Noahs Flood

quote:

---

You can get a fairly detailed article that directly refutes the Ryan & Pitman flood theory here:
ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0205.pdf
The title is "Persistent Holocene Outflow from the Black Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean Contradicts Noah’s Flood Hypothesis", and the authors are Aksu, Hiscott, Mudie, Rochon, Kaminski, Abrajano and Yasar.

---

Ryan and Pitman claimed evidence of catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea, while Aksu et al claim evidence for a more gradual flooding. Ryan & Pitman's case is convincingly presented in their book, but this is written at a popular level. I haven't read their scientific papers or compared them with Aksu et al.As mentioned earlier, Ryan and Pitman are not creationists, but professional geologists working at one of the world's most prestigious geology laboratories (Lamont-Doherty). They are not proposing a global flood.

quote:

---

IIRC Glen Morton (OEC) also proposed that the Mediterranean flooded by the same process to account for the tale.

---

Yes, Glen would place the flood at about 5 million years ago as opposed to the 5700 BC of Ryan & Pitman.

quote:

---

To me the rate of flooding is relatively unimportant, as flooding is only half the tale -- the other half is when the water recedes, and neither of these massive flooding scenarios include any subsequent lowering of the water level to reveal the land.

---

As I recall, Ryan & Pitman proposed that the Black Sea filled over a few year period. This wouldn't so much drown people as displace them and force them to migrate. Aksu et al seem to propose something MUCH slower, filling the Black Sea over a few thousand years. This would hardly be noticeable and would not be considered a flood.Yes, neither of these scenarios (or Glen's) seem to have room for a subsequent lowering of the water as the biblical account indicates.