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

*Sorry about the tirade above, but I am really weary of people who think
they can think deep thoughts without any real study in the area, replacing
hard work with googling.*
**
I'm not playing geologist. I haven't suggested that I have any theory about
this that anyone should believe, or that I'd even be competent to suggest
one. What I did suggest is that from the very tiny, uniformed amount of
poking around I've been able to do, it seems to me that your interpretation
and the data you're providing are very selective. Do you think it reflects
some kind of intellectual or spiritual immaturity on my part to want to
study and understand this better for myself before I go out on a limb about
it? Or do you think it would be wiser for me to take as gospel the word of
a guy I've never met and know nothing about other than from some statements
on email, whose views are contested by others in the ASA, and
who tenaciously holds to an extremely unusual theory that he believes is the
only way to save Christianity from the clutches of atheism?

Look, I don't mean you any disrespect, I'm sure you're a successful and
educated guy, I'm sure you're not intending to mislead, I have no doubt you
have more geology in your left pinky than I have in my entire brain, and at
the end of the day maybe you're even right, but I'm not just going to take
your word for it.

*DWO: Honestly, it seems like a bit of slieght of hand. I'm no geologist,
but I'm not so naive to think that a glacial dam flood in the Rocky
Mountains would leave the same geological traces as even a huge river flood
in the Mesopotamian basin. *
**
*GRM: And that is because you are no geologist. It always fascinates me how
people like to do apologetics without ever actually having studied the areas
they hypothecate upon. It makes for great fun in debates and easy targets.*

Well, ok, I'm not a geologist (and I'm not doing "apologetics" here, as I'm
assuming we're all Christians of one sort or another trying to sort out some
thorny questions about the Bible). But it seems like common sense to me
that a flood caused by the sudden release of a glacial lake in a mountainous
area would likely leave different geological traces than a slowly rising
river / tidal flood in a marshland at or close to sea level. The force of
the water would be different, the specificity of the course the water would
follow would be different, the types of rocks and sediments the water flowed
over would be different, and the way the flood waters receded would be
different. Is that not so? If not, explain it to me -- seriously, I'm
trying to understand.

