Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 197 of 234 (133877)
08-14-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Vidusa
08-14-2004 1:46 PM


Re: The meaning of Noah's Ark
Where did you get your input numbers?
What is cypruss wood and where did you get it's specific gravity?
Where did you get a measure of the mass of the earth to that many significant figures.
The Capacity of these measurements(300x50x30 SC)with the roof part of the Ark = 7.148.437.500 cubic inches =
Please show the details of this calculation since a volume of 300 * 50 * 30 doesn't give the answer you supply. What is the "roof part"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Vidusa, posted 08-14-2004 1:46 PM Vidusa has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 198 of 234 (133879)
08-14-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by lfen
08-14-2004 4:20 PM


Re: Interesting question, to which I would have to say no and maybe yes.
There are several problems with that hypothesis. first, recent studies done by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute seem to show that there was considerable exchange between the Med and the Black Sea for at least 10,500 years and that the change was very limited, water levels rising only a few feet a day.
Check out This press release from a couple years ago.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by lfen, posted 08-14-2004 4:20 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by lfen, posted 08-14-2004 6:43 PM jar has not replied
 Message 200 by NosyNed, posted 08-14-2004 8:21 PM jar has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4756 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 199 of 234 (133895)
08-14-2004 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by jar
08-14-2004 5:07 PM


Black Sea Noah's Flood hypothesis
Jar,
That is more recent than what I found. So I guess maybe not.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 08-14-2004 5:07 PM jar has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 200 of 234 (133922)
08-14-2004 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by jar
08-14-2004 5:07 PM


a few feet a day!
...water levels rising only a few feet a day.
Only!??
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-14-2004 07:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 08-14-2004 5:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 08-14-2004 8:30 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 201 of 234 (133924)
08-14-2004 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by NosyNed
08-14-2004 8:21 PM


Re: a few feet a day!
Only!??
Sure. While it would have flooded the coastal areas, it was not rapid enough to preclude simple migration to get away. There would not have been any need for anything like an Ark, and both man and animals would have been able to just move beyond the flood.
There is an estimate that over a two year period the level of the Black Sea rose 300-600 feet. That would cover a large area but certainly not cover mountains or match the Biblical flood story.
Here's yet another view of the event.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by NosyNed, posted 08-14-2004 8:21 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by wmscott, posted 08-16-2004 5:07 PM jar has replied

  
Vidusa
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 234 (133953)
08-14-2004 10:38 PM


Please show the details of this calculation since a volume of 300 * 50 * 30 doesn't give the answer you supply. What is the "roof part"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The roof = prism: a)length = 300 cubits(sacred cubits) = 7500 inches
b)width = 50 cubits = 1250 inches
c)height = 1 cubit = 25 inches
Volume = (7500 x 1250 x 25): 2 = 117187500 cub. inches = 1920360,45 liters (+ volume of the Ark).

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by NosyNed, posted 08-16-2004 2:44 AM Vidusa has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 203 of 234 (134245)
08-16-2004 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Vidusa
08-14-2004 10:38 PM


and???
Thank you for the details,
Which Bible are you using for your numbers? Your ark seems a bit bigger than many claim.
Where did the cyprus wood density come from?
And the ultra precise determination of the mass of the Earth?
You left those out.
In addtion, please use the little red reply button at the bottom of the specific post that you are replying to. Thanks.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-16-2004 01:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Vidusa, posted 08-14-2004 10:38 PM Vidusa has not replied

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3894 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 204 of 234 (134289)
08-16-2004 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Vidusa
08-14-2004 1:46 PM


Re: The meaning of Noah's Ark
quote:
According to the Great Pyramid...
How? Please remember that we cannot say anything about the outside dimensions of the pyramids, since they were originally faced with stone, and thus smooth and not stepped as at present, and therefore do not know how big it was originally.
quote:
...the mean size of Earth = 40017,93119 km,and its mean volume gives 108221522000km3.
This is meaningless. The Earth cannot have a "mean" anything. Mean is the arithmetical average, and you cannot have an average of 1 measurement.
What is is the "size of the Earth"? Do you mean surface area, in which case the units should be km2? If not, what do you mean?

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Vidusa, posted 08-14-2004 1:46 PM Vidusa has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6327 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 205 of 234 (134420)
08-16-2004 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Vidusa
08-14-2004 1:46 PM


Your numbers don't add up.
Dear Viduas;
Your numbers don't add up. The cubit used in the Bible was about 18 inches not 25. A simple proof of this is found at Exodus 27:1 "And you must make the altar of acacia wood, five cubits its length and five cubits its width. The altar should be foursquare, and its height three cubits."
here the height of the altar in the temple is given, at 18 inches to the cubit, it would be 54 inches high, which would be a reasonable height considering that there were no steps leading up to it, but 25 inches to the cubit would put its height at 75 inches or 6'3" would be make it way too tall, the priests would not have been able to use it. Plus the 25 inch cubit would have resulted in an altar too large to have been carried by two poles on men's shoulders. Further evidence against a 25 inch cubit is found at 1 Samuel 17:4 "Goliath, from Gath, his height being six cubits and a span." at 18 inches to the cubit, Goliath would have been a very impressive but possible height of 9' and a span, while at 25 inches to the cubit, he would of had to have been a humanly impossible height of 12'6" plus a span. While we may not know the exact length of the biblical cubit, it was definitely much shorter than 25 inches and was probably about 18 inches long.
Measurements of foundations from the time period shows a pattern of being multiples of about 17.5 inches. so the cubit used in construction of the temple and other buildings was only about 18 inches so the 25 inch cubit used by Pyramidologists has nothing to do with Jews or the Bible and is merely a arbitrary measurement unit chosen to give the desired results.
There is no connection between the Bible and the Great Pyramid, see my post 560 on this at: http://EvC Forum: PROOF OF GOD -->EvC Forum: PROOF OF GOD
This thread is on the my book and theory on how the flood happened. I suggest that you open your own thread on your book and your theory on the Great Pyramid, there is a great deal of interest in the subject and many on this site like to discuss it, it would also be a way of promoting your book and some might buy it to be better able to discuss it.
Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Vidusa, posted 08-14-2004 1:46 PM Vidusa has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6327 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 206 of 234 (134422)
08-16-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by jar
08-14-2004 8:30 PM


I argue against the isolation of the Black Sea
Dear jar;
In my book I argue against the isolation of the Black Sea from the Mediterranean Sea.
quote:
"The problem is their theory doesn't work. If the Black Sea had been cut off from the long enough for the Bosporus to become closed, and long enough for the world sea level to rise at the slow rate science believes happened at the end of the Ice Age, the lake would have slowly become saltwater due to the accumulation of salt. The lake had to have an outlet to the Mediterranean sea to avoid a gradual build up of salt. It is apparent that what happened is there was no dam in the Bosporus, rather the sudden inrush of water was due to a very large and very sudden rise in sea level."
My theory that the Black Sea was suddenly flooded by saltwater when there was a sudden transfer of glacial ice and water into the oceans, agrees very well with the first link you provided. The second link to Morton's site which presents evidence for a gradual flooding of the Black Sea presents some areas of conflict, some of the evidence appears to have some conflict of its own as well, so I will have to look it over in more detail and rethink my position. It is possible that the Black Sea was flooded by the Mediterranean in an earlier unrelated change in sea level, rather then in the later large scale jump in sea level known as Noah's Flood.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 08-14-2004 8:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by jar, posted 08-16-2004 7:09 PM wmscott has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 207 of 234 (134457)
08-16-2004 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by wmscott
08-16-2004 5:07 PM


Re: I argue against the isolation of the Black Sea
The biggest hurdle I've seen with either the Glacial Flood or the Black Sea flood has been speed and that they would be coastal events. There were many such events and folk at the coasts would also be familar with storm surge and even things like the tsunami.
I believe that if you're going to find the source of the Flood Myth you will do better if you look to riverine/plains systems. If you look at the wide plains between the Tigris and Euphrates you might do well. Since it's likely that most of the content of Genesis was formed during the exile in that area, it would be reasonable to look for the source in the history and mythology from that area.
Have you looked there?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by wmscott, posted 08-16-2004 5:07 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by wmscott, posted 08-17-2004 4:57 PM jar has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6327 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 208 of 234 (134745)
08-17-2004 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by jar
08-16-2004 7:09 PM


