Local Flood

[Loudmouth]

How did it rain 40 days in Mesopotamia and not one drop landed in Egypt?

For the same reason it rains 100+ inches a year in Portland but only 15 inches a year in Boise, ID, only 400 miles away.

 

[GodsSamus]

For the same reason it rains 100+ inches a year in Portland but only 15 inches a year in Boise, ID, only 400 miles away.

The rain of the Flood had to be global. Otherwise, why would we have 270 surviving flood legends?

 

[Dark_Lite]

The rain of the Flood had to be global. Otherwise, why would we have 270 surviving flood legends?

Then there's the cultures who have no such legend at all.... coughegyptcough

 

[notto]

The rain of the Flood had to be global. Otherwise, why would we have 270 surviving flood legends?

Yep, no local floods anywhere ever. Not now, not earlier, and especially not along coastal areas or river flood plains where early civilizations are likely to take hold and live.

 

[GodsSamus]

Then there's the cultures who have no such legend at all.... coughegyptcough

You're right. Some cultures don't. However, many tribes had such legends even before missionaries got to the tribes.

 

[GodsSamus]

Yep, no local floods anywhere ever. Not now, not earlier, and especially not along coastal areas or river flood plains where early civilizations are likely to take hold and live.

I know why there are no flood legends about a local flood. They are such a common occurence, it wasn't worth making a legend about a local flood. Now a GLOBAL FLOOD would make a legendary story.

 

[Ryal Kane]

I know why there are no flood legends about a local flood. They are such a common occurence, it wasn't worth making a legend about a local flood. Now a GLOBAL FLOOD would make a legendary story.

So the fact that floods are common in civilisations are a sign that any story of a flood would have to be a global flod rather than just a small one?
Great logic.
So the fact that many cultures had plagues must mean that myths about plagues would have to be spectacular global plagues otherwise they wouldn't have made myths about them? And any wars would have to be spectacular global wars otherwise they would have just been too common to write about.

 

[A4C]

There is evidence of a world wide devsetating flood all over the world. It is an insult by the scientific world to virtually say "OK so you say there was a big flood OK we will let you have one but it was only a local one around the Black Sea "
Thank you all the same scientific community but we are not interested in your crumbs

 

[Elduran]

There is evidence of a world wide devsetating flood all over the world. It is an insult by the scientific world to virtually say "OK so you say there was a big flood OK we will let you have one but it was only a local one around the Black Sea "
Thank you all the same scientific community but we are not interested in your crumbs

You should go and tell the egyptians that their history is wrong... While you're at it, tell the geologists that you know more about their field than they do. After all, they must have missed all this evidence you seem to think is abundant!

Or maybe you'd like to retract your statement about there being evidence in yuor favour? After all, with no scientific evidence whatsoever for a flood, but plenty for a much longer existance than you are willing to admit, there are only 2 explanations:

1. God is a trickster.

2. The story is allegorical.

 

[A4C]

You should go and tell the egyptians that their history is wrong... While you're at it, tell the geologists that you know more about their field than they do. After all, they must have missed all this evidence you seem to think is abundant!

Or maybe you'd like to retract your statement about there being evidence in yuor favour? After all, with no scientific evidence whatsoever for a flood, but plenty for a much longer existance than you are willing to admit, there are only 2 explanations:

1. God is a trickster.

2. The story is allegorical.

Can you explain why there is no sediment layers on the east coast of US and there is massive even mile thick sediment on the west coast. In view of the slight but measurable shift in the earths mass distribution as a result of the asian sunami what shift in earths equilibriun might have been caused by an event that caused the US phenomena.
Was that event a world flood perhaps?
Is there scentific evidence to proove otherwise?

 

[notto]

Can you explain why there is no sediment layers on the east coast of US and there is massive even mile thick sediment on the west coast.

http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/bight/coastal.html

Can you tell us on what basis you are claiming that there are no sediment layers on the east coast o the US?

 

[A4C]

http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/bight/coastal.html

Can you tell us on what basis you are claiming that there are no sediment layers on the east coast o the US?

Can you show me where the "column " is represented there

 

[A4C]

Man, I feel sorry for you poor guys trying to pretend your fantasy of a global flood is real. You're just so disconnected from reality. You're like Star Wars fans who argue with other fans about minutia as if Lucas' universe were real. Get a life.

I have all the Life I need. Do you?

 

[Elduran]

Can you explain why there is no sediment layers on the east coast of US and there is massive even mile thick sediment on the west coast. In view of the slight but measurable shift in the earths mass distribution as a result of the asian sunami what shift in earths equilibriun might have been caused by an event that caused the US phenomena.
Was that event a world flood perhaps?
Is there scentific evidence to proove otherwise?

