Greetings, Mark,
The possibility you consider here is quite close to what I personally believe to be the truth of the matter, though as you might suspect, I feel no need to include the existence of any gods into the story.
My principle objection to Glenn's theory is that it neglects the simplest explanation, and in doing so violates the principle of parsimony that lies at the heart of the scientific method. In order to preserve a biblical claim, he rejects the clear evidence of far more mundane origins for the biblical flood story. More in a moment.
I find the arithmetic of his proposed inundation suspect as well, as it seems to imply the ark traveling at an average speed of something less than 7 miles a day on the crest of the inundation (else why would it fetch up against Turkey at all), making such a vessel seem unnecessary to me. They could have walked there faster. 2500 miles from the straits of Gibraltar to Turkey in 365 days. Do the math.
Distance ref:
http://concise.britannica.com/...e-9109732/Mediterranean-Sea
Of course, as the area to be inundated was not a concrete-lined channel, the speed of encroachment toward Turkey would vary as the area for expansion increased. I would expect a higher rate of travel for the leading edge of the flood during the earliest stages, and a lower rate toward the end.
A more serious criticism arises from the lack of any method to carry the tale across 5 million years, call it 250,000 generations of pre-literacy with no assurance of even the capability of an oral tradition.
But the most damning evidence against this theory is the pre-existence of achingly similar predecessors of the biblical flood tale in the excavated writings of the region, tales which incorporate aspects of the flood tale in the bible found nowhere else in the world, indicating a common literary tradition. There is no need for divine intervention to see this tale carried from the Mesopotamian flood plain ” where we know it existed ” west and south into the region of ancient Israel with no more than the minor variations we see between the other intermediates stretching back from Canaan and Babylonia into ancient Sumeria.
Against this origin, we pit Glenn's Mediterranean (GM5M) flood tale of 5 million years ago (GM5M) and apply the principle of parsimony.
Ask yourself what is the easiest method for this tale to have been incorporated into the Jewish sacred texts. Was it carried along by means of written records from an origin in Mesopotamia over the course of no more than a thousand years? Or was it "remembered" across 250,000 generations by a pre-literate society that sprang up in the wake of a cataclysm, until finally being recorded in a language that did not exist at the time of the earliest written incarnations of the tale.
Glenn has made it his mission to uncover evidence for this 5 Mya hypothesis, and knowing Glenn, I'm sure he'll uncover interesting information. The chances that he will uncover verification for a Mediterranean origin for the flood tale are infinitesimal. There is no means of promulgating this tale across such a span of generations.
The issue turns on what is to be demonstrated. Is it sufficient to explain the inclusion of this tale, or must we also support the accuracy of this tale? In comparison to other similar texts of the region, this last criterion ” accuracy ” is unprecedented. Worse, it is the equivalent of including as evidence what should rightly be investigated as a separate hypothesis. Absent this claim of accuracy, there is nothing remaining to explain. The evidence already exists pointing to a Mesopotamian origin. We have the chain of provenance.
Glenn is free to advance alternative explanations for the inclusion of this tale in the Hebrew sacred texts. That is science. He is not free, however, to offer a claim requiring unnecessary assumptions without showing the need to do so. That is the principle of parsimony. We already have an explanation that works. It is sufficient to explain the evidence, that evidence being the inclusion of the Noachian flood tale within the Hebrew sacred texts.
From here, we could continue to ask how this tale came to be. Again, scientific methodology requires we seek out the simplest explanation. It is a tale of a great flood and a boat that survived it. Most legends have roots in fact, and most legends incorporate both embellishment and syncretism.
Now consider the Mesopotamian flood plain, the point of likely origin. Dig anywhere and you'll find evidence of floods. We know of locally catastrophic floods that struck individual cities during the third millenium BCE. Anyone living in these cities would be aware of this. The culture of the time included large scale digging to keep open the system of irrigation canals. The evidence of major flooding evident from the layers of silt must have been widespread. This would be enough to birth flood tales.
With no way of dating these layers, there would be nothing to keep these flood tales from growing into one another, until they had became a "great flood" tale. Add in the tale of a local survivor aboard a river barge ” barges are also known to have existed ” and the last bar to a Mesopotamian origin falls away.
Glenn's objection to this explanation is that it does not preserve the accuracy of the Noachian flood tale in the bible. Science doesn't care about this presupposition. The Mesopotamian origin is simpler, so it wins. That's how science works. If his theory is to gain traction in the scientific community, it must overcome this deficit.
Now there is no particular reason for Glenn to seek to win his case within the scientific community. But if that is not his aim, he is not engaging in science.
As ever, Jesse
There is no lao tzu.
™ Version 4.2