world wide flood?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

one particular line of evidence that i think is intriguing is the fact that in all cultures there is a very similar flood legend. The characters change somewhat, but the circumstances are almost always the same.

What could have motivated so many diverse and geographically alienated people from telling the same story?

Seeing how we know that floods happen in every region of the world, what evidence do you think implies that we need something more: a single worldwide flood?

There are lots of folk stories involving animals. Should we also assume that every story worldwide about a bear was actually based on the same bear?

 

[Pegg]

Seeing how we know that floods happen in every region of the world, what evidence do you think implies that we need something more: a single worldwide flood?

There are lots of folk stories involving animals. Should we also assume that every story worldwide about a bear was actually based on the same bear?

depends what the bear was doing and what he was wearing... if all the bear stories related that an insane bear was riding a white pony wearing a top hat and a frilly lace skirt while collecting wild berries, we could probably assume that its the same bear.

 

[kashmir]

Whatever. Just realize that you've been making statements that, AFAICT, you have no rational basis for.

I provided a link that supports the thread concept, you have not provided anything but opinions and twice now, accuse me of what you are doing.
I am just trying to have a discussion and am adding data.
You have not yet to dismiss a word I said, other than opinions.

Wrong.

The world we're living in now is the world where the ice from the Ice Age melted. During the Ice Age, sea levels were lower than they were now. This caused things like the Alaskan land bridge (the thing that allowed the ancestors of today's Native Americans to migrate to the Americas from Asia). The ice eventually melted and the sea levels rose.... to where they are today.

There is not enough water in all the ice on Earth to cover the entire surface.

not enough water in all the ice?
most of the ice melted which became our oceans.
Obviously there isn't enough ice now, it melted, there were several ice ages.
We have boulders all over the earth that had to be displaced by ice melting and dropping them off.

Here are more links, there are two sides of a coin here and many believe the earth was completely covered in ice, at least once.
No one actually knows for sure, so who is the one trying to have a discussion with added data and who is trying to be a know it all with no supporting data?
You accuse me of not being rational, you are the one not being rational.
basically all you said was "I am right and you are wrong" with nothing to support your position.

Snowball Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Earth Was Completely Covered by Ice, Geologists Say
Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kashmir]

Seeing how we know that floods happen in every region of the world, what evidence do you think implies that we need something more: a single worldwide flood?

There are lots of folk stories involving animals. Should we also assume that every story worldwide about a bear was actually based on the same bear?

odd how you have yet to reply to the opening post link and dismiss any of what is said, and wish to use irrelevant examples that are of no rational concept what so ever, but accuse me of dong it.
try going back to the opening post and the link, and start over if you wish to discuss the thread, if you just want to post opinions, then do so, but you are not providing anything useful.
story of a world wide bear?

I quote people from the link, and you never even addressed it and just claim I am being a know it all and you are the one being a know it all.
this is mind boggling.
Links all over the thread and you just pop in, call people know it alls and they are not being rational, and its you not being rational or addressing anything, any link, any quote, nothing but opinions on how right you are

 

[Alceste]

I thought it was common knowledge of the bird thing, I have seen it said lots of times in my life.
Its atheists who say it when debating the flood.
I am sure some birds have caught fish and took it to their young in nests on mountain sides.
I believe even dawkins talked about it in a debate, some atheist did just recently on a YT vid debate thing.
Its not ridiculous, its truth in some cases, billions of years and not one bird had a nest on a mountain and brought fish to its young? :sarcastic:

As for the tectonic plates thing, it is not so cut in all cases as you said with the Rockies.
Tons of these pictures show various mountains and how they are formed.
Not all mountains were sea beds at one time.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how...&bih=653#q=how+were+mountains+formed&tbm=isch
But, if the ice age is true, all of earth was under froze water at one time.
That accounts for the boulders and fossils, right?

I still dont get why a global flood is so ridiculous to you, you admitted the glacial deposition thing, that takes water melting all over the earth at one time to displace all the millions of boulders scattered everywhere they dont belong.

That is crazy though, for ice to be that huge to carry those huge boulders, that's a lot of ice

I think you may be failing to distinguish between mountain fossils and mountain fish remains. I've never heard "birds" posited as the cause of mountaintop ocean fossil deposits.

Yeah, sure, some birds eat fish and live in the mountains. I don't think it's a mystery at all though. It would be very easy for even a layman with a basic understanding of geology to determine whether they are looking at a patch of ancient ocean bed or at the fish bones around eagle's nest. (For one thing, the fish bones still reek to high heaven.)

The ice age didn't end all at once with one big sudden melting. There are still glaciers all over the world slowly shrinking. They have been shrinking ever since the ice age, and were once part of massive ice sheets that covered whole continents.

An ice sheet doesn't need to melt all at once to drop a boulder. Why would it?

Just out of curiosity, do you live in a place with freezing, snowy, icy winters? It sounds like you're not very familiar with the natural process of ice formation and dissipation. I am Canadian. I can help you out.

 

[Alceste]

Nope, you're not getting the simple concept here. Mountains=higher land. They have ocean fossils/seashells.


THEY'RE HIGHER THAN THE LAND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BENEATH THEM.

They don't all have ocean fossil beds, FYI. Fossil deposits are few and far between. Whenever I've gone fossil hunting, including a trip to the Burgess shale, it's been a major outing. There are long hikes involved. Sometimes even canoes.

Most of the rockies (where I grew up) is just... rocky. No fossils at all. So the Burgess Shale only shows that that particular patch of mountain top in the vast expanse of the Rockies used to be on the ocean floor. It doesn't indicate that the entire rocky mountain range (and every mountain in the world) used to be on the ocean floor.

