>-----Original Message-----
>From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com [mailto:MikeSatterlee@cs.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 10:21 PM
>
>You wrote: there are no east-west thrust faults in Southern Iraq.
>
>How sure are you of that? I wonder. I have read some of your articles. You
>often seem to speak as if there is absolutely no question as to
>the truth of
>what you are saying. However, I have at times found that that is not the
>case.
Ok, what things have you found me to be saying which are factually
false? I always do my best to change what is factually false. Given
the charge you are making, I am always interested in specifics, with
documentation to back up that I am in error. Fuzzy, unspecific
claims like that above make me yawn.
As to how sure I am of the lack of thrusts in southern Iraq, all one
needs to do is consult a geologic map. Or search through the
geological databases. I searched through the AAPG Bulletins
(1916-present), GCAGS proceedings, Journal of Sedimentary Research,
and found only 5 occurrances of Iraq and thrust. In all cases the
thrusts they were speaking of were north-south along the Zagros
Mountains. But since you won't believe me here is what the journals
say. About southern Iraq,
"Overall, the pathways display only minor temporal variations
possibly because the area was affected by relatively mild structural
deformation compared to other parts of the region. Extensive folding
and faulting related to the Zagros thrust belt had a significant
impact on predicted migration pathways and areas of petroleum
accumulation in northern Iraq." Janet Pitman et al, PPrediction of
Petroleum Migration Pathways in the Jurassic Petroleum System Iraq,"
AAPG Bulletin, Sept. 2000, p. 1476
Of course, as I have said, factual data doesn't matter much to
apologists once they have their idea firmly in mind. Belief conquors
all evidence. Here is another:
"The Taurus-Zagros belt includes two main zones: the folded zone and
the <thrust> zone (Figure 1a). The thrust zone forms the suture zone
of the collided plates and occurs as a narrow strip in the extreme
north, just outside th border between Iraq and Turkey, and in the
northeast, along the border between Iraq and Iran." M. S. AMEEN,
Effect of Basement Tectonics on Hydrocarbon Generation, Migration,
and Accumulation in Northern Iraq
1992 AAPG Bulletin , Pages 356 - 370
And while I don't have one I can point you to, I have seen seismic
data from southern Iraq. The sediments are sub-horizontal, not what
one finds in a thrusted region. Shoot, even as far north as Syria,
the stratigraphy is sub-horizontal in the Euphrates depression--see
Tarif Sawaf, et al, Tectonophysics, 220(1993):267-281 for seismic
lines from that part of the world). And that is why I am sure that
your model is highly condensed error (HCE).
>
>I wonder how well all of southern Iraq and Kuwait have been
>examined in this
>regard.
Wonder away, but seismic data has been shot all over that country
because of the oil and gas reserves. There are 354 articles
mentioning the geology of Iraq in the AAPG lit search site. If you
were speaking of northern Canada, on the continental shield, I would
agree with you. You are reaching as does every true believer in a
hypothesis when faced with observational reality.
>
>>From what I have read it is now widely believed that a very large flood
>drowned at least the southern plains of Mesopotamia and swept away the
>civilizations in the area. As I understand it, this has been clearly
>established by recent geological research in Mesopotamia and the
>Persian Gulf
>area. Evidence of this was presented by Theresa Howard-Carter in
>the article,
>"The Tangible Evidence for the Earliest Dilmun," published in the
>Journal of
>Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 33, 1981, pp. 210-223.
Woah here, essentially all the sediments along the Euphrates-Tigris
system are 'flood' deposits, if you allow that most of them were
deposited during peak flow periods of these two rivers.
>
>It seems to me that it would be foolish of us to just ignore this
>evidence.
Haven't seen or heard any. Describe the geological evidence she advances.
>
>How far northward this giant flood reached is still an open
>question. Most of
>the Mesopotamian plains are very low. The whole delta lowland south of
>Baghdad, for example, is extremely flat and rises only a few
>meters from the
>Persian Gulf to Baghdad 600 kilometers north of the Gulf, so that
>Baghdad is
>still less than 10 (ten) meters above sea level! Therefore, in my
>opinion, to
>categorically reject the possibility that a local inundation of the
>Mesopotamian plains could have reached as far north as southern
>Iraq, about
>the time that the Bible indicates Noah's flood occurred, would be
>a sign of
>stubborn dogmatism.
Have you read a single geological article about southern Iraq? northern Iraq?
>
>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 Messopotamia was caused by a massive
>movement of
>the sea from the Gulf.
This is a gross misunderstanding of the geology of the head of the
Persian Gulf (HCE). There was no massive movement of sea water. The
marine shells are due to the fact that the Tigris and Euphrates delta
was much further inland several thousand years ago and these marine
beds are beneath the freshwater delta sediments. The Tigris and
Euphrates rivers deposit sediment at their mouths. The site of the
present day delta is not the site of the ancient delta. Consider this:
"The type section of the Hammar Formation is in BPC well Zubair No.
31 (lat 30[deg] 31'00" N., Long 47[deg] 36' 34" E.; alt 20.3 ft,
completed Oct 24, 1953) between 20 and 31 feet of drilled depth. The
formation is 21 feet thick. This Recent marine formation occurs in
the subsurface sections on the southern limits of Hawr al Hammar in
thenorthern sector of the Zubair oil field, where the type seciton is
located.
