Posted on 06/14/2002 7:32:58 AM PDT by aculeus
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Professor Part of International Research Group Refuting Popular Theory
In 1996, marine geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman published a scientifically popular hypothesis, titled Noah's Flood Hypothesis. The researchers presented evidence of a bursting flood about 7,500 years ago in what is now the Black Sea. This, some say, supports the biblical story of Noah and the flood.
But, such a forceful flood could not have taken place, says Jun Abrajano, professor of earth and environmental sciences at Rensselaer. He is part of an international team of scientists who refute the so-called Noah's Flood Hypothesis.
Abrajano cites evidence of a much more gradual rising of the Black Sea that began to occur 10,000 years ago and continued for 2,000 years.
According to the Noah's Flood Hypothesis, the Black Sea was a freshwater lake separated from the Mediterranean Sea by a narrow strip of land now broken by the Bosporus Strait. Ryan and Pittman argue that the Mediterranean broke through the land and inundated the Black Sea with more than 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. The salty powerful flood swiftly killed the freshwater mollusks in the Black Sea. This, they say, accounts for fossil remains that can be dated back 7,500 years.
Abrajano's team has challenged the theory by studying sediments from the Marmara Sea, which sits next to the Black Sea and opens into the Mediterranean.
The team found a rich mud, called sapropel in the Marmara. The mud provides evidence that there has been sustained interaction between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea for at least 10,000 years.
"For the Noah's Ark Hypothesis to be correct, one has to speculate that there was no flowing of water between the Black Sea and the Marmara Sea before the speculated great deluge," says Abrajano. "We have found this to be incorrect."
GSA (Geological Society of America) Today magazine recently published a paper in its May 2002 edition based on Abrajano's research. His research also will be published this year in Marine Geology, an international science journal.
For a map of the area go to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/tu-map.jpg
It is at best rather brusque and acerbic! And you were trying to question my 'lucidity.'
Well, i provided answers and proof to you....unless you want to say the information i sent you is false!
Now i await proof (and i mean proof not just mere faith) for your side of the story on the Earth being at least 6000years old (when evidence shows it is AT LEAST 4.5 billion years old, and that humans started appearing long before your 6000 year parameter!).
And please do not just state biblical verse...after all you DEMANDED proof for me. And if you start basing your proof on words written ages ago i may be forced tograb my copy of Grimms Fairy Tales and try to sell you on the existence of the Lil' Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf!
Biblical literalists have painted themselves into a corner. They can't admit any fallacies in their sacred tome or they will also have to concede that any other part of it may be faulty. Furthermore they must stick with the magical story of a worldwide flood and any other fantastic stories found in the Bible, because sans magic it becomes far to easy to ask "why was a supernatural being necessary in that story?"
A woldwide flood --where all animals were mystically transported from their natural habitat to a central location and then mystically transported back, where all of the different species could cohabitate, where they had no need for food or fresh water, and where the handful of people onboard the vessel could adequately perform all of the functions necessary for sailing, navigating, and taking care of the animals--requires a divine hand. A local flood where some old bearded dude makes a boat so that his own livestock won't perish requires no divine hand. Heck, things like that happen all the time.
Without that information we wouldn't know the relative size of the rim as compared to the main body.
Making an assumption that the only interpretation is that they misunderstood pi or were even mistaken in the measurements they took in light of the ability to make this vessel in the first place would seem the least likely.
Come on...it is ok to admit that the Earth came into being well over 6000 years ago....denying that reminds me of those guys in the middleages who stated the Earth was the center of the universe and killed those who said otherwise as heretics! They were ignorant fools! I hope you are not as myopic or as blinded by dumb faith as they were (unless of course the universe revolves around the Earth still for you).
This is ludicrous
Sort of sounds like it to me...
I make neither assumption. I assume they were only giving approximate measurements. Biblical literalists can't make that assumption, however, so they have to rationalize it.
Why assume approximates over actual when either could be true ? I agree that they could be approximates but I disagree that that is the only possible assumption. In fact the more thought I give to the separate measurement for a rim the more that seems likely to me.
Although I am comfortable using both literal and metaphoric/allegoric interpretations in this case I don't see the same dilemma you see. And as a scientist I am surprised you could not entertain the two circle theory as being equally valid as the approximate theory.