A recent temporary rise in sea level to above the 1000 ft contour line.
Dear Jar;
Yes, I have looked at the theories that The Deluge was flood limited to the Mesopotamian river valley. First off, the biblical description is clearly of a global flood, ark landing in the mountains of Ararat, need to take animals on ark, etc. Second, the flood layers pointed to by the proponents of such theories, are just that, layers, left by many local floods and not by one flood that flooded the entire area.
You may wish to look over the posts in the two threads on this subject, or read my book available here. https://www1.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid...
Basically I am looking at a large scale impact event on the late Ice Age ice sheets, which resulted in the 40 days of rain and dumped enough water into the oceans to raise sea level high enough to destabilize the edges of the great ice sheets, resulting in a runaway chain reaction of massive glacial surging. The resulting rise in sea level would be something like 500 feet to perhaps as much as 4000 feet in less than a month, perhaps even as little as a few days.
There is good evidence for supporting a recent temporary rise in sea level to above the 1000 ft contour line. (see posts or book) Some of the more geologically minded posters on this board have agreed with me that such a past event is feasible and have challenged me to prove it by publishing a scientific paper on it. Currently I am working on improving my testing methods to do the basic research required for such a paper.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by jar, posted 08-16-2004 7:09 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Bill Birkeland, posted 08-18-2004 10:18 AM wmscott has replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2611 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 209 of 234 (134897)
08-18-2004 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by wmscott
08-17-2004 4:57 PM


Re: A recent temporary rise in sea level to above the 1000 ft contour line.
In making some of the claims below, I get the impression that Mr. Scott intended to get a reaction from the geologists on this list. Because, his ideas are so completely refuted and unsupported by the vast volume of published evidence and aren't taken seriously by any conventional geologist, I have ignored his posts having better things to do than beat a hopelessly dead horse that "ain't" going anywhere. However, I will make an exception to this post.
Mr. Scott started:
"Basically I am looking at a large scale impact event on the late
Ice Age ice sheets, which resulted in the 40 days of rain and
dumped enough water into the oceans to raise sea level
high enough to destabilize the edges of the great ice sheets,
resulting in a runaway chain reaction of massive glacial surging.
The resulting rise in sea level would be something like 500
feet to perhaps as much as 4000 feet in less than a month,
perhaps even as little as a few days."
If such a event happened, it would caused an extinction event comparable to the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary as the worlds coastal and lowland environments would have been completely destroyed by being submerged under water. Besides there is simply not enough water in modern or ancient ice caps to have raised sea level by over 1,000 feet. On that basis alone, this idea is as scientifically bankrupt as the movie "Water World".
Mr.Scott continued:
"There is good evidence for supporting a recent temporary
rise in sea level to above the 1000 ft contour line. (see posts or
book)"
This can be only said if a person simply ignores an enormous amount of negative and positive evidence the clearly demonstrates that this didn't happened. For example, such an event would have created a well-defined event bed that would be quite obvious in outcrops and in cores containing paleoenvironmental records covering tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years from numerous lakes, bogs, and other locations. Also, much of the evidence,except for his diatom research, that I have seen in his posts is composed of material recycled from other catastrophists. It consists of largely of alleged anomalies culled from now antiquated and out-of-date research. In many cases, if a person consults the recent literature, a person will find that these anomalies have conventional explanations or consists of features, i.e. the shorelines on the mountains near Lake Baikal, which have been found to exist only in the imagination of the person who reported them.
"Some of the more geologically minded posters on this board
have agreed with me that such a past event is feasible..."
I am not one of such "geologically minded posters". From what I have seen of Mr.Scott's posts what he proposes is not only physically infeasible but readily refuted by a review the abundant paleoenvironmental data that has been published for the Pleistocene.
Mr.Scott continued:
"and have challenged me to prove it by publishing a
scientific paper on it. Currently I am working on improving
my testing methods to do the basic research required for
such a paper."
I have challenged Mr.Scott to publish his research. I look foward to seeing Mr. Scott not only publishing the results of his research in a geology journal but also presenting it at a meeting or two such as GSA or AMQUA.
Best Regards,
Bill Birkeland
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 08-18-2004 09:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by wmscott, posted 08-17-2004 4:57 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by wmscott, posted 08-18-2004 9:17 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6327 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 210 of 234 (135115)
08-18-2004 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Bill Birkeland
08-18-2004 10:18 AM


