Younger Dryas impact = Biblical Flood

a reply to: randyvs

The only problem with that randy is there is absolutely zero evidence for any type of singular global flood event that can be supported by geology and the geologic record. There were numerous, localized floods that have happened and will continue to happen long after everyone is dead. Could you perhaps explain to me why you believe that multiple regional and local floods, just like the ones we see to this day and will see far into the future, are less plausible than one singular, worldwide flood event. I'm not even going to get into any biblical literalism or the various interpretations of the original Hebrew scripture... I'm happy to leave it at the evidence against floods having happened all across the earth since the first dry land formed in a consistent fashion just as we continue to witness currently. You know I'm not trolling you or just busting your balls and that I'm genuinely trying to understand your take on this so if you will, please indulge me here and we can have an actual conversation.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

No problem with you and the way everyone else handles false claims Brother.
My concern comes from seeing the way you and others DIVIDE/DISSECT
what could actually be a global flood. And make it look like a bunch of
####ed up localized floods that if you employ logic. Are exactly more
impossible than the global flood you claim is impossible.

The biggest problem with a global flood scenario, is , as I mentioned earlier, is that there are places on the earth , where the ground's surface has not been exposed to water for millions of years , Atacama desert , or the surface has been exposed to the sun for more than 100k yrars, calico hills California.
So , if there was a supposed global flood , how do we account for such things.
How do we account for geological features, hundreds of thousands of years old , that show no interaction with water.
How do we account for caves , that have ample signs of human habitation , with no evidence for the intrusion of water, like the caves of the US great basin, that have dessicated remains of plants and seeds, dried hides and human remains ?
Explain that to me, many of these site's datings, bracket any proposed global flood event.

a reply to: punkinworks10
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't have all the answers by any means P. And I won't pretend
any conclusions. I'm merely pointing to the mistake I believe it is for
either side of the argument to make any conclusions at all. It's
simply wrong to discard accounts of a GF and see water reaching a
certain height locally. The sites that are found under the sea today
certainly got flooded at some point didn't they? I just think it's
wrong to claim a verdict when the jury is still out respectively
and respectfully Barcs.

a reply to: randyvs

They didn't happen at the same time. Geologists can date the floods. For a GLOBAL flood, you'd have to have a flood that affects every place in the world at the same time. Evidence of an event such as this doesn't exist. If the floods didn't date to different time periods, you'd have a point.

Sorry I thought by division you meant dividing people (ie divide and conquer).

Also I don't claim it's impossible, just highly improbable. I'm just saying there isn't geological evidence. The world actually likely was flooded at one point, but it was billions of years ago before the mountains were formed. The biblical claim states that all the mountain tops were covered, so that's a crapload of water that is unaccounted for.

a reply to: Barcs

I think this is as close as we're ever going to get to
an agreement. Shall we relish the moment?

originally posted by: randyvs


I don't have all the answers by any means P. And I won't pretend
any conclusions. I'm merely pointing to the mistake I believe it is for
either side of the argument to make any conclusions at all. It's
simply wrong to discard accounts of a GF and see water reaching a
certain height locally.

I think that where we are clashing here is a matter of context. I don't debate that many cultures across the world have stories of massive flood events. We still see horrendous floods today and they will continue far into the future as long as there is water so naturally, any massive flood that ends in a diaspora is going to seem as if their entire world was inundated by deluge. However, just because THEIR WORLD was inundated and destroyed, that doesn't equate with the actual entirety of the Earth being covered in water in one singular catastrophic event. Yes, cultures from every corner, nook and cranny (damn I want an English Muffin now) of the globe have suffered through, survived and written tales of these devastating floods. They even shared these stories with new friends they met along the way and found that their new friends had also suffered through some horrendous floods as well. But when we look at some context along the way we see a couple of things. First is that all of the big early civilizations were centered on and around large rivers, river valleys, river basins(you get the idea). The Mesopotamians were in the Fertile Cresent between the Tigris and Euphrates. The Indus Valley civ and pre Harappan culture was in the Indus Valley along the basin of the Indus River, In China their early civ was centered along the Yangtze, Egypt... the Nile, in the New World the Maya were centered around the Yucatan Peninsula and subject to devastating hurricanes and on and on... the one huge commonality with all of these flood myths is that the host civilizations were all centered around either massive river systems that were prone to seasonal flooding which allowed for the agriculture that propelled them forward but also occasionally devastated them or near the coastline of huge bodies of water in the New World(Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean or the Pacific on the other side). It's a given that from time to time there are going to be massive flood events.

The sites that are found under the sea today
certainly got flooded at some point didn't they? I just think it's
wrong to claim a verdict when the jury is still out respectively

What is the jury actually out on though? Floods can be dated pretty accurately and none of these known floods date from the same time period. There are parts of the world that as Punkinworks mentions, have never been under water for millions of years and there is no evidence of even multiple places in the world being inundated simultaneously. The largest possibilities would be the possible Black Sea inundation event which has the potential to have been a massive, off the charts event that would have lived on in the collective myths of a great deal of people who would have spread far and wide in the diaspora, or the potential non terrestrial/cometary/meteoric impact event( or was it more like Tunguska? I'm going off of memory and it's late lol) that took place at the tail end of the YD.

Definitely there were some very large events and they certainly became a part of the myths of many cultures after the fact. But also very definitely not a one time, world wide event. There would be a pretty staggering degree of evidence showing this and geologists would be able to make their entire careers off of the discovery if the data was there. I'm certainly open to being wrong and as always, if that data presented itself, I would follow it to the end and gleefully admit my errors and stubbornness because it would be a pretty exciting thing. Especially from the POV of Anthropology and how such a massive event impacted humanity as a whole. The evidence just isn't there to support such a contention though.

a reply to: peter vlar

In all that you've just written as cumalative knowledge, commands
respect. However, would it not be a fallacy to point to "civs" of
this world. And site their localized floods however ancient they
are pertaining to this world? When we're considering a text that
regardless of religious context. Does indeed give a dramatic,
detailed account of a world wide deluge? That ended a whole
other world before the world that has created this list of localized
floods? In that regard you could also point to every civ of this world.
And say they are proof there was no previous world?

nooks and crannies, nooks and crannies, nooks and crannies.


And your stubborness is appreciated cause I'd most likely
fall over dead if you just gave up and agreed with me.

a reply to: randyvs

Always go for the hard evidence.
Geologically, you are not going to find any that supports a global flood.
Localised/regional, sure, but global. Nada.
There is more evidence for a global 'snowball' Earth than any for a global flood.

There is no evidence for an antideluvian civilisation because there is no evidence for a global flood.

Cheers though, the wine tonight is good.

a reply to: aorAki

Cheers though, the wine tonight is good.

Then it's time for for a refill here in so.cal.

Ahh! That's better.

Believe me, the last thing I think I'm going to do is convince any
of you gents. And in a way that's a good thing as I see it.

a reply to: randyvs
I'll take mine distilled, thank you.

a reply to: Phage

Coming right up sir!

Might as well just get ploughed!

The point I was trying to make, Was the younger dryas impact event could have increased sea levels "globally" by tens of feet over night. If not a hundreds over a short time frame.

With 90% of the worlds population at the time being along the ocean. This would of effected MANY globally.

This could account for many different groups of people, world wide, reporting a flood at relatively the same time.
Queue --> (global flood)

Not literally encapsulating the planet in water.

But this event "could" have pushed some aspiring tribes to build higher in the mountains. (Machu picchu) is a good example.