Archaeologica.org

this is my fave review of ian wilsons book at amazon

The entire book is devoted to a list of places and people who at some time in the past have had a flood. It hardly even discusses the biblical flood and appears to just put it into the broad catagory of just another flood.Boring to read

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/075284 ... e&n=283155

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.

again, just as i have stated in other topics, it is not the theory i am using but the evidence they have uncovered which supports the biblical record that interests me.

i have mentioned this before that secular researchers come across evidence yet make a left turn to their own pet thoughts and veer away from the biblical accounts and the truth.

the evidence is there, it all depends on what you believe, and what you want to believe which dictates the results.

i am using but the evidence they have uncovered which supports the biblical record that interests me.

No. That's just the point. It does NOT support the biblical record at all.
The whole biblical story is set in Syria/Palestine with an occasiona side trip to Egypt or Mesopotamia...even though there is no proof of such journeys.

Further, the biblical story says that heavy rains were responsible for the flood.

A flood to the north of Turkey which was not brought about by heavy rains is at odds with your story.

In much the same way the Tel Dan Stele presents you with the same kind of Hobson's choice. The bible says that Jehu killed the king of Israel.

However the stele which gives the only non-biblical reference to the "House of David" also says that the king of Israel was killed in battle with Aram-Damascus. You can't have one without the other. If the stele is a fake, then there is no proof of "David" at all. If it is real, then so was David but the bible story is false.

Your choice.

No. That's just the point. It does NOT support the biblical record at all.

this is a place where i will disagree with you. if you hold tothe 'ice age' hypothesis, then i doubt you will see the corelation of the evidence to the Biblical account because you believe something else and feel the interpretation is correct.

The whole biblical story is set in Syria/Palestine with an occasiona side trip to Egypt or Mesopotamia

i doubt if we know where Noah lived prior to the flood and just because the main thrust of the Bible takes place in aone geographical area does it mean that the whole whole is not affected. in fact, the whole earth is mentioned in previous passages thus this story encompassess more than the 'holy land' area.

A flood to the north of Turkey which was not brought about by heavy rains is at odds with your story

please back up that statement with some sort of reference material that provides an inkling of proof.

In much the same way the Tel Dan Stele presents you with the same kind of Hobson's choice. The bible says that Jehu killed the king of Israel.

let me check into that before responding

marduk wrote: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 ?

It doesn't, it was one of God's many, many, miracles that the Bible forgot to mention

btw the Bible does however refer indirectly to another of God's great miracles - the spontaneous reappearance of mature plantlife all across the globe (the dove brings back an olive branch bearing leaves - which could not have survived the flood nor have grown in the space of a few days).

Just think, by the time Noah ermerged from his ark, the Amazon was already fully re-formed.

Hmmm, talking of trees. When exactly was the flood again? Obvioulsy before 2,760BC ......

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/

Unless God lied?

archaeologist wrote:

A flood to the north of Turkey which was not brought about by heavy rains is at odds with your story

please back up that statement with some sort of reference material that provides an inkling of proof.

Well, the evidence for the Black Sea Flood is based on the collapse of a hypothetical Borsphorus Dam.

There is no evidence whatsoever that it was caused by rainfall. What evidence do you have that it was?

Well, the evidence for the Black Sea Flood is based on the collapse of a hypothetical Borsphorus Dam

what evidence? what caused the collapse? typical blank statements in your own defense, let's have the evidence and the theory.

i'm sure Essan will provide the evidence
in the meantime you can provide the evidence that it was caused by god
fairs fair right ?

archaeologist wrote:

Well, the evidence for the Black Sea Flood is based on the collapse of a hypothetical Borsphorus Dam

what evidence? what caused the collapse? typical blank statements in your own defense, let's have the evidence and the theory.

Why? I personally do not subscribe to the Bosphorus Dam hypothesis

Which makes any artifacts found around the shores of the Black Sea no different IMO to, say, artifacts drenched up from the North Sea - evidence that sea levels were once lower than they are today. Nothing more.

