Local Flood vs Global Flood

[Forum Monk]

Hello Canuckster,
Your analysis of the art of intepretation is interesting but as you might expect, I must disagree with your final conclusion with respect to the Genesis flood. I also believe it was a narrative history but on a global scale. Again, I can not believe that some one can read the events of Genesis and come to the conclusion the flood was local and I am reasonably sure, the ancient hebrews did not interpret the events as referencing a local flood as their commentaries and traditions leave little doubt they believed the event was global. One again, modern humans have studied the geology and physics and concluded as Banky has, that it was impossible. But instead of assuming the event was a miracle of God on the grandest scale, the need to harmonize scripture and science requires a reinterpretation of scripture on the strength of kol erets having multiple interpretations. But this interpretation ignores overwhelming references which describe the totality and universal nature of the destruction. For this reason, once again, I say the local flood exegesis is highly disputed. Further, there is absolutely no reason to believe (as some, IMO, have erroneously concluded) that present geology would exhibit overwhelming evidence of this event which was less than one year in duration, thousands of years of ago.


FM

[Banky]

So, to understand the Flood narratives correctly, it involves some work on our part to bridge the gap between our place, time and culture and reconcile it to the time of Moses' writing of the text while under inspiration of God and included in that needs to be an understanding of Moses' purpose, intended audience and the context in which they would understand that message. The "literal sense" could be an allegory, if that is what God intended and what the original audience received and if that were the case, then that would be the literal way to read the passage.

To paraphrase, the text was written so that it could be understood by it's intended audience at the time. That is a very good point and one that is often missed by most people in EVERY aspect of the spoken/written word.

This is very bird's eye of course, but I give it to encourage you to avoid the temptation to try and reduce this issue down to a simple black and white choice between options when in fact it is a much more involved and subtle process, even for those of us within the faith.

Reducing to so called "black and white" options is a communication tool to bring understanding to the table. It, of course, is never as simple as black and white, but I don't think such a reduction should be avoided provided that it is understood that it is, in fact, a reduction. It would be different if I held you to a survey with loaded questions, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife; yes or no."

[Forum Monk]

It seems to me, that Local flood hypothesis has difficulities when one examines the geography of Mesopotamia. The image below shows the region with water levels 80 meters above normal. The geography of the land shows a natural drain over the delta of the Euphrates and through the Straits of Hormuz. There is no way to contain water for the 150 duration of the flood. In previous maps I posted one page back in this thread, I showed a similar map with waters at 300 meters above normal and it clear to see the levels could not have gone much deeper as the water would soon begin draining westward into the Medeterranian Sea. There are mnay other reasons to believe the local flood was every bit as problematic as the global one.




FM

[Canuckster1127]

Hello Canuckster,
Your analysis of the art of intepretation is interesting but as you might expect, I must disagree with your final conclusion with respect to the Genesis flood. I also believe it was a narrative history but on a global scale. Again, I can not believe that some one can read the events of Genesis and come to the conclusion the flood was local and I am reasonably sure, the ancient hebrews did not interpret the events as referencing a local flood as their commentaries and traditions leave little doubt they believed the event was global. One again, modern humans have studied the geology and physics and concluded as Banky has, that it was impossible. But instead of assuming the event was a miracle of God on the grandest scale, the need to harmonize scripture and science requires a reinterpretation of scripture on the strength of kol erets having multiple interpretations. But this interpretation ignores overwhelming references which describe the totality and universal nature of the destruction. For this reason, once again, I say the local flood exegesis is highly disputed. Further, there is absolutely no reason to believe (as some, IMO, have erroneously concluded) that present geology would exhibit overwhelming evidence of this event which was less than one year in duration, thousands of years of ago.


FM

Forum Monk,

Again, I respect your opinion and it is not one that is cardinal in nature. I'll simply note that the difference appears to me to be one of interpretation of the text and not a need to harmonize anything as you continue to state.

Further I'll note that there appears to me to as much or more an appeal to the hermeneutic you're employing to reach a desired conclusion and that to me again smacks more of eisogesis that exogesis.

