57 replies to this topic

[nortonthe2nd]

Bear with me for a moment. So, I live in Oregon. About a two hour drive from my house, you can find the remains of some of the largest floods in (scientifically accepted) history. They were called the Missoula Floods, and they occurred at the end of the last ice age, about 15,000 years ago. Essentially, as the ice sheets covering North America began to melt, enormous lakes formed in the center, held back by ice dams. Over time, these ice dams weakened, until the entire lake would break free at once. These lakes held amounts of water comparable to one of the Great Lakes, which went roaring down through what is now southern Canada, Montana, Washington, and northern Oregon. They left some extremely distinctive marks:

These terraced cliffs show the paths that the flood carved out.


These enormous boulders were carried hundreds of miles by the floods.


These rolling hills are actually giant ripple marks.
For more, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scablands

So, my question is, if there was a flood of even greater size only 6000 years ago, how come the entire world doesnt look like this?

[Cassiterides]

Bear with me for a moment. So, I live in Oregon. About a two hour drive from my house, you can find the remains of some of the largest floods in (scientifically accepted) history. They were called the Missoula Floods, and they occurred at the end of the last ice age, about 15,000 years ago. Essentially, as the ice sheets covering North America began to melt, enormous lakes formed in the center, held back by ice dams. Over time, these ice dams weakened, until the entire lake would break free at once. These lakes held amounts of water comparable to one of the Great Lakes, which went roaring down through what is now southern Canada, Montana, Washington, and northern Oregon.

Were you alive 15,000 years ago to observe the so called 'Missoula Floods'? Otherwise how do you know flooding there definately happened?

Obviously some of your photos show signs of catastrophism, however how do you know for sure it was because of a flood? What about an earthquake?

[nortonthe2nd]

Were you alive 15,000 years ago to observe the so called 'Missoula Floods'? Otherwise how do you know flooding there definately happened?

Obviously some of your photos show signs of catastrophism, however how do you know for sure it was because of a flood? What about an earthquake?

For one thing, the damage is consistent with a flood, but not with an earthquake. How would an earthquake move boulders hundreds of miles and carve out huge channels? How come the pattern of the damage follows an obvious flood path? Also, there are no fault lines near the effected areas. This is what scientists do: They observe the visible data and find a hypothesis that fits it. A flood does, and an earthquake (or any other sort of natural disaster) doesnt.

And on another note, were you there 6000 years ago to see Noah's flood? How do you know that definitely happened?

[Cassiterides]

For one thing, the damage is consistent with a flood, but not with an earthquake. How would an earthquake move boulders hundreds of miles and carve out huge channels? How come the pattern of the damage follows an obvious flood path? Also, there are no fault lines near the effected areas. This is what scientists do: They observe the visible data and find a hypothesis that fits it. A flood does, and an earthquake (or any other sort of natural disaster) doesnt.

This is all based entirely on your personal interpretation or assumption. We can't go back in time and observe events that took place, and left over evidence can only be interpreted. This means you will never 100% know what happened as you were not there to observe what happened.

And on another note, were you there 6000 years ago to see Noah's flood? How do you know that definitely happened?

Eyewitness testimony exists as do other ancient historical records which confirm that the Noachian deluge happened. In contrast, there were no eyewitnesses to the 'Missoula Floods' or any early historical writings on them. So there is no direct evidence they occured.

[nortonthe2nd]

This is all based entirely on your personal interpretation or assumption. We can't go back in time and observe events that took place, and left over evidence can only be interpreted. This means you will never 100% know what happened as you were not there to observe what happened.

For one thing, it's not just my personal opinion. It's also the opinion of people who have spent their lives studying geology. Think about it this way: What if you find a mutilated body at the bottom of the cliff? It has broken bones and internal damage consistent with a long fall. It's pretty obvious what happened, even if no one actually saw it.

Eyewitness testimony exists as do other ancient historical records which confirm that the Noachian deluge happened. In contrast, there were no eyewitnesses to the 'Missoula Floods' or any early historical writings on them. So there is no direct evidence they occured.

Would you consider the Iliad a reliable source of testimony on the Trojan War? That's considerably more recent than Noah's Flood is supposed to be. Yes, the Iliad suggests that there was a war which involved Troy, which is backed up by physical evidence. The Noah's Flood story suggests that there have been major floods in the past, which is also backed up by physical evidence. The existence of the Greek gods, however, is not backed up by physical evidence, and neither is a global flood.

