 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / December 2007Article: 'Noah's flood' kick-started European farming
'Noah's flood' kick-started European farming The flood believed to be behind the Noah's Ark myth kick-started European agriculture, according to new research by the Universities of Exeter and Wollongong, Australia. Published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, the research paper assesses the impact of the collapse of the North American (Laurentide) Ice Sheet, 8000 years ago. The results indicate a catastrophic rise in global sea level led to the flooding of the Black Sea and drove dramatic social change across Europe. The research team argues that, in the face of rising sea levels driven by contemporary climate change, we can learn important lessons from the past. The collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet released a deluge of water that increased global sea levels by up to 1.4 metres and caused the largest North Atlantic freshwater pulse of the last 100,000 years. Before this time, a ridge across the Bosporus Strait dammed the Mediterranean and kept the Black Sea as a freshwater lake. With the rise in sea level, the Bosporus Strait was breached, flooding the Black Sea. This event is now widely believed to be behind the various folk myths that led to the biblical Noah's Ark story. Archaeological records show that around this time there was a sudden expansion of farming and pottery production across Europe, marking the end of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherer era and the start of the Neolithic. The link between rising sea levels and such massive social change has previously been unclear. The researchers created reconstructions of the Mediterranean and Black Sea shoreline before and after the rise in sea levels. They estimated that nearly 73,000 square km of land was lost to the sea over a period of 34 years. Based on our knowledge of historical population levels, this could have led to the displacement of 145,000 people. Archaeological evidence shows that communities in southeast Europe were already practising early farming techniques and pottery production before the Flood. With the catastrophic rise in water levels it appears they moved west, taking their culture into areas inhabited by hunter-gatherer communities. Professor Chris Turney of the University of Exeter's School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources, lead author of the paper, said: "People living in what is now southeast Europe must have felt as though the whole world had flooded. This could well have been the origin of the Noah's Ark story. Entire coastal communities must have been displaced, forcing people to migrate in their thousands. As these agricultural communities moved west, they would have taken farming with them across Europe. It was a revolutionary time." The rise in global sea levels 8000 years ago is in-line with current estimates for the end of the 21st century. Professor Chris Turney continued: "This research shows how rising sea levels can cause massive social change. 8,000 years on, are we any better placed to deal with rising sea levels? The latest estimates suggest that by AD 2050, millions of people will be displaced each year by rising sea levels. For those people living in coastal communities, the omen isn't good." Source: University of Exeter http://www.physorg.com/news114703512.html  SignaturePosted by Robert Karl Stonjek http://www.physorg.com/news114703512.html Ya, I saw that link too. Noah's Flood has been debated here often, often with ad hominum aimed at those who look at the data like this and say it really happened in the mid 6th mil. And yes, the waters are rising, and this will displace people. But it will also open up land in Canada, Alaska, Scandinavia, & Russia to food production on a really massive scale. which will be needed to feed everyone, not just those displaced with high water. Politically, its a problem, but the net global food output will rise anyway. > http://www.physorg.com/news114703512.html > Ya, I saw that link too. Noah's Flood has been debated here often, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > feed everyone, not just those displaced with high water. Politically, > its a problem, but the net global food output will rise anyway. On Nov 19, 6:29 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" quoted: <snip> > The researchers created reconstructions of the Mediterranean and Black Sea shoreline before and after the rise in sea levels. They estimated that nearly 73,000 square km of land was lost to the sea over a period of 34 years. Based on our knowledge of historical population levels, this could have led to the displacement of 145,000 people. Archaeological evidence shows that communities in southeast Europe were already practising early farming techniques and pottery production before the Flood. With the catastrophic rise in water levels it appears they moved west, taking their culture into areas inhabited by hunter-gatherer communities. If the lasty drainage of Glacial Lake Agassiz was as fast as possible, and if it occurred at a time when Mediterranean water was just about high enough to overflow a dam in the Bosphorus Strait, and if such a dam existed, and if Black Sea level was at about 50 metres lower than the dam level, and if the dam eroded away quickly to the