family tree is chronicled in two separate branches; namely Cain’s branch and Seth’s branch.  While Adam and Eve had other male and female children after their third child Seth, their lives were not considered notable and they are not listed.

Cain and many of Cain’s descendants made great achievements and some are listed biblically.  Cain may have learned a great deal from the ancient people he was forced to dwell with.  Those same achievements would later be known and understood by Seth’s bloodline as well.  It is a sure bet that Cain’s descendants and Seth’s descendants all knew each other.

Cain’s family tree had two names in common with Seth’s family tree and this could be a point of confusion.  The names E’-noch and La’-mech are listed in both branches.  This is common even in modern times- even with what is now a much greater list of names from which to choose.

2.2 The lineage of Cain.

The lineage of Cain is as follows (from Gen 4:17).  Cain fathered a son named E’-noch.  A great city built by Cain was named after Enoch.  Clearly, Cain would have passed construction skills down to his offspring.  Then, Enoch fathered I’-rad; Irad fathered Me-hu’-ja-el; Mehujael fathered Me-thu’-sa-el; Methusael fathered La’-mech.  Lamech had two named wives: A’-dah and Zillah who had several named sons and a named daughter.

Lamech and Adah had Ja’-bal and Ju‘-bal.  Jabal dwelt in tents and raised cattle.  He understood the food requirements of livestock, and in general, how to care for grazing animals.  In addition, he may have made fabrics and rope.  These skills were clearly useful to Noah.  Ju’-bal was a musician and played the harp and flute.  He may have provided training in that which soothes the nerves in what was sure to be a stressful year for Noah and his family.

Lamech and his other wife Zillah had Tu’-bal-cain, and a daughter called Na’-a-mah.  Tubalcain knew how to refine and shape brass and iron.  His skills were certainly useful to Noah during the ship’s construction.  There are many areas of tool making, rudimentary fastener manufacture, etc., in which Tubalcain’s skills were sure to have been applied.  There is archaeological evidence of iron smelting that pre-dated the more modern bronze and iron ages (described later).  Naamah’s skills are not mentioned.  She may have been a willing hand in many essential parts of the ship’s construction.

2.3 The lineage of Seth.

Beginning with Genesis 5:1, the family tree of Seth, Adam and Eve’s third son, is chronicled.  This family tree is intended to show a direct lineage of Noah from Adam and Eve and is detailed enough to be usable as a timeline.  After the birth of Seth, Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters that are not listed.

Continuing, Seth fathered E’-nos; Enos fathered Ca-i’-nan; Cainan fathered Ma-hal’-a-leel; Mahalaleel fathered Jar’-ed; Jared fathered E’-noch; and Enoch fathered Me-thu’-se-lah.  It is interesting to note that Methuselah was about one hundred eighty years old when Adam died.  They would certainly have known each other.  Then, Methuselah fathered La’-mech a few years after Adam died.  Lamech fathered Noah.  Lamech’s wife is un-named.  Finally, Noah and his unnamed wife had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Ja’-pheth.  Noah’s three sons had un-named wives but had no children until after the upcoming flood.

Methuselah died shortly before the flood and had known all the generations of descendants of Adam and Eve.

Some biblical “literalists” claim that this genealogy is somehow out of order.  They change the order to explain the existence of Cain’s wife.  Those would-be literalists do not readily accept the literal order of the stated lineages.  The contorted order of lineage reeks of their beloved religious mythology while the literal lineage shows that other beings existed in addition to the Adam and Eve bloodline.  The literal wording and order is correct if the Bible is what it claims to be.

Naamah, Adah, and Zillah were the only female names listed in the two family trees- except for Eve.  One should assume they had done things worthy of mention.  It is also possible that they themselves were of the bloodline of Adam and Eve and had proper birth names, while other women were from the separate but intermingled Nephilim population, and had no proper names.  Adam and Eve named their children for God- a tradition that continued through the generations.  Noah’s wife was not mentioned by name, neither were Noah’s sons’ wives.  This may indicate they were not of the Adam and Eve bloodline.

Chapter 3: Noah’s flood

As per the biblical flood story beginning in Genesis Ch. 6, Noah, a faithful man, was warned by God of an upcoming worldwide flood and was given instruction as to how to survive the flood.  The flood was to be caused by God and would destroy all land dwelling animal life leaving only the “purest“(i.e., Noah and his family and select animals) to repopulate the world.

It is interesting to note- this entire event is similar to the intelligent design of creation and its use of extinctions as seen in the biblical creation story.  For the good of the many to come in the future, God culled the few in Noah‘s time.  Noah’s bloodline and beliefs were to be the foundation for all that followed.  This is similar to themes seen in other biblical stories (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah).  It appears that one’s biggest fear should be the wrath of a displeased God.

As the story goes, Noah was instructed to build a ship (ark) of certain specifications suitable in size to accommodate his family, animals, and food stores.  He accepted the instruction, built the ship as specified, and survived the flood.  At the event’s end, the ship was aground in the mountains of Ararat.  All existing land dwelling air breathing animal life, including humans, stems from the life that disembarked Noah’s ship after the flood ended.  All other land dwelling air-breathing animal life had died.

As reason predicts, virtually every ancient civilization maintained a flood story similar to the biblical story- they all stemmed from the same event.  While all people inherently want to believe in the supernatural, people do not inherently want to believe in a flood story.  One should reasonably conclude that a catastrophic flood actually occurred.

Some believe that a flood occurred but by chance, a boat owner survived with his family and livestock.  They believe the tale of the flood later grew to incorporate an advance warning by a god and subsequently, the construction of a large ship.  Nevertheless, based on the existence of flood stories from virtually every civilization, they believe that a devastating flood did occur- although perhaps only in a localized area.  They do not believe it possible that an ancient person could have been forewarned about an upcoming flood.  They do not believe it possible that Noah built the ship described.  Believing such a story requires beliefs in the existence of God, and in an ancient person’s ability to build a large ship.

About Noah’s abilities, one common misconception people have about the ancients is that they could not have been intelligent.  They were, in fact, as intelligent as anyone alive is today, but with a limited store of knowledge and among them, Noah stood out.

Do you like survivalists?  Noah was the sort of man that could be dropped off in the wilderness without provisions and would there build an empire.  Noah was the ultimate survivalist.  Noah was likely the most intelligent man alive in his day; given his biblically specified longevity, he was likely much more capable than any modern person.  It is also clear that he knew God.

Although his store of knowledge was limited, Noah had likely mastered every craft and trade known in his time.  Among those ancient crafts were woodworking, stone cutting, metal casting, and small boatbuilding.  His metal working skills included copper, bronze, and iron.  Biblical accounts and archaeological finds show that these crafts coexisted with Noah.  Noah had mastered these crafts while burdened by providing his own and his family’s sustenance.

After the flood, the crafts used in the ship’s construction were unnecessary for several generations, as was boatbuilding in general.  There would have been a technological gap after the flood.

For those readers who consider the construction of Noah’s ship impossible, in reality, they themselves could not have built it.  They should consider that Noah was more intelligent and craftier than they are- not that the ancients were boastful liars and the flood story is mythology.

Without the aid of modern cranes and equipment, how many readers could cut and move stones weighing tons across soft ground?  Noah and the people of his ancient time did it; there is evidence of quarried stones weighing many tons that mark many ancient sites.  Then there are those willing to believe anything except the reasonable; things such as “UFO’s with their out of this world alien devices must have quarried, moved, and set the heavy stones.”  It all makes for some good science fiction movies though.

It will be shown that the construction of a ship as biblically specified need not be considered mythology but is completely reasonable.  Now, if one is to assume the ship was actually built, then clearly the story can be expanded to include details of its construction.  God did not build the ship for Noah.  Noah built the ship and had to plan every aspect of its construction and launch.  He could not have skipped any of the details.  Each board that was prepared, fitted, and installed on the ship had Noah‘s attention.

A probable ship’s design will be presented and methods of construction are shown to be reasonable or even trivial for Noah.  The ability to build the ship was clearly within Noah‘s capabilities.

So most agree there was a flood but disagree as to its extent.  What aspect of the flood killed all life?  Drowning might have killed some life yet, in modern times, hearing of a seriously flooded region is not associated with news of mass death due to drowning.  The biblical story does not claim or imply that all life drowned.

What kills land dwelling animal life, but not vegetation or sea life, during a 40-day deluge of rain followed by several months of heavy fog?  One answer is exposure.  Life not accustomed to living in water was wet and cold without a means of getting dry for most of a year.

As another cause of death, it will be shown that atmospheric pressure dropped significantly at the event’s beginning.  The pressure drop caused poisonous gases to boil out of the seas and land.  The poisonous gases likely killed much of the air breathing life long before exposure did.

Now, assuming Noah built the ship, clearly he built it somewhere.  Evidence of Noah’s shipyard must exist somewhere!  To find the site one must first understand what they should expect to find.

The biblical version of the flood story accurately depicts an actual global flood event.  Archaeological evidence of Noah’s shipyard, the likely final resting place for the ship, and a monument of stones originally used at his shipyard complete with bones of Noah’s descendants have been identified.

3.1 Noah’s flood story evidence.

What evidence is there of a great flood beyond the biblical story?  Not much if any that is considered credible, not yet at least.  Some conditions of the flood have been religiously exaggerated and as a result, it is not possible to find evidence.  First, where should one look for flood evidence?

There have been many expeditions in search of Noah’s ship.  There have even been a few inconclusive finds, but consider this- what if a reputable archaeologist uncovers a wooden structure at say 3000 meters above sea level on Mt Ararat?  Then, perhaps the structure even has writings on it stating that it is in fact the ship built by Noah as described biblically.  Also, suppose the carbon dating results come back suggesting the structure is old enough.  The religious world would rally around that sort carbon dating results.  Most flood-story believers would be satisfied and would celebrate.  Some would quickly adjust science to explain any lack of other supporting evidence.  Other story believers would be skeptical and would require other more subtle evidence supporting the find.  After all, the structure could have been built by Noah’s grandkids after the flood to commemorate the flood event.  A find of this nature, which is unsupported by other findings, really only proves that ancient people knew of and/or believed the flood actually occurred.

Only an archaeological find with supporting evidence will convince the skeptical, and those who are non-believers.  Evidence for a true Noah’s ship find would include substantial scientific evidence separate from a ship-like structure.

Major floods leave major evidence.  If the ship like find were preserved in ice then there would be a line of preserved driftwood and animal remains at that same level as well.  This same evidence would be global.  If that sort of evidence does not exist, then the find at frozen altitudes is not likely a true find.  One should search at the lower, unfrozen altitudes.

Now, if Noah’s actual ship landed at lower, non-frozen altitudes, then it is unlikely that the structure still exists.  Driftwood and animal remains at that lower level would have quickly deteriorated along with the ship.  Most obvious evidence for a flood would be gone- most but not all.

Consider that there is no evidence of a flood at the frozen levels.  Skiers in the Rocky Mountains do not occasionally stumble across frozen exotic African animal carcasses that had by chance drifted into the area.  An occasional coconut found at high altitudes is evidence of tornados and waterspouts, not a global flood.  There are no finds at frozen levels that support a catastrophic flood.  One should consider that the flood story has been misunderstood.  What does the story actually say?

Biblically, the flood and the conditions surrounding the flood were sufficient to destroy all air breathing land dwelling life.  Noah’s ship was the only protection on Earth from certain death.  As learned from the biblical creation story, one should assume the flood was precisely as described in the flood story.  However, due to modern misunderstandings about what is biblically called water, the extent of the flood has been completely misunderstood.  Both cloud cover and seawater are called water in the flood story (see Appendix C for the rationale behind this statement).

Expeditions in search of the final destination of Noah’s ship are typically conducted at levels well above that which is biblically said to have been the water level (sea level) increase during the flood.  Although an atmosphere of water covered the mountaintops, a sea of water did not.  Yet Noah’s ship did settle aground in the mountains of Ararat.

Was this a local flood?  No.  This flood was worldwide with perhaps heavy snow at the Polar Regions, and very little if any rain in some desert areas.  Had the flood been local, God would have simply instructed Noah to take his family out of the area to safety.  Animals would not have required protection.  They would have survived elsewhere and then quickly repopulated flooded areas.

While it is possible for water to pool deeply into basin areas, if one has expected evidence of rain levels in excess of about eight meters or 15 cubits at Noah’s shipyard site, these expectations have only led to disappointment.  This, of course, begs the question “Where was Noah at the time of the flood? “

It will be shown that a 40-day deluge of rain could and did land Noah’s ship in the mountains of Ararat.  The key is knowing where he built his ship.

Evidence of a 40-day deluge of rain is available all over the world.  In fact, even in the ~ 50,000 year-old Barringer Crater (Arizona), sediments in the crater evidence a level of seventy feet of water (21.5meters).  This is a crater formed by a meteor strike in an arid region and provides perhaps the most pristine evidence of an extensive rain available anywhere.  The dating of this water level is speculative but puts it in recent geologic history.

The seventy feet of water in Barringer Crater does not appear to have come from rivers, streams, or ground water.  There are no deposits normally associated with river water or ground water flow.  The only reasonable possibility is profuse and continuous rain- reasonable except many do not believe that that much rain could have occurred there.  Yet on the other side of the globe, Noah had experienced a similar and continuous rain.

In a basin such as Barringer Crater, water level increase can far exceed the rainfall’s depth (as measured by a rain gauge).  Due to its sloping sides and based on rough calculations, about thirty feet of rain would be required to fill the Barringer Crater to a level of seventy feet.  That translates into about nine inches per day for forty days.  Rain in that daily range does occur.  South Korea often has rainfall levels of well over nine inches in a day, but not for forty consecutive days.

In 1929, Leonard Woolley discovered evidence of a flood in the ancient city of Ur.  Ur existed as far back as 4000 BC- possibly before Noah was born.  Woolley considered the flood to have been confined to the Mesopotamian area and claimed it extended some 100 by 400 miles.  These are areas easily inundated by 20 to 30 feet of global rain.  Sediments are heavy there due to runoff from surrounding highland areas.  There are cities in that region which survived the rain without flooding.  Although biblically, all life even in those un-flooded cities died.

Many other areas of flooding, including the Lake Van basin in Turkey, are documented as well (covered later).  In fact, many global closed basin (endorheic) lakes have flood data available in various scientific studies, and these studies often include the carbon-dated timing of the events.  In addition, the world’s savannahs experienced unusually high levels of growth after the flood in that same time period.

Even though they admit they do not completely understand the story, will the religious world be disappointed to learn that Noah’s flood was a smaller flood than formerly believed?  The flood was the biggest and most catastrophic in the history of humanity and was global, yet not as big as religiously believed.  The flood killed all land dwelling/air breathing life yet seawater did not cover the mountaintops, but Noah did land in the mountains of Ararat.  Is it ever okay to exaggerate biblical stories?

A complete understanding of the creation story explains the misunderstandings with the flood stories water level.  This same understanding eliminates all apparent contradictions within Noah’s flood story and eliminates the multiple story theories of modern theology.  This same understanding renders the flood completely understandable and completely plausible as an actual event.  However, as with a fish story told about the biggest fish ever caught in some lake, the fish quickly becomes exaggerated.  One can expect some to be disappointed to learn the true size of that which was the biggest fish (or flood) ever.

Could God have flooded Earth to a level exceeding the height of Mt Everest?  Certainly, but if he had, evidence would be abundant.  Will religions continue to alienate knowledgeable people with exaggerations?

An analysis of Noah’s shipbuilding project follows including his ship’s design, an essential shipyard layout, construction methods likely employed, and his ship’s safe launch as the flood event began.  This analysis allows one to systematically search for Noah’s shipbuilding site, and with positive results.  Knowing Noah’s shipyard site explains much about the flood event.

3.2 Noah’s ship design.

God specified the dimensions of Noah’s ship.  The length was to be 300 cubits, width- 50 cubits, and height- 30 cubits (roughly 475x80x48 feet more or less).  The exact length of the cubit is not knowable and depends entirely on the person doing the measuring- Noah.  Standards of weights and measures did not exist at the time.  Noah measured a cubit with his forearm and hand.

No matter what length Noah used for a cubit, one could expect the proportions of length to width and height to be correct on his ship.  Those same proportions, as specified by God, are successfully used in modern boat and shipbuilding.  They were likely the same proportions previously used by Noah and other ancient boat builders for small boats.  Noah simply had to scale up a known boat design to ship size.  In fact, he probably understood how much water his ship would draw using the same sense of scale.  Nevertheless, as simple as the ship’s design might have been for Noah, the actual construction of the ship followed by stocking it with food was a nearly overwhelming task.

The ship was a wooden plank hull made of gopher wood with carefully fitted joints.  The actual meaning of gopher wood is unknown but squared or planed wood is one definition from the Greek Septuagint.  Although pitched wood (tar-covered wood) was used inside and out, the expansion of the wooden joints as they became wet, and as atmospheric pressure dropped (explained later), mechanically sealed the joints.  The wooden planks, forward and aft, terminated in a keel (bow stem).

The hull shape was likely that of a very large canoe.  A canoe shape optimizes structural loading.  Ships with underwater corners could not survive the modest variable loading inherent in even a calm sea or lake.

Destructive torsional forces inherent in box shaped vessels eliminate their use- especially in large wooden plank ships.  It is much more difficult (or impossible) to build a large wooden barge shaped, or box shaped vessel, make it structurally sound, and have its timbers swell to seal the joints.  There is no reason to think the ship was box shaped.  There is ample reason not to think the ship was box shaped.  Several boxes joined together by ropes would not have been serviceable- all on board would have died.  A large round wooden ship is out of the question as well.

Some have proposed construction out of reeds and vines.  There is ample reason not to think the ship was built of reeds and vines thatched together.  While a vessel built in such a manner could perhaps survive a deluge and float, its passengers would have been exposed to all the flood’s hazards except drowning.

Had Noah built a magic ship, it could have been built any number of ways.  However, real ships must conquer real problems common in shipbuilding.  Stories written by other ancient peoples that suggest other than canoe shaped structures are inaccurate stories.  How do we know that?  Noah could have built in many ways but he could only have survived in a structurally sound canoe shaped ship.

On Noah’s ship, there were no sails or other means of propulsion, and no rudder.  Keels jutting out fore and aft were unnecessary.  There were no fancy appendages and carvings but instead, Noah’s ship served a practical purpose only.  This was a ship designed to float with its cargo for the duration of the upcoming flood event.

The concept of having wind steer a ship head on into oncoming seas with appendages above deck, although an interesting idea is ridiculous in practice.  Once closed inside the ship and floating, Noah had no idea where he was.  He had no control over his ship.  He had no means of averting an impending disaster.  His ship would not have survived high winds and heavy seas with or without fancy steering appendages.  Without propulsion, modern ships of that size built of steel do not survive high winds and heavy seas.  It is more reasonable to expect that there was very little wind and seas were calm.

The ship’s hull was essentially identical at each end.  There was no specific bow and stern.  The concept of a bow and stern is unnecessary for a ship designed only to float.

