Archaeologica.org

In other words, despite the fact I stated three times yesterday that I'm an atheist, he still refers to me 'quacking like that Bible-believing Duck'.
So there you have it out of his mouth; disagree with him, and you simply MUST be a religious fundamentalist.

1. Where did the water come from? they came from the heavens and the abyss. Gen. 7:11-24

2.where are the giant scarsthat would have been leftall across the face of the earth? i don't know. possibly since archaeologists have to dig down quite a ways to get to that time period, they may be covered. who ruled out the grand canyon? are you sure they are right?

3.How is it that the fauna of australia and north & south america were saved? are we to believe that noah had them on his ark too?
are you sure they were saved? when you over water dirt and then leave it for a time, what grows back? where did you get this thought from? they were not on the ark.

4.were there more than two of each type then and if so why is that not mentioned in the biblical account? the only animals that had more than a pair were those that were for sacrifice. all the other animals only had a pair and two animals are sufficient to produce enough offspring to re-populate the world. it is not mentioned because it was not so.

read the book to get a fuller explanation and more detail.

And you call yourself 'archeaologist'...?

ROTFLMAO !!!

archaeologist wrote:1. Where did the water come from? they came from the heavens and the abyss. Gen. 7:11-24

2.where are the giant scarsthat would have been leftall across the face of the earth? i don't know. possibly since archaeologists have to dig down quite a ways to get to that time period, they may be covered. who ruled out the grand canyon? are you sure they are right?

3.How is it that the fauna of australia and north & south america were saved? are we to believe that noah had them on his ark too?
are you sure they were saved? when you over water dirt and then leave it for a time, what grows back? where did you get this thought from? they were not on the ark.

4.were there more than two of each type then and if so why is that not mentioned in the biblical account? the only animals that had more than a pair were those that were for sacrifice. all the other animals only had a pair and two animals are sufficient to produce enough offspring to re-populate the world. it is not mentioned because it was not so.

read the book to get a fuller explanation and more detail.

Quoting the bible again. What a surprise. Don't you know that people who don't accept the bible as gospel will not accept it as proof? "read the book...", why don't you actually say something yourself?

Anonymous wrote:[...]why don't you actually say something yourself?

'Cause then he'd have to 1) think for himself, and 2) take responsibility for his own conclusions.
It's easier to focus on others. Imaginary or not. It's easier to bow against the wind than to stand up straight...

Not every ancient culture had a Great Flood myth.But having recently seen Katrina and the Indonesian Tsunami, we can see how disatrous floods would create myth. Likewise, Castledon and others have reported on the Tsunami from Mt Stronghyle on Thera in 1628 BCE, that affected the Anatolian and Levantine coast all the way to Egypt.

But Ryan & Pitman point out some elements in the Gilgamesh myth that dont fit with a Tsunami, but do fit with the Great Euxine flood of 5600 BCE. The opening of the Bophorus raised the lake level dramatically in a way that rain wouldnt. The hydralic pressure backed up aquifers and they became gushing forth like artesian wells. Just as Gilgamesh describes.

Gilgamesh goes back over the great flood to dive down into the water to retreive some sacred object. This would have been possible in the Euxine flood because it spread so widely, but so thinnly, over a vast flat plain caused by allevuial deposits of the Danube just as we still see floodplains.

After a Tsunami, there wouldnt be any point. The turbulence would have washed any valuable objects away.

Gilgamesh is written in Mitanni, an *indo-European* nomadic horse culture that arrived in what is now Northern Iraq by coming down from the North. And coming with technology developed around the Black Sea.

Gilgamesh dont build an ark, he builds a raft- which would have been made from the timber frame of the houses. Not likely in the Semetic regions where people built of stone and adobe. But again, it was the Aryans who invented the arsenic bronze axe, and with it began the same kind of timber frame building still seen all over Europe.

By the time of the Great Euxine flood, as Ryan & Pitman as well as others digging at Chatal Hoyuk, Hacilar, and the other 7th mil BCE Anatolian cities show, the climate had dried out, and there wouldnt have been any timber to build an ark to land on mt Ararat or anywhere else. The Anatolian cities were not built with much timber to start with, and the charcoal remaining in the fire pits at the end of the 7th mil BCE were from brush.

