Re: Four Rivers Revisited

Adam Crowl (
Sat, 17 Apr 1999 00:14:28 PDT


At last some historical perspective on this issue! The facts speak
and YECs should just listen for a change rather than shoot their
mouths off about this, that and the other ad hoc theory saving
argument. The Flood was a real historical event rather than some
absurd Global Super Flood that does havoc to all known biogeography.

In the news lately have been recent finds of dinosaur nests,
something unlikely to be a part of Flood deposits, but necessarily so
if we accept Woodmorappe's version of the Flood [= creator of all
sediments prior to Pleistocene.] Another interesting fact is the
remains of breccia produced by impactors. We're talking big chunks of
consolidated ROCK thrown out by impactors, something that's unlikely
to have been created in mere days if all the sediments were created
in the Flood. Wet sediments, especially "muddy" turbidites, will
produce very different impact remnants than hard rock. On Mars the
ground is often "wet" and the craters on ground with such sub-surface
conditions show massive fluid flows of what is effectively mud.
Terrestrial craters, AFAIK, don't show any such signs of wet ground.

I've been trying to do some energetics analyses of impacts over the
past 600 million years. Combined with reasonable estimates for inputs
of IPD [space dust] the total energy input significantly increases
the effective temperature of the Earth, which would be lethal for
life, especially since all the lava produced over the last "600
million years" has pumped out vast amounts of CO2, and all those
impacts into the ocean threw up huge amounts of water vapour and
probably methane from ocean bottom clathrates. Add to those
greenhouse gases ammonia from comets and the thermal problem for the
Earth becomes very serious. That heat had to be lost some how, and
with a massive greenhouse blocking a good portion of the thermal
spectrum the temperature is going to rise...


>From: Dick Fischer <>
>Subject: Re: Four Rivers Revisited
>Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 23:05:37 -0400
>Allen Roy wrote:
>>I don't see any compelling evidence that Gen. 2 is describing the
>>Post-Flood world.
Dick wrote...

>It describes not only the post-flood world, it describes the pre-
flood world.
>Same world, well, land. Same rivers. Same towns.
snipped a bit...

>The Euphrates (Gen.2:14) is the Euphrates. The Hiddekel is the
Tigris which
>lies just east of the city of Asshur, or "goeth toward the east of
Assyria" in
>Moses speak. Cush means "black" and this threw the translators off
>they put "Ethiopia." Actually, Cush was home to the Cushites who
settled in
>Persia. Writing in 1864, M'Causland identified the Gihon as
the "Gyudes"
>of the
>ancients, the modern Karkheh joined by the Kashkan river in the
region of
>or Kush, in Eastern Mesopotamia - today called Khuzistan in Iran.
>The fourth river, the Pison, was found only recently. Archaeologist
>Zarins using LANDSAT space images discovered a "fossil river" which
>rounds out the quartet. This was independently reported by James
Sauer in
>in "The River Runs Dry: Creation Story Preserves Historical Memory."
>Archaeology as mentioned earlier by Ray Zimmer.
>This river, the Pison apparently, once flowed through northern
Arabia where
>gold is mined to this day. S. R. Driver placed Havilah (Gen.2:11)
in The Book
>of Genesis published in 1938: it was "most probably" in the
northeast of
>on the west coast of the Persian Gulf: "The gold of Arabia was famed
>Thus, all the rivers are known, the towns are known, and the people
are known.
>Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
>"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."

Get Your Private, Free Email at