It is highly disputed however and the issues are important ones.

Blessings,

Bart

[Forum Monk]

the hermeneutic you're employing to reach a desired conclusion and that to me again smacks more of eisogesis that exogesis

I guess we should be grateful, then, after 3000 years of eisogesis, Christians can now be set straight.



FM

[Gman]

Of course there are no definites here on the location of the local flood.. I've always liked David Rohl's position and location of the local flood in northern Iran (near Lake Van, NOT the Mesopotamian plains), but I must say, I'm increasingly warming up to this recent article by Greg Neyman from the website "Answers in Creation". Please read this article by him...

Where Was the Flood of Noah?

by Greg Neyman
Answers in Creation
First Published 12 May 2007

Source of this article: //www.answersincreation.org/articles/flood_location.htm

One of the items that old earth creationists disagree about is the location of the Flood of Noah. Many have proposed various locations, and we are far from coming to a consensus on this issue. If we wish to reach people for Christ, and show them that an old earth fits with the Bible, then this issue is of utmost importance.

In this article, I will review the proposed locations of the flood, and discuss their weaknesses. Then, I will present a solution for the location, which appears to fit all the requirements for Noah's Flood.

Requirements for the Location of the Flood

The site of the flood would have to meet three requirements. First, it would have to be capable of containing the waters of the flood. In order to do this, we need a basin, with no outlet to the sea. If there were an outlet, the water would simply run out of the area.

Second, the flood would have to fit the parameters mentioned in the Bible. The source of the waters is not in question. The only point that matters here is that Noah believed that the world was flooded, and that all the mountains were covered with water. Therefore this would require that the basin for the flood be large enough for Noah not to see the mountains from the center of the basin where the ark was floating. Thus, we need to calculate the minimum width of the basin, based on the curvature of the earth. Although this is a simple calculation,1 we do have an unknown factor. What was the height of the nearest land mass that was not underwater? Thus, we will look at several possibilities.

Our starting point is Noah. He was on the ark, which had a height of about 45 feet. Accounting for a 20 foot draft for the ark, Noah was perhaps 25 feet above the water's surface. If he were six feet tall, Noah would be about 6.82 miles from the horizon. By contrast, the horizon for a 100 foot tall hill would be about 12.25 miles. Adding these two horizon distances together, Noah would have to be 19.07 miles from a 100 foot tall hill in order not to see it. Other landmass heights are calculated below.

Reference Point Horizon Horizon + Noah's Horizon

Noah (31 Feet tall) 6.82 miles -

100 foot hill 12.25 19.07

1,000 ft hill 38.74 45.56

3,000 foot hill 67.1 73.92

One Mile Hill 89.03 95.85


Thus, for a one mile high mountain, the ark would have to be at least 95.85 miles away in order for Noah not to see the mountain. This gives you an idea of the size requirements of the basin. Of course, this does not account for atmospheric conditions, which would definitely lower these distances.

The final requirement is this: Does the proposed location agree with the geography mentioned in the Genesis account? It would have to flood the areas populated by mankind. We don't have many clues as to the extent of the geographic area. However, it would appear to include the area around the Garden of Eden, and east of the Garden. When God drove them out of the Garden, he placed a cherubim at the east of the Garden (Genesis 3:24). This would indicate that Adam and Eve went east out of the Garden. We also have another clue in Genesis 4:16. Cain was sent away, and he settled in the land of Nod, which was east of Eden. Therefore, if we know the location of the Garden, we know the location of the Flood, since it had to cover the lands east of the Garden.

There is one other requirement, which we don't need to address in detail. The ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. Note that the Bible says mountains of Ararat, and not "on Mount Ararat." The Ararat range is several hundred miles long, so the ark could be anywhere along this range. Although the taller mountains in the range are to the east, mountains extend westward all the way to the Mediterranean. All of the proposed locations support this requirement.

Where Was Eden?

