>Hi Glenn, you wrote:
>>Dick Fischer wrote:
>>>So we all draw our lines and defend our positions. You do it. And
>>>I do it. But if we are honest, somehow we need to account for the data.
>>Of course we do. So where is the evidence, the geological evidence of a
>I don't know whether the Mesopotamian flood was similar in nature to
>the flood of 1993 which inundated the upper midwest for over 3 months,
>or if it was the result of a geological event.
If it was similar to the Mississippi Flooding of 1993 it didn't last a
year and while destructive, didn't require an ark and had one been built it
would have gone into the Gulf of Mexico, not to Canada. My point is that
such riverine floods simply don't match the account given in Genesis. I
have no doubt that there were many riverine floods in Mesopotamia both
before and after 3000 bc. That leaves us with two options: either the
account in Genesis is so highly distorted as to be worthless as relating
any history, or it describes something else.
> The consensus date for
>the flood layers found at Kish, Shuruppak, Uruk (biblical Erech),
>Lagash, and the early layer at Ur are around 2900 BC.
>History books use 2900 BC as the start of the Early Dynastic period
beginning >with the post-flood rulers at Kish.
>As I stated in my book, if we use the Septuagint genealogies (my choice),
>and set the date of the Exodus to coincide with the reign of Raamses II,
>preferred by many Old Testament scholars today, that would yield a date
>of 2978 BC for the flood. If the Exodus took place in the reign of
Amenhotep >II, the biblical date for the flood would be 150 years sooner,
>or around 3128 BC.
>This time frame may (I repeat may) coincide with either volcanic action
>or a comet or a meteorite impact. I include here without comment just
>a few references that point in that direction.
>W. Bruce Masse is an environmental archaeologist with the U.S. Air Force
>and is affiliate graduate faculty at the University of Hawaii. In a
>paper he presented at a recent SIS conference he said:
>"Planetary scientists and astrophysicists recently have begun to model
>the potential hazards on Earth from impact by asteroids and comets. These
>models suggest that 2030 at least locally catastrophic impacts likely
occurred >in various portions of the world during the past 6,000 years,
during which >time occurred the major developments of modern human
civilization. This paper >uses these cosmic impact models, coupled with
>data from archaeology, paleoenvironmental studies, and the systematic
analysis >of cosmogonic mythology and other literary traditions, in order
>to identify previously unknown catastrophic Bronze Age cosmic
catastrophes, >the most significant being a globally catastrophic oceanic
comet impact >estimated at between 105 and 106 megatons that occurred in
Do you have a reference for his source of information about the 2030
impacts? I find that hard to believe. In 1991 there were only 130 impact
craters known on earth. (Richard A. F. Grieve, "Terrestrial Impact: the
Record in the Rocks" Meteoritics 26(1991):175-194) In this century the
only locally catastrophic impact I am aware of is Tunguska. The rate that
your friend cites is 2030/6000 or 1 every 3 year. Thus we should have seen
on average 33 such impacts this century and yet I know of only one. Until
you can check up on this guys source I would suggest that you be careful
with that data. There should be craters everywhere but there aren't that many.
Secondly, what does a meteoritic impact in 2807 B.C. (assuming it actually
exists) have to do with a flood in 3150 BC??????
A comment about the data listed below. It is not good scientific procedure
to simply list events which occur on or around the time of the flood you
are advocating. To support your case, you really need to show a causal
link between a Mesopotamian flood and the events you list below. I see no
link but you might be able to clarify what the causal links are.
>Abrupt change in sedimentation rate of Lake Van in Turkey indicative of
rapid >climatic fluctuation at (varve) dates of 5200 BP in Palaeo, 122
>(1996) p 107)
>Dead Sea levels peaking at 300 ft. above present levels at 5.0 and
>8.0K BP. Frumkin et al, The Holocene, 1 3 191200 (1991).
Both of the above could be due merely to a temporarily wetter climate. and
5000 years before the present is about 150 years too late. 200 years ago
the southern end of Lake Malawi was dry. Yet today it is filled.