The specified ship’s dimensions approach the limit of wooden hull shipbuilding.  This ship was about as big as it could be by necessity, but not bigger than could be successfully built and floated.  This fact, in and of itself, lends much credibility to the entire biblical flood story.  Had the ship been specified as bigger than is possible even in modern times, one would have reason to doubt the story.

What ancient, in a made up story, could guess the dimensions of the largest reasonably possible wooden ship?  A simple sense of scale would not provide a maximum buildable ship size.  Only modern engineering expertise can provide a maximum for a given sea condition.  Nevertheless, although perhaps very well constructed, this ship could not survive heavy seas.  One should assume seas during the flood, once Noah’s ship began to float, were modest at their worst.  Nowhere in the biblical story is it suggested that seas were rough.

In addition to the dimensional specifications, the ship was to have a door into the side accessible as a gangway, multiple stories or decks inside, and a dimensionally specified venting arrangement at the top of the ship.  The single vent, or window, was only one cubit high (about 19 inches), was covered by roof, and could be closed or sealed.  This was the only vent in the ship.  This is minimally adequate venting and the reason for its specification is explained later.  There was no access to the outer main deck except by crawling through this window or removing its upper covering.

Although not specified, what should be the door size?  The ship’s door was sized in width to accommodate large animals walking side by side (~12 feet?).  The door’s height should accommodate the tallest animal (~18 feet?).  Then, there was the necessity of a ramp or gangway.

While Noah could have easily built a stationary access ramp at his shipyard, he had to accommodate off-loading at an unknown final landing site.  If the door was hinged at the bottom and if it opened out, it would serve as a gangway or ramp easing entry and exit.  A ramp/door combination is a reasonable possibility.

It is also possible for the door to have been separate from the ramp.  A hinged ramp could have been installed externally and hoisted up with rope against the ship’s side during the flood.  The door could have been closed from the inside allowing Noah to wedge it tightly shut.

As per the story, God closed the ship’s door after all that were allowed had boarded and just before the flood had begun.  Noah’s inability to close and seal his ship’s door may indicate a design flaw on Noah’s part.  Noah had no obvious means of testing his door design for water tightness in advance of its actual use.  There would not have been tried and true designs for doors on ships.  On the other hand, Noah might have held out hope that his cherished relatives would ultimately be allowed on the ship.  Perhaps Noah thought they had earned their continued existence.  Noah did not close the door sealing their fate, God did.  Noah did not have to live with the misery of guilt.

The only two openings in the ship were on opposite ends.  Later, as construction closed up the ship’s ends, the ventilation from the only two openings would provide necessary ship-long ventilation and welcomed relief from heat.  In addition, a door in the side near the ship’s end would have minimal impact on the ship’s strength.  Please see Figure 3a, which shows what Noah’s ship looked like.

Figure 3a. Noah's ship showing the door and window as specifid by God.



In addition to dry goods storage, Noah had to build a water storage system in his ship.  Drinking water was the most critically important substance stored on the ship.  He no doubt knew he could not count on the water he would eventually float in to be drinkable and besides, he had no access to water he would eventually float in short of a hole in the ship’s bottom.

Even with a hole or sea chest in the ship’s bottom, he was not floating for perhaps the first 30 to 40 days and it would have been useless.  Yet, he would have expected rainwater to be pure (yes- rain was common in Noah‘s time).

It is possible that it did not rain at Noah’s shipyard while he built his ship, but the rain cycle had begun sometime after “day 4” of the creation story well before Noah’s time.  In addition, there is ample geologic evidence for rain prior to Noah’s flood- certainly in other parts of the world.  Therefore, he had a cask for water storage and a means of replenishing it with rainwater.

Due to its weight, the cask’s bottom was situated low and near the ship’s center next to the biggest water consumers-elephants.  Anyone having knowledge of boating would put all large fixed masses low and near a ship’s centerline on the lowest deck.

How could Noah see inside his ship?  Had he not planned it in the beginning, he would have quickly realized the need for light inside his pitch-black ship.  Lanterns or torches of some sort might not have been a good idea since they would be surrounded by a tender box of flammable materials and since they consume oxygen.  Although natural lighting is a reasonable choice, modern glass was not available for windows, yet obsidian was.

Obsidian is a naturally occurring translucent or even clear volcanic glass.  Noah could have cut and sealed obsidian stones into the deck and upper sides for sunlight; even small stones the size of a coin would have made a big difference in lighting.  At the very least, transparent obsidian was used in Noah’s one topside window.  One might expect evidence of obsidian use at Noah’s shipyard.

Although not a luxury liner with smiling giraffes hanging their heads out of its windows, the ship’s construction was no trivial task.  It was in fact a massively laborious undertaking.  Even before construction began, a suitable means of supporting the ship had to be designed and built.  Improper support during construction, or when dry docked for repairs and re-floated, causes damage even to modern ships of this size- even ships built of steel.  As with all large ships, because of its weight and size, this ship was a fragile structure.

3.3 Noah’s shipyard.

If one is to discover Noah’s shipbuilding site, one should first know what is required to build such a ship.  First, it is not possible to build a 300 cubit long ship without a plan.  Noah did not just begin attaching boards together until his creation was big enough to be called a ship.  He did not bend a stand of trees over forming the shape of a ship.  This was a real construction site not a fairy tale.

Once a plan was designed, a suitably flat site was selected.  Timber, either grown in a suitable location or purchased, was transported to the shipyard, cut, hewn, stacked, and dried under roof at the site.  In addition to wooden structures used for shelter and for dry storage of materials, Noah had to have a solid support structure, or foundation, for his ship.

Next, or simultaneously, stones for use as a foundation for the ship were quarried and then moved to the site.

While wooden shipyard structures, such as shelter, have rotted away, the foundation stones for the ship should still exist.

It is possible to recreate the layout of Noah’s shipyard, or at least some semblance of it.  In Figure 3b, a minimal layout or arrangement of stones that would work to support Noah’s ship are shown.  The stones had to be close enough to prevent the ship’s hull from sagging and settling between the stones.  They had to simulate the continuous water pressure the ship would experience while floating.  If the foundation did not simulate those pressures well enough, the planks would shift as the ship began to float causing the ship to leak and sink.

As shown, the stones are about 10 feet (6 cubits) apart.  Except for a smooth rope hole in the largest stones, they were rough-cut.  The rope holes had to be smooth enough not to chaff and cut ropes.  The stones were cut to suit Noah‘s height requirements accommodating the ships contour and the uneven ground at the shipyard site.  The stones would vary in height and would offset hills and dips on the ground providing a properly contoured solid foundation.  They would run most of the length of the ship.

Figure 3b. Noah's shipyard layout. This shows a foundation stone layout for his ship.

Figure 3c. A section of Noah's ship tied down and sitting on a stone foundation. Necessary wooden blocking and wedges shown on the left side and center only.

In addition to the stones, Noah would have had wooden blocking and wooden wedges between the stones and the ship.  The wooden blocking and wedges allowed Noah to temporarily remove support in any area of the ship as planks were added to that area.  Later, wedges allowed support to be restored and the amount of the support to be adjusted.  It is not possible to build a 300 cubit long wooden ship that will eventually float without a foundation as described.

The holes shown in the bigger stones of Figure 3b, served multiple purposes.  During construction, the stones with holes were used for rigging to tie off vertical beams while they provided the essential support for the outer edges of the ship.  After construction, the stones were used as temporary ballast as the flood event began (explained later).

Modern shipyards commonly use concrete slabs 4ftx4ftx8ft in size during construction for mooring, tie off points, and ships’ support.  The modern shipyard “stones” have rope or cable holes in them similar to the stones Noah used.

The foundation stones would support the ship as shown in Figure 3c.  Figure 3c shows a cross section of Noah’s ship, or at least one reasonable possibility, sitting on a foundation of stones.  (Note: the joints of the planks would not be sloped as shown.  The joints should be square, rabbit, or shiplap joints.)  Just before the flood event began, the ship would be tied tightly to the heaviest stones to add temporary ballast to the ship.

3.4 The ships construction.

Noah had lived in a region that engaged in boat building- near seas, rivers, and lakes.  The area of Mesopotamia was heavily engaged in the shipping trade and in commerce.  Boat building techniques were known in Noah‘s time as were woodworking techniques.  In fact, Noah was likely a boat builder in his younger life.  He may have planted, pruned, and later harvested trees suitable for boat building.  Then, with his lumber, built boats, sold boats, and actively engaged in trade.  Yet nothing the size of Noah’s biblical ship had ever been built.

Noah had likely accumulated wealth in some measure.  Unlike most people, he did not have to devote all of his time to his families sustenance.  His wealth must have afforded him time to work on a long-term project such as the construction of a ship.  How long did it take?  He had as much as 120 years to plan and build his ship.

How was Noah’s ship constructed?  Since Noah had no modern technology, no modern fasteners, no power tools, the ship was constructed of manually hewn timbers.  He worked with copper, bronze, and iron and made his own hand tools.  With his hand made tools, he could cut, hand plane, and drill holes in lumber.  In addition, he could cut, drill holes in, and then move stones that weighed tons.  He may have made his own rope.  Most people in modern times could not do these things, or build a ship, even with modern tools and equipment.  For Noah, he was applying skills that had been essential to his family’s survival in his day-to-day life.

How does one construct a wooden plank ship without modern fasteners?  The answer- mortise and tenon joints for the framing, and dowels instead of modern screws to pin planks to the framing- among other possibilities.  Although inconvenient, joints of this fashion are the strongest available even in modern times and simply required labor and workmanship.  His plank-to-plank connections could have been stitched or dovetailed.  Like modern pocket-hole connections, planks could have been diagonally nailed to each other and doweled to frames.

It is also possible he used a sort of riveting process on the ship’s internal beams.  He could have driven long brass or copper rods through drilled holes in joints, and added washers on each side.  Then, by flattening the ends of the rod, he would have accomplished a riveted joint.  Joints of this type are not watertight but he may have used them inside on structural members.

At the ship’s completion, a hard bitumen coating may have been applied in layers over the entire outer hull- except for the door seam.  These were all known processes in Noah’s time.  Noah may have designed some of these boatbuilding techniques in his younger life.

Wood, stone, pitch, animal skins, fur, hemp, copper, bronze, and iron were among the only materials available to Noah.  It is reasonable to expect Noah had a mastery of their use.  He had learned (perhaps from Cain’s descendants) to make full use of all available materials and likely had many more options for their use than one could imagine.

He already knew which parts of a tree were suitable as planks, beams, and dowels.  Although each board was completely coated with pitch before installation, the swelling of the dried lumber planks as they became saturated with water provided the ships primary water tightness.  He no doubt understood that dried wood swells when wet.  The lumber had to be uniform in thickness.

After careful preparation, construction probably began at the center of the ship, including the upper and internal decks, and then continued toward the ends.  The keel was first laid on the leveled foundation stones, and then the framing was jointed together.

As construction progressed and framing was assembled, the ship looked somewhat like a dead animal’s rib cage.  After a portion of the ship was “framed up,” decks were installed.  Planks were first installed on the internal decks and then on the outer or upper deck.  This would keep rainwater from flooding what would be the ship’s bilge had bottom planks been installed first (assuming Noah anticipated brief periods of rain during the ship’s construction).  Simultaneously, the internal bulkheads or rooms were completed.

The ship had become a very rigid structure before the leak critical bottom and side planks, or strakes, were scribed to fit and installed.  No other construction method is feasible for a large ship.  Many ancient construction methods for small boats are not applicable to large ships.

Finally, beginning at the ship’s keel, planks were added to the outer hull.  As planks were fitted, frames were faired by shimming or trimming and then stringers were fitted between frames.  The transverse (side-to-side) framing was likely on one-cubit centers down the length of the keel.

As the outer hull’s plank installation had begun, the wooden blocks and wedges of the ship’s foundation were first temporarily moved out of the way, and then planks in that area fitted.  After planks were fitted, covered with pitch, and attached, the wooden blocking was reinstalled and re-tightened with wedges.

Small areas of the ship had to be temporarily unsupported while bottom planks were added.  Noah would have gained a strong sense of the fragile nature of his ship’s hull as he reinstalled blocking and wedges to re-support his ship.  He would have taken care not to overdrive his wedges and punch a hole in his ship’s bottom (even if the planks were thick).

After an outer area of the ship was covered by wooden planks and re-supported, Noah may have attached external framing in addition to the existing internal framing.  This framing may have “backed up” or “strong-backed” every other or every second internal frame.  This would have served to stabilize the outer planks.

One can imagine Noah’s sons standing on the ship’s deck, looking down on Noah as he walked about preparing and then passing lumber up 50 feet with ropes to his sons at upper deck levels.  The planks were masterfully planed to thickness.  Prepared planks were bent around the frames as strakes.  Unlike small boats, the planks were not cut into curved shapes of varying thickness

The ship did not look like a log cabin.  Variations in plank thickness would cause leaks and failures as the planks soaked up water and expanded during the flood event.  The ship’s bottom planks were Noah’s hand selected best.  Inferior lumber found use as flooring and petitions (bulkheads) inside the ship.  Compartments or rooms were throughout the ship.  The compartments contributed structurally to the ship’s strength since they were, in effect, longitudinal (end-to-end) and transverse (side-to-side) bulkheads.


A water storage cask was built into the ship’s middle and was open to the atmosphere through the upper deck.  Like a water tower, the cask probably extended down from the upper deck through the ship to the lowest deck level.  Noah likely had a means of measuring the stored water depth in his built-in cask.  He would have watched the water level carefully while being prepared to ration water if necessary.

A simple sounding stone could have served as a means of measuring the cask’s water depth.  Even more likely, a series of plugged holes in the cask would have worked as well.  Plugged holes would have allowed Noah to tap the cask at all of the ships levels making it easy to distribute the water to his living cargo.  The cask could have served as a perfect rain gauge.  Water depth increase in his cask is probably the source of the 15 cubits of reported water level increase.

A means of bucketing water out of the bilge and then dumping it out of the ship’s sides was built in.  With it would go much of the animal wastes.  Leaks were a certainty, especially as the ship sat on its foundation before it floated free.  The ship may have set on its foundation for weeks or more after the rain had begun.  Leaks might have seemed unmanageable at first, but a few days into the flood event as the lumber tightened from swelling, leaks were easily managed or they stopped completely.

A great deal of time was required to build a ship meeting the biblical specifications.  Long before the ship’s completion, an ecosystem had developed inside including, spiders, insects, lizards, snakes, birds of many types, rodents, a bilge with water from dew, and algae, and everything else that would tend to inhabit a safe, mostly dry, sheltered environment.  During construction, the ship would likely have had some water in the bilge from daily dew accumulation.  This ecosystem might later help sustain Noah and his family during the flood.

3.5 Launching a ship.

One of the most critical parts of shipbuilding is a plan to get the newly completed ship safely off its solid foundation and into the water and floating freely.  In Noah’s case, he could count on rising water to lift his ship off its foundation.  If perfectly calm rising water could be expected, launching the ship was a simple matter.  It would self-launch.  If there were modest waves, safely launching the ship is another story.

While seas were likely calm during the flood, there were waves of at least a few feet.  If not planned for at launch, minimal waves of even less than a few feet could destroy the ship.  Noah anticipated the waves.  To safely launch, he tightly tied the largest foundation stones to his ship for temporary ballast as in Figure 3c.

The ballast, of Figure 3c, was necessary to keep the ship from surging and shifting on the foundation stones due to small waves as the water level increased during the flood.  Holes would have been punched through the ship’s bottom had the ship surged or shifted on the stones.  The temporary ballast worked by making the ship draw more water.

After water depth increased sufficiently, Noah could feel his ship moving and perhaps dragging the stones, breaking the stones, and breaking the ropes.  Once moving, the stones were released eliminating the ballast and allowing the ship to “pop up” and float safely above the stone foundation.

Noah likely devised a simple means of releasing all the ballast stones simultaneously when waters reached a safe level.  A long series of poles running the ship’s length, a set on each side, might have been used to spool up or roll tight the ropes holding the stones like a capstan or winch.  At the appropriate time, such an arrangement would allow the release of all stones simultaneously.  This is the surest method of the safe release of temporary ballast stones.

However, the simultaneous release of the stones may not have been essential.  The stones might have been safely released a few at a time beginning at either end.  Then, the stones may have remained loosely attached as anchors holding the ship in the general area of the shipyard until Noah was satisfied his ship could safely float free and above local hills.

Noah’s launching considerations are not at all a stretch of the imagination.  As he constructed the ship, he would have noticed that the blocking and wedging on top of each foundation stone (Figure 3c.) could easily punch through the ship’s hull.  He would have had a strong sense of the fragile nature of his ship’s hull relative to the ship’s weight.  He would have had serious concerns about his ship shifting on, or bouncing on its foundation due to small waves.  In addition, after floating free of the foundation, he would have been concerned about wind blowing the ship into a hill- this raises a question.

Why would Noah allow his ship to drift freely after water levels increased to a safe level?  Why did he not attempt to stay anchored up at his shipyard site?  This is a puzzling part of the story but he may not have realized that the water levels would ever subside.  He did not likely know how deep the flood would be and may have felt that drifting would eventually land him on dry ground.  After all, he had been told to build a floating ship.

It is also possible his immediate concern after his safe launch was to drift clear of the foundation stones.  In addition, it is possible that he did attempt to stay loosely anchored at his shipyard but the ropes eventually parted.

As the ship lifted away from the stone array of Figure 3b, the stones would have been scattered around and any semblance of orderly arrangement lost.  They would have been in complete disarray and many of them broken.

The added temporary ballast as described was essential to the safe launch of Noah’s ship.  It is completely reasonable to think he anticipated its necessity.  Stones of this type and quantity have been found at a site in Armenia (described later).

It is suggested by some that in ancient times stones tied permanently to a boat or ship and dangling in the water were for stability.  Actually, stones dangling from deck tied ropes would contribute to a boat’s capsize in moderate to heavy seas.  A calm water stability gain is deceptive.  As a boat rolls side to side in a sea, deck tied stones in the direction of the roll become further away from the ship’s center of buoyancy, which contributes to the rolling forces.  In addition, in a head on sea, “ballast stones” or “drogue stones” would cause a ship to swamp or break up and would only contribute to its demise.

There is a problem of practicality with dangling stones- traveling using sail power, or any sort of power, would have been unnecessarily slow.  It is unreasonable to expect that stones were ever used for stability by ancient mariners.

If dangling stones were used by the ancients for stability, it would account for the many “ballast” stones found in the seas since their boats would have quickly sunk in even moderate weather.

The abundance of stones with rope holes near their tops found in the ancient world’s waters may actually indicate how the ancients docked their boats while in port.  They likely maneuvered their boats into the shallows and tied off to one or more stones.  After tying off for the day, they waded ashore.  This is a valid use for a large stone with a rope hole near its top.  Because of surf, stones would slowly make their way into deeper water.

A large stone designed to hang by a rope would, by necessity, have its hole near its center of mass.  If the rope hole were near the stone’s top, the top would simply break off.  A large stone’s top weakened by a rope hole would not normally be strong enough to support the stone‘s weight.

