Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 137 of 460 (5048)
02-19-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by no2creation
02-18-2002 3:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by no2creation:
1. If the earth was referred to as 'only the lands', is the same true for the rest of the bible?

Yep.
2. Do Creationists believe in the Platonic Cycle?
I don't think so, but I believe the Alchemists did.
If so, then their claim of the earth being 4000 - 12000 years would be false. Since the "Platonic cycle", times the precession of the vernal equinox through the heavens, lasts 25,800 years.
Sorry. I don't know what you are saying here.
How I think the story 'COULD' have happened:
There was a large flood that covered the inhabited land. Noah was a smart man; he may have taken the necessary precautions and built a large boat. Then one year it rained, and rained and rained. A flood took place, during which Noah had filled his boat with two animals of each from his farm (and some essentials for survival). Knowing they all wouldn't fit on his boat, and that he needed two of each for reproduction. The flood probably decimated most of the land, including people, animals, and buildings.
Sounds about right to me.
What I have a hard time believing is:
1. The flood lasted for 40 days (it could be conceivable but seems highly unlikely)
More like a year, actually.
2. It destroyed absolutely everything except Noah and his animals
3. The flood covered 100% of the earth (popular belief by many)
4. Noah’s Ark contained two of every animal in existence
I agree, of course.

The great flood is only a story, if it was based on an actual event, then the author exaggerated the facts.
Or we have exaggerated them by virtue of our ignorance of the life, times, and language of the people who composed it in the first place.
----------
db
[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by no2creation, posted 02-18-2002 3:27 PM no2creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by no2creation, posted 02-19-2002 1:30 AM doctrbill has replied

no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 460 (5054)
02-19-2002 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by doctrbill
02-19-2002 12:02 AM


I must apologize, since I can't seem to find all the info on the "Platonic Cycle". I'll have to find the book, but it describes how ancient civilizations had viewed the stars according to their location on earth (mainly the north star). Astronomers can use drawings/writings and other evidence from the civilization combined with the Platonic Cycle to help determine the year in which that Civilization existed. If the Platonic Cycle is accepted, then we can compare the location of the stars then to now and prove that we have existed for more than 12000 years.
http://home.att.net/~OneWorldWeekly/platonic.htm
Sorry for the lack of info, but I'll try to find more on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by doctrbill, posted 02-19-2002 12:02 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by doctrbill, posted 02-25-2002 10:18 PM no2creation has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 139 of 460 (5086)
02-19-2002 4:33 PM


doctrbill:
You are of course correct on the word 'mountain' referring to governments. However in connection with the temple, the word doesn't refer to the building, to the mountain it sat on yes, and the scriptures you cited referred to the government it represented, but not the building itself. At most you could say that the mountain referred to was the great spiritual temple which symbolizes God's government. But we digress anyway, since the main point you were making was that ziggurats were referred to as mountains, which is not answered in the bible. But perhaps they were called mountains by some. The first one mentioned in the bible was the tower of Babel, but it was built after the flood and is referred to as a tower. It is thought that part of the reason in building it, was to provide a means of escape in case God flooded the world once again. Near the base of one, an inscription was found that read. "The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded." (Bible and Spade, by S. L. Caiger, 1938, p. 29) If fear of a flood was the motivation behind building ziggurats, the pre flood people probably didn't build any since they are recorded as taking no note of the coming flood. So there probably weren't any ziggurats to be referred to as mountains covered by the deluge.
On submergence in the flood causing erosion, look at the flooding of the Black Sea, the original shoreline and beach dunes from the former freshwater lake remain intact to this day submerged deep beneath the sea. Core samples taken from below the salt transition are still free of salt intrusion. If this area had not remained flooded, plants would be growing there today and you wouldn't even be aware of what had happened. On a completely flooded earth there would be no tidal surges since it requires a coast line to concentrate the force of the tides to create a tidal surge. Only normal mid ocean type tides would be expected, which would do nothing to the submerged former land areas beneath the waves.
On 'earth' not referring to all the land you used Genesis 4:14 "Here you are actually driving me this day from off the surface of the ground" In this scripture Cain is speaking, not God. Cain is using an exaggeration to complain. Cain implied that God was driving him off the surface of the ground, apparently referring to all land and not just a local area. God answered Cain's complaint by providing the "mark of Cain" which wasn't an actual mark, just a command on not killing Cain.
As for people along the Mississippi needing an ark, no they didn't, boats for sure, but no ark. Even in the last great flood along that river, there was no need for an ark, no animals species went extinct. Only in a global flood would an ark for preserving animal species be required. Why would God have Noah build a 450 foot long ark, if the flood was limited to the valley plain, a hike into the hills would have been a far better investment of his time.
In the bible the global flood is a real event that wiped out an entire world. Matthew 24:37 "For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be". Jesus is the one speaking here, and he refers to the flood as a real event and compares his return with it. If one believes Jesus was the son of God, one really should believe in the flood, he did.

