Why The Flood Can Not Be In Mesopotamia
1. The details of a Mesopotamian Flood do not fit the Scriptural
account. Consider the following story historical story: A ship
was sent to a foreign city to protect American citizens during a
local revolution designed to overthrow a colonial government.
While in the harbor, saboteurs, under the direction of the
colonial government, planted two bombs on the ship which
exploded, sinking the ship and taking the lives of many of the
sailors. Obviously since the colonial government had knowledge of
this dastardly deed, the Americans were incensed at this outrage
and went to war. The war was the Spanish-American War. Slogans
like, "Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain" reverberated
around the land.
The above story is a brief outline of our entry into that war.
The problem comes in that the initial account of how the Maine
was sunk, is not true. That is, it does not concord with what
actually happened. The boiler on the Maine, exploded with no help
from saboteurs. The resulting fire then ignited the ammunition
aboard the ship. The same event, two explanations. Only one of
them can be true and one must be false.
In order for an account to be true, the story must concord to the
actual events. The facts in the account, must match the facts of
history. The story which tells the false set of facts (saboteurs,
Spanish government knowledge of the event, etc) does not match
what actually happened and so can be dismissed.
What does this say about the nature of the Flood account? A story
about a man who built an Ark, gathered animals on it, spent a
year on the boat, and landed on a mountain, can only be true IF
the facts of the account actually match the facts of history.
There must have been a man who built an Ark, gathered animals on
it, spent a year on the boat, and landed on a mountain. If there
wasn't, then like the story of the Maine, the Flood account is
untrue.
Here are the facts which ought to be true if an explanation of
the Flood account is to have any ability to make it true.
1. Eight people on the Ark
2. Animals on the Ark
3. Flood lasted for 1 year
4. Ark landed in the Ararat region on a mountain
Can the Mesopotamian Flood account for these facts? It can
account for 8 people on the Ark and animals on the Ark. But it
can not explain how the Flood could last for an entire year nor
can it account for where the Ark landed at the same time.
Water in a riverine flood travels at a speed of 3-5 miles per
hour, and occasionally faster. Since the slope of the
Mesopotamian basin is towards the south, the water will flow
south, carrying the Ark with it. At a slow speed of 3 miles per
hour, the Ark could float from the Turkish boarder with Iraq to
the Persian Gulf in about 200 hours. This is only 8 days. The
Mesopotamian flood cannot concord with the account because the
Ark would be forced towards the Persian Gulf which lies at sea
level in the opposite direction from the Ararat region. Once the
Ark is in the Indian Ocean, how is it to be transferred to the
Ararat region, much less be lifted to land on the mountain?
If the Mesopotamian Flood actually solved the problem, the
account would say that the Ark landed on a beach in Arabia.
2. The problem of getting the Ark to the Ararat Region. If one
wants to have the flood occur in the Mesopotamian basin, picking
up the ark and dropping it in Turkey, must believe that water
runs uphill. The elevation profile from the Persian Gulf to Mt.
Ararat (9500 foot line only) is:
(if you view this on the archive the picture below will probably be messed
up. You can find it at my web page which currently is located at the address
at the bottom of the.)
<PRE>
Ararat Persian Gulf
North South
Elevation
(hundreds of feet)
170---------water level required to place Ark on top of Ararat--
165
160
155
150
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95*
90*
85*
80*
75*
70*
65*----water level required to place ark on Ararat Plateaux-----
60*
55* Direction the water must flow --->
50* <---Direction the Ark must go
45*
40*
35*
30*
25*
20*
15***
10**************
05**************************
00*********************************************************
---7-------6-------5-------4-------3-------2-------1-------0Pers.
Hundreds of Miles from Persian Gulf Gulf
The east west elevation profile is:
East West
Mediterranean Tigris/Euphrates Zagros Mtns
Sea River Valley Iran
(Hundreds of feet) ***
20 ************* *****
15 ********************* ******
10 **************************** *******
05 *********************************** *********
00**********************************************************
---7-------6-------5-------4-------3-------2-------1-------0Pers.
</PRE>
The whole problem with the Mesopotamian Flood concept is that the
water required to pick the ark up and place it on the lower
levels of any mountain in the Ararat region, is far above that
which can be contained by the natural basin. In the east west
direction, if the water level rises above 2000 feet it will spill
over into the Mediterranean. The water level in the
Tigris/Euphrates valley can get no higher than 2000 feet on the
west. In other words, the entire world must be filled with water
up to a 9500 foot level in order for the Ark to be placed on
Ararat.
However the real problem lies to the south. There is nothing to
the south which can hold the water and allow it to rise above sea
level. The Tigris/Euphrates valley is a half-bowl. A great
illustration of the problem would be to cut a breakfast cereal
bowl in half and try to fill half the bowl with water. Obviously
you can pour water into the half-bowl from now to the end of the
universe and the half bowl will never fill up.
The only way out is to have the Ark move uphill against the
water. One suggestion, is that the 8 member crew of the Ark used
poles to push the Ark against the current. From an estimate of
the size of the ark the power output needed to push the ark from
Shuruppak to Qardu is calculated. The power exceeds that
reasonably owned by human beings. This view requires a
sustained human output of 279 watts every day, 24 hours per day
to lift the 1,600,000 kilogram ark to Qardu, 1000 km distant
from Shuruppak. According to Mark Drela and John S. Langford,
"Human Powered Flight," Scientific American Nov. 1985, p.
144-151 esp. 150) the maximum sustainable output for a human is
about 75 watts over an 8 hour period (40 watts for a 12 hour
shift). To output 279 watts over an 8 hour shift requires 4
people. Since there are only 8 people two 12 hr shifts are
required and the average power output per person drops to 40
watts for a total of 160 watts available. After a couple of
months of this work, they would be further south than where they
started. Those interested in the details can find them at:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199605/0061.html
In response to this problem, I have had some Mesopotamian Flood
advocates suggest that the entire basin tilted to the north,
sinking Turkey beneath the sea and then it re-rose to its present
elevation. This would leave evidence of itself in the form of
marine sediments covering Turkey, yet except along river valleys,
Turkey is covered by sediments which are Miocene and older.
Miocene and older sediments are prior to the advent of man on
earth.
3. Lack of sediment from a widespread Mesopotamian Flood. A
syllogism can be constructed.
All floods leave sediments covering what they flooded.
Noah's Deluge was a flood.
Therefore Noah's deluge must have left sediment.
All uneroded flood sediments can be detected by geology.
To completely erode flood sediments takes more than 20,000 years.
There are no widespread sediments dating from less than 20,000
years ago.
In support of the above syllogisms,
In northern Iraq the surficial sediments are Miocene in age.
Except along the rivers themselves, the surficial rocks of
northern Iraq are Miocene in age, much older than any proposed
flood. (see M. H. Metwalli et al, Petroleum Bearing Formations in
Syrai and Iraq, AAPG Bulletin, Sept 1974, see cross section on
page 1791.) If there was a flood in the Holocene, there should
be some Holocene rocks away from the river valleys still left.
There is no evidence of a former high water level in the
Mesopotamian basin. As one drives into Salt Lake City from the
north along I15 one can see along the mountains on the east a set
of perfectly horizontal ledges which extend for mile after mile.
these "ledges" mark the former water level for the glacial Lake
Bonneville. The waves on the water eroded the land at the beach.
These features last for a very long time. There is no reported
evidence of raised beaches along the edges of the Mesopotamian
valley. If it had ever been flooded, there would be some
evidence of this.
Some have suggested that the Flood sediment has been eroded away.
But this would not be reasonable. Large floods left evidence in
the geologic record for far longer than 6000 years was already
known. The Lake Missoula Flood deposits had been scientifically
described as a flood deposit since 1923 (see J.H. Bretz 1923 "The
Channeled Scablands of the Columbia Plateau Journal of Geology
31:617-649 and Glacial drainage on the Columbia Plateau
Geological Soc. Amer. Bull. 34: 573-608.) I would agree that it
took a while for Bretz's view to be accepted but it should have
served as a warning. Besides that, the flood deposit at Ur
itself had lasted many thousands of years so to say that a flood
deposit couldn't be preserved violated what he must have known
about Mesopotamian events.
4. Continuous civilization in the region from 4000 B.C. on. The
Software Toolworks Multimedia Encyclopedia states that Ur was
inhabited from the 5th millennium BC (at least 4000 B.C) until
400 B.C. The city existed uninterrupted over that period (even
the famous flood layer at Ur did not cover the entire town). It
is difficult to see how there could have been a flood of such a
magnitude that would get special note, last a year etc. Ur was
along the river bank right at the ocean's shore 6000 years ago.
If there had been a great flood during that period, it would have
wipe Ur out. Remember that their bricks were not that hard and
a good soaking with water could destroy the structural integrity
of the city. Thus any flood had to have been prior to 4000 BC.
But because of the geologic evidence, there is little evidence
for a Flood earlier.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm