Peg writes:
In order to find evidence of a 'global' flood, surely we'd need every area of earth tested. I wouldnt expect to find a global flood by looking at just north americal.
I'm sorry for coming into this conversation a little late. Just glossing through the threads on my day off.
But how does your statement above even make any sense?
Let's look at a small picture. If there was a house wide flood in my house, I should be able to find evidence for this house wide flood everywhere and anywhere in my house. But if I look at a random place in my house, say the living room, and found no evidence of the said flood, then there was no house wide flood.
Coyote already said there's no evidence for a massive continental flood in North America at the time of the supposed world wide flood. If we couldn't find evidence for a massive flood in just one part of the world at that time, then we can stop there and conclude that there was no world wide flood at that time.
If, however, we did find evidence for this flood in North America, then we can move on to, say, Europe and Africa, etc. But once we've found a place where there was no flood at that time, then we can stop there and conclude there was no world wide flood at that time.
™ Version 4.2
