quote:And it is because of this, that over 200 different cultures have recorded the Flood in their histories, to document in similar but different ways this worldwide geological event. Why, because the deluge effected all cultures, as all following cultures stemmed sociologically from the Mid-East. For from the Gilgamish Epic of babylonians, to the Creation tablets of Nineveh, to the Rosetta Stone of Egypt, to the stories told among the Eskimos and Indians of North America, all these cultures knew and passed on their history from the Great Flood. And it is mentioned in most of them that Noah and his Family were the only human survivors.
Since all of these "over 200 different cultures" were wiped out by "the flood", how did they record the flood in their histories? Dead people don't write histories.
quote:...Noah and his Family were the only human survivors.
Therefore, the only possible source for any flood history would be Noah and his Family.
Those "over 200 different cultures" must have been recording some other sort of flood event, not "THE BIG ONE".
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix formatting that came from the source page (removed extra line feeds).
The story passed down from Noah and family, to the various world wide cultures
OK, I now see that your statement that I quoted makes more sense than I thought. Not that I'm buying into it.
I would like to see information that some culture (of those "over 200 different cultures"), GEOGRAPHICALLY REMOTE from the middle east, actually have the same story that is told in the Bible. Show me where they contain some reference to a Noah and family as being the only survivors.
Just ONE example - Don't (dare I say) flood us with a bunch of vague assertions of numerous cultures having the same story is their histories. One or two paragraphs of a total of about 10 lines or less should do the job, plus a reference to where you got the information.
Berthault's experiments are modeling stream flow deposits
The thing is, if Berthault's experiments show the way strata are laid down in rising water...
Maybe there is something else elsewhere, but the video you posted upthread is a flume study modeling of stream flow (delta?) crossbedded deposits. That is NOT a rising sea level model.
As I see it, Walther's Law may well (in a way) still be applicable to your flume deposits, but it would be modeling some variation of a receding sea. The top horizontal bedding would be the near shore deposit, the crossbeds would be the intermediate depth deposits, and the bottom horizontal bedding would be the deep water deposits.
What was deep water becomes shallow water - It's a regressing sea.
At the "Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law", topic, Percy had the MESSAGE 9 with the nice diagram showing a transgressing sea (the water is advancing landward).
Late in process addition - Here is that diagram:
Note there that the vertical column is that the shallowest water deposits are at the bottom while the deepest water deposits are at the top. For a regressing sea, that vertical column would be the opposite, having the shallowest water deposits at the top and the deepest water deposits at the bottom, just like they are in your Berthault experiment.
Regardless of it being transgressive or regressive, the bottom most layer of a VERTICAL column had to be there first and the top most layer had to be laid down last. That is the Law of Superposition.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added link to message containing video.