Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[stevevw]

I just realised that this comment just... is fundamentally wrong. No canyons are formed from sea sediment 'very slowly' drying up and hardening in layers one by one. That's not how canyons from in the slightest. Canyons are formed by water flowing downstream, through the multitudes of gaps in rocks and then eroding them through the years. That's why the Grand Canyon meanders along with the Colorado River.

Your 'idea' of how canyons forms is not what we see at all.

So how did the rocks, the layers of sediment that the river is cutting through get there in the first place. They are obvious layed down sediments. Some are sandstone, some shale and others are made up of other sedimentary mixtures.

Some are found with sea life even within the lower half of the walls and in fact some layers are limestone which came from ancient sea floors of billions of tiny seas life crustations. . How did the sea life get there.

By the way another way the Canyons are formed is through uplift. Plates push under other plates and at fault lines and lift up plateaus creating a deeper vally.

The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old. Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas
Geology of the Grand Canyon area - Wikipedia

Geology Rocks: Grand Canyon Rock Layers

Answers to your most pressing Grand Canyon geology questions.

www.grandcanyontrust.org

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So how did the rocks, the layers of sediment that the river is cutting through get there in the first place. They are obvious layed down sediments. Some are sandstone, some shale and others are made up of other sedimentary mixtures. Some are found with sea life even within the lower half of the walls. How did the sea life get there.

By the way another way the Canyons are formed is through uplift. Plates push under other plates and at fault lines and lift up plateus creating a deeper vally.

Buddy, the questions you're asking are simple questions that can easily be found online and since you obviously strike me as someone with intelligence, you also should know the answers already.

Sediments are laid down, yes. And in prehistory, a lot of the earth was also underwater, which obviously means there's going to be a lot of aquatic creatures and stuff within them. The White Cliffs of Dover is a perfect example, and for the bits in the continental US, this was because of the Western Interior Seaway.

HOWEVER, this does not apply to the Grand Canyon because the Grand Canyon was not formed by uplift nor does it matter if it was undersea or not originally (ETA: turns out it was, but I was never fully certain), because the Colorado River flowing through it and eroding away the rocks is what caused the canyon. Which is why we see the river meandering through the rocks.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw I'm not going to respond to that post since it's just you repeating the same things again and again after you've been told and shown that you're in error, as well as another case of you typing out so much but saying so little with it.

The OP topic is talking about physical, geological evidence for a flood, which if there was a global flood, we would see repeated across the globe in various locations.
We do not see that evidence at all. This was confirmed by the original geologists who went out to try and prove that the Noahic Flood occurred as in the Bible, and it's also confirmed by modern day understandings of geology. You don't need to try and bring up ancient cultures having flood myths of their own in whatever form of complexity you feel they have since that has nothing to do with the OP topic.

Is the OP looking for a flood, any flood. If so there are geological evidence. But if its a global flood then thats another story. But who said Noahs flood was a global flood.

Try and actually address the OP topic next time. Then we'll talk.

Ok I have said what I said on the Anthropological evidence which I thought would also count. Though the OP claims geological evidence not reflecting the truth of the Noah flood. As far as the truth of the Noah flood is concerned I would have thought all lines of evidence is fair. If we only use the geological evidence we then we are basing things on only part of the evidence and therefore this is not a true representation of the truth

Even if the OP shows the geological evidence is lacking this will not prove anything because it omitted large chunks of evidence from other sources. You never should support a claim on only part of the evidence and ignore the rest.

Having said that I get the message and won't seek to include that aspect and as I have already begun move into the geological evidence. But I am sure this aspect will come up again and not by me as its so intimately entangled with the geological records.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok I have said what I said on the Anthropological evidence which I thought would also count. Though the OP mentions geological evidence not reflecting the truth of the Noah flood as far as the truth of the Noah flood I would have thought all lines of evidence is fair game considering that if we only use the geological evidence we rae basing things on only part of the evidence and therefore skew things.

Even if the OP shows the geological evidence is lacking will not prove anything because it omitted large chunck of evidence form other sources. You never support a claim on only part of the evidence and ignore the rest.

Having said that I get the message and won't seek to include that aspect and as I have already begun move into the geological evidence. But I am sure this aspect will come up again and not by me as its so intimately entangled with the geological records.

I mean is archeology counted as geological evidence. Say the cutting and moving of massive stones that are now found in the geological record. But I will try to avoid such connections where appropriate.

When the discussions is about geological evidence, then only geological evidence should be counted. Anthropology and archaeology are their own venues of science and thus if you want to use them, start your own thread on it.

 

[stevevw]

When the discussions is about geological evidence, then only geological evidence should be counted. Anthropology and archaeology are their own venues of science and thus if you want to use them, start your own thread on it.

OK fair enough. Thats not a bad idea actually considering I did some work on this.

But I will try to keep it to the geology. I don't mind the geology as well. I am just not as clued up on it as the Anthroplogy which is more my study area of sociology and cross cultural psychology.

But I do remember doing some study on the Grand Canyon and the flood. I think from memory there is plenty of evidence for a big flood causing at least some of the Grand Canyon.

I will have to refresh my memory. Is that the kind of evidence your after. Or just about the big ripples. What about say the Scablands.

 

[sjastro]

That's alright its for everyone not just you lol.

I am not sure why the specific date. I suspect it has something to do with the symbols and astrological depictions and certain celestial events like star and planet alignments or comets ect. I think because its relatively new discoveries the evidence is scarce. So some are using the beliefs and glyphs and comparing them to known cultures that have been verified going back 10,000 years.

You are not sure why the specific date, so why did you post the link?
Answer your eyes lit up because you saw the date 9703 BC as evidence for an old civilization ignoring the evidence from the surrounding Andean civilizations that Naupa Huaca can be no older than 3500 BC.

Hum I am not sure Wiki is the best source for scientific verification.

But what I find interesting is that there is so little evidence for anything on this matter. There is a bias within mainstream archeology against the idea of cultures being more sophisticated back 10,000 years. But there is scant information of details.

Are you suggesting MRU.INK which is not recognized as a reputable source for academic or peer-reviewed archaeological information is superior to the Wiki article with its 27 references?
Why don’t you go through each reference and provide a detailed explanation why each source cannot be trusted?
The reality is you are motivated by confirmation bias where the quality of your sources is irrelevant but supports your POV.

