(July 23, 2014 at 1:05 am)snowtracks Wrote: since there is little or no physical evidence for global flood, there would be even less for a localized flood (but still comparatively enormous to other alluvial floods. although massive it only lasted a mere year. a major flood of such a brief duration typically doesn't leave substantial deposits to be positively identified approx. 40 th's. years ago.
Then what is the justification for believing it to be a real, physical event?
Actually, I just want to clarify: I actually 'misspoke' when I mentioned physical evidence. What I should have said is can you provide demonstrable evidence; which can of course be physical if there is any.
(July 23, 2014 at 1:05 am)snowtracks Wrote: But from a geographically perspective other indicators for noah's flood's timing, location and extent go exist. evidence of a thriving civilization developed in the middle east gulf area. from a geographical perspective the region makes sense as the region were the flood occurred --- high mountains surround it, huge aquifers reside under it. ice covered north America, Europe, etc making the global sea lower leaving much of the Persian gulf and red sea dry.
there are some scientific provocative data that makes the case using genetic data that traces the migration pattern around the world, the beginning of that migration has a nexus in that region at that time.
Dare one ask for a citation or two? See, this is what I meant about demonstrable evidence - simply stating it isn't good enough, unless others can assess it independently.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'