Nope, I watched, but those are both about Mesopotamia. the ‘flooding’ starting at 13000 BC was due to sea level rise. There were no high mountains covered by that flood, just lowlands.
Unless one rewrites the Bible to say that the ark ended in the INdian ocean, such a flood won’t even begin to match what the bible describes.
-
No widespread flooding in the geologic record of iraq. I am a geophysicist and have had access to oil company information on this issue.
-
Water flow down the Euphrates and Tigris take floating objects out to the Indian Ocean in about a week. If one beleives this is where the flood happened, then well, the ark couldn’t have landed on the mountains of Ararat which are in Turkey. Water flow is the wrong direction. Thus this theory requires the Bible be re-written about WHERE the ark landed
-
No high mountains covered. that theory needs to rewrite that part of the Bible
-
River flooding doesn’t last a year. at most it lasts a few months.
5 concerning Eden, how does one get a river which encompasses Kush (the ancient name for Ethiopia) which means the Nile River, to flow into the Persian Gulf. So, your favored theory ignores or rewrites the bible on that point.
Given that this theory basically re-writes what the Bible says, in exactly what way to you consider it to actually confirm what the bible says, when you change what the Bible says?
Other issues that such a late flood brings. It requires that Swamidass’s view for the image of God be true because Adam and Eve could not be the parents of all living. But such a view requires that some living people not have the image of God.
Why did God give Neolithic Eve the curse of pain in childbirth when all of her ancestral mothers back at least to 2.4 myr ago all had pain in childbirth? It is our large heads which cause that pain, and giving a curse like that to people who already had large brains makes zero logical sense. Why did Adam’s curse also involve the effects of a larger brain? Why give Adam such a curse when all his ancestors back millions of years had sweated by their brows as well?
Mesopotamian flood ideas are accepted only by the desperate who can’t figure a way to make the bible actually be true, so we change it to say it didn’t really mean Mts. of Ararat, it didn’t really mean that a river from actual Kush flowed into the Tigris and Euprhates, it didn’t really mean that high mountans were covered (small hills will do). If the Bible is so flexible of meaning, why not just say it all happened in the Mississippi Valley? If Kush = Arabia and High mountains means mole hills and the Mtns of Ararat actually means some coast along the Indian Ocean, such a Mississipppi Valley interpretation is equally likely. That would be as true as saying it happened in Mesopotamia!
Before you try to debate with a geoscientist, take some time to look at some geological information about how much trouble it would be to have the Nile flow into the Persian Gulf–btw, there is no evidence of that. And, Kush was NOT in Saudi Arabia no matter how much people try to make it be that way.