Re: Why the Flood can not be in Mesopotamia

Glenn Morton (grmorton@psyberlink.net)
Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:24:33 -0600

At 09:02 AM 2/11/97 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
>Glenn wrote
>
>>As I mentioned to you in my private note to you, I have begun to think I
>>made a big mistake doing that. My courage failed me. Here is why. The
>>reason is that now the occurrences of H. Erectus appears to be centered on
>>Turkey. He is found in Spain at 1.8 myr, Africa at 1.8 myr, Java at 1.8
>>myr, Pakistan at 1.8 myr, Georgia (former soviet union) at 1.6 MYR . I may
>>have really blown it and your note has properly made me regret not staying
>>with what I probably should have. From now on I will only advocate a Turkish
>>landing site.
>
>Is there any way of getting a handle on what direction the prevailing winds
>would have taken in your scenario? If so, and if they were westerly (or
>maybe southwesterly -- I don't have a map in front of me) then Turkey would
>seem reasonable.
>
The real point is that water pouring into the Mediterranean basin from the
Atlantic, on the east,, through the Gibraltar area would have the effect of
pushing any floating object westward. This westward push would continue
until the basin filled. I discussed this in the book briefly.

>>However, if you will note, in my reply to Terry, I said that a couple of my
>>criticisms of a Mesopotamian flood would be molified if the ark landed in
>>Iran. But such a flood still could not last a year. Mine can.
>
>Fair enough. The way the account is written, with specific numbers of days
>for each phase, it seems natural to estimate the length of the flood in the
>neighborhood of a year. So if it was a continuous flood, then Noah would
>have ended up in the Persian Gulf in the Mesopotamian flood scenario,
>_assuming_ the flooding was continuous. However, Noah had probably boarded
>up all the hatches, couldn't see out, and was unlikely to open them unless
>it seemed quiet for some period of time. If the waters rose and fell and
>the ark grounded frequently, with heavy rains and storms coming
>intemittently, your 3-5 mph estimate might be quite high. Noah wouldn't
>have known whether it was safe to exit, since he woulnd't have opened any
>hatches until it had been quiet outside (no thunder, no rain on the roof,
>no boat motions) for long enough that he felt safe.

I would suggest that one can tell if the boat is grounded. There is a huge
noise when the bottom of a boat hits the submerged object, the boat motion
which you had been feeling for a long time suddently ceases. You are no
longer bobbing up and down. This would cause me to want to find out what
happened, and thus I would have opened a window to see.

One other issue. if one uses repeated groundings to slow the boats flow to
the sea, there is the issue of how much wear and tear the wooden bottom of
the boat could handle without being broken. A sharp rock can rip the bottom
of any wooden ship. The repeated stresses of resting on a small point or
line across the middle part of the ark can produce stresses which can open
seams along the sides. Once a seam is opened, the ship will sink.

<PRE>
force force
| Stress |
V V V
_________________
|--ark----------------------|
|----------------------------|
^
rock or sand bar
300 cubit long ark

(The archive will tak out all the spaces so if you are reading this there,
the carot below the ark is above the r in "or" The stress and V above are
above the carot and the force is downward at each end of the ark.)
</PRE>

In short, I do not think that grounding a wooden boat repeatedly is good for
its structural integrity.

glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm