The problem of evidence for a Biblical Flood

[shunyadragon]

I found the 2016 reference and understand the difference. The difference is the amount off fresh water from glacial melt versus the amount of saltwater in from the in flow of the sea water from the Mediterranean. The water level rose in this period. Based on the glacial melt from this period and the information from the sediment cores I support the sediment records support the conclusions that only pulses of sea water occurred in this period as it did when there is equilibrium between the saline inflow from the sea water and the fresh to brackish sea water flowing out over the more saline inflow from the Mediterranean. The sediment records show some periodic in flow of sea water in the period in question, but the dominant source of the sediment remains glacial melt water in this period progressively moving toward the equilibrium where saline waters migrate under brackish water moving out the Bosporus straight.

The problem with the claim of the catastrophic flood is that even form the claim of Ryan and Pitman is that the supposed catastrophic flood took place over tens of years in Ryan and Pitman's conclusions, which you can walk away from particularly in the southern Mediterranean. It was in the North that the rise in sea level resulted in a large area and the apparent the migration away from the lowlands around the Black Sea.

In the Ryan and Pitman version there was NOT a catastrophic rise in the sea level of the Black Sea that you could not walk away from. Any populations along the Black Sea would simply move to the higher sea level and resettle.or migrate as occurred in the Northern regions where the region had the highest lost of territory of the productive fertile lowlands.

None of the options, neither the Ryan and Pittman nor the other options here describe a truly catastrophic flooding event, regardless of the source of the water during the in flow period. I go with the freshwater from glacial melt dominant over sea water, because of the nature of the sediment cores I referenced. I do not believe that the argument proposed by Ryan and Pittman actually results in a catastrophic flood. It is more a disagreement over the source of the in flow of water during the given period that eventually resulted in the equilibrium flow between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and the brackish nature of the Black Sea.

[shunyadragon]

I want to empacize two points here in the disagreement, not as much with Ryan and Pitman et el (1997, 2016), but with the interpretation of his work by others who consider the infilling of the Black Sea as a catastrophic flood event.

Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025322716302961

Cores were collected in transects across shelves of Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. Biogenic carbonate from these cores was analyzed for radiocarbon and strontium, oxygen, and carbon isotopes. Strontium results indicate that the submergence of the Black Sea shelf at 9300 calendar years BP was caused by the ingress of Mediterranean water and was abrupt, taking < 40 years.

© Copyright Original Source

The infilling is described as 'abrupt' in geologic terms, and not catastrophic with a time frame of <40 years.

Second, Ryan and Pitman and I actually agree that the erosion surface that existed prior to the infilling remains remarkable intact including sand dunes without any evidence of a catastrophic event.

[oxmixmudd]

I found the 2016 reference and understand the difference. The difference is the amount off fresh water from glacial melt versus the amount of saltwater in from the in flow of the sea water from the Mediterranean. The water level rose in this period. Based on the glacial melt from this period and the information from the sediment cores I support the sediment records support the conclusions that only pulses of sea water occurred in this period as it did when there is equilibrium between the saline inflow from the sea water and the fresh to brackish sea water flowing out over the more saline inflow from the Mediterranean. The sediment records show some periodic in flow of sea water in the period in question, but the dominant source of the sediment remains glacial melt water in this period progressively moving toward the equilibrium where saline waters migrate under brackish water moving out the Bosporus straight.

The problem with the claim of the catastrophic flood is that even form the claim of Ryan and Pitman is that the supposed catastrophic flood took place over tens of years in Ryan and Pitman's conclusions, which you can walk away from particularly in the southern Mediterranean. It was in the North that the rise in sea level resulted in a large area and the apparent the migration away from the lowlands around the Black Sea.

In the Ryan and Pitman version there was NOT a catastrophic rise in the sea level of the Black Sea that you could not walk away from. Any populations along the Black Sea would simply move to the higher sea level and resettle.or migrate as occurred in the Northern regions where the region had the highest lost of territory of the productive fertile lowlands.

