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

>>>Glenn wrote:
GRM: YEs it is a recurring theme. When I was a YEC, I ignored dataset after
dataset because I didn't want YEC to be false. You should do a search on
'Morton's Demon' if you want to see what it is that I fear most. It is falling
into another trap where evidence and data doesn't matter. And that is what I see
here everybit as much as I see on YEC bulletin boards.<<<

Hi Glenn,

I heartily agree that we don't want to ignore data sets and lock ourselves
into positions that can't hold up to scrutiny, but my point is that atheism is
not the automatic alternative. I would prefer to simply accept that I don't
understand the flood, and then remain a Christian.

>>>Glenn wrote:
GRM: I know that one could claim that the technologically primitive peoples
have just as much claim to faith as we do. But both can't be true at the same
time unless one is willing to have the meaning of words so plastic as to be
utterly useless.<<<

From Phil:
You missed my point -- and I apologize if I wasn't clear. I was talking
about primitive people who are Christians. Their lack of scientific
sophistication and their inability to think of scientific explanations for Noah doesn't
render their faith worthless. My point was that our faith doesn't have to
explain Noah either. We don't have to become atheists just because we are
mystified about how to reconcile Genesis with historical, scientifically reasonable
facts.

>>>Glenn wrote:
GRM:And this is what I find uttlerly incredibly wrong with the approach you
take. YOu wouldn't publish a physics paper saying that Pons and Fleischman have
every bit as much claim to the truth as those in your business who do not
believe in cold fusion, would you?<<<

Phil writes:
all your comments here are coming from your misunderstanding of what I said
(or my failure to communicate clearly). Of course I don't believe that
polytheists are just as correct as we are. That's silly. I was talking about
unsophisticated **Christians** who live in the jungles. **Their** faith is just as
valid to God as ours is, even though they may be completely unscientific and
irrational. Hence we see that God doesn't expect science to be the touchstone
of faith. Even if we can't explain Genesis 1-11, whatever the touchstone of
faith may be it is still available to us, and hence there is no valid cause to
become an atheist.

>>>>Glenn writes:
GRM:ARe you aware that near surface geologists regularly bore into the near
surface to see what is there? I keep trying to tell you, but you refuse to
listen, that if there was evidence of a widespread holocene flood, it would be
abundantly evident. Maybe you should do some geology courses sometime.<<<<

Glenn, you are trying to make it a binary all-or-nothing. Either your
straw-man version of the flood is true or else there was no biblical flood in
Mesopotamia, according to your arguments.

I actually have studied some geology -- not as much as you, but I have
studied planetary geology. My Ph.D. advisor was a well known planetary geologist
who was directing me in the study of sand-related topics (she moved to another
university after several years, so I didn't finish with her -- I finished with
a soft condensed matter theorist). My specialization at NASA is studying
sand, and currently I am funded in one of my research projects to study the
geology of the lunar south pole regolith. My other funded project is studying how
gases interact with sand: erosion, deposition, diffusively driven shearing,
etc. I just got back from a conference in Houston where I presented some of my
findings on that topic. I was a co-organizer of that conference, and the
chair of the first and second Workshops on Granular Materials in Lunar and Martian
Exploration. Prior to the recent focus on the moon I was researching similar
topics for Martian geology. I've been heavily involved in these related
topics for quite some time. This by no means makes me an expert in terrestrial
sedimentology. I'm very well aware of this. But I've become increasingly aware
of the fact that your arguments against the flood are really only arguments
against your interpretation of a mesopotamian flood, and you won't allow anyone
to refine their views based on the evidence because in your mind the only
correct way to respond is to completely chuck a model and adopt yours, because
it's all or nothing in your mind. That's certainly not the way science works.

I appreciate that you are pointing out the lack of thick, widespread surface
deposits in upper mesopotamia because that certainly does falsify a number of
versions of the mesopotamian flood theory. I value the fact that you have
shown this to me, and it has caused me to modify my views. However, it does not
falsify all possible mesopotamian flood models. How much silt would have been
deposited 50 km to the side of Ninevah, for example? 0.5 mm? Do you think
0.5 mm of silt would not be tumbled by the action of migrating sand dunes, mixed
with the sand and unrecognizably dispersed after 5000 years? I suspect it
would be. Do you think it was 10 mm, which would be sure to survive that long?
If so, then you have to calculate how much silt that would be in total to
discover whether that quantity of silt is reasonable. Is it some compromise,
some areas with more silt and some with less? I have no doubt that a reasonable
view of a mesopotamian flood can emerge if we allow the actual facts to mold
the theory. It's not all or nothing.

No doubt quaternary geologists have found silt farther from the river than
shown on your map. Surely the Euphrates occaisionally silted up and changed
channels, and that would assure the existence of silt not shown on your map.
Those deposits must be under the aeolian deposits, exactly where we would expect
them to be!

It also seems inherently reasonable to me that a flood theory can be
constructed that meets the geological evidence and meets the description we find in
the text when we disabuse ourselves of various assumptions (such as the one that
Noah couldn't have seen any distant mountains). A modest mesopotamian flood
would leave more silt near the river and less far away, and the thinner areas
of silt would tend to be dispersed and covered by 5000 years of aeolian
activity. It is reasonable that this would NOT end up looking like a flood of
biblical proportions, according to the biases that most persons have. Hence, I
don't doubt that the silt from Noah's flood HAVE been seen here or there and even
somewhat away from the river, and yet it probably wasn't recognized as being
important to the discussion of Noah. It was probably just seen as modest
amounts of silt that could have gotten there any number of ways, and so it was no
big deal.

Unless we can inject some quantitative analysis into this discussion then
there is no reason to continue. The kind of discussion should be things like,
how much resistance to dispersal would a 1 mm layer of silt have when the sands
beneath it are sapped away in the wind or when it is pelted by wind-blown
grains, and would the rate of degredation survive 5000 years? How much silt would
be laid down as a function of location by numerical simulations of the
hydrology of various flood models? Only these kinds of quantitative studies can
really advance this discussion.

God's blessings to you!
Phil
Received on Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:42:11 EST