At 10:02 PM 6/19/98 -0400, Dick Fischer wrote:
>>Secondly, what does a meteoritic impact in 2807 B.C. (assuming it actually
>>exists) have to do with a flood in 3150 BC??????
>I take all these dates with a grain of salt. I'm not sure it has
>anything to do with it, or even if there was an impact. But that
>date is only 93 years away from the archaeological date of 2900 BC
>for the flood which I also take with a grain of salt.
So when the data doesn't really support your view, it is to be taken with a
grain of salt? Exactly how is that different than what young-earth
creationists do? When the data doesn't support them, they also take the
scientific data with a grain of salt. They end up taking ALL science with a
grain of salt. And as you said, at some point we must explain the evidence
(except when we take it with a grain of salt????).
I thought you put the flood at approx. 3150 BC? And another question, if
you take the dates with a grain of salt, then why should anyone believe
that there is a connection between these events and a flood? Causal
relations are the only way to prove two events are connected. And to be
connected they must be contemporaneous
>>A comment about the data listed below. It is not good scientific procedure
>>to simply list events which occur on or around the time of the flood you
>>are advocating. To support your case, you really need to show a causal
>>link between a Mesopotamian flood and the events you list below.
>Picky, picky, picky.
No, very important. You are doing exactly what the young-earthers do in
rejecting science if it doesn't fit the preconceived theological position.
If one doesn't pay attention to causal connections then one can believe
just about anything one wants. Without causal connection there is no
constraints upon belief. There is no known causal connection between the
stars and our birth dates, yet millions of people ignore this missing
causal connection and believe in astrology. It is not "picky picky picky"
to demand that such connections be incorporated into a view; it is the
essence of science.
>An event that happened 5,000 years ago, if we can date it within 150 years,
>that's not too shabby in my estimation. Bible scholars can't decide on the
>date of the Exodus within 150 years!
But this does not allow us to then grab anything that is close and say
"HEY, this supports my view". A 150 year error would allow me to say that
the Atomic bomb won the Civil war for the North! A hundred and fify year
error would allow me to say that Mount Pinatubo erupted and caused the
collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire!
>>Yes there is a volcanic event at 3150 BC. That is clear from the Camp
>>Century Ice Core and other cores. (see C. U. Hammer, et al, "Greenland Ice
>>Sheet Evidence of Post-Glacial Volcanism and its climatiec Impact" Nature,
>>1980, p. 231)
>Hey, a point for the good guys!
No, because it has nothing to do with Mesopotamia and does your theory no
good. You have no idea where that volcano was.
>>All you are doing is listing things that
>>occurred in a given time frame and expecting everyone to believe that there
>>is a causal connection.
>You asked for geological evidence. I gave you geological evidence and
>qualified it by saying only that it MAY be germane. By all means test
>the data. I'm not expecting you to believe there is a causal connection.
But presenting evidence that 'MAY be germane' is not useful. I did test the
data and found it wanting. Mene mene tekel upharsin!
By the way, I got Blunier et al Natue 374:pp 46-49 today. Yesterday you
said that the lowest methane level in the atmosphere occurred in 5200 BP or
so. it does, but it is the end of a long downward trend in methane levels
tha began in 10,000 BP with a major drop around 8000 BP. with a continued
gradual drop until around 5200 BP. Then the methane level gradually
increases until today. Exactly how does methane play into a Mesopotamian
I also got in today the Palaeo article on Lake Van Turkey. If you are
using the sediment deposition rates as a proxy for a lake level rise why
did you ignore the even bigger SDR change that occurred at 12000 years BP.
Why is the small change at 5200 BP significant when the large one isn't?(I
couldn't find anywhere in the article the statement that the lake level
rose around 5000 BP so I am presuming you are using sedimentation rates.)
You say to test the data and I am trying but when I try, you say that I am
being picky picky picky. If you don't believe your geologic data IS
germane to the flood (i.e. has a connection), why should anyone else?
And I don't think the data you presented was germane to the Mesopotamian
>>I was born in April 1950. North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950. Am
>>I responsible for the Korean war?
>Sorry, I need more data.
So why don't you need more data in the case of methane in the atmosphere or
>>Considering that Mesopotamia is nowhere near Greenland or Antarctica, the
>>two sites of ice coring, how exactly do you connect this with the
>I don't care if there is a connection or not. We had volcanic action.
>It was registered in many different places, and we had a flood in the same
>general time frame. I have no idea if there is a connection.
If you don't care if there is a connection or not, then why not say the the
Viking invasions of Europe played a role in the Mesopotamian flood? How
about noting that the Chinese calendar (year zero 1953 BC) was instrumental
in the flood? Dating of course is to be taken with a grain of salt. Why
present geologic evidence that you are now admitting has no relevance to
the flood (i.e. is not germane) and for which you don't care if there is
any relevance? What kind of apologetics is this? It is like saying 'I
don't care that Sam was in Europe on the day Doris was shot, and I don't
care that there is no connection between Doris and Sam. Sam's existence
MAY BE germane to Doris' death. That is a non sequitur.
>>This was the first issue of Nature I got after I started getting it. I see
>>nothing unusual about the 5000 year BP data in these cores. What are you
>>suggesting is the evidence connecting Santa Barbara to Mesopotamia? And by
>>the way N. pachyderma is NOT a snail. It is a foraminifera which is a tiny
>>marine animals which paleontologists in the oil industry use.
>Of course. I knew that :>).
In what way is the climate of Santa Barbara 'germane' to a flood in
Mesopotamia? Is it only that a core recovered sediments from the same age
as the reputed Mesopotamian flood? If that is the case, then every oil
well in the Gulf of Mexico is 'germane' to the Mesopotamian flood.
>>Ok, are you willing to say that the Accadians were living past 100 years
>>old between 7000 to 4000 BC? You avoided the question but didn't answer the
>I didn't avoid the issue. I do not see any signs of long-lived Sumerians.
>Read Genesis 5. What does it say? How old was Adam when he begat Seth?
>How old was Noah when he begat three sons? Does Genesis not say 500?
>You don't like the accuracy of the genealogies, and you don't trust the
>ages of the patriarchs as recorded. Your quarrel is with Moses, not me.
I think there is another way of handling the data than what you are doing
that keeps it from avoiding the KNOWN early deaths of Neolithic and early
bronze age peoples.
>>>I don't think we have dug up any Accadians yet. Woolley found his
>>>skeletons in Sumerian Ur. We do have a little historical data though.
>>>Gilgamesh sought out Utnapishtim (Noah's parallel) because he was reputed
>>>to be immortal and survived the flood. His name means "He who found long
>>I find this extremely difficult to believe. Akkad was from 2350 BC to 2000
>>BC. At this time we find numerous cemetaries everywhere. Cities, especially
>>ones as big as Akkad require cemetaries for the disposal of the bodies. Do
>>I need to search through the literature to find info on Akkadian bodies?
>Glenn, if anybody could do it, you could.
I wrote a guy at the university of chicago today and he promised to point
me to Akkadian skeletons. Maybe Monday maybe tomorrow.
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information