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by doctrbill, posted 02-19-2002 9:02 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 140 of 460 (5116)
02-19-2002 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by wmscott
02-19-2002 4:33 PM


Originally posted by wmscott:
... ziggurats were referred to as mountains ... If fear of a flood was the motivation behind building ziggurats, the pre flood people probably didn't build any ... So there probably weren't any ziggurats to be referred to as mountains covered by the deluge.
(db's holy words appear in bold face.)
That's a lot of subjunctives my friend.
Mesopotamian cities, with their ziggurats, were constructed on flood plains (good farming) and were employed as flood escape facilities for a couple of weeks each year during the annual flood. After the Great Flood, Mesopotamian governments took care to set these cities even higher. Bye the way, Sumerian civilization predates the flood by thousands of years.
On submergence in the flood causing erosion,
See the strawman? I did not suggest that submersion causes erosion.
look at the flooding of the Black Sea, the original shoreline and beach dunes from the former freshwater lake remain intact to this day
As one might expect in the absence of sustained wave action.
On a completely flooded earth there would be no tidal surges since it requires a coast line to concentrate the force of the tides to create a tidal surge."
Actually, all that is needed is a restriction of some kind such as reduction in depth like one might get over the flooded "mountains".
"Only normal mid ocean type tides would be expected, which would do nothing to the submerged former land areas beneath the waves
This begs the question. What happens as the water is rising and subsiding? Wave action, that’s what!
On 'earth' not referring to all the land you used Genesis 4:14 "Here you are actually driving me this day from off the surface of the ground"
Living Bible says, you have banished me from my farm
In this scripture Cain is speaking, not God.
Irrelevant
Cain implied that God was driving him off the surface of the ground, apparently referring to all land and not just a local area.
Your inference. Not implied by the text.
God answered Cain's complaint by providing the "mark of Cain" which wasn't an actual mark, just a command on not killing Cain.
Irrelevant.
Why would God have Noah build a 450 foot long ark,
Why would God bring a flood?
In the bible the global flood is a real event that wiped out an entire world.
That entire world did not encompass an entire planet.
Jesus ... refers to the flood as a real event and compares his return with it. If one believes Jesus was the son of God, one really should believe in the flood, he did.
Appealing to faith does little to establish the scientific accuracy or scriptural veracity of your theory.
P.S. You have not established that "Earth" refers to "all the lands". You know that I can oppose this. I believe that you cannot defend it.
P.S.S. How about sticking to the thread here? You are not trying to lose your messages in the shuffle are you?
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by wmscott, posted 02-19-2002 4:33 PM wmscott has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 141 of 460 (5238)
02-21-2002 5:11 PM


doctrbill;
If you reject all the indications in the bible that the flood was global, yes you are correct that I am unable to prove to you that the word 'land' means more than a local area, since you are already ignoring all of the scriptural evidence I would use. Your interpretation is certainly different from most. In light of 1 Timothy 6:3-4, I see no point in continuing to argue over the interpretation of a single word, let's proceed to look at evidence in science in support of a global flood. (see below) On appealing to faith to support the flood, when having a discussion with someone, it is wise to build on what the person already knows and accepts. I had assumed from your background that you had a faith that could serve as a foundation to build on, I apparently was mistaken. Below is a post I have written for Patrick which covers some of the more technical points of finding a recent global flood in the geological record. Your objection to the flood based on lack of wave erosion from rising and retreating waters overlooks the fact that we have a number of submerged areas today with hills and dunes that were submerged without wave erosion. Mountains make poor constriction points since the water flows around peaks quite well. In areas that are true constriction points, we do see extensive streamlined erosion from a massive movement of water. All of the world's rivers have huge river valleys far larger than the river. A number of these valleys are believed to have been created by super floods of glacial meltwaters, a very large flood of water that went into the sea and raised the sealevel. The more basic points are covered in earlier posts. Here is a link to site with information on fossil whale bones found in the state of Michigan, which are hard to explain without a global flood.
http://sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by doctrbill, posted 02-22-2002 10:00 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 02-23-2002 9:33 AM wmscott has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 142 of 460 (5239)
02-21-2002 5:15 PM


