or echo a prominent answer-at least from Glenn (who, I'm sure will do a
better job then myself).
I am also new, having re-subscribed after a year or so. Out of
curiousity during and after college, I started a bible-science
"center", in a room the Reformed Church let me use. I was a young earth
creationist. In 1985 I was part of the Probe Team that made it up Mt.
Agri Dag (Ararat) to 13,500 ft before finding the cold steel of a
Kalishnakov machine gun by a Kurdish PKK group (now more in the news)
out of Iran. In 1988, out of discust for all the theories of Egyptian
chronology, I published in the Letters section of C&AH an astronomical
test of all the theories. I became a member of the research board at
the Sperry Observatory in NJ. I then published a paper in Journal of
the Ancient Chronology Forum, which became the basis of the recently
proposed New Chronology of David Rohl. As a "scientist" (R&D for the
past 20 yrs) I tend to believe the most probable theory based on the
known facts with resonable hypothesis-as long as it does not clearly
violate the clear revelation of the Bible (39+27).
I think that the best hypothesis going, as far as the flood is
concerned, is that of Glenn Morton, i.e. that the flood of Noah (Heb.
nwh, Eblaite nahu)occurred after God put the newly created man
(erectus?) 1)in the east part of the Mediterranean basin (the "eretz")
on the Nile sedimentary cone near one of the decending rivers during
the Messinian period of the Eocene after the Mediterranean had
evaporated. 2)There would have aquifer and artesian flows (besides the
various rivers). 3) There would have been no rain in the basin due to
the significant lack of water there. 4)The tectonic event near the end
of the Eocene, as "marked" by the Eocene/Pliocene boundary, caused an
inrush of water, producing a large upward moving convection cell
causing torrential rains. All of the above fits the Genesis account
better than any other theory I have read.
You also wrote:
"Also I think the decayed remains of the
ark have been found in Turkey 17 miles south of Mt
Ararat at the base of Mt Judi. I also think there
are sections of "gopher ets" or "reed stalks"
covered with "kopher" there. On video the sections
appear to be light yet metal like. I know it could
be a hoax. However, I would like to see the
(reeds?) in these sections dated by radiometric
methods.
Requests:
I would especially like some Christian Geologists
to visit my site and comment on my ideas. However,
I welcome a visit & comment from anyone. The things I
have learned at many of the evolution and Christian
sites have forced me to change many of my ideas."
If the site you are referring to is the one the writers of the Quran
believe Noah's boat landed and is the one where a mud impression of a
"boat" currently is seen, I visited this site in 1985 with a Geologist
who agreed that the feature it quite recent and has nothing to do with
the landing site. Morton believes Noah's boat landed in north Africa,
due to the earliest fossil remains of erect man (having left inside
skull fossil impression of Broca's speech area, and having craniel
flexion-which the australopithecines and modern primates do not have).
Wayne