The TRVE history of the Flood...

From NoahsArkandtheWorldwideFlood:

quote:

---

And it is because of this, that over 200 different cultures have recorded the Flood in their histories, to document in similar but different ways this worldwide geological event. Why, because the deluge effected all cultures, as all following cultures stemmed sociologically from the Mid-East. For from the Gilgamish Epic of babylonians, to the Creation tablets of Nineveh, to the Rosetta Stone of Egypt, to the stories told among the Eskimos and Indians of North America, all these cultures knew and passed on their history from the Great Flood. And it is mentioned in most of them that Noah and his Family were the only human survivors.

---

Since all of these "over 200 different cultures" were wiped out by "the flood", how did they record the flood in their histories? Dead people don't write histories.

quote:

---

...Noah and his Family were the only human survivors.

---

Therefore, the only possible source for any flood history would be Noah and his Family.Those "over 200 different cultures" must have been recording some other sort of flood event, not "THE BIG ONE".MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Fix formatting that came from the source page (removed extra line feeds).

OK, I now see that your statement that I quoted makes more sense than I thought. Not that I'm buying into it.I would like to see information that some culture (of those "over 200 different cultures"), GEOGRAPHICALLY REMOTE from the middle east, actually have the same story that is told in the Bible. Show me where they contain some reference to a Noah and family as being the only survivors.Just ONE example - Don't (dare I say) flood us with a bunch of vague assertions of numerous cultures having the same story is their histories. One or two paragraphs of a total of about 10 lines or less should do the job, plus a reference to where you got the information.Moose

Looks like as good of a place as any to interject this (repeating the subtitle):Didn't "the math" indicate that Methuselah lived until after "the flood"?Moose

Maybe there is something else elsewhere, but the video you posted upthread is a flume study modeling of stream flow (delta?) crossbedded deposits. That is NOT a rising sea level model.As I see it, Walther's Law may well (in a way) still be applicable to your flume deposits, but it would be modeling some variation of a receding sea. The top horizontal bedding would be the near shore deposit, the crossbeds would be the intermediate depth deposits, and the bottom horizontal bedding would be the deep water deposits.What was deep water becomes shallow water - It's a regressing sea.At the "Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law", topic, Percy had the MESSAGE 9 with the nice diagram showing a transgressing sea (the water is advancing landward).Late in process addition - Here is that diagram: Note there that the vertical column is that the shallowest water deposits are at the bottom while the deepest water deposits are at the top. For a regressing sea, that vertical column would be the opposite, having the shallowest water deposits at the top and the deepest water deposits at the bottom, just like they are in your Berthault experiment.Regardless of it being transgressive or regressive, the bottom most layer of a VERTICAL column had to be there first and the top most layer had to be laid down last. That is the Law of Superposition.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Added link to message containing video.

For example, in this diagram: (Source=Google cached)4000 feet vertically is about the same as 40 miles horizontally (4000 feet vertically, ~200,000 feet horizontally).A vertical exaggeration of about x50 (if I did the math correctly).Without the vertical exaggeration the diagram would look something like: (Source=Google cached)In which you can't see anything, which is why vertical exaggeration is used.The strata are, in reality, still close to horizontal.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Very minor tweak.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Source of graphics no longer exists, so put in Google cached version (poorer resolution).

What's that time machine going to cost?After all, as the evo side frequently protests, the Ordovician is a time period not a bunch of rocks (OSLT).That said, I do recognize that in geo-talk (slang?), "drilling an oil field in the Ordovician" actually means "drilling an oil field contained in Ordovician aged rocks".Maybe tomorrow, when it gets light, I'll go out and look at some preCambrian.Moose

Actually, I would think that there would be very substantial areas of the ocean that would be isolated enough from this sediment problem.Freshwater fish etc., however, are pretty screwed. Marine corals, too.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Add "Marine corals, too."

Referring to the St. Peter Sandstone: Your greater point probably stands just fine, but I had to comment on your saying "no St. Peter Sandstone in Minnesota". The type locality of the St. Peter Sandstone is in Minnesota. Offhand, I think the Paleozoic ends about half way north in Minnesota. I'm pretty sure that there are some limited Mesozoic age deposits in the iron range area, to the northwest of Lake Superior.No reply needed.Moose