Noah's Flood...

[Starflower]

don't you guys have google
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1905/19050670.htm

Forgive me but I'm confused Are you debunking minimalists links with this? The print dates on the articles would make the debunking before the findings Please what am I missing here?

[marduk]

the cambay stuff has been around a long time
just because there are recent articles where unqualified people didn't listen doesn't make it any more true
NIOT themselves said there wasn't anything there

[Minimalist]

This is the crux of the argument, Starflower.

Their contention is that the government should hand over the excavation work to qualified marine archaeologists.

The guys who brought the artifacts up were not members of "the club."

marduk, if you have a link to a NIOT announcement to that effect, that is what I would like to see.

My own searches have not turned that up.

[marduk]

NIOT is not in the habit of announcing non information
which is why you can't find anything
why don't you look for an announcement from them claiming they found a 13,000 year old city instead
http://www.niot.res.in/
good luck
you'll need it
http://www.niot.res.in/m3/arch/index.htm

[Minimalist]

So, I can assume that you are retracting this statement?

NIOT themselves said there wasn't anything there

[DougWeller]

I'll try to find something later today.

The dating itself was done on a piece of wood which as it would have drifted there on the river current can't be associated with anything at all. The outlines seen look Harappan.

I can't find one of the things that I was looking for, but to summarise:

Sonar images are the source of the story about structures having been found. No actual structures have been found (and diving isn't possible because of the strong currents). Here is what Paul Heinrich wrote about this recently:

However, in article, which I can't find at
the moment, I read that they were unable even to relocate certain
"ruins" in a followup sonar survey despite having the Global
Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for where the original
sonar survey was conducted. The inability of them to replicate
their sonar images was explained away as the result of shifting
sand buring the structures. However, it also can be explain as
the result of randon nature of artifacts in the images caused
by glitches in sonar gear and software used to process the data.
It might be no conincidence that many of the "ruins" disappeared
after the sonar gear was refurbished. The difficulties of
exploring the bottom of the Bay of Cambay does not excused the
lack of ground-truthing of the sonar images. The difficulties of
ground-truthing interpretations made from satellite images does
not excuse the case for the artificial for the "Face on Mars"
from being questioned.

The strong currents also mean that material of all types is being
washed back and forth across the bottom of the Bay of Cambay over
time. As a result, the source and association of material randonly
dredged off the bottom at any one location is open to lots of
questions. The geochemical analysis of Dr. Badrinaryan are useless
in terms of determining the original source and any associations
between of the piece of wood used to "date" the "site" and the
artifacts and geofacts composed of quartz, chert, jasper, flint,
chalcedony, and agate. These material could have been reworked
from any number of sources. The presence of Paleolithic artifacts
indicates that their collections consists of items and objects of
a wide range of ages mixed together either by currents and how
they were collected.

The geochemical analysis does not address the question about whether
many of the pieces of pottery and other artifacts are even man-made
at all. A good example of this problem is figure 18, which shows a
piece of wood of uncertain origin in the upper right-hand corner,
what look like natural concretions (quite likely typical rhizoliths
formed around plant roots) in the lower right-hand and left-hand
corners, and what looks like another concretion misidentified as a
"mandiable" in the upper left-hand corner. If the NIOT Team
apparntly has confused concretions with artifacts and, even, mandibles,
I have to wonder about the origin of some of their "pottery" also when
they describe it as being impregnated with calcium carbonate, which
could just as well be the cement forming a natural concretion. They
have a long row to hoe before they have a case for their interpretations.
The publishing of clear and legiable pictures of petrographic thin
sections of what they identify as "artifacts" and "pottery" likely
would provide significant evidence concerning their origin that
might be definitive.

A more detailed analysis with photos and illustrations is here:

http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/geofact.html

[DougWeller]

And a bit more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruins_in_t ... _of_Cambay
"A round of further underwater explorations was made in the Gulf of Cambay site by the NIOT team from 2003 to 2004, and the samples obtained of what was presumed to be pottery were sent to laboratories in Oxford, UK and Hanover, Germany, as well as several institutions within India, to be dated by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) and thermoluminescence dating techniques. These pieces returned dates ranging from 13000 ± 1950 BP up to the oldest at 31270 ± 2050 BP, leading to NIOT's chief geologist Badrinaryan Badrinaryan making the claim that they had uncovered the earliest-known pottery remains in the world, from about 31000 BP [2]. In his web publication of his findings, Badrinaryan (2006) stated:

Since some persons have expressed doubts about the pottery pieces, a thorough scientific study was made involving the pottery pieces to establish their authenticity. To determine the properties of various material including pottery, many samples were subjected to X-Ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. Since the materials that constitute pottery etc are clays and heterogeneous mixures of a variety of materials, these were accordingly analysed. Every area has a special fingerprint pattern in the clay which can be recognized in X-Ray diffraction (XRD). The above analysis was carried out in Deccan College, Pune Maharashtra state, India,by using an advanced instrument which gave excellent results. The conclusions are that the pattern of pottery pieces corresponds very well with the locally available clay of gulf of Cambay. The mineral patterns of habitational floor, wattle and daub and land materials (alluvial deposit) are comparable. The patterns of fired clay, floor birck piece, vitrified clay, compare very well. All these indicate that they are genuine artifacts, made from locally available material and are insitu. It fully confirms the presence of archaeological sites. The findings indicate that the pottery was produced locally with levigated clay, fired uniformly at about 700°C. From the presence of calcite in clays and pottery arid to semi-arid environmental conditions prior to the submergence of the site could be deduced. Calcritised alluvial deposits indicate the existence of ancient rivers which once flowed in the submerged regions of Gulf of Cambay.

However, the optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of the items identified as "pottery", which had the older OSL dates, produced dates that are virtually identical to OSL dates obtained from associated sediments. That the "pottery" yielded OSL dates identical to associated sediments suggests that the "pottery", which produced the older and oldest OSL dates, were never fired and actually consist of pieces of naturally cemented sediments. This raises the possibility that the extremely old samples, as argued for many other "artifacts" recovered from the Gulf of Cambay, are not man-made artifacts or potsherds, but rather concretions, nodules, and related objects of natural origin [3].

The XRD analysis fails to prove that these artifacts are man-made as natural concretions can also form in local alluvial sediments. The XRD data only indicates that the extremely old samples consists of sediments, which came from the alluvial deposits underlying the currently submerged and typically buried floodplain somewhere along the length of the Gulf of Cambay. The "calcite" found in the extremely old "pottery" can be also interpreted to be the material cementing local alluvium together to form concretions, which have been misidentifed as pottery. Such concretions are noted to be quite common in naturally-occurring calcritised alluvial deposits."

[marduk]

So, I can assume that you are retracting this statement?

NIOT themselves said there wasn't anything there

no i suggest that you read the orthodox reports and not the psuedoscience one
thats if you can actually tell them apart when one pretends to be the other its not always easy

[Minimalist]

Here is what Paul Heinrich wrote about this recently:

Arch....I'm going to leave this one to you. (I may have goofed on the name!)

[Guest]

Since those sea levels have not fallen, then presumably the world is still experiencing Noah's Flood?

no.

In other words, as I keep asking, you you have any evidence which can not be readily and better explained by known geological processes

so you are looking for a miracle and not allowing God to use the very structure he put in place at creation? read 'The Flood' by Dr. Rehwinkle, that should provide you with enough evidence.

Perhaps there's evidence in the Antarctic Ice Cores

depends on where you attribute the origin of the ice both there and greenland. i think the fissures i mentioned previously provide some more evidence.

The guys who brought the artifacts up were not members of "the club

well i f the marine archaeologists are interested in this site, why aren't they clamoring to get involved instead of being arm chair quarterbacks.

Arch....I'm going to leave this one to you

all i am going to say is that you called it. i got bored reading the post and need to go back to it. i don't want to insult anyone but the quote sounded like a man who wanted people to believe he is important and knows what he talks about though he is saying very little.

31270 ± 2050 BP

what do the initials BP stand for? is this another new dating system because people got tired of 'b.c., a.d. and b.c.e.'?

[marduk]

BP os before present
it is a very common secular abbreviation used by professionals all over the world

Arch
have you ever read any Sumerian texts ?

shall i start a new thread so that you can see some "claimed to be" original Bible stories are word for word the same as stories written thousands of years earlier commemorating a flood by a pagan God called Enlil ?
or is that the work of satan too
even though he didn't exist at that point except as a sumerian phrase which meant basically "asshole"

muhahaha

[Guest]

have you ever read any Sumerian texts ?

i have three books on ancient texts in my library

shall i start a new thread so that you can see some "claimed to be" original Bible stories are word for word

you are assuming that the oldest discovered was the first written or told.

since Noah pre-dates the sumerians it is not a large leap to conclude who copied whom or who altered the texts. certainly wasn't God.

[Minimalist]

I'd like to see them, marduk.

[DougWeller]

Rehwinkle wrote too long ago to be an authority on geology.

[Minimalist]

Rehwinkle wrote too long ago to be an authority on geology.

Oh, shit! Now you're in trouble!