Patrick;
I read over the journal articles you recommended. Have you read them yourself? I found some of them very interesting. Also picked up a bunch of others and discovered some very interesting details. In picking a time for the flood in the geological record, I had a choice of two times, the H0 event at the end of the Younger Dryas or the much larger event after the LGM (H1). I have decided to use the earlier time period, dispite the larger gap this creates with the biblical date for the flood. The later event appears to have been smaller and the size of the ice sheets at that time appears to be constrained by isostatic rebound evidence to too small of a size to have caused the biblical flood.
We had been discussing oxygen isotopes 18/16 ratios, and the use of that ratio in determining the size of the Pleistocene ice sheets. Your argument was that the sheets could not have been above a certain size due to the ratio of O18/O16 found in ocean sediment bottom cores in foraminiferal from the ice age. Reference A, dealt with oxygen isotope ratios and pointed out that laboratory culturing of foraminiferal has only extended down to 15C with the result that the paleotemperature equations were all calibrated at significantly higher temperatures than would have occurred in much of the ice age ocean surface water. I have been checking, but so far have not found any later articles describing the results of the low temperature culturing needed for proper calibration, I have to assume they have not yet been done. Due to this hole in the most important part of the calibration temperature range, oxygen isotope ratios may not be entirely reliable for predicting the maxim volume of the former ice sheets. Because of this problem, it is not possible to accurately remove the temperature component from oxygen isotope ratio evidence. Therefor, arguments in favor of larger ice sheets in the past, can not be excluded by O18/O16 ratios.
There are arguments in favor of larger ice sheets, and the drop in sea level in the ice age is noted to be larger than the volume estimated for the ice sheets based on isostatic rebound. Reference B pointed out the difference is harmonized by the fact that there was a very major collapse of the ice sheets about 16-19K, which reduced the size of the ice sheets down to the sizes predicted by isostatic rebound. The smaller ice sheets lasted mostly intact until the end of the Younger Dryas when there was a second large reduction. The isostatic rebound records the size of the latter ice sheets and not the size of the earlier ice sheets. They stated "Ice volumes during the GLM and earliest part of the Lateglacial period can therefore be substantially increased without affecting the predictions of lateglacial and Postglacial sea level in a significant manner, provided that a rapid reduction in ice volume occurred in early Lateglacial time. New far-field data for LGM and Lateglacial sea-level change indicates that a rapid rise in sea level of about 15m occurred at about 16500-16000 C ( or 19200-18700 calibrated ) years ago. This leads to in inference that during the LGM the ice sheet volumes of the major ice sheets were greater than inferred from regional rebound analyses and that rapid reductions in volume occurred at the termination of the LGM." [REF B] They also went on to state that the timing of this event doesn't match any known Heinrich event, I have more on this point, or Meltwater pulse 1A. However another journal article [REF C] pointed out a variation found in the apparent age of surface waters. In ocean sediment cores covering the two surge events mentioned above, an extreme off set was noted in the carbon dating. The first event came up nearly 2K older than the sediments above it. The second event also had an absolute date of about 1K older than the sediments above it. The off set in age has to do with the carbon content of the ocean. Modern ocean water has a carbon date of about 400 years old due to the time it takes for the mixing of ocean currents. What has created these brief shifts in dating at these two periods, is a massive influx of old carbon carried by a huge surge of meltwater. The reason the glacial meltwater carried so much old carbon is simple, as explained in reference D, that the glacial firn traps gas bubbles with a preference for heavier gases from the atmosphere as the firn turns into ice. Thus a fair amount of CO2 was trapped inside glacial ice. The release of meltwater after the GLM is believed to have been largely from the bottom melt lake beneath the glacier which of course contained the oldest carbon. Once this carbonated meltwater hit the oceans, it created the 2K dating shift to the past. This old carbon surge is not fully recognized nor was the influx evenly mixed over the entire earth, this has resulted in shifting the dating on various samples taken from various places by varying amounts. This has created the effect that a number of events which all happened at the same time, appear to have happened at different times depending on how much old carbon the sample area was exposed to. Some of the effects of this shows up in conflicts in chronology between different core records covering the same period. [REF E] & [REF I] Due to this effect, it is apparent that meltwater event 1A and Heinrich event H1 occurred at about the same time and are connected with the post LGM collapse. It should also be noted, that in a global flood model, the old carbon contaminated meltwaters could have effected large areas of the earth's surface and could be part of the reason for the apparent extreme age in pre flood dating of some human remains.
After the Late Glacial Maximum there was a huge reduction in the volume of glacial ice. But how big the ice sheets were is not known, we will next look at some estimates based on the rise in sea level that occurred at that time. Reference B stated "But in North America and Fennoscandia, locations of the largest latest Pleistocene ice cover, no mountains peaks stood out above the ice domes and these cases, only minimum estimates of ice thickness can be inferred." Basically the GLM ice sheets could have been much larger than what is currently believed. References F & G relate the documentation of a rise in global sea level seen in Australia of over 15m that occurred in less than 500 years This sudden rise is also supported by coral evidence in other parts of the world. "these rocks represent beach to eolian deposits, cemented under early meteoric conditions and quickly drowned by a sea-level rise rapid enough to transgress the dune ridge faster than physical or bioerosian processes could destroy it."[REF H] Sounds just like the description of the flooding which occurred in the Black Sea. On examining this sudden rise in sea level, it is important to remember that it occurred in <500 K] indicate the removal of possibly an additional 20m from the oceans, and that is assuming a low level of exchange between the Red Sea and the ocean. If the exchange rate was higher, the amount of water removed to create the high salt levels would be higher too. The general land subsidence associated with the wide spread rebounding of ocean floors would have prevented complete isolation of the Red Sea even if a much greater amount of water was removed from the oceans at the GLM. If this surge of meltwater and ice, was truly huge and flooded the world, it could have triggered a deep flexing of the earth's surface as I have theorized, which would have resulted in a sudden change in the relative elevations of land and sea floor. The effect would be a sudden flood that drops to a level only a bit higher than the sea had before the flood. This matches the pattern we see after the GLM, a sudden abrupt rise in sea level. Such a deep flexing of the earth would be expected to create a surge of volcanic activity around the earth, and ice core records of volcanic dust trapped in glacial ice confirms that this has happened. [REF J] (see also the references for J) With the shifting of the weight from glaciers back into the oceans, the earth's crust is flexed and volcanoes erupt. The last deglaiation was particularly strong in associated volcanic activity indicating the magnitude of the flexing the earth under went. The other evidence we have been discussing such as marine traces found far inland at high elevations indicates that this sudden flooding event occurred and was large enough to flood most or all of the world.
At the LGM the glaciers covered an area 13 times greater then the present area of about 14,800,000 sqkm. [REF F] So if the glaciers at the LGM covered an area of 192,400,000 sqkm, and then underwent a dramatic thinning of 1km, the resulting flood would have flooded the earth to a depth of 606m or 1,988 feet. Allowing for the volume of land, a 1km thinning of the LGM glaciers would have created a flood over 2,000 feet deep. If the thinning was 2 km the flood depth could have been about 4,000 ft. The rising flood waters only had to reach the edges of the glaciers to flood the entire world since ice floats and no amount of flooding could submerge an ice sheet. Thus any topographical features above the maximum water level would have been covered by a thick covering of glacial ice at the LGM and hence still would have been below the water, even if it was in the solid form instead of the liquid form. Hence at the GLM, the sudden reduction in glacial ice volume could have very conceivably flooded the world.
[REF A] Galacial-interglacial changes in Subantantarctic sea surface temperature and O18-water using forminiferal Mg, Mashiotta, Lea, Spero, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 170 (1999) 417-432.
[REF B] Global ice volumes at the Last Glacial Maximum and early Lateglacial, lambeck, Yokoyama, Johnston, Purcell, Earth and Plantary Science Letters 181 (2000) 513-527.
[REF C] The timing of the last deglaciation in North Atlantic climate records, Waelbroreck, Duplessy, Michel, Laberyri, Pallard, Durprat, Nature, Vol 412, 724-427 & 470, 16 August 2001.
[REF D] Timing of abrupt climate change at the end of the Younger Dryas interval from thermally fractionated gases in polar ice, Severinghaus, Sowers, Brook, Alley, Bender, Nature, Vol 391, 141-146, 8 January 1998
[REF E] Variations of Younger Dryas atmospheric radiocarbon explicable without ocean circulation changes, Goslar, Arnold, Tsnerat-Laborde, Czernik, Wieckowski, Nature, Vol 403, 877-880, 24 February 2000.
[REF F] Ice sheets by volume, Clark, Mix, Nature, Vol 406, 689-690, 17 August 2000.
[REF G] Timing of the Last Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima, Yokoyama, Lambeck, Deckker, Johnston, Fifield, Nature, Vol 406, 713-716, August 2000.
[REF H ] Magnitude and timing of episodic sea-level rise during the last deglaiation. Locker, Hine, Tedesco, Shinn, Geology, September 1996; v.24; no. 9; p. 827-830.
[REF I] Deglacial changes in ocean circulation from an extended radiocarbon calibration, Hughen, Overpeck, Lehman, Kashgarian, Southon, Peterson, Alley, Siman, Nature, Vol 391, 65-68, 1 January 1998.
[REF J] Correlation between rate of sea-level change and frequency of explosive volcanism in the Mediterranean, McGuire, Howarth, Firth, Solow, Pullen, Saunders, Stewart, Vita-Finzi, Nature, Vol 389, 473-476, 2 October 1997.
[REF K] Magnitudes of sea-level lowstands of the past 500,000 years, Rohling, Fenton, Jorissen, Bertrand, Ganssen, Caulet. Nature, Vol 394, 162-165, 9 July 1998.

