Re: Genesis Flood

Dick Fischer (
Sat, 04 May 1996 16:02:51 -0500

At 10:24 PM 5/3/96, Glenn wrote:

>Part of my childhood was spent merely a mile from the Arkansas river.
>Where I lived everyone pronouced it identically to the way the state of
>Arkansas is pronounced. I don't understand your point.

Well, I lived in Kansas City where the Ar-Kan-sas (pronounced the same
as the city) joins the Missou-ri river next to the state of Missouri
(pronounced Missour-ah). So there.

>You made the claim that all the towns in Genesis 1-11 were in Mesopotamia
>therefore the flood was in Mesopotamia. Since only one town is preflood,
>you can't logically say that the post-flood towns have any relation to the
>location of the flood unless you can prove that there was no change in
>location. I don't think you can do that given the incompleteness of the

You PRESUME the genealogies to be incomplete. I don't and St. Luke
doesn't. Got any saints on your side?

>Dick, are we talking about the same country? The Encyclopedia Britannica
>has a map of Babylon in Nebuchadrezzar II's time. The Euphrates went
>through the town. (see Britannica, 1982, vo. 2, p. 554) Babylon was
>watered by a river! Herodotus (Great Books p. 41 describes Babylon as
>being "traversed" by the Euphrates.

You lived by the Ar-ken-saw-Ken-saw river. Try to get water from it onto a
piece of land. That's called irrigation. The Euphrates was named
and well known, especially by one living in Babylon as Ezekiel was.
He spoke of "the river of Chebar" which had to be a canal. Also,
we know that Babylon was irrigated. I should have said, "Other than
the Euphrates, there are no rivers in Babylon." Thanks for catching

>>I'm speechless. I think the Australopithicines were too since they are
>>classified as apes, and apes don't talk. If you can't see any flaws in
>>a theory that calls for talking apes then I think we've reached an
>Ernst Mayr, one of the world's greatest taxonomist examined the various
>fossil men and believed that they all should be classified as Homo. The
>anthropologists rebelled and retained Australopithecus. Mayr called
>Australopithecus "Homo transvaalensis". (See Noel T. Boaz, Quarry_ 1993,
>p. 10)

Small world. I took a course in human evolution taught by Noel Boaz.

>Whether or not Australopithecus could or couldn't speak is not

Glenn, If your method of apology depends on talking Australopithicines
doesn't that tell you something about the validity of your approach?
And not just talking, farming and raising livestock (Gen. 4:2), living
in tents (Gen. 4:20), playing harps and organs (Gen. 4:21), and making
useful objects out of brass and iron (Gen. 4:22), and having a sister
named Naamah (Gen. 4:22), which translated means "not an ape." ;^)

Always your friend,

Dick Fischer

* *
* *
* An Answer in the Creation - Evolution Debate *
* *
* Web page - *
* *