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

To all: I want to apologize for the shouting match below. I do acknlowedge
Glenn's superior expertise to mine, and I genuinely am trying to test
different views.

On 3/9/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *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 19:59:15 2006