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by ps418, posted 02-24-2002 2:32 AM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 143 of 460 (5329)
02-22-2002 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by wmscott
02-21-2002 5:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
"If you reject all the indications in the bible that the flood was global ..."

I have not yet rejected them. You have failed to show them. I await your evidence.
quote:
"... I am unable to prove to you that the word 'land' means more than a local area, since you are already ignoring all of the scriptural evidence I would use."
Are you saying that you've already played your hand? Or,
Am I ignoring evidence which you refuse to show because I'm ignoring it?
Catch 22.
quote:
"Your interpretation is certainly different from most.
In light of 1 Timothy 6:3-4 ..."

"If any one teaches otherwise ... he knows nothing"[/B]
Quoting the Bible to insult me?
quote:
"... I see no point in continuing to argue over the interpretation of a single word ..." ."
That "single word" is key to your premise. You have painted yourself into a corner.
quote:
"On appealing to faith to support the flood, when having a discussion with someone, it is wise to build on what the person already knows and accepts."
So, faith is important to your "theory".
quote:
"I had assumed ... that you had a faith"
I do have a faith. Faith in modern science. I also have faith in biblical scholarship.
You apparently have neither.
PS. You persist in breaking this thread. Are you afraid that someone may easily follow our discussion? Or have you yet to figure out how this works?
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by wmscott, posted 02-21-2002 5:11 PM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 144 of 460 (5356)
02-23-2002 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by wmscott
02-21-2002 5:11 PM



Wmscott writes to DoctrBill:
On appealing to faith to support the flood...
I think I see where you're coming from. With those receptive to scientific arguments you argue from a scientific position, but with those to whom scientific arguments are less, um, accessible but who appear to be people of faith you employ a faith-based approach. With DoctrBill you felt both approaches were available, but it turns out the faith-based approach wasn't appropriate because you interpret key passages differently.
Changing the topic slightly, you often express a willingness to be flexible in your Biblical interpretations. For instance, in message 79 you say the rise in sea level may have taken longer than 40 days. What is it about the Biblical account of the flood that leads you to believe it must have been an actual world-wide event? Do you believe other events described in the Bible such as the 6-day creation also happened as presented? Or is it just the flood you accept?
The evidence for a world-wide flood wouldn't be scattered and scanty, like whale bones in Michigan and diatoms in Antarctica. Such evidence would be copious and plentiful, and geologists would long since have traced the flood-caused silt layers everywhere throughout the world.
Not only is your evidence sparse to non-existent, but you express far too great a willingness to tolerate large disparities. Dating is a good example. You advocate the much older date of the LRM (H1) which preceded the Noachic flood by thousands of years, but you brush off the disparity as a problem in dating. You've cited the Michigan whale bones several times, but they've been dated to be no more than a thousand years old, but that, too, is just dismissed as just another problem in dating.
To have a workable hypothesis you must at least have consistency with existing evidence or strong arguments for why that evidence is wrong. You have neither and so are left with a hypothesis strongly contradicted by known evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by wmscott, posted 02-21-2002 5:11 PM wmscott has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by edge, posted 02-23-2002 2:07 PM Percy has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 145 of 460 (5364)
02-23-2002 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Percy
02-23-2002 9:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
To have a workable hypothesis you must at least have consistency with existing evidence or strong arguments for why that evidence is wrong. You have neither and so are left with a hypothesis strongly contradicted by known evidence.
--Percy[/B]

Well put. Wmscott has taken the anecdotal evidence for marine diatoms in Michigan and some questionable whale bone occurrences and laced them together with a preconceived theory that extrapolates to a global flood. This, even though there is paucity of supporting evidence and there are other plausible explanations that he dismisses with a wave of the hand. When Pat confronts him with actual scholarly data, wmscott veers off into some murky logic that relies on his original anecdotes and questionable plate tectonics, even though they have been shown to permit numerous other hypotheses. To those of us who are accustomed to dealing with data and hard evidence this is astounding. I have stopped responding to him on a routine basis because his theory is impervious to facts. Wmscott has built a Quixotic theory that has limited basis in fact, but one in which he has unlimited faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 02-23-2002 9:33 AM Percy has not replied

ps418
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 460 (5388)
02-24-2002 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by wmscott
02-21-2002 5:15 PM


Patrick;
I read over the journal articles you recommended. Have you read them yourself?
Indeed I have, and as I will now demonstrate, I read them much more carefully than yourself. Did you notice, BTW, that every single one of them agreed with me and disagreed with you about the LGM ice volume?
Also picked up a bunch of others and discovered some very interesting details. In picking a time for the flood in the geological record, I had a choice of two times, the H0 event at the end of the Younger Dryas or the much larger event after the LGM (H1). I have decided to use the earlier time period, dispite the larger gap this creates with the biblical date for the flood.
The date problem is acute enough, but what's 10+ thousand years between friends? A bigger question is How can H1 possibly correspond to the massive ice sheet reduction you envision when there are dozens of other ice-rafted layers preceding it? Wouldn't you expect the Heinrich layer marking your event to be conspicuously larger than the others, since vastly more ice was involved? This is another weak point ripe for attack.
We had been discussing oxygen isotopes 18/16 ratios, and the use of that ratio in determining the size of the Pleistocene ice sheets. Your argument was that the sheets could not have been above a certain size due to the ratio of O18/O16 found in ocean sediment bottom cores in foraminiferal from the ice age. Reference A, dealt with oxygen isotope ratios and pointed out that laboratory culturing of foraminiferal has only extended down to 15C with the result that the paleotemperature equations were all calibrated at significantly higher temperatures than would have occurred in much of the ice age ocean surface water. I have been checking, but so far have not found any later articles describing the results of the low temperature culturing needed for proper calibration, I have to assume they have not yet been done.
In fact, the evidence was right there in front of your face, but amazingly, you somehow missed it.
I noticed that you were careful to say that CULTURE calibration has been extended down to 15C. For the benefit of yourself and anyone else reading this thread, let me mention what you failed to mention. Although the CULTURE experiments cited by Mashiotta et al. only go down to 15C, their paper very clearly shows that the calibration extends down to 10C. Their experiments are at 16, 18, and 25C. But what Wmscott doesn't mention is that the authors have two other calibration points, at 12 and 10C, respectively based upon core top samples. In fact, their figure 1 shows this very clearly:
"Fig 1: Mg-temperature calibration results from culturing experiments with live Globigerina bulloides and core-tope samples (indicated by the core name). For the culturing points each point is an analysis of between 8 and 12 laboratory-grown, amputated chambers . . .For the core tops, each point is an individual analysis of 10-20 shells. . . Core-top Mg/Ca values for G. bulloides from sub-Antarctic cores RC11-120 and V22-108 are plotted versus Levitus mean annual SST (11.5C at RC11-120 and 9.7C at V22-108) to extend the calibration back to 10C"
Notice how well that the core-top calibration points fit the experimental calibration points.
And Mashiotta et al. also note that although the the calibration data only extended down to 10C, which is a bit higher than the Subantarctic glacial SST temp, "One independent confirmation of our calibration is that other studies yield similar exponential slopes for the Mg/ca response in several species of planktonic foraminifera, including N. pachyderma, and benthics (table 1)" (p. 422).
Wmscott again:
Because of this problem, it is not possible to accurately remove the temperature component from oxygen isotope ratio evidence. Therefor, arguments in favor of larger ice sheets in the past, can not be excluded by O18/O16 ratios.
The only "problem" here is your somewhat inadequate attention to the data.
First, the lack of calibration below 10C may be a problem for estimating d18O seawater from a SUBANTARCTIC core, where glacial SST's may be slightly lower than 10C, but the Lea et al. curve is based on planktonic equatorial Pacific [2 degrees north latitude] forams for which the Mg/Ca and independent evidence indicates glacial SST's of 22-23C, well within the experimentally-calibrated range. As Lea et al. (2002, p. 291) note: "An extracted d18Owater record such as presented here has the advantage of no temperature component, but it still might contain local hydrological influence, although that does not appear to be the case for the Cocos Ridge record."
So, the single substantive reason you give for dismissing oxygen isotope ice volume estimates is worthless.
Lea et al. (2002) also note (p. 291):
"Comparison of the modified Cocos Ridge d18Owater record with a number of other sea level proxies indicates substantial agreement. The Cocos Ridge record is in excellent agreement with the Laberyie et al. (1987) d18Owater reconstruction based on Norwegian Sea benthic records and in very good agreement with the Shackleton (2000) d18Owater reconstruction based on Pacific benthic and Vostok d18O records. The Cocos Ridge record is also in very good agreement with sea level estimates based on uplifted and submerged reefs"
