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
C'mon. You'll have to do better than that
And why is that?
Well, for starters, not all animals hibernate. And unless someone sprinkled magic fairy dust on them causing them all to slumber peacefully for the entire duration, I assume that about 99% of them would be just a little too worried about whether their neighbor was going to eat them or claw their eyes out to catch some shut-eye.
Here's a question that I would like to see discussed. If the ark existed and if the entire world was flooded and if all the animals that needed to be out of water were on board, how then did the species get back to where they are today? There are species that are native only to particular islands. How did they get there?
Certainly they didn't walk. Not over water. Assuming the Bible's timeline is correct and the flood occurred only within the last 10,000 years (or even the last 100,000 years) that's not enough time to get the entire planet repopulated to the levels that exist today with the level of complexity and integration that exists today.
The only logical explanation to species dispersment across the world that I've seen, short of God magically making species with no wings fly, is continental drift. The problem with continental drift is that by definition it blows the Noah's ark story to bits due to the length of time it would have taken. To believe in Continental Drift and Noah's Ark would mean placing Noah's Ark back hundreds of millions of years ago.
Where it went, was the rising of the continents. There is evidence of plates that the mantle of the Earth slides on, these plates could be the source of the breaking points where the water from below came from, shooting up between the cracks so to speak. With the underground water going up, the land mass that was once resting/floating on the water would go down, causing the water to overrun the land. When the plates slid togethor in spots, like our continents we see, the land mass in those areas would rise enough from collision to form dry land higher that the water.
Notice also, the Bible says it rained 40 days on the land, but the waters still rose after 40 days, this would have to be the underground waters released by the fountains of the deep opening up.
We still believe that mountain ranges are caused by these plates colliding and buskling higher. Since according to Naoh's flood all land would be under water, it explains why there are fossils on top of Everest and the Rocky's.
There is an interesting verse in Genesis 10:25. It says after the flood, In the time of Peleg, the Earth divided. I've heard some speculate this was the division of the continents.
C'mon. You'll have to do better than that
And why is that?
Well, for starters, not all animals hibernate. And unless someone sprinkled magic fairy dust on them causing them all to slumber peacefully for the entire duration, I assume that about 99% of them would be just a little too worried about whether their neighbor was going to eat them or claw their eyes out to catch some shut-eye.
Not all animals hybernate today ....you asked for an explanation, I gave you one. Certainly this is a possible scenereo, if one believes what our Lord stated.
How many of the believers in a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark also adhere to the dietary strictures imposed in the Old Testament? Surely any True believers eschew bacon, pork chops, ham sandwiches, Jimmy Dean's sausage, clams, oysters, and shrimp, right? It does say so in the Book, and if you're a 100% believer and have been ignoring this until now, why?
The Lord refered to Genesis...including references to the days of Noah. Who am I to question it?
if you are truely interested, you might want to study the whole topic of Covenants. Christians are under a new covenant...one of Grace.
Yeah, but... the Bible makes no mention of it. If you start speculating on what "might" have happened barring any Biblical evidence, don't be surprised if others not sharing your opinion do the same.
But the Bible does mention bringing animals into the Ark...I have no problem speculating on the details of this underlying truth. There have been extensive studies on this whole question of the Ark's capacity and the family's capacity to support the animals. I simply provided a reasonable explanation, which was requrested.
I don't know your belief system, so it is hard to respond. I would say that if you believe Jesus is God...you have a problem relative to your argument.
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.