>At 06:27 AM 5/9/96, Glenn wrote:
>
>><pre>
>>Quardu
>>3000 ft \ elevation
>> \
>> \
>> \
>> \
>> \
>> \
>> \ Shuruppak
>> \ |
>> - - ---- 20 ft elevation.
>> |<- 1000 km -> |
>>
>></pre>
>>
>>This is the elevation profile that you have in going from lower
>>MEsopotamia to Qardu in Turkey.
>
>Glenn, I think this is an excellent example of why the ark is unlikely
>to have landed on a mountaintop, something I never cared for anyway.
>Imagine all those animals trying to climb off a mountaintop. They would
>grumble all the way to the bottom.
>
True they would grumble but 3000 feet elevation is NOT the top of the
mountain anyway. Quardu is around 10,000 feet. I am cutting a lot of
slack allowing 3000 feet. The 3000 foot contour is approximately at the
Syrian/Turkish border. It is a long way to Qardu from there.
>The Armenian hills look like the best candidate to me. Do you have any
>graphs to show how the ark could not have landed anywhere?
See the graph with the vertical wall of water I posted tonight. In your
model you have a real problem with landing the ark at a higher elevation
than Shuruppak because you either have to have the water flow uphill or
you have to have a vertical wall of water or you have to have a flood over
a very large area i.e. the whole earth.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm