Scientific proof of flood.

[leccy]

You misunderstood the intension of my question.

If there is no credible evidence for or against the site in the scientific communities opnion, then it is the duty of the scientific community to go and prove it one way or another.

Say what?

That isn't the way that things work. If a claim is made it is up to the person making the claim to support that claim with evidence- real evidence, not the nonsense that we've seen presented in that IIDB thread. The onus is on the one making the claim to "prove" that their claim is valid, by virtue of publication in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. That collection of incorrectly interpreted claptrap, with no visible support, would be rejected by any reputable journal. It has more holes in it than the Ark in Edgar Marriott's monologue.

Doesn't the fact that you could give no data disproving the site bother you.

If you had read the thread you would see that I had provided in the thread an independent analysis by a real geologist- Prof Lorence Collins- whose analyses refute the interpretation placed on certain key aspects of the Ark claim.

To leave it to an armature and then criticize him is hypocritical.

Hypocritical on whose part? As I've posted above I'm informed that Turkish geologists, American geologists and Australian geologists have all examined the site and concluded that it is not an ancient ship.

You can read Lorence Collins refutation of the Ark site here

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html

Don't we claim to be guided by logic and information collection instead of emotion?

Are we scientists or anti-religious-fanatics that allow our social agenda to dominate our thoughts.

Sorry, another irony meter broken. I'm going to have to stop coming here, I cannot afford to keep replacing them at this rate.

The evidence is strong enough to warrant a documented investigation.

If it is the Ark, fine, parts of the Bible have been proven correct before and the world did not end.

Also the investigation should not be done by someone with an agenda from either side.

More then the Ark, I think our reputation as scientists is at stake here.

Our reputation? Are you a scientist then?

 

[duordi]

but we're talking about varves, so this is totally irrelevant. you did not answer my question at all. why would tides produce varves when we never see them doing that?

Did we look?

Duane

 

[leccy]

Did we look?

Duane

Yes we looked.

Tidal deposits are well known and are well described in the geological literature. The type of process that you are describing produces tidal bundles and drapes of mud in tidal deposits - these are not varves.

Google for tidal deposits and you'll find enough reading to keep you going for years.

The fundamental problem with using your model to describe the features we see in sedimentary rocks in terms of a global flood is that, even if it were correct and the individual couplets were of tidal origin, producing a diurnal pattern, the vast number of these in the examples given are simply impossible to fit into a flood year by the very process that you are advocating. As I stated above that is setting aside all of the other sedimentary rocks which YECs attribute to that flood and the internal inconsistency in the YEC account that there was only 40 days of rain in which to have that variation in rainfall.

The numbers simply don't add up on the most basic level, surely you can see that?

 

[duordi]

Yes we looked.

Tidal deposits are well known and are well described in the geological literature. The type of process that you are describing produces tidal bundles and drapes of mud in tidal deposits - these are not varves.

The tidal varve is not an ocean bottom sediment.

The tidal varve is caused by the cyclical rush of water into and out of a lake due to tidal water level changes.

The inrush causes sediment rich water to rush into a lake system.

The lake experiences minimal turbulence during the out rush and mid tide condition.

During low turbulent conditions first larger particles of sand etc. settle out and then smaller particles of clay etc. settle.

This condition causes layered varves.

Google for tidal deposits and you'll find enough reading to keep you going for years.

How true.

The fundamental problem with using your model to describe the features we see in sedimentary rocks in terms of a global flood is that, even if it were correct and the individual couplets were of tidal origin, producing a diurnal pattern, the vast number of these in the examples given are simply impossible to fit into a flood year by the very process that you are advocating.

As I stated above that is setting aside all of the other sedimentary rocks which YECs attribute to that flood and the internal inconsistency in the YEC account that there was only 40 days of rain in which to have that variation in rainfall.

If you have a problem with YEC you should contact them as I would prefer not to have to speck for someone else.

As to the length of the flood, it lasted much longer then a year.

The Bible record indicates the tips of the mountains and the Ark landing at a very high elevation.

The flood was not over because the Earth was still covered by water except for a few mountain peaks.

Depending on how you define the end of the flood you could say we are still in the flood based on the underwater pyramid discovery, as it would appear the water level may never receed to the preflood level.

