Geologically you can't place the flood in Mesopotamia <10,000 years ago.
First, there has been a continuous culture in that region since that time.
The sheep or goat may have been domesticated 9000 B.C. at Zawi Chemi at the
foot of the Zagros mountains (J.guilaine, "The First Farmers of the Old
World" Prehistory,, ed. J. Guilaine, 1986, p. 82)
Secondly, settlements have been in continuous, overlapping existence since
that time. There is no period of time during which there is a sudden dearth
of settlements.
Third, there is no widespread holocene sediment spread across the northern
part of Iraq along the Turkish border. Any flood during the past 10,000
years would have left some evidence of itself. Even the great Washington
Scablands floods of 18,000 years ago, has left lots of geologic evidence for
itself in the form of gravels/sands and gigantic ripples.
Fourth, if you start the ark anywhere at a lower elevation than the
foothills of Ararat (circa 4000 ft) and then land it at 4000 feet, you have
had the ark and the water float uphill. Water doesn't do that.
Fifth, if the ark started in Mesopotamia the water of the rivers, flowing
downhill at 3 mph would carry the ark into the Indian Ocean in about a week.
How would it land anywhere near Turkey?
Six. Turkey has not been uplifted from the ocean over the past 10,000 years
so one can not suggest this.
Seventh, to float the ark to 4000+ feet elevation so it can land on the
foothills of the Ararat region, would require every other place on earth to
be covered by water to a similar depth. There is no evidence that Dallas
was covered by water within the past 10,000 years.
The mesopotamian flood is an entirely unworkable hypothesis.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm