>They are not "contradictory". Glenn should read what I said above.
>I do not require that Glenn respond to my *posts*, but I do require
>that "when he presents his Mediterranean Flood theory and considers
>alternatives, he not simply ignore my "critiques" as though they
>never existed."
You require? Are you the owner of this list?
>>SJ>...All OT scholars AFAIK are agreed that the Flood account
>reflects a mesopotamian background.
>
>>GM>"All" seems a little strong here. The YEC scholars believe that
>>the flodd was not in Mesopotamia because they believe it was
>>everywhere. Argumentum ad populum here.
>
>SJ>The point is about "YEC scholars" is that they too would believe
>>that "the Flood account reflects a mesopotamian background." They
>>would believe that Noah lived in Mesopotamia before and after the
>>Flood, and they all recognise the close parallels between
>>Mesopotamian and the Biblical Flood stories...
Not necessarily so. Henry Morris states, "In the first place, no one can
prove that the Ark was built in the same region of the world as that in
which it landed." Genesis Flood p. 83
The footnote says:
"The fact that Genesis 2:14 mentions the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers is
certainly not conclusive evidence to the contrary, for these and other
geographical names could have been perpetuated by Noah's family into 'the
new world' even as happens in modern tims." p. 83
Thus at least one OT scholar does not necessarily agree with you.
>
>GM>Argument from authority. Everyone in the Roman Empire agreed that
>>the earth was the center of the universe. Did the sun become the
>>center when Copernicus wrote his book?
>
>This is typical of Glenn's evasive style of argument. When he gets
>in a tight corner, instead of admitting he was wrong, and embracing
>the truth, he throws in a red-herring, changes the subject and
>counterattacks!
>
Question: Is your viewpoint the position of Truth?
>Because Glenn fails to rebut my argument that "...All OT
>scholars...are agreed that the Flood account reflects a mesopotamian
>background", I will take it that it is true and that counts against
>Glenn's claim that the Ark came aground in Africa.
>
I think the fact that Henry Morris does not agree with you should count as a
rebuttal.
>[...]
>
>SJ>Glenn just shrugs off this persuasive evidence of Mesopotamian
>>provenance with a casual "Argumentum ad populum" throwaway line.
>>But the "populum" here are *All OT scholars*! There are *no* OT
>>scholars who believe that the Flood was in the Mediterranean.
>
>GM>Quite true. But then that does not make them correct.
>
>Glenn no longer contests that "...All OT scholars...are agreed that
>the Flood account reflects a mesopotamian background", and he
>aknowledges it is "Quite true" that "*no* OT scholars who believe
>that the Flood was in the Mediterranean. *no* OT scholars...believe
>that the Flood was in the Mediterranean." I will expect him to now
>include this fact in his consideration of alternatives to this 5.5
>mya Mediterranean Flood theory.
>
I have changed my mind since I found Henry disagreeing with your position.
>I will write the section for him:
>
I appreciate that Stephen but usually I find it best to speak for myself.
>"Although *all* OT scholars agree that the Flood reflects a
>Mesopotamian background, and in fact *no* OT scholars believe the
>Flood was in the Mediterranean, nevertheless they are all wrong and I
>alone am right."
>
>GM>A Mesopotamian flood would leave evidence of itself.
>
>Here Glenn contradicts himself. He already has admitted that "it is
>at least possible that God has ensured there is no sediment from
>Noah's Flood" (see his post of Sun, 12 Nov 1995...To:
>evolution@calvin.edu Subject: Re: The "two-Adam model"
A minute ago you were saying I didn't consider any alternatives. Shucks.
Can't win for losing.
>GM>Please cease attributing motives to what I say.
>
>OK. I will try not to "attribute motives to what" Glenn "says", even
>though Glenn has no hesitation in attributing "motives" to me:
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:06:59, Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>>For you to criticise me for what you yourself is hypocritical.
>>
>>glenn
>------------------------------------------------------
I didn't realize that hypocritical was a motive. I thought it was doing
something like publically criticising me for saying that Homo erectus could
build a boat, then privately sending me mail that said you believed that
Homo erectus could build a boat.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm