The Flood

I've recently been reading a book about the Flood that is unlike any other. Its been my experience that there are two general beliefs concerning the Flood that are expressed in modern literature. One group comes from a die hard creationist viewpoint that seem to invent any corollary or parallel, real or imagined, that might somehow make a literal interpretation of Genesis all the more literal. The second group is the very antithesis of the first, where the mere mention of such a veritable flood of biblical proportions is automatically considered patently absurd only the basis of personal incredulity. In either case, from a scientific standpoint, both are heresy in my opinion as bias is introduced from the get-go.This book is different. This book is a breath of fresh air because it simply relays the facts without interjecting personal beliefs that might compromise the integrity of the experiments. The author, Ian Wilson, does not believe in a young earth model due to what he believes is a stark lack of evidence. In fact, I don't even think he's a theist, or even at the least, someone who believes in the Abrahamic faiths. If he is, he doesn't make any mention of it. However, he noticed a great paradox. The paradox was that there was, before the inquiry was taken, no real evidence of a massive Flood that could be seen. Indeed he scorns the likes of Ron Wyatt and his work on an archeological expedition that Wyatt claims to have uncovered the actual Ark in the mountains of Ararat. But at the same time, he couldn't neglect the widespread folklore from civilization after civilization, recorded by the Sumerians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Hittites, Hebrews, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Hindus, Mayans, Toltecs, Incans, Maoris, Yoruba, Algonquin, et al, et al, etc, etc.This prompted him to examine some of the ancient chronicles and their chroniclers from antiquity, such as the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh, to Berossus the Chaldean, Alexander Polyhistor, Eusibius of Caesarea, Syncellus the Byzantine, etc. Though the protagonists differed in name, the stories were virtually identical. It was then the job of a certain oceanographers, archaeologists, and marine biologists to go off the leads of the writers of antiquity.This lead them to the Black Sea, which is in close proximity to the mountains of Ararat which most ancient writers place the large vessel, known biblically as the Ark, as the point where the waters receded and civilization began to repopulate the earth. Analysis of core samples taken from the seabed showed that some 40 inches of the sea floor is richly gorged with sapropel, which is a black, jelly-like mud that is comprised of decayed organic material (such as putrefied plants and animals). They were initially perplexed as to how and why it was so well preserved and came to the conclusion that undersea vents spewed hydrogen sulphide (H₂S) in the lower depths which depleted the oxygen. The anoxic environment aids in the preservation of the sapropel. The other things found undersea sand dunes and ancient shorelines that could not have existed if slow erosion was the cause. They also discovered sun bleached Mytilus mussles, and thousands of them that showed that they once were on land long enough for the sun to bleach the shell. It also showed that they died because of the introduction of saline in to the water. These were a freshwater species of mollusks. That means that the Black Sea used to be a freshwater lake.Next was the task to date the mollusks. Every one of them was dated using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS). The date for each mollusk was 5,600 BC, which is the exact timeframe given by Moses for the great Deluge. That means that every one of those clams died at the same time, meaning a terrible catastrophe had killed them rapidly. Given the evidence, it was clear that the inundation of salt water introduced in to the enviorns of the freshwater lake killed off the mollusks in one catastrophic event.So how did it happen and why it so sudden?A review of NASA satellite photos revealed that the Bosporous straight and the entire Anatolian region, which lies at a major collision point of several tectonic plates, allowed the Mediterranean to burst through the Bosporous dyke and began to flood an extremely large region-- namely, the Mesopotamian valley. The inrush of briny Mediterranean sea water at high speeds decimated the fertile and tranquil environment. The calculated approximation was that 97,000 kilometres (60,000 miles) was definitely affected by this flood where the Mesopotamian valley makes a natural basin that collected the huge volume of water.Now, since none of this means that the causation of the flood was divinely inspired, nor does the book even address it. The author only pursues the academic endeavor. So what does it mean for people living in that area? Were people living in this region in the 6^th millenium BC? The answer was, yes. All along the once lakeshore was found a treasure trove of human artifacts and tools showing a surprising craftsmanship by the inhabitants of that region.In closing, I have a two part question geared towards theists and atheists alike. To the atheists, I ask, what does this information say to you about the validity of a considerable flood? Note that we do not, as of yet, know with certainty that this was a "global" flood. 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?The second question is geared towards biblicists. 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? (Admin: I don't have a preference as to which forum this goes, so long as it is applicable to the topic of the forum)

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Any Admins home today?

No worries. It actually wasn't that long, its just that I saw other requests being dealt with before mine. No, this is the perfect thread. Thank you for asking though.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Given the fact that its been recorded by virtually all ancient civilizations within Mesopotamia or within a relative proximity of Mesopotamia, coupled by the fact that this was an enormous catastrophic event makes the discovery, in my mind, a significant event-- easily as large, if not larger than the meteorite in the Yucatan peninsula that is alleged to have wiped out the majority of dinosaurs. And yet, as you say, its listed mostly in popsci novels and magazines only. There seems to be some disparity there. Which is certainly a legitimate possibility.Thanks for your input.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

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. It also relied heavily on speculative notions. The author went into that as well, but he only commented on it briefly. He also asserted that the last ice age was over some three thousand before this occurence took place. I'm not sure if he'll go into this topic because I'm only about 90 pages in to the book, but I'm wondering if such a large Flood indeed existed, even if it was generalized in the Mesopotamian region, the water level still would have been so high that it would have effected low lying areas all over the world. I mean, growing up in Miami, which is only one foot about sea level, I used to dig up countless aquatic fossil remains as easily as if I were looking for stones. There is no question that in the neighborhoods that I once lived was certainly at one time under water. But I wonder if such a massive flood had anything to do with that. 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. It is true that oceans are getting saltier all the time, but so far, no serious model has been presented to corroborate the claim. I think most folklore contains large elements of truth. I jut a very interesting special on Greek mythology on how certain lores came about. I assume, though, that you can see a vast difference between the majority of mythology and the Bible from a textual analysis, regardless of whether or not you view the Bible to be unreliable.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Yes, a large percentage of Wilson's book is derived from the work of Ryan and Pitman as well as a few other lesser known trailblazers. I'm now about 134 pages in and he is now examining how Ryan and Pitman came to a dichotomy-- namely, how and why, if the Flood was localized in the Anatolian region, why such a myth has propagated throughout many nations and geographical locations, as far East as Greece and as far West as India. Their theory entails a "Diaspora" of sorts where the survivors fled the immediate area and branched out. With the dispersion comes along the story of the great Flood that slowly synthesizes in to local legends. A consensus has not been reached, but according to varying archaeological opinion, some place the direct progeny of the inhabitants of Catal Huyuk to the Ubaidans, who are alleged to predate Sumerians and Akkadians as the first proto-semites. Others place an emphasis on the Vincas, located in the Baltic/Slavic states because of the remarkable similarities noted on the Tartaria Tablets. Some believe in a conglomeration.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

My apologies. "Theists" was an inappropriate term. I should have said, "Biblicists" or something to that affect. Yeah, Wilson examines much of their work in the book. Fair enough. Speaking from a religious point-of-view, I don't know if Moses meant "the whole world" as in the totality of earth or if he meant "the whole world" as in, the world that humans thought to be the whole the world, which was pretty much contained within the Old World. But I wonder what physical evidence for such a massive Flood would look like, being that there were no real outward geologic appearances that would have alluded to anyone that the Black Sea was so massively inundated. In fact, the only reason Pitman and Ryan were out there to begin with was because Genesis and the Epic either affirmed the location or made allusions to it. If they hadn't specifically looked at the bottom of the sea floor with submersibles with a tenacious fervor, it might still not be known.Secondly, I can't help but wonder why there are fossilized mollusks on top of virtually every mountain, even extremely tall mountains that are nowhere near any bodies of water. I've heard a lot of theories on that about plate shifts and subduction, but how is it that virtually ever single mountain was once near water in the distant past? That seems highly implausible to me.I also wonder about specific fossil beds, such as the Love Bone Fossil Bed where a multitude of species are found in what makes a natural basin, as if a huge runoff had swept many species in to one gigantic grave. Possibly. But where then do the stories about Noah, Uta-Napishti, Ziusudra, etc come from?

quote:

---

And of that which is mentioned, it is routinely dumbed down in an apparent view of it being inconsequential.

