Mike wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com [mailto:MikeSatterlee@cs.com]
>Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 8:29 AM
>I've read your articles on Noah's flood. You maintain that the flood could
>not have occurred in Mesopotamia for several reasons. Among other
>things, you
>say that the entire region is not now covered with flood
>sediments, which it
>would be if it was entirely covered with water just a few thousand
>years ago.
>You say that places such as Ur in southern Mesopotamia have been
>continually
>inhabited since 4,000 BC, long before Bible chronology indicates
>Noah's flood
>occurred. You say that the laws of physics (water runs downhill
>and does so
>quickly) would not have permitted Mesopotamia to remain under water for
>anywhere near as long as Genesis tells us Noah's land was flooded. And you
>say that Genesis tells us that Noah's ark came to rest on a mountain in
>Ararat (Turkey), which would mean that if Noah's flood was a Mesopotamian
>flood all of what is now Iraq must have been flooded.
>
>However, I do not see the problems you refer to as being
>insurmountable for
>those who believe Noah's flood was a Mesopotamian flood.
It has been my long observation that nothing is fatal to anyone's
views--belief conquors all evidence.
>
>For the land of Noah could have been located far to the southeast
>of Ur, in
>what is now Kuwait. Since the Bible lists the primary water source of the
>flood as "the waters of the deep bursting forth" (Gen. 7:11), we can
>understand that Noah's flood was largely the result of an
>inundation of the
>Persian Gulf. If the elevation of Noah's land was temporarily lowered
>slightly (possibly due to a large Meteor impact or series of such
>impacts) it
>would then have remained flooded until the land regained its original
>elevation.
This suggestion doesn't hold water either. The physics of meteor impacts
would not allow what you are talking about to occur. To depress the lands
surface, requires the movement of lots of very viscous mantle material. This
material has viscosities in the order of 10^22 poise. See Charles Officer ,
Introduction to Theoretical Geophysics, (p. 373-378) It has taken 10,000
years for Scandinavia to uplift because those viscosities are so very, very
large. Meteor impacts operation on a much more rapid time scale--like
micro-seconds. What meteors do is smash the local area and blast a few
rocks out of the crater--this is especially true of the meteor you were
speaking of earlier. The only part of the land which would be depressed
would be that in the immediate area of impact.
One other problem with your meteor-tilt-the-earth idea is that when
calculating rheological motion(which is what you are doing), one can use a
type of Fourier analysis and treat each wavelength of motion individually.
A crater is a high frequency event (at least ones that have hit the Middle
East in the past 10000 years) and they have only a short distance range of
effect. You need long sustained and long distance-low frequency forces to
tilt the earth.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 24 2002 - 01:15:56 EDT