"Even faster rates of speciation were suggested by the finding
that the southern end of Lake Malawi was arid only two centuries
ago and is now inhabited by numerous endemic species and 'color
morphs'. These are believed to have originated during the last
200 years!"~Axel Meyer "Phylogenetic Relationships and
Evolutionary Processes in East African Cichlid Fishes," Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, 8:8(1993), p. 284
I would suggest that unless you can tie the dating down closer than 150
years, you can't claim the Dead Sea as evidence for your flood.
The Sahara also was once very wet and rock drawings of hippos and giraffes
are found in the middle of the Sahara. But that doesn't mean that the
flood occurred when it was wetter in the Sahara anymore than this means
that Noah's flood was associated with the lake Van and Dead Sea lake level
>Greenland Dye 3 oxygen isotope ratio. Minimum value between 2000
>and 8000 cal yrs BP occurs just before 5.0K yrs BP. Data from National
>Snow and Ice Data Center. A large acid peak at 3150 BC is suggestive
>of a volcanic event. Fisher et al, The Holocene 5, 1, 19, (1995).
Yes there is a volcanic event at 3150 BC. That is clear from the Camp
Century Ice Core and other cores. (see C. U. Hammer, et al, "Greenland Ice
Sheet Evidence of Post-Glacial Volcanism and its climatiec Impact" Nature,
1980, p. 231)
But so what? No one knows where that volcano was located. Can you point
to volcanic ash deposits in the Mesopotamian basin to link it with your
flood? I know of no ash evidence there at that time. That volcano could
have been in Alaska, Indonesia, or even the Western US (My suspicion is
that it was in the Pacific because that is the best place it could remain
unidentified. But to conclude there is NO evidence connecting this
volcanic event with Mesopotamia. All you are doing is listing things that
occurred in a given time frame and expecting everyone to believe that there
is a causal connection.
I was born in April 1950. North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950. Am
I responsible for the Korean war? Am I the cause of all those deaths?????
I certainly don't think so!
>Sulfate in GISP2 ice core; curve is a low tension robust spline of
>sulfate concentrations with average about 30 ppb. The cause of the
>150 year peak at 5.2K yrs BP is not known, but the authors suggest
>the possibility of an anomalous nearby temporary body of open water
(polynya) >which generated marine biogenic sulfate. Zielinski, GA et al,
>in Nature, 264 948 (1994).
Considering that Mesopotamia is nowhere near Greenland or Antarctica, the
two sites of ice coring, how exactly do you connect this with the floodwaters?
>Atmospheric methane from GRIP ice core with lowest value 580 ppbv at
>5.2K yrs. BP followed by rapid increase of 40 ppbv over 200 years;
>variously attributed to clathrate or permafrost outgassing, decrease
>in tropospheric oxidation, or abrupt increase in low latitude wetlands.
>Blunier, T, et al, in Nature, 374 47 (1995).>
So, how is the methane content of the atmosphere connected to Mesopotamia?
Clathrate outgassing would not cause a flood. (for those who don't know,
clathrates are a methane/ice mixture which is found beneath the sea floor
over wide areas) It would be bubbles of methane coming to the surface of
>Proxy paleoclimatic data from sediment cores in the Santa Barbara basin
>off the coast of California, sediment bioturbidity and snail form,
indicating >a discontinuity, possibly abrupt cooling, at 5.2k yrs BP.
>Ref: Kennett, J P and Ingram, B L, "A 20,000 yr record of ocean
>circulation and climate change from the Santa Barbara basin" in
>Nature v 377 p 510 12 Oct 95.
This was the first issue of Nature I got after I started getting it. I see
nothing unusual about the 5000 year BP data in these cores. What are you
suggesting is the evidence connecting Santa Barbara to Mesopotamia? And by
the way N. pachyderma is NOT a snail. It is a foraminifera which is a tiny
marine animals which paleontologists in the oil industry use. There is
really no change in sinestral test form at 5200 BC in spite of your claim.
