is it cherry-picking or careful reading? how can a faith be based on an old book?

[shunyadragon]

PS... I don't see where science has disproved The Flood. They simply see what they want to see as they interpret the evidence. The all agree that there were many "catastrophic local floods", they just don't want it to be a global flood. That's why they since go back and forth between those who believe and those who don't.

The scientists do agree that there were "catastrophic local floods," but they are as a matter of fact of known natural causes at different times and places, and of defined local extent. The natural cause of by far most "catastrophic local floods" is directly related to the end of the last Ice Age. Some "local catastrophic floods." are river valley floods like the Yantzu River Valley, and Tigress Euphrates Valley floods that can be specifically dated with natural causes.

As far as scientists there is NO back and forth confusion in recent years concerning the cause and context of "catastrophic local floods."

The evidence is clear and specific, by far most of the land surface of the earth has not been effected "catastrophic floods."

In fact by far 70%+ present land surface of the earth has be gradually eroding for millions of years. Large areas of the surface of the earth are ancient flat surfaces called peneplains that have shown no erosion nor deposition for at least hundreds of thousands of years. Other areas show volcanic deposition over the past hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.

No!?!? scientists do not just see what they want see. They see what the mater of fact objective verifiable geologic and geomorphologic evidence demonstrates. There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence for any larger scale flood beyond "local catastrophic floods."

The evidence indicates that the Biblical flood myth originates from datable "local catastrophic floods." of the Tigris Euphrates Valley.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, the Quran seems more like a cut and paste than the Tanakh

Because much of it is cut and pasted from the Jewish scripture

 

[whirlingmerc]

It should not be cherry picking but stepping back and looking at the book as a whole.
And why wouldn;t truth come from an old book?

Malachi's didactic diagnosis of strong and weak loves with prognosi…

 

[Kenny]

Well as you keep shying away from discussions, we can't examine your evidence. Feel free to start a thread if you have any confidence on any subject you like.

It was your statement! Here Jesus (pbuh) trusted, relied, quoted all that was written it with one quick stroke of keys, you just threw away your heritage by saying

The Bible is written mostly by unknown writers cutting and pasting when the Jews came out of captivity. Any blanks they had, were filled in with the limited knowledge of the time

and insulted the prophets. (mghmoys)

 

[Kenny]

Because much of it is cut and pasted from the Jewish scripture

touche'!!!

 

[Skwim]

It should not be cherry picking but stepping back and looking at the book as a whole.

When I've done this it comes out looking like a bag of tales, scattered bits of selected history, myths, whoppers, focused devotions, and contradictions. What's a person to do with such a book?

And why wouldn;t truth come from an old book?

Why would it? If you're going to claim that truth comes from the Bible then ya gotta show your evidence if you want to be believed.
.

 

[Kenny]

Ye

The scientists do agree that there were "catastrophic local floods," but they are as a matter of fact of known natural causes at different times and places, and of defined local extent. The natural cause of by far most "catastrophic local floods" is directly related to the end of the last Ice Age. Some "local catastrophic floods." are river valley floods like the Yantzu River Valley, and Tigress Euphrates Valley floods that can be specifically dated with natural causes.

As far as scientists there is NO back and forth confusion in recent years concerning the cause and context of "catastrophic local floods."

The evidence is clear and specific, by far most of the land surface of the earth has not been effected "catastrophic floods."

In fact by far 70%+ present land surface of the earth has be gradually eroding for millions of years. Large areas of the surface of the earth are ancient flat surfaces called peneplains that have shown no erosion nor deposition for at least hundreds of thousands of years. Other areas show volcanic deposition over the past hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.

No!?!? scientists do not just see what they want see. They see what the mater of fact objective verifiable geologic and geomorphologic evidence demonstrates. There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence for any larger scale flood beyond "local catastrophic floods."

The evidence indicates that the Biblical flood myth originates from datable "local catastrophic floods." of the Tigris Euphrates Valley.

Yes, you have correctly established the position of those who believe in the local catastrophic floods.

Although there are a plethora of sites that hold a different view, ABC had a small piece:New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood Happened

Certainly we know that science continues to correct itself over time.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, the Quran seems more like a cut and paste than the Tanakh

The cut and paste history of the gospels and letters are better documented, but yes the cut and paste history of the Pentateuch is also well documented with different sources of the materials going back to Babylonian, Ugarit, and Canaanite sources.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ye

Yes, you have correctly established the position of those who believe in the local catastrophic floods.

Which has not changed based on the objective verifiable geologic evidence in recent history.

Although there are a plethora of sites that hold a different view, ABC had a small piece:New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood Happened. [/quote]

You are greatly over stating Robert Ballard's work concerning the Great Flood. He only researched the Black Sea flood, which involved only the are around the Black Sea, and offers no evidence of any flood beyond that.

The cultures living around the Black Sea at the time were limited, and for the most part they could have simply walked away from the flood event.

Yes, it is well documented that Sea level rose since the retreat the retreat of the last glaciation. The actual area involved with inundation of the Black Sea basin is not that large,

It is hyperbole that the Black Sea Flood was anything more than an immediate flooding of the immediate region around the Black Sea.

