Black Sea Flood

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 5:22 PM

> There is a world of difference between Flood geol ala Morris and Glenn's
> suggestion of a major flood a long time ago - 500,000 yrs if I remember
> right. I think Glenn is wrong (pt size 6!) and if I had time would argue
> with him as I would tentatively favour the Pitman/Ryan model , but YECs
> Flood arguments are plain WRONG (pt size 6000). There is a
> difference. and I
> hope people can see it. Glenn's argument I would see as either "tentative"
> or "apparently wacky at present". YEC Flood geology is simply
> "pasuedoscience" and in no way is science.

Of course, I might be wrong in my view. But I couldn't resist the challenge
here with Michael. It would appear that Ryan and Pitman may have ceased
defending their views. About 2 years ago I and another geologist were
discussing Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis and I raised some technical issues
with the plankton. He felt that they would have answers and encouraged me
to send my issue to them. I signed the email (sent to both of them) with my
work ID at the time Mgr Geophysics North Sea and named my company. I got no
reply which amazed my friend.

But more importantly, there was an October 2002 issue of Marine Geology
which had 26 negative articles on the Black Sea Flood hypothesis. One of
them was co-authored by Ryan. I would use this against the Black Sea Flood
hypothesis. When the originators seem to give it up, it says that there are
serious problems with the concept.

Frankly, the strongest argument for my view of the flood is that all other
possibilities don't match the description and/or are physically impossible.
Received on Sat Dec 27 11:08:08 2003