Is Evidence of a Local Flood Absent?

[greentwiga]

Hey guys, thanks for posting, but unfortunately a lot of you forgot about the questions I asked in my opening post. I read in an article about Ballard's investigation of the Black Sea flood that Ballard's team found signs of previous human life in their expedition. So as of right now, the best answer I've got is that the Flood was a local flood which occurred around the Black Sea region (since it's pretty close to the Ararat mountains, which is where the Bible says the Ark landed).

Ballard made a great discovery. I even corresponded with him by email about it. Though he does establish that the Black Sea probably caused some great people movements such as the linearbandkeramic people, the flood does not fit the Biblical account. Though the Black Sea took 1 to 2 years to fill, it never retreated. It also did not cover the high mountains. Furthermore, the water would rise enough each day to cover 1/3 linear mile at most. This was so slow that it would not have killed anyone. The social settings described both before and after the flood fit Sumer around 3,000 BC, and not the Black Sea around 5,200 BC.

Imagine the setting. The Flandrian transgression was in effect, so the sea levels were the highest in history. Before and after the ~3,000 time period, it was drier but a wet period occurred and a monster storm hit. As a result, the rivers rose dramatically. Imagine a possible scenario. People are madly "sandbagging" the dykes to keep out the rising river. What if the superstorm caused a massive landslide down in the gulf. With sinking hearts, the people would watch the tsunami wave breach their defenses. With the water so high and the land so flat, there would be nothing to stop the wave from going all the way to Kish.

The Indonesia Tsunami showed how the second and third waves went much farther because of the water from the previous wave. Is this exactly what happened? I don't know. The Bible just lists three components of the flood - rain, floodgates of heaven, springs of the deep. Though Ballard's discovery is intriguing, this scenario fits known history, science, and the Bible better. As for the Mountains, I wonder if the proto ziggurats, what they called the mountain of heaven were what were covered. A 30' tall structure could have been covered by a 50' high flood/Tsunami. It would make Biblical sense that this non "Jewish" religion would have been the focus.

Ignore Rogue's comments about dinosaurs. Neither of us is being so foolish to claim anything about them.

[rogue06]

Ignore Rogue's comments about dinosaurs. Neither of us is being so foolish to claim anything about them.

That is true, but then my post wasn't addressed to either of you but to flaja and his remarks concerning "places where massive amounts of fossils are all jumbled up" that "old earth creationists and Darwinists" ignore or reject.

The clue is that my response was directly under a quoted section labeled "Originally posted by flaja."

[franktalk]

Silent Running ,

Thank you for your post. The real issue about the flood centers around ones belief that trace evidence can be found. I happen to feel that any trace evidence has been destroyed or has been interpreted incorrectly. I know that this view is not widely accepted.

[greentwiga]

Sorry. I do agree that if there were a world wide flood, there would be no boundary with one group of animal below and a very different group above. Floods do jumble everything together. I think your KT argument is a great one.

[Moksha]

Sorry. I do agree that if there were a world wide flood, there would be no boundary with one group of animal below and a very different group above. Floods do jumble everything together. I think your KT argument is a great one.

Why not? Surely the mass extermination caused by a flood would result in a hefty layer of dead animals followed by layers of nothing.

[Littlejoe]

Thanks for the link, but where does this guy Morton actually write about where the flood occurred?

You're right, the article I was thinking of doesn't appear to be on that page...here is the link to the article that does explain the local flood sufficiently:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Morton.html

LJ

[greentwiga]

Why not? Surely the mass extermination caused by a flood would r.esult in a hefty layer of dead animals followed by layers of nothing.

But you wouldn't get different layers with different animal bones. Below Kt is dinosaur. Kt has nothing for a little space but above that is layers with the mega birds. Above that no megabirds but other fossils. This is not a flood jumble

[greentwiga]

You're right, the article I was thinking of doesn't appear to be on that page...here is the link to the article that does explain the local flood sufficiently:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Morton.html

LJ

I was looking at the site. It has major problems. the flood adavnce too slowly to drown anyone. The Med flooded but never retreated. The Med flooded way too long ago. It doesn't fit the time frame of the Bible. I have been working on a site that I think fits the story. It also fits science better.

http://sites.google.com/site/noahsfloodsite/

I am willing to listen to criticism but I have tried to answer all scientific criticism without bending the words of Genesis. I even answer the length of the Ark scientifically.

[shunyadragon]

Sorry. I do agree that if there were a world wide flood, there would be no boundary with one group of animal below and a very different group above. Floods do jumble everything together. I think your KT argument is a great one.

The KT boundary is problematic in terms of there being a jumble of fossils related to the extinct event. The supposed massive jumble of fossils of large animals has not been found. Many propose that the extinction event was in progress well before the KT boundary. What is most distinctive about the impact boundary is the extinction of smaller marine life, and plant life.

Like the PT extinction event there were huge basalt volcanic deposits called traps, which are associated with the extinction event, which may be related to impact events, and contributed to the extinction over a longer period of time.

[fm93]

Thanks for the link, LittleJoe! It's an excellent article.

[technomage]

I happen to feel that any trace evidence has been destroyed or has been interpreted incorrectly.

The only possible reason to even consider your statement as anything but laughable is because a lot of people on the YEC side of the argument have spent a lot of time and money propagating such dishonest arguments. You've accepted those arguments, as is your right, and I have no doubt that you've done so in good faith--but that doesn't make the arguments any less dishonest.

[rogue06]

The only possible reason to even consider your statement as anything but laughable is because a lot of people on the YEC side of the argument have spent a lot of time and money propagating such dishonest arguments. You've accepted those arguments, as is your right, and I have no doubt that you've done so in good faith--but that doesn't make the arguments any less dishonest.

How is the argument dishonest rather than just incorrect?

[technomage]

How is the argument dishonest rather than just incorrect?

I'd have to show point-by-point examples, and I'm not equipped to do so right now, but generally speaking:
1. Person X presents an argument
2. Someone comes along and shows X why the argument is wrong
3. X acknowledges the errors, and promise to correct the argument
4. X--later--present the precise same argument

That's fundamentally dishonest.

[greentwiga]

FrankTalk's idea that evidence might have been destroyed might work for a local flood where city dwellers want to clean up but impossible for a world wide flood. Even natural events would only destroy evidence in regions, such as erosion or subduction sections. There is still such massive areas of evidence that the theory is not based on a few isolated pieces of evidence which would be esay to misinterpret

[Littlejoe]

I was looking at the site. It has major problems. the flood adavnce too slowly to drown anyone. The Med flooded but never retreated. The Med flooded way too long ago. It doesn't fit the time frame of the Bible. I have been working on a site that I think fits the story. It also fits science better.

http://sites.google.com/site/noahsfloodsite/

I am willing to listen to criticism but I have tried to answer all scientific criticism without bending the words of Genesis. I even answer the length of the Ark scientifically.

Then your argument isn't with me, it's with Glenn Morton. He posts right here on TWEB. Maybe you should engage him in a discussion and let him defend his article.

LJ