---

I'm speaking more about respected journals. But then again, I don't have a subscription to Paleontology. You're probably right about that. I don't see why even a large but localized flood presents a problem for them. If Moses believed that the whole earth was flooded, it very could mean that it was the part of the earth that he and all his contemporaries knew about. The story about Genesis, although I believe it was certainly inspired by God, was passed down through the Mishnah. It wouldn't affect a literal interpretation of the Bible. Well, I believe it certainly was possible. What I don't believe is that there is any scientific rigor to back that up. There are a few clues, mainly the one's I listed speaking strictly from a naturalistic point of view. Aside from that, its all conjecture just like most things.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This particular portion of the book cannot be attributed to Wilson as far as him getting out there in the field. It was actually Ryan and Pitman who advanced the theory. Yes, that's a very fair assessment you've made. I have a problem with extreme views where complete credulity or complete incredulity is based off of bias and where some people make knee jerk declarations from an emotional response. This is one view that I have a problem with. I have a very unique position concerning how I view the Biblical view and the world view. I believe what the Bible says because I have no reason to doubt it. Its backed me up so many times in spiritual and physical matters that I know things without having an academic knowledge of it. I believe in a literal interpretation, however, what is literal in my eyes may be my own misinterpretation. For instance, the Flood. Moses makes allusions that the Deluge was global. Was it truly global or when he commented that it destroyed every living thing in the world, was he referring to the world he knew? I don't know. And for me personally, it doesn't really matter. I just find it to be an interesting conversation piece. My faith in God does not rely on whether or not the Flood was global or localized. It just doesn't matter to me and I doubt God is going to care much because He has bigger fish to fry in my life. I see two schools of thought battling over peanuts. On the one hand we have certain creationists that try to tie every thing into the Bible. And in my opinion, they even disparage the Bible by trying to use secular arguments. If God says that Noah brought two of every animal on board the Ark, then either believe it or don't. I don't think showing models how it was physically possible lends it any justice. If you believe in God, then certainly you can believe that God has the power to miracle those animals near the Ark. Don't try and use a secular argument because it just might backfire on you.And of the second school of thought, they try to come up with reasons why Jesus must have been a magician who would use sleight of hand in order to manipulate people in to believing His deity. Or they fumble around trying to explain how Jesus was actually trying make self-fulfilling prophecies. But here's the fact: We'll either be proved right or prove wrong when we're dead. We aren't going to be judged on what we know through the measures of academic progress that is ultimately ephemeral. We're going to be judged on the things we know in our hearts to be true, but that we callously try to pretend doesn't exist. Yes, that certainly is a possibility. I'm fairly certain that even Moses used quite a bit of metaphor in his testimony. Does 7 days really mean seven days? I don't know. I think it does, especially since he made a point to say, it was day, it was night. The second day. It was day, it was night. The third day etc. But could he have meant billions of years since units of time would likely be inconsequential to that which has no beginning or end? Sure, that's possible. Even Peter said that for the Lord, one day is as a thousand years. I think he is speaking metaphorically there, but that's just my interpretation. I advanced this argument from almost an entirely scientific view. Its pretty much unquestionable that this Flood occured. I was just interested more in the motives of these schools of thought. And I wanted to see if bias was going to introduce itself. So far I've heard some very reasonable arguments.Thanks for your participation.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Well, yes, according to the Bible it clearly rained. But the Bible also said that torrents of water came from under the ground in huge springs or reservoirs."on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights." -Genesis 7:11-12