Certainly we know that science continues to correct itself over time.

In the case of the history of "catastrophic floods," there is overwhelming evidence that will not change, I am geologist and geomorphologist by profession with several published articles, and no there is no chance that the current science of the "catastrophic floods." and lack of history of flooding over most of the globe will not change,

The recent history of the Black Sea flood is only one more of the "local catastrophic flood events that occurred because of the ending of that last glaciation, Nothing new.

 

[Kenny]

You are greatly over stating Robert Ballard's work concerning the Great Flood. He only researched the Black Sea flood, which involved only the are around the Black Sea, and offers no evidence of any flood beyond that.

I said there are a plethora of information that can be accessed. All I said is that there were scientists that believed differently and I supported, successfully, my claim.

Unless Robert Ballard isn't a scientist, then you could refute my statement.

Science DOES change positions when additional information is discovered. Scientists didn't support Einstein's theory of relativity at the beginning until further evidence was produced.

As a geologist that you are, just because someone else interprets the information differently than you doesn't necessarily mean that they (or you) are wrong. There is simply two different viewpoints on the same evidence as is common many times in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

The latest published research (2016-2017) on the Black Sea flood demonstrates that the event took ~40 years, and yes though an abrupt refilling of boundary of the Black Sea. The people settled there could have walked away from the advancing water.

From:
Marine Geology
Volume 383, 1 January 2017, Pages 14-34

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
. Author links open the author workspace.Anastasia G.Yanchilinaa.

Abstract
Our knowledge of rate and processes in which semi-enclosed environments alternate from lacustrine to marine is commonly limited because of the paucity of specific proxies for sea level and salinity. Here we investigate the timing, rate, and key mechanisms involved in the transformation of the previously isolated Black Sea-Lake to the modern partly-enclosed marine sea using a suite of geophysical, geochemical, and geochronological methods.

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. The seismic reflection profiles show a uniform drape of subsequent sediment over aeolian dunes indicating a drowning with no time for erosion accompanying the submergence. Moisture measurements beneath the uniform drape indicate that the shelf was dry before submergence and the shoreline of the Preboreal lake may have regressed to beyond 120 mbsl. Mollusks colonized the newly submerged substrate of the inner shelf at the same time as they colonized the outer shelf. The succession of mollusk species with shells whose strontium isotope composition has a marine component indicates a rising salinity. The transformation of the lake to a sea is affirmed by increases in the shells' strontium and oxygen isotopic ratios towards the external ocean value.

Radiocarbon years are calibrated to calendar years by tuning the oxygen and carbon isotope composition of the mollusk record to that of the U/Th dated Sofular Cave stalagmites. The match shows a reduction of the lake's prior high reservoir age accompanying the inflow of the Mediterranean water. In 900 years the salinity reached a threshold that excluded all previous Black Sea lacustrine fauna. These results imply that any substantial postglacial submergence of the Black Sea shelves did not occur prior to entry of Mediterranean water.

 

[Kenny]

Radiocarbon years are calibrated to calendar years by tuning the oxygen and carbon isotope composition of the mollusk record to that of the U/Th dated Sofular Cave stalagmites..

AGAIN... as people look at the same evidence but come to different conclusions: this date is considered inflated because freshwater shellfish, which ingest a great deal of long-dead plant material, commonly carbon date much older than their actual age.

• Keith, M.L.; Anderson, G.M. (1963). "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells". Science. 141 (3581): 634–637. PMID 17781758. doi:10.1126/science.141.3581.634.

NOW....

IF... basically EVERYONE knows that mollusks can give fictitious results... one must only wonder WHY did they use it. Is it because it would throw them into a tailspin as far as global floods? Were they cherry picking so they could get the results they were looking for?

SO....

I continue to stand in that there are scientists that view the results differently.

 

[shunyadragon]

I said there are a plethora of information that can be accessed. All I said is that there were scientists that believed differently and I supported, successfully, my claim.

Unless Robert Ballard isn't a scientist, then you could refute my claim.

As referenced Ballard's work only involves one "local catastrophic event, which based on the latest research was not catastrophic at all.

Citing Ballard's research of one local flood event, which is already outdated, does not represent a plethora of information you claim can be accessed, which in reality does not exists

Science DOES change positions when additional information is discovered.

True, but your classic fallacy 'argument from ignorance' fails to provide any change in the existing view of geology for more than 50 years. The surface of the earth, including mountain building, continental drift, geologic erosion and deposition, glaciation, and volcanic depositions documented as uniform and continuous and uniform of millions of years. Modern Satellite covering every square inch of the earth pretty much discounts any new discoveries in this field, only refining the current knowledge of geologic science.

plethora of evidence?????????

You have cited nothing new, including Ballard's research.

Still waiting . . .

Scientists didn't support Einstein's theory of relativity at the beginning until further evidence was produced.

Not relevant to this discussion on Geology and Geomorphoilogy, for which unlike physics and sciences like Quantume Mechanics there is no room for a significant change in the conclusions based on the overwhelming evidence.