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/japan/japan.html

It could take hundreds of years for a varve record to be created as the ocean water level slowly receded from a depressed area forming a lake.

The numbers simply don't add up on the most basic level, surely you can see that?

Here is a quote of the math.

Which part is incorrect?

"The tidal effect would cause a varve to form twice a day ( two cycles in a 24 hour peroid )

Assuming of course the ocean had enough disruption to provide the proper sediment creation.

365 days x 2 cycles per day = 730 varves per year.

260,000 varves would take

260,000 varves / 730 varves per year = 357 years.

Of course varves would be caused by yearly cycles or rains etc. before and after the flood water level cause tidal varves.

The best varves would occur in a lake surrounded by high elevated edges with small inlets to enhance the sediment relocation."

Have you ever considered that your disagreement with the flood is not a scientific disagreement, but the reluctance to accept the possibility that God could exist, and that He may not consider it beyond His right to tamper in the affairs of man kind?

Duane

 

[caravelair]

Did we look?

Duane

yes i did look at your link. it has nothing to do with varves, and it has nothing to do with tides either. seems 100% irrelevant to me. we're talking about varves here, remember?

 

[leccy]

The tidal varve is not an ocean bottom sediment.

The tidal varve is caused by the cyclical rush of water into and out of a lake due to tidal water level changes.

The inrush causes sediment rich water to rush into a lake system.

The lake experiences minimal turbulence during the out rush and mid tide condition.

During low turbulent conditions first larger particles of sand etc. settle out and then smaller particles of clay etc. settle.

This condition causes layered varves.

You are describing the process responsible for creating tidal bundles and paired mud drapes in, for instance, coastal tidal lake or lagoonal environments. Most earth scientists would refer to such deposits as tidal rhythmites rather than varves.

You might find the odd one who uses the term varve to just mean paired laminae without an annual component and indeed there is a paper here that attributes a cyclicity to those laminae that is consistent with with a tidal control on their thickness

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/32/4/329

Interesting stuff, but I don't see where it makes a substantial difference in recognition of banded sediments that don't take a year for each pair of laminae to form. We know that banded rhymites occur in tidal environments and that depending on which is the locally dominant tide, the ebb tide or the flood tide, that sediment bodies will develop landward or seaward of a tidal inlet as ebb and flood tidal deltas. Hence my earlier referring you to google to search for information on tidal deposits.

Or are you claiming that all varves are attributable to tidal action, all lakes are tidal and each pair represents one ebb-flow cycle in all cases?

If you have a problem with YEC you should contact them as I would prefer not to have to speck for someone else.

As to the length of the flood, it lasted much longer then a year.

Really? This is the first time I have ever seen anyone make that claim.

The Bible record indicates the tips of the mountains and the Ark landing at a very high elevation.

The flood was not over because the Earth was still covered by water except for a few mountain peaks.

What's all that in Genesis 8:13 about then?

And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

A literal reading of that indicates just over a year for the duration of the flood doesn't it?

Depending on how you define the end of the flood you could say we are still in the flood based on the underwater pyramid discovery, as it would appear the water level may never receed to the preflood level.

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/japan/japan.html

You mean in a similar manner that we are currently in an interglacial? That's an even newer claim. I certainly haven't heard that one before, that we are still in the flood.

Are those really underwater pyramids? How can you tell from those pictures?

It could take hundreds of years for a varve record to be created as the ocean water level slowly receded from a depressed area forming a lake.


Here is a quote of the math.

Which part is incorrect?

"The tidal effect would cause a varve to form twice a day ( two cycles in a 24 hour peroid )

Assuming of course the ocean had enough disruption to provide the proper sediment creation.

365 days x 2 cycles per day = 730 varves per year.

260,000 varves would take

260,000 varves / 730 varves per year = 357 years.

This is the part that is incorrect in ascribing these deposits to a single global flood as described in the Bible. It is incorrect because

a. the global flood described in the Biblical account of the flood didn't last for 357 years

and

b. the sediments described represent a tiny proportion of the amount of sediment on the globe, so that even if a global flood lasting 358 years was involved you would still have to deposit all of the sediments above and below this particular interval.