modern sill level, and if water poured through the gap as fast as possible, then 34 years fits in with previous calculations of the time required to bring Black Sea level up to global sea level. None of the "ifs" above are proven. > Professor Chris Turney of the University of Exeter's School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources, lead author of the paper, said: "People living in what is now southeast Europe must have felt as though the whole world had flooded. This could well have been the origin of the Noah's Ark story. Entire coastal communities must have been displaced, forcing people to migrate in their thousands. As these agricultural communities moved west, they would have taken farming with them across Europe. It was a revolutionary time." That "must have" above depends on all or most of the "ifs" above being correct. > The rise in global sea levels 8000 years ago is in-line with current estimates for the end of the 21st century. Professor Chris Turney continued: "This research shows how rising sea levels can cause massive social change. 8,000 years on, are we any better placed to deal with rising sea levels? The latest estimates suggest that by AD 2050, millions of people will be displaced each year by rising sea levels. For those people living in coastal communities, the omen isn't good." All very well, and if thrue, this great exodus of agricultural-technlogy-bearing refugees would be a cautionary tale pre-visiting the massive displacements to come, but it's not yet proven. What we have here is an advertisement of a map of a possible past. - Daryl Krupa Oh, common Daryl; give it up. Folks back then lived in tiny villages and hardly ever got more than 10 miles from home. When every place they know floods, they must think its the whole world. Yeah its stupid to think like that, but people are still stupid. >None of the "ifs" above are proven.> But not all of them need to be to reasonably conclude that Ryan & Pitman are basically correct. For instance, you do not need the dam to erode away quickly to the modern sill level. We dont know what the sill level was then. This is a very active tectonic area that is still having uplift and subsidence. Be nice if somebody posted a topo map of the area as it was then, rather than rant about what it is now. But more to the point is that there is abundant evidence of a tremendous cultural change in the 6th mil revealed in digs in Serbia, Iran, and the Danube drainage basin. I await the dendochronology to nail down when so many communities suddenly emerged. Be nice too if someone would do the sonar on the submerged Danube channel. If R&P are correct, there will be habitation mounds there. And if not, then not, and we can blow off the great flood and try to find some other explanation for the cultural transformations all showing up in this era. <snip> > people are still stupid. <snip> > But not all of them need to be to reasonably conclude that > Ryan & Pitman are basically correct. This latest study is not about Ryan's & Pitman's BSFloode Mk. I. It is about Ryan's BSFloode Mk. II, because Ryan has reasonably decided that Ryan's & Pitman's BSFloode Mk. I is basically incorrect. > For instance, you do not need the dam to > erode away quickly to the modern sill level. That erosion was a requirement of Ryan's & Pitman's BSFloode Mk. I. For Ryan's BSFloode Mk. II that is not a requirement, because there is not necessarily any dam in the Bosphorus in that revised hypothesis. The latest articles write of a dam in the Bosphorus holding back Mediterranean water, which is an elaboration of Ryan's BSFloode Mk. II, which I am pleased to name the Wollongong BSFloode Mk IIA, conatining the damburst of Mk. I, combined with a top-of-dam level equal to the modern sill level, i.e. a dam of negligible height, which would perforce erode quickly. > We dont know what the sill level was then. There is no evidence that sill level 8300 years ago was any higher than today's sill level, but there is a possibility that it was lower than today's because the modern sill is made up of soft, easily-erodeable sediments that have filled in a bedrock notch. A damburst would have swept away those sediments. And it is an odd coincidence that global sea level had just risen to modern sill level 8300 years ago ... any dam would have delayed the entry of Mediterranean water into the Black Sea basin ... which was the explanation of a late flood in BSFloode Mk. I ... BSFloode Mk. IIA is a flood "created by a committee", "all things to all people", "a flood for all millennia", etc.. > This is a very active tectonic area that is still > having uplift and subsidence. The sides of the Bosphorus have been uplifted in the past as part of a general uplift of the south side of the Black Sea basin, but that movement has ceased, and the Bosphorus itself is a linear zone of subsidence resulting from the tearing-apart of the two sides of the Strait. That subsudence has also apparently ceased (there is no evidence of modern or historical subsidence), and the tectonic movement in the area is now a strike-slip, horizontal motion, along the fault that runs East-West south of the southern end of the Bosphorus. The Bosphorus experiences about as much vertical motion as the Los Angeles Basin, i.e., nothing woirth worrying about. > Be nice if somebody posted a topo map of the area > as it was then, rather than