None of the options, neither the Ryan and Pittman nor the other options here describe a truly catastrophic flooding event, regardless of the source of the water during the in flow period. I go with the freshwater from glacial melt dominant over sea water, because of the nature of the sediment cores I referenced. I do not believe that the argument proposed by Ryan and Pittman actually results in a catastrophic flood. It is more a disagreement over the source of the in flow of water during the given period that eventually resulted in the equilibrium flow between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and the brackish nature of the Black Sea.

That makes sense Shuny - it came across like you had an irrational aversion to the idea the Mediterranean breached and filled the Black Sea in what would have been a very spectacular event, if not catestrophic.

Yes - the 40 year timeframe means that only those fairly close to the breach itself would have experienced anything truly catestrophic that would require an ark to survive. And that is one of the reasons many don't find it convincing as a solution to the source event for the Noah's flood narrative. It would have needed to have occurred very quickly indeed (i.e. in the Biblical flood timeline of << 1 year for the initial flooding) to fit that bill.


Jim

[Adrift]

That makes sense Shuny - it came across like you had an irrational aversion to the idea the Mediterranean breached and filled the Black Sea in what would have been a very spectacular event, if not catestrophic.

Yes - the 40 year timeframe means that only those fairly close to the breach itself would have experienced anything truly catestrophic that would require an ark to survive. And that is one of the reasons many don't find it convincing as a solution to the source event for the Noah's flood narrative. It would have needed to have occurred very quickly indeed (i.e. in the Biblical flood timeline of << 1 year for the initial flooding) to fit that bill.


Jim

I don't really know if this report is actually relevant to the Biblical flood, but a couple things to point out. I suggest reading the paper which explains,

Source: Compilation of geophysical, geochronological, and geochemical evidence indicates a rapid Mediterranean-derived submergence of the Black Sea's shelf and subsequent substantial salinification in the early Holocene

This retreat of the shoreline lasted a maximum of 200 years if the inflow of water was no faster than that occurring today. However, it likely was nearly instantaneous given flow rates at the time of the breaching, lasting no longer than 40 years and possibly as little as a decade according to hydraulic calculations. The absence of detritus from strata beneath the α erosion surface in the initial coquina further supports that the transgression was a rapid flooding event and not a slow ravinement.

© Copyright Original Source

shunya did have a natural aversion to the ideas being bandied about here. He had already made up his mind about the subject before doing his googling. If there is a position that even hints at supporting a view that might be construed as supporting some sort of Christian claim, he will knee jerk be against it. It's not at all rational, it's just how he rolls.

shunya's reading comprehension is absolutely abysmal. Any reading he has of any article he posts is likely to be wrong. Most of the time he posts material that actually strengthens the claims he's unreasonably against. So always read his sources for yourself before assuming that he knows what he's talking about.



Totally off topic, would it be possible for you to pair down your signature a bit? It's probably just me, because no one else seems bothered by it, but your signature fills up more of your post than your actual posts do, and it's a lot of extraneous text to scroll through to get to the next post, or to figure out what you're actually posting on. If you're not interested in changing it, that's cool. Like I said, it's probably just me, and I just have to get used to it when I'm in threads that you're also in.

[oxmixmudd]

I don't really know if this report is actually relevant to the Biblical flood, but a couple things to point out. I suggest reading the paper which explains,

Source: Compilation of geophysical, geochronological, and geochemical evidence indicates a rapid Mediterranean-derived submergence of the Black Sea's shelf and subsequent substantial salinification in the early Holocene

This retreat of the shoreline lasted a maximum of 200 years if the inflow of water was no faster than that occurring today. However, it likely was nearly instantaneous given flow rates at the time of the breaching, lasting no longer than 40 years and possibly as little as a decade according to hydraulic calculations. The absence of detritus from strata beneath the α erosion surface in the initial coquina further supports that the transgression was a rapid flooding event and not a slow ravinement.

© Copyright Original Source

shunya did have a natural aversion to the ideas being bandied about here. He had already made up his mind about the subject before doing his googling. If there is a position that even hints at supporting a view that might be construed as supporting some sort of Christian claim, he will knee jerk be against it. It's not at all rational, it's just how he rolls.

shunya's reading comprehension is absolutely abysmal. Any reading he has of any article he posts is likely to be wrong. Most of the time he posts material that actually strengthens the claims he's unreasonably against. So always read his sources for yourself before assuming that he knows what he's talking about.



