Creationist Wolf in Cheap Clothing

No, no, you apparently misread the article. There are competing theories as to what prompted the initial dessication, but all those theories agree as to what happened afterwards. Seriously, read it again. They're arguing as to what prompted the separation, not what happened later.

 

I did read it, and even your source said that there was a dam that was breached.

I can't find one thing in there that definitively says the refilling was caused by only the Atlantic rising. In fact that would probably be the way it was refilled only if the theory that the ice caused its level to go down far enough to cut off the water from the Med, was in fact what happened. Most of the others would have cut the water from the Med off regardless of what happened to the level of the Atlantic.

Edit, and I would hardly think that the phrase "A waterfall of biblical proportions refilled the inland sea, restoring it to become the cradle of Western civilization and Europe's favorite playground. " would be used to describe a gradual process.

 

Only Hsu's 1983 statement, and the article refutes that. Look, obviously you're just desperate to find anything that I'm "wrong" about, but give it a rest. First you don't even bother to read the things I wrote, instead just suggesting that I'm making "dumb mistakes," only to find out that what I said is exactly what the models suggest happened.

Didn't I say "originally in the form of something like a river"? Imagine a river ending in a drop of several thousand feet. Can you imagine that waterfall being described as something "of biblical proportions"? Even such an impressive sight would take forever to fill up a desiccated Mediterranean basin, right? To save you the trouble, yes it would.


Seriously, you're getting consumed with the idea of proving me "wrong" about something - anything. Can you even figure out why we're arguing about this? What does it have to do with the Noah-flood fallacy to begin with?

 

I'm not consumed with proving you wrong, I simply have a predeliction to poke people in the eye when they are unable to recognize that there may be other theories out there other than the one they believe in. Plus, it's more fun than actually working.

I also find it especially interesting that you consider yourself to be of such an open mind and only interested in science when, then defend your one world view as vociferously as those who you mock as simpletons, when in fact there are many other theories than yours. Which pretty much brings us full circle.

 

Only in America would this be considered a "debate"


elsewhere would get you a look of pity.


Creationism is akin to fairies and magic...stories to amuse and entertain, not to be taken seriously.

 

God caused Grimsby to win

 

You cant blame Hoddle for that?