"Eastward across the Shaat al Arab, north of Bandar Shapur,
Thomas (in Lees and Falcon, 1952) reported a succession of marine
shelly silts overlain by fresh- or brackish-water silts containing
ostracodes. The brackish-water silts total at least 20 feet in
thickness, and the lower marine silts are possibly 60 feet thick. On
the northeast side of Hawr Al Hammar, this formation was found in the
Nahr Umr wells, close to the Shatt al Arab, where it consists of 32
feet of shell marl containing lamellibranchs, gastropods, bryozoans,
and other forms in a fauna almost identical with that of the other
forms in a fauna almost identical with that of the Hammar Formation
in the type section. According to Hudson and others (1957), this
formation extends as far south as Al Faw (FA0), in the extreme south
of Iraq, where a number of water wells were drilled in soft silts to
a depth of 30 feet. They stated that 'the general succession was one
of a lower marine silt with abundant shel!
ls and an upper silt with ostracodes and occasional crab debris,
probably estuarine. There was a slight difference between the
succession in the various wells, the greatest thickness of the
estuarine silt being 20 feet (well No. 3) and that of the marine
silts being 30 feet (well No. 2).' The fauna of the marine silts is
that of the Hammar Formation.
"The only evidence of the northward extension of this formation,
according to Hudson and others (1957), is that of W. A. Macfadyen (in
Lees and Falcon, 1952) who reported 35 feet of alluvium with marine
Foraminifera at Al Amarah, 95 miles north- northwest of Al Basrah.
Mitchell (1958) discovered a Recent marine fauna near An Najaf at
altitudes of 40.7 to 41.3 meters above present sea level." ~ K. M. Al
Naqib, Geology of the Arabian Peninsula, Southwestern Iraq,
(Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1967), p. G47
You should also know that as one goes north, other than the actual
river sediments which are a narrow strip which follow the river, the
surficial deposits of Iraq are MIOCENE in age, not Holocene. Thus
there is no evidence of a marine innundation reaching much more than
100 miles north of Basra. see M. H. Metwalli et al, Petroleum Bearing
Formations in Syrai and Iraq, AAPG Bulletin, Sept 1974, see cross
section on page 1791
>This conclusion agrees with the statement
>at Gen. 7:11
>that the waters of the Flood had two sources: (1) "the fountains
>of the great
>deep were broken up, and (2) the windows of heaven were opened."
>The "great
>deep" (Hebr. ’Äôtehom rabba’Äô) is used in the Bible especially of the sea
>(e.g., Isa. 51:10; 63:3; Jonah 2:4).
Given that the conclusion is wrong so who cares if it agrees or not
with Genesis?
An inundation from the
>Persian Gulf also
>explains why the ark of Noah was brought northwards. If the Flood had been
>caused only by rains from above and inundations of the rivers
>Euphrates and
>Tigris, the ark would have been brought southwards to the Gulf.
There was no innundation of the Tigris and Euphrates by the sea. Only
normal deltaic deposition which you think indicates something
special. It isn't.
>
>The fact is that Iraq is often described as a "trough". The Encyclopaedia
>Britannica, Vol. 12 (1969), for example, explains: "Iraq consists of a
>lowland trough lying between asymmetrical and very different
>upland massifs
>to the east, north and west, and continuing southeastward as the Persian
>gulf." (Page 527) Similarly, Dr. Susan Pollock says in her recent work,
>Ancient Mesopotamia (Cambridge, 1999): "Mesopotamia is, geologically
>speaking, a trough created as the Arabian shield has pushed up against the
>Asiatic landmass, raising the Zagros Mountains and depressing the
>land to the
>southwest of them. Within this trench, the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers
>and their tributaries have laid down enormous quantities of flood
>sediments,
>forming the Lower Mesopotamian Plain (also known as the alluvial
>Mesopotamian
>plain). Today the Lower Mesopotamian Plain stretches some 700 kilometers,
>from approximately the latitude of Ramadi and Baquba in the
>northwest to the
>Gulf, which has flooded its southeastern end." (Page 29)
This says nothing about a marine flooding of Iraq. Do you know what
alluvial means? Do you know how wide the alluvium in Iraq is? It
ain't very wide.
>
>Though I have suggested meteor impacts may have been the cause of Noah's
>flood, I certainly do not claim to be certain what exactly caused
>the massive
>movement of the sea to inundate southern Mesopotamia.
There simply was no innundation. Those marine fossils grew on the
sea floor which used to be 100 miles or so further north than it is
today. And in the future, the present sea floor will be covered by
future deltaic deposits and the coast line will be 100 miles south of
where it is today. Indeed, someday the Persian Gulf, which is only
about 100 feet deep will entirely fill with sediments. The fact that
marine animals will be found underneath the deltaic deposits will not
mean that there was a giant flood in 2002!!!!!
There may have been
>circumstances involved unknown to us today that prevented the water from
>turning back too quickly to the sea again. Though a drop in the land's
>elevation caused by earthquakes which were triggered by meteor
>impacts seems
>to me like a reasonable possibility, I certainly have not meant to
>imply that
>that is the only possible way Noah's flood may have occurred in
>Mesopotamia,
>and occurred just as the Bible says it did. Obviously much
>research remains
>to be done.
Obviously. Hopefully they will come up with some facts to support this idea.
>
>Anyway, I believe the facts show that there was indeed a very
>large flood at
>about the time the Bible indicates Noah's flood occurred.
Sorry, those facts merely show that the delta was further north in
the past, which is entirely to be expected, and that it will be
further south in the future. In no way does it show anything about a
mesopotamian flood.
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
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 28 2002 - 17:36:09 EDT