Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Subduction Zone]

From my reading of the article offered per the Smithsonian, there's a lot of guesswork. I'm not talking about the flood itself but the postulations offered by scientists in the article about the possibilities of what happened. In other words, they are guessing.

Can you be specific? The odds are that you simply do not understand how they know what they know.

 

[YoursTrue]

But the scientists seem to figure, if I read it correctly, there was a pretty big flood in that region. Short of giving me some anxiety reading it again because of the proposed postulations, I'll table an analysis in depth right now of the article. Except to reiterate that it says they postulate what may have happened. Take care.

 

[John53]

From my reading of the article offered per the Smithsonian, there's a lot of guesswork. I'm not talking about the flood itself but the postulations offered by scientists in the article about the possibilities of what happened. In other words, they are guessing.

So how about you tell us what actually happened along with your proof.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not interested in responding to polemics seasoned with bad attitude.

Have a good day.

You'd rather drop a Gish Gallop and run, apparently.

 

[Audie]

You'd rather drop a Gish Gallop and run, apparently.

Doesn't count unless they keep going

 

[Truthseeker]

And it seems to me, because no test results are offered, the dates are guesswork too. I won't even talk about the linguistic part of it, just the research itself about the water and earth under the water. Not conclusive.

You would have to go further into this, like read the book behind this. This is just a short summary. I read the book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the scientists seem to figure, if I read it correctly, there was a pretty big flood in that region. Short of giving me some anxiety reading it again because of the proposed postulations, I'll table an analysis in depth right now of the article. Except to reiterate that it says they postulate what may have happened. Take care.

Yes, they have clear evidence of a flood in that area. You should be asking how they know what they know. Denial of science only makes a person look foolish.

 

[Truthseeker]

And it seems to me, because no test results are offered, the dates are guesswork too. I won't even talk about the linguistic part of it, just the research itself about the water and earth under the water. Not conclusive.

As proposed, the Early Holocene Black Sea flood scenario describes events that would have profoundly affected prehistoric settlement in eastern Europe and adjacent parts of Asia and possibly was the basis of oral history concerning Noah's flood.[4] Some archaeologists support this theory as an explanation for the lack of Neolithic sites in northern Turkey.[5][6][7] In 2003, Ryan and coauthors revised the dating of the early Holocene flood to 8800 years ago, c. 6800 BC.

There is also a more thorough analysis of this in the Wikipedia article:

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

Sorry, I needed to more up to date, and to have a more thorough article on this. When I look at dissensions to a sudden flooding, there is definitely doubt about it being sudden.

A 2012 study based on process length variation of the dinoflagellate cyst Lingulodinium machaerophorum shows no evidence for catastrophic flooding.[30] Geophysical, geochronological, and geochemical evidence points to a "fast transgression" of the submergence lasting between 10 and 200 years.

 

[Audie]

Yes, they have clear evidence of a flood in that area. You should be asking how they know what they know. Denial of science only makes a person look foolish.

The 1% of such doubt and question
applied to by your pal to bible would
end such foolish talk

 

[Subduction Zone]

As proposed, the Early Holocene Black Sea flood scenario describes events that would have profoundly affected prehistoric settlement in eastern Europe and adjacent parts of Asia and possibly was the basis of oral history concerning Noah's flood.[4] Some archaeologists support this theory as an explanation for the lack of Neolithic sites in northern Turkey.[5][6][7] In 2003, Ryan and coauthors revised the dating of the early Holocene flood to 8800 years ago, c. 6800 BC.

There is also a more thorough analysis of this in the Wikipedia article:

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

Sorry, I needed to more up to date, and to have a more thorough article on this. When I look at dissensions to a sudden flooding, there is definitely doubt about it being sudden.

A 2012 study based on process length variation of the dinoflagellate cyst Lingulodinium machaerophorum shows no evidence for catastrophic flooding.[30] Geophysical, geochronological, and geochemical evidence points to a "fast transgression" of the submergence lasting between 10 and 200 years.

The one thing that I do not like about the Black Sea flood hypothesis for being a source of the Noah's Ark myth is that even though there was a ****load of water flowing into the Black Sea you can see from the illustrations that it was already a fairly sizeable body of water. That would buffer the flow since the whole sea had to rise at once. In the worst case scenario it had the catastrophic flow lasting for three hundred days. That is how long it took to fill the Black Sea to current levels. One would not want to be in the stream itself, but the flood itself would have advanced at a speed that was slower than a crawl. People could and probably did walk away from it. As long as they were not directly in the path of the incoming water when the natural dam failed they would have been fine.

 

[Audie]

The one thing that I do not like about the Black Sea flood hypothesis for being a source of the Noah's Ark myth is that even though there was a ****load of water flowing into the Black Sea you can see from the illustrations that it was already a fairly sizeable body of water. That would buffer the flow since the whole sea had to rise at once. In the worst case scenario it had the catastrophic flow lasting for three hundred days. That is how long it took to fill the Black Sea to current levels. One would not want to be in the stream itself, but the flood itself would have advanced at t a speed that was slower than a crawl. People could and probably did walk away from it. As long as they were not directly in the pat of the incoming water when the natural dam failed they would have been fine.

A watermelon vine could outpace it.

