Re: Why no 2350 BC Mesopotamian flood evidence?

Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 14:15:38 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: sciDocument.rtf"

    Hello Glenn,

    You wrote: And you seem to conveniently ignore problems with Baillie's
    tree-ring/historical studies:

    I have read Baillie's book. And though I was not impressed with conclusions
    of what caused and resulted from the climate changes his tree ring studies
    point to and date, I was impressed with the tree ring studies themselves. His
    2350 BC date for a major short lived climate change is certainly not entirely
    based upon some Irish myths as your two referenced posts would seem to imply.
    However, my 2350 BC date for Noah's flood was arrived at long before I ever
    heard of Baillie's tree ring studies. I arrived at that date independently
    from my own studies of the scriptures and secular history. Coincidentally,
    that is the same date that Bishop Ussher arrived at centuries ago, and which
    was long published in the margins of many King James Bibles, through his own
    somewhat different study of scripture and history.

    You wrote: This is why I have saddly too often observed that observational
    data makes
    no difference to apologists. No matter what problems a particular viewpoint
    has, the author of it continues to believe it and ignore all the problems.

    I am a Christian who believes the Bible is the truthful word of God. I also
    accept most of the findings of modern science as being accurate. Is there
    something wrong with a Christian holding onto his belief that the Bible is a
    reliable historical document and trying to reconcile its contents with other
    well established historical truths? I do not ignore problems. I was once a
    YEC/global flood believer. When I discovered that way of understanding the
    Bible cannot be correct since it conflicts with many well established
    scientific facts I abandoned it. I then began believing that the Bible is
    most likely describing a large Mesopotamian flood. (The Semites, descendants
    of Noah's son Shem, were from Mesopotamia. Abraham came from "Ur of the
    Chaldeans." - Gen. 11:10,31) When I recently became aware that there exists
    little evidence that a flood the size of that described in Genesis ever
    happened in Mesopotamia I began considering other possibilities. Such as the
    one I have just been discussing. How does this show me to be "an apologist
    who holds a particular viewpoint and continues to believe it while ignoring
    all problems?"

    You wrote: What about the arguments I have made that there is NO evidence
    for a meteor impact in the Persian Gulf region during that time? See;

    The archived posts you refer to both criticize the work and conclusions of a
    geologist named Courty. I agreed with your criticisms of her work and
    conclusions and have not cited her work since. Why then do you bring her up

    You wrote: So exactly why are there no Holocene age deposits found anywhere
    on the
      surficial deposits of Iraq apart from river valleys? That makes no geologic

    I have just said that I tend to believe that the vast majority of the land
    which was flooded at the time of Noah's flood now lies under the waters of
    the Persian Gulf, possibly all of it if the Gulf has moved inland even a very
    short distance in the last 4,350 years. It is my present belief that Noah's
    ark probably came to rest very near the northern shore of the Persian Gulf,
    in what is now Kuwait, Iraq or Iran. I tend to believe that evidence of some
    minor inland movement and return (or of a minor inland movement, return and
    another minor inland movement) of the Persian Gulf during the Holocene period
    can now be found near one or all of those shorelines.

    I wrote: Of course, I realize this idea suffers from a lack of any solid

    You responded: Then why should anyone believe it?--[sarcastic mode on]

    I didn't say they should. I simply tossed this idea out for discussion. I
    wanted to know if anyone here knew of any reasons why this scenario could not
    possibly work, either geologically or biblically. By the way, your sarcasm is
    not appreciated. I am a Christian. I believe you make the same claim. That is
    supposed to make us brothers. I believe you should start treating fellow
    believers with kindness and respect. Also known as showing "brotherly love."

    You wrote: How can it be correct without any 'solid evidence'? Frankly you
    are using
    entirely the wrong methodology -- one suggested often--just have faith that
    it is true and it will be. Kinda like clap your hands and Tinkerbell will get

    Again, I suggest you try limiting your trash talk. Many things can be correct
    without any physical evidence that they are correct. The world is certainly
    filled with many as yet undiscovered "buried treasures." Even though we now
    have no solid evidence that such treasures exist. I'm sure you agree with
    this assessment. I have not said that I am sure the scenario I have proposed
    is correct. I have only said that I now believe it may be. And I have asked
    for help in eliminating this scenario as a possibility if any here have such
    help to give.

    You wrote: It would be nice if you really had evidence of a meteor crater in
    the area,

    You are certainly aware of the alleged two mile wide crater recently found in
    southern Iraq that has been discussed here before. The Epic of Gilgamesh and
    other ancient sources describing a large Mesopotamian flood refer to that
    flood as having been caused by "torches which lit up the sky and smashed the
    land," "many stars falling from the sky" and "flaming potsherds raining from
    the sky."

    You wrote: evidence of climate change (which is non-existent and only
    reported by a guy
      who mistakenly thinks the Irish were able to write prior to 650 AD)

    Actually, the tree ring studies which dated a major climate change to 2350 BC
    and were reported in Baillie's book were the collaborative effort of several

    You wrote: evidence of massive flooding in Iraq ...

    Again, the flood model I have just suggested requires none.

    You wrote: or evidence of geologic faults which would allow the proper
    tilting of the land you claim was tilted.

    In this scenario, if such faults exist, they would be found in the Persian
    Gulf. Has the sea floor of the Persian Gulf been thoroughly studied to see if
    such faults may there exist?

    You wrote: But then, why should evidence (or lake thereof) get in the way of
    a good theologically true viewpoint?

    Again, more of your trash talk. Give it a rest.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 06 2002 - 16:39:09 EDT