The Flood

#21

There, I just re-read what adiriel wrote. Just go to the Bahamas (or one of those islands) and see the rising cliffs of strawberry-coloured limestone, coloured by the layers of calcareous terra rossa soils formed during the glacial (low sea level) periods.

Relative sea level change is universal, but not necessarily will it be equal, sometimes the reverse (rise in some places, fall in others) depending on the local geological conditions (eg. isostacy, tectonic uplift- orogenesis). Some places may be flooded more than others. And some places may flood later than others, hence the difference in times of occurence of those stories. Just because one may be older than the other, doesn't mean the former is necessarily the only one true.

#22

I'm with AYHJA on this...I'm still missing on the explanation as to how they packed "most" or "as many as possible" into what must've been the largest sea faring vessel known to mankind. If I come across a more plausible version, I'll post it, unless someone has the "modern" interpretation.

PS- if it somehow includes the simple issue of salinity in regards to aquatic life, even better.

#23

They probably didn't. Since relative sea level rise was global, each vessel just had fauna from the local district, or at least country. The Chinese bloke gathered animals from Asian areas, the Babylonian gathered animals from the Middle East, the African ship amassed the fauna of Africa, etc.

#24

No Pete. THere was only one ark to fit all the animals on. There weren't the Chinese to put their animals on and the Babylonians to put there animals on. It also wasn't just a relative flood. It flooded the whole earth. There is proof of that everywhere. That's where we get some of the cool rock formations that we have.

To to ark comment....it was the biggest sea-faring vessel in the history of the world. There are many animals today that are hybrids and that who weren't on the ark. He didn't have to take any water animal, of course. I think it could have worked

#25

Relative as in relative rise. The whole world ain't gonna go 10 feet under at the same time! The topography of the earth just wouldn't allow it, so overall, there would be a rise, but it wouldn't be equal in every place simultaneously. Some places would have flooded earlier (and more) than others.

And back then, someone on one side of the world wouldn't know if someone else was making a boat, there wasn't the communication like we have today. So if someone made a big boat, they'd think they had made the biggest-arse boat of all, simply due to a lack of knowledge.

Wherever it flooded, people (or at least someone in each area) tried to salvage what they had and every animal they could find so life would go on after the flood.

Back in the Mesozoic there really WAS a 'flood', there was no ice AT ALL. The weather was warm, and shallow seas were everywhere. That's what formed the oil reservoirs.

But later in the Quaternary, the sea level really had been going up and down like a yo-yo, there would have been heaps of "floods", surely to occur throught the lives of different ages of civilisations.

To be honest, I think that some people take the Bible too literally, no offence. I may be a Christian, but I don't dance round in circles waving rattlesnakes or taipans over my head, just because it says "take up serpents".

#26

If there was a canopy layer of water above the earth, it would all come down at the same time. These people had never seen rain before and didn't know that it was coming. Only one person knew and that was "Noah"...others wouldn't know that the rain was coming to be able to build that ark.

#27

Trashtalkr, as RAUM stated earlier, regarding my original question...there are SEVERAL accounts of floods and its survivors. Not only are they different cultures but also different time tables. The suggestion is that there were different floods, not just one, I think.
My new question still stands regarding the survival chances of aquatic life, in radically different salinity levels due to rain fall VS sea water. If previous posts in the Evolution/Creation thread are still valid, I'd like to know how we got the diversity in Fauna if there were only "some" or "most" species of animals in the Ark. If I understood the old posts, interbreeding would eventually kill the animlas, or they simply return to their original "form".

#28

I'll have to check that out about the fresh water and salt water...that's interesting

#29

I don't think the salinity changes would have been that drastic. I don't know for certain, but that's what I reckon.

In reality the floods wouldn't have been so immediate, not like tsunamis that will swamp the country and keep it flooded. In the most recent case, a tsunami surged across the lands and destructed everything in its path, but it went back out again.

I reckon it happened over a much longer time period, but short enough for people to notice, and obviously bad enough that people thought everything would be wiped out with no land to live on. Maybe surges and rain was frequent too, becoming too common, which worried them.

Over time the occurrence of these events would be magnified and exaggerated, as tales go. So now we read it as a huge shower of rain that happened over a month and a half, and the whole land was inundated so much there was nothing left.

#30

I personally don't own a salt water tank, but I DO know that changes in PH levels and salt are...somewhat unsettling to our little scaly or otherwise slimy friends. I'm willing to concede, from what little I know, which is next to nothing, that if these changes where VERY gradual, maybe these suckers had time to adapt. This, however, would depend on the source of the story. Still having doubts on the inbreeding that took place afterwards.