I have no problem with you questioning anything. What I have a problem with
is that you never look at your own theory to see that the same criticism
applies to it. (or in this case the problem is even worse.) And I have a
great deal of problem with you saying that any view is wrong without
suggesting alternatives. Christians too easily pick apart anything they
disagree with but fail to advance EXPLANATIONS for the data. You have
suggested nothing which can be measured easily.
Even if my view is wrong, it does not follow that what you are suggesting is
correct. Other than saying that the flood was not global and was in the
Mesopotamian region, you have failed the quantification tests you so eagerly
apply to my view. For instance,
How deep were the waters in your flood?
Where were the springs which you require to burst forth?
What sediments represent the flood? (oh I forgot, they are invisible)
If your flood was not global, then your flood could not be as deep as mine.
In fact a look at the elevations of Palestine show that if you fill
Mesopotamia up to about 520 meters above sealevel, the waters would spill
over into the Mediterranean basin (of course they would also spill into the
Persian Gulf). Giving 150 days for rising (which you criticise me for not
observing) yields .14 meters per hour rise (compared to the .85 m/hr you say
is unacceptable with mine. If I use 150 days then I get 1.36 m/hour rise).
If as you say, my flood theory is too slow to catch everybody, your maximum
possible flood is even slower. You are not consistent here. You criticise
my view here for what you miserably fail to accomplish yourself.
To fill Mesopotamia even deeper requires a GLOBAL flood not a local one. And
I can quote you that you do not believe in a global flood.
Stephen wrote:
>>Glenn has a valid point - for those people living on the flat abyssal
plain, who tried to outrun the advancing Flood. But what about those who
lived near the edge of it? What about those who floated on debris? If the
water rose this slow then I am sure there would be many human and
animal survivors, yet the Genesis account says there were none (Gn
7:22). Indeed, it is doubtful if Glenn's slow Flood would trap even one bird,
yet Noah had to bring birds on to the Ark (Gn 7:14).<<
I would point you to the experiences of sailors whose ships were sunk in WW
II. After 4 days on the ocean surface most died from lack of fresh water.
The same would apply to anyone floating on top of the flooded Mediterranean.
Within 21 days or so, they would starve to death. Rain fall would also be
occurring in the surrounding regions causing runoff which would make it very
difficult to drift to shore. As to the birds, they drown all the time in
floods of an even smaller variety.
Stephen incredulously asks:
>>I don't know where Glenn gets this idea that I prefer "Riverine
floods". I have previously stated that I have never claim that Noah's Flood
was "riverine".<<
Well, try this as the source for that particular piece of information.
On 10-9-95 19:16 EDT you wrote:
>>I am generally concerned with fitting the scientific fact within the
overall Biblical facts. But in this case there are no specific
Biblical "facts" concerning the place and date of the Flood. There
are just very general "facts" of the general area (Mesopotamia - see
place names I have already posted, eg. Urartu, Babel, etc) and the
neolithic post-Flood world. These do not fit Glenn's Mediterannean
5.5 MYA Flood theory.<<
Since Mesopotamia means literally "middle of the river" and it refers to a
RIVER VALLEY, I simply can't imagine where I would get the idea that you
believe in a riverine flood? Silly me!
In the same post you wrote:
>>I do believe that somewhere, sometime, in the Mesopotamian area, there was
a large local Flood that fits all the essential data, but we
haven't found it, and may never find it. The evidence is in the
Biblical story and the Mesopotamian flood traditions, and most
imortantly Jesus belief that it happened (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27).<<
Golly gee, how could I have misunderstood you? I must have misunderstood you
when you said "in the Mesopotamian area, there was a large local Flood that
fits all the essential data".
And foolish me, I jumped to the conclusion that if you said you believed the
flood was local and occurred in Mesopotamia, that you really meant it!! Gosh
how stupid of me!!! I now know that you don'treally mean these things that
you write!
On 95-10-19 20:41:30 EDT you wrote:
>>There is a difference in not knowing *exactly* where and when the
Flood was, but believing in its general time and location within
limits. It is one thing to believe the Flood may have been in
Mesopotamia within the last 10 - 50 thousand years, and another to
believe it happened to a different species (ie. H. habilis), in the
Mediterranean, 5500 thousand years ago.<<
Jimini Cricket, there is that claim that Mesopotamia was the area of the
flood again. I obviously misunderstood what you said here. Or are you
saying that Mesopotamia is not a river valley? Last time I looked at a map,
the Tigris and Euphrates were in the middle of Mesopotamia. Of course, I
have not been to Iraq to personally see those rivers. Maybe they aren't
really there.
On Date: 95-10-15 18:04:18 EDT Stephen wrote again,
>>The above argument could be used to justify anything. The whole
reason Glenn's rejects the usual Mesopotamian location of the Flood is
because geology has not discovered sediments of it! This is despite
Biblical (eg. Gn 10:10) and extra-Biblical evidence (eg. Gilgamesh
epic) for a Mesopotamian location of the Flood.<<
You mean that today (a month later) this "Biblical (eg. Gn 10:10) and
extra-Biblical evidence (eg. Gilgamesh epic) for a Mesopotamian location of
the Flood" is not true anymore? Golly, why didn't I read this in the
Newspaper?
I know what the problem is. My logic about your view was flawed. It should
have gone like this instead of the way it did.
Mesopotamia is a river valley.
The flood occurred in Mesopotamia.
A riverine flood is one that occurs in a river valley
Therefore the flood was NOT riverine.
That is what I should have concluded. But some how I find the logic more
satisfying if I have the last sentence read
Therefore the flood was riverine.
But then with all the mistakes I have mentioned above, why should my logic be
faultless?
Seriously Stephen, don't play me for the fool. I remember what you have said
in the past even if you can't.
Stephen wrote:
>>I have no idea what Glenn is arguing here. His book did not AFAIK
mention "springs", so Glenn has added them because I "wanted" them. My point
was that he should have had "springs" in his core theory, not just
added on to please me.<<
and
>>I find this bluster of Glenn's unconvincing. :-) I would have thought
in discussing Glenn's theory of a Homo habilis Noah's Flood ocurring 5.5
MYA in the Mediterranean, set forth in his book, that Glenn would at
least occasionally quote from that book, or at least mention what it
says.<<
First off, Stephen, you shouldn't state what is or is not in a book you have
not read. It is really bad form to do that. But since you are so eager for
a quotation from my book here is one descibing the springs of Eden.
A look at the description of the hydrology in verse 6 is truly strange.
The land is described as one with no rain and water coming out of the earth
to water the land. In today's world springs do emit water, but this occurs
only over limited areas under limited circumstances. Topographically
elevated areas are required to provide the necessary pressure gradient to
push the water against the force of gravity and friction. Figure 32 shows how
rainfall on a mountain or hill soaks into the ground, flows underground
through an isolated rock layer and emerges in the form of a spring. The
elevation is necessary to cause the flow. Over a broad surface, with gravity
holding the water down, there is no way for the water to rise. Thus, to
conceive of a land in which the entire surface was watered by spring seepage
requires much different circumstances than the laws of physics allow. Morris
presents an interesting explanation of the water that came out of the ground,
but a physical analysis of it made by this author shows that the water must
come out of the ground boiling hot. Steam must be used to lift the water. If
there is no steam then a cycle like this violates both the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics. In either case
it is impossible!" Glenn R. Morton, _Foundation, Fall and Flood_, (Dallas:
DMD Publishing, 1995), p. 128.
There is your quote Stephen, you will get no more.
glenn