Making Waves Over Noah’s Flood.

Newsday ^ | January 14, 2003 | By Robert Cooke

[vannrox]

Scientists are seriously challenging a recent, fascinating proposal that Noah's epic story - setting sail with an ark jam-full of animal couples - was based on an actual catastrophic flood that suddenly filled the Black Sea 7,500 years ago, forcing people to flee.

In a detailed new look at the rocks, sediments, currents and seashells in and around the Black Sea, an international research team pooh-poohs the Noah flood idea, arguing that all the geologic, hydrologic and biologic signs are wrong. Little that the earth can tell us seems to fit the Noah story, they say.

[vannrox]

Why is it so hard to believe that the Bible and the other global records recount a true event?

[blam]

I believe Ryan and Pittman's account.

[Anti-Bubba182]

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

This was also on the Discovery Channel shows about the Bible, etc., before Christmas. Of course they looked at anything in the Bible as "some say," "the Bible says," etc., then cast doubts on it. Not too bad but they threw in the doubters.

[Kerberos]

"Why is it so hard to believe that the Bible and the other global records recount a true event? "

But then again what’s wrong with critical analysis?

[jlogajan]

But then again what’s wrong with critical analysis?

Well, it implies doubt, and therefore you are thus condemned to the eternal hell fires. Or so they say.

[DannyTN]

I've seen several write ups that point to the likelihood that the fossil record was primarily the result of the flood.

The flood would have put down layers of sediment which are now interpreted by some modern scientists as millions of years of sediment.

The flood would also explain things like why larger animals are found at the beginning of the fossil record. Or why fossilized trees are found standing through "millions" of years of sediment.

It would seem to be a better fit with the evidence, in my opinion.

[DannyTN]

I don't see anything wrong with critical analysis.

I think the good Lord gave us brains and expects us to use them. The only problem with critical analysis is when people see something that doesn't match their expectations and arrogantly assume the good Lord must be wrong.

See my post #7.

[TXBubba]

Nothing is wrong with critical analysis. However, some (a lot, most)scientists seem to think science is totally pure and never wrong. It is their God. So their scientific studies can be clouded with the the bias of proving their own theories just as they would say a Christian would be biased in proving something because of their faith in the Bible.

[MattAMiller]

It sure doesn't explain why pollen varies according to where it is in the fossil record.

[Karsus]

What, in the Bible, leads you to believe the Earth is just a few thousand of years old?

Please understand, this is a serious question and I am not trying to start a flamewar, just have a discussion.

[NetValue]

Ping

[Consort]

As George Carlin says: If you sin, God will condemn you forever to the eternal hell fires where you will burn in agony forever and ever and ever and ever — but HE LOVES YOU!.

[BillT]

The Bible gives genealogies going all the way back to Adam and Eve up to Jesus. That was about four thousand years. According to most scalars Jesus was born around 4 BC. </p> Now if you add these up you get around 6,000 years. </p>
Incidentally, modern Science has determined that the average temperature is 4 degrees Kelvin; everywhere. They also give sizes for the universe as xx big and that there are yy number of stars in it of an average magnitude of zz. Science tells us that took billions of years to expand that far and the temperature slowed down to 4 degrees Kelvin.</p> If you take Science’s numbers and ask yourself how long would it take that much heat, from the yy suns, to heat xx amount of space to 4 degrees Kelvin. The answer is approximately 6,600 years. If GOD spoke the universe into existence, Science’s figures would seem pretty close.
</p>
Science is correct some times

[elmer fudd]

Why is it so hard to believe that the Bible and the other global records recount a true event?

If what they claim happened really happened, then it disproves the bible. The bible doesn't say the Black Sea was flooded with sea water. It says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and that water covered the whole earth.

[Karsus]

Thank you for your answer.

[DannyTN]

There are a few things that favor that interpretation, but I'm not at all certain that the Bible says that.

First, my understanding is that the Hebrew word used in the creation story referring to the 7 days of creation is more consistent with a 24 hour time period. However it is by no means certain that a 24 hour day is what was referred to. Certainly the Lord is on record as saying a day is like a 1000 years and 1000 years is like a day to Him. I don't think he is contrained by time at all.

I suspect that the Lord could cause 1 billion years of evolution, if that is the tool he chose to create the earth, to occur in a 24 hour time period. I also suspect that he could just dispense with the evolution and create things from nothing without a history.

Another possible explanation that I'm not willing to rule out is that it was Moses recording the creation story, and it may have been that God took 7 days for God to show Moses the creation.

If you then go from Abraham forward the Bible seems to imply that there are about 6000 years of history. The begats (Adam begat Abel who begat...) have some ages associated with them (Between Adam and Whoever was 800 years...). So that it seems you can construct relative time frames. But not having gone through it myself, I'm not certain how strong an implication that is.

One of the criticisms opponents of the Bible have used is that in one place the begats record A begat B begat C, but in another place it records A begat C and leaves out B. Well it turns out that it was common practice amoung Jewish genealogies to only recount the important ancestors. So it would in fact be appropriate to say Adam begat Noah, Noah begat David, even though there were many people inbetween.
I'm not sure if you can rule out the possibility that generations were skipped. But then again you may. Moses recorded the number of years between generations and thus it seems God wanted us to know how long.

On the flip side, I'm not at all confident in the so called modern scientific explanations. Modern science is only a couple of hundred years old. And man makes a lot of assumptions when he begins to talk about how things were before recorded history. The assumptions range from sediment rates, to the amount of radiation at that time, to some things like the speed of light is constant. They are effectly extrapolating their experience of 100 years backwards. And if they discount records of a global flood, they may very well make some huge calculation mistakes.

I threw in the speed of light because some scientists have produced evidence recently that the speed of light is not constant but slowing down.

The number of forgeries in the field of anthropology certainly casts doubts on the field. It seems unless you publish exciting and controversial finds, you don't get funding. Everyone is trying to find the oldest fossil, because no one gets much publicity for a 5000 year old fossil. It makes the whole field subject to doubt and scrutiny.

[KingNo155]

WoW Hard to believe............NOT!!!

[Snidely Whiplash]

Why is it so hard to believe that the Bible and the other global records recount a true event?

It's probably the fact that, despite years of searching by a variety of intersted and dispassionate parties, there's nothing in the geological, archaeological or paleontological record to support such a worldwide, catastrophic flood occurring. If it did happen, God did one helluva cleanup job afterward. Then there's the whole thing of "kinds," as described in Genesis. Did bacteria go on the Ark? How about species known to live solely in island ecosystems, like the dodo bird, Galapagos tortoise, etc? Earthworms? The thousands of species of spiders? Dinosaurs?

Beyond that, I couldn't tell ya.

Snidely