Have you ever considered that your disagreement with the flood is not a scientific disagreement, but the reluctance to accept the possibility that God could exist, and that He may not consider it beyond His right to tamper in the affairs of man kind?

Duane

No it isn't. My disagreement with the flood is based on the evidence present in the sedimentary record being incompatible with this having been formed by a year long global flood.

 

[duordi]

You are describing the process responsible for creating tidal bundles and paired mud drapes in, for instance, coastal tidal lake or lagoonal environments. Most earth scientists would refer to such deposits as tidal rhythmites rather than varves.

You might find the odd one who uses the term varve to just mean paired laminae without an annual component and indeed there is a paper here that attributes a cyclicity to those laminae that is consistent with with a tidal control on their thickness

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/32/4/329

Interesting stuff, but I don't see where it makes a substantial difference in recognition of banded sediments that don't take a year for each pair of laminae to form. We know that banded rhymites occur in tidal environments and that depending on which is the locally dominant tide, the ebb tide or the flood tide, that sediment bodies will develop landward or seaward of a tidal inlet as ebb and flood tidal deltas. Hence my earlier referring you to google to search for information on tidal deposits.

Or are you claiming that all varves are attributable to tidal action, all lakes are tidal and each pair represents one ebb-flow cycle in all cases?

Of course not.

My intend was to contend your suggestion that the existence of varves prove the flood didn’t happen, not to prove the flood did happen.

If I were to attempt to prove the flood did happen I would choose a more easily proven topic.

Really? This is the first time I have ever seen anyone make that claim.

What's all that in Genesis 8:13 about then?

A literal reading of that indicates just over a year for the duration of the flood doesn't it?

You mean in a similar manner that we are currently in an interglacial? That's an even newer claim. I certainly haven't heard that one before, that we are still in the flood.

Geneses 7

[20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.



Geneses 8

[2] The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
[3] And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

So the water receded 15 cubits in 150 days.

Thats 10 cubits per day.

Geneses 8

[4] And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

The Ark landed on a mountain.

There are plateaus at 10,000 feet.

[5] And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Three months after the Ark came to rest on something visual observation of mountain peaks were seen.

[13] And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

Three more months and the ground around the Ark was dry.

There is no indications about the level of the oceans at this point.

Unless you are assuming the text means there was no water left on Earth.

When the text said "and, behold, the face of the ground was dry."

I have always taken this to mean that land around the Ark was dry and the receding waters lowered slowly as the pattern of the text indicates.

But that the oceans still existed and the ocean surface level was not given.

Are those really underwater pyramids? How can you tell from those pictures?

You have the same information I have. The find is new and with the effort that is being given it should not take long for all the information to be documented but from the pictures it sure looks man made to me.

This is the part that is incorrect in ascribing these deposits to a single global flood as described in the Bible. It is incorrect because

a. the global flood described in the Biblical account of the flood didn't last for 357 years

and

b. the sediments described represent a tiny proportion of the amount of sediment on the globe, so that even if a global flood lasting 358 years was involved you would still have to deposit all of the sediments above and below this particular interval.

A. I disagree with you on the length of the flood duration and consider the current ocean water level at this time to be higher then the preflood condition. That is how I would explain the underwater city.

B. Good point, but only sediments containing fossil material as I hold to the idea that the Earth existed before the first day an unknown time period.

And 6000 years - 358 years is still a long time to create other rock structures.

The 358 year tidal varve would happen at different historical times depending on the elevation.

Elevation at 10,000 feet may happen in Noah’s time.

Elevation at the present sea level would be happening now.

I also would expect the ocean level has reached equilibrium by now.

No it isn't. My disagreement with the flood is based on the evidence present in the sedimentary record being incompatible with this having been formed by a year long global flood.

You may consider the comment about your beliefs a complement.

I would not have asked the question if I had not expected your reasoning to be logic based.

As always your posts have been changeling and informative.

And I might add you have the most "literal" Bible translation opinions I have ever heard from an Agnostic. ( This too was intended as a complement. )

Duane

 

[leccy]

Of course not.

My intend was to contend your suggestion that the existence of varves prove the flood didn’t happen, not to prove the flood did happen.

If I were to attempt to prove the flood did happen I would choose a more easily proven topic.

Just for the record I never made that contention, you are mixing me up with someone else.

You have the same information I have. The find is new and with the effort that is being given it should not take long for all the information to be documented but from the pictures it sure looks man made to me.

A. I disagree with you on the length of the flood duration and consider the current ocean water level at this time to be higher then the preflood condition. That is how I would explain the underwater city.

So your model would be that the underwater city represents a pre-flood civilisation, inundated by flood waters and remaining beneath those flood waters at the present day. At the same time as this underwater city is sitting undisturbed on the sea bed the entire volume of fossiliferous sediments around the globe are deposited, hundreds of thousands of cubic kilometers of them, young mountain ranges such as the Himalaya being formed in such sediments, yet the underwater city is preserved unscathed and uncovered.

Talking of underwater pyramids, how do the subaerial pyramids in Egypt fit into this model. Were they built pre or post-flood?

B. Good point, but only sediments containing fossil material as I hold to the idea that the Earth existed before the first day an unknown time period.

That now establishes that your belief is that all fossiliferous sedimentary rocks date from the time of the flood or later. Does that include microfossils, such as fossil bacteria, or just macrofossils? If "all creatures great and small" is the truth then there doesn't appear to be any theological reason to disbar bacteria from consideration as fossil material.

And 6000 years - 358 years is still a long time to create other rock structures.

It's a time during which a fair bit of surficial sedimentation can occur undoubtedly- as largely uncondolidated sediment plus more substantial and much harder volcanic rocks. These deposits are being formed today and can be observed forming today. They do represent the tiniest smear on the crust of the Earth however and don't contribute very much at all to the overall volume of the crust.

The 358 year tidal varve would happen at different historical times depending on the elevation.

Elevation at 10,000 feet may happen in Noah’s time.

Elevation at the present sea level would be happening now.

I also would expect the ocean level has reached equilibrium by now.

That isn't the case. We have good evidence from coastal onlap data that global sea level through geological time has been both up and down many times relative to present day, not just once. If the underwater city you linked to before proves to be man made then the substantially rise in global sea level since the last Ice age provides a possible mechanism for flooding that city. Given it's location close to Okinawa however an alternative explanation would be that the platform it is sitting on went down, rather than the sea rose up- it's rather tectonically active in that area. As you said, it's early days yet on analysing that particular structure.

You may consider the comment about your beliefs a complement.

I would not have asked the question if I had not expected your reasoning to be logic based.

As always your posts have been changeling and informative.

And I might add you have the most "literal" Bible translation opinions I have ever heard from an Agnostic. ( This too was intended as a complement. )

Duane

Thanks for the compliments.

The literality of the Bible quotes that I posted are really for illustrative purposes. If Christians are going to use the Bible literally as evidence in construction of their models of how the world works around them then I think it's important that they at least try to do that consistently, however much I disagree with the models created.

Leccy

 

[duordi]

Just for the record I never made that contention, you are mixing me up with someone else.

[/font]

That may be true but at the same time it is simply to time consuming to modify a post into several forms in response to multiple question.

I may require some grace on this point.

So your model would be that the underwater city represents a pre-flood civilisation, inundated by flood waters and remaining beneath those flood waters at the present day. At the same time as this underwater city is sitting undisturbed on the sea bed the entire volume of fossiliferous sediments around the globe are deposited, hundreds of thousands of cubic kilometers of them, young mountain ranges such as the Himalaya being formed in such sediments, yet the underwater city is preserved unscathed and uncovered.

Just because a hurricane hits one part of the world doesn’t mean it hits another part.

Talking of underwater pyramids, how do the subaerial pyramids in Egypt fit into this model. Were they built pre or post-flood?

I would reserve the right to date each item based on the evidence as I would assume you would also.

We may disagree however on the assumptions used to interpret the evidence as is our prerogative.

That now establishes that your belief is that all fossiliferous sedimentary rocks date from the time of the flood or later. Does that include microfossils, such as fossil bacteria, or just macrofossils? If "all creatures great and small" is the truth then there doesn't appear to be any theological reason to disbar bacteria from consideration as fossil material.

No not after the flood only.

