First, how big a flood was needed to give rise to the story of
Noah's flood?
I said:
>How big of a flood was needed to destroy that small near coastal budding
>civilization? A flood of the same magnitude as the one striking Mexico
>today could have ravaged the 'cities' (or should we call them 'towns')
>of the Uruk period. This type of catastrophe might be remembered in
>the mythology of the region. So maybe it is no surprize that a flood
>story is found in both Sumerian (or Babylonian) myth and the Pentateuch.
Glenn replied:
>So, which rock layer did the flood leave behind as evidence that it
happened? I can go to the field and point to the rocks left behind by the
1993 Mississippi River floods. Why can't we do that with the supposed
Mesopotamian flood?
My reply:
I believe that our difference lies in our expectation of what Noah's
flood story is about. What is the literary and historical/social
context? And does that context take precedence over descriptive
details in the story?
Your concept of Noah's flood matching the Mediterranean basin infill
does not match the flood story being 1. legend and 2. in the context
of Mesopotamian prehistory. The reason why we should consider Noah's
flood to be identified as such is because there are similar legends
in ancient Mesopotamian cultures (particularly the Sumerian). The
similarity is more than coincidence.
I believe the story's context takes precedence over descriptive
detail in the case of Noah's flood. Notably, Biblical scholars
have identified both the J and P styles in story of Noah's flood.
When separated, each style tells the flood story with different
details. Therefore, the concept of a 'match' based on descriptive
details will be rejected by modern Biblical studies.
Next issue:
Next, what is consilience?
I said:
>But sediments alone do not tell the whole story. Consilience requires
>that the Sumerian flood story must also 'fit into the picture' that
>the concordist presents. It does not do so if 'Noah's flood' was
>the Mediterranean infilling.
Glenn replied:
>Let me ask something about consilience. Does consilience allow for a view
to be considered true only because it is aesthetically pretty? In other
words can a view that is consilient be consilient and be totally falsified
by the observational evidence? Does it only mean that this is what we
must believe but don't pay attention to the data?
My comment:
I believe that the better the concordism, the wider the net it
casts, and the greater sense of beauty it inspires. What you demand
in 'observational evidence' is already provided by multiple
witnesses. Both the Sumerian and Hebrew traditions tell stories
about a catastrophic flood. That is why Mallowan placed
the flood where he did. That flood changed the course of civilization -
even though some cities were relatively untouched.
Consilience should not match views or data that have been
falsified unless, of course, the 'falsification' is recognized.
Your view, for example, 'falsifies' the genealogies - since
each person in the genealogies cannot be explained for a 6 Myr
time span. The more outlandish the explanation, the weaker
the consilience is.
Consilience says that beauty flows from greater awareness of the
interconnectedness of truth. I believe Fischer's claim that
the stories of Adam and Eve pertain to Mesopotamian prehistory,
even though I do not agree with all the details of his association.
You reject this claim.
Next issue:
We also differ on whether the pace of innovation is characteristic
of H. sapiens. Glenn confounded archaeolgical and moral issues
here. He especially confounded academic discussion addressing and
explaining the different rates of innovation between H. erectus and
H. sapiens with the humanity of different cultures that express
different rates of innovation. I think that these two issues should
be kept separate. For this reason, I am not copying and pasting
this material
Next issue:
Finally, the issue of whether Genesis 1 resembles the evolutionary
record in terms of visualization and meaning. Particularly, could
day 4 resemble a loss of cloud cover and photochemical haze during
the late Archean and Proterozoic.
I said:
>
>I see the loss of total cloud cover occurred during the Late Archean
>(the first glaciers correspond to the start of the Proterozoic about
>2.7 Gyr, I think) and the loss of photochemical haze due to the increase
>of oxygen (during the Proterozoic 2.7 to .6 Gyr). These processes
>depend on the exposure of calcium rich contintental rock and photo-
>synthesis, respectively.
Glenn said:
The Archean ended 2.5 billion years ago. This was prior to the time that
the first evidence (poor but still evidence) of terrestrial vegetation.
Gutzmer and Beukes write:
"The laterites are of special interest: they extend the fossil record of
pisolitic laterites back ~ 1.5 b.y. from the oldest previously known in
the Phanerozoic; they confirm the existence of an oxygenated atmosphere at
the time; they provide evidence for hot and humid climatic conditions; and
they contain indirect evidence for terrestrial life ~ 2.0
2.2 Ga." ~ Jens Gutzmer and Nicolas J. Beukes, "Earliest laterites and
possible evidence for terrestrial vegetation in the Early Proterozoic,"
Geology March, 1998, p 263
**
"Paleosols preserve information about the composition of the
atmosphere and paleoclimatic conditions. Here we report the discovery of
the first pisolitic laterites of Precambrian age....The pisolitic laterites
provide not only evidence for a highly oxygenated atmosphere and possible
hot and humid climatic conditions in Early Proterozoic time, but also
indicate the presence of terrestrial life on the Kaapvaal craton ~ 2.0
2.2 b.y. ago." ~ Jens Gutzmer and Nicolas J. Beukes, "Earliest laterites
and possible evidence for terrestrial vegetation in the Early Proterozoic,"
Geology March, 1998, p 263
This data contradicts the view that there was a large concentration of CO2
in the atmosphere during the Proterozoic.
My comment:
The end of the Archean (say 2.5 Gyr ago) and the Proterozic (2.5 to .6 Gyr)
had what we might call 'bacterial vegetation' that originated in the
epoch corresponding to the end of day three.
Certainly, the atmosphere could have had low levels of oxygen at the
start of the Proterozoic. But the 'hot and humid' conditions are consistent
with greenhouse gases. I think that this publication does not contradict
current concepts on the change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere
during the period corresponding to day 4.
Ray