>Agreed, but I am not advocating a return to the inadequate global flood ideas.
> But then I find the previously proposed local flood concepts geologically
>ludicrous. One view tried to place the local flood in the Caspian basin.
>There are 3,000 foot tall mountains in that basin and you can not cover
>everything there without covering the entire earth. The Mesopotamian region
>for a flood as described in Gen. 6-9 is also ludicrous because it could not
>last a year and could not put the ark on anything even remotely called a
>mountain.
While I've no axe to grind with respect to a local vs global flood, I would
ask why a non-YEC-er would assume that a 3,000-ft mountain today was that
tall back in the Genesis era. I am an engineer, not a geologist, but would
assume the topography of any given region was vastly different now than it
was then, so what prevails now does not say much about what could have
occurred then.
John
=============================================================
John M. Miller, Geophysical Institute, Univ Alaska Fairbanks
903 Koyukuk Drive, PO Box 757320, Fairbanks AK 99775-7320
voice: 907-474-7363 fax: 907-474-7689, alt fax: 907-474-7290
Internet: jmiller@gi.alaska.edu
=============================================================