Younger Dryas impact = Biblical Flood

just thinking out loud here
is it possible that the great caldera at yellowstone erupted under the 1-2 mile thick ice shelf?
this could have caused all kinds of havoc including the grand canyon?
like i said..just thinking out loud

a reply to: autopat51

The younger dryas end 12,800 years ago approx. yellow stones last eruption was 600,000+ years ago.

According to science.

The original poster should read:

The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: Flood, Fire and Famine in the History of Civilization
by Richard & Allen West & Simon Warwick-Smith Firestone

Lurid cover, but inside is serious science along the same lines as the original post.

a reply to: Lazarus Short

Actually, its one of the worst researched books of all time. They use Victorian speculation as evidence, ignoring all geological data discovered over the past 100, and especially the past 50 years.

a reply to: intrptr

Different event. Much, much more recent. ...and while cataclysmic, not to the extent of Chicxulub.

It may have destroyed the mammoth, mastodon, etc... populations in the process, and led to the demise of the Clovis.

10000 yrs ago would put it roughly at the beginning of civilizations in the Tigris/Euphrates area, and Indus River, at least I think so, going on memory here.

It could very well be the basis of the legends, or the release of ice dams at the end of the Ice Age, those were rather cataclysmic events, too...if a tad bit more localized.

Hi triton,
Thank for brining up the YDB event, as it is one of the most influential events in human history, but it is not the source of "biblical flood stories", that would be the twin bronze age impacts of 3100 and 2200bc.

Here is an abstract from a paper published last year,

The Destruction of Akkad

Abstract. We focus on one of the most important events in human history, the 4.2 kiloyear event, when great civilisations around the world collapsed into anarchy and social chaos. From this moment on, climate cooling and widespread aridification began, lowering agricultural food production and human living conditions. Various hypotheses exist about its cause; the most promising approach links the 4.2 kiloyear event to a cosmic asteroid crash into Mesopotamia. The asteroid landed in a densely populated area; we examine at first major translations of preserved Sumerian documents on details and progression of this catastrophic event. We quote major impact features as observed by historical Sumerian eyewitnesses. The impact, as a full strike, eradicated the Imperial city of Akkad. The impact damaged all other Sumerian towns to different degrees. Based on our findings, we identify the location of the missing city of Akkad. We analyse the onset of global cooling and severe aridification in the framework of our cosmic climate footprint analysis for a selected 1,000 year timeframe. This footprint analysis of Holocene climate change affirms the occurrence and date of the impact event.
We also identify volcanic mega-­‐‑eruptions, which are responsible for multi-­‐‑decadal global temperature dips but which cannot cause centennial-­‐‑long climate changes.
The footprint analysis takes 5 climate macroforcings into account and explains global cooling and aridification based on impact-­‐‑related causes.

And other good sources for corroborating evidence

The 3rd millenia BC

abob.libs.uga.edu...

I would also suggest looking up Mike Baillies "Arthur to exodus" as it touches on the subject.

And
I recommend cosmictusk.com...
for YDB discussions, and one of Mike Baillie's co-authors has posted and commented on the status of their work.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
If you want to discuss those, please provide links. There is plenty of evidence to support a global flood, and many have discussed it. Hancock alone talks about all sorts of evidence, and he's not coming from a Christian viewpoint.

There is actually ZERO evidence of a global flood. What there is evidence for, is isolated floods at different time periods all over the planet. If you think there is all sorts of evidence, I'd like to see you post it. Thus far I haven't seen any aside from creationists lying and twisting the facts.

Don't forget the glacial period ending could also cause flash flooding, it may not just be an impact event, although I'd wager that both are true, hence the plentiful legends of floods. All geological evidence points to individual isolated floods, not worldwide.

The only evidence of a "global flood" is ancient myth, nothing more. Something like a global flood would have left a big and obvious geological footprint anywhere that we dug on the planet. This isn't the case, however, regardless of how badly folks want it to be true.

a reply to: Barcs
there was no global flood, but there were several episodes of catastrophic regional flooding.
The Maya( meso American in general) flood stories relate the YDB event as do many other native American stories, but not all. Some are from the catastrophic glacial floods of NA at the end of the ice and may or may not be related to the YDB event.
many of the old world stories, ie the biblical, Gilgamesh, the greek flood stories and such are from the bronze age impacts.

a reply to: Barcs

That's opinion, not science. Claiming that all creationists lie and twist the facts doesn't make it so. I could make the ame claim about evolutionists, and you'd call it a lie, so you have to do better than that.

Assuming that every old culture on earth has a global flood legend because they were all stupid and didn't know a bad flood from a worldwide one is arrogant. Just because people were ancient doesn't mean they were stupid. With all of the evidence of advanced capabilities in really ancient people, it's not even logical.

Can you admit that the only reason you don't accept a global flood as possible is because it's in a Bible story? If it was everywhere else and not in the Bible, I'd bet you would be far more willing to accept it.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Barcs

That's opinion, not science. Claiming that all creationists lie and twist the facts doesn't make it so. I could make the ame claim about evolutionists, and you'd call it a lie, so you have to do better than that.

It's an opinion informed by and supported by science though. The only thing supporting a global flood is ancient myths. Looking at the geology alone shatters it in 10 seconds or less.

Assuming that every old culture on earth has a global flood legend because they were all stupid and didn't know a bad flood from a worldwide one is arrogant.

And conversely, assuming that there was a global flood based on the limited frames of reference of ancient people is both ignorant and reeking of confirmation bias. The fact is, the only "evidence" and I loathe to use the term in this context, but the only thing that is used to support this global flood is the myths of ancient people. The fact
Of the matter though is that there is no confirmation of this anywhere in the geologic record anywhere in the world. If I were writing a paper and presenting it to publishers, I would have to have multiple corroborations supporting the science from more than one discipline and it would have to be capable of passing muster by having my data independently reproduced or corroborated. . You have to look at the context of relying on ancient flood myths as well. Most of the versions floating about the Fertile Crescent and Levant all share one point of origin so they really aren't different cultures or societies presenting corroborating account. All of the cultures presenting a flood myth had their societies based around important water sources. The Tigris and Euphrates, the Indus, the Nile are all prominent examples and these rivers flooded annually. Sometimes catastrophically and there were other events occurring in the region that added even more devastating events for these people. All it takes is one massive event and the resulting diaspora to spread a story far and wide. It doesn't make it global though.

Just because people were ancient doesn't mean they were stupid. With all of the evidence of advanced capabilities in really ancient people, it's not even logical.

Nobody is saying they were stupid. It doesn't mean though that Mesopotamians for example, were aware of geological events in Europe or North America. Their entire world, was the Fertile Crescent. So to them, the entire world would have flooded. That's not the same as an actual global flood event for which there is no evidence for outside of ancient Myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh which was the direct influence for Hebrew flood stories a la Noah. There's no argument at all about devastating periodic flood events that were localized to some of these cultures based around rivers where annual flooding was the source of their agricultural growth and that the resulting diasporas helped spread the stories. It's not the same as a singular world wide event though.

Can you admit that the only reason you don't accept a global flood as possible is because it's in a Bible story? If it was everywhere else and not in the Bible, I'd bet you would be far more willing to accept it.

I can't speak for Barcs but if there was any actual physical, scientific, geologic evidence to support the notion then there would be a conversation to be had. There isn't though.

Weather or not this story is the flood or not....

Is there any record of a cosmic event happening at the end of the younger dryas in any form anywhere around the world?

in my mind if it was a cosmic event someone would have said something along the lines of a giant light in the sky hit or passed by the earth an caused a bunch of crazy s*** to go down.

I'm assuming that's either drawn or written or part of an oral tradition somewhere.

a reply to: onequestion

There were a few events that would meet that criteria. Punkinworks links 2 a few posts above.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So... Noah was an astrologer, and saw it coming, and started collecting animals to inbreed?

a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks going to check it out later I love this topic.

originally posted by: peter vlar
It's an opinion informed by and supported by science though. The only thing supporting a global flood is ancient myths. Looking at the geology alone shatters it in 10 seconds or less.

