The Flood

quote:

---

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.

---

A global Flood is rejected BECAUSE that's what the scientific evidence shows. A global flood simply isn't a credible possibility.

quote:

---

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.

---

As has been shown in the discussions of Wyatt many YECs also reject Ron Wyatt's claims. John Baumgardner, for instance. Wilson's rejection of Wyatt is not significant evidence of his religious beliefs.On the other hand Wilson has written a number of other books - subjects including the Turin Shroud, Nostradamus, Stigmata. He seems to be something of a lover of the "paranormal".You also give the impression that Wilson was in some way behind the expedition, although I have seen no evidence that that is the case and I do not find it credible.

quote:

---

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?

---

We know - with certainty - that it is NOT a global flood because it was confined to the area of the Black Sea. Unless you are seriously suggesting that the rest of the planet did not exist. And it is certainly of no great consequence to me. Maybe the Noah story is a distorted memory of the Black Sea Flood - if so it makes a good argument against conservative Christians who insist that the flood story is largely accurate.See what these Christians have to say
Is the Black Sea Flood the Flood of Genesis? - ChristianAnswers.NetAnd Glen Morton's report here points out that the rate of infilling is not quite a sudden catastrophe -
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htmThe highest rate reported is 400 feet in a year. Rapid but not quite up to Noah's Flod levels. However, since then other researchers have found evidence that the rate of infill was far slower.And the 1993 study recived considerable publicity at the time. For you to say that it has been downplayed is simply wrong. The 2002 study rebutting the work is less well-known. I suppose it recieves less publicity now because it is not close enough to Noah's Flood to be promoted much by the Biblical literalists and because the claims of a sudden flood have not stood up.

There was serious sicentific coverage, too. However you won't find so much now because, as I have said, more recent studies (2002) indicate that the infill was far slower than originally thought.

quote:

---

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.

---

There are two reasons why it is not. First it is just one possible source - and more recent studies have made it muich less credible (IIRC many versions of the story are far more similar to each other than they are to the actual Black Sea flood - even if the original high rate of flooding is assumed. That suggests that the spread is more likely due to cultural influences than the event itself).Secondly the magnitude of the event is far smaller. The K/T extinction was a major event worldwide. The Black Sea flood affected - the Black Sea. Now there's a major disparity.

quote:

---

Hi Obvious Child. You bring up some reasonable points. There have been research done and evidence produced. Biblical floodists apply the research and evidence regarding the Black Sea as supportive to the Biblical account. It's just that we interpret the evidence differently than secularists do

---

That isn't true, though, is it ? There's NO evidence from Ryan and Pitman's studies or Ballard's or the later studies that shows that the Black Sea flood significantly extended beyond the Black Sea, is there ?

quote:

---

We also have research and evidence with the chariot wheels at Aqaba

---

No, you don't You don't have ONE definite chariot wheel from Aqaba. And even if you did it has zilch to do with the Black Sea flood event.

quote:

---

LOL on changing science. I've already provided reasons for this. What is reasonable evidence has a lot to do what ones views are as to what is evidence and what is reasonable.

---

If you're really desparate to find evidence to back up your beliefs you might cling to the claims of a fantasist and fraud. But that hardly makes it reasonable. There's enough evidence that Wyatt is highly unreliable and not to be trusted. We've bene over it often enough.

Come on Buz, you know that the Black Sea Flood was far slower than Noah's flood allegedly was and covered only a very restricted area. It is the result of infilling from the Bosphorous so it can't have flooded anywhere else much. It's all sea water coming in. Even in the fastest estimates it would take a yea rjust to fill the Black Sea. And that estimate has been downgraded once by Ryan and Pitman and even that appears to be wrong.Further investigation indicates that research IS ongoing, according to Wikipedia and has strongly turned against Ryan and Pitman's ideas. A new book - a scientific book, not a ppular treatment was apparently published this year (The Black Sea Flood Question: Changes in Coastline, Climate and Human Settlement (Springer, 2007, 971 pages) ISBN-10 1-4020-4774-6). (Doubtless it is hideously expensive, but might be found in a university library).The 2002 GSA paper is freely available online. Even most fundamentalists recognise that the Black Sea Flood story - even that once proposed by Ryan and Pitman - is nothing like Noah's Ark. Even people who share your belief in the Noah's Ark story see that you are quite simply wrong to argue that this is any help to your beliefs.So we have a widely discredited hypothesis that doesn't even fit with your beliefs. And you call that evidence ?

quote:

---

1. The first stages of the flooding likely had somewhat diluted seawater.
2. Likely sealife was scattered via the flood to include the Black Sea.
3. How can we be positive it took a year to flood Black Sea?

---

To answer the last first - we don't know that it happened anything like that quickly. There's signfiicant evidence that it did not. That is the FASTEST of the estimates, and one that is probably way too fast.The other two points are null. Noah's flood according to the Bible is far more rapid and widespread and certainly not dominated by a single point of infill flowing into a depression - and it certainly didn't last up until the present day ! The Black Sea Flood event - if it even happened (and it probably didn't) - does not bear any signficiant resemblance to the Bible story other than being a big flood.

quote:

---

1. She is not being willfully ignorant. She admits if when all the tech stuff is out she is willing to concede her position.

---

But it didn't stop her categorically declaring that radiocarbon dating didn't work, did it ?So I think you mean that she admits her ignorance only when she needs to find a way out of supporting her false assertions.

There is no "Flood Tectonics". How could it possibly work ? How do you explain the evidence that drift rates ahve stayed within an order of magnitude for all that period ? Why wouldn't speeding up the continents drastically produce noticable effects ? Do you actually have an argument or is it like your magic pre-Flood atmosphere - an unworkable excuse invented solely to escape the implications of the evidence ?

quote:

---

1. Here are two cites which convey in laymen terms some of what I am trying to convey regarding Genesis flood relative to plate tectonics:
Global Flood Geology - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

​

http://www.projectcreation.org/...ticles/kid_zone_detail.php

---

The first is some guys who don't klnow what they are talkign about and just assume that continental drift can be compressed into the post-flood timeframe. There is no attemt to deal with the evidence or answer the problems I raised.The other link refers to Baumgardner's ideas, which IIRC rely on putting parameters which are at least questionable (maybe outright false in one case) into a model and showing that if the parameters are correct - and if the model works under those conditions - rapid tectonic movlemet is a theoretical possibility. Again there is no attempt to deal with the empirical evidence - the question of whether it HAS happened. These links, therefore support my point. There is no "flood tectonics". The evidence is clear that it did not happen. End of story.

The theory rests on Barnes' ideas about the decay of the Earth's magnetic field. Since those have been discredited the claim that it fits the data is false on two fronts.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Are you talking about Humphreys?

---

Yes, Hyumphreys releis on Barne's discredited ideas. Didn't you read the article you linked to ?

quote:

---

Surely you realize creationists are discredited because they dare to believe in an young earth because of the fossil evidences.

---

While it is true that creationists dogmatic refusal to honestly deal with the evidence for an old earth discredits them, Barnes' claims are themselves directly discredited

quote:

---

Just because you believe they are discredited does not discredit their hypothesis, perhaps in you mind it does but thats not evidence.

---

Then it's a good job that I didn't mean that isn't it ? The fact that Barnes' hypothesis has been directly discredited can't be so easily dismissed, can it ? See here. Especially note this point:

Here's a detailed refutation of Humphreys' claims
Is the Earth's Magnetic Field Young?