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

*David O wrote:

>>>I'm not playing geologist. <<<<

GRM:Yeah you are.*

Whatever. You obviously know my motives better than I do. I guess you
know everything there is to know about psychology as well?

*GRM:And when you admiringly cite your googled paper about the tsunami, you
SELECTIVELY quote only the part that agrees with you, ignoring the fact that
the paper said:
*
Again, whatever. There's not any part that "agrees" with me because as I've
admitted numerous times, I don't know enough to have a meaningful theory.

*GRM:Oh yes you are doing apologetics. you are trying to explain the flood
with data. It is a why I believe what I believe excersize. That is
apologetics.
*
No, apologetics is defending the faith before unbelievers. I was trying to
explore some possibilities before people who I thought would in some sense
be brothers and sisters in Christ, so that I could better understand a
difficult issue in our faith, and both be faithful to the truth and
represent myself honestly before unbelievers. I joined the ASA a few months
ago in the hope that I could find some of that sort of fellowship instead of
the usual knee-jerk, one-sided, accusatorial stuff that I've found so far
both in the church and in the world. Instead, I found you. How depressing.

On 3/9/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> for Bill and David O.
>
> Bill wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>>Well, I don't keep archives that far back, and I don't remember that
exchange. Chalk it up to getting older. I guess I'm going to have to start
archiving what I said and what you said so's I can remember it. We've been
friends for a long time.<<<
>
> GRM:Well, I often type quotations into emails and if I don't save my old
emails, I won't have those quotations available. Yeah, we have been
freinds debating the area for almost 10 or 11 years now to the best of my
knowledge--you took a several year break. I didn't.
>
> >>>Considering the wealth of information that's available from Google and
Wikipedia, it's not surprising that some folks turn to it. But if/when I
present you with something I've Googled, it's for your expert opinion. I
hope you realize that your two books gave me a great deal to think about,
and that while I'm intrigued by Dick's Fischer's approach, by no means have
I dismissed yours. I'd characterize both approaches as possibilities under
consideration.<<<<
>
> GRM:It isn't googling per se that is maddening with many YECs and some
OECs. And let me make this clear it wasn't you. It is the fact that they
choose an article that they interpret (without understanding) to support
their position and then act as if they can stand behind the guy who wrote
the article like a kid who stands behind his bigger brother and taunts his
opponents. And I really am tired of watching Christians evade logic, data,
evidence etc. all in order to hold to a pre-disposed position for which they
claim they have evidential support but for which they never present or never
deal with the logical contradictions in their position. Such behavior is no
better than that engaged in by the young-earth creationists whom they look
their noses down at.
>
> GRM:In the case of the Flood, one has to have a flood which pushes the ark
north of Bagdad, yet there is no evidence of a sedimentary nature that the
area was ever flooded more than what a normal river flood can do. That isn't
logical to believe that there was a flood where conveniently the evidence
has disappeared. If it were that we couldn't actually check to see if the
evidence were there that would be something different, but we can check, we
can walk the ground and we don't see any such evidence and we should.
>
> ****
>
>
> David O wrote:
>
> >>>I'm not playing geologist. <<<<
>
>
> GRM:Yeah you are. When I tell you that there should be some widespread
flood deposits, you play a geologist by trying to tell there wouldn't be
any, or that they would all be eroded away. That is making statements about
geology. When you me that a glacial dam burst wouldn't be the same you are
playing geologist. What do you know about river floods from your legal
education? You are playing geologist. I wouldn't mind if you had actually
studied the area more than over the past few days.
>
>
> >>> 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. <<<<
>
>
> GRM:Bull, You have suggested a tsunami, you have suggested that sediments
will be eroded way. You have suggested lots of things without understanding
what you are speaking of. That is playing geologist or sleeping in a Holiday
Inn Express.
>
>
> >>> 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.<<<
>
>
> GRM:And you think you are NOT being selective when I have over and over
pointed out that there are no flood sediments in northern Iraq, an area
across which the ark must travel on its way to that lush vacation spot in
Turkey, and you over and over selectively ignore that fact? And when you
don't ignore it, you engage in a bit of quote-mining on my web page
(admittedly off an area where something disappeared) but you chose to
selectively quote JUST the lines you wanted without so much as noticing that
they didn't fit with the quotations lower down on the page. That isn't
selectivity on your part? what is it?
>
>
> GRM:And when you admiringly cite your googled paper about the tsunami, you
SELECTIVELY quote only the part that agrees with you, ignoring the fact that
the paper said:
>
> "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
>
>
> GRM:That isn't selectivity? What is it? You are projecting your own
behavior onto others, David.
>
>
> >>> 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? <<<<
>
>
> GRM: I suggest that like many yecs you are out there looking for what
supports your position selectively rather than actually wanting to
understand geology as it relates to this issue.
>
>
> >> 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? <<<
>
>
> GRM: You can find out about me by doing your favorite sport--googling. But
I will tell you, when I start dealing in a new area about which I know
nothing, I don't go tell the experts in that field on day one how wrong they
are. I LISTEN. As to whether or not you believe the word of this guy, I
really don't give a flying flip. The behavior exhibited by you has caused
me many times over the past few years to doubt whether Christians really can
deal with data, logic, logical contradictions in their views or whether they
even care about the truth rather than their own sophistry at supporting
their position.
>
> GRM:And don't mistake the opposition to my theory with the concept that I
spout factual nonsense. While my theory was opposed here on the ASA, I
posted it twice (several years ago) on Talk origins, a place where they eat
christians for breakfast when they spout factual nonsense. They love to
point out the factual errors, logical contradictions and other errors of
fact that the Christian apologists engage in. When I posted my theory,
there was silence. No one came after me on any factual item. I finally
asked why I was being ignored and a couple of guys said, that they thought
my theory daft but they couldn't find anything factually wrong with it.
>
> GRM:Now, if the goal is to match facts with one's apologetics, there is
nothing else to do other than to account for the huge genetic variation in
the human race and move Adam back (so long as one wants to preserve
biological descent from Adam--you can dump that and go toward's Dicks view
of Adam, apart from his falsified flood views). There is also not a shred of
evidence that anything more than a normal river flood passed through the
rivers of Iraq. If that is what you believe Noah's flood is, then fine, no
problem. But I see lots of contradictions, logical and observational with
that view and what the Bible says.
>
>
> >>>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. <<<
>
>
> GRM:That is fine, but go read lots of geology BOOKS not googling. Do your
homework, and it will take several years of work, I can assure you. I too
had to travel that road. I never had geology in college. I was a
physicist. But I found myself working in an oil company doing structural
geology. I had to catch up with those with whom I competed for raises and
that meant I had to do several years worth of reading books and articles on
geology. Unfortuntely, back then I was a YEC and I tended to want to find
support for YEC. I slowly over several years changed because of the
geologic data. But after that, I decided I would NOT engage in the kind of
selectivity you have shown yourself to engage in again. I actually wanted
the flood to be in Mesopotamia after I left YEC, but the data doesn't
support it. I can't help that, it simply doesn't support the flood. That is
why I knew of the Hammar formation.
>
>
>
> >>>Well, ok, I'm not a geologist (and I'm not doing "apologetics"
here,<<<<
>
>
> GRM:Oh yes you are doing apologetics. you are trying to explain the flood
with data. It is a why I believe what I believe excersize. That is
apologetics.
>
>
> >>> as I'm assuming we're all Christians of one sort or another trying to
sort out some thorny questions about the Bible). <<<
>
>
> GRM:And that isn't apologetics? Trying to sort through some thorny
question? Questions are only thorny when one decides to ignore data. Data
takes you to the truth, ignoring data so one's preconceived idea can be
saved makes a question thorny.
>
> >>> 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. <<<<
>
> GRM:Here is the problem. Water doesn't care where it came from. It doesn't
remember where it came from. If it is deep enough to flood most of northern
Iraq, it will behave just like water flowing from one of those dam breaks.
Water obeys the laws of physics which means that it will leave ripplemarks,
erosional cuts etc. The source of the water is only significant at the very
leading edge of the water. A dam break will be more erosive AT THE LEADING
EDGE, but when it comes to sedimentation behind that point, it won't know
where it comes from. And we are talking about SEDIMENTATION, not the initial
erosion.
>
> GRM:But if the flood was deep enough to cover most of northern Iraq, then
it would have to be a world wide flood. Or you would have to have a magical
wall of water at the southern end of the Persian Gulf or winds which
magically change with each bend in the river as the ark is pushed upstream
by the wind in a normal river flood.
>
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 9 17:55:09 2006