I believe this was a story about a possible flooding of the Black Sea around 7,000 bce or so.
It is believed it is possible that this event is related to, or the origin of, the Gilgamesh flood story (which is certainly the origin of the biblical flood story).
But the specifics of the story as recorded by human writers later are hardly to be considered 'facts from the word of god'.
Once you start using something like 'the bible' as 'word of god evidence', I have nothing left to add. I believe you invalidate your own position.
I believe there is ample evidence that the 'bible' is a collection of writings written by many humans over a long period of time. That collection was put together in a *very* political fashion. And there is not one chance in a million that the bible is the 'inspired word of god'.
In my humble opinion.
I assume this puts our discussion at an impasse.
Did you happen to read the title of the thread ? I am not invoking the bible as absolute evidence except in so far as the author of this article evidently invoked it. Once the scientist or author writing about it attempts to bring in scripture then I imagine that then makes scripture relevant to the topic.
I personally have no problem with scripture as metaphor and I certainly believe that a valid reading of the Noah story was a literary device that stole the babylon flood story.
In any case, the actual biblical text becomes relevant because the author of the article introduced it, not me.