In order to evaluate the proposed locations, we must approximate the location of the Garden of Eden. There are several proposals that lie within the areas proposed by old earth creationists.2

Mesopotamia

Many have proposed some location within Mesopotamia. These proposals vary from deep within Iraq, all the way to the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers at the Persian Gulf.

Jerusalem

Jewish tradition places the Garden in Jerusalem. This also provides great symbolism for Jews and Christians.

Turkey

The Taurus Mountains of Turkey is proposed by some as the location of Eden. These mountains lie in the southern part of Turkey bordering with Syria. They would be included as part of the "mountains of Ararat."

Iran

The latest proposal comes from archaeologist David Rohl, who proposes that based on archaeological evidence, the Garden is in north-west Iran, near the city of Tabriz. Here is a summary of this location:

According to him, the Garden was located in a vast plain referred to in ancient Sumerian texts as Edin (lit. "Plain", or "Steppe") east of the Sahand Mountain, near Tabriz. He cites several geological similarities with Biblical descriptions, and multiple linguistic parallels as evidence. In the Sumerian texts, an emissary is sent north through "Seven Gates", also known as Mountain passes in ancient texts. Hebrew lore includes references to Seven layers of Heaven, the 7th being the Garden of Eden, or Paradise. Just beyond the seventh gate, or pass, was the kingdom of Aratta. The region today is bound by a large mountain range to the North, East and South, and marshlands to the west. The eastern mountain region has a pass leading in and out of the Edin region. This fits with the Biblical geography of Eden containing marshlands to the west, and the Land of Nod to the east, outside the Garden. Geographically speaking, it would form a "wall" around the Garden, conforming to the definition of the Persian word pairidaeza (paradise) and the Hebrew word gan (garden), both of which mean a "walled garden or park". Additionally, this location would be bound by the four biblical rivers to the West, Southwest, East and Southeast.3

The location in Iran is compelling, but not conclusive. Of the locations mentioned, it is the only one which contains detailed evidence supporting the claim, and I believe this is the best probable location of Eden.
Proposed Flood/Eden Locations

Now we will consider the various old earth proposals for the location of the local Flood of Noah.

Mesopotamia

The most popular, and most common claim, is that the flood was in Mesopotamia, or present day Iraq. This view is proposed by Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. Unfortunately, Dr. Ross gives little scientific evidence to support this location. He glosses over the subject, expecting his readers to accept this as the location. For example, here are his references to the Flood location in his book The Genesis Question:

On page 144, he says "God would need to flood only the Mesopotamian plain and perhaps some adjacent territories. On page 146, he mentions that God used wind to remove the flood waters. He states that "This removal technique perfectly suits the requirements of water removal from a gigantic flat plain such as Mesopotamia. On page 166, he shows a map with the location of the Flood.

The map shows the elevation line of 600 feet above sea level in present day Iraq. It does look like a plausible theory, however, the major problem this theory has is that the entire area drains into the Persian Gulf. There is no possible way to contain the flood waters, and a flood of this magnitude would never have occurred here. The rain waters would simply run away into the ocean. The only way to make this work is to have God perform a miraculous event at the southern end, making an invisible wall, or barrier, to keep the flood waters within the region. There is no indication in the Biblical text that this occurred.

Geologist and old earth creationist Glenn Morton also disputes the Mesopotamia flood scenario. As he points out, the ark would have been carried along by the currents towards the Persian Gulf, and away from the mountains of Ararat. The only way to deposit the ark in the Ararat range would be to have the water run uphill!4

Concerning the other flood requirements, the size of the Mesopotamian region would be sufficient, and some theologians place the Garden of Eden in the Mesopotamia region. The only problem with this theory is with physics, as water runs downhill, not uphill, due to gravity. Since we have no indication of a special condition such as a supernatural retaining wall, this theory fails.

The Jordan Valley, Mediterranean Sea, and Jerusalem

There are two possible scenarios with the flood in the vicinity of Jerusalem. The smallest possible flood would be the flooding of the Jordan Valley, which includes the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee, and the associated drainage basin. You have the same problem with this scenario as we saw in Mesopotamia. The valley drains into the Red Sea, thus it would require a "supernatural wall" on the south end.

