I have not run across his stuff, nor have I heard this view referenced. But
then there is lots that I am unaware of. If one were to say that the flood
landed the ark at the base of the topographic rise which supports the Zagros
Mountains, in Iran, then some objections would be much reduced. The ark
would not be required to go uphill. However, The objection that the flood
could not last a year would still stand. If the ark floated in the water
it would float to the SE where it would enter the Persian Gulf. If it
didn't float in the water but stranded itself, one must ask why the
occupants didn't get out? Also one could ask why they could never see that
there was land outside.
>Also, what if the actual historical event that is described in Genesis 6-9
>is a much smaller event than you seem to envisage--would there still be a
>geological trace? I'm not sure that Davis Young in Calvin's geology
>department agrees with your assessment that a local flood around 4000-5000
>BC would leave a geological trace. I think that this has come up before,
>but what will be the geological trace of the Mississippi River floods of a
>few years ago?
The 1993 Mississsippi River floods deposited as much as 6 feet of sediment
on top of farmers fields. That Six feet is not going to be eroded away for
a long time unless the river itself cuts it out, but that is still going to
be several thousand years before the river could do it all. Trees which
grew in those fields were buried and their trunks will become polystrate
fossils and there will be evidence for this flood as long as those
polystrate trees are available.
Archeologically, one will be able to find artefacts below the sand and mud
and then a barren layer and on top of that will be another layer with
artefacts. Remember as I mentioned, the sediments of the Lake Missoula
floods from 18,000 years ago are still there to be found on the surface.
>Can you give us a sense of the largest magnitude flood that
>would give no geological trace? Perhaps you may not be satisfied that this
>could comport well with the Genesis account, but others of us might be.
If I had to guess I would probably say that a creek rising leaves little
evidence of itself. But if the flood is a noteworthy thing, something people
are going to remember and write about, then I don't see how it is possible
to leave no evidence. If Davis Young would give us an explanation of how a
flood can deposit no sediment I would be interested in hearing it. The real
issue is the amount of sediment carried by the waters. In floods, the
increased stream flow velocity picks up lots more sediment than is normally
carried. Then as the flood spreads over the ground, and the velocity of the
local water slows, that sediment falls out of suspension and covers the
landscape. If you had a large flood in a concrete basin where it could pick
up no sediment, then it would leave no evidence of itself.
Even the relatively gentle floods of Egypt, which don't deposit a whole lot
of new soil each year still deposist an average of 3-5 mm per year over the
land. Archaeologically dated pottery is found at successively deeper depths
as each year the Nile flooded and left new soil as evidence of itself over
the past several thousand years.. These sediments are still there after
5-7000 years for us to examine. ( see Andrew G. Warne and Daniel Jean
Stanley, "Archaeology to Refine Holocene Subsidence Rates Along the Nile
Delta Margin, Egypt", Geology, August, 1993 ) I would look for more but
unfortunately my hot water heater broke and flooded my library today. I
fear that half of my 30 years of Scientific Americans are ruined and lots of
books are now wet). I can't find my article files right now in the mess.
One other issue. If erosion removes all evidence of a flood from several
thousand years ago, then WHY does it not also remove all evidence of
civilizations from that long ago? Are the artefacts of a civilization
immune to erosion also?
As to comporting to the Genesis account, I view comporting as matching the
facts. O.J. saying he had never owned those shoes which he was photographed
in about 50 times, is an account that does not comport to the facts. If
O.J. told me that the flood lasted a year when in fact it lasted about 3
weeks, I would consider that not comporting to the facts. How loose must we
allow our criteria to be before we finally say the whole story is nonsense?
If it is nonsense then what does that say of the Scripture? It is for this
reason I came up with the scenario I am advocating. It is the only one that
comports to the reported events and can match an actual geological event.
This looseness with which we view the Scripture is not what you would allow
in your teaching nor I in my business. In my business, we generate theories
of local geologicaI history. By creating this history from the data, we
occasionally can find oil. Often a new fact is found which destroys months
of work and theorizing about a given prospective region. But if I had a guy
who paid no attention to the facts at his disposal and intentionally ignored
them, I would have to fire him regardless of how wonderful his oil prospect
sounded. It didn't comport to the facts he was telling me.
You would no more allow panspermia, or the phlogiston theory to be taught in
college than I would allow a geoscientist in my group who used split peach
branches to find oil. Those views explained somethings and split peach
branches found the Oklahoma City field, and Scipio Albion (the largest field
in Michigan), but those methods and explanations are wrong. So why do we
allow facts not to comport when it comes to our cherished views of the flood?
Are Christians allowed to believe whatever they want in spite of what the
observational evidence says? If so, then lets clearly state that facts mean
nothing and go on about our business. This is a very important
epistemological question. If we are allowed to reject obvious misfits of
observation with our story, then why can't the Buddhist, Moslem or New Ager?
On this epistemological issue, both the liberal and conservative branches of
Christianity seem united together in a rejection of observational evidence;
they both reject comportment with the facts in order to save their
respectively cherished views.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm