the problem with the Chalcolithic time is that there is NO place on earth
that can host a flood that comes anywhere near matching the account in
Genesis. Mesopotamia and the Black Sea localities can not match the
1. last a year
2. land the ark on a mountain
3. put the ark out of site of land for lots of this time
4. Mesopotamia can't land the ark in the Mountains of Ararat unless one can
make the Ark go upstream (which is impossible given the energy available to
the 8 occupants of the ark).
5. Mesopotamia would wash the ark into the Indian Ocean in about a week.
6. No way to have associated rainfall
7. Can't cover high mountains
8. In Mesopotamia there is no widespread Holocene deposit which SHOULD have
resulted from the flood
9. In the Black Sea the rate of infilling was about a foot per day. hardly
the stuff of legends. I could stand in one place for 5 days without drowning.
If what we Christians want is any ole flood to substitute for the Noachian
account then I would nominate the 1993 Mississippi River flood. It works as
well as anything else out there and we know a whole lot more about it than
any of the other flood locales. I can even point to sediments that came
from that flood. Of course it won't match any of the above facts either.
It seems to me that we Christians will accept any ole story so long as it
has water in it, as the source of the flood legend. There is no
correspondence between the account (which must be totally false) if
Mesopotamia or the Black Sea is the locality. And if we want a story with
no correspondence with the Biblical account then once again I nominate the
1993 Mississippi flood.
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information