World wide Flood vs Local Flood

I have been asked to start my own thread, so I will.

Here is a link to one of my favorite web sites. They say that when it comes to biodiversity, the Philippines makes Darwin's islands look like the little league. You have to click on the arrow on the bottom of each page, to go onto the next page in the artical.

http://www.fmnh.org/vanishing_treasures/Origins_1.htm

Off shore oil exploration has showed us a few things. First of all, the world is a very different place today, then what it was 15,000 years ago, when the last ice age was beginning to come to a end. For one thing, the ocean level has gone up 300 to 400 feet. This means around 12,000 years ago, there was a lot of world wide flooding. At the same time land in the north that had been covered with ice was again becoming productive.

One interesting thing is the Philippines, is that the biodiversity of life seems to be based on a pre flood distribution. You will find two islands with 80% identical animal life on it. If you go back 12,000 years you will see that those islands, before the ocean level went up, were joined together as one island. Just as you will find islands in the Philippines where the animal and plant life is very different from the island right next to it. There you will find that those islands were never joined together, even before the world wide flood.

Next we look at modern Turkey and Armenia. Below is a map of that area. It is pretty easy to see that the area starts at a level of 2000 feet above sea level. They would not be effected by a 300 or 400 foot flood. Unless there was a natural land dam, that held the water in. By the eleveation map, you can see IF there was a natural land dam, then it is possible that the flood could have put the water level up around the 5000 feet needed to cover the top of the hills and to get Noahs ark up to the top of Mt Arafat.

The theory then is, that there was a natural land formation, that held back the melting water from the ice. But the force of the water became so powerful that the land formation melted and this area was hit with a very rapid and violent flood. Later when the water level went down, a pass had been opened up and for the first time the people from the east and the west could begin to go back and forth. This is when the trade roads between the east and the west first began to be established.

I predict that Frumious Bandersnatch will have something to say about this before the end of the first page.

But for now, have you read about an expedition to the Black Sea that found it had rapidly flooded the surrounding area--an area the size of Florida--about 7000 years ago? I went to a lecture a few month ago from the guy who conducted this expedition.

There's an article on it here: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/bl.../ax/frame.html

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by JohnR7

Next we look at modern Turkey and Armenia. Below is a map of that area. It is pretty easy to see that the area starts at a level of 2000 feet above sea level. They would not be effected by a 300 or 400 foot flood. Unless there was a natural land dam, that held the water in. By the eleveation map, you can see IF there was a natural land dam, then it is possible that the flood could have put the water level up around the 5000 feet needed to cover the top of the hills and to get Noahs ark up to the top of Mt Arafat.

Ararat is the highest feature around. There is nothing taller than Mt. Arrarat. So just where would this land dam be such that the release of the dam could get waters over Arrarat? The dam would have to be such that the valley behind it was higher than the top of Arrarat and I just don't see any such valley. Without that valley, the theory collapses.

For instance, if there is a dam between Arrarat and that 3050 m peak to the Southeast, when the dam broke all the lower right part of the map would be flooded but Mt. Arrarat would be above the floodwaters.


[/quote]

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

John, I just thought of something else. The glaciers were to the North, right? So the local flood would have been from north to south. Now, Noah lived south of Mt. Ararat, right?

OK, how does a flood flowing from the north manage to take an ark and push it toward north?

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

is there any evidence suggesting how long it took for that water levels to rise? i mean, if the water level took 1000 years to rise, i wouldn't call that a flood.

A lot of the flood water was underground. Noah lived to the northeast of Mt Ararat. The land of Eden was at the head or the beginning of four rivers, two of the rivers was the Euphrates and the Tigris river.

Right now Turkey is working on a 32 billion dollar project to build dams to harness the power from these two rivers.

The Bible says it took 40 days.

There would be no requirement to get the water above the level people were living at. Noah did not land at the very top of Ararat.

There were probably a lot of large local floods in the area during the neolithic wet period, 9,000-2,500 BC, but I rather doubt there was one with 5,000 feet of water. Is there geological evidence for such a thing? I also don't think the glacier from the last ice age made it quite that far south but I am not sure about that witout looking it up which I don't have time to do right now.

I don't think the Black Sea flood is right for a number of reasons since it is a bit early and perhaps it didn't fill fast enough. I don't have time to get a lot of references as I am going out of town for a few days tomorrow and have some preparations to make.

I think the Bible says the Ark landed in the Mountains of Ararat not on Mt. Ararat which didn't even get that name until much later IIRC.

the frumious

So, said region could have been flooded on a large scale, just not to the scale that is suggested in the OP?