Dick Fischer wrote: on Sunday, July 21, 2002 8:09 PM
>A flood of over one year must go through two Spring rainy periods.
>During the intervening dry spell, there may be very little river
>current. Punting upstream might work to some extent.
To go upstream and uphill 3000 feet as you suggested in 1995? Give me a
break. As I pointed out then there is NO invisible wall at the south end of
the Persian Gulf to dam up 3000 feet of water. It will all flow south at
about 2-5 mph.
And a number
>of landing sites have been suggested. Best has the ark floating in
>an estuary in the Persian Gulf. Hopefully, we can do better than
>that.
>
>This is a very small point on which to dig in and reject the
>voluminous evidence substantiating a 2900 BC, Mesopotamian voyage.
>Nevertheless, I live close to the Smithsonian and will go and see if
>there is a better answer. You probably have access to contour maps
>of Iraq, being in the oil business. Is there anything online I can
>access?
I am delighted to see you start to think about the topography. The USGS
would most assuredly have something and if not that, a physical map of Iraq
in a good encyclopedia will also do. It all slopes down to the Persian
Gulf.
>
>>I have a 4400 book library of which I have readabou5t 3000 cover to
>>cover. I have read something approaching 7000 articles,
>>big deal. That in and of itself doesn't lead me to the truth
>either. If the
>>number of articles and books determine truth, I win.
>
>I got your blue ribbon right here. Don't pretend you don't
>understand. Reading books on one subject doesn't make you an expert
>in something else.
You cut out the rest of that paragraph where I clearly said that it didn't
matter because that didn't lead to truth. Why didn't you leave that part of
my quote in tact?
>>It tells me that you are being illogical on this. And as to the
>research, I
>>have done the geologic research on Iraq and the physical research on
>>moving the ark. On both counts your theory fails as I have outlined
>>many times before . Wanna compare geological books we have read?
>
>Yes. I haven't read more than five in my lifetime.
Then maybe it is time to start. The flood leaves GEOLOGICAL evidence and
geology surely has something to say about what is and isn't a flood deposit.
The fact that we have water-laid clays near a river as you apparently
reported to Jim, is kind of silly. It means nothing more than that there is
a river nearby. It doesn't mean there is a flood.
[snip]
>There are possible explanations. I bet there is an answer, but I
>don't know it. But you want to throw out an entirely satisfactory
>explanation, replete with substantiating data and evidence because of
>one hangup. We have generally accepted anthropological theories and
>suggested lines of descent from ancient ancestors with far less
>evidence than this.
I will take physical evidence any day over literary evidence. It is harder
for physical evidence to lie or make things up.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 22 2002 - 14:00:33 EDT