On Sun, 26 Nov 1995 21:05:38 -0500 you wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>GIenn uses the debating tactic of trivialising his opponent's
>arguments! :-) I thought the idea of this Reflector was to critique
>each other's arguments? I thought that questioning the "average rate
>of 0.85 metres per hour" rate of flow of Glenn's filling of the
>Mediterranean, as too slow, was a valid point?<<
GM>I have no problem with you questioning anything. What I have a
>problem with is that you never look at your own theory to see that
>the same criticism applies to it. (or in this case the problem is
>even worse.) And I have a great deal of problem with you saying that
>any view is wrong without suggesting alternatives. Christians too
>easily pick apart anything they disagree with but fail to advance
>EXPLANATIONS for the data. You have suggested nothing which can be
>measured easily.
This confirms that it is useless debating with Glenn. I have not only
critiqued his view but I have also posted my alternative, ie. the
Flood was in Mesopopotamia, within the last 50,000 years and God
removed the sediments.
GM>Even if my view is wrong, it does not follow that what you are
>suggesting is correct. Other than saying that the flood was not
>global and was in the Mesopotamian region, you have failed the
>quantification tests you so eagerly apply to my view.
It is Glenn who proposed quantities. I critiqued them. There is no
need for a critic of a scientiific theory to propose his own
alternatives. Glenn's view must stand on its own two feet, whether or
not my theory is wrong.
GM>For instance,
>How deep were the waters in your flood?
I have answered this before. I don't know absolutely. I am concerned
only with broadly fitting in with the Biblical evidence. All the
Bible says is: 1) "all the high mountains under the entire heavens
were covered" (Gn 7:19); and 2) "The waters rose and covered the
mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet" (Gn 7:20). Others
(if not Glenn himself) have pointed out that this universality is in
the experience of Noah.
GM>Where were the springs which you require to burst forth?
I presume they were under the local area where the Flood ocurred.
Other than that the Bible does not say.
>What sediments represent the flood? (oh I forgot, they are invisible)
Glenn misrepresents my argument. I have given good reasons why there
was no sediment. Glenn himself admits my view is at least possible.
GM>If your flood was not global, then your flood could not be as deep
>as mine. In fact a look at the elevations of Palestine show that if
>you fill Mesopotamia up to about 520 meters above sealevel, the
>waters would spill over into the Mediterranean basin (of course they
>would also spill into the Persian Gulf). Giving 150 days for rising
>(which you criticise me for not observing) yields .14 meters per hour
>rise (compared to the .85 m/hr you say is unacceptable with mine. If
>I use 150 days then I get 1.36 m/hour rise). If as you say, my
>flood theory is too slow to catch everybody, your maximum possible
>flood is even slower. You are not consistent here. You criticise my
>view here for what you miserably fail to accomplish yourself.
No. The Biblical Flood was caused primarily by torrential rain. "the
floodgates of the heavens were opened" (Gn 7:11). I can well imagine
how nothing, not even birds, would be able to escape such heavy rain.
GM>To fill Mesopotamia even deeper requires a GLOBAL flood not a local
>one. And I can quote you that you do not believe in a global flood.
I don't claim ay depth for Noah's Flood beyond what the Bible
indicates (see above).
> Stephen wrote:
GM>Glenn has a valid point - for those people living on the flat
>abyssal plain, who tried to outrun the advancing Flood. But what
>about those who lived near the edge of it? What about those who
>floated on debris? If the water rose this slow then I am sure there
>would be many human and animal survivors, yet the Genesis account
>says there were none (Gn 7:22). Indeed, it is doubtful if Glenn's
>slow Flood would trap even one bird, yet Noah had to bring birds on
>to the Ark (Gn 7:14).<<
GM>I would point you to the experiences of sailors whose ships were
>sunk in WW II. After 4 days on the ocean surface most died from lack
>of fresh water. The same would apply to anyone floating on top of
>the flooded Mediterranean. Within 21 days or so, they would starve
>to death. Rain fall would also be occurring in the surrounding
>regions causing runoff which would make it very difficult to drift to
>shore. As to the birds, they drown all the time in floods of an even
>smaller variety.
OK. I concede this point.
>Stephen incredulously asks:
SJ>I don't know where Glenn gets this idea that I prefer "Riverine
>floods". I have previously stated that I have never claim that
>Noah's Flood was "riverine".<<
GM>Well, try this as the source for that particular piece of
>information.
>On 10-9-95 19:16 EDT you wrote:
SJ>I am generally concerned with fitting the scientific fact within
>the overall Biblical facts. But in this case there are no specific
>Biblical "facts" concerning the place and date of the Flood. There
>are just very general "facts" of the general area (Mesopotamia - see
>place names I have already posted, eg. Urartu, Babel, etc) and the
>neolithic post-Flood world. These do not fit Glenn's Mediterannean
>5.5 MYA Flood theory.<<
No mention of "riverine" here!
GM>Since Mesopotamia means literally "middle of the river" and it
>refers to a RIVER VALLEY, I simply can't imagine where I would get
>the idea that you believe in a riverine flood? Silly me!
I never mentioned a "a riverine flood". The fact that there are
rivers in Mesopotamia is irrelevant. They had nothing to do with the
Flood.
>In the same post you wrote:
SJ>I do believe that somewhere, sometime, in the Mesopotamian area,
>there was a large local Flood that fits all the essential data, but
>we haven't found it, and may never find it. The evidence is in the
>Biblical story and the Mesopotamian flood traditions, and most
>imortantly Jesus belief that it happened (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27).<<
GM>Golly gee, how could I have misunderstood you? I must have
>misunderstood you when you said "in the Mesopotamian area, there was
>a large local Flood that fits all the essential data".
Yes - "all the essential data" in *the Bible*. I am not concerned to
come up with a detailed naturalistic geological explanation of the
Flood.
GM>And foolish me, I jumped to the conclusion that if you said you
>believed the flood was local and occurred in Mesopotamia, that you
>really meant it!! Gosh how stupid of me!!! I now know that you
>don't really mean these things that you write!
I note the tone of nastiness that creeps into Glenn's arguments. I
therefore will discontinue debating with him.
>On 95-10-19 20:41:30 EDT you wrote:
SJ>There is a difference in not knowing *exactly* where and when the
>Flood was, but believing in its general time and location within
>limits. It is one thing to believe the Flood may have been in
>Mesopotamia within the last 10 - 50 thousand years, and another to
>believe it happened to a different species (ie. H. habilis), in the
>Mediterranean, 5500 thousand years ago.<<
GM>Jimini Cricket, there is that claim that Mesopotamia was the area
>of the flood again. I obviously misunderstood what you said here.
>Or are you saying that Mesopotamia is not a river valley? Last time
>I looked at a map, the Tigris and Euphrates were in the middle of
>Mesopotamia. Of course, I have not been to Iraq to personally see
>those rivers. Maybe they aren't really there.
See above. I said nothing about "a riverine Flood". Of course I
concede that the area in which the Flood ocurred contained rivers.
>On Date: 95-10-15 18:04:18 EDT Stephen wrote again,
SJ>The above argument could be used to justify anything. The whole
>reason Glenn's rejects the usual Mesopotamian location of the Flood is
>because geology has not discovered sediments of it! This is despite
>Biblical (eg. Gn 10:10) and extra-Biblical evidence (eg. Gilgamesh
>epic) for a Mesopotamian location of the Flood.<<
GM>You mean that today (a month later) this "Biblical (eg. Gn 10:10)
>and extra-Biblical evidence (eg. Gilgamesh epic) for a Mesopotamian
>location of the Flood" is not true anymore? Golly, why didn't I read
>this in the Newspaper?
I note that Glenn never addressed the point above when I originally
posted it. All he can do is ridicule it.
GM>I know what the problem is. My logic about your view was flawed.
>It should have gone like this instead of the way it did.
>Mesopotamia is a river valley.
>The flood occurred in Mesopotamia.
>A riverine flood is one that occurs in a river valley
>Therefore the flood was NOT riverine.
See above. I made no claim that ther Flood was "riverine".
GM>That is what I should have concluded. But some how I find the
>logic more satisfying if I have the last sentence read
>Therefore the flood was riverine.
I would have thought that "riverine" means the Flood was essentially
cause by a flooding river? Of course the rivers ion the Flood area
were flooded, but that was not the main cause of the Flood.
GM>But then with all the mistakes I have mentioned above, why should
>my logic be faultless?
>Seriously Stephen, don't play me for the fool. I remember what you
>have said in the past even if you can't.
I remember what I said too. I did not say it was a "riverine" Flood
and Glenn's posts confirm it.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>I have no idea what Glenn is arguing here. His book did not AFAIK
>mention "springs", so Glenn has added them because I "wanted" them.
>My point was that he should have had "springs" in his core theory,
>not just added on to please me.<<
>and
>
SJ>I find this bluster of Glenn's unconvincing. :-) I would have
>thought in discussing Glenn's theory of a Homo habilis Noah's Flood
>ocurring 5.5 MYA in the Mediterranean, set forth in his book, that
>Glenn would at least occasionally quote from that book, or at least
>mention what it says.<<
GM>First off, Stephen, you shouldn't state what is or is not in a book
>you have not read. It is really bad form to do that. But since you
>are so eager for a quotation from my book here is one descibing the
>springs of Eden.
I did not "state what is or is not in a book I have not read". I asked
why Glenn does not quote from his book.
GM>A look at the description of the hydrology in verse 6 is truly
strange.
> The land is described as one with no rain and water coming out of the earth
>to water the land. In today's world springs do emit water, but this occurs
>only over limited areas under limited circumstances. Topographically
>elevated areas are required to provide the necessary pressure gradient to
>push the water against the force of gravity and friction. Figure 32 shows how
>rainfall on a mountain or hill soaks into the ground, flows underground
>through an isolated rock layer and emerges in the form of a spring. The
>elevation is necessary to cause the flow. Over a broad surface, with gravity
>holding the water down, there is no way for the water to rise. Thus, to
>conceive of a land in which the entire surface was watered by spring seepage
>requires much different circumstances than the laws of physics allow. Morris
>presents an interesting explanation of the water that came out of the ground,
>but a physical analysis of it made by this author shows that the water must
>come out of the ground boiling hot. Steam must be used to lift the water. If
>there is no steam then a cycle like this violates both the First and Second
>Laws of Thermodynamics. In either case
>it is impossible!" Glenn R. Morton, _Foundation, Fall and Flood_, (Dallas:
>DMD Publishing, 1995), p. 128.
GM>There is your quote Stephen, you will get no more.
Thanks, to Glenn for this quote but it is too late. I had already
decided
that I am going to ignore Glenn's postings from now on. His tendency
to
make personal attacks and misrepresent the views of his opponents is
only one factor.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------