Need to focus on getting my research done.
Dear Bill Birkeland;
quote:
I get the impression that Mr. Scott intended to get a reaction from the geologists on this list. Because, his ideas are so completely refuted and unsupported by the vast volume of published evidence and aren't taken seriously by any conventional geologist, I have ignored his posts having better things to do than beat a hopelessly dead horse that "ain't" going anywhere. However, I will make an exception to this post.
Bill, it is rude and arrogant to address the 'audience' in a reply to a person's post. What if I posted: "Notice how our esteemed professor failed to supply any references to support his assertions, but instead we are expected to automatically accept his viewpoint because it is his viewpoint, he being the self appointed arbitrator of all things geological." See what I mean? If you reply to a person's post, at least have the decency of addressing them, otherwise you come off sounding like a pompous stuffed shirt.
quote:
If such a event happened, it would caused an extinction event comparable to the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary as the worlds coastal and lowland environments would have been completely destroyed by being submerged under water. Besides there is simply not enough water in modern or ancient ice caps to have raised sea level by over 1,000 feet. On that basis alone, this idea is as scientifically bankrupt as the movie "Water World"
Never heard of the Pleistocene Extinction event I see, and short floods particularly in winter time (northern hemisphere) when the ground is frozen and plants are dormant, do not "completely destroy" an environment. Floods happen all the time and do little overall long term damage to the environment. Unless a noticeable sediment is deposited, such events pass unnoticed in the geological record. You also missed the point that I didn't say evidence of a 1000 foot rise in sea level, I said to the contour line.
I had posted, "There is good evidence for supporting a recent temporary
rise in sea level to above the 1000 ft contour line. (see posts or
book)" to which you replied.
quote:
This can be only said if a person simply ignores an enormous amount of negative and positive evidence the clearly demonstrates that this didn't happened. For example, such an event would have created a well-defined event bed that would be quite obvious in outcrops and in cores containing paleoenvironmental records covering tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years from numerous lakes, bogs, and other locations. Also, much of the evidence, except for his diatom research, that I have seen in his posts is composed of material recycled from other catastrophists. It consists of largely of alleged anomalies culled from now antiquated and out-of-date research. In many cases, if a person consults the recent literature, a person will find that these anomalies have conventional explanations or consists of features, i.e. the shorelines on the mountains near Lake Baikal, which have been found to exist only in the imagination of the person who reported them.
We have had this discussion before, and as I have told you, the thin dusting of marine diatoms left by a brief marine flood would be too sparse to turn up in convectional examinations of sediment cores. I have to take a fair sized sample and process the whole thing and manage to strain out only a few marine diatoms. How on earth do you expect such a brief event to show up prominently in outcroppings?
So the raised shorelines near Lake Baikal are imaginary? Perhaps I will have to edit them from my book, got any references on this? Seems like an awfully odd thing for someone to imagine.
quote:
I have challenged Mr.Scott to publish his research. I look foward to seeing Mr. Scott not only publishing the results of his research in a geology journal but also presenting it at a meeting or two such as GSA or AMQUA.
I am looking forward to it as well. Hopefully if my evidence is solid and my paper isn't too badly written, I stand chance of getting published. One of the things I have learned from you Bill is that the scientific community is open to new ideas if they are supported by the evidence, I hope you are right about this and the community is not closed minded. But I do find your prejudicial views troubling, it makes me wonder just how much evidence it would take to change your mind, and if the rest of the community is just as rigid in their thinking, I am apparently going to need a mountain of evidence.
We are both pretty busy and have exchanged posts before without either of us convincing the other. I need to spent more time doing my research and less time arguing about it, I know that no matter how many words I were to use, it wouldn't convince you one bit. Only good solid evidence has any chance of doing that, and the only way I am going to find it, is to focus on getting my research done.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Bill Birkeland, posted 08-18-2004 10:18 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by contracycle, posted 08-19-2004 7:45 AM wmscott has replied
 Message 212 by jar, posted 08-19-2004 10:58 AM wmscott has replied
 Message 213 by CK, posted 08-19-2004 11:05 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 219 by Bill Birkeland, posted 08-20-2004 2:41 AM wmscott has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 234 (135194)
08-19-2004 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by wmscott
08-18-2004 9:17 PM


Re: Need to focus on getting my research done.
quote:
We have had this discussion before, and as I have told you, the thin dusting of marine diatoms left by a brief marine flood would be too sparse to turn up in convectional examinations of sediment cores. I have to take a fair sized sample and process the whole thing and manage to strain out only a few marine diatoms. How on earth do you expect such a brief event to show up prominently in outcroppings?
If you were able to find them, then you should be able to outline your methodology and write down a process by which the extraction can be performed. Then your method could be applied to the existing cores we have "on file", and the thesis could be thereby be tested.
But as I recall the last tinme I saw you make the diatom argument, the only evidence for the existance of diatoms you had was a photograph, which you had not yourself taken, of a boulder in Colorada, and which you had not yet visited to verify with your own eyes. Have things improved since then, wmscott?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by wmscott, posted 08-18-2004 9:17 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by wmscott, posted 08-19-2004 6:32 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024