Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The problem of evidence for a Biblical Flood

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    He asked about a 2016 article and you provided one from 2003.
    I intended to provide both here is the 2016 article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...25322716302961
    which revises they update the dates and length of time of the in fill of the Black Sea.

    In the 1997 article here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...25322797000078

    They proposes a catastrophic deluge of less than a year at ~5600 BC. In 2016 he proposed a more accurate date ~9600 BP for an abrupt inflow, and in this article he dropped the concept that it was catastrophic, and described it as an abrupt infill dominantly from the Mediterranean.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      And neither of those article are authored by the Ryan and Pitman. What an embarrassing mess.
      Not embarrassing at all, just an error.

      I intended to provide both here is the 2016 article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...25322716302961
      which revises they update the dates and length of time of the in fill of the Black Sea.

      In the 1997 article here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...25322797000078

      In 1997 they proposes a catastrophic deluge of less than a year at ~5600 BC. In 2016 he proposed a more accurate date ~9600 BP for an abrupt inflow, and in this article he dropped the concept that it was catastrophic, and described it as an abrupt infill dominantly from the Mediterranean. It is by far a more accurate research article for his argument citing more sources and documentation.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Not embarrassing at all, just an error.

        I intended to provide both here is the 2016 article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...25322716302961
        which revises they update the dates and length of time of the in fill of the Black Sea.

        In the 1997 article here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...25322797000078

        In 1997 they proposes a catastrophic deluge of less than a year at ~5600 BC. In 2016 he proposed a more accurate date ~9600 BP for an abrupt inflow, and in this article he dropped the concept that it was catastrophic, and described it as an abrupt infill dominantly from the Mediterranean. It is by far a more accurate research article for his argument citing more sources and documentation.
        That isn't an article by Ptiman and Ryan, that's an article by Ryan, Yanchilina, McManus, Slavova, Filipova-Marinova, and the Dimitrovs. They do not drop the concept that it was catastrophic, in fact they cite their own works, and the works of others that refer back to that catastrophic state including Ryan et al. "Catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea" 2003. They point out that the retreat of the shoreline would have been instantaneous, and that this would have been a "rapid flooding event and not a slow ravinement." That the full flooding of this massive area would have taken no more than 40 years, but possibly as little as a decade. There's of course no way of knowing whether or not this was the flood mentioned in the Bible, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or other places, but certainly a rapid flooding event of this large of an area would have displaced plenty of inhabitants, and would have been catastrophic.

        Regardless, you've absolutely failed to back your claim,
        "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."

        Anyone with eyes can absolutely see that they did propose it. You were wrong. Stop being so prideful and admit it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          That isn't an article by Ptiman and Ryan, that's an article by Ryan, Yanchilina, McManus, Slavova, Filipova-Marinova, and the Dimitrovs. They do not drop the concept that it was catastrophic, in fact they cite their own works, and the works of others that refer back to that catastrophic state including Ryan et al. "Catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea" 2003. They point out that the retreat of the shoreline would have been instantaneous, and that this would have been a "rapid flooding event and not a slow ravinement." That the full flooding of this massive area would have taken no more than 40 years, but possibly as little as a decade. There's of course no way of knowing whether or not this was the flood mentioned in the Bible, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or other places, but certainly a rapid flooding event of this large of an area would have displaced plenty of inhabitants, and would have been catastrophic.

          Regardless, you've absolutely failed to back your claim,
          "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."

          Anyone with eyes can absolutely see that they did propose it. You were wrong. Stop being so prideful and admit it.
          It was the 2016 article that is the most comprehensive of the data, and concluded that the event was not catastrophic. Error on my part is that Pitman was not included as an author, but Ryan was. My view is based on this latest most comprehensive article that corrected the age of in flow, and rejected Ryan and Pitman (1997) article describing the inflow as catastrophic occurring in ~300 days. They cite their previous work, but in this article do not confirm nor conclude that the event was catastrophic. That is not what the article concludes.

          You are misrepresenting the 2003 article, and being selective in your references of the abstract. At present the abstract is all that is available unless you pay $$$.

          In the abstract it referred to the Ryan and Pitman claim of the event as being catastrophic, and clearly stated that a one to two year catastrophic in flow claimed by the 1997 article (~300 day in flow) was impossible. The abstract stated that the article would review and evaluate different scenarios of a time frame from different sources, but the rest of the article was not available, and you lack the conclusions of the 2003 article. If you can cite the conclusions, please do, but until you do you will get nowhere just citing the abstract

          The 2003 article evaluates a number of alternatives including:

          Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025322703002251


          A hydraulic model is also used to examine the more traditional connection hypothesis of (near-)continuous freshwater outflow from the Black Sea, with a slowly increasing saline inflow from the Mediterranean beginning around 8–9 kyr BP. The model considers two forms for the structure of the Bosphorus . . .

          © Copyright Original Source

          Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-19-2017, 08:16 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            The extreme view that the breach at the Bosporus Straights as claimed would have been spectacular, and not all researchers agree would not result in a catastrophic event. Think of this in terms of actual hydraulics and physics, and the actual water falls and cascades that may have been spectacular (If we take the extreme view, and not all scientists hold this view), but the water and energy will be dissipated over the vast size of the Black Sea over time. If you know anything about the physics the results possibly may be abrupt in a geologic time frame, but by no means catastrophic.
            I'm going to attribute your last sentence to simple clumsiness on your part, for clearly I know enough about physics to understand that. However, if the breach involved significant outflow and a sinificant change in ekevation, as has been proposed, then at the source it would have been significantly more spectaclar than Niagra. And that was the point. Local villages in the path of the flow would have been catestrophically destroyed.

            Don't let your bias against the biblical flood narrative cause you to over down play the potential significance of the event. In general, when a person downplays the significance of the event, it points to insecurity about the conclusions that might be derived from it. In your case, your attempts to treat this event as something 'normal' belie a certain amount of willingness to color the facts to avoid lend credence to the idea this event might be a source for the Flood narrative. Something that a person interested in what is true over ideology would not find necessary.

            Jim
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              It was the 2016 article that is the most comprehensive of the data, and concluded that the event was not catastrophic. Error on my part is that Pitman was not included as an author, but Ryan was.
              Finally. It's like pulling teeth from you to get you to acknowledge you messed up. Look back through your posts in this thread. See all the times you've committed errors? A reasonable person might consider that perhaps they do not have such a good grasp on the material and should bow out of the conversation. That is, if you were a reasonable person.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              My view is based on this latest most comprehensive article that corrected the age of in flow, and rejected Ryan and Pitman (1997) article describing the inflow as catastrophic occurring in ~300 days. They cite their previous work, but in this article do not confirm nor conclude that the event was catastrophic. That is not what the article concludes.
              It does, which I've answered in the post above.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              You are misrepresenting the 2003 article, and being selective in your references of the abstract. At present the abstract is all that is available unless you pay $$$.

              In the abstract it referred to the Ryan and Pitman claim of the event as being catastrophic, and clearly stated that a one to two year catastrophic in flow claimed by the 1997 article (~300 day in flow) was impossible. The abstract stated that the article would review and evaluate different scenarios of a time frame from different sources, but the rest of the article was not available, and you lack the conclusions of the 2003 article. If you can cite the conclusions, please do, but until you do you will get nowhere just citing the abstract

              The 2003 article evaluates a number of alternatives including:

              Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025322703002251


              A hydraulic model is also used to examine the more traditional connection hypothesis of (near-)continuous freshwater outflow from the Black Sea, with a slowly increasing saline inflow from the Mediterranean beginning around 8–9 kyr BP. The model considers two forms for the structure of the Bosphorus . . .

              © Copyright Original Source

              I haven't mentioned the 2003 article by Myers, Wielki, Goldstein, and Rohling. How could I possibly misrepresent something I've never even mentioned? And anyways, Ryan and company disagree with the 2003 paper in their 2016 paper as I've highlighted numerous time already,

              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.
              Last edited by Adrift; 03-19-2017, 11:42 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                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.
                This supports the conclusion of the of the 2016 article that the in flow was not catastrophic.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  This supports the conclusion of the of the 2016 article that the in flow was not catastrophic.
                  Supports the conclusion of the 2016 article? It's from the 2016 article! Did you read it? I even told you it was from their 2016 article. Ok, I'm done. You have demonstrated once again that you're completely out of your depth and that you lack the reading comprehension to know up from down.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    Supports the conclusion of the 2016 article? It's from the 2016 article! Did you read it? I even told you it was from their 2016 article. Ok, I'm done. You have demonstrated once again that you're completely out of your depth and that you lack the reading comprehension to know up from down.
                    You failed to cite which article it was from. It would be nice to have an actual internet reference for the 2003 article. Nonetheless, it is not a catastrophic rate of in fill as was claimed in the 1997 article.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-19-2017, 05:44 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                    48 responses
                    135 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Sparko
                    by Sparko
                     
                    Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                    16 responses
                    74 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                    6 responses
                    48 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Working...
                    X