 

[Alceste]

Guess you decided to go with opinion/belief. Good choice.

No, he's absolutely right. Geological time is measured by millions of years, not thousands. That's grade school geology, not "belief/opinion".

 

[Alceste]

So apparently the mountains could have very plausibly been extremely different back in Noahs time.

Like I said, Either present some evidence that agrees with you and link sources, Otherwise anything you say is just your own opinion and has nothing to do with facts.

Giving you 3 mm of mountain growth a year (forgetting about erosion) for 5000 years only delivers a metre and a half of reduced height for your "smaller mountains". Not nearly enough, I'm afraid.

 

[Alceste]

Nope.

I've asked you three times, Give me some evidence.
I'm interested in facts, Not opinions.
And it seems that all you have is opinions, But no facts.

Talk to me when you have some evidence

Thana, we are referencing grade school science classes. Seriously, this is all common knowledge in my country. Literally every child in Canada learns this stuff in grade school. You can pick up any geology book and learn it yourself. Even books for preschoolers exist that competently explain mountain formation and geology. It's one of the simplest sciences to grasp, which is probably why they teach it first.

But I'll play along if you like. You're demanding evidence, but you're not being very clear on what exactly you want evidence of. If you tell me, I'll deliver. Promise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

depends what the bear was doing and what he was wearing... if all the bear stories related that an insane bear was riding a white pony wearing a top hat and a frilly lace skirt while collecting wild berries, we could probably assume that its the same bear.

And what, pray tell, are the special common features between these flood stories that suggest they were the same flood and not separate regional floods?

Also, what do you make of the folk stories that suggest that a society didn't migrate to where they are now (not within their cultural memory, anyhow)... stories of their ancestors growing out of the ground in the area where the society is now and such?

 

[metis]

If someone goes up to a geologist and ask them about a "worldwide flood", they better have some patience because it could take a long time before the geologist stops laughing.

 

[Desert Snake]

They don't all have ocean fossil beds, FYI. Fossil deposits are few and far between. Whenever I've gone fossil hunting, including a trip to the Burgess shale, it's been a major outing. There are long hikes involved. Sometimes even canoes.

Most of the rockies (where I grew up) is just... rocky. No fossils at all. So the Burgess Shale only shows that that particular patch of mountain top in the vast expanse of the Rockies used to be on the ocean floor. It doesn't indicate that the entire rocky mountain range (and every mountain in the world) used to be on the ocean floor.

Great. This isn't rocket science either. We have ocean fossils/seashells at higher altitudes, obviously, that indicates the land was once underwater. That's all you have to understand, it means the water did 'cover the land' in some context. The argument was 'not enough water to cover the land'. Well, apparently there was. Call it flood, floods, or water covering the land, but that is the obvious reality.

 

[metis]

Great. This isn't rocket science either. We have ocean fossils/seashells at higher altitudes, obviously, that indicates the land was once underwater. That's all you have to understand, it means the water did 'cover the land' in some context. The argument was 'not enough water to cover the land'. Well, apparently there was. Call it flood, floods, or water covering the land, but that is the obvious reality.

Land formations rise and fall, both submerged and those at the surface. Near the north-eastern coast of South America, a whole large section of land sunk more than a mile down and wasn't discovered until they were drilling for oil in that region.

 

[Desert Snake]

Land formations rise and fall, both submerged and those at the surface. Near the north-eastern coast of South America, a whole large section of land sunk more than a mile down and wasn't discovered until they were drilling for oil in that region.

Great! That backs my point, actually.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If someone goes up to a geologist and ask them about a "worldwide flood", they better have some patience because it could take a long time before the geologist stops laughing.

:yes:

 

[Alceste]

Great. This isn't rocket science either. We have ocean fossils/seashells at higher altitudes, obviously, that indicates the land was once underwater. That's all you have to understand, it means the water did 'cover the land' in some context. The argument was 'not enough water to cover the land'. Well, apparently there was. Call it flood, floods, or water covering the land, but that is the obvious reality.

Yeah, I'd have to forget everything I've ever learned about geology and paleontology in order to consider your point "obvious". Are you trying to say you believe that the water was once so deep that it covered the Rocky Mountains? Or are you saying something else that I'm not getting?

Bunyip has explained how the sea bed has been pushed up over millions of years in some parts of the world during the formation of mountain ranges. Are you rejecting the explanation?

Basically I don't understand how you came to believe that bits of the earth's mantle getting pushed around since the beginning of time makes any difference to the total volume of water on earth. Can you explain?

 

[Desert Snake]

Basically I don't understand how you came to believe that bits of the earth's mantle getting pushed around since the beginning of time makes any difference to the total volume of water on earth. Can you explain?

No idea what you're talking about. If the mantle is getting pushed, it can also erode, dropping into the ocean, that was already brought up. So clearly we aren't dealing with a 'static' situation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No idea what you're talking about. If the mantle is getting pushed, it can also erode, dropping into the ocean, that was already brought up. So clearly we aren't dealing with a 'static' situation.

The fact that tectonic forces have pushed various bits of the Earth up and down at different times does not in any way imply that water covered the entire surface of the planet all at once.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The fact that tectonic forces have pushed various bits of the Earth up and down at different times does not in any way imply that water covered the entire surface of the planet all at once.

It is almost shameful that such things need to be explained to adults and worse than shameful that such explanations fall on deaf ears.

 

[Desert Snake]

The fact that tectonic forces have pushed various bits of the Earth up and down at different times does not in any way imply that water covered the entire surface of the planet all at once.

And this might be semantics as well. Either way we are dealing with variation in how much land is covered by water.