Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Asimov on the Flood
Daydreamer
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 8 (10772)
05-31-2002 10:53 PM


In his book, Asimov on Astronomy [1], the late, great Isaac Asimov gives a rather interesting explanation for the Noachian Flood, onto which I expanded and modified:
According to legend, where did Noah land after the flood? Simple: Mount Ararat (Gen 8:4) [2], located in Eastern Turkey, near its boarders with Iran and Armenia [3]. The funny thing about it, however, is its location in respect to the Mediterranean Sea - it lies far to the north, beyond a large expanse of hills, but right on the southern edge of the range of taller mountains. Almost as if the Great Flood had pushed northeast from the Mediterranean, sweeping over the hills, but crashing into the larger mountains. This is backed up by scripture no less - Genesis 7:11 [4] speaks of 'fountains of the great deep'.
What, however, could have caused such a disaster? Asimov, based on records of city-buster sized (million-ton) meteors in our century (twice: in Siberia in 1908, and again farther east in 1967) and similar unattributed phenomena from previous centuries, calculates we get hit with such meteors once every fifty years. Multiplied by the % of land taken up for cities and such, and the odds are rather small we would have seen a direct hit in our history - about 1 in every 100,000 years. However, he correctly recognizes that Meteors have huge areas of effect due to the force they wield, and calculated that the odds of a major civilization feeling and recording the effects of such a catastrophe to be ten times higher - about 1 in every 10,000 years. Low enough so that we would expect about a 1/2 to 3/5 chance of finding such a history. Thus he theorizes a meteor strike in the caused the Noachian Flood, sending a tidal wave across the Mesopotamian Delta and up over the lowlands of Greece [1].
I, however, disagree with Asimov on two accounts: first, while he placed the meteor strike in the Persian Gulf, as I mentioned above I think the location of Mount Ararat suggests the Flood began in the Mediterranean. Second, I think there is a much more reasonable explanation to be had for the cause of the flood than a meteor strike.
This flood is backed up by other mythologies - but only in the area. Both tablet XI of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh (which predates even the earliest copies of the Old Testament) [5] and to a lesser extent Hercules' Trial with the Aegean Stables [6] report something similar - but both are in the same Mesopotamian/Hellenistic area. The myth of Hercules poses a bit of a problem for Asimov’s theory, as does the flooding of the Black and Caspian Sea Scott mentioned [7], because they are to far removed physically from the Persian Gulf. The Mediterranean, however, is much closer to those areas, and also provides a much larger area in which whatever catastrophic force caused the flood could have originated from.
Now for the cause - what other forces could have created a wave of such magnitude? This question puzzled me for a moment, until I remembered a news story from a few years ago about Californian earthquakes causing tidal waves in Alaska, Hawaii, and on the eastern seacoast of Russia. In a burst of inspiration I searched the ‘net for a map of plate tectonics, and found more than I could have hoped for. Not only is the Mediterranean right on the border between the African and Eurasian plates, but there is a triple point between those two and the Arabian plate just a few miles of the shore of Israel — it’s a veritable seismic hotbed [8]!
These reasons, combined with the fact that I like saving my ‘Meteor Card’ for explaining the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, makes a seaquake in the Mediterranean around the year 3000 BC the most rational explanation for the Noachian flood.
[1] Check it out at a library - I recommend it highly
[2] http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/8.html#4
[3] http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middleeast_ref01.jpg
[4] http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/7.html#11
[5] http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/GILG.HTM
[6] http://home.swipnet.se/~w-54567/hera/05.htm
[7] http://207.36.64.70/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000001.html
[8] http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eastern/plates.html

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 06-01-2002 12:49 AM Daydreamer has not replied
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 06-01-2002 8:01 PM Daydreamer has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 8 (10778)
06-01-2002 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Daydreamer
05-31-2002 10:53 PM


"These reasons, combined with the fact that I like saving my ‘Meteor Card’ for explaining the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, makes a seaquake in the Mediterranean around the year 3000 BC the most rational explanation for the Noachian flood."
--I think your explination is a bit too 'unique'. You must either bend the stories by immense scales, or realise that the hydrodynamic effects of sea-floor spreading volcanism/earthquakes, as well as meteor impacts arent going to give you results at all close to what you wan't to be the case in your flood event.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Daydreamer, posted 05-31-2002 10:53 PM Daydreamer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by joz, posted 06-01-2002 1:55 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 8 (10780)
06-01-2002 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
06-01-2002 12:49 AM


