Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

Wow. You'd rather be a non-comforming ignoramus than an edjucated "conformist"!?To me, that is just crazy. The lack of a genetic bottleneck.

Garbage? No.But what about the lack of a genetic bottleneck discounting the flood?I see you avoided that...

I'm not talking about agenetic bottleneck in just our species. I'm talking about one in all the species of the planet.A global flood that kills off almost all of the animals would leave a record in the form of a bottleneck in the genetic information in all of the animals that now exist after the flood.That we don't see that bottleneck shows that there wasn't a flood.

What about the 40 days of rain?

In the Black Sea deluge theory:

quote:

---

Then, about 5600 BC, as sea levels rose, Ryan and Pitman suggest, the rising Mediterranean finally spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosporus. The event flooded 60,000 mile (155,000 km) of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and west. Ryan and Pitman wrote:

​

"Ten cubic miles [42 km] of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls. . The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days."

---

That just doesn't add up with the Biblical Flood of 40 days of rain gradually flooding everything. That seems like a much more immediate and violent flooding, not to mention that it lasted longer. If this is what inspired the Biblical story, then I think it it would have been described differently.

Well, sure its possible, I'm not saying its impossible.I'm saying that it improbable that The Flud^TM was inspired by the Black Sea deluge (BSD) because the descriptions in the Bible don't match what we'd expect from the BSD and there are extra description that the BSD wouldn't provide (like the 40 days of rain).

Oh okay. I'll give you that.We can't forget, though, that The Flud^TM was probably inspired by multiple events as it was passed on down through the ages.