Archaeologica.org

Whatever that is Min - it's funny.

Some late night posting for me. I'm done though. I think I'm gettin' old.

One of them damned lurkers.

Whatever that is Min - it's funny

have to agree with that.

you know I have never agreed with you

i don't care if people agree with me or not, though in the long run i wish ed they would, i just would like civility as we disagree. i am not idealistic thinking everyone is going to drop their beliefs from just a few posts from me.

it is your choice but i would like these topics to try to refrain from the muck and mud slinging that erupts and just present their own side without the innuendo and false accusations that arise.

i think i have done fairly well in discoverying evidence that supports the biblical account, far more than most religious people would do and i think i have done fairly well in presenting my side of the debate, without sounding like a jean marie.

remember this, every time you get new evidence, whether it be from a schoch, hapgood, ballard and others, you are going to have to re-visit the Bible to see how it fits with that account, to do otherwise is just faulty research and investigation.

Once again, Arch is presenting evidence that sea levels rose severeal thousnad years ago as evidence for a global flood that covered the entire planet.

It's a complete non sequiter.

Where is the evidence that those sea levels rose more than a few feet higher than they are today?

And why are these submerged settlements buried only in a few inches of silt whereas on land, sedimentary deposists tens of thousands of feet thick were - supposedly - created by the flood (as shown by the fossils of non extinct creatures, and of sea shells etc, contained therein)?

Where is the evidence that those sea levels rose more than a few feet higher than they are today?

Pardon the intrusion into all this religious bullshit but ------Essan you must be posting in your sleep.

Go out and check with your mailman - he knows better than that!

Hopefully I just didn't read your post correctly.

Hi Beagle,

What I mean is that during the height of the last Glacial, sea levels were lower than today. As the ice meted, so sea levels rose, flooding some early coastal settlements etc - which Arch interprets as evidence for 'Noah's Flood'. This sea level rise peaked duirng the the Flandrian Trangression - around 6-8kya - when global sea levels were actually slightly higher than they are today. But only by a few feet.

There's no evidence anywhere that sea levels have been any higher (within recent geologoical time).

Hope that's clear?

don't worry about Beagle, Essan. he's still reading fingerpaints of the gods and thinking its real

There's no evidence anywhere that sea levels have been any higher (within recent geologoical time).

Give Bush and his oil company buddies a little time and you'll see sea levels much higher!

What I mean is that during the height of the last Glacial

you can't prove there was an ice ageas researchers describe it especially when they all don't agree on the severity, the length the time period.

the same evidence you use for 'proving' the ice age, i can use to prove gen. 1:1

which Arch interprets as evidence for 'Noah's Flood'.

actually i don't because there was a lot more happening than just melting ice along with the fact that fossils being discovered on elevations where the melting ice could not reach.

There's no evidence anywhere that sea levels have been any higher

hummmmmmm see above...there is evidence you just don't listen or accept it. as for the lack of sedimentation, what about the factor of sea currents and othe ocean activities that would unearth buried secrets.

Fossils that have been reliably dated to millions of years old and were there when the mountain ranges concerned were formed
how does a 40 day global deluge fossilise animals that havent been present on earth for millions of years exactly Arch
where does it describe that process in genesis ?

since minimalist likes more than just a little quote, lets discuss Ian Wilson's observation found in Chapter 19, pg267-8 of his book 'Before the Flood':

"If anyone thinks that Robert Ballard's researches in the black Sea are simply about proving that a Noah's flood once occured, then they have a very limited appreciation of the dynamicsbehind the Black Sea burst-through hypothesis. Supporting claims that 'the bible was Right' is not what the findings are all aboutThe possibility that there once was a man who built a boat to save himself, his family, and his livestock from a major water catastrophe has certainly gained a considerable greater credibility thanit might have enjoyed a decade or more ago. But what happened to this individual's life-saving boat, and whether he who built it was named Noah, or utanapishti...is still unkiniwn and likely ever to remain that way.

Instead what Ryan and Pitmanhave so admirably established is that a massive Flood event within the time that humankind has been building boats is no longer a matter of myth, but one of firm scientific and historical fact. Most unexpectedly the setting in which this event occurred was not any territory with obvious biblical associations. Rather, it was northern Turkey and the environs of the Black Sea, the latter then a land-locked freshwater lake. Thanks to the science of radio-carbon dating, the time atwhich this flood event occurred can now be calculated with a very reasonable precision as c.6500 BC, that is, during the late stone age. And what Robert Ballard's submarine explorations with the robotic Argus and Little Hercules have equally determined is that there undoubtedly were human settlements established on the lake's northern Turkish rim just prior to this catastrophe."

now please keep your comments to the observation, repudiations mean very little as you cannot throw back the discoveries nor not consider the evidence found. so if you dismiss this observation with a comment that people have changed their minds, it won't hold water.

you would need compelling sources and links to have repudiation a factor here.

also you would need to consider other evidences such as erosion or water marks on the sphynx, the discovery in India, and other partsof the world/ the author is not up to criticisms unless he is frimly in the camp of Os and thelunatic fringe but again, compelling evidence would need t be cited for it to be accepted.

in other words lets discuss like gentlemen and ladies and not resort to the usual gutter behavior.

I'm sorry....I just find it hysterical that you would post something that included this line!

Thanks to the science of radio-carbon dating, the time atwhich this flood event occurred can now be calculated with a very reasonable precision as c.6500 BC, that is,

When I calm down, I'll try to reply to your post!

I'm sorry....I just find it hysterical that you would post something that included this line!

why? it is part of the observation, doesn't mean i go by it or accept it.

Okay. I'm better now.

There is just a certain irony in you citing anything that relies on C14.

Perhaps you don't see it?


As you know, I am generally sympathetic to Hancock's idea of a massive disruption of humanity at the end of the last ice age. The many myths with the shared symbolism are a compelling argument for disparate cultures in geographically remote regions trying to explain the same catastrophe....once they had a chance to sit down and think about what had happened to them.

Anyway, I'm curious about one thing. What do you hope to gain by Ryan and Pittman's theory? It surely does not support the Noah myth.