There has been no great flood...

At least not how i see it..but i have been known to be wrong lol

This is my theory..
try to prove it wrong or add to what i might have missed.


we all know at one time salt water covered the content's.
that's why we have the great lake's in Michigan...
Science say's it's from ice during the ice age....but ask yourself...do fish or there egg's live in ice? NOPE

there was apparently a massive change in how earth was gonna look.
there was probably city's like primitive culture's and so on.
it would have been in the area of africa as all mitochondrial dna says we are from africa.
it was just one giant land mass.
so we would have all been in a group as we do now..not here there and everywhere..it would be safer for us in a pack.

for some reason the land mass sunk we all lived on.
and the new land mass we live on rises from the water's.
then later split apart..to make all the continents we live on today.
and we start the history we know today.

www.allaboutcreation.org...
Fossil remains of clams (found in the closed position, indicating they were buried alive) have been found atop Mt. Everest. Sedimentary layers and fossil remains seem to be a testimony to a past marine cataclysm

don't confuse a flood with new land mass's rising from the depth's.

www.spiritofmaat.com...
According to marine scientists in India, archaeological remains of this lost city have been discovered 36 metres (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India. And carbon dating says that they are 9,500 years old.

But the point of my theory is to help other's look outside the box some.

So far the only explanation's for all of the event's is ..
A=Ice age
B = Great flood

Why not the land mass's we live on today raised and others where are oldest living relatives lived sunk to be forgotten by history?

Ps i am not saying all land mass we know today sunk..some survived or we wouldn't be here today.
but it would have been a smaller area until the other's raised..

i am very unorthodox in my method of trying to describe this..so if you can please try to decipher what i am trying conveying and not be to harse i would appreciate it
.



[edit on 30-4-2010 by TheAmused]

What you wrote may be interesting, but it's very difficult to understand, at least to me.

I don't understand more than half of what you wrote.

Could you please rewrite it in a "for dummies" way? Thanks in advance.

I find when someone wants to post or reply to a controversial discussion but immediately starts lacing their post with "lol" symbols that I get immediately turned off. I say believe what you believe and have the decency to respect other people's beliefs without trying to dismiss those beliefs with comedy and Daily Show type rhetoric.

I also agree with ArMaP that what you are trying to say is very difficult to understand.

reply to post by TheAmused
There hasn't been a great flood. The 'flood' is represented in myths across the world. There's an extensive record here (Flood Myths).

Over time, people tend to settle in fertile areas that are good for agriculture and wildlife...coastlines and rivers. Most modern cities have a long history and are found on the banks of rivers or near the coast. Rather than a 'great flood,' I believe the flood myths are based on oral histories of transient flood events. These events were localised/ regional.

In this sense, flood myths are likely truthful in origin, but almost entirely distinct from each other.

Edit for clarity



[edit on 30-4-2010 by Kandinsky]

Every piece of evidence for your theory can be explained by changing climates brought on by ice ages (rivers being formed by melting glacial ice connecting what would later become lakes to the sea briefly)and by the continental drift theory (i.e. Pangaea)

Continental drift explains the vast separation of similar fossil remains, sea creature remains on top of mountains (as whenever tectonic plates meet they thrust up their edges and turn into mountain ranges), and even lakes that were once connected to the sea by estuaries and waterways becoming landlocked over time.

I’m sorry, but I think these widely accepted theories kind of make your proposal of a new one kind of moot.

A for effort though!

Edit for spelling...

[edit on 30-4-2010 by USAFJetTech]

Sorry there has been a great flood.
There is evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Sorry there has been a great flood.
There is evidence to back it up.

Generaly a statement like this is then followed by some attempt to present said "evidence".
...And then those of us who are scientifically minded "try" to disprove it

And then someone quotes scripture.
...and then this devolves into every other thread that questioned the validity of a biblical history here on ATS