The study of cultures belongs in the field of anthropology involving social structures, languages, traditions, rituals, technologies, and arts.
It is based on cultural relativism which means understanding cultures on their own terms and recognizing the value and complexity of each culture rather than making comparisons between cultures.

Archaeology concerns itself with uncovering the past and is led by the evidence uncovered.

Its not just about flooding. Its about linking knowledge and belief for cultures that may have existed back then. We already have one confirmed by science at Gobekli Tepe and there are dozens of other sites around there that have not been excavated. There are also other sites around the Middle east, norther Europe like the neolithic temple and culture at Nevalı Çori.

Why Civilization Is Older Than We Thought

Why Civilization Is Older Than We Thought

www.palladiummag.com

Once again your confirmation bias show through as palladium.com is just as useless for being a reliable source as MRU.INK.

A criterion for a civilization is the means of communicating information most commonly in the form of writing such as cuneiform, hieroglyphics, or Quipu, iconic and symbolic imagery in South America.
Where do think the words Gobekli Tepe comes from?
It is a modern Turkish term describing the geology of the region, the hunter gatherers of the time did not have a writing system whereas the city of Ur in Iraq is a translation from Sumerian texts.

So it would seem logical that at the same time there were other cultures around the world that had this level of knowhow, tech and belief. We know that Amazon culture goes back at least 10,000 years with complex organisation and argriculture. So why not their temples. They were far more organised than hunter and gatherers.

Why not the same for every place around the world.

You are clearly deluding yourself as it has been mentioned on numerous occasions there was no complex organisation and agriculture in the Amazon 10,000 years ago but occurred considerably later as your own quote mined examples attested to.
How many times does this need to be repeated before it finally sinks in?

But heres the problem as far as the OP is concerned as it is specifically speaking about Noahs flood. If we apply the idea that cultures were advanced especially in religion and building great megaliths to their gods around 3,500 BC this fits even better with Noahs flood which was suppose to happen around 6,000 years ago.

You really do struggle with dates; Noah’s flood is traditionally dated as around 2350 BC making it less than 4400 years ago.

That could mean that at that time there were many cultures who had developed sophisticated beliefs to a very high degree which has resulted in their amazing megaliths and formwork that even modern man marvels at. All to express their belief in gods.

That would make more sense considering the bible says the world was completely wicked and no one was rightous. What better way to be completely at that point if not by belief in the gods of nature, the stars, harvests, animals, instincts and primal desires ect. Theres a growing view that argriculture and communities didn't birth births belief but that belief births agriculture and communities.

Not saying this is the case. What I am doing is looking for a logical explanation why cultures came up with the flood myth which is so connected to Noahs flood. What sort of world would it have been like at or around the time the flood happened.

Does this make sense within the timeline of how cultures developed. Not just archeologically but religiously and anthropoloigically.

The logical explanation as expounded in this thread is civilizations and hunter gatherers existed in regions where there were river systems which are prone to flooding.
Hence flood stories were based on actual regional events which occurred at different times as supported by the evidence provided in this thread.

It appears you can’t stick to the same story, first it was the level of religion was greater if monuments existed, then you backed away by claiming Australian aboriginal beliefs were also strong but were manifested in different ways, now it’s agriculture and communities didn't birth belief but belief births agriculture and communities.
This implies the beliefs of Australian aboriginals who remained hunter gatherers for 65,000 odd years were inferior.
Forget about the cultural relativism of anthropology, I'm sure the indigenous people would find your ideas offensive or would they be exhibiting wokeness.

 

[mindlight]

Floods leave distinctive geological evidence behind. Among other things, current ripples provide some of that physical evidence. The supposed size and violence of the Noah's flood would have left behind humongous size current ripples all over the Earth surface. But they simply don't exist. There's a lot of different kinds of geological features one sees in floods that simply are not there when looking for evidence of a Noah type global flood. Current ripples are one of those missing features.

The video below provides a good but short teaching tool on current ripples created by the Ice Age Floods that ran through the Pacific Northwest. In my time studying the Ice Floods I've seen these ripples. Nick Zentner teaches geology at Central Washington University. I've learned a lot of Pacific Northwest geology from him. Enjoy the learning lesson.

Global geological layers are the evidence of a global flood. The reconfiguration of the land masses with the recession of the waters and so the conflicting ripples caused by these, the time passed, and the impact of ice ages would all confuse or obliterate any direct ripple evidence of the flood.

 

[stevevw]

You are not sure why the specific date, so why did you post the link?
Answer your eyes lit up because you saw the date 9703 BC as evidence for an old civilization ignoring the evidence from the surrounding Andean civilizations that Naupa Huaca can be no older than 3500 BC.

Lol. No I was pointing out that the the belief and astronomical glyths were similar to Gobekli Tepe and other cultures at that time. The specific date of 9703BC is the date of the catestropic event that is suppose to be in the glyphs.

The actual date for the cultures could range from 8,000 to 12,000 years or longer when humans became more organised and religious. I have no issue about desperately depending on that specific date for the evidence. That is only one line of evidence. The evidence shows there were highly organised and religious people in the Amazon 10,000 years ago around the time of a great world wide flood or floods.

Are you suggesting MRU.INK which is not recognized as a reputable source for academic or peer-reviewed archaeological information is superior to the Wiki article with its 27 references?
Why don’t you go through each reference and provide a detailed explanation why each source cannot be trusted?
The reality is you are motivated by confirmation bias where the quality of your sources is irrelevant but supports your POV.

No I am open to all evidence. I've gone through that evidence and similar. I won't explain why each one cannot be trusted but the overall premise they all share cannot be trusted.

That is the amazing megaliths, precision craftmanship, complex geometry, tech in cutting, shaping and moving such large and solid rock was done by primitive hunter and gatherers who had primitive and simple tools that are completely inadequate for explaining what we find.

So based on an obvious bias in not even acknowledging this simple and plain fact how can anyone trust whats been claimed until this is explained adequately. Discoveries like Goblkli Tepe are showing a different history for humankind than what has been claimed by mainstream scientists.

The study of cultures belongs in the field of anthropology involving social structures, languages, traditions, rituals, technologies, and arts.
It is based on cultural relativism which means understanding cultures on their own terms and recognizing the value and complexity of each culture rather than making comparisons between cultures.

Yes and this can help in understanding universal aspects of culture and belief. Which then helps with identifying how humans thought back then.