The rope tied stones were added temporary ballast and possibly a few were retained as anchors on Noah‘s ship.  It is also possible a few stones were left dangling to slow the ships motion as it approached an impending collision with an embankment- but none was for stability.

3.6 Biblically discernible data on the cause of the flood.

One can imagine many noteworthy struggles during the ship’s construction and then during the ship’s use in the flood that could have been passed down in story form.  Yet, of all the details that could have been written, we only have a few.  These few details, possibly by design, are perhaps all that are needed to discover the cause of the flood.  It is clear from the story that God caused the flood, but that still implies that which can be discovered as a “natural” event.

If one is to believe that the flood occurred as described biblically, the religious myths surrounding the flood must be eliminated.  The water depth is just such a myth.  First, possible causes of the flood are examined.  It is possible something cataclysmic, such as a comet, meteor strike, or something internal to Earth triggered the event.  An unstable atmosphere could have caused it.  Science has only recently begun to look at atmospheric instabilities (see Appendix B).

As if to indicate that the story is precisely true, the exact day of the year was specified for the beginning of the event.  This is not a “Once Upon a Time” story.

When Noah was six hundred, on the seventeenth day of the second month, the flood began.  This is 17 Cheshvan or Heshvan in the Hebrew calendar in the Hebrew year 1656.  This is in the modern day October /November period.  The date must have some significance and could perhaps be used to locate remnants of an asteroid that ventured through our solar system and brushed Earth’s atmosphere triggering the entire event.

As now understood from the creation story, meteors and comets are common tools used by God to effect change.  The date of the flood’s beginning may show the time of an inland impact- perhaps in the Americas.  There are many asteroids known to cross Earth’s orbit and the list increases continually.  Currently, the orbital accuracy of the known asteroids is not sufficient to accurately project their trajectories back beyond a few hundred years.  What other data can be gleamed from the biblical flood story?

As the flood event began, docile animals boarded Noah’s ship, as did Noah and his family.  God closed (or sealed) the ship’s door himself.  Among other reasons already suggested, this may mean that Noah and his family were unable to close it.  This may indicate atmospheric content had changed.  All air-breathing animals were breathing unusual gases.  Once on board, Noah and his ship’s cargo were protected from much of the poisonous, heavier than air gases since the ship was sealed up tight.  What could cause a sudden atmospheric content change?  An atmospheric pressure drop would certainly cause it.

Next, using the biblical story as evidence, water came up out of the ground and then it began to rain profusely.  Genesis 7:11 … the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

What condition can cause water to come up everywhere out of the ground?  An atmospheric pressure drop would certainly cause it.  As pressure dropped, saturated gases in all liquids including those underground, boiled out of saturation, and forced water up out of the ground.  The trapped gases, most of which are heavier than air, boiled into the atmosphere.  Like carbonation boiling out of a carbonated beverage, water levels would quickly rise and briefly flood normally dry areas.

Modern evidence of gases expanding and then pushing water and mud out of the ground can be seen in Absheron, Azerbaijan.  At ambient and even cool temperatures, gases expand below ground forcing water and mud up out of the ground.  In this case, pumping crude oil out of the ground likely causes the gases to expand.  An atmospheric pressure drop would cause this same below ground expansion of gases to occur everywhere worldwide.

After trapped gases had expanded and then escaped, the ground would re-absorb water during, and at the event’s end.  Such an event would cause an immediate reduction in Earth’s surface temperature since the water that was forced out by rising gas bubbles would carry with it the heat of Earth‘s crust.  Torrential rains might well ensue for months (or for 40 days) due to the resulting pressure change in the atmosphere.

Then, “the windows of heaven were opened”, or it began raining profusely.  Clearly, there are no windows in the sky and the use of “windows” is a metaphor.  The water level rose 15 cubits as measured by Noah- Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.  The mountains were covered by what?

If the water level only rose 15 cubits, or if there were only 15 cubits of rain, how could water have covered the mountaintops?  Recall that, from the creation story, Moses did not distinguish between water in cloud form and water in liquid form.  Water above and below the firmament was simply called water in the creation story.  Moses wrote this flood story as well, although he may have only edited the story’s memorized account for accuracy.  

The average sea levels back then were higher, perhaps a few meters higher than today, but no more than that.  Noah was well above sea level.  Note that 15 cubits, Noah’s stated level of water increase, is about 24 feet (~8 meters).  A worldwide flood of that depth is easily realized.  Although it did not happen, if the ice on Greenland melted, sea levels would rise about 15 cubits.

3.7 The site of Noah’s shipyard.

Not knowing Noah’s precise pre-flood location had made it difficult to know the true extent of the flood.  It is likely that Noah had lived in the region east of the Garden of Eden (east of Iraq).  Recall that as Adam and Eve departed the garden, they settled in areas to the east.  Civilization certainly existed there.  In addition, Noah could have lived in Armenia, or in northern Iran.  Then, after being informed of the flood event to come, Noah likely moved from his home, away from prying eyes in search of a suitably large, flat, and level site to build his ship- not a mountaintop.

Noah would have been considered crazy by civilization for building his ship and would have been the subject of ridicule and scorn.  Others, thinking him vulnerable, may have murdered him and his family and stolen their belongings.  The story makes it clear he had few friendly, caring neighbors.  Noah’s family and relatives, including Cain’s descendants, were his only friendly support.

Although Noah’s shipyard location is not biblically specified, the location has been identified.  This shipyard site is Zorats Karer, Armenia just north of Sisian.  At this site, there are cut stones suitable for a ships foundation and in the correct quantities.  Pieces of tooled obsidian have been found there as well.  There is also a natural supply of pitch near there.  This site, called Karahunj(Carahunj, Karahundj), was discovered with its stones organized as a memorial with human bones, dated at between 3000 and 1500 BC, buried at its center (please see Figure 3d).  Although the information used to establish the age of the human bones is not readily available, Noah’s immediate descendants are likely buried there.  At least the family of one of Noah’s sons, possibly two, is buried there.

Consider the 1500-year age range for the few remains found at Zorats Karer=Karahunj=Noah’s shipyard.  That age range is consistent with the biblical longevity of Noah and his immediate descendants.  If the site were used as a cemetery for modern humans with modern longevity, one would expect many thousands of remains to be there all within a couple hundred years- not a few remains spread over 1500 years.  Surely, the site was not rediscovered and reused as a burial site every few hundred years.

Figure 3d.  A monument of many stones (on the right and contrasted by snow) at Zorats Karer (called Karahunj) near Sisian Armenia.  This is the likely site of Noah’s shipyard with disarrayed foundation stones later arranged to mark the burial of Noah’s descendants.  There are some 223 cut stones at the site- 84 with chamfered rope holes in them.  This image was provided by GeoEye1.
Figure 3d. A monument of many stones (on the right and contrasted by snow) at Zorats Karer (called Karahunj) near Sisian Armenia. This is the likely site of Noah’s shipyard with disarrayed foundation stones later arranged to mark the burial of Noah’s descendants. There are some 223 cut stones at the site- 84 with chamfered rope holes in them. This image was provided by GeoEye1.


Figure 3d.  A monument of many stones (on the right and contrasted by snow) at Zorats Karer (called Karahunj) near Sisian Armenia.  This is the likely site of Noah’s shipyard with disarrayed foundation stones later arranged to mark the burial of Noah’s descendants.  There are some 223 cut stones at the site- 84 with chamfered rope holes in them.  This image was provided by GeoEye.

The memorial at the Karahunj site is arranged in a peculiar shape using available stones cut for a purpose other than a memorial.  The purpose, for which they were originally cut, was the foundation of a ship.  The holes in the stones are rope holes and are ~5 centimeters (~2 inches) in diameter with chamfered outer edges.

Opinions will certainly differ as to what the stone arrangement of Figure 3d may symbolize.  After the flood, the stones could have been arranged with some astronomical alignment.  In addition, the stones could be arranged to represent an egg with wings, a poor attempt at a circle, a bird, or an insect.  They may be arranged to symbolize a ship floating in water.  It is also possible that the stones were not arranged to symbolize anything at all.  The stones were simply rough-cut for supporting a ship.  Later in disarray, they were collected back together to mark the burial sight of someone special.

Clearly, the ancients had the ability to move the stones without the aid of modern equipment- how else could they be there no matter what their purpose.  The “wings” appear to block off the cemetery area, the other sides of which, are blocked by hills and cliffs.  There are carvings and writings there.

There are four sites of particular interest in the region; three sites have tombs; all sites have similar carvings and writings related to Noah’s flood.  The fourth site is covered later.

As for the tombs, as per Dr. William H. Shea, based on markings, Zorats Karer=Karahunj=Noah’s shipyard= Figure 3d, is the location of the remains of Shem and his wife- one of Noah’s three sons.  From the same source, Noah himself is buried with his wife on Mount Aragatz on the inside of Lake Qare (Qari).  Japheth, another son of Noah, is buried with his wife at the site of the Tatev monastery south of Sisian Armenia.  This is all based on writings in an ancient alphabetic script related to Proto-Sinaitic found at the sites; the earliest known quasi-alphabetic script also found in Egypt and in turquoise mines in the Sinai.

In addition to the tomb of Shem at Zorats Karer=Noah’s shipyard, there is a second well-designated tomb but without markings.  It may be the tomb of Noah’s third son Ham and Ham’s wife.  If it is Ham and his wife’s tomb, this accounts for the buried remains of all human passengers on Noah’s ship.

As per Dr. Shea, there are figures carved on stones at the Tatev Monastery= Japheth’s tomb representing Noah, his sons, and all of their wives- all shown occupying a ship (see ref. 14).  There are similar figures carved at the Lake Qari, Mt Aragatz site= Noah’s tomb, and then at one other location (upcoming).  Ancient writing is included and the writings name the figures except for the women.  Only writings have been found at Zorats Karer=Karahunj= Noah’s shipyard (that I am aware of).

Hopefully, extensive genetic studies will be conducted on the human remains buried at the Zorats Karer, Mount Aragatz, and Tatev sites.  They were likely all related and may possess a sampling of the DNA of all existing humans.

The sight called Karahunj=Zorats Karer=Noah’s shipyard is considered by some to be a pagan sight.  In the absence of any other explanation that may be a plausible general description of the site, but the evidence they present is inconclusive.  They suggest that the horizontally bored holes in the stones may be telescope holes all pointed at the horizon yet they are tall and generally out of any sort of comfortable reach.  In addition, a vertical hole cut in one stone, they suggest, might have been a periscope.  The stones are said to have been ancient astronomical instruments.

With all due respect to those investigators, the idea of Karahunj being a pagan astronomical site raises many questions.  Can’t it be said with certainty that any two stones lined up randomly will be in line with some star or constellation?  Aren’t many of the holes in the stones actually aligned with the mountainsides and not the horizon?  Why did pagans need to look through a big hole in a stone to see the horizon?  Wouldn’t their view have been better if the holes were even bigger?  Why not just look at the horizon without a stone in the way at all?

One should consider that a common modern telescope does not allow one to see a particular star better, nor do holes in stones.  They are still just dots of light even at high magnification.  If one truly wanted to achieve yearly alignment with a rising star, a flat toped stationary stone with a line on its surface is reasonable- not a large chamfered rope size hole.

Nevertheless, the stones could purposely have some astronomical alignment.  When re-gathering the stones for the memorial, the gatherers may have arranged them in unison with the rising and setting Sun and stars.  Yet, Noah’s immediate descendants were not pagan.  The directions east and west have long been significant directions to all people; modern and ancient; pagan or otherwise.

If the memorial of stones is pointed at anything, it is pointed east to west.  The mountains of Ararat are west of Karahunj.  The biblical destination of Noah’s ship is west of Karahunj.  West of the stones arranged as a memorial and at about the same altitude is another site of interest- the final location of Noah’s ship.

In addition to a full set of foundation stones found at Karahunj was one peculiar stone.  This one large stone (Figure 3e) had a hollowed out bowl in its base and a hole bored vertically down into the top (the so-called periscope).  This stone looks like it may have been used to hold pitch.  Recall that all lumber used on the ship was to be covered with pitch.

The probable process was lumber was hoisted onto the ship, fitted as required, sent back down off the ship and coated with pitch.  Once coated, the lumber was returned to the ship and installed permanently.  Lumber, at the pitch container, was slid across the bowl surface and treated with pitch in a sort of workstation/ assembly line fashion.

Although pitch was available near Noah’s shipyard area, having the pitch on site required a trip with containers to a site where it was available above ground.  The pitch was then brought back and put in the stone bowl.  As would be true for modern paint, an open rigid bowl or container was necessary for the application of the pitch.  Its application to the lumber occurred at the stone bowl.  This approach minimized waste, handling, contamination, and centralized the pitch coating process.

The vertical hole in the hollowed out stone may have been used to support a simple mast with rigging allowing pitch treated lumber to be hoisted up on the ship with minimal handling.  The pitch container could have been moved along as each portion of the ship was completed.  A heavy base was essential support for such a mast.  It seems rather Stone Age, but they clearly knew how to cut and move large stones with ease and stones large and small were in common use.

After construction ended, a horizontal hole connecting to the vertical hole may have been added to allow a rope to be passed through the stone.  Alternatively, and also more likely, this hole may have been used for a strut helping to counterbalance deflection in the mast caused by the weight of the hoisted lumber.

To light his ship internally, Noah fitted translucent obsidian into his ship’s window and possibly into the decks and upper sides.  Small pieces installed in the sides, pieces no larger than a coin would have made a tremendous difference in the ship’s internal lighting.  The obsidian was sealed against water leakage.  Tooled obsidian was found at the Karahunj shipyard site but does not naturally occur there.

Figure 3e.  A multipurpose stone found at Karahunj= Noah’s shipyard.  In addition to a reservoir for pitch used in the pitch coating process, this stone was used to support a mast.  The mast with rigging was used to hoist lumber up the side of the ship and to the ship’s deck.
Figure 3e. A multipurpose stone found at Karahunj= Noah’s shipyard. In addition to a reservoir for pitch used in the pitch coating process, this stone was used to support a mast. The mast with rigging was used to hoist lumber up the side of the ship and to the ship’s deck.

Figure 3e.  A multipurpose stone found at Karahunj= Noah’s shipyard.  In addition to a reservoir for pitch used in the pitch coating process, this stone was used to support a mast.  The mast with rigging was used to hoist lumber up the side of the ship and to the ship’s deck.

3.8 More data from the flood story.

What other data can be gleamed from the flood story?  In the story, there is no indication that it was windy, nor is it claimed that there were big or even small waves.  The only wind mentioned occurred as the Sun began clearing the fog at the end of the event.  There is no indication of a tsunami-causing comet or meteor strike.  There is no indication of earthquakes or lightning.  An earthquake would have destroyed the ship by toppling it off its foundation.  If anything, there were no strong winds, there were no earthquakes, and there were no large waves.  Like a rain on a very overcast day, seas were very calm.  The overcast and raining condition was global.

Because of 40 days of rain, all the high hills (not mountains) were covered with water.  Noah measured 15 cubits of rain.  The 15 cubits of water level increase may be when he released his ballast stones.  After raining for 40 days, and then after another 110 days, the waters receded rather suddenly.

One hundred fifty days after Noah was sealed up in his ship, it came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.  The waters, according to Noah (or Moses), had abated and his ship was aground.  His ship was most likely damaged as it settled aground.  Then about two and a half months later, Noah could see the mountaintops.  Water was said to still have covered the mountaintops until the time Noah could see them.  This occurred after the water had abated and Noah’s ship had sat aground for two and a half months.  How could this be?

How could the waters abate yet still cover the mountaintops?  It is obvious that the mountaintops had been hidden by fog.  Recall that fog and/or cloud cover is called “waters” by the author of Genesis as it was in the creation story.

The Genesis author or editor, Moses, clearly did not distinguish between water in liquid form and water in mist or cloud form.  Again note: except for location, there is no difference between liquid water and water in mist or cloud form.  With this new understanding, rather than thinking that the Noah story is the collection of two separate stories that are contradictory, one can read about the flood event as one story and it makes perfect sense.  Moses, the author of Genesis, was a better and more precise writer than some have thought.

{One other point about Moses- he was not one to compromise with the various sects or political groups for the sake of keeping anyone happy.  The multiple accounts theories of theology are completely contrary to the personality and setting of Moses.  He did not go about seeking opinions as he wrote.  After all, he communicated regularly with God.}

Forty days after coming to rest in the mountains of Ararat, and while the mountaintops were still covered by fog; Noah opened the ship’s window, and sent birds out as a test to see if they could locate habitable land.  As the story goes, Noah had already claimed the waters had abated and his ship was sitting in the mountains of Ararat.  Noah clearly could not see due to fog.  The first bird Noah sent out was a raven, and then a week later, a dove.  The raven went “to and fro” as if unable to navigate and was unsuccessful.  The dove, after a couple of trips, successfully returned with evidence of a living olive tree.

Is it reasonable to think that an olive tree could survive under seawater for 110 days?  This is further evidence in support of less than mountain-topping seawater levels.

Some animal life uses Earth’s magnetic field to navigate.  Could the raven’s inability to navigate show that Earth’s magnetic field had not yet recovered from a temporary collapse?  A temporary field collapse would cause atmospheric gases to be lost to space and subsequently, could cause an atmospheric pressure drop.  A field collapse is yet another possible flood-triggering event.

Still later, God allowed Noah, his family, and all the animals to leave the protection of the ship.  Noah and his family stepped out into a world that looked very different from their pre flood world.  All vegetation that had been under water was dead.  Only the higher levels would have surviving vegetation.  There were though, differences that were not immediately obvious.

The concept of wealth no longer made any sense.  Had Noah known the location of a ton of gold it would not have been worth hauling and keeping.  Except for a small fishing boat, Noah’s boatbuilding skills were useless.  Working with iron, brass, and stone were skills rendered rather useless as well.  Noah planted a vineyard and made wine.  With all the land in the world, farming and animal husbandry were the only sensible occupations.  There were no warring factions anywhere, and no need for fortresses or armaments.

Although temporarily suspended, the skills known to Noah and his sons would not be lost forever.  They would be reintroduced, or even somewhat reinvented as population again increased to pre-flood levels.  The knowledge that things had been, and could be done, was important to future invention and was passed down to future generations.

What happened to Noah’s ship?  After leaving the ship, it is reasonable to think the ship would be scrapped for firewood or pieces of it salvaged for shelter, or it could have rotted or burned.  Given that, the water level was only seven meters above the site of the ships construction (~2000 meters above sea level); the ship could not have been preserved in ice and snow high in the mountains.  Except that he had invested many years in the ship, it makes no sense for Noah to have saved and maintained it.  Its use as a ship was clearly finished.  He was not likely thinking of a museum.  It was unclean due to animal wastes.  Nevertheless, there should be evidence of the ship somewhere.

As one pans a little north of west on Google Earth from Noah’s shipyard site=Shem’s tomb, we find another site of interest- the shape of a ship in a mudflow.

