Precisely, and there is only one flood described in the Bible which covered the entire face of the earth. Flood myths are strong evidence therefore for the flood of Noah. Atheists only have two options in responce:
1. Claim myths aren't evidence.
2. Claim myths with flood stories are only of local floods.
You made both these claims in this thread without backing them up.
How do you explain that most ancient myths which describe the flood, do not describe it as local, but describe it as having covered the entire earth?
The tribes that make these myths are local. Even if their entire area was flooded, it still wouldnt come anywhere close to being global.
Land was originally all connected ''in one place'' within the waters (Genesis 1: 9). Modern scientists call this single continent or Island, Pangaea. This was then broken up or divided (Genesis 10: 25).
In Genesis 10: 25 the earth is described as having been divided, not the people. The Tower of Babel and the earth's division in the day of Peleg were two seperate events.
Peleg in Hebrew has an etymology related to 'earthquake', or the splitting of water.
http://strongsnumber...hebrew/6389.htm

Again, what justification do you have for this interpretation? 10:32 clearly states that the lands were being divided into
nations for the sons of Noah. If the land had physically changed, dont you think there would have been a slightly bigger note? Also, biblegateway.com says "Genesis 10:25 Peleg means division." As far as I can tell, the only reason you have for saying that the continents changed after the flood is because otherwise, there's no way organisms could have spread over the entire planet.
Outburst floods are part of post flood theories. I have not sudied Missoula in depth, but I have heard that there are undeniable proofs of lakes formed by glaciers. One thing I would ask you--What is ice? Isn't it crystallized water. Where did all this water come from that formed these huge ice sheets. They were all over northern America, and their traces are surficial and evident today.
They're saying 15000 years. That really gives no time for any major tectonic movement in gradualist time. So you've got all this ice on the continent--where did it come from?
Please see my previous post:
"Another note is that physical evidence suggests the sea level rose by more than 100 meters around 10,000 years ago, which could lead to global flood myths."
The water came from the ocean, and when the ice age ended, the water went back into the ocean. No new water is required.
It snowed!
Well, that's alot of snow, and it stayed cold for a long time--why?
SO did it snow for 40 days and nights? OR was it for 400 years non stop?
But wait. Aren't there archalogical findings which tell of an historical flood, which flooded the earth. What a coindence. Maybe that provided the water on the continents for an ice age. Something that catastrophic could change the weather by all means. Something made it turn cold--it just doesn't stay cold so far south for no reason.
----------------------------------------------------------
Portland oregon is 173 feet above sea level, and glaciers would have come from up north from HIGHER elevation--just thousands of years ago. How did all that ice get so high and cover so much land. Lots and Lots and Lots of snow. And then it sayed cold, for no known reason? And you redicule us for believing in a flood?
The causes of ice ages arent completely understood yet, but for some relevant factors, see here:
http://en.wikipedia....ses_of_ice_agesA few important ones are variation in the Earth's orbit, the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the flow of oceanic and atmospheric currents. Sorry I cant give you absolute, 100% certainty, I know you hate that about science.
Well, most models I've seen show ice sheets covering Canada--that would include the LIMESTONE Canadian rockies--am I right? And again--I know your tired of hearing this--limestone is formed underwater. So we've got surficial limestone mountains (with shale on them with marine fossils) in Canada. We've got huge deposits of surficial limestone hills through Tennesee and Missouri, the Redwall Limestone in the southwest U.S. As well there are deposits in the easern states as in other areas throughout the world--not to mention pure chalk in England and I have heard in Arkansas, adn other areas.
Limestone forms over hundreds or thousands of years through the slow deposition of minerals carried in water. It is physically impossible for it to form in a flood. In fact, limestone is the first kind of rock to erode under those kind of circumstances, so its existence is evidence against the flood.
And NOW suddenly we've got this huge ice sheet that came from nowhere.
It's hardly out of nowhere. Ice ages set in and retreat over thousands of years. The last ice age began ending about 16,000 years ago and fully ended about 10,000 years ago.
We got alot of water evidence. And before we knew that any of this evidence was here on earth--historical eyewitness accounts told us, not only in the Bible, but in other cultures, that a golbal flood took place.
---------------------
Why does it not look like this all over the world? Would all the sediment been moved by an outburst flood from a giant lake? If the world was in cataclysm--would it all have looked the same? Or was it all the same type of sediment?
Or would the same kind of catastophe happened on an uplift as a descending terrain? Where would there be current--off of plateaus and uplifts? WHere would the water be stiller--in low places? WOuldn't it depend on how much the earth was moving and quaking in each area? I mean a landslide, and exploding volcano, and an outburst flood, forming a canyon, would all form different topology.
Some geographic features can be formed with water, some cant. Any kind of higher point will be eroded, which should have significantly lowered the mountains. Where the water is fastest, the land should be scoured down to the bedrock, leaving huge patches of basalt and granite by the coasts (assuming that's where the water went). Nearly all of the topsoil would have been removed, although after the flood retreated, all the dead matter left behind would have began decaying rapidly. That does leave a food problem, of course. For the most part, the earth should have been left a barren, desolate plain, largely devoid of features. Something like the Grand Canyon is far to small to have been carved by a global flood.
Boulders--just watched a show the other night. It was talking about all the huge boulder up in the states around the great lakes which shouldn't be there.

They were probably carried there by glaciers, since that's what carved the Great Lakes. A process that takes tens of thousands of years, for the record.