Archaeology concerns itself with uncovering the past and is led by the evidence uncovered.

Once again your confirmation bias show through as palladium.com is just as useless for being a reliable source as MRU.INK.

I don't know who MRU.INK. is. All I know is their evidence is consistent with the other independent sources. You have to remember as I said that this idea that there was an advanced culture in the Amazon or any place going back 10,000 years or more with greater tech and knowhow than later cultures that are suppose to be simple hunter gatherers with primitive tools is controversial.

So mainstream sites like Wiki are not goping to mention this and usually if they do they make out its all pseudoscience. I am in fact the opposite of bias because I am not only open to mainstream opinions but also all opinions including those which are classed as quacks. I want to look at all the opinions and then make up my own mind based on the evidence thats actually on the ground.

There have been plenty of times where ideas were said to be quack that turned out correct. Considering that mainstream has already been shown to be wrong about the human timeline with the discovery of Goblekli Tepe I'm keeping an open mind.

A criterion for a civilization is the means of communicating information most commonly in the form of writing such as cuneiform, hieroglyphics, or Quipu, iconic and symbolic imagery in South America.
Where do think the words Gobekli Tepe comes from?
It is a modern Turkish term describing the geology of the region, the hunter gatherers of the time did not have a writing system whereas the city of Ur in Iraq is a translation from Sumerian texts.

I think the modern western idea of civilisation or city is not necessarily representative. What we see in these ancient megalithic cultures is a different kind of organisation and advancement. One which requires great numbers of people organised and working together to perform a different kind of advancement in shaping megaliths with amazing precision and ability beyond what mainstream claim for that time.

Goblekli Tepe is only around 1/5 of whats there and locals say there are sites like this all over the place. This is not some simple hunter gatherer nomads. This was a highly organised people doing stuff well above what mainstream archeologists thought humans capable. There is even a connection with Egypt which seems to be a common link with other cultures such as in Naupa Huaca.

You are clearly deluding yourself as it has been mentioned on numerous occasions there was no complex organisation and agriculture in the Amazon 10,000 years ago but occurred considerably later as your own quote mined examples attested to.
How many times does this need to be repeated before it finally sinks in?

Why would I let the possibility of something false sink it. I would be doing my brain a disservice lol. There is ample evidence that cultures in the Amazon had complex organisation.

As a new study shows, more than 10,000 years ago, people in the southwest of the Amazon began growing manioc and squash, 8,000 years earlier than previously thought. The area is thus one of the early Holocene centres of plant domestication in the world.

Agriculture began in the Amazon 10'000 years ago

As a new study shows, more than 10,000 years ago, people in the southwest of the Amazon began growing manioc and squash, 8,000 years earlier than previously thought. The area is thus one of the early Holocene centres of plant domestication in the world. People also changed the landscape by...

mediarelations.unibe.ch

As I mentioned there is evidence for a megalithic culture predating the Incas. The technology and knowhow, being able to cut, shape and move multi ton blocks for miles. Cut into bedrock and granite with perfect dimensions and fit. This was not the work of primitive hunter gatherers with flimsy copper or metal chisels.

You really do struggle with dates; Noah’s flood is traditionally dated as around 2350 BC making it less than 4400 years ago.

Yeah I know but theres debate about some of the geneology so there are different dates. But its around the 4 to 5,000 year ago mark.

The logical explanation as expounded in this thread is civilizations and hunter gatherers existed in regions where there were river systems which are prone to flooding.
Hence flood stories were based on actual regional events which occurred at different times as supported by the evidence provided in this thread.

So the claim is the flood myths are based on different local floods and not one big flood. Is that right. I will have to go and check the evidence. When you say evidence do you mean for a local flood or evidence showing a particular cultures flood myth can be linked to a specific flood.

If these flood stories are seperate events why are are some so remarkably the similar

Also if they are seperate floods say Noah's and the Gilgamesh flood wouldn't that these cultures were not too far away from each other experience the same flood. If it was big enough to make the culture think it was a global flood then most cultures in the Middle East, the Mediteranian and maybe even into Asia are going to know about it.

It appears you can’t stick to the same story, first it was the level of religion was greater if monuments existed, then you backed away by claiming Australian aboriginal beliefs were also strong but were manifested in different ways,

No thats a misrepresentation. I was arguing for the ability of humans around 10,000 years ago to have sophisticated religion and used the Aboriginal example to show that humans could have sophisticated beliefs whether it was like the Aboriginals Dreamtime or Gobekli Tepes temple.

You were creating a logical fallcy of an either/or. Trying to restrict the determination for this to one thing either they had monuments or they were religious dumb. I am saying like Aboriginals they could have no monuments and still be religious and spiritually advanced to make a flood story. To believe the gods sent a flood. The people around 10,000 years ago were advanced enough to create such a story if they experienced a flood.

now it’s agriculture and communities didn't birth belief but belief births agriculture and communities.
This implies the beliefs of Australian aboriginals who remained hunter gatherers for 65,000 odd years were inferior.
Forget about the cultural relativism of anthropology, I'm sure the indigenous people would find your ideas offensive or would they be exhibiting wokeness.

Actually what this shows is once again the logical fallacy of an either/or. Either humans are hunter gathers and primitive or they are more socially organised in communities with agriculture.

When the actual evidence shows its more a varied history. Some cultures were still semi H & G but also well organised with a different kind of agriculture than in the middle east. Others did not need agriculture as food was abundent where they lived but were organised and advanced.

For example we don't seed much agriculture at Gobekli Tepe but we do see a highly organised people who had to work together to move megaliths and build such large temples. This would require teaching, organising and feeding large groups. Like I said the site revealed in on 5% of whats there.

We see this same level of organisation in many megalithic cultures. But also the early Amazonians had structured the jungle into growing islands all connected and were tilling the soil using the same technique over wide regions showing a network of organisation.

Let me ask, Do you think humans were capable of creating a Flood story around 10,000 years ago. If not why not. You say your using logic ie most cultures lived near rivers, rivers flood and hense flood stories. So am I, Humans experiencing a world wide flood around 10,000 years ago also came up with a flood story as a result of a flood. Just earlier than the ones that came later.

That is my point, the logic. If humans were capable of creating a flood story 10,000 years ago then it logically follows that if they experienced one of the biggest floods in the last 10,000 years they surely would have made a flood story. Just like as you have said that just living near a river that flooded locally caused cultures to make flood stories. Whats the difference.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is the amazing megaliths, precision craftmanship, complex geometry, tech in cutting, shaping and moving such large and solid rock was done by primitive hunter and gatherers who had primitive and simple tools that are completely inadequate for explaining what we find.

So based on an obvious bias in not even acknowledging this simple and plain fact how can anyone trust whats been claimed until this is explained adequately. Discoveries like Goblkli Tepe are showing a different history for humankind than what has been claimed by mainstream scientists.

There's a comic I read a good years back, about the battle of Crecy. Obviously it was quite Hollywooded up, but there was one relevant passage that the main POV character, an English longbowmen, says to the reader that stuck with my heavily:
"These things are going to look primitive to you, but you have to remember that we're not stupid. We have the same intelligence as you. We just don't have the same cumulative knowledge as you do. So we apply our intelligence to what we have."

To try and say that there was some weird historical coverup going on to try and explain away how megalithic sculptures and groups did their thing is a serious disservice to history, historians and people in general.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Global geological layers are the evidence of a global flood. The reconfiguration of the land masses with the recession of the waters and so the conflicting ripples caused by these, the time passed, and the impact of ice ages would all confuse or obliterate any direct ripple evidence of the flood.

That's just wrong on so many levels.

 

[sjastro]

More wall to wall Gish gallop nonsense.

Lol. No I was pointing out that the the belief and astronomical glyths were similar to Gobekli Tepe and other cultures at that time. The specific date of 9703BC is the date of the catestropic event that is suppose to be in the glyphs.

This is getting ridiculous; it was pointed out in your quote mined articles the glyphs in South America are thousands of years younger than Gobekli Tepe.
Stop being dishonest, the only reference to the age of Naupa Huaca in your quote mined link was the mythological date of 9,703 BC which you tried to pass off as being evidence for the age of the glyphs.

The actual date for the cultures could range from 8,000 to 12,000 years or longer when humans became more organised and religious. I have no issue about desperately depending on that specific date for the evidence. That is only one line of evidence. The evidence shows there were highly organised and religious people in the Amazon 10,000 years ago around the time of a great world wide flood or floods.

It’s a case of deflation, now it’s 8,000 – 12,000 years instead of 8,000 -20,000 years and proves once again you can’t stick to the same story.

No I am open to all evidence. I've gone through that evidence and similar. I won't explain why each one cannot be trusted but the overall premise they all share cannot be trusted.

That is the amazing megaliths, precision craftmanship, complex geometry, tech in cutting, shaping and moving such large and solid rock was done by primitive hunter and gatherers who had primitive and simple tools that are completely inadequate for explaining what we find.

So based on an obvious bias in not even acknowledging this simple and plain fact how can anyone trust whats been claimed until this is explained adequately. Discoveries like Goblkli Tepe are showing a different history for humankind than what has been claimed by mainstream scientists.

Once again stop being dishonest, you are clearly not open to all evidence but rely on pseudoscience nonsense that conforms to your confirmation bias such as 9,703 BC being the date of Naupa Huaca.

Yes and this can help in understanding universal aspects of culture and belief. Which then helps with identifying how humans thought back then.

I don't know who MRU.INK. is. All I know is their evidence is consistent with the other independent sources. You have to remember as I said that this idea that there was an advanced culture in the Amazon or any place going back 10,000 years or more with greater tech and knowhow than later cultures that are suppose to be simple hunter gatherers with primitive tools is controversial.

So mainstream sites like Wiki are not goping to mention this and usually if they do they make out its all pseudoscience. I am in fact the opposite of bias because I am not only open to mainstream opinions but also all opinions including those which are classed as quacks. I want to look at all the opinions and then make up my own mind based on the evidence thats actually on the ground.

There have been plenty of times where ideas were said to be quack that turned out correct. Considering that mainstream has already been shown to be wrong about the human timeline with the discovery of Goblekli Tepe I'm keeping an open mind.

This is complete contradictory rubbish of claiming of having an open mind while at the same time stating MRULINK is confirmed by independent sources and mainstream shown to be wrong about timelines while sites such as Wiki make out alternate ideas as being pseudoscience.
Your contradictions have reached new levels of absurdity.

I think the modern western idea of civilisation or city is not necessarily representative. What we see in these ancient megalithic cultures is a different kind of organisation and advancement. One which requires great numbers of people organised and working together to perform a different kind of advancement in shaping megaliths with amazing precision and ability beyond what mainstream claim for that time.

Goblekli Tepe is only around 1/5 of whats there and locals say there are sites like this all over the place. This is not some simple hunter gatherer nomads. This was a highly organised people doing stuff well above what mainstream archeologists thought humans capable. There is even a connection with Egypt which seems to be a common link with other cultures such as in Naupa Huaca.

Do you try to comprehend what I have stated in this thread?
You don’t get to redefine civilization according to your amateurish dishonest portrayals.
As has been mentioned previously the three criteria for civilization are permanent settlement through advanced agriculture and domestication, development of systems providing communication such as writing and social structures far more layered than found in hunter gatherer groups.
The hunter gatherers who built Gobleki Tepe do not meet any of these requirements.

Why would I let the possibility of something false sink it. I would be doing my brain a disservice lol. There is ample evidence that cultures in the Amazon had complex organisation.

As a new study shows, more than 10,000 years ago, people in the southwest of the Amazon began growing manioc and squash, 8,000 years earlier than previously thought. The area is thus one of the early Holocene centres of plant domestication in the world.

Agriculture began in the Amazon 10'000 years ago

As a new study shows, more than 10,000 years ago, people in the southwest of the Amazon began growing manioc and squash, 8,000 years earlier than previously thought. The area is thus one of the early Holocene centres of plant domestication in the world. People also changed the landscape by...

mediarelations.unibe.ch

As I mentioned there is evidence for a megalithic culture predating the Incas. The technology and knowhow, being able to cut, shape and move multi ton blocks for miles. Cut into bedrock and granite with perfect dimensions and fit. This was not the work of primitive hunter gatherers with flimsy copper or metal chisels.

This latest quote mine also claims that small groups of hunter gatherers engaged in minor scale agriculture contradicting your massive agricultural organization run by thousands of people at the time.

Yeah I know but theres debate about some of the geneology so there are different dates. But its around the 4 to 5,000 year ago mark.

Will you stop with the blatant contradictions, you stated the flood supposedly occurred 6000 years ago.

So the claim is the flood myths are based on different local floods and not one big flood. Is that right. I will have to go and check the evidence. When you say evidence do you mean for a local flood or evidence showing a particular cultures flood myth can be linked to a specific flood.

If these flood stories are seperate events why are are some so remarkably the similar

Also if they are seperate floods say Noah's and the Gilgamesh flood wouldn't that these cultures were not too far away from each other experience the same flood. If it was big enough to make the culture think it was a global flood then most cultures in the Middle East, the Mediteranian and maybe even into Asia are going to know about it.

For someone who claims to open minded you are literally blinded by your own prejudices. This has been discussed earlier in this thread with two tables to simplify the ideas, the first table which shows the evidence of floods being regional while second makes predictions of what evidence would be expected to find if there was a global flood, none of which has been found.
I am not going to waste my time going through this again.

No thats a misrepresentation. I was arguing for the ability of humans around 10,000 years ago to have sophisticated religion and used the Aboriginal example to show that humans could have sophisticated beliefs whether it was like the Aboriginals Dreamtime or Gobekli Tepes temple.

You were creating a logical fallcy of an either/or. Trying to restrict the determination for this to one thing either they had monuments or they were religious dumb. I am saying like Aboriginals they could have no monuments and still be religious and spiritually advanced to make a flood story. To believe the gods sent a flood. The people around 10,000 years ago were advanced enough to create such a story if they experienced a flood.

Actually what this shows is once again the logical fallacy of an either/or. Either humans are hunter gathers and primitive or they are more socially organised in communities with agriculture.

You are either one horribly confused individual who doesn’t recall your previous posts (as evidenced by posting the same quote mines) or refuses to accept the fact of being caught out contradicting yourself.
You made it very clear initially a religion that constructed temples was more sophisticated than one that didn’t and have oscillated between this point and denying it depending on what you were responding to at the time.

When the actual evidence shows its more a varied history. Some cultures were still semi H & G but also well organised with a different kind of agriculture than in the middle east. Others did not need agriculture as food was abundent where they lived but were organised and advanced.

For example we don't seed much agriculture at Gobekli Tepe but we do see a highly organised people who had to work together to move megaliths and build such large temples. This would require teaching, organising and feeding large groups. Like I said the site revealed in on 5% of whats there.

So why was Gobekli Tepe being such an advanced culture was abandoned by around 8200 BC and replaced by settlement and full scale agriculture?
(Please do not respond with dishonest quote mining).
It also makes a nonsense of your theory of a flood wiping out human occupation of the area for the next few thousand years.

We see this same level of organisation in many megalithic cultures. But also the early Amazonians had structured the jungle into growing islands all connected and were tilling the soil using the same technique over wide regions showing a network of organisation.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn’t make it right.
If you cannot comprehend the level of organization you described in the Amazon occurred thousands of years later it is pointless for me having to repeat the answer.

Let me ask, Do you think humans were capable of creating a Flood story around 10,000 years ago. If not why not. You say your using logic ie most cultures lived near rivers, rivers flood and hense flood stories. So am I, Humans experiencing a world wide flood around 10,000 years ago also came up with a flood story as a result of a flood. Just earlier than the ones that came later.

That is my point, the logic. If humans were capable of creating a flood story 10,000 years ago then it logically follows that if they experienced one of the biggest floods in the last 10,000 years they surely would have made a flood story. Just like as you have said that just living near a river that flooded locally caused cultures to make flood stories. Whats the difference.

If you tried to at least read my posts you wouldn’t need to ask such questions particularly from a self confessed open minded person like yourself.
For the reasons I have given the evidence clearly shows floods were localized there was no world wide flood.

 

[stevevw]

There's a comic I read a good years back, about the battle of Crecy. Obviously it was quite Hollywooded up, but there was one relevant passage that the main POV character, an English longbowmen, says to the reader that stuck with my heavily:
"These things are going to look primitive to you, but you have to remember that we're not stupid. We have the same intelligence as you. We just don't have the same cumulative knowledge as you do. So we apply our intelligence to what we have."

To try and say that there was some weird historical coverup going on to try and explain away how megalithic sculptures and groups did their thing is a serious disservice to history, historians and people in general.

Well what else could it be. Here we have amazing tech, cutting and shaping large granite blocks something even modern day tech finds hard and the mainstream historians say they did it all with a hammer and chisel or some rudimentary saw and sand. Give me a break.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well what else could it be. Here we have amazing tech, cutting and shaping large granite blocks something even modern day tech finds hard and the mainstream historians say they did it all with a hammer and chisel or some rudimentary saw and sand. Give me a break.

First off: you need to show that modern day tech finds it hard.

Secondly: why couldn't it have been a hammer and chisel when every other culture throughout history has used the exact same sorts of tools and techniques to build their structures? Just because you couldn't have done it, doesn't mean they couldn't have.

 

[stevevw]

More wall to wall Gish gallop nonsense.

How is it gish gallop. Look at each point I addressed.

This is getting ridiculous; it was pointed out in your quote mined articles the glyphs in South America are thousands of years younger than Gobekli Tepe.
Stop being dishonest, the only reference to the age of Naupa Huaca in your quote mined link was the mythological date of 9,703 BC which you tried to pass off as being evidence for the age of the glyphs.

So did you even look at the video. They present the evidence for why its older. Once again your attributing the amazing tech to primitive hunter gatherers in which it is impossible for them to make these megaliths. Thed Megalithic structures and work are in the bottom layers.

There are 3 time periods and the Megalithic culture is the first organised one going back 10,000 years. Not the later Inca stone work that was built on top. The Inacs found these megaliths abandoned they did not build them. Look at the video and you will see the evidence for yourself. Even the locals say its 1,000s of years old.

It’s a case of deflation, now it’s 8,000 – 12,000 years instead of 8,000 -20,000 years and proves once again you can’t stick to the same story.

I am concentrating on the ages that have more evidence which is around 10,000 to 12,000 years. Lets deal with that first which is still well beyond what the so called experts say.

But the beginnings of this sort of organisation into communities sharing and feeding many has been around for more than 20,000 years.

