The problem of evidence for a Biblical Flood

[rogue06]

Local catastrophic river valley flooding events are possible for the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys, but not a regional flooding event.



Both Rogue06 and you are grasping at straws concerning the possibility of a regional flood that would be equivalent to the Genesis record.

Um... actually I was just providing an example of another massive ancient regional flood Another one that was just confirmed last year took place in China some 4000 years ago after a huge natural dam that was formed by an earthquake on the Yellow River: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/579

There were also a series of them in Altai, Russia resulting from ice dam failures during the Late Pleistocene (see Rudoy, A., 1998, Mountain ice-dammed lakes of southern Siberia and their influence on the development and regime of the intracontinental runoff systems of North Asia in the late Pleistocene, in Paleohydrology and Environmental Change) ETA: https://inside.mines.edu/UserFiles/F...iFlood_red.pdf as well

And of course there were a few in North America as well.

[rogue06]

have you read the 2016 Ryan article so referenced?

Your argument they must be wrong because they differ from other conclusions is invalid. That is never a valid reason to reject the results of a legitimate, reviewed, scientific paper.

In it they evaluate the 4 primary hypothesis governing the rise in the level of the black sea at the end of the last ice age. Evaluating each against a specific set of data and evidence. Their conclusion is that a relatively rapid infilling and greater depth change is the only hypothesis that is in agreement with all that evidence, and that the other three are specifically refuted by that evidence.

If they are wrong, they you need to define WHY they are wrong. This is a legitimate paper in a legitimate journal. It is one of the more recent evaluations of the data on this subject. Observing your response shuny - it does not look to me like the evaluations of one not predisposed to a certain conclusion.

Scientific history of full of consensus opinions upended by new evidence and new theories.

Summary of my basic position on this issue: The presence of an event that could serve as a legitimate explanation of Noah's flood is against the IDEOLOGY of many who would prefer it be pure myth. However, a vast flood described as 'world ending' is part of the cultural histories of a very large area of the middle east. To presume it has no basis in fact is not an objective position. Floods are natural events. Really big, catestrophic floods of various types were part of the last de-glaciation across the world. They are also the potential outcome of a sufficiently large, water based impact event. To presume then that a story of a 'world-wide' flood can only be explained by the unsophisticated over-exaggeration of some normal river flood is to presume these peoples were not very smart or not very sophisticated, and to deny potential known causes which were in play and which could have produced something more deserving of that description. In fact, such a general dismissal seems to me to be the more irrational, ideologically based position.

So from you I am looking for something more substantial in terms of a critique of this most recent paper promoting the idea of a more rapid rise in the Black Sea water level.

2016 ryan journal article : science direct


Jim

I read Ryan and Pitman's book not long after it came out. I found it intriguing but not entirely convincing.

[shunyadragon]

Um... actually I was just providing an example of another massive ancient regional flood Another one that was just confirmed last year took place in China some 4000 years ago after a huge natural dam that was formed by an earthquake on the Yellow River: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/579

There were also a series of them in Altai, Russia resulting from ice dam failures during the Late Pleistocene (see Rudoy, A., 1998, Mountain ice-dammed lakes of southern Siberia and their influence on the development and regime of the intracontinental runoff systems of North Asia in the late Pleistocene, in Paleohydrology and Environmental Change) ETA: https://inside.mines.edu/UserFiles/F...iFlood_red.pdf as well

And of course there were a few in North America as well.

Ice Age floods have already been addressed. None of these are remotely timely to explain a Genesis regional flood scenario.

The local river valley floods have already been addressed, and they are not regional floods,which I have already addressed.

By the way your North Sea example is bogus hyperbole, and the nature Sea level rise due to glacial melt that took place in the Black Sea is documented to have place over thousands of years.

My references documented that the rise of the sea level in the Dead Sea is due to glacial melt freshwater from the north and East River valleys over thousands of years, and not saltwater flooding from the Mediterranean.

[shunyadragon]

have you read the 2016 Ryan article so referenced?

Your argument they must be wrong because they differ from other conclusions is invalid. That is never a valid reason to reject the results of a legitimate, reviewed, scientific paper.

In it they evaluate the 4 primary hypothesis governing the rise in the level of the black sea at the end of the last ice age. Evaluating each against a specific set of data and evidence. Their conclusion is that a relatively rapid infilling and greater depth change is the only hypothesis that is in agreement with all that evidence, and that the other three are specifically refuted by that evidence.

If they are wrong, they you need to define WHY they are wrong. This is a legitimate paper in a legitimate journal. It is one of the more recent evaluations of the data on this subject. Observing your response shuny - it does not look to me like the evaluations of one not predisposed to a certain conclusion.

Scientific history of full of consensus opinions upended by new evidence and new theories.

Summary of my basic position on this issue: The presence of an event that could serve as a legitimate explanation of Noah's flood is against the IDEOLOGY of many who would prefer it be pure myth. However, a vast flood described as 'world ending' is part of the cultural histories of a very large area of the middle east. To presume it has no basis in fact is not an objective position. Floods are natural events. Really big, catestrophic floods of various types were part of the last de-glaciation across the world. They are also the potential outcome of a sufficiently large, water based impact event. To presume then that a story of a 'world-wide' flood can only be explained by the unsophisticated over-exaggeration of some normal river flood is to presume these peoples were not very smart or not very sophisticated, and to deny potential known causes which were in play and which could have produced something more deserving of that description. In fact, such a general dismissal seems to me to be the more irrational, ideologically based position.

So from you I am looking for something more substantial in terms of a critique of this most recent paper promoting the idea of a more rapid rise in the Black Sea water level.

2016 ryan journal article : science direct


Jim

Actually NO!!!! I presented a number of academic research articles that documented that the source of infilling of the Black sea is glacial melt freshwater from the North and East over thousands of years. I am a geomorphologist and I understand the nature of sediment from freshwater especially when the cores describe varved layers cited in the literature, and not from sea water that would come from a sea water flooding. The sources are very specific that the sediment in the Holocene after the Glacial Maximum was mostly or entirely sediment from glacial melt from rivers in the north, and the East, and it was not a catastrophic deposition, but took place over thousands of years in discrete sediment layers.

I sampled, tested and mapped soils, and drilling cores for deeper deposits based on the difference between freshwater sources and sea water sources, and part of the criteria used in the Black Sea is the same.

By the way I can provide many more articles on research on the Black Sea sediments and the nature of deposition over recent geologic history.

[oxmixmudd]

I read Ryan and Pitman's book not long after it came out. I found it intriguing but not entirely convincing.

Not sure how that applies to this more recent paper.

I don't really have a bone in this fight, buy shuny is arguing from authority, not evidence. I never find that approach very convincing. He needs to give a reason why they are wrong - a reason why the lines of evidence he is quoting should be considered more viable than the elements Ryan et al address in the 2016 paper.

Jim

[shunyadragon]

Not sure how that applies to this more recent paper.

I don't really have a bone in this fight, buy shuny is arguing from authority, not evidence. I never find that approach very convincing. He needs to give a reason why they are wrong - a reason why the lines of evidence he is quoting should be considered more viable than the elements Ryan et al address in the 2016 paper.

Jim

Not so! I am arguing from the evidence and the academic literature I cited that clearly documents that the infilling of the Black Sea was from freshwater glacial melt over thousands of years in discrete layers and varves, and absolutely no evidence of a sudden flooding by sea water from the Mediterranean in the sediments in the cores.

[Kbertsche]

Actually NO!!!! I presented a number of academic research articles that documented that the source of infilling of the Black sea is glacial melt freshwater from the North and East over thousands of years. I am a geomorphologist and I understand the nature of sediment from freshwater especially when the cores describe varved layers cited in the literature, and not from sea water that would come from a sea water flooding. The sources are very specific that the sediment in the Holocene after the Glacial Maximum was mostly or entirely sediment from glacial melt from rivers in the north, and the East, and it was not a catastrophic deposition, but took place over thousands of years in discrete sediment layers.

I sampled, tested and mapped soils, and drilling cores for deeper deposits based on the difference between freshwater sources and sea water sources, and part of the criteria used in the Black Sea is the same.

By the way I can provide many more articles on research on the Black Sea sediments and the nature of deposition over recent geologic history.

Shuny, you seem to be confusing two different things. The Ryan and Pittman book documents both, and the more recent paper by Ryan et al apparently adds some corrections.

