Noahs Flood

"Ah, that would be because the title of the book is 'Noahs Flood'"Fair point, but I agree with what Answersingenitals (great name) was alluding to, that it's ridiculous that every time evidence of an ancient flood is uncovered creationists jump on it as proof (or possible proof) of Noah's Flood. Nobody denies that there must have been many large floods throughout history, particularly as sea levels rose at the end of the Ice Age.

Hi PegYou say "I wouldnt expect to find a global flood by looking at just north america".But if there was a complete global flood, the evidence would be consistent all over the world, INCLUDING America. If the evidence in North America is of continuity of human and natural history for at least 14,000 years, then there never was a global flood during that period.Noah's Flood was supposed to be a single global flood that was sufficient to wipe out all people and land based animals, except those that were on the Ark. It was not a series of large but localised floods that killed a few people or animals here and there.There is accepted evidence of extremely large floods in North America as the glaciers receded at the end of the last Ice Age. Huge lakes built up behind some of the glaciers, which eventually gave way, creating incredibly large and destructive floods, unlike anything that has been seen in our lifetime. But they were still confined to relatively small parts of North America. They didn't cover the whole continent, and certainly didn't cover the whole world.

Thank you, AIGWhy couldn't someone have explained that in the first place?It's so simple when you know the answers!

"I think he was being satirical"I know. So was I. Well trying to be anyway. Sometimes my deadpan sarcasm backfires: I'm too English!Thanks for the response on the definition of life in Cedre's topic.

Thanks very much for your tip on quote boxes.