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Double postEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

"Burst" would seem to indicate pressure. And pressure will indefinitely overcome gravity until it subsides. Geysers are a prime example of this.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I'm saying that the Flood was "reported" by Moses to have been caused by torrential rain and underwater springs of some kind that burst forth. I said that in response to Anastasia. Then, I think, Anglagard, made a comment on how water can come rushing up without causation. In response to him, I said that "burst" seems to imply pressure, kind of like a geyser. I didn't say the Flood was caused by a geyser, I'm simply illustrating how water can momentarily defeat gravity. Secondly, the Flood was supposed to have killed every living thing, save the inhabitants of the Ark, so I'm not sure why you incredulously said, relying upon geysers to produce 200% of the water on earth today results in a heat exchange high enough to kill virtually every living organism yes? Whether it was hot water or cold water is inconsequential to the story. The fact relayed by Moses and other civilizations is that, yes, nothing not on board the vessel survived either way. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typoEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Probably for the same reason they are found in the Himalyas, the Rockies, the San Fransisco mountain range, the Kaibab, Ararat range, and in the hills of Delhi, India where the fossil beds are abounding with a variety of organisms. Do these fossils conform to any kind of geological pattern? Why are they so randomly dispersed all over the world? Could every mountain formed been near water to account for fossilized aquatic lifeforms? These are the kinds of questions that make me think that a flood seems more plausible than uplift near water. That's because there is no reason to assume that every mountain range was ever in the proximity of a large body of water. An to produce such a vast array of organisms preserved in sandstone, or what have you, wouldn't a sudden burial would have to have been required? What happened to this Ichthyosaur found fossilized while giving birth? How was it covered so suddenly that it was this well preserved while it was giving birth? You might say that's anomaly but its certainly worth investigating, wouldn't you agree?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

Then, I think, Anglagard, made a comment on how water can come rushing up without causation.

---

You misunderstood. You sort if snidely remarked on how its basically impossible for water to rush up because it defies gravity. I'm telling you that its not impossible and gave you a reference of how water can rush up. I'm not saying it was a geyser. How would I know that? I'm simply illustrating how water can come up. I'm sure stranger things have happened. What ever event happened in the distant past may never be known. All we can do is go by what we currently know about things. Its kind of like the First Cause. Are we ever going to know how life began? Its doubtful. But it doesn't stop any one from hypothesizing, nor should it deter us from investigation. Are you going to tell me that there aren't underground springs? Are you also going to tell me that the earth's core couldn't heat up and create pressure in that spring? Water, indeed, can be under rock. I do believe the Flood was a miracle. I have no contention with it. I'm adverse to most theories concerning the Flood being spoken about with certainty when the causation of such a thing would likely not be known. I think I've been pretty tame about the whole thing. All I've done is critique a book and relay what the author has written. I'm also relaying what Moses wrote. I'm not making any definitive assertions. All I have done is offer some hypotheses about how might it have been possible and what some of the telltale evidence might look like.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I know what you're saying, but I have to contend with it on the basis of what is the most reasonable assumption. Of course the two Icthyosaurs didn't have to be suddenly buried. But if they weren't, how is it that scavengers did not pick it apart, especially since maceration would greatly exacerbate the process of putrefaction. If it were buried very suddenly, that would serve to best preserve the specimens, no? That doesn't mean that is what happened, but it certainly would lend credence to it. Well, it certainly died while giving birth. There could have been complications, there could have been a congenital defect that killed the mother and the pup couldn't exit the birth canal. But I am astonished at how well preserved they both were. Besides, as far as I can tell, Icthyosaurs are chondrichthyes, like sharks, in that they are cartilaginous, not skeletal. Cartilage needs to be preserved quickly to make the imprints of their remains, which is why we rarely find shark remains. But I'm not certain that they are chondrichthyes.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis