You wrote: And you seem to conveniently ignore problems with Baillie's
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
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reliable historical document and trying to reconcile its contents with other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
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
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
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
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
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