rant about what it is now. Odd, that you would prefer a speculative fantasy to a description of real-world conditions, and deem discussion of real-world conditions to be lunatic drivel ... > But more to the point is that there is abundant evidence of a > tremendous cultural change in the 6th mil revealed in digs in Serbia, > Iran, and the Danube drainage basin. I await the dendochronology to > nail down when so many communities suddenly emerged. Done: wasn't sudden. > Be nice too if someone would do the sonar on the submerged > Danube channel. Done. No evidence of sudden flooding. > If R&P are correct, R&P were not correct: R said so. > there will be habitation mounds there. None noted in the report. > And if not, then not, and we can blow off the great flood Oh, yes, please, won't you, do, there's a pet? > and try to find some other explanation for > the cultural transformations all showing up in this era. Yes, by all means trot out those weird and fantabulous explanations of climate change, cultural adaptation, human invention, cross-fertilisation, increased trade, technological progress, all those strange phantasmagoria that we do not see all about us today, wouldn't that be a crazy thing to do ... Tired of your specious arguments, Daryl Krupa On Nov 19, 6:29 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > 'Noah's flood' kick-started European farming <snip> > Source: University of Exeterhttp://www.physorg.com/news114703512.html Robert Karl Stonjek: It's an exercise in "bad timing", and is not worthy of further consideration. The dating is based on a modelled interpolation of dates that do not relate to a possible Black Sea flooding event, the connection between the modelled estimated dating of a Black Sea flooding event and a sudden rise in global sea level is unsubstantiated, and Turney's and Brown's work ignores some aspects of the work that they cite that do not fit into their hypothetical scenario of Black Sea flooding (which only appears in a report of another modelling exercise, and which has no obvious theoretical basis). In my not-so-humble opinion, this "shellfish tale" can be safely ignored. See my analysis in sci.archaeology, in the thread Yet another Noah's Fluff + The Black Sea as well. http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.archaeology/msg/89cd75579ce96e09 OR http://tinyurl.com/37zo7a - Daryl Krupa Daryl, there is so much political capital on debunking Ryan & Pitman, that the onus of proof to an impartial observer falls on them, rather than what Ryan & Pitman has to say. Its not like most people approach the question with an open mind because of the pervasive, and perverse, influence of Levantine scriptures on the Western academic community. Make of it whatever you like. I wont try to characterize how accurately or completely the depictions of the Black Sea flood are, but merely note that such a flood explains a lot of peculiarities in Aryan culture, language, and mythology. How you explain them without a disastrous flood on the Euxine basin in the era of PIE unity is beyond me, and I've not seen you attempt it. > Daryl, there is so much political capital on debunking Ryan & Pitman, > that the onus of proof to an impartial observer falls on them, rather > than what Ryan & Pitman has to say. <snip> And there's your basic epistemological problem, right there. You have the direction of progress of science backwards, ergo, you are not a progressive thinker. - Daryl Krupa > On Nov 22, 6:52 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:> Daryl, there is so much political capital on debunking Ryan & Pitman, > > that the onus of proof to an impartial observer falls on them, rather [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You have the direction of progress of science backwards, ergo, > you are not a progressive thinker. I dont think anyone cares what kind of thinker I am. Much less your opinion of what it is. The fact remains that there were debunkers pandering to Christian sensibilities right after R&P published, with their comments including ad hominum just like yours. An impartial observer would note the ad hominum and therefore recognize the passion, rather than the proof, behind a partisan position. We see this in all scientific endeavors. Had they been able discourse without the ad hominum their comments would have been evaluated more dispassionately rather than viewed with suspicion. Any rhetorician recognizes that one only resorts to characterizing the comments of others when he does not have other facts to present. It will not have escaped their notice, that yet again, after I have expressed something like the following... <<Make of it whatever you like. I wont try to characterize how accurately or completely the depictions of the Black Sea flood are, but merely note that such a flood explains a lot of peculiarities in Aryan culture, language, and mythology. How you explain them without a disastrous flood on the Euxine basin in the era of PIE unity is beyond me, and I've not seen you attempt it.