Second, the pore water measurements I cited would not be affected by any of the temperature or fractionation-related uncertainties affecting the foraminiferal proxy records. And to make matters worse for you, the pore water measurements yield slightly smaller values for the change in d18O of seawater than the foraminiferal proxy records. Duplessy et al. (2002) explain:
"At the sediment water interface, there is exchange of both water molecules and dissolved compounds with the overlying ocean bottom water . . . changes in the 18O of seawater propoagate downward into the sediment, leaving a profile of d18O vs depth in the pore fluid that is a record of the d18O history of seawater" (p. 318).
This method has yielded estimates of ~0.8-1 per mil change in seawater oxygen isotope ratios since the LGM. See:
Adkins, J., and D. Schrag, 2001. Pore fluid constraints on deep ocean temperature and salinity during the last glacial maximum, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, pp. 771-774.
Schrag, D.P., Hampt, G., Murray, D.W., 1996. Pore fluid constraints on the temperature and oxygen isotopic composition of the glacial ocean. Science 272, pp. 1930-1932.
At let me also highly recommended:
Duplessy et al., 2002. Constraints on the ocean oxygen isotopic enrichment between the Last Glacial Maximum and the Holocen: Paleoceanographic implications. Quaternary Sciene Reviews 21, pp. 315-330.
. . . which reviews dozens of papers and several different methods which have been used to estimate change in d18O seawater since the LGM, all of which agree with an ice-volume reduction of 52x10^6 km3 or less from the LGM to today.
Third, I have found another method of estimating the volume of the ice sheets, which is totally indepent of temp calibration. This constraint on the LGM ice volume is provided by paleosalinity measurements of pore-fluid samples from ocean cores [Cl- concentration]. To review, I stated in a previous post:
Finally, although I dont know of such work, I think the absolute amount of water removed from the ocean could, in theory, be estimated by changes in the ion concentration in various minerals. Obviously the more water that is drawn off the ocean, the higher the concentration of ions remain in the ocean.
And you stated yourself:
It appears to me that the estimates on ocean volume from this method are pretty subjective. A better indicator of sudden shifts in ocean volume would be things that don't evaporate, like salt and other trace minerals.
I have now found exactly this type of study. Adkins and Schrag (2001) estimate a salinity decrease of ~2.5% from the LGM to today based on pore-fluid evidence from the Bermuda Rise core 1063A. This is close to, but a bit less than, Adkins and Schrag's predicted global mean LGM to holocene salinity increase of 3.16%. It is quite possible, however, that the lower than expected LGM salinity is a result of local hydrological factors, and does not represent the global mean. It will be interesting to see salinity pore-fluid results from more cores.
We do have evidence more water was removed from the sea than currently believed at the GLM. Salinity levels in the Red Sea cores [REF K] indicate the removal of possibly an additional 20m from the oceans, and that is assuming a low level of exchange between the Red Sea and the ocean.
Again, you've totally misunderstood the argument presented in this paper. Their abstract states:
Existing techniques for estimating natural fluctuations of sea level and global ice-volume from the recent geological past exploit fossil coral-reef terraces or oxygen-isotope records from benthic foraminifera. Fossil reefs reveal the magnitude of sea-level peaks (highstands) of the past million years, but fail to produce significant values for minima (lowstands) before the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) about 20,000 years ago, a time at which sea level was about 120 m lower than it is today. The isotope method provides a continuous sea-level record for the past 140,000 years (ref. 5) (calibrated with fossil-reef data), but the realistic uncertainty in the sea-level estimates is around 20 m.
Here we present improved lowstand estimatesextending the record back to 500,000 years before presentusing an independent method based on combining evidence of extreme high-salinity conditions in the glacial Red Sea with a simple hydraulic control model of water flow through the Strait of Bab-el-Mandab, which links the Red Sea to the open ocean. We find that the world can glaciate more intensely than during the LGM by up to an additional 20-m lowering of global sea-level. . .
They are saying that sea-level can drop by 20m more THAN the LGM without inducing salinity changes sufficient to produce an aplanktonic layer. They are not saying that their data are consistent with LGM sea-level 20m lower than -120m below!
To the contrary, their paper actually states several times that they estimate eustatic sea-level rise since the LGM was ~120m, but that some earlier deglacial sea-level changes were of LARGER amplitude. They state that "continuation of benthic faunas, albeit in reduced numbers and different compositions, indicates that all glacial sea-level drops of the past 500kyr left sufficient communication between the Red Sea and the open ocean to prevent worse salinization and consequent sterilization" (p. 163). They estimate sea-level drops of 139m for stage 12 (450kyr), 122-134m for stage 8, 125 +/-6m for stage 6, and 120 +/-5m for the LGM (p. 164-165).
"We conclude that the last glacial-interglacial cycle showed ice-volume fluctuations that were more than 10% smaller than those that occurred in three out of four of the immediately preceding main cycles. The stage 12-11 sea-level rise implies that over 30% greater ice-volume changes were involved in Quaternary glacial-interglacial cycles than would be expected on the basis of the last cycle alone" (p. 165).
There is much more to be said, but it will have to wait until I get the time to give it the treatment it deserves.
Cheers,
Patrick
[This message has been edited by ps418, 02-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by wmscott, posted 02-21-2002 5:15 PM wmscott has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 147 of 460 (5396)
02-24-2002 11:14 AM


