In 1999/2000 Ballard explored for human settlements beneath the Black Sea on the basis of a theory by geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman. In their book Noah’s Flood they presented geological evidence that the level of Black Sea rose in the past, and claimed this was Noah’s Flood.
Claims need to be tested against evidence. How do the claims by Ballard, Ryan and Pitman check against the data? The biblical data is what we are talking about, of course, because they have all claimed to have found the biblical Flood.
- Flood Too small
The biblical Flood covered the entire globe.
Ryan and Pitman’s flood covered an area just the size of Texas.
FAIL
- Water not deep enough
The waters of the biblical Flood rose until they covered the highest mountains.
The waters of Ryan and Pitman’s flood simply rose 150 m
FAIL
- No warning
In the biblical Flood Noah was given warning to build the ark and collect the animals.
In Ryan and Pitman’s flood there was no warning.
FAIL
- No ark
In the biblical Flood Noah built the enormous Ark 140 metres long, which would have taken considerable time.
With no time to build an ark, Ryan and Pitman said there were hundreds of tiny ‘arks’ hastily cobbled together.
FAIL
- No animals or birds loaded
In the biblical Flood Noah took two of every land dwelling, air breathing animal (7 pairs of some) on the Ark.
In Ryan and Pitman’s flood there was no Ark and no need to collect any animals.
FAIL
- No people died
In the biblical Flood all the people outside the Ark perished.
In Ryan and Pitman’s flood the people would have ambled out of the area; none would have died.
FAIL
- No animals died
In the biblical Flood all the air-breathing, land-dwelling animals outside the Ark died.
In Ryan and Pitman’s flood the animals could have meandered slowly away from the creeping water.
FAIL
- No birds died
In the biblical Flood all the birds not on the Ark died.
In Ryan and Pitman’s flood birds could have easily flown out of the area.
FAIL
- Wrong source of water
In the biblical Flood the water came from above and below.
In Ryan and Pitman’s flood the water gushed sideways.
FAIL
- Ark did not rest on the Mountains of Ararat
In the biblical Flood the Ark came to rest on the Mountains of Ararat, after 5 months.
In Ryan and Pitman’s flood there was no ark, and anyway, the water level was 1500 metres below the nearby Krymskiye Gory mountains on the adjacent Crimean Peninsula.
FAIL
- Water did not go down
In the biblical Flood the water took over six months to go down.
In Ryan and Pitman’s flood the water stayed at it’s increased level. It won’t ever go down.
FAIL
- Rainbow promise meaningless
In the biblical Flood the rainbow is a sign that there will never be another global flood.
Ryan and Pitman’s flood is still flooding as much as it did.
FAIL
It is so easy for this information to be checked these days, either by buying a Bible or reading Genesis on line. No one should be taken in with unsubstantiated media reports about Noah’s Flood. When we check the facts we find the claims of Ballard, Ryan and Pitman do not agree with the evidence. It’s a complete FAIL.
CT
It’s not hard to see why unbelievers try to attribute Biblical accounts (eg, plague, exodus etc.) to locally confined naturalistic events. Wasn’t this Black Sea thing even less dramatic than Missoula? And wasn’t this Black Sea thing in Na. Geog. and so on, about ten years ago?
Brad Freckleton
I saw a glimpse of Ballard’s Black Sea work on TV. Ballard pointed out that the water in the Black Sea is low in oxygen concentration. He then found a human femur among some man made articles on the floor of the Black Sea. John Morris points out that there are no human fossils left at the Titanic sight. I suspect the lack of oxygen is why the femur is still existing. Is the Black Sea the only place that is low in oxygen concentration. Do you know how long fossils should last underwater and above water? Thanks, Brad
Tas walker responds:
No, Brad. I’d have to do some research on that.
Bede Barrie
Dear Tas-
We emailed you asking if you could help with comments on how Banks Peninsula has changed the South Island of new Zealand over time. We understand (we think) how the Southern Alps changed the Banks. P but dont understand how B.P had changed the South Island of NZ.
We have printed off your Paper on Post Flood Volcanism and I have read the piece on Timing of B>P but it doesnt answer our question specifically. can you please help?? Thank you.
Warm regards Bede
Tas Walker responds:
I can think of a few ideas for how the Banks Peninsula has changed the South Island.
For example, it changes the shape of the Island. It represents a big protrusion on the east coast of the island that juts into the ocean. This would affect the ocean currents, which in turn would affect the long-shore drift of sediment along the beach. It would appear that Lake Ellesmere has formed as a result of this longshore sand drift which built Kaitorete Spit in front of it.
Then the volcano represents an area of high elevation. The drainage of water from the volcano would impact the sedimentation around the volcano and on the island in its vicinity.
These might give you a lead to think of some others.
Adrianart.com
Where did you actually obtain the concepts to write “12 reasons Robert Ballard has
not discovered Noah’s Flood”? Regards, Faye
Tas Walker responds: See the articles linked under “Further reading” above.