3.9 An impression of Noah’s ship or an anomaly?

Located due west of Noah’s shipyard and memorial, and at about the same elevation, is a site some consider to be an impression of Noah’s ship in a mudflow near Dogubeyazit, Agri, Turkey- the Durupinar formation in the Tendurek Mountains.  A nice satellite view of this site is available on Google Earth.  Although very skeptical, even at first glance, this impression does have the shape of a ship and deserves a close look.

Dr. William H. Shea had reported a soil sample study and general analysis of the Durupinar Site.  Soil samples show higher than normal concentrations of carbon in the immediate area.  Dr Shea, in an unbiased study, considered the claims made about the site plausible but inconclusive.  The size of the impression seemed too large.  Now that better overhead images are available, a much better visual analysis can be conducted.

While attempting to measure the length and width of the impression in Turkey using Google Earth tools, other interesting shapes became visible.  There is much more at this site than first meets the eye.  This shape is not just an anomaly.  As will be shown, it is obvious something shaped like a ship moved down the hill with the mudflow.  It made other impressions, and waves, as it moved.  This flow looks to have had the consistency and liquidity of freshly poured concrete- concrete straight out of the truck.

(Please note: the Google Earth images shown are of low resolution.  High resolution is available on a computer monitor even with the free version of Google Earth.  Although viewable in high-resolution, Google Earth did not allow printing high-resolution images with their free version.)

Please see Figure 3f for a satellite view of the Tendurek site in Turkey.  Then, in Figure 3g, the view in Figure 3f is marked to show the waves made as the “ship” surged along down the hill.  Also, notice the planked looking object that has been dragged along as the “ship” moved.  This looks like an attached gangway or possibly a section of planking that had sprung loose from the ships side.  In addition, there are three spots that follow this motion and appear to have been made by water pouring out of the “ship‘s “middle.

Figure 3f.  A ship-shaped anomaly?  The Durupinar Formation= Dogubeyazit, Agri, Turkey.  The view is rotated to make downhill actually appear downhill.
Figure 3f. A ship-shaped anomaly? The Durupinar Formation= Dogubeyazit, Agri, Turkey. The view is rotated to make downhill actually appear downhill.

Figure 3f.  A ship-shaped anomaly?  The Durupinar Formation= Dogubeyazit, Agri, Turkey.  The view is rotated to make downhill actually appear downhill.

Figure 3g.  The Tendurek Site=Durupinar marked to show waves made by the motion of the ship-shaped object.  As the flow stopped moving, the object continued to move a bit- hence the waves downstream.  In addition, a planked piece (gangway?) has been dragged along with the objects motion.
Figure 3g. The Tendurek Site=Durupinar marked to show waves made by the motion of the ship-shaped object. As the flow stopped moving, the object continued to move a bit- hence the waves downstream. In addition, a planked piece (gangway?) has been dragged along with the objects motion.

Figure 3g.  The Tendurek Site=Durupinar marked to show waves made by the motion of the ship-shaped object.  As the flow stopped moving, the object continued to move a bit- hence the waves downstream.  In addition, a planked piece (gangway?) has been dragged along with the objects motion.

Now, in Figure 3h, by drawing in a ship-shape on top of the satellite image and then moving the shape, the motion of this ship-shaped object is clear.  Motion is down the hill or left to right in the satellite image.

This analysis shows that the object buoyed up at the uphill end, slid down the hill a bit, then swung around coming to final rest at the most prominently seen ship-shape.  This motion is precisely what one should expect.  This motion completely explains irregularities in the final shape.

Why would anyone expect a ship to be buried in a flow of mud?  The ship or canoe shaped object superimposed on the satellite image (by me) has dimensions of 475x100ft and is consistent with the biblical dimensions of Noah’s ship.  With the keel raised up (as will be explained), the sides might be leaned outward making the ship appear wider in the impression.

(Note: the biblical dimensions of the ship are 300×50 cubits.  No matter what modern measurement should be assigned to Noah’s forearm length, a ratio of 6 to 1 should be obtainable for the ship‘s length to width.  I assumed the width in Figure 3h would be exaggerated as the ship re-floated in this flow (see Figure 5).  I picked a 100 foot width.  The drawing might be improved by reducing the width to the actual proportionate width of about 80 feet.  That translates into a 19-inch cubit.  This is a tedious drawing to make but the alternative dimensioning is coming.  I am awaiting clearer images.)

Figure 3h.  A ship-shaped figure is shown superimposed at the Durupinar Site.  The shape includes a            “gangway” that travels along with it as it moves down the hill.  Do anomalies drag planked objects with them?  Note: on the upper left, “LAVA FLOW” should instead be “MUD FLOW.”
Figure 3h. A ship-shaped figure is shown superimposed at the Durupinar Site. The shape includes a “gangway” that travels along with it as it moves down the hill. Do anomalies drag planked objects with them? Note: on the upper left, “LAVA FLOW” should instead be “MUD FLOW.”

Figure 3h.  A ship-shaped figure is shown superimposed at the Durupinar Site.  The shape includes a “gangway” that travels along with it as it moves down the hill.  Do anomalies drag planked objects with them?  Note: on the upper left, “LAVA FLOW” should instead be “MUD FLOW.”

Another way to view this site is to look at local photographs of the molded shape.  The photos show that the elongated ship-shaped image is elevated at what would be the “ship’s” keel.  Could this be a catamaran style hull?  Not likely!  There is a good reason for the impression made by the ship to be elevated along the ship’s keel.

The outer or upper deck of Noah’s ship had the greatest exposure to weather.  Given that, Noah’s ship had sat exposed in the Sun and weather for many years, its upper deck would have failed first allowing rain water into the second and third levels.  As the upper levels diminished in strength due to rot and exposure, any attempt, whether natural or otherwise, to re-float the ship would have resulted in a structural failure as shown in Figure 3i.

Figure 3i shows the sides of the ship sinking low due to their weight and hinging the keel upward.  This is precisely what one would expect the shape to be as buoyant forces lifted an actual deteriorated ship.  Since it floated, the ship remained on the surface of the flow.  There are no buried decks since they were all above ground.  Later the ship could have burned, or more likely, it simply deteriorated away.

There are claims of other “ship-like” finds at the Durupinar Site including a piece of petrified hand hewn lumber and other items that could be associated with an ancient ship.  It is also claimed that radar has been used to evaluate the ground at the site with positive results.  Whether or not these claims show any credible evidence of an ancient ship or of any structure remains suspiciously elusive.  They had wrongly assumed a ship was buried at the site.  Much of the information is considered by many to be fraudulent or at least, wrong assumptions were made by overzealous explorers.  Ron Wyatt was one of the “overzealous” explorers mentioned most frequently.

Figure 3i.  A structurally decayed ship refloated by a mudflow and the resulting impression left in the mud.
Figure 3i. A structurally decayed ship refloated by a mudflow and the resulting impression left in the mud.

Figure 3i.  A structurally decayed ship refloated by a mudflow and the resulting impression left in the mud.

I do agree that some had made wrong assumptions about the site and perhaps explorers were even purposely deceptive.  However, their wrong assumptions are not as damaging to the story’s credibility as others continue to be.  Those who continually preach their baseless yet common assumptions about the story damage it the most.

Nevertheless, based solely on the impressions made as the dimensionally correct object moved in the flow with an uplifted centerline, it is reasonable to say that the intact object was a deteriorated ship and it floated in a mudflow.  It is reasonable but not absolute proof, but one should beware: absolute truths do not exist anywhere in archaeology.

The evidence presented herein is not based on anything falsified- certainly not by me.  I have just added a layer of reason to an existing story.  I do not want notoriety, acclaim, or attention; trusting me or anyone else has always been, and will continue to be, unnecessarily stupid- just as you always suspected.

Go discover these things yourself.  Every single reader can be the one who has unraveled the story of Noah’s flood.  Afterwards, pat yourself on the back; the claims are credible for anyone with knowledge of shipbuilding, a computer monitor, and access to satellite images.  I have requested that Google Earth put a package of good images up for all to see- bother them about it and reward them when they answer your request.  Now back to additional findings at the Durupinar Site that Google Earth can help with.

In addition to those he published, I received a hand drawn image in the mail from Dr. Shea of the Durupinar Site in Turkey.  I had sent him an early manuscript with my drawings overlaying the satellite images (as already shown) that explain the odd shape and size of the ship shaped impression there.  He returned my image, Figure 3f, with his drawings added.  His added drawings show large-scale script drawn on the ground at the Durupinar Site.  The drawings on the ground illustrate the flood event and show named figures occupying Noah’s ship (see Appendix A for Dr. Shea’s drawing as sent to me).

Similar to those at the burial sites already mentioned, the images and writings depict Noah, his family, Noah’s ship, and more.  The symbols at the Durupinar Site include named heads occupying the ship including ADONAY, YAHWEY, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.  The heads of four wives are drawn within the ship as well but are unnamed.  Also drawn and named are Lamek and his wives Adah and Zyllah- but they are not shown occupying the ship.  It has been assumed that Lamek, Adah, and Zillah, of Cain’s lineage helped in the ship’s construction but could not board the ship at the flood’s beginning.

Clearly, the four sites including the shipyard, tombs, and mudflow are related by a common set of ancient writings that depict the biblical flood.  This is solid archaeological evidence.  A group of ancients visited those sites and at each site made drawings and writings; drawings and writings that are similar and most that depict Noah’s flood and all that name the men on Noah’s ship.  This is the last of four sites with drawings and writings as previously discussed.  Again, similar writings are found marking Shem’s tomb at Noah’s shipyard=Zorats Karer=Karahunj, Japheth’s tomb at the Tatev Monastery, and Noah’s burial site at Lake Qare (Qari).

An application of Ockham’s razor to the findings of this site clearly suggests that the simplest and therefore the best conclusion is that this was where Noah’s ship landed.  Assuming it landed there, how did it get there?  More evidence follows.

3.10 How did a ship land 2000 meters above sea level in Turkey?

How can the high flood level near Mt Ararat be explained?  There is an obvious answer.  Whenever it rains, water pools into basin areas.  The depth of the water in the pools can be much deeper than in the surrounding areas.

As evidence of high past water levels near Ararat, consider Lake Van in Turkey (Figure 3j).  Lake Van is a basin with no means of escape for its water- except evaporation.  Its water level varies a few decimeters up and down each year due to rainfall and evaporation.  Its level is generally very stable.  Extreme events in the past have caused a water level increase of 300 meters at about 6500 years before present day.  This timing is somewhat speculative.  That water level increase puts the lake’s level at 1945 meters above sea level.  Only speculation such as glacial melt is offered for the increase.

Figure 3j.  The basins of Lakes Van and Urmia are encircled in red.  Also encircled in red is the Karahunj basin or Noah’s shipyard.  The red lines indicate an altitude of about 2000 meters above sea level.
Figure 3j. The basins of Lakes Van and Urmia are encircled in red. Also encircled in red is the Karahunj basin or Noah’s shipyard. The red lines indicate an altitude of about 2000 meters above sea level.

Figure 3j.  The basins of Lakes Van and Urmia are encircled in red.  Also encircled in red is the Karahunj basin or Noah’s shipyard.  The red lines indicate an altitude of about 2000 meters above sea level.

There are other basins in the area although no longer completely sealed against water loss, at least not to levels as high as is Lake Van.  One such basin exists adjacent to Mt Ararat and Mt Tendurek.  It extends some 680 kilometers from the countries of Georgia and Turkey, down between the mountains of Ararat and into Iran.  Figure 3j shows the basins immense area.  The only remnant of this basin lake is Lake Urmia, in Iran- a salt lake.  The water in this basin is steadily decreasing due to low levels of input water.  That which remains is very salty and leaves annual rings (varves) showing its past levels.  The current level of this lake is about 1268 meters above sea level.

On close examination, satellite views of the area show a previous level of ~2000 meters above sea level and a rupture point leading to the Caspian Sea.

At about 2000 meters above sea level, a very distinct line can be seen in every direction around Lake Urmia.  There is a visible variation in the “patina” on rock surfaces at ~2000 meters.  There was perhaps even more water there briefly.  In a profuse rain, water even in the sea is brackish or nearly devoid of salt nearest the surface.  The line extends around and north of Mt Ararat and almost connects to Lake Van.

In addition to the high-level rings seen around lakes Van and Urmia, is a ring visible around Sisian and “Karahunj” at ~2000 meters above sea level.  It is obvious that the Lake Urmia region was flooded at some time to about 2000+ meters above sea level, but in the region in the southeastern portion of the basin, a rupture occurred draining much of the basin.  It quickly dropped to about 1650 meters above sea level.  Its water levels have since declined due to evaporation.

The rings in Lake Urmia and Lake Van basins are similar to bathtub rings in a tub that is never cleaned.  The highest-level ring, like filling a dirty bathtub with water and diluting the ring causing substance, leaves high-level rings that are weaker and less defined.  There is every reason to expect the Lake Urmia basin to have filled by whatever water source filled Lake Van.  This is true since the lakes’ basins are adjacent and the Urmia basin wraps around much of the Van basin.  Evidence of the formerly high water levels is easily seen on Google Earth (images from 2009).

There is visual evidence of a high Lake Urmia water level but still no means for a ship with a draft of ~20 cubits to get from Karahunj=Noah’s shipyard to Lake Urmia.  There is a minor ridge separating the two locations.  The solution is an easy one given a time of about 4500 years ago for the flood.  In Figure 3k, the dark green region is between Karahunj and Lake Urmia and is on the rise geologically.

It is safe to say that a region that is on the rise was previously lower.  Now it can be said that the Lake Urmia area, in a severe flood, was accessible by ship from Karahunj.  The geology of the area completes the scenario.  A ship built at Karahunj could float via Lake Urmia in a flood, over to the Durupinar Site.  We have geological evidence!  (Note: After many failed attempts at contact, I do not yet have permission to use the map of Figure 3k, although I expect it is public domain.)

Where did all the floodwater come from?  Where did it all go after the flood?  Where is all the water now?

Since Noah was promised that such a flood would never again occur, perhaps the water no longer exists in the Earth system.  Since there was more water in the Earth system prior to the flood, then the water was ultimately lost to space.  Some of it is now surface ice on the poles of the planet Mars.  However, although there was more atmosphere, there was not necessarily much more water.

For those who only feel safe believing seawater had overtopped all mountains on Earth during the deluge, the scenario described herein still works.  However, it may never be possible to convince anyone else.  Those beliefs have been banned in public schools along with all other stories in the Bible; who has gained from that?

How long do olive trees live submerged in saltwater?  Yes, I agree completely, God could have fixed that!

How could the waters abate yet the mountains still be covered by seawater?  Yes, yes, we can claim there are multiple biblical flood accounts that are a bit contradictory; we must simply have faith and understand that contradictory stories are okay; many of us have applied this logic to our bank accounts- did it work out better for you?  Besides, God can do anything he wishes with the waters.  I agree completely!

However, can’t God just as easily have done things in a way that all evidence will always support and that renders the story completely plausible?  Is one supposed to think God went about eliminating evidence after the flood?  Why do some people love an unsolvable mystery?

How could Noah have known in advance that a flood was coming?  Clearly, God told him.  Isn’t that at the very heart of the story?  Doesn’t that cover what anyone must know?  Why alienate people with other completely unfounded details- details that misrepresent the actual story?  Why preach such details as if they are fact?

3.11 The rainbow as data.

Later in Genesis, sometime after the flood of Noah, God set a rainbow in the clouds to signify that a worldwide flood would never again occur.  Rainbows result from a prismatic effect that water droplets have on sunlight.  Biblically, the occurrence of rainbows had not been observed prior to the post flood era.  This means no significant low-level cloud cover.  Rainbows only occur, visible to an Earth bound observer, in low level, broken, cumulus clouds, which harbor raindrops.  The viewing angle between sunlight and a rainbow observer must be around 42 degrees for a rainbow to be visible.  This requires low-level clouds.

Since rainbows became visible after Noah’s flood, something happened at the time of the flood that affected the atmosphere significantly.  Again, something happened causing an atmospheric pressure drop.  A pressure drop explains low-level cumulus clouds and their resulting rainbows.

Prior to the change in cloud cover altitude, desert areas now shielded from rain by mountain ranges, such as the Atacama Desert in Chile, may have had somewhat higher rates of rainfall than today due to the higher past cloud cover.

Since rainbows are still commonly visible, the atmospheric change that allowed visibility of rainbows following the flood still exists today.  In addition, it was promised by God that the rainbows would forever be seen as a sign that a flood event killing all life would never again occur.  The atmosphere, or the Earth system, will never return to its pre-flood state.  This indicates a permanent loss of atmospheric gases out of the Earth system.  It also indicates a permanent atmospheric pressure drop.  Such a flood cannot again occur.

3.12 A Noah’s flood hypothesis.

There are several geologic factors to consider which could contribute to a global flood event.  These factors include the following.

1) There was more water in the Earth system before the flood.  Sea levels were possibly as much as 10 meters deeper.  There was more water in the atmosphere as well- there was perhaps twice as much atmosphere.

2) Earth was a consistently hotter than today.

3) Atmospheric pressure was much higher prior to the flood- perhaps a few times higher.

4) Earth’s magnetic field was stronger but decreasing on average.

5) The Sun was less intense but was increasing in intensity and outputting increasingly more solar wind.

So that which causes Earth to lose atmosphere, solar wind, was increasing while that which protects Earth’s atmosphere, the magnetic field, was decreasing.  The Earth system may have been teetering at an already unstable state.

Then an inland impact by, or an atmospheric brush with an asteroid caused a sudden reduction in atmospheric pressure.  A brush with the atmosphere by an asteroid causes the greatest loss.  The sudden drop in pressure was followed, after the flood event, by a many year gradual decline (I think this was the case but without evidence).  A many year gradual decline in atmospheric pressure supports the idea of a diminished field.

Even a gradual loss in magnetic field strength would allow a long term, many year decline in pressure.  Gravity being constant on Earth, a diminishing magnetic field has a dwindling impact on the amount of atmosphere lost by the planet.  The magnetic field is known to be declining continually.  A small percentage decrease 4500 years ago had a much more significant impact on the atmosphere than that same percentage decrease has today.

{It is interesting to note; biblical end of the world prophecies speak of the seas being dried up and the ground parched.  Science certainly supports that prophecy.  Earth will eventually look like Mars- except hotter due to its closer proximity to the Sun.}

The resulting sudden change in pressure caused saturated gases to boil out of all waters including those waters that had soaked down into Earth’s crust.  Like liquid coming out of a just opened carbonated drink bottle, waters quickly rose to much higher than normal levels.  Escaping gases pushed water out of the ground and out of Earth‘s crust.  Water rose up out of dry ground.  Escaping gases would include carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen sulphide, oxygen, and all others.  An immediate cooling of Earth’s crust naturally occurred followed by a 40 day deluge of rain and a long-term fog.

After the flood there were rainbows indicating low-level cloud cover- certainly the result of reduced atmospheric pressure.  Cumulus clouds were lower in the atmosphere.  Much of the water in vapor form in the atmosphere had condensed into rain and its pressure in the atmosphere eliminated.

It is reasonable to think that atmospheric pressure dropped during the initial 40-day rain by as much as 15 PSI or one modern atmosphere.  Why?  The amount of rainfall over the 40 days of rain was 20 to 30 feet.  A 30-foot water column translates into about 15 PSI.  There would have been very little evaporation concurrent with the rainfall.  Earth’s surface cooled as well, and continues to be cooler.

There was little or no wind during the event.  In addition, although Noah’s ship was, perhaps, very well designed and built, its size was approaching the limit of wooden hull ship construction.  It would not have been able to survive heavy seas.  A tsunami would likely have destroyed the ship.  There was no mention of, nor is it reasonable to think there were large waves.  Therefore, it is not reasonable to think a meteor (bolide) strike caused the flood unless it was an inland strike.  A near miss that brushed the atmosphere is reasonable.  It is less reasonable to think tectonic activity caused the flood because there would have been large waves.

Recall that, as the story goes, God carefully specified the ship’s venting arrangement.  Of all things we could have been told about the ship, the venting arrangement was carefully specified.  The venting arrangement was clearly critical.  This venting arrangement would work to protect Noah and his cargo in the presence of toxic gases.  It does make sense that the sky was completely overcast; there was no wind or lightning.  The seas were calm.

The water on an inland lake such as Lake Urmia (actually swollen to the size of a small sea) was even calmer especially as it gradually reached the ~2000-meter level that began to float Noah’s ship.  An atmospheric pressure drop occurred triggering the flood.

An atmospheric pressure drop and its sudden upwelling of gases likely caused many animals not in the ship to suffocate due to poisonous gases.  Drowning may not have caused much death, but due to low-density aerated water, driftwood would not float for a time and swimming would have been difficult.  Although there were many areas not flooded, everything trapped in the water initially (except fish) would drown.  The only thing that would float under these conditions might be a ship with a lot of freeboard.

Another likely cause of death was exposure.  People and other animals being ill prepared for the deluge of rain, would have become wet with no means of drying themselves for seven or eight months.  Humidity was ~100% for at least seven or eight months (40 days of rain and then heavy fog).  Earth’s crust and ground level atmosphere was colder than normal due to expanding gases (Boyles Law).

Noah and his living cargo were shielded from heavier than air poisonous gases.  Only the very top of the ship was vented and the vent remained closed at least during the first part of the event.  In addition, Noah and his cargo were able to stay reasonably dry.  Animal feed such as dried grass and grain- enough to feed elephants and other animals for most of a year, would have served as a desiccant inside the ship, and would have reduced humidity.  Noah’s ship was a floating capsule.

Why was Noah situated at a high altitude for the event?  Expecting a flood, Noah likely thought higher ground a good idea.  What he may not have known was he and his living cargo were best protected from heavier than air gases at their high altitude.  Any poisonous pockets of gas would have quickly drifted off high altitude water bodies to lower surrounding areas.  Noah could open his one vent sooner.  The ecosystem in the ship supplemented the oxygen levels for a short time.

The entire event lasted about a year.  Water, near the end of the event, erupted out of the Urmia basin and after cloud cover dissipated, other water levels dropped due to evaporation.  Water soaked into aquifers slowly displacing expanded trapped gases.  A long-term gradually changing yet stable atmosphere remained.

3.13 Why not Noah’s cave?

Why was Noah instructed to build a ship?  Aren’t there other means of surviving a 15 cubit global deluge and 100% humidity?  Since we now know the floodwaters did not cover the mountaintops, a cave high in the mountains may have worked to save Noah, his family, and animals.  Why build a ship?

Assuming mountains in Noah’s area were suitable for tunneling, a Noah’s ship-sized cave would have been possible.  However, cracks and fissures might have gushed water and poisonous gases into the cave during the flood event.  Yet, even if they did not, Noah would have worked much harder on a cave.

The cave would have been spread out to 300 x 100 cubits unless he made his cave multiple stories with wooden floors.  Support for the overhead of the cave would have been necessary.  So now, he is cutting a cave into stone and building a wooden structure inside the cave as well.

On a wooden hull ship, the outer planks provide some insulation from cold.  A cave’s walls would not provide insulation yet he could have lined the cave everywhere with wood.  Had this been Noah’s original plan, he would essentially have built a ship inside a manually hewn cave.  Had Noah survived by tunneling into the side of a mountain the question might now be “Why not build a ship?”  Look how much easier it would have been!

3.14 Bottle neck in human development.

As evidenced by studies into DNA, it is claimed that 60 to 80 thousand years ago most of human existence ended and almost went extinct.  The scientific timing of this extinction event has been contested.  However, if correct and if the timing in the biblical account of Noah’s flood is correct, it could not have been this bottleneck since the timing would be in error by a factor of ten or more.

Noah’s flood would have caused a population bottleneck, yet the most recent common male ancestor, similar to mitochondrial eve, based on Y-chromosomes and called Y-chromosomal Adam, is said to be from Africa and is claimed to have lived as much as 60,000 years ago.  This age is based on the Molecular Clock Hypothesis (MCH) and has been disputed.

The MCH hypothesis assumes that the DNA error replication rate is constant which has been shown to be a fundamentally flawed assumption.  The MCH has been shown to be false.  This is not necessarily a plus for the flood story timing.  This could mean this common male ancestor lived even longer ago.  However, in actuality, an improved DNA error replication rate will likely show much better support for Noah’s flood and the associated population bottleneck.  In fact, if it is possible to ever have one, an exact error replication rate should solidly prove the life-ending flood occurred.

As evidence of one particular mammalian bottleneck, all cheetahs alive today are almost completely identical.  They are thought to have originated from one single pregnant female about 10,000 years ago.  Of course “about” 10,000 years ago is a suitable description of the timing of Noah’s flood given errors associated with DNA error replication rates.

Human population was sparse before the flood.  Biblically, after the flood there were eight people.  As the population of eight increased, people would quickly re-inhabit old towns not washed away in the deluge.  Shelter already existed and in good areas for habitation.  It is unclear whether or not it can be shown that people inhabited those towns continuously.  Clearly, Noah’s flood would suggest that they did not, but a break in the habitation of those areas might not be easily proven.

One other point of concern is a possible C14 age exaggeration after the flood.  Due to escaping trapped gases, expected ratios of carbon used for the standard radiocarbon test would have undergone an immediate change at the flood event’s beginning.  This change would tend to skew the measured age of post flood specimens to an apparent older age.  Without solid ratio data for a C14 test, there may not appear to be any “dead-band” in specimens before and after the flood.  Organisms that died after the flood may well appear to have lived and died prior to the flood.  There may appear to have been a rapid increase in population before the biblical timing of the flood followed by a lull after the flood.  This could then be wrongly interpreted as evidence of only a minimally destructive flood.  In addition, the age of some of the human remains at the site of Noah’s ship’s construction may appear to predate the biblical timing of the flood.

Possible evidence of carbon ratio disruption is found preserved in glaciers in frozen regions.  The glacial varves, or layers of accumulated ice, should show increased age with increased depth but they are in fact nonlinear.  Although there could be other explanations for the nonlinear age-to-depth ratio, at depths below about 200 meters, the age spikes to 7000 years only to drop back down to about 5000 years at 800 meters.  This seems consistent with a skewed carbon ratio.  Note: Noah’s flood may only have been the most severe of many similar floods- severe enough that a flood of this type could never again occur.

3.15 Age difference of humans after the flood.

Prior to the descendants of Noah and within the Adam and Eve bloodline, people often lived about 1000 years.  There is no reason to doubt the age of humans as recorded biblically.  Accurate genealogy and bloodline were highly important to the keepers of biblical events.  Ancient people would have known if the ages were in error so the ages are assumed correct.  Therefore, something happened after Noah’s time that changed the life expectancy of the Adam and Eve bloodline and possibly all animals.  The life expectancy changes are obvious biblically.  In fact, longevity since the flood has diminished at a natural rate.  This rate closely approximates a natural exponential decay.

With less atmosphere would come increased solar radiation to Earth‘s surface and this while the Sun is increasing in intensity.  Also, with less atmosphere comes lower atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen levels (per breath).  A person’s heart would have to beat faster.  Could these factors gradually reduce longevity?

It is also possible that the inter-mating between Adam and Eve’s descendants and existing Nephilim caused a gradual genetic change.  This genetic change could have reduced longevity.

3.16 Evidence in the Americas of a human population bottleneck.

Archaeological finds in the Americas show ancient human immigration from both Europe and Asia into both coasts of the Americas.  The oldest finds (about 13,000 years) are of Asian descent and are along the West coast of the Americas, but then those inhabitants, based on fossil records, appear to have died out.  This of course shows continued support for the pre-Adam existence of humans.

A fairly recent archaeological find at the Windover site in Florida shows that Europeans had inhabited the site for many generations as recently as about 6,990 years ago (C14), but they died out.  This population likely immigrated to the Americas from across the Atlantic- almost certainly in boats (as opposed to walking across the frozen Arctic).  This is of course evidence of advanced boating skills even before Noah‘s time and serves as support for a technology gap after the flood event.  In addition, the time of the die out is consistent with the timing of Noah’s flood.

Later, after the flood, what would become the American Indians migrated across the Bering Strait and again repopulated the Americas.  They brought with them a rudimentary flood story.  Again, their story supports the worldwide flood of Noah.

3.17 Is there a God?

Accusations against God’s existence are well honed- sharpened over the years without answer.  Claims are wide ranging.  Some claims are just negative speculation.  Other negative claims are founded in science and are a result of a misunderstood flood story and a misunderstood creation story- they are religious mistakes.  A few of the accusations follow.

1) “If there was a flood, a man and his family survived and afterwards the story grew to incorporate advance warning by a god.”

If this were true, why would virtually every civilization, including American Indians, have a flood story?  Why would a life saving ship complete with pairs of animals be described in other flood stories?  If there was a flood, wouldn’t flood stories in every civilization be expected?  Yes, of course they would.  Although many of the details have been questioned, this is why most people think there was some catastrophic flood.

2) “It was never anything more than a local flood.”

If there was never anything more than a local flood, how did all people, people with radically different languages all know about it?  Why would anyone care about the tale of a local flood?

The reason for the multiple and radically different languages is explained after the flood- the Tower of Babel story.  Whether or not there was a flood, there is no other explanation for radically different languages for the Earth’s people.  There would only be dialects of a similar language.

3) “The Hebrews stole the story from existing flood myths.”

If the Hebrews stole the story, why is their story different than all the others?  Why do the Hebrews specify the lineage before and after the flood?  Why would they have been so specific about the ship’s size?  Why wouldn’t it be an all-inclusive story but with their own added layer?  Why would their story specify the day of the year that the flood began?

4) “Everyone knows the Epoch of Gilgamesh is the true flood story- it is older but we know it is an exaggeration as well.”

The only reason to have thought it was older is because of a dated tablet that records the story.  It had been the oldest record but no longer is.  The writings found at several sites in Turkey and Armenia are in Proto Sinaitic Script- the oldest known writing.  The writings substantially verify the biblical account of the flood.

5) “No ship that size and built of wood could survive such a storm.”

What size storm was it?  The biblical account makes no mention of waves big or small.  No mention of wind until the ship was aground.  There is no mention of earthquakes.  The event began as water spewed up out of the ground- only a pressure drop can cause water to come out of the ground in the manner described.  Then there was 40 days and nights of rain.  Only a pressure drop could cause a 40-day deluge of rain.  It was heavily overcast (from the story) and overcast conditions dictate low wind; low wind dictates minimal waves.

6) “Solid evidence from DNA studies proves there was no bottleneck in humanity ~5000 years ago.”

Such “proof” is based on the molecular clock hypothesis- a hypothesis that was never, even in its inception, considered valid and has since been proven false.  There is no proof in DNA studies against the flood only evidence that it occurred.

7) “Where did all the water come from?”

Mountain topping seas are an error from religion.  In Noah’s location, it rained 15 cubits over a period of 40 days.  Why?  There was an atmospheric pressure drop.  All descriptions of the event suggest a pressure drop caused the flood.  God had caused the pressure drop.  Rainbows became visible after the flood.  Rainbows only occur when clouds are low-level.  Lower level clouds naturally occur due to lower atmospheric pressure- again due to an atmospheric pressure drop.

8) “Where did all the water go after the flood?”

Mythological flood levels are the source of this error; mythological errors from religion.  With that said, most everyone expects that there used to be more water in the Earth System.  Anyone casually curious about geology has heard that sea levels were higher in the past.  Where do geologists claim it goes?  We are losing water to space due to solar wind.

9) “Why is there absolutely no evidence of such a flood?”

There is ample evidence of the real flood as opposed to the religiously exaggerated flood.  There is ample evidence globally.  From the creation story in Genesis, cloud cover is called water just as is seawater- the error in the flood’s level is a direct result of this misunderstanding.  Mythology has always been a product of religion.  The errors preached about Noah’s flood are a prime example.

10) “Why are there multiple and contrary accounts of the flood even in Genesis?”

This is a direct result of theology and is used by theologians to explain discrepancies in the flood account- just another layer of error to cover the first one.  All the discrepancies result from the misunderstanding of the meaning of “water” in Genesis.  There are no discrepancies in the story.

11) “No ancient could build such a ship.”

In reality, very few modern people could build such a ship- unless they had time to prepare and learn.  Noah had plenty of time to learn had he not known how to build a ship already.  Quarrying and moving stones weighing many tons across soft ground without the aid of modern equipment seems like an even bigger challenge to me.  However, the ancients often moved massive stones great distances (i.e. Stonehenge).  Woodworking is trivial compared to quarrying and moving massive stones.  Why would anyone question Noah’s ability to build a ship?

12) “If the flood occurred, how can the Egyptian pyramids be explained.”

First of all, many Egyptologists do not accept the modern leaps in the age of the pyramids.  However, even if they do predate the global deluge, what does it matter.  There is evidence of past water levels in the tombs and a great deal of erosion from water and windblown sand.

Speculation says the Nile flooded.  If it rained for 40 days would the Nile flood?  How could this be evidence against the global deluge of Noah?

The pre Noah construction of pyramids would certainly show that Noah was around enough technology to build a ship.

Can it be proven that the areas around the Nile were populated continuously?  If the early Egyptian society predated the flood, those same areas would be perfect for re-settling after the flood.  There would exist unoccupied housing in a perfect agricultural area- a windfall for newcomers.

13) “The creation story proves the Bible is common mythology.”

Not so fast.  First, the same error concerning the nature or meaning of “water” in Genesis eliminates the absurd idea that heavenly bodies were created on “day 4” of the creation story- after the creation of Earth.  Both seawater and cloud cover are water and are both simply called water in Genesis without distinction.

Does the reader have a general understanding of biology, evolution, and geology?  If you do, good for you- you have the capacity to fully understand the creation story!

The creation story is about the transformation of Earth into a livable planet as would have been seen from Earth’s surface.  It covers the onset of sunlight, landmasses, two changes in the atmosphere, and the after extinction completion of three major categories of life.  The three are 1) the end of the Paleozoic with its seed bearing vegetation; 2) the end of the Mesozoic with its surviving species of birds and fish; and 3) the end of the Cenozoic with its surviving mammals, snakes, and insects.  In all, there are twenty three items cited in the creation story, all are in order with respect to modern science- perfect order!

None of the 23 items mentioned in the creation story are trivial and the odds are at best one in 23! that the order could have been guessed correctly- that’s 1 in about 25 sextillion!  These are details that stem directly from geology, evolution, and extinctions.

An advanced being called Man was “handmade” and named Adam.  For evidence of a handmade Adam, his inclusion in an otherwise perfectly provable series of stories should be powerful evidence.  Adam was handmade but lived amongst neighboring humans biblically called Nephilim.

Moses witnessed creation over the course of six days (see GENESIS DECODED at http://genesisdecoded.com for all the details concerning creation).

3.1 The world’s problems solved?

Although repeatedly proven archaeologically accurate, many shun the Bible as archaeological evidence.  The failure of many religions to embrace science, and then to correct their biblical interpretations with science, is the primary cause.  We now have a realistic view of Noah’s flood and as a result, we now have solid evidence of it.  Worldwide floodwaters were not lapping at the Moon but were primarily due to 15 cubits of rain in Noah‘s area and similar rains globally.  Rather than assume errors exist in the biblical Noah story, we can read it as is.  The story is perfect.  Evidence supporting a properly understood flood is everywhere.

What is more important: promoting cherished religious beliefs or promoting the Bible as accurate and true?

Those who continue to cling religiously to Noah’s flood scenarios that are unfounded will continue to contribute to the world’s growing lack of belief in all biblical stories and to the world’s growing lack of belief in God.  For those who are young Earth believers and anti evolutionists, Genesis Decoded remedies their anti God mythology by showing the literal biblical creation story profoundly true using only modern science.

Now that the flood is squarely in the realm of plausibility, if religion will allow them, scientists will rapidly discover more details of the event.  There are many in science that are hungry for something interesting.  Details will come together like pieces of a puzzle.  In time, the flood as recorded biblically, will be re-adopted as true for all to see.


Appendix A:  Another of the many contributions to archaeology made by Dr. William H. Shea.

As this work on Noah approached publication, I considered saying something nice about Dr. Shea- a man that I have never met but with whom I have had several email interactions.  While I have been limited to satellite images, he has had his boots on the ground in the region of the Lake Urmia basin multiple times and with profound results.  The Lake Urmia basin is at the center of the epic biblical flood.  After only a brief email interaction, I had found him most helpful, open minded, and gracious.  This is not to say that he agrees with or endorses my findings.

Now, a few years later, I am ready to put my small and faintly burning candle out for all to see, and upon review, the efforts of Dr. Shea have had at least as much to do with the credibility of the Noah’s flood scenario herein as have my own.

After a bit of background research into this unique individual, I found that I am only one amongst many who have felt a need to express gratitude.  I’ll sum up my thoughts by saying that Dr. William H. Shea, in my opinion, is a man after the Truth- a modern day Holy Man in a very real sense.

Of his work that has come to my attention, the sketches at the Durupinar Site in Turkey are the only ones that, as far as I know, are unpublished.  The view of the Durupinar Site as shown below (the top of Figure A1) was from my early manuscript (Figure 3f) mailed to Dr. Shea.  He then added the hand drawing below the image (bottom of Figure A1) and sent the two images back to me on a single sheet of paper via US mail.

In my low-resolution images of the site, only a few of the images drawn by Dr. Shea are faintly visible.  He had acquired other high-resolution images from which he produced his drawing.  The site’s time of year or season seems important to the image’s clarity as well.  While color images may be best, any greenery at the site may obstruct views of the site’s sketches.

The hand drawn images require study and significant expertise in ancient language to completely understand.  The writing is the earliest Proto Sinaitic Script found anywhere.  This particular sample was found by Dr. Shea from his satellite view and is similar in appearance to writings he found at the Tatev Monastery and on Mt. Aragatz near Lake Qari.  This particular image was drawn at the site on a scale only visible from some altitude.  The images at the other sites are carved in stones on a small scale and are only a few square feet in size.