The Gilgamesh flood is vast, but it dont claim to cover the whole world, and adding it all up, refers to a particular, and peculiarly unique flood that wasnt caused by either rain or Tsunami. The Euxine flood is the only other explanation. The Biblical flood was clearly plagiarized; they didnt have copywrite laws, so I dont try to account for the discrepancies reported in it.

I had heard of the Euxine flood and I thought it had been accepted as fact by now. As for it being the source of the Gilgamesh flood, it does make perfect sense. Furthermore, I think that probably around that time there were many floods world-wide caused by the same melting of polar ice and glaciers. This would account for the widespread flood myths. You probably said earlier, but when exactly was the Euxine flood and does it correspond to other catastrophic events happening in the world? Atlantis, maybe?

OK archeologist, thanks for responding directly to some of my questions. Unfortunately I am far from convinced that you are right and I will explain why on a point by point basis:

FreeThinker: Where did the water come from?

archeologist: they came from the heavens and the abyss. Gen. 7:11-24

Quoting bronze age mythology does not really answer the question, nor does it address the point that I made when I initially ask my basic questions. Water must come from somewhere and if it came from the heavens it would have come in the form of giant chunks of ice (outer space is VERY cold and water is solid). The resulting impacts would have wiped out almost every species completely. It would not have come down as rain, it would have come down onto the earth with the power of billions of atomic bombs. Humanity recently witnessed a small scale version of just what I am talking about when a comet slammed into Jupiter ( http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/ ). That event left scars on the face of Jupiter larger than Earth. To bring so much water to the planet would require thousands of such impacts and Earth would have been left to this day a pile of hot slag. As far as water coming from the abyss this is a holdover from the days when the planet was thought to be flat. The inside of the planet is rock and molten iron, not water, so this "comes from the abyss" stuff is nonsense. It is clear the earth was NEVER covered by water the way the story of Noah's flood says it was.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

FreeThinker: where are the giant scars that would have been left all across the face of the earth?

archeologist: i don't know. possibly since archaeologists have to dig down quite a ways to get to that time period, they may be covered. who ruled out the grand canyon? are you sure they are right?

The rocks of the canyon show a clear geological sequence that is not in dispute amongst geologists. Unless the entire field of geology is completely wrong, for which there is no evidence of that being the case, then the fromation of the rocks is well understood. The formation of the canyon itself is equally well understood. A careful reading of morphology of the canyon reveal a sequence of erosive events stretching back millions of years, not all at once. Again, the whole of the science of geology would have to be totally wrong to support the notion of a quick erosion of the grand canyon. No, the canyon is NOT evidence of Noah's flood. As far as having to "dig down quite a ways" to get at the deposits, this notion too is false. The event in question (Noah's supposed flood) was supposed to have taken place only several thousand years ago. As someone who goes by the name "archeologist" surely knows remains from this time period are at most a few meters from the surface, not hundreds or thousands of meters deep. No giant scars = no Noah's flood.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

FreeThinker: How is it that the fauna of australia and north & south america were saved? are we to believe that noah had them on his ark too?

archeologist: are you sure they were saved? when you over water dirt and then leave it for a time, what grows back? where did you get this thought from? they were not on the ark.

Hmmm, not quite sure what to say here about your response. When I over water dirt and leave it for a time I get mud or mold. I certainly do not get kangaroos, buffalo, or tree sloths, let alone all the other animal species in north and south America and Australia. If they were not on the ark how did they survive this worldwide flood? Are we to believe they swam without drowning for forty days and forty nights? I don't think you really answered my question here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

FreeThinker: were there more than two of each type then and if so why is that not mentioned in the biblical account?

archeologist: the only animals that had more than a pair were those that were for sacrifice. all the other animals only had a pair and two animals are sufficient to produce enough offspring to re-populate the world. it is not mentioned because it was not so.

Two animals are NOT sufficient to repopulate a population. As my initial question pointed out in order to survive a species needs to have genetic diversity or inbreeding will doom a species to extinction. A population of at least several dozen of each species would have been needed to ensure enough genetic diversity to overcome the doom of fatal inbreeding for a species. Again, on this point the bibical story of Noah's flood does not hold up to the reality of a careful examination.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also am still interested in hearing your answers to the other two questions I asked: where did the water go, and my point about the rotation and orbit of the earth being affected by all that water.

I do appreciate your answering my questions even though I remain firmly convinced that the bibical account of Noah's flood is nothing more than a myth. Perhaps in the dim past there was some flood event in the Mesopotamian region that was the initial inspiration for the flood story as related in the bible, but the concept of a worldwide flood that covered the whole of the earth to at least the level of the summit of Mount Ararat is nonsense. That said, I look forward to your reply.

