Re: Noahic Covenant

From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 17:05:40 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Noahic Covenant"

    Replying to parts of assorted posts...

    >David, do you think Mike has a viable hypothesis geologically? If
    >so, I would like to know why? <

    In the absence of any supporting geological evidence for all the
    features needed for it to work and the problem of restoring
    elevation, the model does not seem credible to me.

    >According to Carter's article, marine shells, marine terraces (she
    >must have been referring to east-west terraces), and other evidence
    >show that the waters that drowned southern Mesopotamia was caused by
    >a massive movement of the sea from the Gulf. <

    A terrace is a surface of uniform elevation formed during a long
    period of past water level. It is not produced by a massive or even
    a small movement of water. Rather, marine terraces are evidence that
    the sea level was higher than present and stayed that way for a long
    period of time. They are essentially old shorelines and associated
    plains. Their direction is determined by the direction of the old
    shoreline.

    >So, you can say with absolute certainty that a large meteor impact
    >or several such impacts could not possibly trigger earthquakes which
    >would cause a few hundred square miles of land to lose 20 some feet
    >of elevation over a forty day period of time? <

    Not that they could not possibly do so under ideal conditions, but
    that the relevant region shows no evidence of either being capable of
    doing so or of having done so.

    >Are you saying that any earthquake which caused such a loss of
    >elevation, possibly a loss of only about 6" a day for 40 days, would
    >definitely have destroyed Noah's ark? How can you possibly be sure
    >of such a thing? <

    No, I am saying that you need to show that an impact large enough to
    cause the relevant earthquake would be small enough to spare Noah.

    >I admit, if Noah's flood occurred in such a way, It would certainly
    >be a highly unusual situation. But the Bible indicates that God
    >Himself caused Noah's flood to take place in the way that it did.<

    Yes, but I am not convinced that we can pin down the means, timing,
    or location with any precision given the available information.

    > Do you believe God could not have directed meteors to strike the
    >earth in just such a way as to cause Noah's land to first fall 20
    >feet, and then several months later to strike the earth in just such
    >a way as to cause Noah's land to regain its previous elevation? <

    God is capable of doing what He pleases. Indeed, timing rare natural
    phenomena to happen just when they were needed seems to be the means
    for some miracles (parting the sea, stopping the Jordan, etc.)
    However, there is no evidence to indicate that He had made southern
    Mesopotamia in such a way as to allow this means of lowering the
    land, and He did not make the laws of gravity so as to allow a meteor
    impact to elevate land.

    >You wrote: Theoretically, I suppose that it is possible to have a
    >region drop over 20 feet and come back up about a year later
    Thank you. You make my point. <

    However, my unspecified region with peculiar geology cannot be
    equated with any real location without evidence.

    >I doubt you can say with absolute certainty that an impact or
    >impacts at just the right location or locations could not possibly
    >cause such a reversal. <

    Impact force, aimed down and somewhat sideways, does not move things
    up. You are asking Mesopotamia to fall up.

    >You wrote: Compressional tectonics is the only cause I know of for
    >rapid elevation of a region. <
    >Well then, maybe compressional tectonics were involved at the time. <

    This is an entirely different mechanism, unrelated to impacts.
    However, the tectonics are evidently moving the region down, not up,
    as shown by your description of the region as a trough.

    >You wrote: Dropping a large region of land into the ocean will
    >produce large waves, unlikely to have a desirable effect on the ark
    >(e.g., turning upside down; washing it either miles inland or out to
    >sea).
    I suspect you are referring to a rapid drop. The Bible indicates that
    the land took 40 days to become flooded which indicates a gradual
    drop. <

    The drop needs to be rapid enough to present a challenge to Noah's
    neighbors trying to escape. Remember also that you are envisioning a
    highly unstable setting, triggered to fall by an impact. A net
    motion of 20 feet over 40 days is not likely to occur at a constant
    rate. Rather, earthquakes go through a series of jerks and stops,
    and an impact-triggered movement should start strong and trail off.
    Tectonic earthquakes may have small quakes before the largest quake,
    but still do not proceed smoothly.

         Dr. David Campbell
         Old Seashells
         University of Alabama
         Biodiversity & Systematics
         Dept. Biological Sciences
         Box 870345
         Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
         bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
    Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
    Droitgate Spa



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 28 2002 - 17:35:31 EDT