The named people shown outside the ark are Lamek (Lamech) and his two wives Adah and Zyllah.  Lamech was of Cain’s lineage.  They were not allowed to board the ship during the flood.  It is reasonable to expect that they had helped Noah in many ways and were at the site of Noah’s shipyard as the flood began.  Noah and his family were perhaps saddened as the ship’s door was closed knowing they would not survive.

One other observation: Noah’s sons were not allowed to have children until after the flood.  The scene shows Noah’s sons separated from their wives by Noah and Noah’s wife- Noah’s wife being the most prominently sized woman’s head.

To view a sketch of one of the smaller scenes carved in stone go to http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/17_3_shea_ep.htm .


Figure 3f. A ship-shaped anomaly? The Durupinar Formation= Dogubeyazit, Agri, Turkey. The view is rotated to make downhill actually appear downhill.
Figure 3f. A ship-shaped anomaly? The Durupinar Formation= Dogubeyazit, Agri, Turkey. The view is rotated to make downhill actually appear downhill.



Figure A1.  The upper scene shown is a satellite view of the Durupinar formation in Turkey.  The hand drawn scene is of the same Durupinar site but shows surface drawings at the site visible at altitude with their corresponding meanings in English.  I did not want to touch up the drawing but instead note that the cut off name on the right is ADAH.  This was drawn and translated by Dr. William H. Shea and is shown with his permission.
Figure A1. The upper scene shown is a satellite view of the Durupinar formation in Turkey. The hand drawn scene is of the same Durupinar site but shows surface drawings at the site visible at altitude with their corresponding meanings in English. I did not want to touch up the drawing but instead note that the cut off name on the right is ADAH. This was drawn and translated by Dr. William H. Shea and is shown with his permission.

Figure A1.  The upper scene shown is a satellite view of the Durupinar formation in Turkey.  The hand drawn scene is of the same Durupinar site but shows surface drawings at the site visible at altitude with their corresponding meanings in English.  I did not want to touch up the drawing but instead note that the cut off name on the right is ADAH.  This was drawn and translated by Dr. William H. Shea and is shown with his permission.

Introduction to the technical appendices

Note:  The assertions made in the following appendix have not been subjected to any sort of peer review but are the considered opinions of this book’s author.  It is reasonable for a reader to wonder about an author’s background.

My course of study was electrical engineering with employment in the digital electronics field.  Such a curriculum of study is rigid and includes math at high levels, technical physics both theoretical and, in an engineering sense, applied, and little else.  Engineers never really have time to apply themselves in the other required courses such as history, language, and economics; those courses that tend to make one well rounded- good courses of study though.  I have a separate practical and theoretical expertise in refrigeration, shipbuilding, construction- most all things called practical.

Biology, geology, and cosmology are topics of self-study for me.  I have no credentials or college credits- none applicable to this work.  I felt forced to learn the subjects to satisfy questions that had arisen in the course of sorting out the creation story and Noah’s flood.  I did not just search science for evidence supporting biblical stories; I have allowed known science to shape my understanding of the biblical stories.  If the two do not fit perfectly, one or the other is wrong or at least, one’s understanding is flawed.  Biblical misunderstandings seem most common and are the toughest to overcome, yet strict adherence to literal biblical statements is essential.

Truth is, I found more science questions than science answers.  Science, on its leading edge, is a little too chaotic to be called completely reasonable; it is wide-open and full of unknowns.  Some purported science, such as dark matter and dark energy, does not fit in anywhere with other science; and while black holes do exist, their many oddities such as new dimensions and hidden worlds, although fanciful, are examples of the chaos.  They are interesting science fiction.  There are simple and mathematically provable explanations for these phenomena.  This article and others that follow are attempts at eliminating chaos.

Please understand that this appendix is an unedited first pass and it will grow.  I trust readers will weigh in and point out errors.  If ever in a position requiring the pronunciation of the many words from biology, I’ll be in big trouble.  About my lackluster writing skills, I write and then change what I have written until most of those annoying green and red underlines go away.  Once they are gone, I give up and call it done.

If any or all assertions made in the appendix are incorrect, they will not change the outcome of this book.  The assertions are, in that sense, inconsequential.

Appendix B- Earth’s atmosphere and rain cycle (a work in progress)

Due to the many factors involved, Earth’s atmosphere and rain cycle are complicated topics.  Valid considerations include atmospheric pressure, the temperature at Earth’s surface, heat emanating from Earth’s mantle, solar intensity, interactions of global wind currents, the location of landmasses, and multiple properties of water at water’s three states.  Global warming debates illustrate the rain cycle’s complexity.

Given the context of this book’s main body, an appendix on Earth’s atmosphere may seem off topic.  Any conversation about global warming issues may seem even further astray.  My attitude toward the global warming debate had been unconcerned indifference, but the topic exists in the middle of any atmospheric research; it continually returns front and center either providing answers or more often in the way of answers.

The search had been for data on a clearing atmosphere and an eventual modern rain cycle.  For instance, Venus is hot and has perpetually clouded skies yet has no chemical rain cycle and why?  When did hot but cooling Earth’s sky eventually clear?  In addition, potential causes for a global deluge of rain could satisfy questions about the global flood remembered in all civilizations- Noah’s flood.

Clearly, sunlight is now the source of heat that controls Earth’s surface temperature but until Earth’s mantle had cooled, mantle heat controlled Earth’s surface temperature; a condition that would most certainly have completely clouded Earth’s skies; just as is the case with the planet Venus.  At some time in Earth’s history, control of surface temperature made the transition to solar heat.  Knowing when the transition occurred is telling about changes in atmospheric and surface conditions.  As the transition occurred, Earth had its first clear skies and potentially its first rain cycle.

What causes rain?  In modern conditions of fixed global pressure, sunlight is the predominate cause of rain showers.  Warmed by sunlight at Earth’s surface, humid air rises up amongst adjacent cool air to the lower-pressure and cool altitudes where it forms dew- at its dew point.  The dew collects into clouds.  The clouds reach a saturation level and precipitate the water back out as rain.  It takes sunshine at Earth’s surface and a suitable atmospheric pressure for a rain cycle.  It takes a pressure drop to cause an extended global deluge.

It was hoped that an accurate history of Earth’s surface temperature could be had- a history from ancient to modern.  In addition to a surface temperature history, an accurate assessment of ancient atmospheric pressure trends, if available, would answer many questions about Earth’s evolution.  Having either one may yield up the other.  However, existing plots of ancient to modern temperature are mostly unfounded and atmospheric pressure plots, good or bad, seem nonexistent.

Earth is a planet immersed in refrigerant and as such, surface temperature and atmospheric pressure are inseparably linked.  It seems that those who participate in the global warming debate, both pro and con, do not bother with the critical relationship between Earth’s temperature and atmospheric pressure but instead the conversations are about gas percentages.  Gas percentages, those percentages of gases that at current conditions on Earth are non-condensable, are irrelevant.  What is the global warming debate about?

Global Warming

In “global warming” scenarios, the feared “greenhouse” gas CO2, released by mammals by burning fossil fuels and even worse, by breathing, will warm Earth, and melt glaciers.  The melt water will increase seawater levels inundating water front property.  Stormy conditions will be prevalent and catastrophic.  Ultimately, a runaway situation will end high-level life on the planet.  Solutions range from limiting mammal populations and outlawing fossil fuel use, to mandating stopgap fixit widgets.

People have had cause for concern as populations have spiraled up.  Global surface temperatures had perhaps trended up for a time.  For various reasons, glaciers are less prominent in some areas and sea levels have reportedly risen.  All are aware of the damage done by pollution on land, sea, and air.  Then there are the twenty-four hour weather channels that do a good job of reporting all weather of any conceivable interest everywhere in the country.  Even a dust devil caught on camera in some desolate area is aired countrywide.  Extensive reporting makes weather seem worse.

Statistics show no increase in severe weather even though seasonal storm damage is much higher- there is simply much more improved property in storms’ way.  People now build in areas their grandparents would not have considered such as beaches, flood plains, and forests prone to seasonal fire.  Others build on past mountainside mudflows because the view is excellent.  Their building site choices have no affect on the weather or on recurring tectonic activity for that matter.

One should be grateful that there are individuals and organizations that sound the alarm when something seems amiss.  Many sincere people are making concerted efforts to deal with what they are convinced is a serious problem.  It is completely reasonable to add the costs of running a clean business to a product’s selling price.  However, although any pollution is a negative, the global warming culprit gas CO2 is not pollution in the common sense; producers of oxygen love CO2 while producers of CO2 love oxygen.  In both cases of making and consuming the gases, the relative abundance of the gases is a good measure of the vitality of Earth’s ecosystems.

Except for the brief bit of skepticism that follows, no side is taken as to whether or not “global warming” is occurring.  Instead, issue is taken as to causes of heat buildup and heat loss at Earth’s surface.  In addition, “global warming” appears to be more of a political phenomenon than an atmospheric one.  One should ask who gains politically on either side from a global warming crisis.

If Earth’s surface is warming, it may prove helpful to understand why even though it may not be fixable.  Knowing is better than not knowing.

A percentage shift in atmospheric gas proportions, large or small, does not affect surface temperatures on Earth or anywhere else.  This is both logical at all technical levels and is provable based on data from other planets including Mars and Venus.  The purported global warming crisis is a targeted misapplication of science leaving many searching for evidence in measurements of unrealistic certainty.

The percentage concentration of CO2 on Venus is similar to that on Mars yet Mars is as cold as expected.  The differences between Venus and Mars include their mantle temperatures, atmospheric pressure, and the Sun’s proximity- not gas percentages.  If CO2 is a problem then clearly the problem it poses is unrelated to its percentage concentration.  On both Mars and Venus, if other (non-condensing) gases at current pressures replaced existing (non-condensing) gases, both planets would retain their respective temperatures.

Two planetary temperature extremes one hot, one cold, Venus and Mars respectively, with equivalent gas percentages proves gas percentages are not a factor in planetary surface temperature.  It cannot work both ways. Yes, yes, other things are different on the two planets- exactly the point one should recognize.  The Ideal Gas Law is a linear relationship.  There can be no maximum or minimum points between two temperature extremes- just a straight line that is a function of pressure.  Due to the presence of atmospheric gases operating in their refrigerant range (explained later), temperature is piecewise proportionate to gas pressure.

Is something causing an ongoing temperature trend at Earth’s surface?

To know Earth’s temperature at any given time, a necessarily vast array of surface temperature measurements must take into account seasonal averages, shifts in sea currents, and weather happenstance.  There are many seemingly random variables.  Measurements are never exact, nor are science’s understandings of the many periodic cycles of weather.  All this seriously invalidates global temperature measurement data.  Just one wrong assumption or one bit of inaccuracy can flip arguments entirely.

Satellite Imaging

Is satellite imaging accurate enough for global temperature measurements?  Satellites have only been available in recent decades, but even with satellite imaging, periodic variations and their causes must be understood.  Other questions arise even as to a satellite’s imaging accuracy.

Satellites infer temperature.  No comparison between modern satellite data and older forms of measurement is valid- they do not measure the same thing.  Satellites, by detecting bandwidth emissions through the atmosphere, measure an average between surface temperature and atmospheric temperature while land based weather station temperature probes measure temperature at Earth’s surface only.  Satellite temperature measurements are like measuring a person’s temperature from the other side of a large room.  Even for small regions on the globe, satellite measurements by necessity should be calibrated continuously by surface measurements.  How could the satellite measurements be more accurate than the surface measurements?

Since the supposed change in temperature is small, if within all the vastness, a temperature measurement accuracy of plus or minus half a degree is within reason for both past and current measurements, equally valid cases for both global warming and an eminent ice age can be made using the same temperature measurement data.

Many invalid ideas have arisen due to the use of a greenhouse analogy.  Everyone knows how hot their car gets with windows closed in the sunshine even if they have never been in a greenhouse.  Can this happen to Earth?

The Greenhouse Analogy

If Earth’s atmosphere were like a greenhouse, calculations involving temperature would be trivial.  However, Earth’s atmosphere is nothing like a greenhouse.  There is no valid analogy between Earth’s atmosphere and a greenhouse.  Greenhouses are, by design, containers closed to airflow that allow solar energy in.  Gas percentages have no significant effect on the thermal function of a greenhouse.

Greenhouses warm up due to a lack of airflow, not gas percentages.  Yet, if higher specific heat gases replaced air in a greenhouse, the greenhouse would warm slower in the morning and then cool off slower in the evening- nothing profound, magic, or new about that.  It would be tricky to measure any difference.

Unlike a greenhouse, in Earth’s open atmosphere, hot gases are never trapped.  The atmosphere is an open container without ceiling or walls.  Convection always moves hot gases away from Earth’s surface to high atmospheric levels.  If there is no cloud cover, radiant heat ejected from Earth’s surface, more often than not, passes straight through the atmosphere to space.

Heat absorbed at Earth’s surface of any bandwidth, infrared or otherwise, when re-emitted dissipates primarily away from Earth and mostly to space without ever returning to Earth.  The clarity of satellite views of Earth in the infrared demonstrates Earth’s ability to radiate heat through atmospheric gases and directly to space.

For several decades and in a subtle way, the greenhouse gas misnomer has been woven into the various technical disciplines like a mysticism that few bother to dispute.  Texts make mention of “greenhouse gases” as if spreading a rumor but forego any in depth discussion; “… it is true but beyond the scope of this text.”  Most everyone seems to default to the expertise of those illusive others.

The temperature history of ancient Earth’s surface has been plotted out based on CO2 proportions using data acquired from rocks of known age and using isotope ratios and has become generally accepted.  This may be an accurate (as far as is currently possible) way of plotting CO2 percentages and perhaps is even suggestive of past temperature trends- trends, not absolute temperatures.  Any connection via CO2 percentage to actual past surface temperatures is much more elusive- currently impossibly elusive.

If there is a situation of rising surface temperatures, it might be helpful to understand the problem’s cause rather than attributing it to an irrelevant greenhouse scenario.

If one is looking at any past combination of gases to determine absolute temperature, the pressure, equal to some function of gravity and gas volume, must be known (the Ideal Gas Law).  Instead of known, an assumed pressure and some median temperature are used; medians roughly equivalent to modern conditions; a baseless approach.  In addition, knowing temperature trends does not explain the causes of the temperature trends.

It is more reasonable to establish absolute temperature trends based on Earth’s initial molten temperatures, rates of cooling, and the age of Earth.  Rates of cooling are a direct result of Earth’s ability to radiate heat to the near absolute zero temperature of space while gaining some heat from the Sun.

Instead, Hadean Earth is assumed molten while all points between Hadean Earth and modern Earth are generally assumed to be some mild median temperature roughly equivalent to modern temperature.  This assumption leads one to believe that at during the very high CO2 concentration of the Hadean Eon, Earth cooled dramatically- completely contrary to global warming claims- it cannot work both ways.

Earth’s Refrigerant

There is another overwhelming consideration concerning Earth’s temperature and involving atmospheric pressure levels both ancient and modern- namely the refrigerant properties of water.  Earth has been covered by water since before first sunlight- a completely reasonable and very well supported claim.  Because of extremely high pressure, a sea of liquid water existed on a very hot Earth.  However, Earth’s pressure has changed dramatically since water first condensed on its surface.

Water is Earth’s most abundantly available refrigerant.  Earth is an open refrigerant container with refrigerant trapped by gravity.  Currently at globally constant pressure, the refrigerant container that is the Earth System is a nearly isobaric container- certainly in the modern short term.  When a refrigerant evaporates off a surface, it cools the surface by removing heat in a predictable way.  Total pressure including non-condensable gas pressure is a big factor, while percentages of non-condensable gases are irrelevant.

Refrigerant systems are well understood and are completely predictable.  Refrigeration computations are common to mechanical engineers- the theoretical and practical application experts on thermodynamics.

A look at Earth’s temperature separate from the influence of a water cycle is available in desert regions such as the Atacama Desert where rainfall is virtually zero.  The Atacama Desert demonstrates the effect of minimal cloud cover and minimal rain on Earth’s surface temperature.  Deserts demonstrate the absence of refrigerant- the absence of water.  Desert temperatures are extreme in the course of each day but daily averages are typical for their latitude.

Water offers other enhanced temperature stability as well.  Cloud cover increases the atmosphere’s reflectivity (albedo) and limits heat gained from the Sun (insolation) effectively throttling the amount of heat at Earth’s surface.  As surface conditions cool, cloud cover diminishes and a range of temperatures becomes typical for a particular season and in a particular region- in a simplified view at least.  Wind currents add complications leaving some areas typically cool and others typically hot.

Note that cloud cover is not a gas.  Cloud cover is made of miniscule droplets of liquid water.  Cloud cover cycles cooled and condensed refrigerant back to Earth’s surface in the form of rain where it removes heat and re-evaporates into cloud cover- an endless cycle that is subject only to atmospheric pressure and heat from the Sun- not gas percentages.  Unlike gases, clouds reflect some radiant heat back to Earth’s surface.  Without cloud cover, dew freezes on the ground on mildly cool nights.

Like a sort of mechanical governor, cloud cover reduces Earth’s nighttime exposure to the near absolute zero temperatures of space and reduces heat from sunlight in the daytime.  Cloud cover offers stability not available in desert regions- a Control Theory problem.

In the big picture, Earth’s atmosphere is a heat pump driven by solar energy.  The atmosphere and the frozen regions are the heat pump’s condenser.  The surface of Earth is the heat pump’s evaporator.  We all live inside a refrigeration system and on the inside surface of its evaporator.

As with any refrigeration system, the presence of non-condensable gases adds a complication.  Non-condensable gases are those that do not exist in both liquid and gas states within Earth’s temperature and pressure range.  There are several non-condensable atmospheric gases such as nitrogen, oxygen, and CO2 contaminating Earth’s heat pump system.  Water is the only atmospheric gas operating in its refrigerant range.

Any refrigeration technician can explain what happens in a refrigeration system when non-condensable gases are present in the system.  Because of the system’s added partial pressures, evaporating temperatures go up as do condensing temperatures.  In the Earth System, the added partial pressures of non-condensable gases makes Earth’s surface warmer than it would be without them; take some of the pressure away and Earth becomes a deep freeze.

Operating pressure has a direct effect on any refrigerant’s evaporating temperature and the evaporating temperature of water has a direct effect on Earth’s surface temperature.  If CO2 is a culprit gas in any true global warming scenario, it is because its added partial pressure is driving atmospheric pressure up.  I cannot find any indication that global atmospheric pressure is anything but constant.  Is anybody checking?  Do not confuse global pressure with local pressure variations that local weather quickly corrects.

If gas percentages made a significant difference in heat gains, then an entrepreneur might push it to an extreme where the highest specific heat gas available is the only gas in his greenhouse.  For instance, the heat gained by using pure CO2 in a greenhouse might allow enhanced crop growth in extreme regions year around.  Although CO2 is popular with the greenhouse’s plant life, sadly, it will not improve temperatures and is no better than common air.  Some suggest that it would work if the greenhouse were miles high.  However, if its ceiling were miles high, a greenhouse would not operate as a greenhouse at all.