1. Opposing Views
2. Immanuel Velikovsky
3. But How can the Poles Shift
4. Charles Hapgood & James Bowles
5. Evidence of a Poleshift, Part I
6. Evidence of a Poleshift, Part II
Hey, since nobody brought this up, I thought I would throw in a couple of more monkey wrenches...second wrench...
concept...Noah's Flood was a Pole shift...
PS...
'Here's to ole' RPI,
her fame will never die,
here's to those olden daze,
here's to that golden haze,
here's to the friends we made...
at drearie ole' RPI'...
Occam's razor. The "two circle" idea requires some gymnastics, while attributing the discrepancy to an approximation doesn't.
Someone should take a look at the book, "Forbidden Archeology" for some funky things found in the dirt.
You are running the age old play of turning the burden of proof on me. When I have made no claims of absolute scientific fact. Yet I have not heard one you on the Old earth side admit that you have only theory as well. Sure you may have some data that lends to your argument, it is still far from scientific fact though.
You want to play the burden of proof game? Prove God does not exist. Will you apply the scientific method and conclude that my claim cannot be scientific fact?
1. OBSERVATION
2. EXPERIMENTATION
3. REPRODUCTION
4. FALSIFICATION
You would be right I cannot prove it beyond a scientific doubt.
Now apply the scientific method to Old Earth/Macroevolution - same answer.
Thankfully my existence does not derive it's meaning from scientific calculation and theory. If it were, I would be nothing but star dust with no bind to morality and no hope of further exsistance beyond energy.
Occam's razor is great if you have no information or are unable to infer more information but in this case we can do both and we should leave occam's razor to apply after we gather all the data and inferences.
There were either one of two style vessels. We know the author refers to a rim and before we are given any data as to size it would be logical to assume it was a rim that was larger than the body. A vessel with a rim that is flared out is likely especially in that it was to be used to bath in. So before even considering the author's neasurements I see a vessel with a rim that is larger than the main body in my minds eye.
The author provides us with the diameter of that rim. With this information I can easily calculate the diameter if I wanted to using some approx of PI.
But I still don't know the height or the circumferance of the vessel. The author then provides us with a measurement that would not be inconsistant with a flared rim.
Lets apply Occam's razor knowing that the logical shape of the vessel is likely a flared rim and the measurements are constiant wiht a flared rim then the simplest explanation is the measurements are the actual (or approximate) diameter of the rim and the actual (or approximate) circumfurance of the body of the vessel. If I apply the measurement as being the diameter of the rim for the one that specifically refers to the rim
Of course God could have wanted to avoid confusion and tell us how things actually happened,but atheists and agnostics don't like that one.
I knew sooner or later you would try to convolute this thread into a question of whether or not i believe in a deity, and if i can prove his non-existence! However i will not try to answer your question since i know there is no way to convince you otherwise, and trying to would just make you start posting acerbic replies to me...and i do nto like it when Freepers start attacking each other!
HOWEVER i will remind you that the reason i started posting stuff to you was to refute your assertion that the Earth is 6,000 years old! And you have posted replies to me saying that carbon and radiological dating is fallible, and that mistakes can be made. And do you know what? I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU! Yep! you heard me, i agree that it is not 100% accurate! However there is a caveat in this:
If the dating says the world is around 4.5 billion years old....meaning that even if it was only 1% accurate the Earth would still be much older than 6,000years!
Wow, 6,000 years! And all the terrestrial species on Earth fitting into a boat. And people living for 800 years (unless they had a different method of measuring chronological progression) when it is common fact that humans are living longer nowadays and not in the past! And then there is the belief that woman came from a rib! Or that Goliath was an actual giant and not just a very tall guy. Or belief in the Nephilim!
Or belief in unicorns. And did i mention gnomes! And trolls.....hill trolls even. Or maybe griffons and the rising phoenix!
Puh-lease!
The point was that we have to rely on the Standard and old earth/macroevolution does not meet that standard. Therefore, it cannot be stated as fact.
You cannot build a foundation of theory on a tool of measurement that is wrong. It maybe, kind of working does not make up for that. No matter the level of success, 1% or 50%. The probability that it is wrong cannot be limited to known wrongs so it can be used to prove anything. How do you know when it is right? It is possible that in measurements of the age of the earth it has never been right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.