| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2004 01:39:53 PM |
| Object: |
Science program pseudoscience |
Glenna Hudson wrote:
Yeah, I saw the Rameses show. These so called "science" channels are
laughable when it comes to Biblical topics.
The whole show was based around a damaged skull that was found in
Rameses burial complex.
The logic went something like this... We found a skull... It looks
like the person died from a blow to the head... This could be the
skull of Rameses first born son... therefore the plague that killed
the first born didn't really happen... What probably did happen is
Rameses first born son was killed in hand to hand combat when Moses
led his people thru the swamp known as the reed sea.
They said Rameses had over 200 wives and scores of children but they
never answered the question... Why should we think THIS skull
belonged to his first born son.
I think I have the answer... there isn't anything particularly
exciting about a bashed skull, but if you can somehow link it to
Moses and the Exodus then you've got a show that people will watch.
Pure sensationalism.
---------------------------
Another example of bad TV science was "The Search for Noah's flood"
Two scientists found evidence that the black sea used to be fresh
water and was at a lower level until a natural barier breached and
caused the black sea area to flood quickly.
You might well ask... So what? Who cares? It's just a flood...
But these scientists think... an ancient local flood... Wow! If we
can make people think that this was the basis for all of the Noah's
flood legends, then we'll be famous.
Floods by themselves are nothing unusual, but if it can be twisted
into Noah's flood then they've got something that will sell.
Pure sensationalism.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Science program pseudoscience |
10 Dec 2004 12:45:20 AM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
Another example of bad TV science was "The Search for Noah's flood"
It's worse than you think, Bones.
Two scientists found evidence that the black sea used to be fresh
water
Actually, the fact that the water in the Black Sea basin used
to be fresher was known for decades before William B. F. Ryan and
Walter C. Pitman III started to investigate the Black Sea.
and was at a lower level
Also known for decades before.
until a natural barier breached
This was not known for decades before Ryan and Pitman came up
with the idea. It is still not known today.
No such "natural barrier" ever existed.
It was a fictional construction used by Ryan and Pitman to try
to explain why Mediterranean water did not enter the Black Sea
as soon as it should have, about 9000 years ago, which was also
known for decades before, because that is when postglacial
global sea level rise reached the level of the Bosphorus sill
(the high point in the floor of the strait at the south side of
the Black Sea which connects it with the Mediterranean Sea).
To delay that entry for about 1500 years required a blockage
in the strait, but there is no evidence whatsoever that such a
constipatory agent ever existed at all.
and caused the black sea area to flood quickly.
Others who have assumed that Ryan and Pitman were right about
their timing of their BSFlood and their unnatural barrier have
done better calculations since, and the minimum that they could
get was about a decade for all that water to flow through the
Bosphorus, and one says more like three decades.
But there is no real evidence of Black Sea level rise at the
time of Ryan and Pitman's BSFlood; rather, the Black Sea level
was the same as, or higher than, the Mediterranean level at the
time, so there was no empty basin to fill, then.
You might well ask... So what? Who cares? It's just a flood...
But these scientists think... an ancient local flood... Wow!
If we can make people think that this was the basis for all of
the Noah's flood legends, then we'll be famous.
And so they did become famous, but their reputations as sober
scientists were destroyed.
Nobody is doing research based on their BSFlood hypothesis
anymore.
Ballard doesn't bother, Pitman is silent, and Ryan is trying
to push an earlier, kindler, gentler flood in the Black Sea.
But he's not answering objections very well at conferences.
Floods by themselves are nothing unusual, but if it can be twisted
into Noah's flood then they've got something that will sell.
Pure sensationalism.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/
More Sensational National Geographic Enquirer Investigations:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/swimsuits/best.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0204/p02s01-ussc.html
Sadly, you and maybe millions of other people
have been misled on this subject.
Alas, there was no "Noachian" Black Sea Flood, and
the science in William Ryan's and Walter Pitman's book
"Noah's Flood: the event that changed history" has in
several cases been superceded by better information that
indicates that there was no such event, and was in most
cases preceded by evidence that indicated that there was
no such event.
Ryan and Pitman set out to overturn the orthodox view of
the history of the Black Sea, but they have apparently
abandoned their hypothesis, if more recent articles
co-authored by Ryan are any indication.
The orthodox view has prevailed, subject to some recent
minor modifications.
There is evidence that there was an _outflow_ southward
from the Black Sea through the Bosphorus into the Mediterranean
from more than 10000 years ago
(well before Ryan and Pitman's initial 5600 BCE flood date),
continuously until the present day, though there may have been
a relatively short interruption.
And evidence from the south shore of the Black sea shows that
the level of the Black Sea was only 18 m below the present level
at the time of the supposed flood.
The more recent claim by Ryan puts the flood date at 8400 BP,
or about 9000 years ago, but then the "floodwaters" through the
Bosphorus channel would have been only about 5 metres deep.
9000 years ago is when everybody else always thought that
Mediterranean saltwater first entered the Black Sea. At about
that time, the last phase of Glacial Lake Agassiz, in central
Canada, finally found an outlet to the sea through or under the
remnants of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, and so out into the North
Atlantic, raising sea level an appreciable amount, and _perhaps_
triggering a sudden inflow of saltwater into the Black Sea basin.
But probably not sudden or great enough to inspire a Noachian
Flood myth.
Better candidates are widespread inundation of low-lying parts
of the Persian Gulf associated with the final draining of Glacial
Lake Agassiz, and similar flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates delta,
and (most likely) simultaneous flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates,
which would have looked like a flooding of the entire world from
the viewpoint of a person near present-day Baghdad. These candidates
could each or all have inspired the flood myth in the epic of
Gilgamesh, which predates the first known appearance of the Noachian
Flood myth.
Check this out, for a layman-friendly synopsis of the refutation:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm
On the draining of Glacial Lake Agassiz:
http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/PerkinsOnceDuring.html
And here's a fairly recent news item on refutation of Ryan's
and Pitman's hypothesis:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/4949335.htm
<BEGIN QUOTE>
January 14, 2003
Scientists are seriously challenging a recent, fascinating proposal
that Noah's epic story -- setting sail with an ark jam-full of animal
couples -- was based on an actual catastrophic flood that suddenly
filled the Black Sea 7,500 years ago, forcing people to flee.
In a detailed new look at the rocks, sediments, currents and seashells
in and around the Black Sea, an international research team pooh-poohs
the Noah flood idea, arguing that all the geologic, hydrologic and
biologic signs are wrong.
Little that the earth can tell us seems to fit the Noah story, they
say. The new research takes direct aim at the work of two Columbia
University geologists -- William Ryan and Walter Pitman -- whose
proposal in 1997 ignited much new interest, and much new research,
into Middle East history and geology.
<END QUOTE>
Also, Ballard did not find Noah's House, and he has recently
admitted that he didn't find any evidence of human occupation
of the Black Sea continental shelf, let alone any support for
the BSFlood hypothesis.
Here is another recent news article telling you about that
(please be warned that several statements in the article
are erroneous, e.g.
"Scholars agree the Black Sea flooded when
rising world sea levels caused the Mediterranean to
burst over land and fill the then-freshwater lake."):
"Black Sea Trip Yields No Flood Conclusions"
http://www.puresupply.com/newap/D8458SGG3.html
There was no actual ruined building found by Ballard, but
rather just a partly rectangular outline of raised bed
on the continental shelf, that might even be
the outline of
the wheelhouse of a modern freighter.
To the northwest the outline continues, and narrows to a point.
To the southeast, the outline continues for a shorter distance,
and ends in a rounded curve.
Just what you'd expect when a sunken ship's hull is covered with
sediment.
The wood didn't necessarily contaminate the site, it might have
been part of the ship, and so accurately dates the site.
The roughly-worked stones could have been the ship's ballast.
If you wish, I can supply links to the writeups on Ballard's finds
in professional journals.
And here are a couple of scientific papers:
"Is the abrupt drowning of the Black Sea shelf at 7150 yr BP a myth?"
http://lava.tamu.edu/courses/geol101/herbert/docs/BlackSeaFloodCritiq...
"Persistent Holocene Outflow from the Black Sea to the Eastern
Mediterranean Contradicts Noah's Flood Hypothesis"
http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/gsatoday/toc0205.htm
And there's lots more, but you'd need access to scientific journals
to read it, but you could ask me for more details if you want them.
Some of the articles are available on the Web.
Sorry to splash water in the frying pan,
Daryl Krupa
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Lias" |
|
| Title: Re: Science program pseudoscience |
08 Dec 2004 02:39:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Glenna Hudson wrote:
Yeah, I saw the Rameses show. These so called "science" channels are
laughable when it comes to Biblical topics.
The whole show was based around a damaged skull that was found in
Rameses burial complex.
The logic went something like this... We found a skull... It looks
like the person died from a blow to the head... This could be the
skull of Rameses first born son... therefore the plague that killed
the first born didn't really happen... What probably did happen is
Rameses first born son was killed in hand to hand combat when Moses
led his people thru the swamp known as the reed sea.
[...]
Pure sensationalism.
I can't disagree. What I wonder is who these shows are trying to
appeal to. It can't be Christians, Jews or Muslims, since they're
purporting that an important report of a miracle was nothing but an
exaggeration of a natural event (Ramsey's son was murdered, the flood
was only a local sea breach). It can't be skeptics since, as you so
fairly note, the level of evidence is so abyssmal.
So... who is the intended audience?
--
Andrew Lias
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: Science program pseudoscience |
08 Dec 2004 03:37:38 PM |
|
|
In article <1102538346.071057.289460@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Lias <anrwlias@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't disagree. What I wonder is who these shows are trying to
appeal to. It can't be Christians, Jews or Muslims, since they're
purporting that an important report of a miracle was nothing but an
exaggeration of a natural event (Ramsey's son was murdered, the flood
was only a local sea breach). It can't be skeptics since, as you so
fairly note, the level of evidence is so abyssmal.
So... who is the intended audience?
That amorphous middle ground of people who want to believe, but want
to seem "informed" or "sophisticated", and that vast number of
pomo-sympathizers who claim to be "open minded" and "inclusive" and so
want to say that the believer is "somewhat justified" in his
assertions, and that the skeptic is being a close-minded dogmatist for
denying it.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Lias" |
|
| Title: Re: Science program pseudoscience |
09 Dec 2004 09:23:18 AM |
|
|
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <1102538346.071057.289460@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Lias <anrwlias@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't disagree. What I wonder is who these shows are trying to
appeal to. It can't be Christians, Jews or Muslims, since they're
purporting that an important report of a miracle was nothing but an
exaggeration of a natural event (Ramsey's son was murdered, the
flood
was only a local sea breach). It can't be skeptics since, as you so
fairly note, the level of evidence is so abyssmal.
So... who is the intended audience?
That amorphous middle ground of people who want to believe, but want
to seem "informed" or "sophisticated", and that vast number of
pomo-sympathizers who claim to be "open minded" and "inclusive" and
so
want to say that the believer is "somewhat justified" in his
assertions, and that the skeptic is being a close-minded dogmatist
for
denying it.
<sigh>
I suspect that you have the right of it.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Science program pseudoscience |
08 Dec 2004 02:01:09 PM |
|
|
| Glenna Hudson wrote:
|
| Yeah, I saw the Rameses show. These so called "science" channels are
| laughable when it comes to Biblical topics.
i love it when bible "scholars" think their education outseats the years of
work spent by the archeologist earning their phd ! that one really kills me.
what i also love is the neglect shown by the biblical "scholars" who scoff
at archeologists that can't find any record of isrealites in any appreciable
quantity in egypt much less their conquest after exodus...but they
themselves can't provide any either. i also love it when they try to proove
noah's account of the flood. what they actually do there is prooving the
story of gilgamesh since noah's account is basically plagerized from this
epic. i also love how they also proclaim the greatness of god as seen in the
just ten commandments...when all of those laws were first defined in the
humarabai...which, like the story of gilgamesh, was part of the babylonian
culture *and* predates any written portion of the bible!
i could go on but i think that has allowed me sufficient vent-age.
<snip rest of self-edifying rant...a.k.a. diatribe>
suffice it to say...how sentationally stupid could this op be? learn your
history...then see how your bible fits into it - errr...is actually made
from it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Science program pseudoscience |
14 Dec 2004 08:22:46 PM |
|
|
steve wrote:
Glenna Hudson wrote:
Yeah, I saw the Rameses show. These so called "science" channels are
laughable when it comes to Biblical topics.
i love it when bible "scholars" think their education outseats the
years of work spent by the archeologist earning their phd ! that one
really kills me. what i also love is the neglect shown by the
biblical "scholars"
As long as you leave the word scholar in quotes I'll agree.
Otherwise:
"There are many people who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to
scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical archeology,
and literary and historical skills to work on the problem, and who meet
discuss and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through
scholarly journals, conferences, etc."
Richard Elliott Friedman "Who wrote the bible."
The last year or so I'd say that most of the science/discovery shows that
deal with religious subjects tend to lean towards the more scholarly
direction and have actually examined things according to what modern
thinkers believe.
It's encouraging because clearly they are in it to make money and if what
Friedman says about the bible makes money, that's one for education.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