>> You snip it rather than try to present any explanation for these curiosities in Aryan past. I have admitted some ambiguity in the data, and asked for more detailed maps of the area as well as topographic reconstructions of what it was in pre-historic times. I've not seen you ask for any more data on this. Perhaps Stonjek posted this link in response to my request. http://www.physorg.com/news114703512.html for which I am grateful. Professor Turney summarizes researchers who collected data they think supports Ryan & Pitman. I dont see that you have offered anything to refute the Univ of Exeter either. Since I've been collecting data and links on this, I've noticed the increasing numbers of reports in support of Ryan and Pitman and a dearth of attempted debunking. In the face of European academic support, dismissiveness now makes one look like a religious fanatic. Those interested the Levantine traditions can ignore this, and those interested in the Aryan tradition are free to make of it what they will. <snip> > Professor Turney summarizes researchers who > collected data they think supports Ryan & Pitman. Nope, he didn't. He didn't even try. Instead, he tried to back up efforts of another to refute Ryan & Pitman, i.e. Ryan. Ryan no longer supports Ryan & Pitman. Hasn't done so for at least 4 years. You shouldn't, either. Thought you knew. Told you enough times. But, you are a regressive thinker, so you went back to your old, hidebound ways of thinking in the face of new evidence. Put your head in the sand. Went to ground. Got down and dirty. Did the Two Wise Monkeys thinkg, but as a consequence, missed finding out about the Third One. > I dont see that you have offered anything to refute the Univ of Exeter > either. Then you are too busy emulating the First Monkey. > Since I've been collecting data and links on this, I've > noticed the increasing numbers of reports in support of Ryan and > Pitman and a dearth of attempted debunking. You are on a cruise through a personal fantasy. > In the face of European > academic support, dismissiveness now makes one look like a religious > fanatic. Rather, a willful ignoramous. Say, someone of a Scolastic bent, like Duns Scotus, he of the risible Duns cap. > Those interested the Levantine traditions can ignore this, > and those interested in the Aryan tradition are free to make of it > what they will. I.e., those who are interested in an imaginary alternate universe are free to dream up whatever objections they wish to appear. Please stop bothering us. You are tiresome. I cant find in any of the links you offered where Ryan recanted. There is some quibble about the dating, which he admits, but that's not his fault, nor is it more than a 10% error in terms of the mid 6th mil Great Flood. More to the point really are links like this: http://www.physorg.com/news114703512.html which come from respected academic sources in support of the Great Euxine flood, which are indicative of the shift in conventional thinking. The attempted debunking by supporters of Levantine scriptures worked for a while, but as more data has come in, has now collapsed. <Please stop bothering us. You are tiresome.> *US*? Who's "us" Daryl? The only *one* trying to debunk Ryan and Pitman is you. Not that we here by any means are a representative sample of well informed thinking. No, the above European website is more reflective of that, and the shift twards acceptance of the facts we have despite the way they disturb religious sensibilities. There has always been a lotta conjecture about the original Aryans, and now the chalcolithic digs are providing us with real data that offer some reason for the dispersal we have long known went on. <snip> > You are on a cruise through a personal fantasy. I just finished reading this book. If you haven't seen it, you may be interested in some of the data, even though it is about catastrophic floods here in the Columbia Basin, not the Black Sea area. http://www.keokeebooks.com/IceAgeFloods.html I haven't followed the Black Sea basin arguments, but it seems rather far fetched to me that you could hide the traces of a former lake/flood event, even though evidence of a dam might be washed away. > I just finished reading this book. If you haven't seen it, you may be > interested in some of the data, even > though it is about catastrophic floods here in the Columbia Basin, not > the Black Sea area. I saw a TV doc on that, but since I am not Native American, I try to stay out of debates that have to do with their history. > http://www.keokeebooks.com/IceAgeFloods.html > > I haven't followed the Black Sea basin arguments, but it seems rather > far fetched to me that you could hide > the traces of a former lake/flood event, even though evidence of a > dam might be washed away. I dont see any effort to hide the traces of the Euxine flood; I see a curious failure to look in the right places. Ryan & Pitman, for instance, say that the bottom north of the Bosporus is littered with house size hunks of rock that they say were blown out by the catastrophe. As may be. I do not know. I have not seen a chart of the locations of these rocks, or whether they are all along the coast, and not just north of the Bosporus. No images of them have been posted on the net. Then too, I saw Ballard on TV, with the video of what he thinks are artifacts on the bottom north of Sinop Turkey. But if, as implied, he's looking for signs of human habitation, the WTF is he doing there? I mean the *obvious* place to go is to follow the submerged channel of the Danube cause that's where the biggest towns would have been. Why is he so stupid? > On Nov 28, 9:25 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:> I just finished reading this book. If you