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
and more than forty days for it to die
Ergo, your Bible does in fact contain some errors.
So this means one of two things. Either the Bible has been translated, and re-trabslated by faliable men. Or God is a liar.
You decide.
Well, I wasn't going to mention it, but there are many Bible literalists that believe that the Earth is only approx 6,000 years old. To subscribe to that notion means that dinosaurs lived during the past 6,000 years and that they, too, (at least two of each species) must have also been on the ark.
Fourty days under salt water would. Besides, read your Bible. It was closer to a year.
Right...let's say, for the sake of conversation, that the ark did contain only land-based species.
How would Noah & his helpers keep the animals from fighting & killing each other? It seems like quite a lot to ask an ark full of rhinos, gorillas, ostriches, gila monsters, ocelots, & three-toed sloths to play nicely. And what about the animals that must have been unknown to that region of the world? And how many tons of food would the ark have to hold, not to mention the diversity of each species' diets? How would they have gotten rid of what must have been tons & tons of waste a day?
Science is unnecessary when common sense will do.
Ever heard of Hybernation?
When you gaze into their eyes, you can see all the way to their toes.
np...my brain often hic-cups. Hic....
The issue is that the Earth would not have the characteristics it has now, had the flood actually occurred. It would take a geologically long time for the Earth to recover from such a cataclysm, assuming of course that the excess water could be destroyed somehow.
But if there were some magic means of destroying the excess water without destroying the Earth beneath it, one wonders why God did not simply bring it to bear against the evil men and babies, who were themselves two-thirds water, rather than the more ham-handed technique he used.
C'mon. You'll have to do better than that.
Yes, and they clearly did not. I believe that even cheetahs, among the least genetically diverse vertebrates, are more diverse than that.
And freshwater fish as well. They would have all been killed by the salination of their water. So even though it's not mentioned in the Bible, Noah would have had to have tanks for fish.
An international team? Good grief.
I agree with the fundamental teachings that lie in the text, and I am lover of the King James Version. However, there is so much allegory and interpretation in these texts that it is impossible to understand the true, untranslated, intent.
In the times of "the flood", the "whole world" consisted of where you lived and the twenty miles around it. We must keep all of this in proper context. It is not God's word--but man's perception of Gods word. I think it is a big difference. Three thousand years from now, people will be trying to figure out our constitution from a paradigm they know nothing about. That should be interesting.
I think we can all agree that sometime, a long time ago, some big water event happened. I think it is interesting to determine the cause and figure if the whole Ark thing is plausible. For me, it doesnt impact my faith or understanding of the message.
Blind interpretation of some English King's version of the original Greek, translated from the Hebrew, is just silly when you think about it.
Thanks.
I'd say that about proves it, then, doesn't it?
And yet, somehow, we both know it's not that simple.
* Asteriod/Comet Collision
* Polar Shifts
* Global warming from all of the camel methane
* A wicked big thunderstorm.
According to the Bible, it came from the rains, and when God opened "the fountains of the deep".
As far as where it went...apparently, the pre-flood earth had more land and shallow seas. Under the great pressure of a global flood, the Earth buckled...areas (now the deapest parts of the Oceans) were lowered, and mountains and other high lands were raised, leading to the flood water catastrophically receding. This explains many things we see today, including the continental shelf areas (with canyons, similar to the grand canyon)and sea shells on high mountains.
C'mon. You'll have to do better than that
And why is that?
Ah, yes. But the problem for many is that they see the Bible as black & white or "inerrant". And to cast doubts on the vaildity of any single part of it calls into question what other parts of it might not be valid.
For many people, their faith leaves no room for such questioning or analysis.
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.