Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 188 (383659)
02-08-2007 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jazzns
02-08-2007 6:10 PM


Re: Discovery channrl
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.
No, but the folk could bring tales of the flood along with them.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jazzns, posted 02-08-2007 6:10 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jazzns, posted 02-08-2007 6:32 PM jar has not 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

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 18 of 188 (383664)
02-08-2007 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 6:02 PM


Re: Discovery channrl
It is true that oceans are getting saltier all the time,
Urban (or marine) legend. They're essentially at equilibrium.

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

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 19 of 188 (383665)
02-08-2007 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jazzns
02-08-2007 6:32 PM


Re: Discovery channrl
undercurrents could carry you all the way to the Black Sea.
Ryan and Pitman mention this - heavy, salty deep water goes to the Black Sea and less salty water rides the opposite direction back to the Med.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jazzns, posted 02-08-2007 6:32 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 20 of 188 (383702)
02-08-2007 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 1:57 PM


there have been many considerable disasters throughout the history of the earth. several of these have been floods. the bible doesn't say there was a considerable flood. the bible says there was a flood that covered the very tops of all the mountains in the world. so either the bible is just a collection of old myths, or a subjective "history" book written by a particularly nasty people, or god lied. it cannot be inspired by the god it claims to be inspired by and be a history and have lies in it. and it's not a half truth; it is a whole lie. whole area surrounding black sea =/= whole earth.
my solution is that it was writen by flawed people who really experienced what they decided was a real god (and may or may not be) and also wrote down all their horrible, ethnocentric garbage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 188 (383703)
02-08-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 1:57 PM


This is old.
National Geographic - 404
This is a local flood caused by the rising sea level breaching into what was a low lying freshwater lake.
May well be the origin for the myth of a large flood, but there are problems: for one the water did not go back down, rather that area has stayed flooded.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 02-09-2007 5:54 PM RAZD has replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 22 of 188 (383767)
02-09-2007 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 1:57 PM


A few other points...
Having not read the book I am hesitant to comment, but did want to point out a few things to consider. If these are indeed what the book said, I would start being a bit suspicious.
First of all, if the mussel shells they founds were indeed Mytilus, those would have been Mytilus galloprovincialis (one of the M. edulis complex). These still are found in the Black Sea and are the dominant benthic invertebrate on the shelf regions there as well as in suitable habitats in the Mediterranean. They are in no way freshwater (although euryhaline).
Also, I am kind of stumped as to how they figured out the shells were 'sun bleached'. Any shell bleaches white very quickly in an aquatic environment without any sun exposure. The pigments in mollusk shells tend to be concentrated in the outer, very thin, shell layer (to test, take a file to a particularly colorful seashell) which is readily soluable in acidic seawater (like in sulfide rich and/or anoxic water). Have you ever seen shells with a yellow, brown or black outer layer that may flakes off when dried? This is called the periostracum. Fresh queen conchs have a very thin flaky one, freshwater mollusks sometimes have a heavy black periostracum. This is a proteinaceous (like hair or fingernails) shell layer that protects the shell from dissolution in acidic water. If you ever see the large FW clams or mussels they get in the Mississippi or Missouri (shells traditionally used for expensive buttons, cameos, beads, etc) you sometimes see a shallow hole on the black outside showing white or nacreous pit. This results from a chip in the periostracum and acidic action of water eating into the shell.
I also wonder about the 'sapropel'. From your wiki link I gather it is the same thing we call "organic rich mud", "organic ooze", etc. In my career in marine biology and teaching both physical and chemical oceanography & limnology I haven't heard this term. It is not in any of the textbooks I have available. Anyway, it is no surprise to find preserved organics in this material. From the Burgess Shale fossils to fjords here in Alaska it is common to find well preserved organic material. The sulfides and lack of oxygen make decomposition very slow. This is especially seen in cellulose and lignin. A paper I have by Popov from 1931 describes the anoxic layer in the Black Sea deep water regions.
Popov, AM (1931) Distribution of Fishes in the Black Sea With Reference to Bottom Conditions: Based on Observations Made Chiefly Off the Southern Coasts of Crimea. Ecology 12(3):468-475.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2007 7:09 AM Lithodid-Man has replied
 Message 28 by petrophysics1, posted 02-09-2007 8:55 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 23 of 188 (383771)
02-09-2007 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 6:02 PM


Re: Discovery channrl
Matters of both faith and geology aside I'm comfortable with the possibility that some sort of physically plausible flood informed the literature of the region.
One must also consider the fact that if some kind of large, localized flood did take place it would, from the perspective of a bronze age civilisation, seem as if the whole world were flooding.

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

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 24 of 188 (383772)
02-09-2007 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 1:57 PM


Peanuts and Cracker Jack
nemesis-juggernaut:
I have a two part question geared towards theists and atheists alike.
By 'atheists' you clearly mean anyone who doesn't take the Noah Flood story literally. That group is very large and actually includes more theists than atheists.
By 'theists' and 'biblicists' you seem to mean YECs invested heavily in scenarios popularized by Whitcomb & Morris in The Genesis Flood.
To the atheists [sic], I ask, what does this information say to you about the validity of a considerable flood?
It says floods occur.
This is, in fact, a key reason flood stories exist.
Note that we do not, as of yet, know with certainty that this was a "global" flood.
Str-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-retch!
Black Sea, Planet Earth... a bit of a difference in scale.
Difference in the physics, too.
The second question is geared towards biblicists [sic]. This study, conducted in 1993, has had virtually no coverage. And of that which is mentioned, it is routinely dumbed down in an apparent view of it being inconsequential. 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?
Softball. You even signal a conspiracy theory in case the bushers are too dim to swing at that slowball on their own.
Put some stuff on that pitch, All-Star. Here's one for Team Whitcomb-Morris:
Does a regional flood that accords with the laws of physics constitute valid scientific evidence of a global flood that defies the laws of physics? If so, how?
__
Edited by Archer Opterix, : title.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 25 of 188 (383774)
02-09-2007 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 1:57 PM


Interesting topic, thanks for bringing Ian Wilson to my attention.
I don't see myself as a biblicist, so in answer to your first question -
It certainly makes a case for a considerable flood in the region, and I'd be really interested in learning of any further evidence that would support or refute this theory. It certainly seems to lend support, though I can't say I've reviewed Wilson's work closely, or read any critiques of his approach.
Just as I think those who believe the bible without reviewing the physical evidence are on pretty shaky ground, I don't think that those who reject the Old Testament as history are justified in poo-pooing an event like the biblical flood out of hand, without reviewing the evidence. If all the evidence is in support, then you would be wise to either believe something or review it further -at least that's my opinion.
There is a school of thought that says that every miracle in the bible can be explained in scientific terms. In this way, a global flood becomes a local flood affecting a certain culture. Saul's Damascene moment becomes a bout of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy[J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 1987]. People even have a stab at explaining how Jesus could have walked on water given a very particular set of circumstances. Personally I don't subscribe to this approach. It seems far too willing to take the original sources at their literal word, just as modern 'biblicists' (I love that word).
I think this is dangerous because there might be a temptation to believe that there must have been a flood somewhere if its in the bible, when the plain truth is that we cannot begin to understand the writer's intentions. The flood could have been entirely metaphorical, or some other kind of big fib, after all.
That's why, in my opinion, you have to attempt to substantial any big claims with evidence.
Sorry if its all been said already by the way; I just wanted to respond when I saw the topic.
Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.

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 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-10-2007 6:44 PM Tusko has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 188 (383781)
02-09-2007 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Lithodid-Man
02-09-2007 2:58 AM


Re: A few other points...
Freshwater shells were found by Bob Ballard and crew:
National Geographic - 404
quote:
Ballard’s 1999 expedition revealed an ancient shoreline. Also found were shells from freshwater and saltwater mollusk species. Their radiocarbon dates support the theory of a freshwater lake inundated by the Black Sea some 7,000 years ago.
and
National Geographic - 404
quote:
"Nine distinct species of mollusks were identified by Gary Rosenberg of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. Seven of the species are saltwater mollusks; the other two are extinct freshwater mollusks, similar to species found today in the freshwater Caspian Sea."
Samples of each shell species were radiocarbon”dated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. It found that the saltwater species ranged in age from 2,800 to 6,820 years. The freshwater species ranged from 7,460 to 15,500 years. These tests support the theory that the Black Sea was a freshwater lake until it was flooded by the Mediterranean Sea about 7,000 years ago. The tests suggest the inundation of the Black Sea occurred between 6,820 and 7,460 years ago.
Don't be so quick to rule out freshwater mussels.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Lithodid-Man, posted 02-09-2007 2:58 AM Lithodid-Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Lithodid-Man, posted 02-09-2007 12:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 188 (383783)
02-09-2007 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 6:02 PM


Re: Discovery channrl - is that channeling an url?
I saw a documentary on this theory too, except that, it appeared to be geared towards "debunking" the Genesis version in favor of a bizarre interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
The idea advanced by certain creationists is that during the antediluvian era that was not nearly as much water as there is today. They hypothesize over that because certain underwater regions appear to be like canyons formed by rushing water. And how they account for the much higher volume of water is that they believe, based on the Bible, that there was a "firmament" that acted as a vapor canopy. They have seemed to abandon this theory, however. The second is that huge resevoirs of water were underground, according to parts of the Bible and the Book of Jasher. The claim is that the water was initially fresh, however, over time salt deposits accumulate over time as rivers carry these deposits in to the sea all the time.
Which is bizarre? According to who? LOL. "Channeling" something ...
Actually, what we have here is a low area that was inundated by rising sea-water, which then flooded over where a fresh-water lake had been (at the - gosh - low point of the low area?).
This is a perfect way to test creationist theory: what evidence should we find of human habited areas flooded by a large influx of water? Turbulence, sedimentation layers, all the rest.
Time for creationists to get out and do some science like they've never done before ... they can actually test some of their concepts eh?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : toyp

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 188 (383797)
02-09-2007 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Lithodid-Man
02-09-2007 2:58 AM


Re: A few other points...
FYI
Sapropel: An unconsolidated,jellylike ooze or sludge composed of plant remains, most often algae, macerating and putrefying in an anaerobic environment on the shallow bottoms of lakes and seas.
(from Glossary of Geology 4th edition, J.A. Jackson editor, American Geological Institute)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Lithodid-Man, posted 02-09-2007 2:58 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-09-2007 9:52 AM petrophysics1 has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 29 of 188 (383811)
02-09-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by petrophysics1
02-09-2007 8:55 AM


Re: sapropel
Sapropel: An unconsolidated,jellylike ooze or sludge composed of plant remains, most often algae, macerating and putrefying in an anaerobic environment on the shallow bottoms of lakes and seas.
Thanks, but Carl Baugh is another thread.
__
Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by petrophysics1, posted 02-09-2007 8:55 AM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by petrophysics1, posted 02-09-2007 10:39 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 188 (383825)
02-09-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Archer Opteryx
02-09-2007 9:52 AM


Re: sapropel
That was a response to Lithodid-Man who had mentioned he had never heard of sapropel. It's a word which shows up in petroleum geology in particular as it may be a source of oil and natural gas.
Don't know who Carl Baugh is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-09-2007 9:52 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-09-2007 10:53 AM petrophysics1 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