doctrbill;
Since you make no reference to the science side of the flood issue, it would seem that my previous post answered your questions in that area. As for not showing evidence for use of the word land as referring to more than a local area, I didn't see the point in bothering since you are already aware of it and interpret it differently. But if you insist, the description of the flood in genesis 6:1-11:9 is describing a global flood. From the reason given in chapter 6, to wipe out an evil world of men to the description of the repopulating of the earth in chapters 10 & 11, the bible is describing much more than a local flood. We also have the reference in 11:4 "for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the earth." which is hard to believe they were afraid of being scattered over a local area. We also have the rainbow covenant in chapter 9, which was a promise by God not to flood the world again. Now if the deluge was just a local flood, then each local flood in history would be a breaking of this covenant. Clearly this convent only makes any sense if it refers to a global flood and not a local flood. Now I know that some one of your background is obviously aware of this information, other than learning what your interpretation is, I saw no benefit in discussing what you already know and chose to interpret differently. As for 1 Timothy 6:3-4, I did not mean to insult, I was referring to the part about not arguing over words. But it you see a larger application in that scripture perhaps you should heed it.
Percipient
Yes exactly, each person has a different outlook and not every one sees things in the same light.
It is best to be some what flexible in Biblical interpretations, if one takes a overly rigid view and sticks with it even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, one ends up looking like the YECs. Yet on the other hand one doesn't want to be too flexible and chase after ever changing interpretations blowing in the wind. I covered some of the reasons the bible shows the flood to have been a global event above. The six creative days were time periods of untold length, as shown by the bible itself, such as later referring to the creation as one day, and that the seventh day, God's rest day has yet to end. Interpreting the bible is an art, not a science.
As for wide spread flood evidence, it is global, it is just misinterpreted or ignored. The trace of marine diatoms and forminifera left by the flood is no doubt global. A flood caused by a progressive rise and then fall in global sea levels would leave little if any sediment. A local flood from swollen rivers carrying sediment will leave extensive sediment deposits, but ocean water is nearly sediment free. A global flood is different than a local flood, hence the evidence left behind is different as well. On the dating problems, I favor the biblical date but allow for the possibility that the flood occurred much earlier. Plus as show by the radiocarbon dating of ocean floor sediments from the time period affected by meltwater pulse 1A, there was a very large amount of old carbon dumped into the sea at that time which has affected the accuracy of dating events associated with that time period. The overly young dates on the Michigan whales bones were also discussed as to the reason the dates are off, rainwater intrusion of new carbon. Absolute dating is very useful, but I believe it is not always right and the errors are often far greater than many would want to believe. On having a workable hypothesis consistent with existing evidence, I would suggest looking at the earlier posting on the sudden reduction in glacial volume at the LGM. I know Patrick is right now looking for holes in it and I will be disappointed if he can't find at least one. I think it is a very good theory using the available evidence. Look it over, show me where it is wrong. I want to know where the problems are so I can correct them.
edge
By the way one of the meanings of Quixotic is visionary. If you are accustomed to dealing with data and hard evidence, how about dealing with the evidence in my posting on the sudden reduction in glacial volume at the LGM. You have been good for a lot of one liners and cheap shots, let's see you hit the books and come up with some real answers or questions.
Patrick;
It is obvious from your posting that you haven't read the references I cited yet, most of your objections will be answered by them. On the Mg-temperature calibration, even extending it down to 10C is stil above estimated SST in the ice age. If the SST was that high, the ice caps would have been truly huge to create the oxygen isotopes 18/16 ratios seen at that time. Once you read the references you should be able to see that there are some problems with pore water measurements in ocean sediment cores. I am very interested in the paleosalinity measurements of pore-fluid samples from ocean cores that you mentioned, but the low level you stated would seem to imply as the information on pore water oxygen isotopes, that the pore water may not be as accurate as other methods. I look forward to reading your next post.

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by edge, posted 02-24-2002 1:03 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 02-24-2002 4:23 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 150 by doctrbill, posted 02-24-2002 7:31 PM wmscott has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 148 of 460 (5403)
02-24-2002 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by wmscott
02-24-2002 11:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
edge
By the way one of the meanings of Quixotic is visionary. [/b]

I'm sure it fits.
quote:
If you are accustomed to dealing with data and hard evidence, how about dealing with the evidence in my posting on the sudden reduction in glacial volume at the LGM.
I will do so when time permits. However, you should be thinking about how that reduction in volume translates to a global flood, because that will be the next question.
[This message has been edited by edge, 02-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by wmscott, posted 02-24-2002 11:14 AM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 149 of 460 (5411)
02-24-2002 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by wmscott
02-24-2002 11:14 AM



Wmscott writes:
I think it is a very good theory using the available evidence. Look it over, show me where it is wrong. I want to know where the problems are so I can correct them.
You've already been informed of the problems, and your reaction to them thus far is to claim misinterpretation and error. You need to address the complete lack of evidence for a global flood in a more forthright way.
Such evidence would not be subtle. The inundation of the land by a rapidly encroaching ocean would have had a devastating impact on the geological landscape that would be visible to this day, not to mention on the flora and fauna. Examples of the geological evidence would be massive flood deposits left from material floated from the land, major erosion points where water overflowed a barrier then wore the barrier down, silt layers resulting from the inundation, patterns of flow visible from satellites, and a layer on the sea floor of massive amounts of material washed from the land. The inundation would have killed almost all land life, a major extinction event dwarfing even the Permian extinction.
A workable hypothesis would involve finding and identifying the expected evidence, or explaining why the evidence one would normally expect is missing. In the absence of either one your hypothesis remains in considerable conflict with the existing evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by wmscott, posted 02-24-2002 11:14 AM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 150 of 460 (5424)
02-24-2002 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by wmscott
02-24-2002 11:14 AM


