Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 9 of 188 (383609)
02-08-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 1:57 PM


In closing, I have a two part question geared towards theists and atheists alike.
Why do you gear it just toward athesits and theists and yet segregate the idea of no global flood to the atheists. I certainly am not an atheist and I also know there was no global flood.
A good treatment of this is also given in the book called Noah's Flood by Ryan and Pittman.
To the atheists, I ask, what does this information say to you about the validity of a considerable flood?
We learned about catastrophic flooding in geology 101 in college. I doubt that this is much a shocker to anyone who is mildly educated in geosciences. I doubt you could find a single statement from a modern geologist that would ever state that catastrophic flooding, especially in this circumstances of a natural dam, has not happened.
Note that we do not, as of yet, know with certainty that this was a "global" flood.
It most certainly was not a global flood. We are pretty sure there is not enough water in the Mediterranean to flood the world. There was enough to fill up the Black Sea basin pretty quick though.
We know empirically that this was considered global to the inhabitants. Does this mean that such a Flood really did exist? If so, is this inconsequential to you?
We know that the flood was probably pretty traumatic to the inhabitants. Enough to cause them to create lore about it. As it was though there was probably very little casualties due to the flooding as they estimate the flooding would only have encroached upon land at a rate of 1 mile per day. This is very catastrophic to non-nomadic people but it is not going to wipe out all things that have the breath of life. Pretty much anyone that could move about as fast as my great grandma could easily avoid drowning.
What is traumatic about it all is that you have to leave your shelters and any food or other objects that you couldn't carry behind. It is hypothesized that these cultures where beginning to have agriculture so that would be a big blow.
The second question is geared towards biblicists. This study, conducted in 1993, has had virtually no coverage.
Only for people who have enough room in their brains for the 7 o'clock news and nothing else. Like I said above, we learned about the black sea flooding in geo 101. Not exactly the pinnacle of academic obscurity.
And of that which is mentioned, it is routinely dumbed down in an apparent view of it being inconsequential.
You mean just like any other scientific finding that makes it to popular press?
Do you find it disheartening that some people have divorced themselves from this discovery, and if so, do you attribute it to them denying it over its greater implications-- such as, the denial of the Bible's historicity?
You are probably going to need to provide evidence that anyone has really divorced themselves from the discovery. Geologists certainly consider the discovery of the Black Sea flooding a pretty major geological event that happen at a very interesting time; the birth of agriculture and the very advent of history itself.
If anyone is denying the importance of this event it is YEC's. A YEC will tell you that this could not be the flood of the Noah myth because it was not global and did not kill everyone else on earth other than Noah and his family just like the Bible says. In fact, it probably didn't kill more than a small percentage of the people directly affected by it and most of them probably died from secondary effects from forced relocation. Certainly not drowning like the Bible says.
Yet it undercuts the story from the Bible because it is a source for all the common flood myths that most Biblical literalists claim lends validity to the Bible. Moreover, the Bible is terribly innacurate about the details of the flood pointing out exactly the mythical constructs that people who are not Biblical literalists point out all the time.
The story of Noah just very well might be a copy of a copy of a copy of an oral story that has been handed down through generations about a real flood that affected real people. The discovery of the Black Sea flood certainly lends credence to that idea.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 8:33 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 14 of 188 (383652)
02-08-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 5:44 PM


Re: Coverage and meaning
The other reason it might not be as prominent as you would like it is simply that there are a number of very big open questions about the flood IIRC.
We don't know the extent of populations that lived there yet so we can only specualte how influential the flood would have been to a pre-historical+1 society.
There are vast areas of the ancient coastline to explore and it is still relativly expensive to do science underwater.
There is also the question of if the flood was catasrophic enough to create lore.
Given what we do know it certainly is a pretty good canidate for the source of the flood myths but it doesn't have to be. The problem is that regular flooding happens normally all the time with catastrophic consequences all over the world. So it is likely that some of the flood myths being attributed to the Black Sea flood may in fact be about run of the mill seasonal flooding that got out of hand one year.
If your complaint is that this is being covered up then you need to take off your tinfoil hat and realize that science moves slowly and shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence. The investigation of the Black Sea as it relates to pre-historic lore is cross-disciplinary and delicate.
You really should read Noah's Flood by Ryan and Pittman. They go into depth about the kinds of evidence they would expect to find if the Black Sea flood could reasonably be called the source of the common flood myths. The basic rundown is.
1. The flood would have to be catastrophic to the inhabitants so therefore.
1a. They would have to be stationary societies, non-nomadic
1b. Have an investment in the natural resources of the location, freshwater, agriculture, etc
2. The flood would have to happen in a time period where there was a significant enough civilization to preserve lore
3. There should be linguistic similarities between cultures that were seperated by the flood. (there is some neat evidence for this!)
4. There should be evidence of mass migration into surrounding areas near the time of the flood. (there is some neat evidence for this too!)
+ much more in the book.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 5:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 15 of 188 (383655)
02-08-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 6:02 PM


Re: Discovery channrl
In particular, the flood did not reach Mesopotamia for a number of reasons.
1. There is no geological evidence for this yet there is uninterrupted evidence for other geologic processes at the same time. This is in direct contradiction to a mesopotamian flood.
2. There is a lot of evidence that there was mass migration of pre-semetic people FROM the Black Sea area to mesopotamia at the same time as the flood. You can't be flooding an area at the same time you are setting up shop to build a new civilization.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 6:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-08-2007 6:15 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 17 of 188 (383663)
02-08-2007 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
02-08-2007 6:15 PM


Re: Discovery channrl
Of course.
But any claim that the Black Sea flood extended to more than the Black Sea basin is a non-starter.
It really shouldn't even be called the Black Sea Flooding. A better name would be the Black Sea Filling because it is not as if the flood ever really subsided. In fact IIRC it is still "flooding" to this very day. Early mariners of the bosporus learned that if you tie a rope to a bucket and drop it in the straight that the undercurrents could carry you all the way to the Black Sea. IOW, the Black Sea is still filling up.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-08-2007 6:15 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Coragyps, posted 02-08-2007 6:38 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024