The continuation of art styles through a speculated flood

What IS known is that in the areas with the various flood myths, the evidence for major floods shows differnet time periods.Since civilizations tend to gather around rivers, as a source of water and transportation, it would make sense they would be subject to floods.As for the art, what is the methods used to date the art anyway? Are they able to date the actual carving on the stone, based on the building
on the surface?? Or do they date other artifacts found with the statues?I think that the art is just one piece of the information in the culture. It shows that the CULTURE, which leaves more than just statues behind, showed no physical disruption during that time period.
The style of art is just one aspect of the continuity of culture for that island. A 'world wide flood' is quite contrary to the evidence if the 'world wide flood' is alledged to have happened during that time period.This message has been edited by ramoss, 09-08-2004 07:57 AM

So, you don't know.Let me tell you.The only conclusion is that there was no interruption in culture. That means there was no world wide flood that wiped out the world.This conclusion is consistant with biology, with geology, and with archelogy.

Hey, if you want to show that Ron Wyatt is NOT a crackpot, all you ahve to do is show a peer reviewed article about his discoveries, and show
how the evidence was verified.If you can do that, then you can demonstrate he is not a flake.However, his claims are too good to be true.. and when things are too good to be true, it usually means they aren't true.

It's obvious.GODDIDIT

Yet, he accepts the British-israeli claims, all without evidence.

It depends on which 'finding' of the ark.The one expedition brought back a sliver of wood that dated from the 12th Century.Others found geological outcropping that put shadows on the ground.At least one the program and expedition turned out to be a fraud.

I find that as likely as a piece of rock that floats in mid air in a corn field (A claim from someone who I thought was a total flake).Ah yes.. all this 'Just wait and see' evidence that never gets revealed, and claims that can not be backed up with objective evidence.

How about either, or both?