I would contend that life started during a literal creation week of 6 days and life as we know it did not exist before this time, although I have no Bible text that states this.

That is why some hold to a gap theory.

Unfortunately some topics must be indicated as a notion with out factual basis.

All fossils therefore ( based on my notion) would come from this time duration of 6000 to 7000 years.

This time duration is given because there is no specific lineage with years given after the flood to the present time so any date is based on assumptions.

Origin of non fossil rocks have no time limit as the Earth existed before the first day

Gen 1:2

It is possible to form sediment with billion year old sand clay etc. and new fossils which would play havoc with the dating.

It's a time during which a fair bit of surficial sedimentation can occur undoubtedly- as largely uncondolidated sediment plus more substantial and much harder volcanic rocks. These deposits are being formed today and can be observed forming today. They do represent the tiniest smear on the crust of the Earth however and don't contribute very much at all to the overall volume of the crust.

That isn't the case. We have good evidence from coastal onlap data that global sea level through geological time has been both up and down many times relative to present day, not just once. If the underwater city you linked to before proves to be man made then the substantially rise in global sea level since the last Ice age provides a possible mechanism for flooding that city. Given it's location close to Okinawa however an alternative explanation would be that the platform it is sitting on went down, rather than the sea rose up- it's rather tectonically active in that area. As you said, it's early days yet on analysing that particular structure.

I have no proof that either of these did not happen, but then again I have not spent any time thinking about the process.

It may be that the structures found were built after the flood.

I know that carbon 14 dates are affected by sea water, which would give some uncertainty in any dates given.

It would be logical that the water level would lower if the poles accumulated snow and ice but at the same time I have always considered that the continents raised and the ocean floor sank causing the water to run off to the oceans after the flood.

Considering the surface of the Earth as perfectly solid and fixed is wishful thinking, on a scale the size of the polar ice caps but it would certainly be true to some extent.

Thanks for the compliments.

The literality of the Bible quotes that I posted are really for illustrative purposes. If Christians are going to use the Bible literally as evidence in construction of their models of how the world works around them then I think it's important that they at least try to do that consistently, however much I disagree with the models created.

And indeed we should be.



Duane

 

[Girl_4_God]

I KNOW God made the word and I KNOW that the flood really happened and I KNOW that what Kent Hovind says is true I KNOW God preformes miricals I KNOW God is in control of EVERYTHING I KNOW all this because I read Gods word. The bible is the best book you could read or have. And if you would just read your bible you could KNOW too!

Jenny

 

[Girl_4_God]

Most people here are very familiar with Kent Hovind and all the laughable lies he tells. He's a bad joke.

If you really want to learn about evolution go to real sources of information. You might begin here.

btw did you know that millions of Christians accept evolution? You don't have to stop believing in God or the bible to accept good science.

The only sorce of information I need to know about the beginning of the world is the BIBLE. If evolution is "GOOD SCIENCE" than I would rather believe "BAD SCIENCE" since it IS the truth.

Jenny

 

[Girl_4_God]

This is true.



This is not. Still, if you'd like to sing Kent's praises, I suggest you start a new thread. It will be enthusiastically received, I promise.

Kent Hovind is a good Christian Scientist. He is telling the truth! Try reading your bible you'll find answers.

Jenny

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I KNOW God made the word and I KNOW that the flood really happened and I KNOW that what Kent Hovind says is true I KNOW God preformes miricals I KNOW God is in control of EVERYTHING I KNOW all this because I read Gods word. The bible is the best book you could read or have. And if you would just read your bible you could KNOW too!

Jenny

Then why are you here? I mean, if you already KNOW everything.

 

[corvus_corax]

Kent Hovind is a good Christian Scientist. He is telling the truth! Try reading your bible you'll find answers.
Jenny

Even AnswersinGenesis considers many of Hovind's arguments to be something to avoid at all costs.
You can see their Arguments we think Creationists should NOT use for yourself.

HERE is a short page addressing some of the issues that people have with Hovind.

I mean this with no confrontation or meaness of spirit....check out the other side of the Hovind equation before you start believing everything he has to say.

 

[Arikay]

I suspect post and run but just incase it isn't a complete run,
http://www.christianforums.com/t796091-the-collected-errors-lies-of-kent-hovind.html

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Kent Hovind is a good Christian Scientist.