[Cassiterides]

For one thing, it's not just my personal opinion. It's also the opinion of people who have spent their lives studying geology. Think about it this way: What if you find a mutilated body at the bottom of the cliff? It has broken bones and internal damage consistent with a long fall. It's pretty obvious what happened, even if no one actually saw it.

Yes i always hear this analogy from atheists. Usually though they quote how forensic science works in attempt to prove evolution as factual when at the same time admit it is not directly observable.

This is the odd thing with atheists. They don't believe in God, mostly they claim because He is not 'directly observable', yet at the same time atheists believe in evolution which isn't directly observable...odd indeed.

Would you consider the Iliad a reliable source of testimony on the Trojan War?

Yes, since the Iliad itself was just from a larger corpus of work (Επικός Κύκλος - Epic Cycle) all which confirm the Trojan war as a real historic event.

Homer's works were originally orally transmitted from the time of the Trojan war itself. The earliest historians in ancient Greece all documentated it as having been a real war, and that Troy a real location.

We have the exact same for the Noachian deluge. There are hundreds of historical records which describe a world flood around the exact time period Noah lived. There are also ancient myths worldwide which preserve remarkable accounts of the flood.

The Noah's Flood story suggests that there have been major floods in the past, which is also backed up by physical evidence. The existence of the Greek gods, however, is not backed up by physical evidence, and neither is a global flood.

We have eyewitness testimony and historic accounts that the flood occured and was on a world-wide level. Looking for physical evidence is quite pointless, because the earth was altered by God afer the flood anyway.

[nortonthe2nd]

Yes i always hear this analogy from atheists. Usually though they quote how forensic science works in attempt to prove evolution as factual when at the same time admit it is not directly observable.

Irrelevant, since evolution isnt what we're talking about at the moment.

This is the odd thing with atheists. They don't believe in God, mostly they claim because He is not 'directly observable', yet at the same time atheists believe in evolution which isn't directly observable...odd indeed.

We dont believe in God because there's no evidence for his existence, of which direct observation is just a part. Witness accounts are actually the least trustworthy of evidence, because people can lie, remember incorrectly, be mistaken, etc etc. Actual physical evidence is much preferred.

Back on topic, you didnt actually respond to my point.

Yes, since the Iliad itself was just from a larger corpus of work (Επικός Κύκλος - Epic Cycle) all which confirm the Trojan war as a real historic event.

Homer's works were originally orally transmitted from the time of the Trojan war itself. The earliest  historians in ancient Greece all documentated it as having been a real war, and that Troy a real location.

We have the exact same for the Noachian deluge. There are hundreds of historical records which describe a world flood around the exact time period Noah lived. There are also ancient myths worldwide which preserve remarkable accounts of the flood.

Almost all early religions are polytheistic. Do you think the Greek or Norwegian or Hindu gods exist? Myths arent the best source of accurate testimony. Humans tend to exaggerate things, especially over time. If you're looking for a source for those myths, try one of these: http://en.wikipedia....f_flood_legends

We have eyewitness testimony and historic accounts that the flood occured and was on a world-wide level. Looking for physical evidence is quite pointless, because the earth was altered by God afer the flood anyway.

Well isnt that convenient, now. So basically, after the flood, God changed the earth to make it look like it was actually about 4.5 billion years old? Where in the Bible does it say this?

[Cassiterides]

Almost all early religions are polytheistic. Do you think the Greek or Norwegian or Hindu gods exist?

They once existed as deified mortals. Look up euhemerism, imperial cults and apotheosis.

Myths arent the best source of accurate testimony. Humans tend to exaggerate things, especially over time. If you're looking for a source for those myths, try one of these:

I'm actually currently taking a degree which covers classical mythology. I can assure you, non of the teachers or students on my course believe myths are purely fictional. I don't think you understand what myths are, they aren't fairy tales. The traditional meaning of a myth (from mythos) is simply a ‘‘story’’ or ‘‘tale’’, these were stories originally passed down orally before being recorded. Regardless if they were 'exaggerated', there is an underlying element of truth. Myths are therefore based on historical events and happenings. Since we have over 200 world myths describing a world-wide flood, then that is evidence which proves the flood of Noah. You are attempting to localize the flood, as all atheists do, but you aren't considering all the world myths which describe the deluge as covering the entire earth. I wonder why...

Atheists are the only ones who go down the path claiming ''we can't trust myths'', i've seen this sort of logic on TalkOrigins - and they only do this since they can't explain why hundreds of flood myths exist worldwide.

Well isnt that convenient, now. So basically, after the flood, God changed the earth to make it look like it was actually about 4.5 billion years old? Where in the Bible does it say this?

How does the earth look 4.5 billion years old? Secondly read Genesis 10: 25. The earth was 'divided' (changed, reshaped) after the flood.

[scott]

Yes Old Earthers/Evolutionist. I'd like to know what 4.5 billion years looks and feels like.

Since you all claim to have experienced it first hand, and proved 4.5 billion years... then show me.

[rico]

....
These rolling hills are actually giant ripple marks.
For more, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scablands

So, my question is, if there was a flood of even greater size only 6000 years ago, how come the entire world doesnt look like this?

Because of how the land was at the time. Flood Plains, mountains, and glaciers have different impacts to the land, which isn't uniform everywhere you go. It was divided/reshaped (like Cassiterides mentioned) The flood also lasted a long time for floods. The earth was originally believed to have all the continents connected (Pangea). Maybe you could experiment with models of sand, ice, and rocks...
How do you explain entire Petrified forests with just the ice age?-- You can't can you?
http://www.nps.gov/pefo/

[ikester7579]

Bear with me for a moment. So, I live in Oregon. About a two hour drive from my house, you can find the remains of some of the largest floods in (scientifically accepted) history. They were called the Missoula Floods, and they occurred at the end of the last ice age, about 15,000 years ago. Essentially, as the ice sheets covering North America began to melt, enormous lakes formed in the center, held back by ice dams. Over time, these ice dams weakened, until the entire lake would break free at once. These lakes held amounts of water comparable to one of the Great Lakes, which went roaring down through what is now southern Canada, Montana, Washington, and northern Oregon. They left some extremely distinctive marks:

These terraced cliffs show the paths that the flood carved out.


These enormous boulders were carried hundreds of miles by the floods.


These rolling hills are actually giant ripple marks.
For more, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scablands

So, my question is, if there was a flood of even greater size only 6000 years ago, how come the entire world doesnt look like this?

Easy to answer. Carving through the flow of water only exists where the water flow exists. Almost sounds like circular reasoning don't it? But here's the deal.

If you take a huge long container. Put some sand in the bottom, and filled with water, and let the sand settle. Then took at one end and put a hole in the container large enough to get a good flow. As the water flows out that hole. Which part of the whole container Is actually going to have any turbulence do to water movement? It's going to be right at the hole. Now which part is going to just lower in water level with practically zero turbulence? The part furtherest from the hole. So one end gets constant erosion, while the other end gets very little.

The Grand Canyon has fault lines (draining areas) all through it that allowed a lot of the water from the flood to flow and erode away stuff.

Now why did the flood you speak of erode a whole area?

If you take the same large long container, and simulate a dam breakage at one end. To flow across and flow out the hole at the other. Because the water turbulence is the same at both ends, the erosion will be also. This is because a huge amount of water was released in an area where there was zero water.

In the case concerning the flood, the rains started first. You could simulate this in the container as well. The rain brought the water level up to flood and the fountains of the deep broke and water came up from there. And because this was a constant fill from two sources. The water had no where to flow except cover the whole planet.

You have to have water turbulence or flowing to get erosion. That did not happen until the water went under ground through the existing fault line.

[nortonthe2nd]

They once existed as deified mortals. Look up euhemerism, imperial cults and apotheosis.
I'm actually currently taking a degree which covers classical mythology. I can assure you, non of the teachers or students on my course believe myths are purely fictional. I don't think you understand what myths are, they aren't fairy tales. The traditional meaning of a myth (from mythos) is simply a ‘‘story’’ or ‘‘tale’’, these were stories originally passed down orally before being recorded. Regardless if they were 'exaggerated', there is an underlying element of truth. Myths are therefore based on historical events and happenings. Since we have over 200 world myths describing a world-wide flood, then that is evidence which proves the flood of Noah. You are attempting to localize the flood, as all atheists do, but you aren't considering all the world myths which describe the deluge as covering the entire earth. I wonder why...

This is incorrect. Many Indo-European myths have a flood that covers the entire world, but these are all traceable to the same root story, so that's one global flood. In China, we have a myth where "floodwaters overflowed [to] heaven," but in this myth, the emperor tries to contain the floodwaters, meaning that it couldnt have been global. This is almost certainly linked with especially bad floods along the Yellow River, where the myth originated. Many island cultures have global flood myths, but since they're limited to one island, that's all that really needs to be flooded. This can be explained by a tsunami or particularly fierce storm. The North American flood myths, of course, can be explained by the Missoula Floods themselves. Giant floods arent so uncommon events that a single one had to inspire all the myths. For example, if the floods occurring in Pakistan right now had happened in ancient times, they likely would have inspired a flood myth.

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.

Atheists are the only ones who go down the path claiming ''we can't trust myths'', i've seen this sort of logic on TalkOrigins - and they only do this since they can't explain why hundreds of flood myths exist worldwide.

Of course myths are often based on real historic events. That doesnt mean we should take them at face value. As I said before, humans have a habit of exaggerating things over time.

How does the earth look 4.5 billion years old? Secondly read Genesis 10: 25. The earth was 'divided' (changed, reshaped) after the flood.

Now, I'm no Bible scholar, but it sure looks to me like that was referring to the earth being divided among the sons of Noah.

Genesis 10:32 "These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood."

Yes Old Earthers/Evolutionist.  I'd like to know what 4.5 billion years looks and feels like.

Since you all claim to have experienced it first hand, and proved 4.5 billion years... then show me.

None of us claim to have experienced it first hand. That kind of debate tactic is known as a straw man. We claim that it appears to be that old based on physical evidence.

Easy to answer. Carving through the flow of water only exists where the water flow exists. Almost sounds like circular reasoning don't it? But here's the deal.

If you take a huge long container. Put some sand in the bottom, and filled with water, and let the sand settle. Then took at one end and put a hole in the container large enough to get a good flow. As the water flows out that hole. Which part of the whole container Is actually going to have any turbulence do to water movement? It's going to be right at the hole. Now which part is going to just lower in water level with practically zero turbulence? The part furtherest from the hole. So one end gets constant erosion, while the other end gets very little.

The Grand Canyon has fault lines (draining areas) all through it that allowed a lot of the water from the flood to flow and erode away stuff.

Now why did the flood you speak of erode a whole area?

If you take the same large long container, and simulate a dam breakage at one end. To flow across and flow out the hole at the other. Because the water turbulence is the same at both ends, the erosion will be also. This is because a huge amount of water was released in an area where there was zero water.

In the case concerning the flood, the rains started first. You could simulate this in the container as well. The rain brought the water level up to flood and the fountains of the deep broke and water came up from there. And because this was a constant fill from two sources. The water had no where to flow except cover the whole planet.

You have to have water turbulence or flowing to get erosion. That did not happen until the water went under ground through the existing fault line.

Finally, a decently thought out argument. It still has problems, though. For one thing, there arent any fault lines near the Grand Canyon. It's right in the middle of the North American plate, which is a very tectonically stable area. There is a fault line fairly near the Scablands, but the flow pattern doesnt make any sense for water flowing from everywhere into the fault line. You would expect the land along the entire coast to be scoured clean. Finally, where would the water go after it went down the fault lines?

[Cassiterides]

This is incorrect. Many Indo-European myths have a flood that covers the entire world, but these are all traceable to the same root story, so that's one global flood.

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.

In China, we have a myth where "floodwaters overflowed [to] heaven," but in this myth, the emperor tries to contain the floodwaters, meaning that it couldnt have been global. This is almost certainly linked with especially bad floods along the Yellow River, where the myth originated. Many island cultures have global flood myths, but since they're limited to one island, that's all that really needs to be flooded. This can be explained by a tsunami or particularly fierce storm. The North American flood myths, of course, can be explained by the Missoula Floods themselves. Giant floods arent so uncommon events that a single one had to inspire all the myths. For example, if the floods occurring in Pakistan right now had happened in ancient times, they likely would have inspired a flood myth.

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?

Now, I'm no Bible scholar, but it sure looks to me like that was referring to the earth being divided among the sons of Noah.

Genesis 10:32 "These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood."

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

[AFJ]

Bear with me for a moment. So, I live in Oregon. About a two hour drive from my house, you can find the remains of some of the largest floods in (scientifically accepted) history. They were called the Missoula Floods, and they occurred at the end of the last ice age, about 15,000 years ago. Essentially, as the ice sheets covering North America began to melt, enormous lakes formed in the center, held back by ice dams. Over time, these ice dams weakened, until the entire lake would break free at once. These lakes held amounts of water comparable to one of the Great Lakes, which went roaring down through what is now southern Canada, Montana, Washington, and northern Oregon. They left some extremely distinctive marks:

These terraced cliffs show the paths that the flood carved out.


These enormous boulders were carried hundreds of miles by the floods.


These rolling hills are actually giant ripple marks.
For more, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scablands

So, my question is, if there was a flood of even greater size only 6000 years ago, how come the entire world doesnt look like this?

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?

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?

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.

And NOW suddenly we've got this huge ice sheet that came from nowhere.

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.

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.

[nortonthe2nd]

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_ages

A 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.

[Cassiterides]

The tribes that make these myths are local. Even if their entire area was flooded, it still wouldnt come anywhere close to being global.