Totally off topic, would it be possible for you to pair down your signature a bit? It's probably just me, because no one else seems bothered by it, but your signature fills up more of your post than your actual posts do, and it's a lot of extraneous text to scroll through to get to the next post, or to figure out what you're actually posting on. If you're not interested in changing it, that's cool. Like I said, it's probably just me, and I just have to get used to it when I'm in threads that you're also in.

I've read the paper, but I was looking for Shuny to engage on what it was about it he thought was fatally flawed.

As for his aversion to anything that would supply support for something like a literal Biblical Flood, I've noticed, but it's not something that will change until I or someone else has objective evidence that overwhelmingly supports such a flood, or unless he changes his mind about the validity of the scriptures and Christian faith.

As for the sig, I was going to try to make it smaller - leaving the text but taking away the formatting I think will be sufficient. I just forgot to reset it after that last time you (or was it someone else?) mentioned it.


Jim

[Adrift]

I've read the paper, but I was looking for Shuny to engage on what it was about it he thought was fatally flawed.

Like I said, unfortunately he lacks the reading comprehension to engage meaningfully.

As for his aversion to anything that would supply support for something like a literal Biblical Flood, I've noticed, but it's not something that will change until I or someone else has objective evidence that overwhelmingly supports such a flood, or unless he changes his mind about the validity of the scriptures and Christian faith.

Experience has indicated that he's unlike to change his stance on an issue even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The most one can ever hope for might be a slight backpedal, and a denial that he ever made claims that anyone with eyes can see he's made. He's just too prideful to ever admit to being wrong in any substantial way.

As for the sig, I was going to try to make it smaller - leaving the text but taking away the formatting I think will be sufficient. I just forgot to reset it after that last time you (or was it someone else?) mentioned it.

Thanks, that's a lot better!

[oxmixmudd]

Like I said, unfortunately he lacks the reading comprehension to engage meaningfully.



Experience has indicated that he's unlike to change his stance on an issue even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The most one can ever hope for might be a slight backpedal, and a denial that he ever made claims that anyone with eyes can see he's made. He's just too prideful to ever admit to being wrong in any substantial way.



Thanks, that's a lot better!

I know shuNY and don't think he deserves that characterization. Internet discussions tend to lose the human factor at times. I think if there were some confirmed flood that was of sufficient scale in the middle east, he'd admit it was the source for the Noahs flood narrative. But he is not going to accept the religious ramifications of such a flood, at least not at this time :)

Jim

[Adrift]

I know shuNY and don't think he deserves that characterization.

And here I felt I was being charitable.

[Kbertsche]

I do not believe that the argument proposed by Ryan and Pittman actually results in a catastrophic flood. It is more a disagreement over the source of the in flow of water during the given period that eventually resulted in the equilibrium flow between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and the brackish nature of the Black Sea.

I don't believe that anyone here has used the adjective "catastrophic" to describe the Black Sea inundation. I certainly have not. I don't believe that Ryan or Pittman have called it "catastrophic", either.

To clarify, I am not proposing that the Black Sea inundation was the Flood of Noah. I raised the Black Sea inundation only as evidence that there has been at least one large regional flood which was unknown to geologists until relatively recently. If there was one, there could well be more, including one which involved Noah.

[Adrift]

I don't believe that anyone here has used the adjective "catastrophic" to describe the Black Sea inundation. I certainly have not. I don't believe that Ryan or Pittman have called it "catastrophic", either.

It's a word used in the paper he cited in post #66 as I point out in post #72. It's also the adjective used in the last sentence of the Criticism section that shunya ignored, which I mention in post #61.

[shunyadragon]

That makes sense Shuny - it came across like you had an irrational aversion to the idea the Mediterranean breached and filled the Black Sea in what would have been a very spectacular event, if not catestrophic.