The Euxine flood is the only other explanation. The Biblical flood was clearly plagiarized;

are you sure? how do you know that they are not looking at the evidence for Noah's flood? everyone keeps asking for evidence, yet when they find some, they decide to attribute it to some other catastrophy and assume the Bible is wrong. i think you need to re-think the evidence.

'Cause then he'd have to 1) think for himself, and 2) take responsibility for his own conclusions.
It's easier to focus on others. Imaginary or not. It's easier to bow against the wind than to stand up straight...

son,i think you need to retract these statements and apologize. if i think the book will give a better and more complete answer, then i will defer to the book. i am not here to show off or look for glory but i will try to present the best information possible. if that means i take a back seat then all the better.

Quoting the bible again

if that is the only source theni will quote it. i don't care if they don't accept it, that is there problem if they want to ignore the truth. i have found that no matter what evidence one gives, non-religious people will only accept what they want to hear. i.e. the euxine flood or the gilgamesh epic plus ryan's and pittman's theory. i read and watched as ryan and pittman avoided any possible connection to the Biblical account and as evidence mounted for its veracity, they decided toturn to some other theory though it is not supported by the facts

And you call yourself 'archeaologist'

fits in with the above. i know by experience what will be accepted and what won't be and this is just a discussion forum not a professional symposium.

why don't you actually say something yourself?

i have but the book is better. why don't you stop hiding behind the guest option?

but when exactly was the Euxine flood and does it correspond to other catastrophic events happening in the world? Atlantis, maybe

anything but the Bible. your not open minded or even tolerant yet you require that fromthe religious world. practice it yourselves first, then maybe you will find it in others.

<are you sure? how do you know that they are not looking at the evidence for Noah's flood?>
Reasonably sure. The deluge reported in scripture would not have caused springs to become artesian wells because the water from the sky would have been distributed on both the land and sea.

I have seen debunkers before claim that Ryan & Pitman have recanted. I have asked for a link to this recantation before, but have yet to receive one. All I've been able to find is a comment that related to the re-adjustment of the C-14 dating that was caused by data collected after they published.

They had assumed that the C14 level in the atmosphere remained constant, so the 5600 BCE date they supply may be off by a couple hundred years. Which I find a triviality, not a recantation.

I think it is fairly settled science that the Anatolian cities were abandoned in a younger dryas type drought in the late 7th mil. Some small communities appear east and south during this region, but the vast majority of these early farmers would have gone down to the alleuvial flood plain on the West and North sides of the Euxine lake.

At the time, rainfall was more reliable in that region than further south. At the time, the alleuvial soil was much more fertile than elsewhere because the region had been flooded before when the Ice age melted and deposited mud & organic matter from the Dneiper & Don. And given primitive plows depicted in the iconography, they would have needed such friable soil to develop agriculture.

Moreover, the great European rivers were trade routes. They had already been mining salt at Hallstaat & Salzburg, and shipping it down river to the spawing runs of a kind of freshwater salmon. Anyone who's seen the Smelt run on Lake Superior has some idea of the abundance that had to be salted.

And this brought hunting/fishing cultures in contact with the agrarians into a cultural melting pot that produced the orginal Aryans. They were able to trade peacefully because they werent fighting over the land. *Nobody* had owned it. Before the chronic drought of the late 7th mil, it'd all been swamp.

archaeologist wrote:

The Euxine flood is the only other explanation. The Biblical flood was clearly plagiarized;

are you sure? how do you know that they are not looking at the evidence for Noah's flood? everyone keeps asking for evidence, yet when they find some, they decide to attribute it to some other catastrophy and assume the Bible is wrong. i think you need to re-think the evidence.

'Cause then he'd have to 1) think for himself, and 2) take responsibility for his own conclusions.
It's easier to focus on others. Imaginary or not. It's easier to bow against the wind than to stand up straight...

son,i think you need to retract these statements and apologize. if i think the book will give a better and more complete answer, then i will defer to the book. i am not here to show off or look for glory but i will try to present the best information possible. if that means i take a back seat then all the better.