haven't seen it, you may be > > interested in some of the data, even [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the Danube cause that's where the biggest towns would have been. Why > is he so stupid? http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/session_9644.htm Or http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_58733.htm > Or > > http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_58733.htm Thanx, but I've seen these before. I would be impressed by a study done by Chinese, Japanese, or some other culture whose institutions did not have to consider Christian or Islamic sensibilities. None of the above qualify. I have not maintained that earlier floods did not happen. But a flood happening to a nomadic or hunting culture is a far less memorable event than one which happens to settled farming communities... which did not exist during the earlier floods. Its real simple. show me the detailed maps of the bottom. For some reason, nobody seems to have them. That's odd. > On Nov 28, 11:44 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Or > > >http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_58733.htm > > Thanx, but I've seen these before. If you have seen URLs like this before, why did you make this comment in the above post? Day: "*US*? Who's "us" Daryl? The only *one* trying to debunk Ryan and Pitman is you." http://inqua2003.dri.edu/Press/Yanko-Hombach.pdf "By working with a large pool of data from several different countries, she (Valentina Yanko-Hombach) squarely refuted a National Geographic special that aired three years ago, showing that during the time period in question there was no large flood in the Black Sea basin, and that any potential large flood occurred much earlier. The overview included the original author's data as well as other geological records obtained largely by Ex-USSR and Former Eastern Block scientists during a large-scale marine geological survey of the Black Sea shelf, supplemented by field observations and archaeological findings collected since 1970." > I would be impressed by a study > done by Chinese, Japanese, or some other culture whose institutions > did not have to consider Christian or Islamic sensibilities. None of > the above qualify. What is the evidence that Yanko-Hombach would be acting in a non- scientific manner? One can always think up a conspiracy theory to suit a given situation. One still needs some factual basis for the charge. This is not to say I don't think politics never enters into the field of science, but each charge needs to be looked at on an individual basis. > I have not maintained that earlier floods did not happen. But a flood > happening to a nomadic or hunting culture is a far less memorable > event than one which happens to settled farming communities... which > did not exist during the earlier floods. I don't know how you can speak on what hunter gatherers may or may not remember. First it has to be demonstrated that there was a late-flood before it can be decided what was or wasn't remembered by any possible farmers in the area, otherwise it is just a case of leading the evidence. > Its real simple. show me the detailed maps of the bottom. For some > reason, nobody seems to have them. That's odd. From URL above: "oceanographic surveys carried out in the Black Sea in 1998 and 2002 in the frame of European projects complement previous seabed mapping" Sounds like all that is needed is a trip to the library. >Day: "*US*? Who's "us" Daryl? The only *one* trying to debunk Ryan >and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Black Sea shelf, supplemented by field observations and archaeological >findings collected since 1970." >What is the evidence that Yanko-Hombach would be acting in a non- >scientific manner? None. However, you are quoting a presenters' news release, that is, the authority claiming that Valentina Yanko-Hombach "squarely refuted a National Geographic special" is none other than Valentina Yanko-Hombach herself. If one is curious to know how well Valentina Yanko-Hombach delivered on her 2003 self-serving publicity stunt, I recommend reading the review of a recent volume on this topic, a volume for which Yanko-Hombach served as both head editor and contributor. Yanko-Hombach, V., Gilbert, A.S., Panin, N. and Dolukhanov, P.M. (Eds)(2007) The Black Sea Flood Question: Changes in Coastline, Climate, and Human Settlement. Springer, 971 pp. The review was published in the Journal of Sedimentary Research http://www.sepm.org/jsr/book_revs/2007_revs/br_yanko.pdf "Of course, there are some contributions of lesser quality. The most disappointing one is in my opinion, surprisingly, that of the principal editor, Valentina Yanko-Hombach. Her contribution largely duplicates the preface, her - in many respects - divergent views are not discussed and compared with other views, she uses an scale bar with uncommon length (Fig. 1), includes an unreadable table (Table 6) with extremely small but nevertheless bold letters in italics that are, moreover, printed top down, and she seems unaware that a small sea-level rise in flat coastal areas can easily result in the flooding of areas that extend far landinward. Did the editors not review the contributions of their fellow-editors?" Ouch!!!! Mircea On Nov 29, 7:06 pm, mirce...@comcast.net wrote: You missed the point: Day: > Thanx, but I've seen these before. Lee: If you have seen URLs like this before, why did you make this comment in the above post? Day: "*US*? Who's "us" Daryl? The only *one* trying to debunk Ryan and Pitman is you." I did not draw any conclusions---yet. As I said above, I really haven't followed the publications. But it does seem there are more detractors than 1 as Day implied. > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:57:55 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > a National Geographic special" is none other than Valentina > Yanko-Hombach herself. Yes, he said, she said. You missed the point again, I would like to know Day's basis for the accusation of what seems like a blanket conspiracy...science out to slander religion. The Japanese/etc are the only ones to be trusted? After their "Golden Hand" got caught planting artifacts? :-) > If one is curious to know how well Valentina Yanko-Hombach delivered > on her 2003 self-serving publicity stunt, I recommend reading the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ouch!!!! No errors on the pro-flood team? > Mircea I'm not talking about any kind of organized conspiracy. Just group think. When I was in school, Plate Tectonics was a crank theory. Happens all the time in science; always has. People in cultures that follow the Levantine tradition are affected in their judgment by the prevailing cosmology. That's always gone on as well. People cherry pick the data to support the received authority; there's always been good money and careers in it. Show me a report by people who dont have a dog in this fight, and dont have important relationships with followers of Levantine scriptures. That's why I suggested a non-Levantine culture look into this. Its noteworthy that the media report that started this thread came from Europe, which is shedding its attachment to Christian cosmology and Biblical archeology. My interest is not Biblical archeology, but Aryan development across the last 10,000 years. The Great Euxine Flood explains lots of peculiarities in that evolution which no other event does. I could cite them again, but I see that every time I do they are snipped. > I'm not talking about any kind of organized conspiracy. Just group > think. When I was in school, Plate Tectonics was a crank theory. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > does. I could cite them again, but I see that every time I do they are > snipped. Good discussion, this. Well above the usual standard for SAP. (except for the ad hominEM sniping from the left wing) Be careful of using the words: Levantine and non-Levantine. You'll have the ADL and AIPAC down your throat in no time if you carry on like that. That is, if you don't find yourself in some Syrian torture chamber for expressing such thoughts. (I won't go into details about who might have put you there). When non-Levantine cultures look into flood stories you also get the wholesale drubbing that Stephen Oppenheimer took when he talked about the drowned Sunda continent in 'Eden in the East'. The Australian/America contingent, all doing very well, thankyou, on Chinese money, came down on him like a ton of bricks and ridicule. He had the gall to suggest that southern savages might have contributed to the Empire's culture. Daryl Krupa put forward some good objections, but failed to mention that all his glacial flood 'facts' were based on mathematical models subject, themselves, to all the problems and distortions that a paucity of information leads to when you feed it into a computer. Lee Olsen is doing his usual very good job as guardian of the orthodox. Keep going, but come up with some facts as well as conjectures. And, for G**`s sake, keep politics out of it. regards Richard <snip> > Daryl Krupa put forward some good objections, but failed to mention > that all his glacial flood 'facts' were based on > mathematical models subject, themselves, to all the problems and > distortions that a paucity of information leads to when you feed it > into a computer. <snip> That ids not true. There is abundant physical evidence. Models are used for interpretation, but they use the physical evidence. There was a lake southwest of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. There are sediments and shorelines to prove that. Those have been dated. Those data, and many others, are independent of modelling activity. - Daryl Krupa > I'm not talking about any kind of organized conspiracy. Just group > think. OK > When I was in school, Plate Tectonics was a crank theory. Yes, but this type of argument reminds me of the publicized lottery grand-prize winners, you only hear about the success stories, the millions that lost are seldom heard from. > Happens all the time in science; always has. http://www.dimaggio.org/Heretic/crankfilters.htm > People in cultures that > follow the Levantine tradition are affected in their judgment by the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Biblical archeology. My interest is not Biblical archeology, but Aryan > development across the last 10,000 years. Your argument cuts both ways. IMO, for every biased scientist there seems to be another one who wants his job, notority, advancement, etc. a lot more so than everyone supporting the recieved authority or group think. To paraphrase James Shreeve, I interviewed 150 scientists for this book and it seems like I got 150 different opinions. A blanket statment about group think has to be demonstrated on a case by case basis, not just because it happened elsewhere at some point in time. But even *if* a hundred cases where true elsewhere, "group think" it is not a very good argument against floods kick-started Euro- farming. > The Great Euxine Flood > explains lots of peculiarities in that evolution which no other event > does. I could cite them again, but I see that every time I do they are > snipped. Sure, but peculiarities are not in themselves evidence. The fact that South America makes a nice fit with Africa was not what proved Plate Tectonics. Op 30-11-2007 06:02, in artikel c8f7f189-1381-47a3-8321-02a597185d3f@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef: > I did not draw any conclusions---yet. As I said above, I really > haven't followed the publications. Then why don't you shut up? Nothing better to do? > Op 30-11-2007 06:02, in artikel > c8f7f189-1381-47a3-8321-02a597185...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Then why don't you shut up? Nothing better to do? Dear Mr. Verhaegin, Thank you for taking your valuable time and interest reading my post. What is there better to do? Op 30-11-2007 18:30, in artikel 27a8c7d2-f6c9-43d8-9ec4-aaad9f0dbb13@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef: >> Op 30-11-2007 06:02, in artikel >> c8f7f189-1381-47a3-8321-02a597185...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dear Mr. Verhaegin Learn to spell, my boy. > Op 30-11-2007 18:30, in artikel > 27a8c7d2-f6c9-43d8-9ec4-aaad9f0db...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Learn to spell, my boy. Message-ID: <4530118a$0$5516$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> Try it yourself sometime, doughboy. >You missed the point: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >haven't followed the publications. > But it does seem there are more detractors than 1 as Day implied. Detractors!? There are legitimate authors with legitimate arguments on either side of the fence, but other than a dilettante Usenet anti Black Sea Flood crusader personally I cannot name any other detractor. >> >http://inqua2003.dri.edu/Press/Yanko-Hombach.pdf >> >"By working with a large pool of data from several different [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Yes, he said, she said. No, no! It's **she** said, **she** said. >You missed the point again, Damn it! This must not be my day ... Anyway, for someone who acknowledges to having about 10 years of catching up on the Black Sea Flood subject you do have a lot of easy to miss points. >I would like to >know Day's basis for the accusation Well, which part of "None" was unclear? Mircea On Nov 30, 5:24 am, mirce...@comcast.net wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:02:02 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > either side of the fence, but other than a dilettante Usenet anti > Black Sea Flood crusader But Day did not make a distiction between types of detractors, "Usenet" vs "legitimate." You did that, not Day. So if you move the goal posts far enough, you can make any strawman argument you wish, right? > personally I cannot name any other detractor. "legitimate authors with legitimate arguments on either side of the fence" Thank you. > >> >http://inqua2003.dri.edu/Press/Yanko-Hombach.pdf > >> >"By working with a large pool of data from several different [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No, no! It's **she** said, **she** said. "legitimate authors with legitimate arguments on either side of the fence" Are are all these legitimate authors women? > >You missed the point again, > > Damn it! This must not be my day ... "day"? That's a pun, right? >Anyway, for someone who > acknowledges to having about 10 years of catching up on the Black Sea [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well, which part of "None" was unclear? Well, which part of "Day's basis" was unclear? Mircea said "None" not Day. If you have so much trouble distinguishing between Day and Mircea, I can understand you why miss points so easily. BTW, I'm reading this from sap. If the boarderline off-topic Black Sea = farming was discussed here previously, I missed it. If you have refutted all of Daryl's (On Nov 19, 6:29 pm) points above elsewhere, link to them and I will be happy to take a look. >> Detractors!? There are legitimate authors with legitimate arguments on >> either side of the fence, but other than a dilettante Usenet anti [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"Usenet" vs "legitimate." >You did that, not Day. You read, but you do not understand. My distinction was not between types of detractors, but between detractors and legitimate authors. It is very clear, really. Go back and read again. If you don't get it even after the third reading, you are not the astute hair-splitter you vainly desire to be. >So if you move the goal posts far enough, you >can make any >strawman argument you wish, right? Oh, I see! You did not make the JV debate team, and now you're pouring your frustration online, right? >> personally I cannot name any other detractor. > > "legitimate authors with legitimate arguments on >either side of the fence" Thank you. Non sequitur ;-) I am sure you memorized this on. >> >> >http://inqua2003.dri.edu/Press/Yanko-Hombach.pdf >> >> >"By working with a large pool of data from several different [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >either side of the fence" Are are all these legitimate >authors women? Are you stupid or something? >BTW, I'm reading this from sap. If the boarderline off-topic Black >Sea = farming was discussed > here previously, I missed it. If you have refutted all of Daryl's (On >Nov 19, 6:29 pm) > points above elsewhere, link to them and I will be happy to take a >look. It seems to me you have neither the knowledge nor the interest to add something of substance to this topic. As for your sophistries, too bad for the time you're blowing to type them. Mircea On Dec 2, 3:42 pm, mirce...