I am sorry if I offended you. I want to keep this debate rational and I wish that we will all respect one another no matter what our religious beliefs are. Are you a scientist? In what field?
You asked me to provide empirical evidence to support my “conjecture” of a cosmic cloud interacting with the earth. I admit that I don't have that evidence yet. Cosmic clouds are usually observed if they are illuminated by nearby stars, if they scatter the light of stars behind them or if they posses hot material which radiates thermally. Most of the cosmic dust is assumed (by astronomers) to be undetectable with our present capabilities.
The specific cloud that I refer to in my theory was very small. I estimate that its diameter was less than 0.003 lightyears and its remains are located within a radius of 3.5 lightyears from Earth. I don't think that we can practically find it with our present technology, but if someone wants to try, it should be aligned with the ecliptic...
The cosmic cloud is mentioned in my book since I claim that the mass of its sub-portions generated extreme tidal heating within Earth's mantle, which caused the release of water from the “great depths”. In my research I searched for any previous research regarding the scenario of tidal heating by a cosmic cloud. I found none. To my best knowledge my research is actually the first that tries to deal with such a scenario. Even without the empirical evidence there is a theoretical value for this theory. We should know what should be expected if we encounter a cosmic cloud just like we should know what should be expected in an asteroid impact scenario. Physicists can test my theory in detail. They can prove or disprove it mathematically. For this reason alone the theory is worth scientific investigation even if the general flood scenario turns out to be wrong.
History is full of theories that were published without empirical evidence and later on turn out to be true. I think that any theory that is based on firm logic and may have public interest should be published and tested by others.
I have spent a lot of time researching the exact quotes that you provided before the composition of my book. The 7 days of light that preceded the Biblical flood are merely the days in which the front of the cosmic cloud that approached Earth could be seen. According to the legends and Talmud the cosmic cloud approached from the direction of Saturn (after some great explosion that occurred there) became stronger and stronger until the flood began. Then darkness took over. If a cosmic cloud will approach Earth it would return the sunlight just like any other celestial body in our solar system does. But since it is a cloud and not just a planet or comet, then its light will cover a great portion of the sky. The historical evidence that you quoted strengthens my case.
Regarding your claim that the water originated from an extraterrestrial source: Where do you claim that the flood water is today?
I am not familiar with the work of Archbishop Ussher. My work is independent.
You doubted the existence of the 4.2 kilo year event. I have no doubt that you are a professional geochemist, but I think that you are unaware of the amount of evidence that has been collected in this issue over the last two decades. Maybe it is due to the fact that North America was less affected by the aridity phase and you specialize today in the North American geology (correct me if I'm wrong).
Anyway we will now begin to examine these findings together. Aridity does not necessarily precede a flood. But in this case there is evidence that it dose. I am aware of all the geological methods that you mentioned and I will use these exact methods in our discussion. The volume of the material that I have collected can easily fill up another book. In this forum I propose that we will proceed step by step. Let me provide you with one piece of evidence in each reply. Give me your professional opinion on my analysis. We will see what we can agree about and what not. If you will prove without any doubt that my analysis is wrong then I will declare here that my whole theory has been disproved. Otherwise we will continue to the next piece of evidence. If you want to show me your own evidence please do so but give me the link to the original article. One article each reply. If the data you want to present is not accessible without paying a fee, please sent it directly to my email ([email protected]
) because my budget is very limited.
My theory does not demand that altitudes above 3-4 kilometers were submerged for more than several hours (during an extreme high tide that occurred on day 150 of the flood). But it does demand that all lower altitudes were submerged for weeks or months long. So if you can supply a proof that any particular site in an altitude bellow 3 kilometers was not submerged then you will indeed disprove my theory. Of course I am asking you to give me the chance to conduct my own research on any evidence that you supply before you make your final conclusions.
Now I want to direct you to the first piece of evidence. I could have began from riverine deposits which would make a great impression but I wish to start from the geo-archeological analysis that began the whole discussion regarding the 4.2 kilo year event. I am speaking about the following article from Yale's “Tel Leilan Project”: The Genesis and Collapse of Third Millennium North Mesopotamian Civilization. You can download the article (free) at the following link:
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
Tel Leilan was an important city of the Akkadian Empire in northern Syria. Its altitude was several hundred meters above sea level. The detailed geological analysis presented on page 999 and onward shows that the city was abandoned at once due to an abrupt climate event around 2200 BC and was resettled only several centuries later. Most of the layer from this hiatus reveals the extreme aridity conditions that followed abandonment. But I want to focus on its very beginning which is described in the first paragraph in page 1000. Please read that paragraph.
It shows that the event began with a tephra fall that was mixed with mud from collapsing mud-brick walls due to rain. This layer is only 0.5 cm thick and was sealed (under pressure) into the previous layer. The researchers postulated that human trampling pressured the tephra into the previous layer. I interpret that the water pressure of the flood did that. The researches also postulated that the mud-brick collapse was due to normal rain that continued for a short while after the tephra fall and before the arid phase. I interpret that It happened in the first months of the flood before the city was submerged. Check if you can disprove my interpretation. The main importance of this evidence is to demonstrate the necessary high resolution that is needed to determine the cause of the 4.2 kilo year event what ever it is (flood or not flood).
Roi Lotan Glazer
The Physics of The Biblical Flood