You seem to be talking about slow, long-term oscillations in the salinity of the Black Sea. But there was also an abrupt bursting of the earthen dam in the Bosporus straights at about 5600 BC. This burst caused a rapid increase in Black Sea salinity and rapidly raised the Black Sea surface level. There is solid geologic evidence for this event, as documented by Ryan and Pittman. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood

[oxmixmudd]

Actually many scientists by far consider the major post glacial filling to come from Glacial melt rivers from the East (Danube) and North, which later equalize data higher sea level, and the following research showed heavy outflow south, because of glacial melt flowing in from the North and East resulted in the formation of a delta south of the Bosphorus straight during the period some claim the Black Sea flooded. It is actual physical evidence of a delta.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305761612_Early_Holocene_age_and_provenance_of_a_mid-shelf_delta_lobe_south_of_the_Strait_of_Bosphorus_Turkey_and_its_link_to_vigorous_Black_Sea_outflow

Early Holocene age and provenance of a mid-shelf delta lobe south of the Strait of Bosphorus, Turkey, and its link to vigorous Black Sea outflow

© Copyright Original Source

At best you are dealing with a controversy with some scientists on one side and some on the other. Ryan et all are well published on this issue. It is not just a few papers on the fringe. There is clearly legitimate debate to be made here. It seems to me, again, that you are motivated by more than just science in your characterization of the idea and the science behind it.

And again I ask: Have you read the 2016 paper I referenced and can you produce a meaningful rebuttal of it?

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Not so! I am arguing from the evidence and the academic literature I cited that clearly documents that the infilling of the Black Sea was from freshwater glacial melt over thousands of years in discrete layers and varves, and absolutely no evidence of a sudden flooding by sea water from the Mediterranean in the sediments in the cores.

IF there is "Absolutely no evidence" - then why do respected journals keep publishing his work? Comments like this make no sense at all Shuny. It's not like the guy can only get a read from the YEC crowd.

Jim

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you seem to be confusing two different things. The Ryan and Pittman book documents both, and the more recent paper by Ryan et al apparently adds some corrections.

You seem to be talking about slow, long-term oscillations in the salinity of the Black Sea. But there was also an abrupt bursting of the earthen dam in the Bosporus straights at about 5600 BC. This burst caused a rapid increase in Black Sea salinity and rapidly raised the Black Sea surface level. There is solid geologic evidence for this event, as documented by Ryan and Pittman. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood

No, there is not. Read your source again there two sides,and it does not say 'there is solid geologic evidence for a flood.' One paper I cited documents a Delta formed at south end of the Bosporus straights during the period that Ryan and Pitman and others claim the Black Sea flooded. The evidence I cited clearly documents that the filling of the Black Sea by Glacial melt fresh water, and the strata in all cores show varves and fine strata of terrestrial sediment, and no flood deposited sediments from sea water flooding from the Mediterranean.

Geographically it is very logical given the vast river systems flowing from the North draining the regions of glacial melt from the North the flow into the Black Sea will be freshwater from the North.

[Kbertsche]

No, there is not. Read your source again there two sides,and it does not say 'there is solid geologic evidence for a flood.' One paper I cited documents a Delta formed at south end of the Bosporus straights during the period that Ryan and Pitman and others claim the Black Sea flooded. The evidence I cited clearly documents that the filling of the Black Sea by Glacial melt fresh water, and the strata in all cores show varves and fine strata of terrestrial sediment, and no flood deposited sediments from sea water flooding from the Mediterranean.

Geographically it is very logical given the vast river systems flowing from the North draining the regions of glacial melt from the North the flow into the Black Sea will be freshwater from the North.

Having solid scientific evidence does NOT mean that there is no controversy. It just means that there is solid evidence to support the claim. There may also be evidence which doesn't fit the claim, and which supports competing claims.

[oxmixmudd]

No, there is not. Read your source again there two sides,and it does not say 'there is solid geologic evidence for a flood.' One paper I cited documents a Delta formed at south end of the Bosporus straights during the period that Ryan and Pitman and others claim the Black Sea flooded. The evidence I cited clearly documents that the filling of the Black Sea by Glacial melt fresh water, and the strata in all cores show varves and fine strata of terrestrial sediment, and no flood deposited sediments from sea water flooding from the Mediterranean.

Geographically it is very logical given the vast river systems flowing from the North draining the regions of glacial melt from the North the flow into the Black Sea will be freshwater from the North.

This is not slam-dunk kind of science. Again, Ryan must be making a stronger case than you imply, or he would not be able to keep getting published on the issue - no?

The first thing to clarify would be dates and timeframes. The 2016 Ryan paper advocates for 9300 calander year BP. Your own quote shows this freshwater delta being formed somewhere between 2000 and 1000 years before that (11.2 to 10.1 cal ca). The delta is between 40 and 70m below current depth. Does this kill Ryans theory or is it consistent with it? Can you please actually address what Ryan is saying and why you think it is false. You said same timeframe for the delta quote, but it is separated by as much as 2000 years (2000 years is NOT noise in this case, it is substantially more than the quoted error bars and represents a nearly 20% difference). That is something you need to explain, or a mistake you have made (or a mistake I made interpreting the dates presented).

Further, let's suppose some data fully supports Ryan, and other data stand firmly against it. Isn't that why there is a debate? Why not discuss them both and explain why you lean one way or the other? Again, those that peer-reviewed Ryan's paper and decided to publish it certainly think he has a viable case for his point of view, or they would not have taken the risk of ruining their own reputation by publishing it - yes?

Jim

[shunyadragon]

Having solid scientific evidence does NOT mean that there is no controversy. It just means that there is solid evidence to support the claim. There may also be evidence which doesn't fit the claim, and which supports competing claims.

I see no solid evidence for the claim of Ryan and Pitman, because there is no evidence for flood deposited sediments from the Mediterranean in the Black Sea.

[oxmixmudd]

From the conclusion of the 2016 paper:

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

The evidence in the form of stable isotopes, radiocarbon ages, 87Sr/86Sr measurements, and reflection profiles from shelf cores on the Ukrainian, Romanian, Bulgarian, and Turkish margins allow the evaluation of four competing hypotheses regarding the reconnection of the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and thus the global ocean following the last ice age. Three of the hypotheses are inconsistent with the observations. The evidence supports the fourth hypothesis indicating that a sudden submergence of the Black Sea shelf and subsequent rapid salinification of its water at 9300 calendar years BP was a consequence of the inflow of Mediterranean water

© Copyright Original Source

So - Ryan et al feel equally strongly as you. Of course, he makes this statement after laying out an extensive case which addresses many of the issues you have raised.

Again - I'm not so much arguing for Ryan as against your abrupt dismissal without addressing the issues he raises in his work, specifically this latest paper, which directly address the evidence you are using to dismiss his hypothesis.


Jim

[shunyadragon]

This is not slam-dunk kind of science. Again, Ryan must be making a stronger case than you imply, or he would not be able to keep getting published on the issue - no?

The first thing to clarify would be dates and timeframes. The 2016 Ryan paper advocates for 9300 calander year BP. Your own quote shows this freshwater delta being formed somewhere between 2000 and 1000 years before that (11.2 to 10.1 cal ca). The delta is between 40 and 70m below current depth. Does this kill Ryans theory or is it consistent with it? Can you please actually address what Ryan is saying and why you think it is false. You said same timeframe for the delta quote, but it is separated by as much as 2000 years (2000 years is NOT noise in this case, it is substantially more than the quoted error bars and represents a nearly 20% difference). That is something you need to explain, or a mistake you have made (or a mistake I made interpreting the dates presented).

Further, let's suppose some data fully supports Ryan, and other data stand firmly against it. Isn't that why there is a debate? Why not discuss them both and explain why you lean one way or the other? Again, those that peer-reviewed Ryan's paper and decided to publish it certainly think he has a viable case for his point of view, or they would not have taken the risk of ruining their own reputation by publishing it - yes?

Jim

First problem with the 2016 Ryan and Pitman reference I do not have access to this, but I do know that there 1997 work did not cite any the references I have cited. If any one has their 2016 work please post it, or at least post relevant portions concerning their interpretation of the core data now available.

Second, all I can do is cite the numerous sources that do cite the core data conclude that there was none or no significant in flow from the Mediterranean, and definitely no core evidence for a sudden flood event from the Mediterranean. I have not found any references that cite core data that supports a flood event into the Black Sea. If anyone finds a reference please post it.