You still haven't read Genesis in context. Before the flood (and until days of Peleg), there was only one single landmass (Genesis 1: 9). Before the flood, and even after the flood until the dispersal at Babel - everyone lived in the same area on earth, and had one language.

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.

Genesis 10: 5; 32 are references to Babel, note the mention of 'nations' and 'tongues' (i.e language). At Babel man was scattered into the nations, and had his language altered. Now note Genesis 10: 25: ''...for in his days was the earth divided''. There is no mention of language or nations. The Hebrew here directly relates to the earth (Hebrew: eretz) and peleg/palag means 'division' in relation to land or water. Note for example Job 38: 25:

''Who hath divided (palag) a watercourse for the overflowing of waters''

[bobabelever]

So, my question is, if there was a flood of even greater size only 6000 years ago, how come the entire world doesnt look like this?

I've taken a fair share of airplane rides in my time, and I'm always fascinated (not surprised, rather awe struck) by the different kinds of obvious evidences of water all over North America.

It matters not from where you look (from a high altitude), there is always some indication that water was there.

Disclaimer:
I can only speak as an eye-witness of North America, but I would guess that these visual water evidences are all over the Earth.

----------------------------------------------------
I think that human intelligence guessing that these Missoula floods happened about 15,000 years ago is OK from a creationist viewpoint. They're only about 12,500 years off the mark, that's a lot better than millions/billions of years!

[nortonthe2nd]

You still haven't read Genesis in context. Before the flood (and until days of Peleg), there was only one single landmass (Genesis 1: 9). Before the flood, and even after the flood until the dispersal at Babel - everyone lived in the same area on earth, and had one language.
Genesis 10: 5; 32 are references to Babel, note the mention of 'nations' and 'tongues' (i.e language). At Babel man was scattered into the nations, and had his language altered. Now note Genesis 10: 25: ''...for in his days was the earth divided''. There is no mention of language or nations. The Hebrew here directly relates to the earth (Hebrew: eretz) and peleg/palag means 'division' in relation to land or water. Note for example Job 38: 25:

''Who hath divided (palag) a watercourse for the overflowing of waters''

That entire section is about the nations founded after the flood. The word "divided" is used three times in Genesis 10, and it's made clear the first and last time that it's concerning nations and people. Why should the middle time be different? Show me another place where it unambiguously talks about God physically dividing the land after the flood. You'd think something like that would mention a couple lines of its own at least.

Also, please note that if my "theory" of the Bible is correct, that it's just a collection of myths passed down by a few tribes with no supernatural influence, you would expect them to assume that their local area was the entire world. Oh, and another thing: How did they manage to go from just Noah and his sons to enough people to found multiple cities and nations in just a couple generations? Since they were the only people to survive the flood, it's safe to assume that the only people in the world at the time are the ones mentioned in that chapter, right?

I've taken a fair share of airplane rides in my time, and I'm always fascinated (not surprised, rather awe struck) by the different kinds of obvious evidences of water all over North America.

It matters not from where you look (from a high altitude), there is always some indication that water was there.

Disclaimer:
I can only speak as an eye-witness of North America, but I would guess that these visual water evidences are all over the Earth.

----------------------------------------------------
I think that human intelligence guessing that these Missoula floods happened about 15,000 years ago is OK from a creationist viewpoint.  They're only about 12,500 years off the mark, that's a lot better than millions/billions of years!

There is, in fact, a lot of water on this planet. Two thirds of it, in fact. Every kind of behavior for water leaves distinctive signs: V shaped valleys for rivers, U shaped valleys for glaciers, heavy deposits of sedimentary rock for lakes, etc etc. Would you like to explain a method where all these features could have been formed by an enormous flood?

[bobabelever]

There is, in fact, a lot of water on this planet. Two thirds of it, in fact. Every kind of behavior for water leaves distinctive signs: V shaped valleys for rivers, U shaped valleys for glaciers, heavy deposits of sedimentary rock for lakes, etc etc. Would you like to explain a method where all these features could have been formed by an enormous flood?

Sure, an enormous (global) flood is the method where all these features were formed. (That was too easy, all I had to do was use the same words you used in your question and made it into a statement.)

[nortonthe2nd]

Sure, an enormous (global) flood is the method where all these features were formed.  (That was too easy, all I had to do was use the same words you used in your question and made it into a statement.)

You're missing the point. Floods dont form V or U shaped valleys, thick layers of sediment, or any number of other geographical features. A flood can hardly carve a mountain. How did all these features inconsistent with a flood get there?