The drainage basin does extend mostly east of the valley (click here, and scroll down to the General Basin Layout Map to see the basin). If Noah were well east of Jerusalem, this scenario could work (if you believe in the supernatural wall, of course). Some place the Garden of Eden in Jerusalem, although this is not the most likely location. While the symbolism is great, the archaeological and geographic evidence is non-existent.

The other scenario is the one proposed by Glenn Morton.5 He places Adam and Eve at about 5.5 million years ago, with the Flood occurring in the Mediterranean basin. The Mediterranean was a dry basin prior to this time. In this scenario the filling of the basin at 5.5 million years ago was due to Noah's Flood. Jerusalem is at the far eastern edge of this basin, so the area east of this (east of Eden was the land of Nod where Cain settled) would not have been flooded. This scenario would require the Garden of Eden to be located somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea. The ark could still come to rest on the mountains of Ararat in southern Turkey. This theory is plausible and makes sense, and it remains a possibility. The main complaint about this theory is that it would mean Adam and Eve were not modern hominids, but Australopithecines. The theory appeals to theistic evolutionists, but not to other forms of old earth creationism.

The Black Sea

In the 1990's two geologists proposed a flood in the Black Sea, that occurred about 7,600 years ago. This location has numerous problems. The total rise in water was only 400 feet, which moved the shoreline 24 miles. It would be no problem for people to flee this flood. Also, the Garden of Eden has never been proposed for a location near the Black Sea. In addition, the timing is wrong (see Dating Biblical Events, which puts the flood at least 35,000+ years ago).

A Theory Revisited

This leaves us with the final location that I would like to propose. In the past, some have proposed the Caspian Sea as the location of the Flood. I believe this is the best location based on our current understanding of Genesis.

The map below shows the Caspian sea, and the part in yellow shows the drainage basin.6 Since this is a closed basin, we could fill up the entire area in yellow. What is important to note is that in the lower left portion of the drainage basin we find the city of Tabriz, which is one of our locations for the



Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve left the Garden, they probably went east, out through the mountain pass that archaeologist David Rohl mentions. This would place all of mankind east of Tabriz, probably in the fertile lands on the shores of the Caspian, between present day Lankaran and Rasht.

There are some rather tall mountains on the south and west side of the Caspian, the tallest of which is about 18,600 feet. The width of the Caspian sea, from Lankaran to Turkmenbasy, is about 245 miles. If you add the portions in yellow, there is a potential width along this same line of about 645 miles.

Using our horizon calculations, Noah would have to be 167 miles from a mountain that was 18,600 feet tall. Given a potential width of over 600 miles, it is clear that Noah would see no land, even tall mountains, if he were in the center of the Caspian. Even in today's Caspian Sea, if you were in the middle of the southern portion, you would be over 180 miles from the tallest mountain, thus you would see no mountains.

The requirement for the ark to land on the mountains of Ararat is met, because the mountains on the west side of the southern portion of the Caspian are within what is considered the Ararat range. In fact, Mount Ararat itself is within the drainage basin. However, given the elevation on the west side of the Caspian, it would not be possible to float the ark all the way to Mount Ararat. However, it could easily land on the slopes of the mountains to the east of Mount Ararat.

There is one other important point worth mentioning. Given the elevation of Tabriz, it is unlikely that Eden itself was underwater. The Tabriz airport is listed as 4,459 feet above sea level. Since the Caspian Sea itself is slightly less than 100 feet below mean sea level, the waters would have to rise over 4,500 feet. Thus, Eden may have been destroyed by the torrential rains of the flood.

The Caspian Sea scenario meets all the requirements. However, there is one more issue we must discuss. Glenn Morton, a fellow old earth creationist, has dismissed the Caspian Sea as a location for Noah's Flood. His criticisms are this:

1. The basin has no geological deposits which would qualify as flood deposits.5 Morton himself answers this in another of his articles. In critiquing the Mesopotamian flood scenario, Morton states that "To completely erode flood sediments takes more than 20,000 years. In the progressive creationist time frame for the flood, it could not have occurred prior to 35,000 years ago. Most likely it was about 50,000 years ago. Thus, we have twice the amount of time that Morton allows for completely eroding away any flood sediments. Given this vast amount of time, we cannot expect to find any flood sediments from Noah's Flood.

2. To cover the high mountains in the Caspian basin would require covering the entire earth to a depth of 3,000 feet.5 However, we don't have to cover all the high mountains. So long as Noah floated on a body of water that was several hundred miles wide, he would not be able to see the high mountains on the sides of the flood region. All Noah would see would be water in all directions. Hence, from his perspective all the high mountains were covered.

Some young earth creationists have pointed to the statement in Genesis 7:20, where the flood waters covered the tall mountains to a depth of 15 cubits (about 20 feet). Noah could make this claim because the ark cleared all land forms and did not bottom out, thus the water had to be at least 20 feet deep. This is simply a reference to the draft of the ark.

Conclusion

The Caspian Sea scenario for Noah's Flood fits all the parameters. It is a large enough basin so that Noah would be unable to see any land masses. Based on the latest archaeological research, the Garden of Eden is included inside this basin. And, the ark could come to rest on mountains on the west side of the sea that are part of the Ararat range. It can work both within the framework of progressive creationism and theistic evolution.

Is this evidence conclusive? No. However, it is the best fit that we have based on the evidence available to us. Since the sediments from such a flood would mostly be eroded away, we will never be able to prove it conclusively.

I believe this model gives progressive creationism something that it hasn't had before...a plausible scenario that fits all the necessary parameters for the local flood of Noah. Up until this time, our best guess has been the Mesopotamia region, despite its problems. I believe we now have a scenario with no problems.

References:

1 Using the Theorem of Pythagoras

2 Suspected Locations of the Garden of Eden

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_eden#Suspected_locations

3 Summary from Garden of Eden

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_eden#Iran

4 Why The Flood Can Not Be In Mesopotamia

//home.entouch.net/dmd/mflood.htm

5 A Theory for Creationists, by Glenn Morton

//home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm

6 //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caspianseamap.png

[Gman]

It seems to me, that Local flood hypothesis has difficulities when one examines the geography of Mesopotamia. The image below shows the region with water levels 80 meters above normal. The geography of the land shows a natural drain over the delta of the Euphrates and through the Straits of Hormuz. There is no way to contain water for the 150 duration of the flood. In previous maps I posted one page back in this thread, I showed a similar map with waters at 300 meters above normal and it clear to see the levels could not have gone much deeper as the water would soon begin draining westward into the Medeterranian Sea. There are mnay other reasons to believe the local flood was every bit as problematic as the global one.

FM

I would agree with this that the traditional areas of the Mesopotamian plains are not the best location of the Genesis Flood. I think the areas in and around Lake Van (to the north) would still be possibly the best locations as I've advocated before many times...

[Gman]

Again, I can not believe that some one can read the events of Genesis and come to the conclusion the flood was local and I am reasonably sure, the ancient hebrews did not interpret the events as referencing a local flood as their commentaries and traditions leave little doubt they believed the event was global. One again, modern humans have studied the geology and physics and concluded as Banky has, that it was impossible.

Again... The ancient Jews had no idea how big our world is today. If you can produce an ancient map by them showing the world as we know it today, I will gladly retract my statements..

For this reason, once again, I say the local flood exegesis is highly disputed. Further, there is absolutely no reason to believe (as some, IMO, have erroneously concluded) that present geology would exhibit overwhelming evidence of this event which was less than one year in duration, thousands of years of ago.

Erroneously concluded? Thanks for your wisdom...

[Forum Monk]

Again... The ancient Jews had no idea how big our world is today. If you can produce an ancient map by them showing the world as we know it today, I will gladly retract my statements..

I can pretty much guarantee they realized it stretched from the Persian Gulf to the Nile, and I am sure they realized there was much more on the otherside of the mountains or the river. I doubt they had any knowledge of Europe, East Asia, or the Americas but their world was much larger than say, the Nile delta or Syrio-Palestine.

