Stephen replied:
>>I am not overly concerned about the "time frames". The Bible doesn't give
any, so I see no need to set any. My only concern is for a model that fits
both the Biblical and scientific evidence. The Biblical
evidence as I see it depicts Gn 2 Adam as a farmer (Gn 2:15; 3:19;
4:2), so I would correlate his date with the fairly recent appearance
of farming in the Fertile Crescent. My viewpoint would probably be
called old-Earth/young-Adam.<<
If you can't or won't give time frames there is absolutely no valid way to
say that you fit the scientific data with your view. What data do you fit?
Without stating an outline any theory can be advanced and held because no
data can contradict it.
Back in the old days of mainframe computing when the computer room had
those raised floors for cables and airconditioning, I used to joke that
computers were run by pixies who used the space at the base of the floor to
carry information from the computer to the printer and tape drives. The loud
noises in the computer room were the sounds of pixies running real fast.
When a friend would try to disprove me, as a test of my quickness, I was
able to get quite vague about those "beliefs' and avoid being disproven. It
was a lot of fun but it was absolutely false. If you can't give a detailed
account of the time frame of events, I would find it difficult to believe
that you really take the scientific evidence seriously.
Of the flood sediments:
>>As to "sediments", I am not aware of any except the flood sediments that
Woolley found in the Mesopotamian Valley:<<
Go look it up, but the "flood" sediments of Woolley didn't even cover all of
the town he was excavating. One half of the town was covered and the other
half wasn't. Sounds like quite a flood.
Henry Morris and John Whitcomb say,
"But the joy which many experienced in this newly-discovered 'harmony' of
Genesis and geology was soon to fade. For the embarrassing announcement was
shortly to be made that the 'flood deposits' at Ur and Kish were not even
contemporaneous; and furthermore, the Ur flood did not even inundate the
entire city!"
I have read this elsewhere also but needed a quick reference so I grabbed the
Genesis Flood.
Stephen wrote:
>>It is important to realise that the Flood story is in a form that
recapitulates Creation. The Earth is covered by a watery chaos and
dry land, vegetation and animal life "appears". The purpose of the
Flood story is not straight history, but salvation-history.<<
Well, if the story is not straight history, then you don't have to match the
facts of history, so why claim that you do. An allegorical approach may or
may not be required to fit facts.
I wrote:
GM>The biggest question I have is this. In the mesopotamian region
>the land slopes to the south towards the persion gulf. Any flood
>waters would drain to the south carrying the ark with it. So how did
>the ark land back in Turkey? Things like this are what I am
>interested in.
You replied:
>>The above reflects Glenn's "interest" as a professional geophysicist.
It is not my major interest or expertise. I do try to relate the Bible
with the scientific facts, but I do not claim an exact fit. If we
knew exactly where and when the Flood was (the Bible does not say)
then we could zero in on the geological evidence. Ramm gives one
suggestion for a local flood:<<
Stephen you keep saying that your view fits the facts better, and I am merely
testing that assertion. If your view fits the facts better, then I would
most certainly be interested in it. If it doesn't fit the facts, then I am
not interested in it.
Stephen quoted Bernard Ramm as suggesting the Caspian Depression. Stephen
and I discussed this privately at length a few months back. There are large
areas of the Caspian Depression which do not have Recent sediments laid down.
Nor could you cover the high mountains without also covering most of the
world, as they are 3000 feet high. Since there are no sediments from the time
of man in parts of that basin, and the mountains can't be covered in a local
flood, I find this suggestion violated by the data.
Stephen wrote:
>>Again I don't claim this is *the* answer. But it is an answer, just
as is Glenn's 5.5 MY old Noah in the Mediterranean Sea. The problem
with the latter (IMHO) is that it is just too long ago, and too far
away.<<
I too would have wanted a more recent event. The problem is I can't find
anyplace that fits the description as well and is nearer in time than this.
If anyone has a suggestion, I would be interested in hearing it. But I will
go look up the geology of the area to see if the suggestion works.
glenn