Re: Noahic Covenant

From: Darryl Maddox (
Date: Sun Jul 21 2002 - 09:21:42 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Geology stuff (was Re: Noahic Covenant)"

    Hello Jim

    ----- Original Message -----=20
    From: "Jim Eisele" <>
    To: <>
    Cc: <>; <>
    Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 5:00 PM
    Subject: RE: Noahic Covenant

    > It is time to begin to develop a quick list.

    I think you are right. It is time to get a list of specifics to talk =
    about and you have made a good start and I would like to add a few =
    things to it. Perhaps we (you and I, or at least some of us in the =
    group) can come to some consensus or perhaps we will se that because of =
    our various backgrounds and beliefs we will come to 2 or 3 sets of =
    consensus but whether it is one or more, at least we will know exactly =
    what we are saying, why we are saying them, and the kind(s) of evidense =
    that might change our minds. You will note that beside some of your =
    items I have placed questions. This is not because I doubt them but =
    because I would like more information on how what you are saying is =
    determined within the context of the heading under which it is found. =
    The replies or elaborations by you or others on the list will help me =
    learn about these fields. AS I said in my earlier post to Glenn and =
    Dick, I am not interested in resolving this issue but I am interested in =
    learning about what information is used by workers in the various fields =
    and how they process that information to come to a conclusion. I don't =
    expect you or the others to provide me a full blown college education on =
    these matters so probably a simple yes, no, or 1-2 sentence answer, or =
    list of key words or phrases will suffice to answer my questions.

    > A. Archaeologic evidence
    > 1. Simultaneous deposits
    Simultaneous as determined by?

    > 2. Interpretation of these deposits by archaeologists as flood =
    (Based on archaeological or geologica data and if geological:
    A) are (were) they qualified by education or field experience to make =
    such a determination?
    B) did they publish their data showing that the "flood" deposits at =
    various locations were physically continguous or correlatable by other =
    accepted geologic means?

    > 3. Deposits in agreement with Bible (Septuagint) chronology.
    > B. Literary evidence
    > 1. Gilgamesh epic
    > 2. Atrahasis
    > 3. etc.
    > C. Biblical evidence
    > 1. building cities
    > 2. chronology
    > 3. etc.

         D. Geologic evidence (Other geologists in the group please feel free =
    to add to or correct this list of evindeces for determining whether or =
    not a deposit represents a "flood". Its been a long time since I took =
    or did any real sedimentology so some of this may be either out of data =
    terminology or techniques.
         1. Question need to deside whether we are talking about a sheet =
    flood over a broad plain which also filled the existing valleys or was =
    it a confined flood that stayed within the flood plain of a specific =
    drainage basin?=20
         2. external geometry of sediment bed or layer i.e. is it=20
             a) confinded to a flood plain or does it extend out over that =
    onto what ever plain there may have been?=20
             b) if it is confined to a channel is the channel and the deposit =
    wide, reasonably, thin, and straight with the other characteristics of a =
    braided river deposit or is it=20
             c) a meandering channel with point bar and ox bow, crevasse =
    splays etc.=20
         3) within the sand/gravel body that constitutes the deposit
             a) is there evidense of longitudinal or transverse bars?
             b) what kind of bedding plane geometries are seen as you go=20
                 i) down-current
                 ii) vertically through the deposit
                 iii) laterally across the deposit
             c) what kind of grain size distribution is found as you go (same =
    list as above)
             d) if there are large stones that are much larger in 2 of their =
    3 dimensions than in the third, are they imbricated and do these =
    imbrications agree with the paleo-current direction(s) determined from =
    the sedimentary structures and grain orientation work?
         4) do the deposits in question represent a single event or multiple =
    events which are either stacked or cross-cutting?

    Well, that drained my brain for the time I have available but I know =
    there are other geologic criteria and questions so I look forward to =
    what others have to add to the list.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 21 2002 - 14:28:33 EDT