Erroneously concluded? Thanks for your wisdom...

That was a swipe at certain YECs or others who feel the present geology was formed by a global flood. I don't think it applies to you so please don't feel offended.

[Gman]

That was a swipe at certain YECs or others who feel the present geology was formed by a global flood. I don't think it applies to you so please don't feel offended.

My apologies to you too Forum Monk. Perhaps we got off the wrong foot earlier... Thanks for the input, I realize that many YEC's still believe in the global flood, (as I once did as an active member of Answers in Genesis) and to be honest with you I don't think God will provoke pending judgments against the two groups YEC and OEC.. But then again I really have no clue how God is going to judge this stuff. Perhaps I may fry for it, I don't know... Call me a risk taker I guess.

[gotsteef]

Gman, the following proposes the a major Caspian Sea flood about 15000 years ago may have been the original source of the Noah flood:

LATE GLACIAL GREAT FLOOD IN THE BLACK SEA AND CASPIAN SEA
TCHEPALYGA, Andrey, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Science, 29, Staromonetniy per, Moscow 109017 Russia, tchepalyga@mail.ru.
A comparative analysis of the Late Glacial history of the inner basins of Eurasia enables us to suggest an alternative to the Early Holocene Flood that Ryan et al. (1997) thought could be the basis for the legend of Noah's Flood. At the Late Glacial time (16-13 ka BP; 14C on mollusk's shells) a Great Eurasian Basin System (~1.5 million km2, ~650,000-700,000 km3) developed due to a climate warming, the melting of the Scandinavia Ice Sheet and massive river discharge. This is supported by freshwater and alluvial sediments (e.g., chocolate clays, loams and sands with a thickness of ca 20-30 m) with endemic Caspian mollusks Didacna, Monodacna, Adacna, and Hypanis widely distributed from the Caspian Sea to the Dardanelles including waterways between the basins. At the beginning (16-15 ka BP), the flood was especially rapid, increasing the Caspian Sea level by 100-150 m, reaching +50 m and pushing the Volga River mouth upstream in ca 1,500 km. The discharge of the large (Volga, Don, Dnieper) and small rivers increased by 2-4 and 20-35 times respectively, causing megafloods. The high speed of the flood can be seen from incising river paleomeanders not filled with sediment. A large amount of water could not be kept in the Caspian depression and was discharged into the Neweuxinian basin (ancient Black Sea) through the Manych-Kerch Strait at a speed 50,000 m3 sec-1, and from there across the Bosporus to the Sea of Marmara. As a result, the level of the Black Sea increased by 60-70 m and reached a level of approximately -20 m at the end of the Pleistocene. Archeological evidence from the late Paleolithic sites (e.g., Kamennaya Balka, Avdeevo, Byki, and Kapova Cave) suggests that large-scale flooding of the coastal zone by water from the late Pleistocene basins together with river megafloods caused a reduction of available living space and hunting areas, resulting in a mass migration and subsequent increase in population density. The decrease in available food resources per capita affected everyday life of the Palaeolithic people and was likely to have stimulated the transition from hunting and gathering to farming and cattle breeding in the region. Thus, it is possible that this flood affected the Late Paleolithic people so deeply as to form the legend of the Great Flood.

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalp ... _63243.htm

I agree with you that the Caspian Sea basin is the most likely candidate. However, to fit this event realistically into the Biblical Flood, far more work would have to be done. That work would primarily involve investigating the feasibility of the ark story. It is not simply a matter of determining if a 450' wooden boat will float on placid water, obviously. First, how much of the story as it is understood are we to assume is factual? The boat's dimensions and the duration afloat are primary items to consider.

To consider the plausibility of the boat structurally, we need to to investigate the probable conditions it would have to endure. Was the surface calm and smooth, or were there large swells? Keep in mind that anything lighter than water will float on a calm sea, but the presence of swells introduces extreme structural stresses. As a structural engineer that specializes in wood design, I highly doubt that an 450' all-wood ship/barge could survive any but the calmest seas. I can get into that later.

