|
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
I suppose there's no way for you to understand this, because you assume others think the way you do. But --
'Science' is not my 'god'. I don't believe that there is such a thing as a 'god' in the sense that you mean it. I don't believe that 'science' or 'scientists' are inerrantly wrong. I assume that, in fact, everything we *think* we know is certainly not completely correct. In fact, I believe that the claim that something -- anything -- is 'inerrantly wrong without question', like people claim about the bible, or the Koran, is the first sign that a person is not thinking critically.
I question everything, and then try and draw conclusions as to what is the most likely given current data.
You're under a serious misconception if you think 'science' is a 'god' to people who don't have a 'god' at all . . . and perhaps that's the beginnings of your misunderstanding of science.
Perhaps the best way to phrase it for you: it's the 'scientific method' that I subscribe to, not 'the opinion of scientists'.
Well, the myth still holds many, many people's minds in an age when the idea of a 'world wide flood' is completely contradicted by all available evidence . . . so obviously, you're incorrect in your assumption. People could have believed it because they were told it.
People clearly are willing to believe just about any stupid thing that someone tells them. Look at Jonestown or Heaven's Gate, for goodness' sake. Look at many Muslim teachings. Heck, look at some of the 'Catholic' teachings ('when you drink this wine it becomes the blood of Christ').
A small flood could easily have been blown up into 'a flood of the whole world', because people would have just believed what they were told, without questioning, "on faith". As they do every day, up to this day.
Which passages aren't 100% accurate and which ones are ?
Um, first you assume that none are 100% accurate, because no other writing like it has been 100% accurate. Small details always change, or are wrong. Especially if we're talking about 6,000 years here!
If you start out assuming that some of it is 100% accurate, you've started with a pre-concieved notion that is unsupported -- in fact, contradicted -- by past experience.
I don't read them except so far as to understand they require me to achieve something I cannot attain to be saved.
Until you treat the bible the same way you do all other religous texts, it's you who is being closed-minded, I'm afraid. You can't just pick one of the world's religions to be the "word of god' while ignoring all the others that also claim to be.
Good, I was hoping you would say something to that effect. Now your thinking outside your comfort zone. Old Earth/Macroevolution does not meet Scientific Method:
1. OBSERVATION
2. EXPERIMENTATION
3. REPRODUCTION
4. FALSIFICATION
Since you subscribe to the Scientific Method you cannot take Old Earth/Macroevolution as fact.
To believe Old Earth/Macroevolution is to have faith in Science and Scientist. To overlook all the flaws. It is to have faith in the powers of man to know all, though he does not know what he does not know.
You're missing the point. To a Biblical literalist, there is no room for approximation in the Bible. Ten cubits is ten cubits, not 9.55.
I've said before that in my opinion the numbers are quite clearly approximations.
A more sensible (and piquant) explanation would be that the guy who measured the circumference had shorter arms than the guy who measured the diameter. I'm just waiting for a Biblical literalist to try to float that one. ;^)
Its not awkward. Its exactly what the verse says. It is you who are adding to its plain meaning and arriving at the conclusion that its awkward. The verse says the rim's diameter and it separately gives the measurment of the body of the vessel.
Your interpretation is awkward in that the author had to take two measurements of the same rim and no measurement of the body when one is all that is needed in geometry.
According to the text the author gives us
A. The width of the walls of the vessel.
B. The height of the vessel.
C. The total volume of the vessel.
D. The diameter of the rim.
The circumference of the body is the only missing variable.
So from this circumstance you conclude that the missing variable was not given and instead the author gave us a second measurement of the rim. You make this conclusion even though the given number would be within the range expected if it were describing the body of the vessel.
You partially justify your conclusion by making fun of the person measuring it even though the easiest and most exact measurement of the rim would be to measure its diameter and the only practical measurement to make of the body is to measure its circumference.
I respectively submit that after looking at the text in its entirety the conclusion that the author gives us two meaurements of the same part of the object is the most contrived conclusion.
Nope. I was afraid of that, you operate on 'faith' so you assume everyone else does.
As I said -- I have analyzed the evidence myself, using the basic scientific method, and have found the most likely answer to be an old earth with macroevolution.
I don't say, "This is certainly true and I have faith that it is true". I say, "this evidence I analyze seems to suggest this, I don't know all the details and I could be wrong, but that is the most likely answer given the facts at hand."
No 'faith'. No absolute statements that must be true. Pure, simple analysis. There are absolutely holes in the theories. There are holes in gravitational theory, also.
Doesn't mean there is no gravity, tho. Just that our understanding of the mechanism is still growing.
You're not even on the same page as I am. You don't even understand how I think, or what I'm saying. Perhaps that's why you're so wrong in your assessment?
If you don't even hear me, then you can't really disagree with me.
Well, the myth still holds many, many people's minds in an age when the idea of a 'world wide flood' is completely contradicted by all available evidence . . . so obviously, you're incorrect in your assumption. People could have believed it because they were told it.
The myth would have had to be sold by those who experienced the flood to those whom they met later. Assuming that this flood was very local then the world wide flood would have been a tough sell to folks who had their own history. If I understand correctly all sorts of cultures have similar myths. I would assume that whatever flood took place it would precede the disbursement of the population of humans throughout the world.
People clearly are willing to believe just about any stupid thing that someone tells them. Look at Jonestown or Heaven's Gate, for goodness' sake. Look at many Muslim teachings. Heck, look at some of the 'Catholic' teachings ('when you drink this wine it becomes the blood of Christ').
The fact that people believe stupid things doesn't have a bearing on whether something is true. We still need evidence.
A small flood could easily have been blown up into 'a flood of the whole world', because people would have just believed what they were told, without questioning, "on faith". As they do every day, up to this day.
What makes this myth unique is the many various cultures that hold a similar story.
Um, first you assume that none are 100% accurate, because no other writing like it has been 100% accurate. Small details always change, or are wrong. Especially if we're talking about 6,000 years here!
First it has been shown that the oral tradition was amazingly accurate and it has also been shown the parrallel sources of the text are often identical. Second, many texts have parallel passages which increase the chances of their accuracy. (For example the passage about the "SEA" that physicist is so desperately attempting to contort into an obviously ridiculous interpretation was repeated twice). A third part of the equation is the idea of information theory that you don't need all of the information to convey the orginal. (An example of this is my numerous spelling erros. Even though spelled wrong, the reader can figure out the meaning).
If you start out assuming that some of it is 100% accurate, you've started with a pre-concieved notion that is unsupported -- in fact, contradicted -- by past experience.
You are correct that starting out believing the text has been preserved acurately is an assumption. Its somewhat safer in that over the thousands of years its existed others have pulled every verse in it apart piece by piece so I do have the benefit of their analysis. There are a number places where the text is corrupt and this is explained.
Until you treat the bible the same way you do all other religous texts, it's you who is being closed-minded, I'm afraid. You can't just pick one of the world's religions to be the "word of god' while ignoring all the others that also claim to be.
I happen to treat all texts the same whether its the bible or the tax code. I apply the same sort of scrutinty to them. My critical reading isn't any different.
As to your presumption that I am closed minded about religion because I have concluded based on reason that other religions are wrong is perfectly true. I am also closed minded about my choice of spouse, career and favorite soft drink. All of those decisions are based on reason (well maybe except for the soft drink). The reasons for the religious choice would really hijack the thread into theology but they are logical at least to me.
1. OBSERVATION
2. EXPERIMENTATION
3. REPRODUCTION
4. FALSIFICATION
You look at the data and assume that your theory is correct. Though you admit that it cannot be proven, that is faith - Believing something that cannot be seen or proven.
You are the one not hearing, you are blinded by your faith. You chose to ignore the very data and theories that may prove you correct because you fear that it may prove you wrong.
faith Pronunciation Key (fth) n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on proof.
No, and this is the most interesting part of your misunderstanding. The core of your errors, if I'm not mistaken.
I look at the data and assume that I do *not* understand the whole truth. So I look around for possible explanations that might fit with the data.
I know the explanations -- theories -- are not complete. I have no faith in the theories being 100% true at all. I completely understand that they aren't the 'word of god'. I see the current theories simply as a "best guess".
That's where you blow it completely with your misunderstanding of what 'science' is. It's not 'faith'. So your thinking of it as faith means you won't understand it at all. That's the way it works.
But I also know that the evidence I see does not support a 'new earth' theory at all.
|
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.