@comcast.net wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:16:05 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You read, but you do not understand. My distinction was not between > types of detractors, > but between detractors and legitimate authors. It > is very clear, really. What you answered to was my observation about day's observation = 1. Does someone care about who you think is legitimate? <snip goal post moving> Go back and read again. If you don't get it even after the third reading, you are not the astute hair-splitter you vainly desire to be. What part of more than one are you having a problem with? > >So if you move the goal posts far enough, you > >can make any > >strawman argument you wish, right? > > Oh, I see! You did not make the JV debate team, and now you're pouring > your frustration online, right? IOW, you don't get it. Does someone give a rat's a.s what your distinction of authors are? > >> personally I cannot name any other detractor. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Are you stupid or something? Hi a.shole troll. > >BTW, I'm reading this from sap. If the boarderline off-topic Black > >Sea = farming was discussed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It seems to me you have neither the knowledge nor the interest to add > something of substance to this topic. You did? What was it? >As for your sophistries, too bad > for the time you're blowing to type them. IOW, no. I'll be glad to wait for more substantial evidence. nevertheless, the putatitve Euxine flood answers several questions about Proto-Indo-European development. Points I have made several times that have been snipped several times. Why does PIE have no words for the marine environment, but so many for the freshwater ecosystems? Why did agriculture so suddenly spread up the Danube basin when it did? DNA shows that wheat descended from Einkorn 10,000 years ago, but then suddenly it shows up in the middens all over the Danube basin in the late 6th mil. Where were they for a couple thousand years? Why is the oldest Great Flood myth we have written in Mitanni, an upland horse culture? What are they doing with a flood myth? Why should they care if the farms in the valley are flooded since they live on the Steppes? Why does Genesis speak of the springs turning into artesian wells? That dont happen when it rains. Hello? > I'll be glad to wait for more substantial evidence. It's odd that you reject all of the more substantial evidence that refutes Ryan's and Pitman's hypothesis; you even dismiss the latest estimate of a date of a catastrophic Black Sea flood, the result of a statistical treatment of two radiocarbon dates, as if it were contaminated by the sort of passionate "ad hominum" pandering to fundamentalist Christian / Levantine sensibilities that you attribute to all those who will not accept your vision of the past. You ermind me of the parable of the man who rejects offers of transportation away from a flood-ravaged area by a bus, then a boat, then a helicopter, telling all of his would-be rescuers that he is waiting for God to rescue him, then moaning that his God has forsaken him when he drowns after being flushed off of his roof-top by the rising waters, then hearing God tell him that He had sent him a bus, a boat and a helicopter, so stop whining, already, nebbish. > nevertheless, the putatitve Euxine flood answers several questions > about Proto-Indo-European development. Points I have made several > times that have been snipped several times. <snipped again, except for this one, as an example of why they have not been deemed worthy of informed consideration> > Why does Genesis speak of the springs turning into artesian wells? > That dont happen when it rains. That's because springs _are_ artesian features, whether rain is falling or not. - Daryl Krupa > > I'll be glad to wait for more substantial evidence. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > That's because springs _are_ artesian features, > whether rain is falling or not. Its not odd at all Daryl; you are the only one who thinks the data is consistent. contrary reports are all over the place with contrary deductions on what the data means. The word in scripture Daryl is "fountain". That's not a spring. And you snipped all the other points because you have no clue as to why they have always caused controversy. I've cited my scholarly sources several times, which you are free to dismiss. And likewise, I remain unconvinced by your certainty. I'll keep watching for reports like the dramatic expansion of agriculture, which helps me in my own efforts to understand what went on. You think you know already. I dont have a problem with that. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.