quote:
Since you make no reference to the science side of the flood issue, it would seem that my previous post answered your questions in that area.
Not at all. You have plenty of objectors in that area. I am leaving it to them.
quote:
As for not showing evidence for use of the word land as referring to more than a local area you are already aware of it and interpret it differently.
Depends on how you define local.
quote:
if you insist, the description of the flood in genesis 6:1-11:9 is describing a global flood.
The Hebrews had no word comparable to our term global. They did not imagine the universe that way. There was Earth and there was Sea. Two separate entities, not two components of a spinning ball.
quote:
... the bible is describing much more than a local flood.
Depends on the parameters you set for local.
quote:
11:4 "... all the surface of the earth."
This expression describes a limited territory. I will present the evidence here, some of it for the second time.
Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the destroyer of all the earth
This king of Babylon is called the hammer of all the earth
The LORD threatens to feed the king of Egypt to the beasts of the whole earth
Do you believe that these guys actually dominated the planet?
The prophet Jeremiah laments that he is hated by the whole earth
Do you believe that he was hated in the western hemisphere?
quote:
hard to believe they were afraid of being scattered over a local area.
You really like the word "local" don't you? Do you suppose there is also the possibility of a district, or regional flood?
As I recall, I asserted that it was a Mesopotamian phenomenon. That would hardly qualify as local in my book.
quote:
We also have the rainbow covenant in chapter 9, which was a promise by God not to flood the world again.
Destruction of my hometown would be the end of my world.
quote:
Now if the deluge was just a local flood, then each local flood in history would be a breaking of this covenant.
The promise would not be broken if that particular region never again suffered a flood of that magnitude.
quote:
I saw no benefit in discussing what you already know and chose to interpret differently.
If biblical interpretation is important to your theory, then you must be prepared to defend your own choice of interpretation. Yes?
quote:
It is best to be some what flexible in Biblical interpretations, Interpreting the bible is an art, not a science.
Well put. Good thing I am both scientist and artist.
quote:
On the dating problems, I favor the biblical date but allow for the possibility that the flood occurred much earlier.
Evidence from the Mesopotamian Valley suggests an extraordinary flood circa 3600 BC depending on whom you read. The so-called biblical date you have offered is relatively close, on a geologic scale, to this time-frame. For further reading see -
http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/3000bc.html#6
quote:
3700 BC: Mesopotamia; Burrows’ flood,
Jesuit Paleographer, Burrows who accompanied Wooley on his 1930’s archeological dig at Ur dates Mesopotamian/biblical flood at 3700 BC (January 1930 Dublin Review)
3500 BC: Mesopotamia; Leonard Woolley’s flood
3500 Leonard Woolley, head of the joint British American team excavating Ur, dates the flood layer found at the base of the ruins of Ur at 3500 BC.

Just a suggestion here - Perhaps you should avoid using biblical quotes as evidence.
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by wmscott, posted 02-24-2002 11:14 AM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by wmscott, posted 02-25-2002 4:59 PM doctrbill has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 151 of 460 (5486)
02-25-2002 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by doctrbill
02-24-2002 7:31 PM


doctrbill;
I agree with you on the word land being used with different means, in the cases you like to cite, such as "Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the destroyer of "all the earth"" it refers to the known world at the time or the known civilized world. Your argument then is that at the time of the flood the known world consisted of an area in the Mesopotamian valley. You have also made reference to the flood layer found by C. Leonard Wooley as being evidence of this flooding event that inspired the Genesis story.
This in an old viewpoint long discredited by the archaeological evidence. "A number of other sites in Mesopotamia, of equal or greater antiquity, have been excavated down to virgin soil, and no evidence of flooding came to light at them. Perhaps the most important of these is Eridu, located only about seven miles away from Ur." (Noah The Person and the Story in History and Tradition by Lloyd R. Bailey, p32.) The lack of a flood deposit at Eridu limits the great Ur flood to a very limited extent indeed, far to small to have been the great deluge of bible history. In fact the flood layer at Ur was created by a river flood that failed to even flood the entire city. "In the case of the most Publicized and substantial of the deposits ( at Ur ), it became clear from several "trail pits" that the flooding had not overflowed the entire city. The excavator concluded that the city had been situated on an elevation in a marshy area, and that the rising water had caught it most heavily on the side area, and that was exposed to the flow: ". . . the mud was heaped up against the north slope of the town mound which, rising above the plain, broke the force of the flood waters; on the plain east and west of the mound we should probably have found nothing"" (same source, p32-35.) The great flood deposit at Ur is from a common river flood that was not that impressive. Since it failed to even flood the entire city of Ur, it is hard to believe it could be described as flooding the earth even using your limited definition. Even if tallest mountain the flood covered was merely a ziggurat as you suggest, this flood fails to fit the bill since it failed to even flood the whole city, let alone cover the tallest building in town to a depth of 15 cubits. From the description of the archaeologists, this river flood may not have even been 15 cubits deep. Other than claiming that this was a small flood that inspired a very exaggerated tall tail, there is no way to match the description found in genesis with the archaeological evidence of the flood deposits in Mesopotamia.
Due to the small size of the Ur flood and the other conflicting details, it is necessary to look elsewhere for the biblical flood. Since we find no evidence in the Mesopotamian valley of a regional river type flood event that can reasonably be matched with the deluge, I see no support for limiting the genesis word 'land' to that area to support a local flood theory.
Percipient;
I would suggest reading the earlier postings, we have been discussing the points you brought up for some time. To sum it up, the flood was not the way many assume, and the evidence hence doesn't match their preconceived ideas. We also have evidence in the form of marine traces, relict lakes, super flood erosion and other things, that there has been a global flood in recent geological history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by doctrbill, posted 02-24-2002 7:31 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by edge, posted 02-25-2002 5:32 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 02-25-2002 7:46 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 155 by doctrbill, posted 02-26-2002 2:49 AM wmscott has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024