Noahs Flood

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.

Peg,
Did you even read the article. Its conclusions quite clearly show that it is not thought that this was part of any global flood. The researchers have pinpointed where and what got flooded.

quote:

---

Previous work reported that the flood was so huge that it affected world climate. The influx of freshwater into the North Atlantic reduced ocean salinity so much that this braked the transport of heat flowing from the tropics to temperate regions. Temperatures dropped by more than three degrees Celsius in Western Europe for 200 to 400 years, creating a mini-Ice Age.

---

Did you just read the title Catastrophic ancient flood cooled the Earth and assume it was supportive of your view?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi RAZD, best of wishes for the #1 quality poster!I realize that this may be an off-topic diversion, but I understand you are bringing up the Anasazi as an example of a civilization that disappeared due to drought conditions as opposed to any purported 'global flood.'Having lived in the area for 17 years a while back, I hope it would not be impertinent for me to make a few comments.First, I think the consensus is that the Anasazi did not completely disappear off the face of the earth due to an extended drought but rather underwent a major upheaval that reduced the population and caused the abandonment of some cities. I think it is rather obvious that the several so-called Pueblo tribes, given the similarities in building style, pottery, jewelry, and other artifacts are likely the direct descendants of the so-called Anasazi, if not genetically then at least culturally, but most likely a mix of both IMO.Also, if one seeks to look at some catastrophe as a cause of this disruption in the continuation of the Anasazi culture, there are two other events that occurred around 1200 AD that may be considered contributors.First is the appearance of the Apache and Din (Navajo) Indians from their original home in the Pacific Northwest, as they originally often found it easier to swipe the production of others rather than engage in the tedious labor of agriculture.Second (and this one is under-researched), there was a volcanic eruption about 50 miles south of Grants, NM in around 1200 AD that sent a huge lava flow 80 miles to the north. If not a local climate changer, I'm sure it made an impression in other spheres of environmental understanding amongst the then current population.Back to the subject, notice how none of these informed speculations involve a global flood. However considering the third potential cause, would anyone like to comment on the relationship between Minoan civilization, Santorini, and the myth of Atlantis? (naturally in another thread).Please pardon my diversion, just thought I finally had something to add to the discussion.Edited by anglagard, : avoid redundant words in same sentence, English is too big for such redundancy.Edited by anglagard, : use Din instead of Dine

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Hi aanglagard, long time no see. Two days down and one to go for this session. Drugs make me tired and a little congested.Awesome, I only have my momentary visit and fascination with the cultures several years back (86?). True, but not the buildings like the Anasazi, and all references I heard were that they were the "ancient ones" which doesn't sound like people absorbed into later tribes. That would certainly be a final straw for a culture stressed by annual droughts.People could have left in small groups, perhaps to live with relatives in other areas, and just have melted away. Certainly there is no evidence of the people being attacked and conquered.Certainly there is no evidence of flooding.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

You god deniers and bible deniers just don't get it. The whole purpose of the great flood was to wash away the worlds sins and evils. That's why god didn't just annihilate everything and start all over again. The flood was an act of purification, not eradication. But the flood itself was an act of horrific evil, as god himself admits. Therefore, it washed away all remnants of its own occurrence. That is why you see no current evidence of the flood. That is how we know that it must have occurred and what its purpose was. See how clear and logical it all becomes when properly explained!Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : Because the voices told me to.

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

quote:

---

You can get a fairly detailed article that directly refutes the Ryan & Pitman flood theory here:
ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0205.pdf
The title is "Persistent Holocene Outflow from the Black Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean Contradicts Noah’s Flood Hypothesis", and the authors are Aksu, Hiscott, Mudie, Rochon, Kaminski, Abrajano and Yasar.

---

Ryan and Pitman claimed evidence of catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea, while Aksu et al claim evidence for a more gradual flooding. Ryan & Pitman's case is convincingly presented in their book, but this is written at a popular level. I haven't read their scientific papers or compared them with Aksu et al.As mentioned earlier, Ryan and Pitman are not creationists, but professional geologists working at one of the world's most prestigious geology laboratories (Lamont-Doherty). They are not proposing a global flood.

Hi kbertsche, it's been a while since I last visited this flood scenario. I don't think any one is claiming that, rather that it could have been a rather spectacular one-of-a-kind local flood.IIRC there was more evidence than just a lot of water, involving fresh water organisms at the bottom, but that it had died due to being now in a salty anaerobic environment, meaning that the characteristics of the bottom had been changed by the addition of lots of salt water.National Geographic - 404

quote:

---

Ballard’s 1999 expedition revealed an ancient shoreline. Also found were shells from freshwater and saltwater mollusk species. Their radiocarbon dates support the theory of a freshwater lake inundated by the Black Sea some 7,000 years ago.

---

Then they went house hunting:

quote:

---

The shipwreck finds are significant. [They have the potential to educate us a great deal, Ward tells me later.]

​

The archaeologists are thrilled. Ballard doesn’t quite share their enthusiasm. Rats, he says. It was supposed to be a house.

---

No signs of habitation at the old level were found, but the search was not exhaustive either.IIRC Glen Morton (OEC) also proposed that the Mediterranean flooded by the same process to account for the tale. To me the rate of flooding is relatively unimportant, as flooding is only half the tale -- the other half is when the water recedes, and neither of these massive flooding scenarios include any subsequent lowering of the water level to reveal the land.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

quote:

---

IIRC Glen Morton (OEC) also proposed that the Mediterranean flooded by the same process to account for the tale.

---

Yes, Glen would place the flood at about 5 million years ago as opposed to the 5700 BC of Ryan & Pitman.

quote:

---

To me the rate of flooding is relatively unimportant, as flooding is only half the tale -- the other half is when the water recedes, and neither of these massive flooding scenarios include any subsequent lowering of the water level to reveal the land.

---

As I recall, Ryan & Pitman proposed that the Black Sea filled over a few year period. This wouldn't so much drown people as displace them and force them to migrate. Aksu et al seem to propose something MUCH slower, filling the Black Sea over a few thousand years. This would hardly be noticeable and would not be considered a flood.Yes, neither of these scenarios (or Glen's) seem to have room for a subsequent lowering of the water as the biblical account indicates.

"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.

'science folk claim that there is absolutely no evidence for such a flood.'That's fine. Bible believers say that there is absolutely no need to believe in such an event as history. The story is more prophecy than history. The allegory of Noah illustrates a spiritual theme, that of salvation from spiritual death through Christ, who is represented by the Ark, the flood waters representing spiritual death. There is abundant detail in the story to support this view, and much of it cannot be represented in translation, and may need explanation even when translated adequately.There are some who find the spiritual meaning too challenging, so they become 'liars for Christ'. To be consistent, they must posit a date for the literal flood of 2350 BC, and are also forced to say that massive volanic eruptions took place simultaneously. This event, that would have destroyed all life on earth bar a few anaerobic bacteria, was of course followed by several ice ages, all in time for Stonehenge to be built c. 2200 BC!!!!!In America, Christ sends 'em doo-lally.

Exactly. The existence of any one datable site that shows no evidence of a flood destroys forever the idea of the biblical flood.The esistence of local floods is of no help, and, so far, no-one has any evidence of anything other that local flooding.It is worth noting that some cultures have no flood legends: most notably Egypt, who seemingly managed to survive unchanged despite being underwater throughout the biblical flood without having noticed this minor fact.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

I've noticed you don't use the quote boxes we commonly use here at EvC.
Sometimes quotes can get overlooked as quotes when not prefaced.We have a few styles to make quotes pop.First we have the classic lines.Just type [quote]Purple is a unique color[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

Purple is a unique color

---

Next we have the basic box.Simply type [qs]And it is truly a unique individual who holds it dear.[/qs] and it becomes: Our final option, when you want to make sure there is no doubt who or what source you are quoting, just type [qs=PurpleDawn]Purple is a unique color, and it is truly a unique individual who holds it dear.[/qs] and it becomes: Edited by AdminPD, : FYI

Thanks very much for your tip on quote boxes.