Then there is the duration aspect. Besides the animal husbandry problems, there's the matter of the current generated by the draining of the flooded Caspian basin into the Black Sea basin at a rate of 50,000 cubic meters per second. Essentially, the whole flooded area would have been moving west rather quickly. The surface of steadily moving bodies of water (such as rivers) has the highest velocity across the rivers cross-section. Anything floating on the surface of the sea would be moving fairly quickly toward the drainage point.

For now, in order rationally to accept the feasibility of the story, you need to get a lot more information.

[Himantolophus]

I am new here and I was impressed by the article posted on page one. I am really perplexed how an open-minded Christian can look at that essay and not wonder if the story was just a rough re-telling of a local (yet catastropic) event.

I believe in the local flood theory. The timeline and interpretation are close to the actual story and are based on real scientific evidence. I saw a show on the Garden of Eden on the History Channel, and despite the secular bias they were fairly neutral in their approach. They talk about the Black Sea, the Perisan Gulf, and Mesopotamia as the location for the Garden and the Flood. There is alot of evidence, of which is already on this thread, of the flooding of the Black Sea and the Mesopotamian region. They say that 6000+ years ago , as the glaciers retreated, the waters rose around the globe. The water breached narrow sills (like the Bosporus and the mouth of the Persian Gulf) and broke through catastropically and without warning. The event would have been unavoidable for the people in the flood plain and they simply could not run away. They also find evidence that the location of the Garden is at the bottom of the Persian Gulf as there are the remains of two ancient rivers under it's waters. Where these two rivers come together with the Tigris and Euphrates matches the location of the Biblcial Eden. It also makes sense because the figures of Adam and Eve left the Garden and traveled into the Middle East. The flood event later on obliterated the original location and only the Black Sea and Persian Gulf are left over from it. They also touch on the metaphorical nature of Adam and Eve, saying how they may simply represent a change from nomadic hunter-gatherers to sedentary farmers. Notice that this geologic event coincides with the rise of most of Earth's first civilizations. The Bible was written to describe this but it is done in fairly ambiguous language. I think an explanation like this fits both the Scripture and science.

I will hit some other stuff at another time. I think the original post makes some great questions and even the typical "God did it" retort cannot solve alot of them. A global flood as pushed by YEC's is just about impossible to defend!

[jenna]

Actually there has been scientific fact concerning a global flood. Scientists have found animals WORLDWIDE that have died in seemingly strange positions, often in the middle of eating (some still had undigested food in their stomachs or even in their mouth). Some were found in places where normally they would never have survived (example- a penguin in the desert, example only).Also, in every single culture and belief worldwide there is some type of story or "fable" of a catastrophic flood. How could these things be if the flood was not WORLDWIDE?

[Himantolophus]

well, each story is similar but differs in many respects. The people involved, the animals involved, the God involved, and the whole process is often different. If the stories were all based on one event, then wouldn't they all be the same? You can say that the stories were written from oral tradition and so were not perfectly accurate but that immediately implies that the Bible story suffers from the same inadequacies.

On the other thing you mention... that is often-quoted and very poor evidence for a global flood. One, if the rain was coming down and down for 40 days and nights, the animals would have plenty of time to run away and seek high ground. They sure as heck wouldn't die with food in their mouths or cowering in fear unless it was sudden and instantanious. The LOCAL flood however, would be instantanious and sudden and would sweep them up before they would react. Second, there were flash flood/landslide/sand slide events millions of times in Earth's history. These local events would kill animals quick and kill them in the midst of a fight, meal, or sleep. This is a more reasonible explanation for these fossils. Plus, we find them most often in ancient riverbeds where animals congregate to drink and reproduce.

All of the questions on pg.1 of this post need to be answered before I consider these fossils as evidence for a global flood.

[Himantolophus]

oh, and the penguin thing. There is a penguin living in the Galapagos Islands today and that is right on the equator. Animals can evolve to live in any habitat and they did just that in the Antarctic.