From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Aug 19 2002 - 22:42:34 EDT
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PASAlist@aol.com [mailto:PASAlist@aol.com]
>Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 8:01 AM
>To: glenn.morton@btinternet.com
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Geologic map of Iraq--no flood in Iraq
>
>
>Glenn wrote,
>
><< What is shown on the picture on my website is the northern part of
> the country along the Euphrates river. >>
>
>It is not clear to me what area is being covered on the map. Where
>is Baghdad
>or some other city that will make the geography clear? And what is
>the scale?
>Also, what does the map look like for southern Iraq (The Flood of
>2900 BC is
>in southern Iraq.), and does it take into account the changing of
>the course
>of the Euphrates over the last 6,000 years?
The map is in the northern part of Iraq, just south of Syrian border. I have
the map on CD in PDF form and to see anything one must blow it up to a
decent scale. My point is not that southern Mesopotamia has not been
flooded--it has. The point is that that flood can't move an ark north to
Turkey. If everyone now agrees that a mesopotamian flood can't flood
anything more than southern Iraq, then it is clear that either 1) the
Biblical account saying the ark landed on the mountains of Ararat is false,
or 2) Mesopotamia isn't the site of the flood.
As to southern Iraq, it is largely Holocene/Quaternary fluvial as is to be
expected as it is the former delta of the Tigris/Euphrates system. Thus,
there is no doubt that southern mesopotamia has been flooded everywhere, but
then so has southern Lousiana and the Amazon delta, the Nile Delta etc.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 19 2002 - 14:47:44 EDT