Then why does he not use the scientific method?
Why does he not have any formal science education?
Why are his claims not validated by science or even accepted by fellow young earth creationist organizations like at Answers in Genesis?
Why does he lie (thereby showing a disrespect for the ninth commandment)?

He is telling the truth!

Then why does he so often blatantly lie?


It's quite clear that you are new to this and are just regurgitating what you've been told despite not really having an adequate education to judge the claims for yourself on their own merits, instead being expected to accept Hovind's claims dogmatically.

Hovind's claims have been proved false. Hovind's claims have been proved to be deliberate lies.

If you stick around here with a willingness to learn rather than making arrogant proclamations of knowledge from a position of obvious total ignorance of the relevant sciences involved in these topics, you might learn something valuable.

 

[gluadys]

I KNOW God made the word and I KNOW that the flood really happened and I KNOW that what Kent Hovind says is true I KNOW God preformes miricals I KNOW God is in control of EVERYTHING I KNOW all this because I read Gods word. The bible is the best book you could read or have. And if you would just read your bible you could KNOW too!

Jenny

Jenny, you might check with your English teacher the meanings of the words "know" and "believe". There is a big difference.

I am a Christian. Like you I BELIEVE God made the world. But I do not KNOW God made the world and neither do you. You may be convinced this is a fact, you may be persuaded this is a fact, you may believe confidently this is a fact----but you are convinced, persuaded, believe by faith.

You do not KNOW it is a fact, because to KNOW means to have evidence from which you can infer it is a fact. And there is no unambiguous evidence that God even exists, much less that God created.

You do not KNOW that God performs miracles; you BELIEVE that God performs miracles. You're belief may well be right. It is entirely possible that God DOES perform miracles. But nobody KNOWS that for sure. We BELIEVE it; we are convinced it is a fact. However, we are convinced by faith, not by evidence.

You do not KNOW the bible is God's word. This is something you have been taught and which you BELIEVE. I, too, BELIEVE the bible is God's word. But I also KNOW that I have no more evidence this is so than Muslims who read the Qur'an and believe that is God's word, or Baha'is who read the works of Baha'ullah and believe that is God's word or Mormons who read the Book of Mormon and believe that is God's word. How would you prove to any of these people that it is the bible that is God's word? The fact is you can't prove it; all you can do is invite them to change their faith and BELIEVE it.

I appeal to you to have more confidence in your faith. The bible you BELIEVE does not tell you to please God by amassing knowledge (though that is not a bad idea either) but to please God by strengthening your faith. And when you are strong in faith, you will not need to make false claims of KNOWING what you are actually BELIEVING.

 

[Paul-martin]

I don't understand how you think all this proves the Flood. You're arguing that the Grand Canyon must have been caused by water erosion -- but we know that. No reputable scientist argues that something other than water erosion was the primary force that shaped the Grand Canyon. But the water that did this was the Colorado River, not a global flood.

He said nothing about the Grand Canyon ....

 

[MarkT]

The problem I can see with this is that the creatinist flood model typically claims the same flood that caused the sediment that later became the SOLID ROCK is what caused the erosion.

When did the SOLID ROCK that these formations are carved out of form?

The sediments were probably laid down before the flood.

It's possible the earth was one continent before the flood.

Proverbs 8:27 tells us God drew a circle on the face of the deep.

Scientists even give the continent a name; "Pangea" and they say the earth began to rift apart at the end of the Triassic.

But in the light of scripture I would have to favor a catastrophic event theory and not a gradual rift theory.

I would propose a force that would create a mountain in a matter of days, the earth folding before your eyes, a force that would raise the sea bottom in places and rip the earth apart creating the continents and the oceans we see to day.

The legend of Atlantis seems to suggest a catastrophic event occured. Maybe it refers to the Biblical flood.

It could be North and South America are "Atlantis", where this refers to the area east of what we know as the pillars of Hercules that was once part of the European continent.

But I don't know. Just guessing.

 

[Asimov]

But I don't know. Just guessing.

[/quote]

I would never have known.

Pangaea wasn't the only supercontinent that existed in the past....IIRC there were about 4 or 5.