As a geologist that you are, just because someone else interprets the information differently than you doesn't necessarily mean that they (or you) are wrong. There is simply two different viewpoints on the same evidence as is common many times in science.

Even Ballard does not interpret the evidence as reflecting a world flood, and more recent research has demonstrated that the flood was not catastrophic.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The Bible does use the word all quote generously in those chapters.... the waters covered all thr high mountains undaer all the heavens ... and more... but in the end you only need to migrate if the flood was local and a boat would not be needed

The RATE project had some interesting conclusions about various radioactive processes.... C14 in cambrian diamonds, helium in zircons, etc...

 

[shunyadragon]

AGAIN... as people look at the same evidence but come to different conclusions: this date is considered inflated because freshwater shellfish, which ingest a great deal of long-dead plant material, commonly carbon date much older than their actual age.

• Keith, M.L.; Anderson, G.M. (1963). "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells". Science. 141 (3581): 634–637. PMID 17781758. doi:10.1126/science.141.3581.634.

NOW....

IF... basically EVERYONE knows that mollusks can give fictitious results... one must only wonder WHY did they use it. Is it because it would throw them into a tailspin as far as global floods? Were they cherry picking so they could get the results they were looking for?

SO....

I continue to stand in that there are scientists that view the results differently.

You have not provided anything where scientists of any account demonstrated the vast volumes of geologic and geomorphologic objective verifiable evidence as representing any sort of world flood.

Citing one article here or there does not get you very far, even Ballard's conclusions do not support a world flood.

Still waiting . . .

Actually, your type of argument against the overwhelming objective verifiable evidence trying in desperation to justify a YEC or OEC world view based on the Bible, including the 'Flood' in general supports the contention of the thread that the 'old book' is not relevant to today's world and cherry-picking, and exterme jerrymandering beyond belief is required.

The scientists do agree that there were "catastrophic local floods," but they are as a matter of fact of known natural causes at different times and places, and of defined local extent. The natural cause of by far most "catastrophic local floods" is directly related to the end of the last Ice Age. Some "local catastrophic floods." are river valley floods like the Yantzu River Valley, and Tigress Euphrates Valley floods that can be specifically dated with natural causes.

As far as scientists there is NO back and forth confusion in recent years concerning the cause and context of "catastrophic local floods."

The evidence is clear and specific, by far most of the land surface of the earth has not been effected "catastrophic floods."

Where is this back and forth on the conclusion on the nature of "local catastrophic flooding?"

I know of no scientists that have used objective verifiable evidence to change the conclusion that these "local catastrophic floods" are anything more than "local catastrophic flooding." Ballard did reach that conclusion.

Virtually all geologists and geomorphologists support the conclusions I presented without reservation including Ballard. an oceanographer

 

[Kenny]

As referenced Ballard's work only involves one "local catastrophic event, which based on the latest research was not catastrophic at all.

Citing Ballard's research of one local flood event, which is already outdated, does not represent a plethora of information you claim can be accessed, which in reality does not exists

I said... it is on the internet... I'm not doing the work for you.

My point was simply to say that there are those who believe differently and gave you a scientist to back my claim. You haven't refuted the point.

that you want to accept the fact that there are those who counter the claim is not my problem.

 

[Kenny]

Virtually all geologists and geomorphologists support the conclusions I presented without reservation including Ballard. an oceanographer

1) You didn't even acknowledge the mollusk fallacy that has been scientifically proven. (It puts you in a very bad light)
2) So why would I even take you word on this?

 

[shunyadragon]

1) You didn't even acknowledge the mollusk fallacy that has been scientifically proven. (It puts you in a very bad light)
2) So why would I even take you word on this?

. . . because it is not the topic.

This is one reference dealing with a problem of dating of mollusk shells and not even relevant to the topic. Please stay on topic. All this demonstrates is science resolves differences through research over time. This in no way falsifies radiometric dating, which would be different thread and different subject

Still waiting . . .

 

[Kenny]

This is one reference dealing with a problem of dating of mollusk shells and not even relevant to the topic. Please stay on topic. All this demonstrates is science resolves differences through research over time. This in no way falsifies radiometric dating, which would be different thread and different subject

I did stay on topic... you brought up the mollusk dating as part of the Baltic sea. AGAIN.................... Evidence that has two different viewpoint. Very much on point.

Still waiting . . .

For what? I established my points, gave evidence.

It seems like you are trying to move the goal post.

 

[shunyadragon]

I said... it is on the internet... I'm not doing the work for you.

Blanket general claims of a plethora of scientific references that support your claim that do not exist is illogical. You made the claim logically it is up to the one who makes the claim to defend it.

My point was simply to say that there are those who believe differently and gave you a scientist to back my claim. You haven't refuted the point.

You have failed to cite any peer reviewed literature from any scientist to support your claim. Ballard's research does not support your claim.

that you want to accept the fact that there are those who counter the claim is not my problem.

Failure to cite the references to support your claim is the ethical and logical course of debate, and it is unethical to try and pass the buck, especially when there is no peer reviewed literature that takes the all the geologic and geomorpholic events into account to support a world flood. When there is none there is nothing for me to find.