Quoting the bible again

if that is the only source theni will quote it. i don't care if they don't accept it, that is there problem if they want to ignore the truth. i have found that no matter what evidence one gives, non-religious people will only accept what they want to hear. i.e. the euxine flood or the gilgamesh epic plus ryan's and pittman's theory. i read and watched as ryan and pittman avoided any possible connection to the Biblical account and as evidence mounted for its veracity, they decided toturn to some other theory though it is not supported by the facts

And you call yourself 'archeaologist'

fits in with the above. i know by experience what will be accepted and what won't be and this is just a discussion forum not a professional symposium.

why don't you actually say something yourself?

i have but the book is better. why don't you stop hiding behind the guest option?

but when exactly was the Euxine flood and does it correspond to other catastrophic events happening in the world? Atlantis, maybe

anything but the Bible. your not open minded or even tolerant yet you require that fromthe religious world. practice it yourselves first, then maybe you will find it in others.

Can you do anything without quoting the bible. Is there anything to back up the so-called proof that it supplies? You have to understand that we go into this discussion with the accuracy of the bible in doubt. That's the whole question here. So you think quoting the exact tome we are trying to prove or disprove constitutes proof? It's just another point-skirting tactic on your part. You have nothing so you fall back on the same old mantra. "It's in the bible so it has to be so". Nothing is taken as proof just because it's written in one book. Not even the BIBLE. Also it was me who was guest. I have a sign in problem which sometimes logs me out. I'm on a work computer so I can't really fix it. I wasn't hiding. I accept that there was a flood or floods, but the way it is described in the bible is impossible. You think your god would change the laws of physics, laws he made, so that he could make this flood happen? There were floods after the last ice age all over the world, but not to the extent claimed by you and your bible. Rising ocean levels due to melting polar caps and glaciers flooded the coasts all over the world. Maybe that's the source of your myth. Oh and by the way, don't ever talk down to me. I know who and what I am and what I know and I do not require your approval. I don't know who you are, but I doubt that you are a real archaeologist, despite the moniker. Go pray or something! Leave rational discussion to rational people. I'm done with this pointless discussion.

Frank Harrist says: "I'm done with this pointless discussion."

I'm with you. Let's get back to talking about archaeology and history and anthropology. Something we can discuss like the intelligent, civilized people we are.

Besides I don't have enough time to read those long repetitious tiraids. It seems they have taken over most of the threads on this forum.

Yea, old folks. Go knit something for the garage sale......

I'm with you. Let's get back to talking about archaeology and history and anthropology. Something we can discuss like the intelligent, civilized people we are

this is the topic for noah's flood.

freethinker, i need to go towork and i will be gone for some time, so i hope you will be patient.

Can you do anything without quoting the bible

can you quote science without evolution? or vice versa? since noah's flood is in the Bible it is appropriate to quote from it. just because you don't accept it as a source does not mean it is not credible or untrue.

Is there anything to back up the so-called proof that it supplies?

yes, but you don't accept it as such. one commonly used piece of evidence is finding all the fossils in the cambreian era (named by evolutionists though i doubt itis right in name and age). perfect example of unaccepted evidence for noah's flood.

You have to understand that we go into this discussion with the accuracy of the bible in doubt.

you shuldn't as no archaeological discovery has ever proven the Bible wrong or inaccurate.

So you think quoting the exact tome we are trying to prove or disprove constitutes proof

the only source for evidence where the water came from is the Bible. it is not skirting the issue but recognizing the that man has not come up with any alternative especially via archaeological discoveries.

You think your god would change the laws of physics, laws he made, so that he could make this flood happen?

God owns the world, He gets to do what He wants but that is a little glib. God will use what ever avenue that will best complete His purpose and bring Him the glory.

but the way it is described in the bible is impossible

itis only impossibleif you remove God from the equation. Since God has thhe power to create the world, He has the power to implement the flood and given ballard's, ryan's and pittman's discoveries and research we see that God altered the geaography of the world, making modern life different from pre-flood days.

but I doubt that you are a real archaeologist, despite the moniker

a moniker is a moniker, i use it as i have two degrees in ancient history and archaeology and i am working on a third.

Leave rational discussion to rational people. I'm done with this pointless discussion.

it isn't pointless from my perspective but just as you are free to post your point of view, so am i. or are you one of those people who denies the rights they so freely practice to others? i stay within the rules.

"this is the topic for noah's flood."

Arch, since when is insipid repetition considered intelligent.

You said everything in your first post, since then it has been nothing but but the same old song. You haven't said anything new or original, I know because I live in the Bible Belt. I've heard all this ad nauseam.