Re: Flood Deposits in Mesopotamia [Was: Special Creation]

In a message dated 3/3/2006 10:36:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
glennmorton@entouch.net writes:
Now, sure the riverine deposist spread out at the delta---which is southern
Mesopotamia. That is no big deal. One can say that about any river delta in the
world and we don't go around the world claiming that there were significant
floods in every single delta in the world. The fact that the sediments are
wider at the delta is one of those ho-hum concepts which geoscientists are not
going to find very interesting. Why should what happens everywhere be
considered a significant flood when it happens in Mesopotamia???? Please answer this
before Carol's paper is published.

I'm not looking at geological maps, only a historical map, so it could be
wrong. But it's a nice map series and I tend to think it couldn't be **that**
wrong.

It shows flood deposits all the way to Ninevah to a width of 100 km around
the Tigris. At Jemdet Nasr the deposits are shown as being about 200 km wide,
encompassing both rivers and a wide swath on each side. At that time Ur was on
the coast, since the gulf was so much further inland. The deposits are so
wide at Ur that they encompass the entire head of the gulf with two wide arms
reaching down both sides of it.

The reason I asked isn't to be stupid, but to find out if this map is wrong,
or if these deposits were laid down before the quaternary.

Thanks,

Phil Metzger
Received on Sat Mar 4 01:37:54 2006