>>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?
Yes bigger, but as judgment for sin is its most noteworthy aspect.
>>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
>>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.
And the further back we go the Bible presents men who live longer.
>>...the rapid change in climate caused flooding in regions that included
>How would you know this?
>Southern Mesopotamia was ocean 6800 years ago.
The Rocky Mountains were ocean if we go back far enough in time. The reason
the soil was so rich for growing crops is because it was an alluvial plain.
Had it been oceanic I would have thought the soil should have been different.
But maybe 2,000 years of nutrients washing down out of Turkey is enough (?)
Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution - http://www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."