On 3/9/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is for David O. and Bill Hamilton.
>
>
> David O. wrote:
>
> >>>Glenn: Your link includes the following:
>
> To completely erode flood sediments takes more than 20,000 years.
>
> There are no widespread sediments dating from less than 20,000 years ago.
>
>
>
> Even accepting the general accuracy of these statements, this leaves the
possibility of older sediments that have been completely or partially
eroded. I can't find it now, but in some post of yours to this list from a
few years ago that I stumbled across you gave an earlier time frame for the
erosion of flood sediments. <<<<
>
>
> There is a bit of quote-mining and yanking things out of context on your
part going on here. At a place that something happened to my web page. HEre
is what it says now:
>
> ###
>
> I have searched and cant find what was suposed to be in the original and I
will fix this page. I would say this.
>
> "In support of the original syllogism people claim that the flood
sediments are very thin and easily eroded. But this ignores the fact due to
the way sediments deposit thicker layers in the topographic lows, a
widespread flood could only deposit thin layers on the edges of the actual
flooded zone. Along the river and for some extent away from the river (above
the usual floodplain) one should see flood sediments thickening towards the
river channel. But, the problem is that the riverine sediments don't even
leave the normal river flood plain. And that means that no extraordinary
flood ever occurred.
>
> 3. Lack of sediment from a widespread Mesopotamian Flood. A syllogism can
be constructed.
>
> All floods leave sediments covering what they flooded.
>
> Noah's Deluge was a flood.
>
> Therefore Noah's deluge must have left sediment.
>
> From this one can go further,
>
> All uneroded flood sediments can be detected by geology.
>
>
> To completely erode flood sediments takes more than 20,000 years.
>
> There are no widespread sediments dating from less than 20,000 years ago.
>
>
> In support of the above syllogisms, [ <-------]
>
> In northern Iraq the surficial sediments are Miocene in age. Except along
the rivers themselves, the surficial rocks of northern Iraq are Miocene in
age, much older than any proposed flood. (see M. H. Metwalli et al,
Petroleum Bearing Formations in Syria and Iraq, AAPG Bulletin, Sept 1974,
see cross section on page 1791.) ***If there was a flood in the Holocene,
there should be some Holocene rocks away from the river valleys still left.
***
>
> There is no evidence of a former high water level in the Mesopotamian
basin. As one drives into Salt Lake City from the north along I15 one can
see along the mountains on the east a set of perfectly horizontal ledges
which extend for mile after mile. these "ledges" mark the former water level
for the glacial Lake Bonneville. The waves on the water eroded the land at
the beach. These features last for a very long time. There is no reported
evidence of raised beaches along the edges of the Mesopotamian valley. If it
had ever been flooded, there would be some evidence of this.
>
> ###
>
> Note the bolded sentence and note the next paragraph arguing that such
features will last a long time.
>
> Note where I have arrowed. There is a hanging paragraph. A whole paragraph
or two has disappeared. I recall saying something like in support of the
above syllogisms, YECs say .... And then I had something like but here is
why it doesn't work. and the northern Iraq part is part of that.
>
> I have searched and cant find what was suposed to be in the original and I
will fix this page with the following:
>
> "In support of the original syllogism people claim that the flood
sediments are very thin and easily eroded. But this ignores the fact due to
the way sediments deposit thicker layers in the topographic lows, a
widespread flood could only deposit thin layers on the edges of the actual
flooded zone. Along the river and for some extent away from the river (above
the usual floodplain) one should see flood sediments thickening towards the
river channel. But, the problem is that the riverine sediments don't even
leave the normal river flood plain. And that means that no extraordinary
flood ever occurred.
>
> Normal flood sediments lying within the normal flood plain have been
preserved so it is not at all reasonable for people to say that there is no
way that flood sediment could be preserved that long. "
>
>
>
> I will also add to the web page the age of the Lake Bonneville bench cuts
(where the flood over Utah 15,000 years ago occured). And the Lake Missoula
floods were 15,000 years ago and we still see the marks of that flood.
Thanks for pointing out an error on my web page that has been there for
quite some time.
>
>
> >>>The comparison to a couple of glacial dam floods seems wrong to me. >
>
> http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2005_A01/CG2005_A01.pdf
>
>
>
> >>>>I found that article in about 30 minutes of Google searching, having
no clue whatsoever to look for. A bit more Googling tonight turned up
numerous articles about the marshlands of southern Iraq, the Holocene marine
deposits showing that the Gulf has receded, etc. In short, it appears to me
that the data you're citing in support of your theory is extremely
selective. Whether or not Noah's flood was as long ago as you say, or was a
big but ordinary river flood a few thousand years ago, or was a bigger river
flood longer ago, or was something else even longer ago, or was in the North
of Iraq, or the South, or somewhere else, I don't know. I know there's
strong textural evidence in the Bible and in the Gilgamesh epic for a highly
significant flood event somewhere in Mesopotamia, and that there are
reasonable textural questions about where the ark landed, and that's about
it. I don't want this to sound snippy or something, but I don't fully trust
what you're saying when you seemingly ignore lots of relevant stuff and make
inapposite comparisons to rocky mountain glacier dam floods. For now I'll
reserve judgment and I guess if this continues to interest me I'll study it
some more. <<<<
>
>
> First off, if you look in this thread, I have repeatedly acknowledged that
