David O. wrote:
>>>>
Ok Glenn, but I recall seeing on your website that after 12K years or so flood sediments can erode away (somewhere else I think I saw you suggest it takes 20K years or so).<<<<
GRM: No, what I have written on http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mflood.htm is that such floods would last much longer. From that page:
###
Some have suggested that the Flood sediment has been eroded away. But this would not be reasonable. Large floods left evidence in the geologic record for far longer than 6000 years was already known. The Lake Missoula Flood deposits had been scientifically described as a flood deposit since 1923 (see J.H. Bretz 1923 "The Channeled Scablands of the Columbia Plateau Journal of Geology 31:617-649 and Glacial drainage on the Columbia Plateau Geological Soc. Amer. Bull. 34: 573-608.)
####
GRM: There is also the Altay flooding which was much longer ago than 6000 years.
"Pleistocene glacial outburst floods were released from ice-
dammed lakes of the Altay Mountains, south-central Siberia.
The Kuray-Chuja lake system yielded peak floods in excess
of 1 x 10^6 m3 s-1 and as great as 18 x 10^6 m3 s-1. The
phenomenally high bed shear stresses and stream powers
generated in these flows produced a main-channel, coarse-
grained facies of coarse gravel in (1) foreset-bedded bars
as much as 200 m high and several kilometers long, and (2)
degradational, boulder-capped river terraces. Giant current
ripples, 50 to 150 m in spacing, composed of pebble and
cobble gravel, are locally abundant. The whole sedimentary
assemblage is very similar to that of the Channeled
Scabland, produced by the Pleistocene Missoula Floods of
western North America." ~ A. N. Rudoy and V. R. Baker,
"Sedimentary Effects of Cataclysmic Later Pleistocene
Glacial Outburst Flooding, Altay Mountains, Siberia,"
Sedimentary Geology, 85(1993:53-62, p. 53
GRM:Both this and the Missoula floods occurred at the end of the last glacial period between 18 and 12,000 years ago. The sediment still exists. Miraculously, all the sediment from the Biggest of them all, the Mesopotamian flood of Noah have disappeared. But we never let such negative evidence get in the way of a good story.
BTW, there are other geologists on this list. If what I was saying was false, they would be all over me pointing me to the Northern Iraq flood deposits. And if they do know where these deposits are, I too would love to know them.
>>>>Let's set aside our assumptions / conclusions about the Biblical time frame for Noah's flood. Couldn't there have been something quite a bit more significant than an ordinary riverine flood in the north 50, 150, 200 thousand years ago that left sediments which have eroded away? I've seen your comparison to Lake Missoula here as well, but the geology in Montana is quite a bit different than that of Mesopotamia, and a flood resulting from the explosion of a glacial dam in the mountains could leave quite different traces than a huge river flood in a desert basin. And, as I understand it, all the sediments in the Tigris / Euphrates region are young, comprised of Holocene alluvium (flood deposits!), <<<<
GRM:Holocene alluvium is not identical with flood deposits. Every tiny creek bed has some Holocene alluvium. Let us not make a category mistake.
I guess I am amused that you don't like my 5 million year flood, but somehow a 200 kyr flood is ok. People rightly criticize my idea that such a story couldn't be passed down for 5 million years (I agree but believe in divine inspiration), but I don't think that such a story could be passed down 200 kyr either. That is 10,000+ generations.
As to things being eroded away, that would really be unlikely that every scrap was eroded away. The Mesopotamian basin has been sinking for millions of years. That is why it has something like 30,000 feet of sediment beneath it. The sinking creates accommodation space. Secondly, drill holes in the Persian Gulf should have found a sterile layer with all that dirt that would have been washed down the River and into the Persian Gulf from this great flood. Such a layer in the Persian gulf would not be subject to erosion and would still be there. Secondly, if a huge gush of dirt was spewed out into the Persian Gulf (a very shallow and narrow water body, it should have caused the temporary extinction of many benthonic species and that should have been observable in the fossil record. I have never heard of anyone finding such things. But of course, we all know that the flood had to be in Mesopotamia so that won't bother our belief system.
>>>>and some evidence suggests the Persian Gulf was far further inland during earlier human history than it is now. There is a suggestion in some of the literature that a relatively recent metorite impact might have caused tsunamis in the region of Baghdad -- quite an interesting possibility given the Bible's description of the floodwaters springing from the earth, and for the directions of currents and water flows. (See
http://www.itc.nl/library/Papers_2004/tech_rep/woldai_umm.pdf)<<<<<
Sorry, but in those marshes, where the meteor hit, there is little more than 10 feet of water. Such small amounts will NOT form a tsunami which is a long wavelength oceanic wave. Most of that water was probably vaporized. What wasn't couldn't form a wave higher than 10 feet above the water surface. Since the amplitude of the wave falls off as the square of the distance from the crater, the wave at Bagdad might wet your toes (assuming no dissipation). The vast amount of vegetation between the crater and Bagdad would dissippate the wave quite effectively. Secondly, if you remember the Sumatran tsunami the wave pulled things out to the ocean, and didn't push people hundreds of miles inland.
>>>In short, it seems to me that there's a heckuvalot of data, both in our understanding of how the Biblical text has been received, understood and translated, and in our understanding of different regional flood possibilities, that we just don't have yet.<<<
NO, what we have is a bunch of speculation. First, you ignored this little tidbit from the article you cited, but then everytime I have seen this article quoted, this passage is ignored:
###
It was pointed out by Lyons (2001), and by Master (2002), that the proposed impact structure has not yet been investigated on the ground, and has not been proven to be of impact origin. Until it has been properly studied, and dated, it is pointless speculating about its possible role in ancient history. SHARAD MASTER and Tsehaie Woldai, "THE UMM AL BINNI STRUCTURE, IN THE MESOPOTAMIAN MARSHLAND S OF SOUTHERN IRAQ, AS A POSTULATED LATE HOLOCENE METEORITE IMPACT CRATER: GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND NEW LANDSAT ETM+ AND ASTER SATELLITE IMAGERY " Economic Geology Research Institute, Information Circular 382, p. 8
###
There is not a heck of a lot of data. There is a belief that the flood MUST have been in Mesopotamia and people are unwiling to face the fact that if the story is taken as it is told, it simply doesn't match the facts of geology or even physics. Secondly having for a while been in charge of reservoir fluid flow for my company, I strongly suspect that no one has actually performed a hydrodynamic study on a meteor hitting in 10 feet of water in a vegetated marsh. My strong suspicion is that there would not be this huge wall of water moving north. One can't get a wave bigger than what you push the water down. Since the water is shallow, you can't push it down more than about 10 feet. So, as this massive 10 foot wave moves north 10 miles (no dissipation), the amplitude will fall off to 10/(10*5280)^2 the wave would not be observable merely 10 miles north (52800 feet to the north). If the meteor had struck in deep water, the wave would be huge because you could depress the water hundreds of feet
No, what we have is speculation built upon a desire to get articles published talking about Noah's flood.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 08 2006 - 17:26:18 EST