 

[Truthseeker]

The one thing that I do not like about the Black Sea flood hypothesis for being a source of the Noah's Ark myth is that even though there was a ****load of water flowing into the Black Sea you can see from the illustrations that it was already a fairly sizeable body of water. That would buffer the flow since the whole sea had to rise at once. In the worst case scenario it had the catastrophic flow lasting for three hundred days. That is how long it took to fill the Black Sea to current levels. One would not want to be in the stream itself, but the flood itself would have advanced at a speed that was slower than a crawl. People could and probably did walk away from it. As long as they were not directly in the path of the incoming water when the natural dam failed they would have been fine.

I think the idea was that while people were not in danger from drowning, they would be displaced from their original communities, which would be a bad hardship. This would be memorable. Of course the later stories were not like that at all, they had to get into a boat to escape the flood. The story that came to be written later would only be loosely based on the actual event. As thousands of years passed between the story written in Gilgamesh and the original event, one could imagine that event not being conveyed faithfully over that long time, or that the author used his literary license to change the scenario.

However, at the end of the Wikipedia article I found that was cast very much in doubt. The water did not go up probably at a pace to displace any communities. Probably the whole story was made up out of the thin air.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the idea was that while people were not in danger from drowning, they would be displaced from their original communities, which would be a bad hardship. This would be memorable. Of course the later stories were not like that at all, they had to get into a boat to escape the flood. The story that came to be written later would only be loosely based on the actual event. As thousands of years passed between the story written in Gilgamesh and the original event, one could imagine that event not being conveyed faithfully over that long time, or that the author used his literary license to change the scenario.

However, at the end of the Wikipedia article I found that was cast very much in doubt. The water did not go up probably at a pace to displace any communities. Probably the whole story was made up out of the thin air.

There is a flood that I think that is much more likely to have been the culprit. It was covered a large area rapidly. Not only that it would have been an inhabited region. It was a flood of the Tigris and Euphrates river system. It was also much closer to Babylon, and more recent:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

Introduction The Bible (Genesis 6–9) describes a worldwide flood (the Noachian Flood) covering even the highest mountains of the earth and the construction of a huge boat (a rectangular box-like craft) that transported animals, at least two of a kind of all land animals on the earth.

ncse.ngo

It was a flood that was bad enough that if one was near enough to the center that no land would have been visible due to the curvature of the Earth.

 

[Audie]

I think the idea was that while people were not in danger from drowning, they would be displaced from their original communities, which would be a bad hardship. This would be memorable. Of course the later stories were not like that at all, they had to get into a boat to escape the flood. The story that came to be written later would only be loosely based on the actual event. As thousands of years passed between the story written in Gilgamesh and the original event, one could imagine that event not being conveyed faithfully over that long time, or that the author used his literary license to change the scenario.

However, at the end of the Wikipedia article I found that was cast very much in doubt. The water did not go up probably at a pace to displace any communities. Probably the whole story was made up out of the thin air.

Kind of a George Washington hatchet
type story.

 

[Audie]

There is a flood that I think that is much more likely to have been the culprit. It was covered a large area rapidly. Not only that it would have been an inhabited region. It was a flood of the Tigris and Euphrates river system. It was also much closer to Babylon, and more recent:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

Introduction The Bible (Genesis 6–9) describes a worldwide flood (the Noachian Flood) covering even the highest mountains of the earth and the construction of a huge boat (a rectangular box-like craft) that transported animals, at least two of a kind of all land animals on the earth.

ncse.ngo

It was a flood that was bad enough that if one was near enough to the center that no land would have been visible due to the curvature of the Earth.

How many floods do you suppose that
flood plain has had

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kind of a George Washington hatchet
type story.

More like a Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter type story. It would not have been beyond George Washington's ability to chop down a cherry tree with a hatchet:

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many floods do you suppose that
flood plain has had

Lots!! But this was a very large one that left definite records. This appears to be the largest flood of that system that we have evidence of. It was in the right area, it was of strong enough intensity for a myth to grow about it. and it was near enough the time to inspire the forerunners of the Gilgamesh myth.

I am not saying that it definitely was this flood, but it does have most of the criteria needed to inspire a myth.

 

[Audie]

More like a Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter type story. It would not have been beyond George Washington's ability to chop down a cherry tree with a hatchet:

View attachment 81436

Rong stori

The one about the antique store has his hatchet,
tho handle and head have been replaced

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But we do agree that the question whether ID is science is settled and no further discussion is necessary?

No, it’s not settled, imo. Neither do Axe, Bechly, Minnich, Meyer, Ross, Wells, and other Scientists think so.

Jones had a vested interest, a bias, in keeping ID out of government-sponsored classrooms.

But he still wrote what he wrote, that “ID claims may be accurate…”

He didn’t have to add that.
In fact, that statement reveals his viewpoint, ie., opinion, that truth is always the goal of science.

While science always loves gathering facts, attempts to explain how those facts originated, are misguided.


Too many coincidences are accepted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But we do agree that the question whether ID is science is settled and no further discussion is necessary?

I'd say it is settled. ID is not science. It is religion. That some refuse to let go and accept that is not evidence that it is science. That some think science is a search for the truth tells me more about what they do not understand about science and indicates that their opinions on the subject are very limited and biased.

A judge essentially saying that the argument isn't over the claims of ID being right or wrong, but whether it is science or not is not an endorsement of a particular religious view. It seems to me that people that have lost will grasp at anything to keep the argument alive. That, to me, appears to be all it is about at this point.

My interpretation of the creationist position is, "If we keep arguing in the face of overwhelming evidence and the rational conclusions on that evidence, we haven't lost".