Yes - the 40 year timeframe means that only those fairly close to the breach itself would have experienced anything truly catestrophic that would require an ark to survive. And that is one of the reasons many don't find it convincing as a solution to the source event for the Noah's flood narrative. It would have needed to have occurred very quickly indeed (i.e. in the Biblical flood timeline of << 1 year for the initial flooding) to fit that bill.


Jim

Actually it would only be spectacular from today's perspective. The Neolithic peoples along the rim of the Black Sea would simply walk away from the advancing waters and resettle inland.

[oxmixmudd]

Actually it would only be spectacular from today's perspective. The Neolithic peoples along the rim of the Black Sea would simply walk away from the advancing waters and resettle inland.

I was speaking of the area within view of the breach itself.

[shunyadragon]

I've read the paper, but I was looking for Shuny to engage on what it was about it he thought was fatally flawed.

What was fatally flawed was the argument that the in flow was a catastrophic flooding event. After reading Ryan and Pitman carefully I found that they did not propose this. Given the size of the Black Sea and the limits of the flow that could pass through the Bosporus Straits a catastrophic sudden flood is extremely unlikely. This agreed with my sources, that none of these sediments in the cores were flood deposited. My sources consider the rise of water to be dominantly from glacial ice melt fresh water over the period that sea level rose around the world with pulses of seawater from the Mediterranean, but that does not significantly change the argument.

As for his aversion to anything that would supply support for something like a literal Biblical Flood, I've noticed, but it's not something that will change until I or someone else has objective evidence that overwhelmingly supports such a flood, or unless he changes his mind about the validity of the scriptures and Christian faith.

I believe the scripture of Genesis is based on older Babylonian, Canaanite, and Ugarite mythology, and there is no basis in the geologic evidence for any such world wide or regional event. I brought out the evidence involving the Tigris and Euphrates River valley, which best fits the scenario of Genesis. All the events offered so far are local catastrophic river valley flooding events, the breaching of glacial lakes, which are local short term events.

[Adrift]

What was fatally flawed was the argument that the in flow was a catastrophic flooding event. After reading Ryan and Pitman carefully I found that they did not propose this.

After carefully reading Ryan and Pitman, you missed the paper titled " An abrupt drowning of the Black Sea Shelf" (1997) and "Catastrophic Flooding of the Black Sea" (2003), or any of their other works where they use the label "catastrophic"?

[shunyadragon]

After carefully reading Ryan and Pitman, you missed the paper titled " An abrupt drowning of the Black Sea Shelf" (1997) and "Catastrophic Flooding of the Black Sea" (2003), or any of their other works where they use the label "catastrophic"?

The evidence overwhelmingly indicates it is not catastrophic. The original land surface, and topography including sanddunes was covered by the advancing waters as is without any evidence of a catastrophic flood. the rise of the inflow of between 10 an 40 years is not remotely catastrophic.

Using the label catastrophic does not make it so. Enough research was done by a number of scientists document a different scenario as previously cited. The documentation in the Ryan and Pitman 2016 publication supports this with core evidence in their research that the original topography was preserved by the in flow of the combination of glacial melt from the north, and from the Mediterranean.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

According to a study by Liviu Giosan et al.,[16] the level in the Black Sea before the marine reconnection was 30 m (100 ft) below present sea level, rather than the 80 m (260 ft), or lower, of the catastrophe theories. If the flood occurred at all, the sea level increase and the flooded area during the reconnection were significantly smaller than previously proposed. It also occurred earlier than initially surmised, c. 7400 BC, rather than the originally proposed 5600 BC. Since the depth of the Bosphorus, in its middle furrow, at present varies from 36 to 124 m (118 to 407 ft), with an average depth of 65 m (213 ft), a calculated stone age shoreline in the Black Sea lying 30 m (100 ft) lower than in the present day would imply that the contact with the Mediterranean may never have been broken during the Holocene, and hence there could have been no sudden waterfall-style transgression.

A February 2009 article reported that the flooding might have been "quite mild".[17]

A 2012 study based on process length variation of the dinoflagellate cyst Lingulodinium machaerophorum shows no evidence for catastrophic flooding.

© Copyright Original Source