Yet some geologists disagree. Not the majority, maybe, but some. And, really, when studying rocks, and trying to sort out very old events, there is some guesswork involved. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider various interpretations.

originally posted by: peter vlar
And conversely, assuming that there was a global flood based on the limited frames of reference of ancient people is both ignorant and reeking of confirmation bias. The fact is, the only "evidence" and I loathe to use the term in this context, but the only thing that is used to support this global flood is the myths of ancient people. The fact
Of the matter though is that there is no confirmation of this anywhere in the geologic record anywhere in the world. If I were writing a paper and presenting it to publishers, I would have to have multiple corroborations supporting the science from more than one discipline and it would have to be capable of passing muster by having my data independently reproduced or corroborated. . You have to look at the context of relying on ancient flood myths as well. Most of the versions floating about the Fertile Crescent and Levant all share one point of origin so they really aren't different cultures or societies presenting corroborating account. All of the cultures presenting a flood myth had their societies based around important water sources. The Tigris and Euphrates, the Indus, the Nile are all prominent examples and these rivers flooded annually. Sometimes catastrophically and there were other events occurring in the region that added even more devastating events for these people. All it takes is one massive event and the resulting diaspora to spread a story far and wide. It doesn't make it global though.

I have yet to hear an explanation that doesn't include a global flood for polystrate fossils. We don't see fossils forming today in lake beds, either. Clastic dikes present issues. There are other issues in other areas, too, that don't fit well in the traditional theories, that exclude a global flood.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Nobody is saying they were stupid. It doesn't mean though that Mesopotamians for example, were aware of geological events in Europe or North America. Their entire world, was the Fertile Crescent. So to them, the entire world would have flooded. That's not the same as an actual global flood event for which there is no evidence for outside of ancient Myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh which was the direct influence for Hebrew flood stories a la Noah. There's no argument at all about devastating periodic flood events that were localized to some of these cultures based around rivers where annual flooding was the source of their agricultural growth and that the resulting diasporas helped spread the stories. It's not the same as a singular world wide event though.

With all of the mounting evidence that people traveled a lot farther, a lot earlier, than previously thought, it's hard to believe that every culture in the world could share a global flood legend, and that ALL would be based on local floods. Such an assumption demands a lack of logical reasoning.

Can you admit that the only reason you don't accept a global flood as possible is because it's in a Bible story? If it was everywhere else and not in the Bible, I'd bet you would be far more willing to accept it.

originally posted by: peter vlar
I can't speak for Barcs but if there was any actual physical, scientific, geologic evidence to support the notion then there would be a conversation to be had. There isn't though.

Well, in your case, I can believe that. For a lot of folks, I suspect it's more about the religious implications than the science, though.

This seems plausible. Makes sense to me. It has my vote.

Now how this event worked its way into human folklore, myth, and/or religion is another topic but I can see how it could easily happen.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes


I have yet to hear an explanation that doesn't include a global flood for polystrate fossils. We don't see fossils forming today in lake beds, either. Clastic dikes present issues. There are other issues in other areas, too, that don't fit well in the traditional theories, that exclude a global flood.

Then you haven't looked very widely. This took me all of five minutes to find. I guess part of the problem is that the very term 'polystrate fossils' is not a geological term,but rather appears to be coined by Young Earth Global Flood Creationists:

Some creationist presentations include claims about "polystrate fossils". From the description, this term is used for fossils which intersect several beds (layers), usually in sedimentary rocks. Although often used in creationist literature, I have been unable to determine the origin of the term -- it is not a standard geological term. This makes it difficult for the uninitiated to find conventional literature about these fossils.

Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?

Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.

The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

More here

So, now you have an explanation that doesn't require a global flood....

There are also some good resources in the references of the wikipedia link here

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Creationists do lie and twist the facts. Not all of them, but the ones that post here and scream the loudest about evolution being wrong are guilty of that. The problem is that many folks just don't get their information about science from scientific sources, only propaganda based web sites.

I don't accept a global flood as possible because the evidence is not there. It has nothing to do with the bible. Again, geologists can detect events of that magnitude in the sedimentary layers. A global flood would leave a geological footprint noticeable in the layers everywhere on earth. Unfortunately, this does not exist. Most of the "evidence" you guys post here isn't evidence at all, they are merely misunderstandings of science, . Much like your "polystrate" fossils claim that was just debunked. That is a direct talking point from creationist web sites, not science.

The great flood and the Clovis impact i believe are two separate events and only lightly connected.

For the great flood i go with the ‎Black Sea deluge hypothesis

Here is another hypothesis of a younger dryas impact event.In relation to this event,I have dug down in my yard and have found a black ash layer at 11ft.


craterhunter.wordpress.com...