RE: Noah not in the Black Sea

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 01:02:51 EST

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "Calvinistic Epistemology"

    Hi Burgy,
    You wrote:

    >There are three postures one may take, of course.
    >1. The Black Sea theory (that it sparked the flood legends) is correct.
    >2. The theory may, or may not, be correct.
    >3. The theory is incorrect.
    >And, of course, one may have the posture 1.01, or 1.99, or 2.01, or 2.99,
    >or, indeed any posture at all inbetween the extremes above.
    >"Sitting up," (how else to address the PC god?), I only claim that my own
    >position is probably about 1.75. I'd guess yours to be at 2.99 or so. The
    >fact that you are a lot more the expert in this area than me, and that I
    >highly respect your expertise, keeps me from being about a 2.00.

    With respect, this reminds me a bit of the way the YECs treated the Eddy and
    Boornazian report from the late 1970s that the sun's diameter was shrinking
    at a rapid rate. The YECs took the data and calculated that the sun would
    have swallowed the earth only a few million years ago if that rate had
    continued into the past. Eddy and Boornazian never actually recanted their
    suggestion but they ceased mentioning it or referencing their own paper
    after contradictory data proved them wrong. Several papers were published in
    the early 80s trashing the shrinking sun idea. The entire astronomical
    community rained on the concept. Yet the YECs continued (indeed do so
    until today) supporting the original (erroneous) report. The fact that the
    original authors no longer defended that suggestion didn't seem to affect
    the way the YECs approached the topic.

    Ryan and Pitman seem to be following an Eddy/Boornazian model. One
    geologist I was discussing the issue with a few months back dared me to send
    my objection (concerning the details of planktonic foraminifera) to them in
    an e-mail. He figured that they would have an answer. I sent the e-mail
    identifying myself as manager of geophysics for an oil compnay. That
    usually gets me a response from the academic community. Neither author
    responded to the e-mail. My freind was surprised. Now, clearly they are not
    required to dance to my tune and answer any old e-mail I send, but the fact
    that they didn't respond to a rather serious challenge to their view from a
    member of the geoscience community on a technical topic says something. My
    friend gave up the idea when they didn't respond. And as I pointed out, the
    recent article by Pitman in an issue of Maring Geology devoted to the Black
    Sea flood doesn't seem to mention the Black Sea Flood. That is kind of
    interesting to me. All the other articles in the issue were negative and the
    author of the idea doesn't defend his baby. Yet you are apparently a bit
    more supportive of the concept than any of the experts of late or indeed
    possibly more supportive than the guy who originated it. With respect, I
    would suggest it is dangerous always to go against the experts in the area.
    While I may know more geology than you, I am less expert in the area than
    those who appear in that Marine Geology issue. I won't contradict their
    conclusions unless I go see the data myself to see where they are wrong.
    Failing that, I will accept what those experts say in the matter.


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 02:31:53 EST