-Jay-

It never ceases to amaze me how the notion that "many cultures, with a similar story of a universal flood" is taken by so many as substantiation of a great worldwide flood. The simple fact is that cultures build up around water sources, such as rivers, along coasts, and near lakes (not just ancient cultures - compare the locations of large U.S. cities with the locations of large lakes and rivers). Water sources flood intermittently. That ancient cultures have flood myths isn't amazing - it's inevitable.

Regarding the high incidence of favored families surviving the deluge: Again, essentially inevitable - the fact that people are around to repeat the stories necessarily implies that someone had to survive. This doesn't pass the "so-what?" test.

Other similarities, such as birds being employed, could more parsimoniously be explained by cultural exchange (i.e. the Hebrews having interaction with the Babylonian culture and incorporating elements of the Babylonian myths into their own) than by a worldwide flood on a scale that would leave planet-wide geological scars that simply are not evident. (Here's a low, slow pitch - explain the worldwide distribution of marsupial mammals and the fossil evidence of their development in the context of a worldwide global flood that wiped out all but a few individuals of each species.)

You're giving much more significance to the myths than they warrant. If you're willing to honestly look at the biological, geological, and archaeological evidence (to give a short list), and take the time to gain at least a basic understanding of them, you'll likely find that the credibility of a global flood event erodes very quickly.

v/r

NinJay

Dave Reed

(Here's a low, slow pitch - explain the worldwide distribution of marsupial mammals and the fossil evidence of their development in the context of a worldwide global flood that wiped out all but a few individuals of each species.)

This is actually easier to explain than one might think. Did anyone here
see the "Nova" episode about the experiment with the gray foxes
carried out in Russia (I think)? Basically, they interbred only the most
tame of the litters with one another. After about 4 generations, they
started to develope strange qualities, for a fox. Some were born with
spots on their fur, and some also "barked" like a dog. This occurred
only from whatever chemicals contribute to tame/docile behavior. From
this they developed the idea that ALL dogs are descendants of the wolf.
They believe that 15,000 years ago there were no dogs, but because
the wolf found it in it's best interest to befriend the human, (free food
in the trash pile) and perhaps other perks, it's chemicals changed enough
to produce the dozens of dog species we now have. I think this is
plausible, and it would explain how far fewer critters, of all types
could equate to what we currently have. I'm not tremendously interested
in having everlasting points about how the flood couldn't be true at this
point. I just want one logical reason why we have many accounts of a
UNIVERSAL flood from many separated cultures around the world. (the
Black Sea event is the best explanation so far, my opinion)

RED DAVE

From Dave Reed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_M..._Flood_of_1927

RED DAVE

Weltall

So you'd rather remain ignorant? Well, just don't go into teaching or politics.
You've had this (in my first post may I add). Civilization grew up near rivers. These rivers tended to flood seasonally. Sometimes they flooded catastrophically. When everyone was sitting around the fire at night and some kid asked 'Where did we come from', the idea that they were descended from the survivors of an even bigger flood that covered all the world would not have been a huge stretch. The fact that you seem to think that numerous cultures having flood stories is evidence for belief but the same cultures believing in a flat earth (or, say, talking animals) is not speaks volumes.

Koyaanisqatsi

Hope sprang eternal, it was Crosby who died young.

Dave Reed

Thanks for the link RED. I read it and
am willing to admit that there is the
possibility that monster flood accounts
could have come from much smaller
events. As was mentioned, the "known"
world in older times was not what we
view as the known world.

As for the flat earth and talking animals, I have no real
comment. I think most can see the difference between
the subject, and these tangents.

RED DAVE

Here is a definitive list of floods. Notice the incredible diversity of the stories. It is impossbileto attribute them to the same event.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Egypt

RED DAVE

Weltall

Actually, everyone here can see how you're using a double standard and ignoring the obvious implications of your argument.

-Jay-

I suspect you mean "experiment with gray wolves carried out in Russia". Not foxes. Foxes live a few branches over from wolves and other wolfish canids.

Here's the thing. Dogs are gray wolves.

http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf

You didn't answer the question. Let me rephrase. Marsupial species are found in two modern geographical regions. There are around 100 individual species in the Americas (and only one of which is in North America), and ballpark 200 species in Australia and it's very near island neighbors. The fossil evidence of marsupials suggests an origination in what is now North America followed by a spread down through what is now South America, across what is now Antarctica, and onto what is now Australia. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/marsupials.html for reference.) This is not the sort of pattern you'd expect to see as a radiation from a global flood where all of the fossil evidence and modern distributions would be predicted to converge back to a single point (often stated to be a mountain top in Turkey...). So, if all modern species are descended from a few types (or kinds, as the term is often used) remaining after a global flood, why does the fossil record and the current distribution of animals not reflect that? (I'll take you at your word that this isn't where you want to go with the discussion at this point, and let the question stand as rhetorical for now so as not to derail the thread, but please realize that when the topic of The Flood comes up, questions like this tend to follow.)

Now, as to what you say you're interested in - a logical reason why we have many accounts of a universal flood. It looks like that's already been well-addressed here.

regards,

NinJay

Gracchus

In point of fact, it was foxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox

:wave: