The biggest evidence of the Flood? The world ocean.

[Derf]

Not likely.



No vessel other than Noah's would have been able to survive the flood.

Anyone from Noah's lineage (I.e., everyone after the flood) would have some concept of transoceanic travel, in historical narrative, at least. Some might have been able to execute it.

Evidence Accumulates for Ancient Transoceanic Voyages, Says Geographer

Theories on the fringe of science sometimes slowly work their way into the core as the evidence accumulates.

www.ancient-origins.net

 

[JudgeRightly]

Anyone from Noah's lineage (I.e., everyone after the flood) would have some concept of transoceanic travel, in historical narrative, at least. Some might have been able to execute it.

Evidence Accumulates for Ancient Transoceanic Voyages, Says Geographer

Theories on the fringe of science sometimes slowly work their way into the core as the evidence accumulates.

www.ancient-origins.net

There were no "oceans" prior to the Flood.

Only seas.

At that timestamp you'll have a basic idea of what it looked like.

Certainly not a voyage that any normal ship of that age could make. And Noah had at least 75 years to work on his.

 

[Derf]

There were no "oceans" prior to the Flood.

Only seas.

At that timestamp you'll have a basic idea of what it looked like.

Certainly not a voyage that any normal ship of that age could make. And Noah had at least 75 years to work on his.

My conjecture was that the new world or other continents could have been reached via boat after the flood.

 

[JudgeRightly]

My conjecture was that the new world or other continents could have been reached via boat after the flood.

There wouldn't have been a "new world" or "other continents."

There was a single global continent with seas scattered around it, as shown in the image.

 

[Derf]

There wouldn't have been a "new world" or "other continents."

There was a single global continent with seas scattered around it, as shown in the image.

After the flood?

 

[JudgeRightly]

After the flood?

Were we not just talking about people from BEFORE the flood surviving it? Or did I miss something?

 

[Derf]

Were we not just talking about people from BEFORE the flood surviving it? Or did I miss something?

You were responding to my posts, where I was talking about how the other lands might have been populated after the flood, to avoid the necessity of other people surviving the flood.

Anyone from Noah's lineage (I.e., everyone after the flood) would have some concept of transoceanic travel, in historical narrative, at least. Some might have been able to execute it.

Evidence Accumulates for Ancient Transoceanic Voyages, Says Geographer

Theories on the fringe of science sometimes slowly work their way into the core as the evidence accumulates.

www.ancient-origins.net

My conjecture was that the new world or other continents could have been reached via boat after the flood.

 

[Yorzhik]

I doubt anyone survived that was not on the Ark. The Bible is pretty clear that everything that "all flesh died that moved on the earth," listing birds, cattle, beasts, every creeping thing, and every man, and it even emphasizes "all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive."

The Bible is clear, but even so, there's literally no possible way that anyone could swim for well over 150 days nonstop without food or clean water in the freezing cold waters of the Flood, and that's ignoring the likelihood that they would have been eaten by sea creatures that were NOT destroyed in the Flood. Remember, the only creatures destroyed were man and beasts on the surface of the earth and birds. It says nothing about sea creatures.

No, the only humans to survive the Flood was Noah, his wife, his three sons, and the three women who were the wives of those sons. No one else could have.

No, that's not possible.

Firstly, the Bible clearly says that 8 people survived the flood and that everyone else died in it. The Bible Account

Secondly, nobody could survive those conditions (being in a violent ocean for months).

That's not quite right. It wasn't an ocean covering the earth for 150 days. It was more like tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and wild animals constantly for 150 days. No cover, no resources, no place to go, no agriculture, and no large groups of related people for about a year. We know this because there are footprints of men and animals in the sediments.

So while Noah and his family were the only survivors, some people and animals made it passed the initial blast.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You were responding to my posts, where I was talking about how the other lands might have been populated after the flood, to avoid the necessity of other people surviving the flood.

My mistake.

 

[Skeeter]

That's not quite right. It wasn't an ocean covering the earth for 150 days. It was more like tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and wild animals constantly for 150 days. No cover, no resources, no place to go, no agriculture, and no large groups of related people for about a year. We know this because there are footprints of men and animals in the sediments.

No human foot prints with dinosaurs, and no grass with dinosaurs.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's not quite right. It wasn't an ocean covering the earth for 150 days. It was more like tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and wild animals constantly for 150 days. No cover, no resources, no place to go, no agriculture, and no large groups of related people for about a year. We know this because there are footprints of men and animals in the sediments.

So while Noah and his family were the only survivors, some people and animals made it passed the initial blast.

No, these verses preclude the claim that the Flood was not global.

The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters.And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. - Genesis 7:18-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis7:18-20&version=NKJV

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ

 

[Idolater]

... The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters.And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. - Genesis 7:18-20 ...

Everest is over 17000 cubits. Does this mean Everest was basically flat (i.e. 'not there at all') before the Flood?

 

[Yorzhik]

No human foot prints with dinosaurs, and no grass with dinosaurs.

Except the footprints of humans in dinosaur footprints and visa versa.

 

[Yorzhik]

No, these verses preclude the claim that the Flood was not global.

What? Tracks in sediments also show the flood was global. I'm not getting your point.

The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters.And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. - Genesis 7:18-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis7:18-20&version=NKJV

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ

And other verses show the ark landed and floated throughout the flood. It isn't contradictory with these verses.

 

[marke]

Everest is over 17000 cubits. Does this mean Everest was basically flat (i.e. 'not there at all') before the Flood?

Everest may have been lower than it is now but however high it was the flood waters were higher than the highest mountains on earth at the time.

 

[marke]

What? Tracks in sediments also show the flood was global. I'm not getting your point.

And other verses show the ark landed and floated throughout the flood. It isn't contradictory with these verses.

What do you mean "landed and floated?"

 

[Idolater]

Everest may have been lower than it is now but however high it was the flood waters were higher than the highest mountains on earth at the time.

That's what I was 'getting at'.

 

[Yorzhik]

What do you mean "landed and floated?"

That the ark frequently was sitting on bare sediments before the next wave came along and floated the ark again.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Everest is over 17000 cubits. Does this mean Everest was basically flat (i.e. 'not there at all') before the Flood?

I strongly recommend that you watch the YouTube Playlist I linked to above, where Bryan Nickel does an EXCELLENT job at explaining the Hydroplate Theory, which explains the origins of the mountain ranges we see today, along with many other things in the solar system.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What? Tracks in sediments also show the flood was global. I'm not getting your point.

"Tidal waves" don't leave bare ground during a global flood. The entire earth was covered

And other verses show the ark landed and floated throughout the flood. It isn't contradictory with these verses.

"Other verses"?

Such as? Because the conditions of a global flood that lasted for over half a year don't allow such a thing to happen.

That the ark frequently was sitting on bare sediments before the next wave came along and floated the ark again.

There is no evidence for this.