Sinestrally coiled tests are a very small percentage of the total N. pachs
throughout that interval. The major change in test coiling was at 17,000
years BP not 5200 BP. Take another look at that article.
>>But your assumption, that all the original names were recorded in the
>>original documents is just that an assumption.
>No, the names, places, and events line up with the recorded history of
>>Nowhere does the Bible itself say that "These are the
>>complete and total list of all descendants of Adam and none are left out".
>Nor does it say, "These patriarchs are a representative sampling of
>thousands of descendants who were too numerous to mention." There are
>a lot of things the Bible doesn't say.
>>Assuming what you say is true that the Flood was in 3000 BC (Origins
>>Solution p. 329), then there is a real problem with your chronology. David
>>lived about 1000 B.C. In Luke 3 there are 42 names between Jesus and
>>David. This is an average of 23 years per generation. Given that in
>>pre-industrial times, the average lifespan was about 30 years, this is
>>probably not too far wrong although I would say it is slightly too high for
>>the average generation. If Abraham lived at 1800 B.C. there are only 13
>>names between David and Abe giving an average 61 year generation time.
>The first three patriarchs take up most of that time. Abraham lived
>175 years and begat Isaac at 100 (Gen. 21:5). And Isaac was 60 at the
>birth of Jacob (Gen. 25:26). Judah was Jacob's forth and last son by
>Leah. "Then she stopped bearing" (Gen. 29:33). We don't know how old
>he was at the birth of Judah, but he "sojourned" for 130 years (Gen.47:9).
I don't doubt that there is an occasional old man who has a child. Look at
Tony Randall. But to have an entire lineage of geezers getting young women
in the family way seems odd, especially in a day and age in which few lived
>>Are you willing to say here and now that post flood Sumerians lived
>>on average more than 100 years and gave birth to their children when the
>>old geezers were 100 years of age?
>No. The Sumerians are another culture altogether. They spoke an
>unrelated language, and appeared to be racially distinct from the
>Accadians, who came from Accad (Gen. 10:10), and spoke a language
>precursor to Hebrew.
Ok, are you willing to say that the Accadians were living past 100 years
old between 7000 to 4000 BC? You avoided the question but didn't answer the
>>>So if the first ten patriarchs are literal father and son relationships
>>>why should the next ten be any different?
>>Because this requires that the 100-year-old geezers had the sexual prowess
>>of oxen and the enthusiasm of bonobos.
>Glenn, I really don't know how to respond to that one.
bonobos are very promiscuous.
>>You say 20 generations between Adam and Abe. Fine. 3000/20=150 years. So
>>are you suggesting that the average generational time in 7000 BC was 150
>>years? Why are there no skeletons showing that extreme age at that time in
>I don't think we have dug up any Accadians yet. Woolley found his
>skeletons in Sumerian Ur. We do have a little historical data though.
>Gilgamesh sought out Utnapishtim (Noah's parallel) because he was reputed
>to be immortal and survived the flood. His name means "He who found long
I find this extremely difficult to believe. Akkad was from 2350 BC to 2000
BC. At this time we find numerous cemetaries everywhere. Cities, especially
ones as big as Akkad require cemetaries for the disposal of the bodies. Do
I need to search through the literature to find info on Akkadian bodies?
>From the Lagash King list, Jacobsen noted that the post-flood kings
>of Lagash (Semites probably) not only lived extraordinarily long,
>they also lived extraordinarily "slowly."
>In those days a child spent a hundred years
> In diapers (lit. "in <bits> of the wash")
>After he had grown up he spent a hundred years
> Without being given any task (to perform)
>He was small, he was dull witted
> His mother watched over him.
>>Whatever you want to say, the genealogies are not complete, even the more
>>recent ones are not complete.
>Maybe there is just enough ambiguity in the Scriptures to give us
>something to talk about. What do you think?
Well, if you are willing to say that the people in 2350 BC were living to
more than 150 years old, then I would have to agree. I just don't see any
evidence of that.
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information