Re: Redrawing Lines Without Viagra

Glenn R. Morton (
Mon, 22 Jun 1998 21:49:33 -0500

At 08:01 PM 6/22/98 -0400, Dick Fischer wrote:
>Hi Glenn, you wrote:
>>You appear to be using uncertainty as a means of granting you freedom to
>>ignore any contradictory evidence for your flood scenario.
>Now wait a minute. I live near Washington, DC, the spin capitol of
>the world, not in Texas. I'm supposed to use techniques like this,
>not you :>). Contradictory evidence? What evidence is there that a
>flood didn't happen in Southern Mesopotamia around 3000 BC?

Well, lets see. It wasn't reported in the Washington Post. :-)

>>You need to connect A specific rainfall with A specific Flood
>>event. Without that connection, you can't be sure that there was a
>>Mesopotamian flood at the time you say.
>I can say with 95+ per cent certainty that the flood stories are
>related. The volcanic action in the same relative time frame could
>have caused the flood. But I wouldn't assign any greater certainty
>than, say, 20-30 per cent. But I submit that all relevant data is
>additive. O J's bloody glove wasn't but one piece of evidence in
>the civil trial that convicted him. But what if it could be proved
>that it had been planted evidence? It wouldn't explain away the
>rest of the mountain of evidence that had nothing to do specifically
>with a bloody glove. All the extra-biblical flood stories relate to
>Southern Mesopotamia. The biblical flood story correlates highly
>with the other flood stories. Therefore, it appears quite likely
>the Genesis flood was in Southern Mesopotamia. No rocket science

Or as I suggested, proximity of informational source. Abe carried the info
to Palestine from Mesopotamia. But that doesn't prove that the event
actually took place there.
>Now we have the evidence of volcanic activity around that time frame.

But we have evidence of volcanic activity from other times as well.

>Whatever percentage of likelihood we assign that, even if it is only
>one per cent, adds to the overall likelihood that the Genesis flood
>is the same flood in the Assyrian, Accadian, Sumerian, and Babylonian

>You recommend a particular drill site using what? Is it not data and
>evidence that the rock formations are similar enough to other successful
>drill sites that there is a likelihood of success.

I will fall into your trap. :-). We use seismic data and we do use
analogies with other fields. But we can't really know for certain what
kind of rocks are down there or the fluid content of the rocks prior to

>What other candidate sites and time frames for a flood have the abundance
>of data that compares even marginally with what I have given you. And
>by no means did I include in these email messages all the data presented
>in the book. Plus, the book doesn't list all the data I dug out of
>the Library of Congress from two years of digging.
>>In the case of the Mesopotamian flood, I should be able to find information
>>from sediments left by the flood. This is what is missing.
>The clay layers found in the central cities were analyzed for content.
>For one thing, there were no salt water organisms indicating that it
>was river flooding entirely. No oceanic tidal waves.

Fine but there are usually 3 large floods per century in most river basins.
there were 4 in the Mississippi River Basin this century. Each left a
layer of sediment but nothing out of the ordinary. Do you not think that
the Flood of Noah is supposed to be something noteworthy as in Bigger?

>>What I am trying to point out is that most widely accepted Christian
>>apologetical scenarios are inconsistent with the observational data, and
>>internally inconsistent with themselves.
>No argument from me!!
>>The Mesopotamian flood scenario should expect to find:
>>1. a widespread sedimentary deposit of Holocene age.
>>2. an interruption of civilization in Mesopotamia (most cities were built
>>along the river banks which would have been the deepest part of any flood
>>and should have been wiped out)
>>3. Consistency with the laws of physics. One can not have the water flow
>>downhill and the ark go uphill.
>>4. consistency with the Biblical description;
>>a. It needs to last a year (the ark would go into the Indian ocean in a
>>b. the ark must somehow land uphill from where it was picked up
>>c. the inability of the ark occupants to see land (something that would not
>>be fulfilled given the Zagros mountains to the west.)
>In fairness, these are demands that you require that it would take to
>convince you. But I submit you are not convincible. You have a stated
>position that you are going to defend. YEC's defend a 6,000 year-old earth.
>TE's and PC's all defend their turf.

I don't deny that I have rejected the Mesopotamian flood, but I did it
based upon the mis-fit with the physical description of the Bible, the lack
of physical evidence for anything big on the ground and the problem of
physics. and I rejected the Mesopotamian flood prior to figuring out what I
would defend.

>Expanded genealogies are necessary to your method of apology. So you make
>a case for lost generations. But you neglect to consider what would be the
>likelihood that enough generations are missing to put 5 million years
>between Noah and Abraham. Think of all the factors that would have to be
>involved for such to be the case. I can think of some real heavy road
>blocks right off the top of my head.

Agreed, I need missing genealogies, but the further back we go, if we
assume that the genealogies are complete we find increasingly older men
siring the children. that is consistent with missing generations.


>>>> Exactly how does methane play into a Mesopotamian flood?????
>>>Shows a general climatological change at an identifiable point in time.
>>>What caused the reversal? What were the effects on the earth at that
>>The Mesopotamina flood caused the change?
>No, the rapid change in climate caused flooding in regions that included

How would you know this? Today with much different methane layer there are
still floods.

>>The Persian Gulf deltas have prograded at the rate of more than 1 mile
>>every 70 years. In 696 BC the shore line was 120 miles further northwest
>>than its present location. (John C. Munday, Jr., "Eden's Geography Erodes
>>Flood Geology," Westminster Theological Journal, 58(1996), pp. 123-154,p.
>>At this rate of progradation, the shoreline could have been another 180
>>miles NW in 4800 BC.
>The percentage of our population over 65 is increasing every decade.
>By the year 3000 will everyone be over 65?

it is not the same thing. Southern Mesopotamia was ocean 6800 years ago.

>>While I doubt that the shoreline in 4800 BC was fully
>>300 miles nw of its current position, it was probably just shy of that
>>value. There would have been no southern Mesopotamia in 4800 BC!!! Thus it
>>is not surprising that there would be no cities prior to 4800 BC.
>An interesting theory, but no oceanic fossils have been found north
>of Eridu, although Eridu itself was a fishing village located near
>the shore of the Persian Gulf.

They have been in the subsurface in oil wells. This I can guarantee you.
Remember the two rivers are continually bringing more dirt down from Turkey
and piling it onto the underlying marine sediments.


Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information