The Variability and Trends of Atmospheric Pressure

One can say with certainty that atmospheric pressure, while reasonably constant now, was much higher in the past.  Every reasonable consideration supports higher past atmospheric pressure.  The entire evolution of Earth including life’s transition to modern life supports higher past atmospheric pressures- higher pressures that have dwindled to current levels.  As a result, past surface temperatures were at higher average levels.

Cooler modern temperatures are the reason cold-blooded reptiles that roamed and ruled energetically during the Mesozoic must bask in sunlight for energy even in modern tropical climates.  How well would basking reptiles have survived in the predator rich Mesozoic?  Would any evolutionist suggest that reptiles evolved to be less than perfectly suited to the environment that existed during their evolution?

With higher atmospheric pressure, temperature swings were minimized in the Mesozoic and stayed nearer some higher average- an average that rendered the heat generating metabolisms of modern mammals unnecessary.  A best-case median temperature for reptiles is a clue to the Mesozoic’s temperature and pressure.

Qualitative Observations

Since surface temperature measurements are by their nature, rather untenable, qualitative observation may provide the only realistic data concerning receding glaciers and rising sea levels.

However, when glaciers recede, there are at least four possible causes and then any combination of the four.  They include: 1) increased solar intensity (insolation) on glacial surfaces; 2) warmer or shifted sea currents; 3) less snowfall; 4) heat from Earth’s mantle is warming glaciers from below.

Increased solar intensity at Earth’s surface might be a result of less cloud cover, but could be due to a solar maximum.  In addition, Earth’s fluctuating magnetic field occasionally allows more solar energy to reach Earth’s surface.  Sunshine on Earth’s glacial surfaces has completely different effects on glacial melt than does a slightly warmer still-air atmosphere.

Warmer sea currents may be the result of a warmer global sea or shifted sea currents- another difficult measurement to make accurately.

Less snow collecting at the poles while Earth is warmer, irrationally implies less water is evaporating into the atmosphere- even when conditions are warmer and global pressure is constant.

Recent reports claim parts of the Antarctic are experiencing tectonic activity and are heating up from below the ice- not an atmospheric issue and also a condition beyond human control.

Even in a qualitative view, the complexity rises in the case where glaciers are receding.  There are many factors involved in the formation and longevity of glaciers.

If sea levels are rising globally, there are again several possible causes and their combinations.  They include: 1) melting glaciers; 2) tectonic activity is lifting parts of the sea floor; 3) landmasses in some areas are sinking lifting sea floors by similar amounts; 4) ancient mountain ranges are eroding and displacing seawater by filling bays with soil; 5) underground aquifers are depleted to less than their normally full levels.

Increasingly more is known about the tectonic drift of landmasses as they float in the mantle.  Landmasses are certainly adrift and moving yet there is no consensus as to causes of the motion.  Some commonly proposed explanations are easily ruled out.  It seems most likely that the moon’s attraction as it orbits Earth in conjunction with the Sun’s attraction causes the motion by distorting Earth’s surface at the equator.  Evidence includes the relative absence of motion at the poles.  The apparent opposites in direction of the moving landmasses may be as simple as some landmasses are moving faster than others are as they travel the closed circle around Earth.  The differing speeds are due to rebounding.  In addition, after rebounding from past collisions that have occurred in their longitudinal drift, some have an added rotation.

Since they are floating and moving landmasses must be bobbing up and down as well.  The up and down motion of landmasses would explain Earth’s global hotspots.  For instance, the periodic nature of the Yellowstone hotspot eruptions, the mantle plum eruptions, may indicate the Yellowstone region’s period of oscillation up and down.  Similarly, the heating and cooling of land below the ice in the Antarctic is likely periodic.  (Note: For those who are into some of the more exotic creation science, the landmasses are floating in molten rock but have never floated in a sea of water.)

Now, if any landmass is bobbing up and down, then they all are, whether they are moving laterally or not.  As a landmass sinks into the mantle, the sea floor rises and conversely, as a landmass rises in the mantle, the sea floor sinks.  A rising and falling sea floor directly effects sea levels.  These factors and others could all contribute to the rise and fall of sea levels and again, the complexity of “global warming” issues has increased.

If sea level rise were due solely to melted ice, the level of increase would be precisely consistent at every shore.  However, if evidence shows water level increasing much more on one continent than on others, clearly that continent is sinking and pushing sea floors up causing sea levels to rise globally- again not a controllable issue and an issue unrelated to global warming.

If landmasses are sinking and causing sea levels to rise by pushing up ocean floors, one might expect increased volcanism concurrent with the rising sea levels.  The added pressure pushing up the ocean floor would be added pressure on all magma as well.

In the absence of a fixed reference, it is difficult to know for sure how landmasses move laterally since the seemingly motionless reference, the Antarctic, is itself likely rotating and for that matter, bobbing up and down as well.

Sinkholes and Aquifer Depletion

Often there are reports of seriously depleted freshwater levels in vast underground aquifers.  The water is pumped out faster than seepage can replenish it.  The depletions open up empty cavities below ground.  Unlike full cavities, the empty cavities allow rainwater to rush in from the surface.  The rapid flow of water into the empty cavities erodes the cavities’ ceilings and undermines the land above causing sinkholes.  A water-filled aquifer does not support the ground above, but instead it minimizes erosion and slows the progression of sinkhole formation.

Sinkholes are becoming commonplace.  Water conservation in those areas should be a priority.

It is reasonable to assume that virtually every gallon of water depleted from every aquifer has directly contributed to global sea level rise.  Again the complexity of “global warming” issues has increased.  Corn grown to produce alcohol for fuel is responsible for its share of aquifer depletion, sinkholes, and for its share of sea level increase.

Remaining questions from the geology of Earth include why does Earth’s magnetic field reverse periodically and how much heat is generated internally by friction and by nuclear decomposition.  Is it possible the pressures and temperatures internal to Earth actually create the nuclear materials?

Much of the “global warming” confusion stems from conditions on the planet Venus- a planet about which little is known, but probes have successfully gathered some data.


The atmosphere of Venus has a high percentage of CO2 at very high pressure and extremely hot temperatures.  At first glance, there may seem to be some correlation between high CO2 percentages and high atmospheric temperatures.  However, the two conditions are unrelated.

Serious problems arise when equating conditions on Venus with potential future conditions on Earth.  Venus evolved under completely different conditions than did Earth.  Some of the evolution is very recent on the Solar System’s time scale.  The only remaining similarity between Earth and Venus is planet size.  Some of the many differences follow.

1)  Venus has no moon and rotates about its axis very slowly.  Subsequently, Venus cannot have Earth’s level of tectonic activity or Earth’s level of magma flow.  Even though internally molten, there is no reason to expect any significant magma flow inside Venus.

2)  In the absence of tectonic activity, Venus has a minimal or actually, a zero measured magnetic field.  The near-surface mantle is hot enough to exclude residual magnetism- hotter than the Curie temperature.  Venus is even hotter toward its core.  Without a magnetic field to deflect them, high-energy cosmic rays continually strike the surface of Venus and there is no protection from the eroding effects of solar wind.

3)  Venus suffered a large impact and the impact’s substantial residual heat continues to dissipate into Venus’s atmosphere.  Venus’s surface is much hotter than it could be due to solar energy especially with its continuously clouded condition and subsequent high albedo (reflectivity).  The impact from less than 100,000 years ago heated all water into its gas state and solar wind rapidly swept it all away leaving Venus dry.  However, Venus still has a great deal of atmosphere although much more exposed to Solar Wind than is Earth.  This is indicative of a relatively recent impact since in the long-term Venus will have very little atmosphere.

4)  Without surface water or vegetation, Venus has no means of storing away CO2; Venus has no carbon dioxide cycle.

5)  Venus has no remaining condensable gases, gases such as water vapor that effectively transport heat from the planet’s surface to the outer reaches of its atmosphere; a complete absence of any gas operating in a refrigerant range; a temperature and pressure range allowing both condensation and evaporation.

6)  Venus rotates very slowly; there are no significant Coriolis wind currents near its surface; a day on Venus is 243 Earth days.

7)  There is very little wind at Venus’s surface, yet at high levels, global winds are strong enough to distribute the planet’s sunlit-side solar heat gains throughout its upper atmosphere.  High atmospheric levels offer the only temperature differences that cause significant winds.

8)  No part of Venus’s surface shows signs of erosion.  The planet itself is the primary source of atmospheric heat.  Since the surface heat is uniformly from the planet itself, there are no convection winds near the planet’s surface.

9)  Venus is in closer proximity to the Sun’s energy than is Earth.

The maximum temperature that can occur on Venus due to insolation is far lower than its seven and eight hundred degrees Celsius surface temperature.  A little warmer than Earth would be the temperature of Venus.  To account for the temperature difference, one must assume that the planet’s surface is radiating the difference.  This is at current albedo levels and at any atmospheric gas percentage and pressure.

CO2 has no magic means of holding heat.  Any gas in non-condensable temperature ranges would have the same effect as CO2, which is, except for its pressure contribution, no real effect at all.  On Venus, even CO2’s atmospheric pressure contribution has well exceeded its influence since at its high pressures, nothing on Venus exhibits a refrigerant cycle.  Like all elements and compounds, CO2 heats up and cools off to match surrounding temperatures; atmospheric CO2 loses net stored heat in every cooler direction but always much more away from the planet it surrounds.

As to whether the mantle of Venus is hot relative to its atmosphere, the planet Mercury, even with its low albedo, is cooler than Venus during its daylight period (its hottest period), yet Mercury is much closer to the Sun than is Venus.  There is an energy imbalance in the Venus System that is not attributable to gas percentages.

Venus has not yet cooled enough to have the major rifts and surface cracks that are inherent with the contraction of cooling rock.  The cracks in a cooled basaltic surface might sum up to be in excess of 5 meters per kilometer in every direction on its surface and cracks would often be lumped together forming immense gorges.  In fact, the massive strike that made Venus hot occurred perhaps just outside Earth’s modern recorded history- 5 or 10 thousand years ago.  Because of its visibly spectacular nature, a more recent occurrence would have been recorded in some fashion.

The heat emanating from the surface of Venus controls the temperature of the atmosphere of Venus- not the Sun.  The Sun is merely supplemental heat.  Atmospheric gases, including CO2, moderate temperatures at both Venus’s surface and Earth’s surface; they keep us cool in daylight and warm at night.  Unlike Venus with its extremely high pressures, if anything is warming Earth’s surface, the rain cycle becomes more active overwhelmingly removing the added heat.

Specific Heat of CO2

If CO2 has a higher specific heat than another gas, it heats up slower within its daily time of heating than does the other gas.  Within its limited heating period, a high specific heat gas heats up to a lower temperature but then cools off slower while exchanging the same amount of daily heat.  The truly high specific heat material of the planet Venus is the basaltic surface material of the planet itself.

It is claimed that CO2 captures more heat in the infrared as it radiates away from Earth than do other gases.  While this may be true, the molecules of CO2 are not like tiny mirrors that reflect heat back to the source.  Once an atmospheric gas molecule has absorbed a photon or a sort of packet of heat, the molecule’s size increases and subsequently, the molecule’s density drops.  Amongst “cooler” molecules, the reduced density molecule then climbs away from Earth in a convective fashion; it climbs away from Earth above cooler higher density gases.

Cooler gases always travel down toward Earth’s surface while hotter gases always travel up and away.  As if on a conveyor belt, heat moves away from the planet’s surface in a convective fashion.  At some instant during its travel away from Earth, it gives up its photon packet of heat in a random direction.  Often the heat is absorbed into another molecule that, as a result, begins its own climb away from Earth.  The photon, like a ball bouncing randomly in a pinball machine, ultimately is lost to space.  In a pinball machine, the downhill slope eventually wins out over the pinball.  With heat flow in the atmosphere, the downhill slope is decidedly away from Earth.

In addition to convection, there is another contributor to heat flow’s downhill slope away from Earth.  That which a photon “sees” above is of decreasing density due to falling pressure.  Odds are much higher that heat will ultimately eject away into space rather than making its way back to Earth.  In addition, space is a much bigger target than is Earth- the curvature of Earth’s horizon is especially significant at higher atmospheric altitudes.

Only the photons that hit Earth contribute to an increase in Earth’s temperature.  Those photons that are bouncing around in the atmosphere do not contribute to Earth’s temperature.

Looking down on Earth through the atmosphere, how does a satellite distinguish between surface temperature and the emission of heat out of the atmosphere?  While a particular photon is bouncing around in the atmosphere, it has no measurable effect from a satellite above.  Satellites measure only that heat that has left Earth’s surface and that which has left Earth’s atmosphere.  A temporarily elevated satellite reading in the infrared could easily indicate a cooler temperature at Earth’s surface but with a warmer upper atmosphere since all heat passes through the atmosphere.

With current strategies centered on CO2’s properties, too many variables including many that are seemingly random are involved to yield any definite solution concerning warming trends- equations are missing.  A new strategy is required.  However, this computation does not require new science but is thermodynamics; it is a mechanical engineering problem involving the refrigerant properties of water.  The “laws” of physics thoroughly describe radiant and convective heat flow, thermal properties of gases, etc…  Either the problem’s clear certainty, or an end to the wasted resources inherent with the policies of panic, requires a different approach for solution.

Except for its partial pressure contribution to global atmospheric pressure, forget about CO2.  Desert regions are hot because they are devoid of all liquid refrigerant; they are devoid of water- hot such as the Atacama Desert where insolation is near maximum and where rainfall and evaporation is virtually zero.  Cold desert regions such as the Polar Regions are naturally cold because insolation is minimal there.  Mountain peaks are cold because they are at a lower pressure level, and at lower pressure, water’s refrigerant properties dictate a lower temperature.  Water’s capacity as a refrigerant moderates Earth’s surface temperatures overwhelmingly- much more so than can any blanket of atmosphere made of non-condensable gases at constant pressure.

With world population having exploded, trouble in one form or another, atmospheric or otherwise, seems to be a given.  Add to that the probability of unexpected natural phenomena such as volcanism, meteor strikes, and a fluctuating magnetic field.  An atmospheric catastrophe may be looming on the horizon but the factors involved are immense and there is no real chance the activities of the world’s population could be organized to stop it- no matter what the cause.

If temperatures are going up and glaciers are receding, the logical causes, once discovered, will not likely be humanly fixable.  Making such a fix is akin to changing the weather- a proposition that has been danced around throughout humanity’s existence.  The Sun’s energy fluctuates and nothing can be done about it.  The level of solar energy reaching Earth’s surface varies with conditions on the Sun and with Earth’s magnetic field fluctuations and again, it is entirely beyond human control.  The continents are moving, their temperatures vary, and it is not controllable.

The insolation variations that result in temperature fluctuations at Earth’s surface, especially the sea’s surface, are likely the real cause of variations in atmospheric CO2 levels.  Although more rain scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere when conditions are warmer, warmer surface water does not absorb CO2 as readily as does cold surface water.  Water, once frozen, does not absorb any CO2- yet another form of stability in the Earth System.

One cannot even claim that global warming, if it is occurring, is bad- bad for Earth’s living inhabitants and their eco-systems.  In fact, wetter warmer climates support more life, both animal and vegetable, than do colder climates.  A warmer climate does not doom Earth’s living inhabitants, yet a colder climate may.  In every case, proposed solutions are economically catastrophic while a warming planet is only an inconvenience.  We are fortunate that Earth’s water cycle has some built in properties that prevent runaway atmospheric conditions.

The Politics of Global Warming

Clearly, one’s political stand or a company’s profit margin is not a valid factor in a debate concerning global warming.  Clearly, a company’s profit margin for its widget “global-warming-fixer” is no more a factor than is another established company’s unwillingness to invest or waste capital on widgets.  No matter what public relations claims they make, both are driven to be successful as measured by profits yet they face different hurdles.

The widget maker is forced to enter the market in an unnatural way- by lobbying authorities for legislation mandating the consumption of their widgets; all of which increase consumer costs for essential energy and transportation; while established companies in their own naturally competitive environment are generally forced, by competition, to cut costs to win more consumers and increase profits.

If one strips away the “global warming” politics, what remains is a technical topic complicated by the many unknowns of geology, and the inherent inaccuracy of global measurements.  Had a sound case been made, there would be no debate; there would be a sound consensus.  There is anything but a sound consensus on “global warming”; no consensus that it is occurring and if it is occurring, no consensus as to its cause or solution.  There is an absence of consistent data supporting “global warming” claims.

Often it is suggested that very few people really understand the “global warming” phenomenon.  However, if those few do in fact understand it, why can’t they logically explain it to others beyond emphatically claiming, “Its true- I’m sure- everybody agrees”?  Why are the many with their inferior understandings counted as agreeing?

Arguments presented on global warming’s behalf lack essential logic.  For instance, often a catastrophe such as a volcanic eruption is used to illustrate a “nuclear winter scenario”; a scenario that clouds the skies long-term causing severe and catastrophic temperature drops.  The “nuclear winter scenario” convincingly suggests that nuclear war would kill many who were untouched by radiation by clouding skies and causing freezing draught.  Clouded skies cause reduced insolation and do cause temperatures to drop.  Yet volcanic eruptions outgas massive amounts of CO2 and if “global warming” arguments were logical, the CO2 should cause sudden runaway warming conditions.  Volcanic eruptions do not cause temperature increases but instead they cause temperature drops and draught.

Volcanism’s erupted CO2 rapidly saturates into water both atmospherically and at Earth’s surface.  Rain fertilizes plant life with CO2.  In the sea, CO2 sustains Earth’s humanly essential plankton and eventually re-solidifies into carbonates at the sea’s bottom.  The tectonic subduction and melting of carbonates at the sea’s bottom is the reason volcanoes eject CO2- the carbon dioxide cycle.

Moreover, if a runaway “greenhouse” scenario exists, how did Earth recover in ancient times of higher natural CO2 percentages?  If no logical means of recovery exists, no logical runaway scenario exists.

Some even suggest in an amazing irony, that cold weather trends and extremes before the dooming heat are as expected!  Is the ironic saying “cold as hell” applicable here?  It has become common for all extremes both hot and cold to be blamed on global warming’s “greenhouse gases.”  Any unpopular weather is attributable to global warming.

There is a lot of cynicism- maybe not enough.

There are really only two possible “global warming” debate outcomes.

First, a global warming trend is real and except for preparation, there is little if anything at all that can be done about it.  There are no economies able to survive without fossil fuels.  Except for going along with treaties in hopes that the compliance of all others will allow for cheating, no nation will comply with limited fossil fuel consumption.  Sure, one country can give another money for their compliance.  Their appearance of treaty compliance will last until the money is gone.  There are tremendous incentives for nations to cheat.  Nations that “cheat” will make gains on nations that comply.

Nuclear power might have helped stem carbon based fuel consumption, yet the same people that dislike the use of abundantly available carbon based fuels often loathe the ultra clean nuclear energy.

The second possibility is, the supposed crisis is like a Gilligan’s Island episode where the Professor is sure, others panic, the Skipper opportunistically seizes control and rallies the passengers and crew, but intense corrective efforts are a futile waste of energy- the problem never really existed.  The island wasn’t really sinking; Gilligan was moving the water depth stick.  Once Gilligan’s indiscretion is discovered, things trend back toward normal in Gilligan’s world- at least until the next episode’s crisis.  In the real world, the scars that remain are an impoverished people subordinate to the very few that capitalized on the created chaos.

Every human should hope “global warming” is all just a Gilligan’s Island episode.  Search the motives of those that do not share this hope.

Wind generated electricity is horribly expensive yet advertisements promote wind as a viable alternative.  Solar electric power, beyond its emergency use in a power outage and its limited use in remote areas away from a power grid, is useless and expensive.  Electric cars can only work in limited quantities and only in a few areas; the power grids in populated areas will not support their simultaneous recharge.  In addition, power plants that burn fossil fuels supply much of the power grid.  Government subsidies only insure that these “alternatives” will remain horribly expensive.  They are a tragic waste of capital- capital that could be used to clean up polluted land and water, or to cultivate fisheries and in general, improve health and food production.

Be it war, famine, or pandemic, eventually some major catastrophe will limit global population.  Wealth and technology will always counter anything subtle just in time to meet the rising need- the economics of capitalism.

If an atmospheric catastrophe is imminent, it may be more sensible to prepare to weather the storm (or draught) rather than to try to stop it.

Nevertheless, a potential disturbance in Earth’s atmosphere and Earth’s rain cycle is at the core of the “global warming” debate, and the atmosphere and rain cycle are the topics of this appendix.  Again, I have no opinion as to whether or not global warming is occurring.  There are certainly conditions that can cause temperatures to change both up and down.

Properties of Water

Earth’s transition to its modern rain cycle explains a great deal about Earth’s evolution.  The transition occurred sometime over a span of 4 or 5 billion years.  During the Hadean eon, hot Earth was a gas giant radiating heat away into the very cold surroundings of space.  Initially there was no sunlight or solar wind.  Earth’s atmosphere was overcast and for its atmosphere to ever clear, Earth had to cool off and re-condense gases onto its cooling surface while other gases were blown away by solar wind.  Cooling off is a slow process for an Earth sized body.  The question is “How slow a process is it?”

Fortunately, for life as we know it, Earth had cooled enough for oceans of water to re-condense on its surface before sunlight.  Atmospheric pressure was still very high and surface water was very hot- much hotter than the STP boiling point.  Then, as the Sun began shinning and outputting solar wind, Earth’s upper most atmosphere began to erode away.  Pressure began to decline rapidly and the decline steamed the lower atmosphere up to the colder reaches where water vapor was at its dew point.  After reaching its dew point, water rained back down and completed a continuous cycle.  All the while, solar wind swept away the highest-level non-condensable gases.  An aggressive water cycle had become an early source of heat transport away from Earth’s surface.

Water’s cycling effects were pronounced as atmospheric pressure rapidly declined.  As the rate of pressure decline became gradual, the rain cycle diminished to non-existence.

The early Sun had a mostly negligible or even a negative effect on Earth’s surface temperature.  Earth’s atmosphere was at extremely high albedo.  Although counter intuitive, the Sun’s only significant early effect was to cool Earth’s surface by removing atmosphere.  Early conditions would not last forever.  How long did they last?

For as long as Earth was the primary source of heat at Earth’s surface, the atmosphere was overcast with clouds of water.  Earth’s entire surface pushed humidity into the atmosphere where it climbed to high, and sufficiently cool atmospheric levels to become cloud cover.  Although not clouded with water, Venus is a good example of a hot planet’s continuously clouded condition but without a chemical cycle similar to rain.  How long was Earth the primary source of heat at Earth’s surface?

Cloudy conditions were continuous as Earth cooled.  Eventually Earth cooled enough at its high albedo to allow landmasses to freeze over.  If situated at the poles, frozen landmasses resulted in clear skies- skies clear to sunlight’s insolation.   In fact, if only one hemisphere’s pole had frozen landmasses, that hemisphere would clear while the other remained overcast- all due to Coriolis wind currents.  Temperatures below freezing at the poles were essential to an eventual modern rain cycle.

About 120Mya, Earth’s surface temperature jumped about ~20 degrees indicating when Earth’s overcast condition cleared and indicating when the Sun had become Earth’s dominate source of heat.  That is not ~20 degrees above modern temperature- it was likely much hotter than modern temperature already.  Earth’s albedo had changed.  Conifers declined in regions nearest the equator.  The decline was probably due to intense direct sunlight as opposed to, or in addition to, the added heat.

Then, the sudden and immense spread of grasses away from swamps and streams and into great savannas is evidenced at about 60Mya.  The spread of grasses shows when atmospheric pressure had dropped enough to allow a rain cycle.  Intermittently clear skies and adjacent hot and cold bodies of air caused by sunlight, and suitable atmospheric pressure are all factors in a rain cycle.  The thermal properties of water explain Earth’s modern rain cycle.

Modern weather reports demonstrate the properties of water but only on a regional scale.  If conditions change globally, weather changes become global in scale.

At current global pressure levels and with stable insolation, Earth’s water cycle overwhelmingly controls Earth’s surface temperature.  Earth’s water cycle is more aptly called Earth’s Refrigerant Cycle.  The Earth System has its own built in global heat pump.  Earth’s natural refrigerant just happens to be water, and at constant atmospheric pressure and at constant solar irradiation, Earth’s surface temperature will remain within a stable range.

Earth’s range of surface temperature exists due to wind currents, sea currents, temporarily clouded skies, and seasonal variations attributable to Earth’s orbit.  Water’s capacity to cool Earth is much greater than is the Sun’s capacity to heat Earth- at current solar output.  The Sun’s energy is the energy that powers Earth’s refrigerant cycle and the refrigerant cycle has an added means of limiting insolation- the ability to cloud the sky when overwhelmed by heat at Earth’s surface.

Earth’s surface is the Earth System’s built in evaporator while condensation occurs atmospherically, at the poles, and on landmasses in the form of early morning dew.  Warmed and evaporated water rises away from Earth’s surface to high atmospheric levels and dissipates heat to space until at its dew point, then it forms clouds.  The engine (or compressor) of the refrigerant system is the energy from the Sun itself since Earth’s residual internal heat has little remaining influence.

Earth exists comfortably within water’s three common states- solid, liquid, and gas.  Although water’s gas state implies boiling temperatures, for reasons of vapor pressure, liquid water evaporates based on surrounding pressure even at low temperatures.

Four hypothetical cases of sudden atmospheric pressure fluctuation and temperature fluctuation deserve mention.  These four cases are based on modern Earth’s conditions where solar energy controls surface temperature.  Heat emanating from inside Earth is not a significant factor.  In each case, fluctuations are naturally counteracted.  In every case, the natural tendency is rapidly back toward the equilibrium of a normal rain cycle.

Case 1- Temperature Rise: At a given atmospheric pressure on Earth and with fixed insolation, if global temperature goes up then evaporation increases and there is more rain, more cloud cover, and more snow collecting as ice at the poles.  The added heat directly increases water’s evaporation rate.  The engine that drives evaporation, rain, and subsequent ice production at the poles has been turned up.

In response, the Earth System counteracts the sudden temperature increase by creating more cloud cover and moderating insolation at Earth’s surface while the rain cycle and its cooling effects become more aggressive.

In an extreme case of sudden elevated temperature, overcast conditions overwhelmingly counter the heat.  In every case of added heat, an especially active evaporation/rain cycle or completely overcast skies set Earth on a cooling trend that quickly rectifies the heightened temperature.

How do warmer temperatures create more ice at the poles?  An analogy follows.

Consider a house with a pot of water warming on the stove and, within the same house there is an open freezer.  The warming pot of water adds humidity into the house’s air while the open freezer removes humidity by re-condensing it and converting it into ice.  Now, turn the heat up under the water.  With the added heat, there is more humidity in the air and a higher air temperature within the house, and it follows, a more rapid formation of ice in the open freezer.  The rate of ice accumulation in the freezer is proportionate to the temperature of the pot of warming water.  This is true no matter what mixture of gases make up the house’s air.

To complete the analogy, the Sun is the primary source of heat that creates humidity on Earth while the open freezer is everything not heated by the Sun.  Except for its exposure to sunlight, Earth exists within surrounding space that is near absolute zero.  The house’s “air” other than water vapor could be entirely nitrogen, CO2, or any mixture of gases at constant pressure.  The non-water air mixture makes no difference to water’s evaporation rate.

The atmosphere’s capacity to store heat reduces Earth’s temperature swings, as does the heat capacity (specific heat) of the sea and land.  The atmosphere combined with the water cycle adds stability, not instability.  More atmosphere, and subsequently more atmospheric pressure, produces more stability, but at higher average temperatures.

Case 2- Temperature Drop: At a given atmospheric pressure on Earth and with fixed insolation, if global temperature drops for some hypothetical reason, there is reduced evaporation, continuously clearer skies with draught conditions, and less ice collecting at the poles.  Since more sunlight reaches Earth’s surface, insolation quickly rectifies the global temperature drop by warming Earth.

As per the analogy of Case 1, the heat under the pot of water had been temporarily reduced but was rapidly counteracted by conditions that increase insolation even at fixed solar output.

Case 3- Pressure Increase: At a given temperature at Earth’s surface and with fixed solar output, if global atmospheric pressure were to go up, it would reduce evaporation causing the rain cycle to diminish- low humidity draught conditions would prevail in the short term.  Added pressure in the atmosphere directly reduces water’s rate of evaporation and subsequently, reduces its capacity to cool Earth’s surface.  Clear skies would result in more insolation at Earth’s surface.

To reach levels of evaporation equal to levels before the pressure increase, temperature must increase.  Temperature would increase until the rain cycle had normalized- but at higher global temperature.  Polar ice would diminish.  Slowed evaporation would reduce water’s partial pressure contribution to the atmosphere- a small pressure reducing feedback.

Under heightened pressure, there would be a diminished accumulation of ice with continued perimeter melt in the Polar Regions.  Sparse cloud cover would form but only at higher levels in the atmosphere with scarce rain.  With more sunlight down to its surface, Earth would become warmer.  Earth would continue to warm until rain cycle activity had returned to normal.  The given situation of increased pressure rectifies itself back toward a normal rain cycle by warming Earth.

The “global warming” scenario’s best fit is a pressure increase, yet the only way to increase atmospheric pressure is to put more gas into the atmosphere.  There have been no claims of increased atmospheric pressure due to the combination of all volcanism, respiration, wild fires, and fossil fuel consumption.  Through it all, global atmospheric pressure has been considered constant.

Case 4- Pressure Drop: At a given temperature at Earth’s surface and with fixed solar output, if global atmospheric pressure were to drop, evaporation would increase and a deluge of rain lasting long enough to reduce Earth’s surface temperature would flood Earth.  As a global average, the temperature reduction would continue until the rain cycle declined to normal levels of activity but the temperature drop would remain.

In the case of a major pressure drop, glaciers spread.  Major glaciations that begin to cover seas begin to increase atmospheric gas content since ice does not significantly absorb gases; volcanism’s out gassing goes relatively unchecked, and pressure goes up countering the pressure drop.

Reducing atmospheric pressure directly increases water’s evaporation rate while cooler temperatures directly reduce water’s evaporation rate.  The Earth System would find a new equilibrium.  Temperature would drop until the increased evaporation rate had been offset by cooler global surface temperature.  More ice would accumulate in the Polar Regions.  The given situation of reduced pressure rectifies itself toward equilibrium by cooling Earth.

In an extreme case where pressure has dropped radically, the seas would boil until Earth has cooled considerably.  Rain would be profuse and eventually Earth would reach a new equilibrium of normal rain cycle at much cooler temperatures.

Catastrophic pressure drops have occurred in the past and in fact have been Earth’s most frequent atmospheric catastrophes.  An atmospheric pressure drop likely occurred ending the Mesozoic.  A pressure drop is a perfect fit for the flood of Noah as well.  The end of any atmospheric catastrophe occurs when the rain cycle has reached an activity level similar to the modern rain cycle.  A normal rain cycle is the benchmark for an atmospheric recovery.  However, with reduced pressure, cooler conditions will prevail; with increased pressure, warmer conditions prevail.  With constant insolation, pressure controls temperature on the water refrigerant covered Earth.

Trouble is, the given fixed conditions above are never a given in the real world.  In the real world, all conditions are changing simultaneously and to make things worse, because random wind and sea currents are a big factor, there is added uncertainty.  Add to that an occasional temperature changing tropical storm, hurricane, volcanic eruption, or solar maximum/minimum.

However, in every scenario of small changes in both temperature and atmospheric pressure, the Earth system corrects itself toward equilibrium of a normal rain cycle after a short time of unusual weather.  Extreme changes in temperature and pressure require longer periods of self-correction back to a normal rain cycle.

Appendix C:  The unspecific meaning of “water” in Genesis.

The words firmament and Heaven are important in explaining the rather unspecific meaning of “water” in Genesis.  It is clear from the creation story that cloud cover (or fog) and seawater are both called water.

Anyone who has ever watched an approaching thunderstorm while on the beach or at sea can understand why water in cloud form and seawater are both called water.  The two are indistinguishable in an approaching storm.  The cloud cover looks like an approaching wave.  Cloud cover is in fact water.

If one is to understand Genesis Chapters 1-11, the words used in Genesis must be clearly defined.  For instance, it makes no difference what the modern reader means when referring to Heaven.  What matters is what the author of Genesis meant with his use of the word Heaven.


One of the more common modern definitions of the word firmament is “expanse.”  Expanse is a good but condensed meaning of the word firmament.

More completely defined, the word “firmament” is the name of an ancient process.  During the Bronze Age, an artificer would take a lump or uselessly shaped quantity of bronze and smelt it.  Then by hammering, the smelted bronze was spread out into a sheet.  Finally, the hammered out sheet of bronze was shaped into something useful.  Therefore, the process called firmament, was the process whereby something useless was spread out and shaped up into something useful.  This process was used when creating shields for military battle, cooking utensils, etc.

As translated into English in biblical creation’s “day 2”, the word “firmament” is used to describe the expansion of clear, or cloud free, lower atmosphere on Earth.  The firmament had divided the waters- the cloud cover or steamy fog had lifted away from the sea and was water above the firmament (Genesis 1:7) and seawater was water below the firmament.  The firmament, or the expanse, was the extended region of visibility called Heaven (Genesis 1:8).  The upper limit of Heaven’s visibility had become high-level cloud cover or overcast sky.

The use of the word “firmament” from ancient technology illustrates the level of technical language, or actually, the lack of technical language available to the author of, and later, the translators of the creation story.  At the time of Moses, there was no scientific language.

Ancient historians would attempt to add their explanation to the verses concerning Earth’s atmosphere and would suggest that there were shells surrounding Earth.  The shells would be populated with lights on “day 4.”  Those same ancient explanations show that the biblical verses were beyond the understanding of the ancients.

The ancients had no rational concept of the universe and could not have fabricated a valid story about space, or about creation for that matter.  Any attempt would be obvious mythology today.  Yet, the actual biblical creation story makes perfect sense in light of today’s modern science (the topic of GENESIS DECODED).  All one need do is look beyond their religious mythology- the only hurdle to a full and factual understanding of Genesis.

The other word critically important to understanding the word “water” in Genesis is the word Heaven.  Firmament and Heaven are used together when talking about a division between seawater and cloud cover.


When was Heaven created?  Where is Heaven?  What is, Heaven?

Heaven was created prior to the chronology of the creation story.  In the creation story’s very first words is the statement “In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth, and the Earth was without form and void…  (Gen 1:1, 2).  This statement implies that Heaven was already “formed up” or finished at the story’s beginning since only Earth was without form and void.

In the chronological creation story, the eight changes cited over the course of six “days” resulted in an Earth that was, and is, useful or livable for its inhabitants.  Two of the eight changes affect the visibility of Heaven from Earth’s surface.  The already completed Heaven required no change.

As to its location, Heaven is the space above Earth, from ground or sea level up through Earth’s atmosphere, and includes the entire universe.  Heaven is that which one can see through; light passes freely through Heaven.  The Sun, Moon, planets, and galaxies are all in the midst of Heaven, as is Earth.

Earth’s changing atmosphere would allow changes in the visibility of Heaven (or through Heaven) from Earth’s surface.  As one reads the creation story, the already completed Heaven was first visible from a position at sea level, as only a narrow area of occasional visibility between the sea-covered surface of Earth and Earth’s near sea-level cloud cover.

Back then, at the time of the first creation day’s scene, the existing sea-level cloud cover was steam since Earth was very hot, and although atmospheric pressure was very high, it was rapidly falling; either condition was adequate to cause steam.  Together the conditions guaranty steam at Earth’s surface.

Later, on “day 2”of the creation story, the cloud cover of “day 1” had lifted and had expanded the visibility of Heaven to include everything above Earth’s sea covered surface up to a high level of cloud cover or waters above the firmament.  The biblical waters above the firmament (open expanse) were waters in the atmosphere in the form of cloud cover.  Then, Genesis 1:9, clearly states that the water gathered under the firmament is the sea.  These points are clear by “day 4” of the creation story.  For a time, the full range or height of Heaven was invisible from an earthly perspective due to an overcast sky- a condition that persisted for billions of years.

Finally, as the cloud cover cleared on “day 4,” the place called Heaven or the visibility of Heaven from a position on Earth included the entire universe.

As casually defined, Heaven is that blissful place everyone wishes to go after death.  As biblically defined, Heaven is that place where we are now, except we cannot enjoy it because of the indiscretion of Adam and Eve.  This clarified understanding answers many questions throughout the Bible including in the New Testament.

There are numerous biblical references implying the location of Heaven.  The air that we breathe, and that birds fly in, is part of Heaven.  Although not the part of Heaven people commonly talk about, since we all live on the surface of Earth, all people reside in the biblical Heaven even while physically alive- although perhaps at Heaven’s lowest level.  The Garden of Eden story explains why the ancients could not fully enjoy the Heaven on Earth or the “Kingdom of Heaven” (Kingdom of God).

A clear definition of the words “firmament” and “Heaven” clarify the broader meaning of water in Genesis.  Both seawater and cloud cover are called water without any distinction between the two except for their “above and below the firmament” designations.  Cloud cover and seawater are in fact both water.  However, if there is a sea level fog, there is no expanse of Heaven dividing the two and there is no distinction to make.  Seawater and fog at the sea’s level are both called water.

This explains discrepancies in the biblical account of Noah’s flood and, although not the topic of this book, this clears up absurdities in the chronology of the creation story; absurdities about when the stars and planets were created.

Note that the stones have varying slopes on their tops as would be consistent with the contours of a ship’s bottom.

Michael Akridge.

Please email any comments to akridge5@yahoo.com.  see http://mikeakridge.com