The real question, is how does evidence for lower sea levels equate to evidence of a global flood covering all the world's land surface? And where is the evidence support the contention that rain fall was partially responsible for this event? (At a constant rate of 1" an hour (torrential rain) it would take 40 years for the water level to rise to the summit of Mount Everest, assuming no run-off etc)

I personally do not subscribe to the Bosphorus Dam hypothesis

neither does anyone else
water doesnt flow uphill without an archimedes screw and he wasn't around until much later

Actually there may have been a Bosphorus dam.

But if there was, it was breached earlier than Ian Wilson thinks. And it was the Black Sea which would have poured into the Med ..... (more research is needed I believe )

And this is actually what one ancient greek story says happened. Although as Wilson thinks it happened the other way around he assumes the greeks must have gotten confused ....

all this is based on the fact that some freshwater molluscs gave a reading of 7000 years old. Ballard didn't know it but it was well known elsewhere that Freshwater molluscs absorb bicarbonate from their environment as they grow so the dating is extremely unreliable.
had they absorbed bicarbonate that had lain there since 10,000bce he would have been claiming that as the date of the flood
had it been 3000bce he would have claimed that as the date of the flood
all it means is that the freshwater molluscs were there at some time after 7000bce at which point it is well known that the black sea has gone from freshwater to salt water as the saltwater rivers that feed it are cut off and then reopened due to silt action.
so he took an unrelaible radiocarbon date of 5000bce and then matched it with a supposed global rise in sea level around 5500bce which actually happened in 6000 bce and Bingo
the flood of Noah
whats a 1000 years eh
the best thing is he then justified it by saying
"well you know the mollusc dating could have been a little unreliable"

archaeologist wrote:

No. That's just the point. It does NOT support the biblical record at all.

this is a place where i will disagree with you. if you hold tothe 'ice age' hypothesis, then i doubt you will see the corelation of the evidence to the Biblical account because you believe something else and feel the interpretation is correct.

Again. Ryan and Pittman are talking about A flood....not THE flood.

The whole biblical story is set in Syria/Palestine with an occasiona side trip to Egypt or Mesopotamia

i doubt if we know where Noah lived prior to the flood and just because the main thrust of the Bible takes place in aone geographical area does it mean that the whole whole is not affected. in fact, the whole earth is mentioned in previous passages thus this story encompassess more than the 'holy land' area.

So maybe he lived in Chichen Itza? The bible is narrowly focused. It exhibits no indication that the rest of the world even exists.

A flood to the north of Turkey which was not brought about by heavy rains is at odds with your story

please back up that statement with some sort of reference material that provides an inkling of proof.

You need PROOF that the Black Sea is north of Turkey? Look on a map.

In much the same way the Tel Dan Stele presents you with the same kind of Hobson's choice. The bible says that Jehu killed the king of Israel.

let me check into that before responding

I thought you knew this shit by heart?

Again. Ryan and Pittman are talking about A flood....not THE flood.

SO... they don't own a monopoly on the evidence.

It exhibits no indication that the rest of the world even exists.

yes it does, read the previous verses.

You need PROOF that the Black Sea is north of Turkey?

no, i want to see you back up your claims in the same manner you demand of me.

I thought you knew this shit by heart

ignored now.

But if there was, it was breached earlier than Ian Wilson thinks. And it was the Black Sea which would have poured into the Med .....

back it up in the same manner you demand of me.

The real question, is how does evidence for lower sea levels equate to evidence of a global flood covering all the world's land surface?

who is using lower sea levels as an argument for a global flood? i haven't yet.

(At a constant rate of 1" an hour

we don't know the rate.

in the meantime you can provide the evidence that it was caused by god
fairs fair right

been there, done that--stop being hypocrites and do what you askof me.

why is it whenever i ask for the opposing side to present proof of their position,just like they ask of me, they fall silent? seems to be a habit with them.

anyways, here is a point that they can mull over and comment on; again taken from 'Before the Flood' by Ian Wilson pg. 167

"Noah...was the first to plant the vine. Gen. 9:20

Many modern interpreters of wine history suggest that Georgia has yielded the earliest evidence of winemaking in the world" McGovern et al, 'The Origins and Ancient History of Wine Making'"