Physics of the Biblical Flood

I read some sections and find it as compelling as that dude who wrote that spectacularly illustrated piece of work about"The Fingerprints of Creation.

He has no evidence for anything. He says as much, His only basis for any assertion is that the Bible is inerrant
Sounds like Creation Science at its best. Wheres the "Physics"??

Do you buy this or are you just having other people do your homework gunga?

There was a bit more of a description of some of the chapters on the thing which was posted last night and I did read that much of it.

YES but he admits that he will be publishing something of substance after he gathers evidence over the next year or so.
Even Darwin, who admittedly published his theory with a
modicum of evidence(compared to what science has discovered in the ensuing 154 years), had a goodly pile to present. In comparison, This guys got nothin except an assertion of an inrerrant Bible.

Ryan and Pittman's work has since been displaced quite a bit . They proposed that, based upon stratigraphy and archeological evidence that the Black sea was inundated catastrophically, giving rise to the Noah's Flood myth (via Gilgamesh). However, recent stable isotopic work of the "chemocline" (The depth at which oxic v anoxic conditions exist within the Black Sea), has determined that the inundation of the Black Sea was more gradual, taking place between 11500 yBP to 3000yBP. The stable isotopes of iron have left a "bathtub ring" along the ancient shoreline of the Black sea.
The "catastrophists" still dont yield because of their reliance upon archeological data that seems to support a catastrophic rise of Sea Level. Howqever, some scientists draw a model to todays Chesapeake bay, where the outer islands like Smith Island and Tangier Island are being inundated yet people are still living there. STorm sandy had uncovered a small early 19th century graveyard on Tangier Island and the sea level rise in that period of time has been about 8 ft. SO , to have a gradual sea level rise and still have human occupation is somethinmg we see today. Whay not the same in the Black Sea?

I think Pittman and Ryan are dead but their work was good stuff for its day . Its only because of modern advanced isotopic Mass Spectrometry that has allowed their data to be looked at under a more powerful scope.

Hi everyone, I am "the guy" that published the book that you are debating. My name is Roi. Thank you gungasnake for opening this thread.
I want to correct some of the information that was written here:

1. I am not a creationist. I do believe in the Bible and in God, but I do not interpret that the universe is less than 6000 years old. Furthermore, I claim that there is no contradiction between the Bible and the concept of evolution.

2. Farmerman, it is obvious that you did not read my book yet. I present piles of evidence from the most recent geophysical and geochemical research to my theory. Furthermore, I mention geochemical experiments that can be performed to prove or disprove some of the major postulates.

3. My published book "The Physics of The Biblical Flood" merely deals with the mechanism of the Biblical flood and the physical evidence that such a mechanism is possible. The theory was checked along the way with physicists and geologists who verified that it is plausible. In addition I have also conducted research in the archaeological, geological and biological domains. The volume of my research is tremendous. The findings cannot be summarised in a single book. It will probably take me several years to publish all the material. That is why I wrote that I will publish more material later on. Not because I haven't gathered the evidence (as Farmerman wrote), but because it takes a lot of effort, time and money to write every book.

Farmerman, I thank you for supplying me with updated information regarding Ryan and Pittman's work. Your data just strengthens my claims. My basic claim is that no regional flood theory can satisfy the Biblical description of the flood, therefore the interpretation of the allegedly Black Sea flooding as the Biblical flood is indeed wrong.

Roi Lotan Glazer
The Physics of The Biblical Flood
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Leaving aside the ineptitude of the writing here, this is good evidence that the biblical account is a load of old horsie poop.

Unknown to you, then. Youve been used by this forums leading anti evolutionist and anti phsyical science proponent. I have a meeting soon but I shall return to discuss some of your points and further about Pittman and Ryan and the several recent findings.

The conflict is between evolution, and modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. Our entire living world is based on an information system (RNA/DNA) which is every bit as complex as C++ or Java. Things like that do not just sort of happen on their own.

Something tells me that you don't adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Or (the more obvious solution) that the Biblical description of the flood is inaccurate.

Modern mathematics, probability and logic not only fully support evolution, they make it inevitable. The only people who don't recognize this fact are people who don't understand evolution.

"plausible" is a reality that would mean that ALL connate, frozen, and hydration water would need to be made available to "Hide " an entire planet.
I am unaware of where in the stratigraphgic record we have worldwide evidence of a "Worldwide FDlood". Even in some classical localities like the Grand Canyon (which is a favorite of Creationsts and "flood geologists" ) "Flood geologists" expound on a hypothesis based upon a series of connected
marine , deltaic and riverine sedimentary layers (over top of the SHield rocks of the Vishnu SChists). Yet always, in the middlings and here and there are clear evidences of Varved deposits and dune deposits.

The rest of the planet needs to show, somehwere, an unbroken marine sequence that evidences a worldwide transgression, and we havent seen it anywhere.
Id be happy to discuss that stratigraphy because Im an old geologist whose been in the racket for about 37 years now (Before which I was a geochemist studying and mining rare earth elements).

Youre right, I didnt read your book, I did the easy thing of looking at chapter headings, and your conclusions. Earth history with the Bible as a preceptory set of "assumptions" gives me some adjida. you would have to totally ignore several aspects of earth science and geophysics and prinicpally stratigraphy to even say that there is evidence for a worldwide flood.

NOT accepting Ryan and Pittmans work becaame reasonable only lately as more advanced Mass Spec technologies like SHRIMP had developed (These were not available in the time that the two were doing their researches.

It was comforting to initially accept their work as reasonable because it provided some closure as to the origins of a worldwide flood mythopoeic base of scriptures. Ryan and Pittmnan werennt interested in coming up with a flood myth substitute, they were engaged in real geophysics . The fact that they came up with the story they did was captured by newspapers and popular presses.
I was teaching geology at the time and we studied their work ion an econ geologic basis. Several of my really inquisitive students actually wrote to R and P to question theior bases of fact finding and my students were lewft un satisfied. I was quite prouyd of them since they went waay beyond my simple means to analyze the data.

SO, if I understand, you still believe in a worldwide FLood, you accept geologic data and evidence of evolution and possibly several other things. Im curious where you go from there to still assert that a worldwide flood was a reality.

Please accept my tone as great curiosity and Im not tryinmg to be m,ean spirited, although you must realize that, whenever we write something we have a "model of communication" in our minds but we are often unaware that what we say may be percieved as curt and rude on the receiving end.

Lets have some fun eh?
PS-Are you saying that the book by WHitcomb and Morris is close to being an accurate scientific account?

PSS, You aill see from the rantings of one gungasnake, who is our Summus Creationisti, he doesnt accept ANYTHING that smacks of science. Hi idea that commonlaity of DNA among species is not evidence of common descent

There's plenty of flood myths going around. Flooding obviously did happen, it's hardly an unknown phenomenon. Raining for 40 days and forty nights is what they call a Summer in Wales.

The idea of the whole surface of the planet being covered is ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

The source of the BIBLICAL Flood myth had come to the fore via the Gilgamesh tale, and Pittman and Ryan, two geophysicists, had attempted to put some scientific "roots" onto Gilgamesh by describing data that showed that the transgression of the VBlack Sea was due to a catastrophioc flooding at post Mindell glacial time. All the meltwater supposedly poured over the Bosporus and flooded the Black Sea , killing the lake dwelling civilizations about 11500 years ago.

Well, recent work has shown that to be in error and the "flooding" seems to have been a gradual Sea Level rise.
Apparently, the author of the work that Gunga had posted is (oops) not a Creationist but is still asserting (At least thats the way I take it) the inerrancy of the Biblical events.

Gunga actually believes in a worldwide flood (and several other departures from reality). So, thats why hes a bit pissed at the author of the paper.

I love when the story starts going awry and spiralling out of control.

JAVA and C++ are nowhere near complicated as is a biological living system. Biology can self regulate and reproduce itself. It can take basic elements and sustain itself and actually put on mass.
DNA self regulates quite easily as do biological systems in general. To compare biology to some chump computer code is like comparing one gram mole weight to the galaxy.

PLEase buy a modern biology book and learn something from it. Creationism and The Genesis Flood have no places in modern science

Hi to Farmerman, Sentana, Gungasnake and Roborne972,

I will try to reply to you all but if I miss an issue please let me know.

1. To Sentana and everyone, I apologise for my English. I am not a native English speaker and if I will hire a language editor each time I post a reply, then I will soon be bankrupted.

2. The fact that I was prompt by Gungasnake who is (as you say) a creationist does not disturb me. I thank him. Although I am not a creationist my self I do debate with many creationists and do not disregard their claims. I think that we should always stay openminded to any theory and not rush to make conclusions without thoroughly investigating it. The freedom to exchange ideas enables our progress. If we disregard others then we suffocate the scientific discussion and narrow it down only to what is regarded as conventional. Scientific breakthroughs do not usually conform with the conventional conceptions.

3. Evolution: I support evolution for two reasons. The scientific evidence is abundant and we can see evolution going on continuously today every time there is a new mutation in a bacteria or virus. In addition I am researching Talmud and Kabbala and amazingly I found support for integrated biological and spiritual evolution in these ancient scriptures. Rabbis have argued about evolution long before Darwin was born, but unfortunately in the 18th century an anti evolutional interpretation became the consensus. I began to reveal the ancient knowledge in Israeli press and in lectures and it is now gradually re-accepted even by religious sectors.

4. Literal interpretation of the Bible: The Bible has different levels of depth and understanding. It is meant to be understood by all readers at all ages along the entire history. There was no point in explicitly telling people 3000 years ago about the details of the big bang and evolution. But the Biblical creation story does supply a basic knowledge as to the stages of creation even to an infant. How can we know when to interpret the Bible literally? Study the Talmud and the Kabbala. The answers are there.

5. Global flood? In the case of the Biblical flood I was amazed to discover that the literal interpretation can be supported by scientific evidence. Want to understand how? Read my book (The Physics of The Biblical Flood). The book is free online. Prior to my research I personally regarded the Biblical Flood as nonsense. Actually I was an atheist until 2005. Claiming that the idea of a global flood is ridicules without investigating the details of my theory is inappropriate and not scientific. The idea that humans can build airplanes also seemed reticules until the 20th century.

6. Where is the water of the flood? Farmerman, now I am addressing your first question, the water is presently dissolved in the mantle. Quoting from the most recent and credible articles I show in my book that the mantle is likely to contain more than 5 ocean-folds. In personal correspondence with one of the leading geophysicist he even estimated that the mantle contains 10 ocean-folds. In order to supply the Biblical flood only 1-2 ocean-folds need to be released from the mantle (and reabsorbed later on). They were released due to an extreme and temporarily event of tidal heating, caused by a cosmic cloud. Please read my book. You will find all the details and scientific references there. The most relevant chapters for you are chapters 8-11.

7. Sedimentary: The Biblical flood lasted less than a year. There wasn't enough time to generate a normal marine sediment. Furthermore, the water and environment did not enable the marine biology to flourish so you should not expect to find layers of dead marine organisms. What we should expect to find is the evidence of riverine sedimentary layers (which I have found). Deltaic sedimentary may be tricky if the sea level rose very quickly. Regarding the Varved deposits and dune deposits: are you referring to the 4.2 ky climate event? There is a strong connection...

8. Ryan and Pittmans work: I didn't have any problem to accept their findings. I merely disputed the connection of that flood to the Biblical flood. Earth has a long history. Many catastrophes must have occurred. It is superficial to seek only a single flood event.

9. WHitcomb and Morris: I haven't read their book yet so I cannot comment.

Roi Lotan Glazer
The Physics of The Biblical Flood
(Search it in the web because they don't allow me to add my link here)

I think the "support" for evolutionary processes seen in the Talmud of Kabbala is an extension of what we wish to interpret , not necessarily whats been said. Aristotles own discourses on the transmutation of life was as perfect a discussion of evolution except that he was making an argument for why it "Didnt happen".
Buffons own discussions were loaded with material just "below" a theory but he had no clue of the importance of what he spoke or he would have pursused it further. Darwins own Grandfather published many short (and a few epic) poems about life and these were great opening posings of evolution but were, alas, as devoid of any scientific thought as any Creationist rant.

. SO the order of appearnace is not important to you. ANy Creation myth can pose a sequence of the appearance of life but it isnt really science until some thought is given to the order of appearances

Id like to discuss your theiory but it looks like I have to read your work. HMM. A scientist usually has the "Short form" of their theories intheir pocket just for occassions as this. I can see NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE ANYWHERE IN THE GEOLOGIC RECORD for a Global Flood. WOuld you like to tell me where such evidence actually exists ?
Im anxious to see. Ive told you of specific horizons that "Creation SCience" uses as a model for a universal flood, only to see that there are evidences of sand dunes and vast areas of Aerial erosion within those very layers. AS we say in Pa Dutch Country--

"We cannot have it both ways"


6


The reabsorption of connate and hydrate water would leave a secondary record in the mineralogy of mantle minerals. My specialty is seciondary enrichment of minerals and mineral deposists because many rare earth elemensta re taken up by connate waters and solubilized to form aqueous solutions in lake deposits(Howeer, they leave tracks of their sources and dates of formation). Your geophysicist needs to explain how hydration is reversible without creating such secondary minerlization?

7.
I dont buy this at all. Small storms of a 1 year return frequency will leave sedimentary structures called "Sole marks" in water bodies, marine subsurface structures, tidal flats and even spillways. LAst Year we had a severe single day storm in Vermont that left a huge sedimentary evidence pile along the Connecticut River.
Weve got really good evidence of a tsunami associated with teh Chixclub bolide impact as far away from the impact zone as Mississippi and ARkansas.
I think thats a bit of an embarrasing area from which to assert the existence of a worldwide flood.
Id expect tosee massive vertical connections between sedimentary structures showing everything from rapid high energy currents to low energy riverine sediments. There are engineering equations regarding the energy it takes to get a particle into motion as well as the energy drops that must occur to have particles settle out of a moving liquid. A muddy river after a brief rainfall is evidence enough that some sedimentary "tracks" would be left. I think you need to think that out further also.

Reticules?



What do ladies handbags of the 19th century have to do with airplanes?

Seriously, though, the idea of human flight goes back quite a way. The legend of Icarus, of course, didn't seriously propose a practical means of flight, but it certainly shows that men were thinking of human flight thousands of years ago.

Leonardo da Vinci imagined several types of flying machine . . .





. . . all of which were variations on these two themes.

Otto Lilienthal attempted to make such designs work . . .





The Wright Flyer was a further variation on the theme . . .



If anyone here needs to do more reading, it's y ou.

(EDIT: In case you attempt to claim that this does not contradict your thesis, Otto Lilienthal died in 1896. He built his gliders, shown in those photographs, well before the 20th century.)

A cosmic cloud? Did you just blame a temporary "cosmic cloud" for squeezing 2 oceans worth of water out of the mantle? That's the basis of your argument? That's just freaking .... GREAT!, I love it. Was it a time travelling cloud?