What he is describing TC is a Tsunami (japaneese term literaly meaning harbour wave, though technicaly a soliton rather than a wave)....
Basically at a destructive/covergent (sorry about terminology i have just had a nice night in with a bottle of Absolut) margin if there is a sudden slip on the fault line a region of the seafloor is rapidly displaced upwards, since fluids are incompressible (this is how brakes in cars work, by transmitting pressure through fluids) this displacement is duplicated on the surface. This distortion then spreads out as a soliton, not a wave per se as it has no wavelength...
Out at sea a tsunami may (in some cases) have an amplitude of just .5 metres but a *wavelength* (not a true wavelength per se as previously noted) of around 300 metres (this is a sort of average, each tsunami is unique)....
But as the soliton reaches the rapidly shallower waters of the shore line its *wavelength* decreases and its magnitude increases literaly looking like a wall of water appearing from nowhere....
If Joe could pop by and enlighten us I for one would be interested to see if there is a boundary he thinks could be responsible for such an event in the locale or even if this hypothesis is contradicted by other geological evidence...
Interesting at any rate.....
[edited to fix C2H5.OH induced errors]
[This message has been edited by joz, 06-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 06-01-2002 12:49 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Daydreamer
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 8 (10782)
06-01-2002 3:18 AM


TC -
Joz already covered tidal waves much more accurately than I could.
As for the Meteor - simply plug in some numbers into Newtons famous equation, F(foot*pound/second^2) = M(pounds)A(feet/second^2):
M = ~1,000,000 tons x 2000 pounds/ton = 2,000,000,000 pounds
A = I don't know the amount of inertia of sea water, but once you account for the effects of the atmosphere your still left with a movement of at least a few hundred miles an hour.
Rough estimate = ~300 miles/hour x 5280 feet/mile = ~1,584,000 feet/hour x 60 minutes/hour = ~95,000,000 feet/second
Rough estimate = ~95,000,000 feet/second / ~1000 feet of water to slow it to regular descent speeds = 95,000 feet/second^2 of deceleration.
F = MA
F = (2,000,000,000 pounds)(95,000 feet/second^2)
F = ~1.9 x 10^14 foot*pounds/second^2
Feel free to correct my math, especially my (rather conservative) estimated variables - I haven't studied Newtonian physics in monthes.
Also, if anyone knows the mass per unit volume of water I will calculate how much water it could displace.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by joz, posted 06-01-2002 3:45 AM Daydreamer has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 8 (10783)
06-01-2002 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Daydreamer
06-01-2002 3:18 AM


You are using the wrong formulae bud, F = ma (or more accurately F is proportional to dP/dt) isn`t what you want...
That said I can`t remember the right equations off hand, but they are a composite of Lord Raleighs work on solitons with application of Bernoullis work on potential flow....
Sorry bud but its late night and I am half baked and thats all you are gonna get out of me for now....
Hope that puts you on the right track...
[added by edit: If you convert to SI instead of imperial units density of water is 1 kilogram per liter or 1 metric ton (1000 Kg) per m3]
[This message has been edited by joz, 06-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Daydreamer, posted 06-01-2002 3:18 AM Daydreamer has not replied

  
Daydreamer
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 8 (10785)
06-01-2002 5:33 AM


Aww fuck, all that work for nothing?
This is why I'm a Bio major, I suppose.

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 7 of 8 (10805)
06-01-2002 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Daydreamer
05-31-2002 10:53 PM


You don't need impacts for Mediterranean tidal waves, there have been some nasty caldera eruptions in historical times.
You've already found that the area is tectonically active, the next step would be for you to check the Tsunami Event Database. All events there are historical but they will give you some idea of what is reasonable for a tsunami and what isn't. Also isn't the "real" "Ararat" mentioned in Genesis somewhat dubious? I think worrying too much about how to generate a flood within the constraints of Genesis should wait until after the flood is confirmed, ie, after the Ark is found.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Daydreamer, posted 05-31-2002 10:53 PM Daydreamer has not replied

  
Daydreamer
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 8 (10815)
06-02-2002 6:53 AM


I never said there was a historic Ark or 900 year old Noah, nor is evidence of such.
Minor addendum - a number of people elsewhere have pointed out that my date is utterly and completely wrong. Their estimate, which I think is much more reasonable, is around ~7000 BC.
Thanks for the info, btw, I'll work on V2 of my little pet theory as soon as I have time.
[This message has been edited by Daydreamer, 06-02-2002]

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024