A Mysterious 25,000-Year-Old Structure Built of the Bones of 60 Mammoths
A jaw-dropping example of Ice Age architecture has been unearthed on Russia’s forest steppe: a huge, circular structure built with the bones of at least 60 woolly mammoths.

A Mysterious 25,000-Year-Old Structure Built of the Bones of 60 Mammoths

The purpose of such an elaborate structure remains a big open question

www.smithsonianmag.com

Once again stop being dishonest, you are clearly not open to all evidence but rely on pseudoscience nonsense that conforms to your confirmation bias such as 9,703 BC being the date of Naupa Huaca.

No if you read the article it says that the site of Naupa Huaca, Cuzco, Ollantaytambo, and Puma Punku all refer to a common myth of a traveling builder god named Viracocha who, together with seven Shining Ones, appeared at Tiwanaku after a catastrophic world flood, since dated to 9,703 BC, to help rebuild humanity.

That is the flood they were referring to happened in 9703 BC which has been verified. That is why I was referring to the complexity of the religious belief in making flood stories up. These cultures were referring to a big flood that happened around the Younger Dryas. That is part of the evidence.

Naupa Iglesia: An Egyptian Portal in the Andes?

Halfway up a near-vertical ravine in the Andes, someone carved an inverted V-shaped entrance into the mountainside.

www.ancient-origins.net

This is complete contradictory rubbish of claiming of having an open mind while at the same time stating MRULINK is confirmed by independent sources and mainstream shown to be wrong about timelines while sites such as Wiki make out alternate ideas as being pseudoscience.

Like I said did you watch the video. This has independent evidence. The above link from Ancient Origins backs this up and they are an independent source.

But heres the big issue that m,ainstream sources like Wiki have not addressed. The tech is too precise and advanced for primitive hunter and gatherers. If Wiki and the like are attributing this tech to primitive cultures who don't have the capacity then what else are they being biased about.

Your contradictions have reached new levels of absurdity.

Do you try to comprehend what I have stated in this thread?
You don’t get to redefine civilization according to your amateurish dishonest portrayals.
As has been mentioned previously the three criteria for civilization are permanent settlement through advanced agriculture and domestication, development of systems providing communication such as writing and social structures far more layered than found in hunter gatherer groups.

All of which are found in cultures living 10 or 12,000 years ago.

These ancient sites are fixed and a place where people met in social organisation. Other cultures had established agriucultue and there was some domestification.

In requiring 1,000s of people to be involved in creating these megaliths and the high level of tech and knowledge associated with this as well as the representations such as glyths, astronomy and geometry that seemed to be universal not just within one culture but globally I think they had pretty advanced communication. Just not how we think.

The civilisation myth: How new discoveries are rewriting human history

The civilisation myth: How new discoveries are rewriting human history

In an evolutionary eyeblink, our species has gone from hunting and gathering to living in complex societies. We need to rethink the story of this monumental transition

www.newscientist.com

Rise of civilization
The earliest signs of a process leading to sedentary culture can be seen in the Levant to as early as 12,000 BC, when the Natufian culture became sedentary; it evolved into an agricultural society by 10,000 BC.[8]

https://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/baryo.pdf

A new social order
About 12,000 years ago, human communities started to function very differently than in the past. Rather than relying primarily on hunting or gathering food, many societies created systems for producing food. By about 10,000 BCE, humans began to establish agricultural villages.

Khan Academy

www.khanacademy.org

The hunter gatherers who built Gobleki Tepe do not meet any of these requirements.

Of course they meet the requirement for an advanced thinking and religious culture. Meeting the criteria of what makes a civilisation according to some arbitrary measure of some is not the be all and end all.

My arguement is that cultures back in the time of Goblekli Tepe were advanced enough in knowledge and belief to create a flood story of a real event. I think the evidence clearly shows that.

This latest quote mine also claims that small groups of hunter gatherers engaged in minor scale agriculture contradicting your massive agricultural organization run by thousands of people at the time.

I never said all cultures had massive organised agriculture. I said that they did in the Amazon. Agriculture was just one line of evidence. But your making out its the only line of evidence. If a culture does not have agriculture then they must not be advanced. Its a logical fallacy.

“The human impact in the Amazon in the past was thought to be minimal,” she said. “But new research such as this study demonstrates that the nature of human occupation and alteration of the landscape is extensive, and this region now has evidence for the implementation of cultivation from as far back as 10,250 years [ago].

Humans living in Amazon 10,000 years ago cultivated plants, study finds

Findings from Bolivia show plants were domesticated in region shortly after last ice age

www.theguardian.com

So even the scientists are saying they thought the impact of cultures in the Amazon were minimal as far as agriculture but new research shows its extensive.

Amazonian crops domesticated 10,000 years ago
An international team of researchers have confirmed a fifth domestication area in southwestern Amazonia where manioc, squash and other edibles became garden plants during the early Holocene, starting over 10,000 years ago. The landscape is dotted by earthworks, including raised fields, mounds, canals and forest islands.

Humans have caused a profound alteration of Amazonian landscapes, with lasting repercussions for habitat heterogeneity and species conservation," the researchers report today (Apr. 8) in Nature.

Amazonian crops domesticated 10,000 years ago | Penn State University

As agriculture emerged in early civilizations, crops were domesticated in four locations around the world — rice in China; grains and pulses in the Middle East; maize, beans and squash in Mesoamerica; and potatoes and quinoa in the Andes. Now, an international team of researchers has confirmed a...

www.psu.edu

That seems pretty major argriculture that the landscape was scattered with earthworks, raised fields, canals and forest islands.

While the ancient Amazonians managed their landscape intensively, they didn’t deforest it. And although they developed complex societies, they never went through a wholesale agricultural revolution. This might suggest that the pre-Columbian Amazonians broke the mould of human cultural development, which is traditionally seen as a relentless march from hunting and gathering to farming to urban complexity. The truth is more surprising. In fact, we are now coming to understand that there was no such mould – civilisation arose in myriad ways. What looks like an anomaly in the Amazon is actually a shining example of a process that was as vibrant and diverse as the rainforest itself.

How ghost cities in the Amazon are rewriting the story of civilisation

Remote sensing, including lidar, reveals that the Amazon was once home to millions of people. The emerging picture of how they lived challenges ideas of human cultural evolution

www.newscientist.com

Like I said your criteria for what passes as advanced societies is restrictive. These cultures in the Amazon did not cultivate in the same way other cultures like in Sumar did in fields. They left the jungle as is and worked with it. But still they had vast areas of cultivation which transformed the entire Amazon.

Will you stop with the blatant contradictions, you stated the flood supposedly occurred 6000 years ago.

Sorry I don't know why I put a 1,000 years on Noahs flood. I meant 5,000 years. Thats why I said there was debate about the exact year through chronology. But I know that Noahs flood is not 6,000 years old as the same bible interpretation makes the creation only around 6,000 years old.

Considering the Flood as universal, all mankind since then are descended from the sons of Noah. These geneologies begin about 5000 BC.

A Universal Flood: 3000 BC

The Flood of Noah's day was a historical, worldwide cataclysmic event sent by God to destroy all living things except for eight people who survived on the Ark.

biblearchaeology.org

But 6,000, 5,000 or 4,400 it doesn't matter as you completely missed the point. If as you say Noahs flood story only goes back 4,400 years ago and you claim these ancient megalith cultures only go back to around 3,500BC then this is even stronger evidence for what I have argued. That advanced megalithic cultures with high tech and religion experienced a real flood event and then created the flood story.

Though it doesn't work as well for my arguement that this happened around 10,000 years ago with the Younger Dryas. But the principle is still the same. That advanced Megalithic cultures experienced a real flood and may have been the ones that created the flood story.

Remembering that these Megalithic cultures were different and at a different time period than say the biblical and Sumar flood stories who came later.

For someone who claims to open minded you are literally blinded by your own prejudices. This has been discussed earlier in this thread with two tables to simplify the ideas, the first table which shows the evidence of floods being regional while second makes predictions of what evidence would be expected to find if there was a global flood, none of which has been found.
I am not going to waste my time going through this again.

Your creating a strawman fallacy. I never said anything about a worldwide flood. So creating a flase representation and your tables are meaningless to me. I don't have any problem with the evidence for local floods.

Do you also count the evidence for some of the biggest floods in recent history associated with the younger dryas.

Identification of Younger Dryas outburst flood path from Lake Agassiz to the Arctic Ocean - Nature

Our current concepts of abrupt climate change are influenced by palaeoclimate evidence for events such as the Younger Dryas cold interval, in which massive climate changes occurred essentially instantaneously. It is thought that an injection of fresh water from the retreating Laurentide Ice...

www.nature.com

The Younger Dryas sea level rise is a historical event in early earth history and could be the great flood.

Early Earth History & The Great Flood

Flood stories exist in cultures all over the planet. Why is this so? Today evidence is mounting towards the great flood that occurred at the boundary of the Younger Dryas period. A massive amount of water was distributed from Ice-Caps due to the end of the last ice age. Did a flood of gigantic...

humanoriginproject.com

You are either one horribly confused individual who doesn’t recall your previous posts (as evidenced by posting the same quote mines) or refuses to accept the fact of being caught out contradicting yourself.
You made it very clear initially a religion that constructed temples was more sophisticated than one that didn’t and have oscillated between this point and denying it depending on what you were responding to at the time.

No I never. Once again a false representation. I said that the religious sophistication for a culture like Goblekli Tepe 10 to 12,000 years ago was enough to create the flood story from a real event they experienced. The Temples at Gobekli Tepe meet this requirement. It was as simple as that.

You claim they are not. I am saying the evidence shows they are capable and in fact may have alluded to the very event (the Younger Dryas) for which I have also evidenced as some of the worlds greatest floods came from.

I have provided evidence for each and every point I made. That every culture I mentioned never had all those aspects that you say make them advanced is irrelevant because displaying any one of those aspects is enough to show they were advanced. Just not in the way you want the evidence to be ie they must all have every aspect of being advanced such as agriculture, cities, and qualify as a civilisation.

 

[stevevw]

So why was Gobekli Tepe being such an advanced culture was abandoned by around 8200 BC and replaced by settlement and full scale agriculture?
(Please do not respond with dishonest quote mining).
It also makes a nonsense of your theory of a flood wiping out human occupation of the area for the next few thousand years.

Yes this is the question. Why would an advanced culture capable of organising itself like a society including feeding many just disappear and then people revert back to primitive hunter gatherers only to then re-emerge again later within argiculture such as in Mesopotamia.


Remembering that what is seen at Goblekli Tepe is just 1/5 of what is there and that there are sites like this being found all over the region and beyond. Even older than Goblekli Tepe.


You do understand that scientists are saying that dicoveries like Goblekli Tepe have pushed back the timeline for when humans became organised into societies from hunter gatherers.

Eleven New Neolithic Hill Sites Discovered Near Göbeklitepe, Turkey

Eleven New Neolithic Hill Sites Discovered Near Göbeklitepe, Turkey

The Turkish government has just announced a major archaeological discovery that could have a serious impact on the study of Neolithic Era culture in the region.

www.ancient-origins.net

Ancient site older than Gobeklitepe unearthed in Turkey

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/culture/ancient-site-older-than-gobeklitepe-unearthed-in-turkey/1664156#:~:text=MARDIN%2C%20Turkey&text=Ibrahim%20Ozcosar%2C%20the%20rector%20of,and%20even%201%2C000%20years%20older.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn’t make it right.
If you cannot comprehend the level of organization you described in the Amazon occurred thousands of years later it is pointless for me having to repeat the answer.

Lets see what I said. I said "the early Amazonians had structured the jungle into growing islands all connected and were tilling the soil using the same technique over wide regions showing a network of organisation".

So what is the evidence. I already posted this 3 times now.

An international team of researchers have confirmed a fifth domestication area in southwestern Amazonia where manioc, squash and other edibles became garden plants during the early Holocene, starting over 10,000 years ago. The landscape is dotted by earthworks, including raised fields, mounds, canals and forest islands. Humans have caused a profound alteration of Amazonian landscapes, with lasting repercussions for habitat heterogeneity and species conservation," the researchers report today (Apr. 8) in Nature.

Amazonian crops domesticated 10,000 years ago | Penn State University

As agriculture emerged in early civilizations, crops were domesticated in four locations around the world — rice in China; grains and pulses in the Middle East; maize, beans and squash in Mesoamerica; and potatoes and quinoa in the Andes. Now, an international team of researchers has confirmed a...

www.psu.edu

If you tried to at least read my posts you wouldn’t need to ask such questions particularly from a self confessed open minded person like yourself.
For the reasons I have given the evidence clearly shows floods were localized there was no world wide flood.

I don't think the problem is that I am not listening to your arguements. Its quite the opposite and its you who are not listening.

I will say it for the 5th time maybe. I am not arguing a worldwide flood. So your creating a strawman. I am also arguing for a non worldwide flood.

I have said this in different ways at least 10 times. Like proposing the Younger Dryas which is not not a global flood. Or the major flood in the Black sea and North America as a result of the Younger Dryas period are not global floods. There may have been several massive floods around the same time that were seperate but massive.

So first listen to what I am saying rather than reading things into it I am not saying. If your unsure then ask. I suspect you think I'm some sort of YEC arguing for Noahs flood lol. When I have not once even alluded to that sort of arguement.

But I am not claiming any global or world wide flood. The Younger Dryas floods may have covered large parts of the Northern hemisphere around North America, Russia, the Black sea so coming into the Middle East and into parts of Europe such as Germany. Which is where many cultures would have lived to experience these floods.

But this was not a global flood covering all the earth. But it was the greatest flood in the last 12,000 years that people would have experienced.

 

[stevevw]

First off: you need to show that modern day tech finds it hard.

The proof that modern day tech finds it hard is that they use state of the art tech to cut and shape it and not hand tools. It would take I think something like 25 heavy dut granes to life one block off the ground. Let alone move it anywhere from 10 to 100 miles over land and up hillds, up mountains from the quarries.

Entire walls of blue stone one of the hardest stones perfectly sheered flat like they were machined, even showing what look like machine marks. Blocks with perfect flat surfaces butted together where even a razor blade cannot fit in the gap.

All this precision and ability to move multi ton blocks are found at the bottom level below later smaller and less precise works. What is going on here. I will link this video as it good to also see the work. Theyalso refer to peer reviewed papers on the work.

Goblekli Tepe is mentioned at the 11 minute mark. The difficulty with cutting hard stone is addressed at the 25 minute mark which includes cuts at the Amazaonian sites.

The most intriguing thing about Puma punku is the stonework. Puma punku was a terraced earthen mound originally faced with megalithic blocks, each weighing several tens of tons. The red sandstone and andesite stones were cut in such a precise way that they fit perfectly into and lock with each other without using mortar.

The technical finesse and precision displayed in these stone blocks is astounding. Not even a razor blade can slide between the rocks. Some of these blocks are finished to 'machine' quality and the holes drilled to perfection. This is supposed to have been achieved by a civilization that had no writing system and was ignorant of the existence of the wheel. Something doesn’t add up.

The Mystery of Puma Punku’s Precise Stonework

www.amusingplanet.com

Secondly: why couldn't it have been a hammer and chisel when every other culture throughout history has used the exact same sorts of tools and techniques to build their structures? Just because you couldn't have done it, doesn't mean they couldn't have.

Every other primitive culture at that time could not have done it because of the tools recorded with them in the archeological record are inadequate. Those tools like a stone hammer and copper or iron chisel could not have made such smooth and razor flat surfaces. Tests have been shown how simple hammer and chisel actually blows the granit out leaving pit marks.

To say that these primitive people made these megaliths from a hammer and chisel is appealing to magic. It is impossible and if they had some secret method that could achieve this its still super advanced tech as its precision is on par with modern work.

 

[stevevw]

Global geological layers are the evidence of a global flood. The reconfiguration of the land masses with the recession of the waters and so the conflicting ripples caused by these, the time passed, and the impact of ice ages would all confuse or obliterate any direct ripple evidence of the flood.

I think the best way to show that the lack of evidence for large ripples being all over the place during a flood is the fact that the same flood that caused the ripples left large areas that did not have ripples. It seems ripples may need certain conditions.

 

[BCP1928]

I will say it for the 5th time maybe. I am not arguing a worldwide flood. So your creating a strawman. I am also arguing for a non worldwide flood.

I have said this in different ways at least 10 times. Like proposing the Younger Dryas which is not not a global flood. Or the major flood in the Black sea and North America as a result of the Younger Dryas period are not global floods. There may have been several massive floods around the same time that were seperate but massive.

So first listen to what I am saying rather than reading things into it I am not saying. If your unsure then ask. I suspect you think I'm some sort of YEC arguing for Noahs flood lol. When I have not once even alluded to that sort of arguement.

But I am not claiming any global or world wide flood.

Right, we get that. What you are promoting is a very large flood of some kind as a singular event behind the Noah story. You're not doing a very good job of it--many of your arguments are fanciful or taken from sensational journalists like Graham Hancock. You are putting a lot of effort into the task, it's obviously important to you, but you haven't said why. Where are you going with this? Suppose you could demonstrate that the Noah story was based on a singular flood event. So what?

 

[sjastro]

@stevevw

There is an all too familiar theme of making claims when challenged the narrative is conveniently changed.
One such case is your denial of engaging in Gish Gallop tactics yet in your two responses to my previous post fourteen different links were used.
I am not going to waste my time in playing your Gish Gallop nonsense but to focus on one single link which you have steadfastly defended.

Naupa Huaca Portal: Is This Proof That All Ancient Civilizations Were Secretly Connected?

Naupa Huaca Portal seems to have been manipulated with advanced knowledge (technology), since it has practically perfect lines, sharp corners and smooth surfaces.

mru.ink

I was being generous in my initial assessment of this link as being pseudoscience based on the date of 9703 BC but on reading it more carefully it is pure fantasy as it postulates the existence of portals where technology and knowledge is shared between civilizations around the planet.
This supposedly explains the similarities between civilizations.

I want you to be honest with me did you bother to read your link and therefore agree with this portal nonsense or in the true spirit of mine quoting ignored the devil in the details and focused purely on this mythological date which in itself is nonsense and doesn't date the site?

 

[sjastro]

Right, we get that. What you are promoting is a very large flood of some kind as a singular event behind the Noah story. You're not doing a very good job of it--many of your arguments are fanciful or taken from sensational journalists like Graham Hancock. You are putting a lot of effort into the task, it's obviously important to you, but you haven't said why. Where are you going with this? Suppose you could demonstrate that the Noah story was based on a singular flood event. So what?

His posts are so contradictory that the global flood of his earlier posts has metamorphized into something that may or may not be global.