there are holocene fluvial sediments in southern Iraq on the
Tigris-Euphrates delta. Thus, maybe because you are not a geologist, you
don't realize that when the article you cite says:
>
> "Abstract: The Quaternary, mainly freshwater sediments of the Lower
Mesopotamian plain include a thin transgressive marine unit which extends
inland some 250 km from the present coastline, the Hammar Formation. The
identity and respective areal extent of continental and transgressive units
are based mainly on their molluscan faunas. Those faunas reflect the several
environments of the Middle Eastern biogeographic province: fluviatile,
lacustrine, estuarine and lagoonal. The ecological requirements of the more
common subfossil and living species of the malacofauna were studied during a
month of field reconnaissance. "
>
> they are actually speaking of the Tigris Euphrates delta. Maybe you don't
even understand the word fluvial. Thus, I have NOT been selective because I
already told you about this. What is your problem? Don't want to deal with
the data which contradicts your theology? All I can say to this article
is: Big deal of big deals. All deltas spew sediments over areas of several
hundred square kilometers. That is what deltas do. And the delta of the
Tigris-Euphrates begins not much south of Bagdad.
>
> Now as to a matter of trust. You are going to reject the opinion of a
person who has spent 35 years doing geology in the oil business and trust,
what? Your own uneducated opinion and uneducated evaluation of the articles
you google around on but don't really understand? That is not a really
smart thing to do. If I recall correctly, you are in the law. It would be
like me telling you that you don't know diddly about the law. It would be
dumb and stupid for me to do that because I have never been to law school
and never been in a court room save as a juror. And then it would be even
dumber to then act as if my knowledge of the law were superior to yours.
But, it is your perogative to not trust what I say, but you illustrate very
well how evidence and data have little to do with apologetical beliefs. But
maybe this is a congenital defect of lawyers. Phil Johnson, also without any
scientific study or work, thinks he knows more than all the scientists
combined.
>
> I want to make one more comment about the Hammar formation, which you take
as indicating the Gulf is 'receding'. The Gulf is not receding. The delta is
building out on top of the marine muds and sands. That is what the Hammar
formation is. It has been many years since I got into a debate about the
Hammar formation with a guy who was about as abysmal in geology as you are.
But here is a nice piece of data for you to chew on.
>
> "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 shells 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." K. M. Al Naqib, Geology of the
> Arabian Peninsula, Southwestern Iraq, (Washington: United
> States Government Printing Office, 1967), p. G47
>
> Now, the succession spoken of above has marine at the bottom, estuarine
above and fresh water sediments above that. With one exception all the
Hammar points are west of the Euphrates river, meaning that this was
probably a small arm of the sea (the article you cite shows that but you
clearly don't understand it. That is a case of a delta building out over a
marine platform. But you wouldn't recognize that because you aren't a
geologist, but play one on the ASA. Or maybe you slept in a Holiday Inn
Express last night.
>
> Sorry, but you ticked me off with your comment about trust. I have put
together deals worth up to $50 million dollars based upon my geologic
knowledge. I have been geophysical manager and exploration director for
areas as diverse as the East Coast of the US, the Gulf Coast of Texas,
Louisiana, The western US Offshore and Alaska, China, The United Kingdom and
the Gulf of Mexico. I have managed yearly budgets as high as $24 million
dollars for investment into geological endeavors. I have been involved in
finding over 700 million barrels of oil. My company thinks I know a thing or
two about geology. But you, without any geological education, are arrogant
enough to think that without any study at all, you can know that someone is
wrong in their professional field by merely googling around the internet.
You can't even understand a simple geological article. As I said the other
day, there are enough geologists who watch this list that if I were saying
something that was false, they would jump on me. But you paid no attention
even to that statement.
>
> This attitude is what is absolutely wrong about Christians and Christian
apologetics. They are arrogant and they act as if they are really
knowledgeable when they aren't. It is this inability to actually deal with
the world as it is, rather than as you want it to be that makes me think
Christianity just might be a total sham.
>
> ****
>
> To Bill Hamilton who wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>>
>
> WEH: Are you taking into account that according to the paper the Persian
Gulf extended to the north of its present extent as late as 325 BC? If that
were true, the place where the meteor hit would have been deeper than 10 ft.
But I concede that it's not going to cause a year-long flood.<<<
>
>
> YOu are absolutely correct. The Shoreline for the Persian Gulf was about
150 miles further north--which means that the Gulf hasn't subsided so much
as it has filled in as the Delta has dumped sediment upon the old ocean
floor. But, the near shore of the Gulf rarely has more than 35 feet of
water. If the amplitude falls off by 1/r^2 then the supposed tsunami would
not be very great. Might kill a few local villagers but not Bagdad. Nor, as
you say, would it last a year.
>
> BTW Bill, I think the first time I acknowledged that my thinking had been
wrong on where the ark landed which I had in the original Foundation, Fall
and Flood, was a note by you criticising me for that position. I just
happened to run into it tonight searching for my original flood page.. It
was way back in 1997.
>
> Sorry about the tirade above, but I am really weary of people who think
they can think deep thoughts without any real study in the area, replacing
hard work with googling.
>
Received on Thu Mar 9 10:25:59 2006