>Glenn Morton wrote (in part):
>
>>Agreed, but I am not advocating a return to the inadequate global flood
> ideas.
>> But then I find the previously proposed local flood concepts geologically
>>ludicrous. One view tried to place the local flood in the Caspian basin.
>>There are 3,000 foot tall mountains in that basin and you can not cover
>>everything there without covering the entire earth. The Mesopotamian
> region
>>for a flood as described in Gen. 6-9 is also ludicrous because it could not
>>last a year and could not put the ark on anything even remotely called a
>>mountain.
>
>While I've no axe to grind with respect to a local vs global flood, I would
>ask why a non-YEC-er would assume that a 3,000-ft mountain today was that
>tall back in the Genesis era. I am an engineer, not a geologist, but would
>assume the topography of any given region was vastly different now than it
>was then, so what prevails now does not say much about what could have
>occurred then.
>
>John
The objection to the Caspian region as a locale for the flood, which I believe
was first suggested by Hugh Miller, in the late 1800s, is that it would be a
local flood incapable of covering the 3,000 foot mountains in the Caspian
Area. My company has operations in that area of the world so I have talked to
the guys that work there and examined their topo maps. Most people who
advocate local floods are old earthers, and as such do not think the flood
caused a lot of major topographic shifts. To try to have a local flood in the
Caspian region and have it cover the topography there today, would be
impossible without also covering the rest of the world to a level of 3,000
feet. That then would no longer be a local flood but a global one.
Does this make sense?
glenn