I'd be quite surprised if there were NO sediment layers on the east coast of the USA. However, since all the fossils were somehow laid down in the flood according to your supposition, could you explain the sorting of the fossils and the different strata supposedly laid down all at the same time. Could you also identify which (if any) layers were present BEFORE the flood, and also explain the differences in radiometric based ages of those layers.

Thanks

 

[notto]

Can you show me where the "column " is represented there

http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/bight/units.html

Now, lets remember your claim and again I'll ask, on what do you base your claim. What source did you read that told you this. What book on geology led you to this conclusion. You seem to be unfamiliar with geology (by your own admission) so what source have you used to become familiar enough with the geology of the east and west cost to make it.

Can you explain why there is no sediment layers on the east coast of US . . .

 

[A4C]

I'd be quite surprised if there were NO sediment layers on the east coast of the USA. However, since all the fossils were somehow laid down in the flood according to your supposition, could you explain the sorting of the fossils and the different strata supposedly laid down all at the same time. Could you also identify which (if any) layers were present BEFORE the flood, and also explain the differences in radiometric based ages of those layers.

Thanks

All the sediment/fossils WERE NOT laid down at the same time. There were many days of rain and many factors would determine what/who perished during that time. Add to this the complete upheval of a massive receeding of water taking a further amount of time where previously laid down sediment would be re distributed. Now with such flow of massive ammounts of water and silt (as with the sunami) would have effect on the equilibrium of the earths mass would it not . Do you think this could account for the unequal distribution of sediment in the US . Well I do . And perhaps other features as well .
It is easy to see what is the "base" level of this earth . Does it concern you at all that above this level there is a mass if species that just seem to appear without any sign of them evolving. Why you would want to hold onto such a floored "doctrine " when there is so much evidence that tries to "prove" it right only tends to highlight how ridiculus it is.

 

[A4C]

http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/bight/coastal.html

Can you tell us on what basis you are claiming that there are no sediment layers on the east coast o the US?

My point is are there huge sedimentry layers on the east coast as there are on the west or are some sea creature fossils sufficient to convince me that there is no substance in what I am saying? I think not. Now give me some substantive evidence if you think I am wrong.

 

[notto]

My point is are there huge sedimentry layers on the east coast as there are on the west or are some sea creature fossils sufficient to convince me that there is no substance in what I am saying? I think not. Now give me some substantive evidence if you think I am wrong.

Actually, it would be up to you to support your claim. On what basis do you make the claim? What is the source of your information about the geology of the east coast? You stated that there are no sediment layers there. Give us sustantive evidence that there are no sediment layers there if you think you are right.

You need to start supporting your claims with the references from which you made them.

Otherwise, as I will demonstrate here, all I have to say to refute you is that there are sediment layers on the east coast. Now, give me some substantive evidence if you think I am wrong.

You also seem to be asserting something that we would not assume is correct. You are suggesting that we should expect the same amount of layers on the east coast as the west coast. A little thing called glaciers made sure that was not the case. Now, since you know so much about the geology of the east coast, did your source for your claim mention glaciation and its affect on the east coast?

 

[Elduran]

All the sediment/fossils WERE NOT laid down at the same time. There were many days of rain and many factors would determine what/who perished during that time. Add to this the complete upheval of a massive receeding of water taking a further amount of time where previously laid down sediment would be re distributed.

So, all at the same time, if we take the same time in geological terms to be a few years. Now please explain why the layers that were all supposedly laid down in this time have vastly different ages according to radiometric dating (which is what I actually asked and you neatly avoided). In addition, a vast upheaval of sediment would not lead to the extremely well-defined strata that we observe in the rock layers, instead you would have very obvious overlaps due to sediment mixing at the surface before solidification could take place (which, by the way, is a very long term process).

Now with such flow of massive ammounts of water and silt (as with the sunami) would have effect on the equilibrium of the earths mass would it not .

No.

Do you think this could account for the unequal distribution of sediment in the US . Well I do .

Presumably basing this on absolutely nothing, even if you could demonstrate that the "equilibrium of the earth's mass" was somehow altered.

And perhaps other features as well .

Do elaborate. After all, this is amusing me in a weird "can't quite believe you said that" way.

It is easy to see what is the "base" level of this earth . Does it concern you at all that above this level there is a mass if species that just seem to appear without any sign of them evolving.

Because before then there was no life suitable for fossilisation. Just a wild stab in the dark, but wow, it makes sense!

Why you would want to hold onto such a floored "doctrine " when there is so much evidence that tries to "prove" it right only tends to highlight how ridiculus it is.

Do you have any idea how much you deserve this picture:

 

[jsw_24]

Man, I feel sorry for you poor guys trying to pretend your fantasy of a global flood is real. You're just so disconnected from reality. You're like Star Wars fans who argue with other fans about minutia as if Lucas' universe were real. Get a life.

It's easy to see how Seminoles fans misconstrue the concept of God when their quaterback claims HE is God. ..."Get a life." Seriously grandpa.