Anne Habermehl Still Wants Göbekli Tepe After Babel and Neanderthals Post-Flood Lita Cosner and Robert Carter Still Want to Deny Euphrates and Tigris Being Frat and Hiddekel ...
Their joint article* appeared on tomorrow's date in Australia's time zone (Creation.com is an Australian collective blog plus other site functions : it is connected to blogger or google sites, since it disconnects when I disconnect my blogger account).
I will give their argument and the reason behind their argument.
Contrary to common opinion, the Tigris and Euphrates of Genesis 2 cannot be the modern rivers flowing through Syria and Iraq today, because they do not share the same source.
Granted they do not share the same source either with each other or with pre-Flood Hiddekel and Frat.
That they are not same rivers does not follow.
They would still be same rivers in a sufficient sense if partially same river bed - including if going into the other direction.
Now, Robert and Lita would argue this is impossible:
Think about it—the Flood was global and highly destructive. Huge amounts of sediment were deposited on the continents, and massive amounts of erosion occurred during the Recessive Stage as the waters drained off the continents. Plus, the continental plates moved around, raising mountains and creating deep basins. Why would we expect the modern landscape to reflect the pre-Flood landscape?
The four rivers were the main rivers of the earth. There must have been four water dividers and between them four drainage systems on the whole earth.
A river bed in the centre of the fourth of the world's drainage systems would not be sufficiently covered to totally obfuscate where it ran.
Now, one might argue Euphrates and Tigris are very far from being candidates for such huge rivers.
I would say they are the "closest to source" (to pre-Flood source) remains of it.
I would say that the complete pre-Flood Frat would have started in Jordan, if Holy Land or parts of it were land in pre-Flood times (but see the Elasmosaur arguing Holy Land or parts of it would have been sea) branched into four where we now have Dead Sea and the Frat quarter would have very soon bent into where we now have Euphrates but instead it would have flowed North West. The Zagros Mountains where now Euphrates has its sources are post-Flood, so is Black Sea, so Frat would have continued NW through what is now Black Sea and Danube, and as Danube now arises in post-Flood Alps, while Rhine, Seine and Rhone also do so, it would have continued into one of them or all three or two of them.
One can speculate if this Frat would have continued even further NW into Thames, Liffey, St Lawrence river all the way to the North West corner of the world (Apocalypse 7 says the world has 4 corners, and as it's arguably corners of ha-Eretz, this can be taken as Continents or pre-Flood single Continent and does not imply flatness of the total body). Which would if so be in Alaska.
However, my model very much does argue the Flood shifted things around more places than one.
Main differences immediately post-Flood, Frat is cut into two by Alps, what is North West of them still flowing North West, what is South East of them flowing instead South East, reverse direction, and the outlet being distinct from that of Jordan now (if ever it was connected to Jordan).
Then the rise of Zagros Mountains and the gradual or floodwise filling of Black Sea further divided South East part of original Frat into Danube and Euphrates, with divergence of outlets, which is exactly the situation we have today.
I think so much rearrangements, namely including river beds changing direction due to tectonic movements, would clearly keep in mind how devastating and chaotic the Flood was. On the mean, the Flood was certainly very destructive, but why not allow huge variations into both directions?
Oh, if you have in mind arguing the Elasmosaur could have been transported 500 km, well, such a transport is not unheard of for the Flood, as you have material on yourselves, and as Fr. Fulcran Vigoroux argued for limited Flood still being over a very huge region, but if a boulder arrives after 500 km, it is arguably either diminished in diameter to at least as little as only half of original, or broken away from other similar pieces originally hanging together.
The Elasmosaurs that were transported 500 km did not arrive in shapes fit to be identified as Elasmosaurs.
It is funny that I have answered both arguments earlier, they repeat them, they do not refute what I said, but ignore it.
Creation vs. Evolution : Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden
Creation vs. Evolution : Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept
Defending my model against opposite error, by Damien Mackey:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded?
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do) (Update to XXXIX)
And about geography of pre-Flood, in general and specifically in defense about their arguments:
Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood?
Creation vs. Evolution : You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ...
Lita Cosner and Robert Carter haven't changed their view, I haven't changed mine.
Difference is, when I publish, I refer to the arguments they give and I am refuting, they do not refer to my blog, probably because they have no answer to the refutation I give, and therefore prefer gate-keeping.
If they think my blog is not seen, the blogger stats have 196 221 views as "all time". I think before some of the 196 221 viewers perhaps they would gain in credibility if trying to refute me rather than trying to ignore me.
Hans Georg Lundahl
* Where was Eden?
by Lita Cosner and Robert Carter | This article is from
Creation 41(2):36–39, April 2019
** Niciae, apud Varum fluvium, sancti Hospitii Confessoris, abstinentiae virtute ac prophetiae spiritu insignis.