With so much historical, archaeological, and geological evidence to back it, why do many still doubt there was a massive global flood in the not-too-distant-past?
>>16267239if there was a massive global flood in the not-too-distant-past then we would not have animals that cannot survive in water in the present age.>b...bbut Noah's arktrust me buddy you don't want to go that way
>>16267240Animals didn’t write the stories, people did. People lived near the coasts and near rivers. People were around when the Laurentide ice sheet suddenly catastrophically melted. People narrowly escaped by fleeing far inland or far overseas. People with memories of the old world taught their ways to the natives of the lands they came to.
>>16267244proceed towards /x/
>>16267239I'm a geologist and the only people I've heard this from are crackpots and cranks. Can you share with me the "so much" evidence you have? Because there is no such evidence in the geological record. An example is the Channeled Scablands in Washington state US which shows what you get with a massive flood. No such scablands exist in a massive scale to let anyone believe a "global flood" has ever happened, much less in the "not-too-distant past" as you claim. So I would very very much be interested in your evidence.A nice easy video about evidence found in the channeled scablands.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxxLU8ZtMH4Please show me the same on a global scale.
>>16267255Alright genius, where did the ice sheet go?
>>16267259I am utterly confused by this. What ice sheet are you referring to? When? How is this question a response to my request for evidence about a global flood? I have so many questions.
>>16267239>With so muchlist it
>>16267255There is a lot of evidence, examples being the shear laying down of sediment in deposition experiments, which show that many of the geological column layers were deposited simultaneously. Trees positioned upright in the geological column. Rapid fossilisation. The lack of order (or the circular order) of the dating of the fossil record and the geological column, to name a few prevalent ones.
>>16267407>which show that many of the geological column layers were deposited simultaneouslyshows us what you mean, examples, please>Trees positioned upright in the geological columnNothing special about it there, natural occurrence. Is there a particular example you wish to provide for discussion?>The lack of order (or the circular order) of the dating of the fossil record and the geological columnExplain what you mean more clearly.
>>16267239>global floodWow, so you just don't understand how water works. That's a new one. A flood is when a lot of water moves from some place that it usually is to a place where it's usually not. Floods don't magically create enough water to drown the continents like a bible story. Those are all made up.
>>16267628>magically createThe water was already covering a continent. When it catastrophically melted 11.5kya, all that water moved from the place it was (over land) to the a place where it wasn’t before (the Atlantic Ocean). More than enough water to flood every inhabited coastline around the Atlantic. Those stories were written by people who had no clue how big the earth was or how far inland the floods actually went. There was some artistic license involved but it doesn’t negate the premise.
>>16267652Lol no. You just watched water world when you were a kid and developed a crush on Kevin Costner.
>>16267652>When it catastrophically meltedplease, I'm waiting:>>16267451
science has long since proved that the parting of the red seas was real.
There is little to no evidence of a global flood.Local floods? Tons, everywhere, at different times.If there were a global flood, you'd expect land to be more self-similar. Why would it raise mountains while also carving canyons? Magic?If there were a global flood, you'd expect fossils to be all jumbled together. How did the bones stay together exactly by stratum and how many MYA they lived if they all died together? Magic?If there were a global flood, you'd expect all geological layers to be sorted by density. Fill a bottle with water, sand, silt, clay, and gravel, and watch the density-based sorting. Why don't we see density-based sorting of all the rock layers on earth? Magic?
>>16267239This same flood is attested to not only in The Bible, but also in a plethora of other ancient documents and lore from a wide variety of cultures. Plato describes it, Plato also recounted the legend of Troy and that was widely believed to be just a fairy tale for centuries, but the Schliemann dug up Troy and proved that the tale was true
>>16268421I don’t know what you’re imagining, but a flood is simply when a lot of water goes over land. When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans, did you see fossils magically come up to the surface? Did the geological layers get magically re-sorted by density? What a weird strawman
>>16268404every time some scientist tries to disprove the bible they end up finding out that doing so is impossible
>>16267407Okay friend. I want to see WHERE THE WATER WENT. If, as you say, earth was flooded, where are the scablands on a global scale? I showed you an example of what you get when you drain a large amount of water very fast. If you argue that there was a global flood then the water would have to go somewhere and create the same thing as the channeled scablands EVERYWHERE AT ONCE. So where are the European, Asian, African, South American channeled scablands showing where your huge amount of water went?Until you provide me with that evidence I'll call you a liar.
>>16267239go back to /x/
>>16267682What is so outlandish about a 'global' flood? Human settlements concentrate along rivers and on coastlines because of the availability of resources. That means when the glacial sheets melted at the end of the ice age, the majority of settlements would have been lost to the rising water levels.Even if this only affected a certain area, say the region south of Mesopotamia which is now under water and the rise of sea levels took a generation the stories such a large scale catastrophe sparked will have inspired stories of a massive flood in the past. Especially if the displaced people went on to spread agrarian culture across the globe. Such as it happened with Mesopotamia.That there was massive glacial melt in the past is for certain.
>>16267240>>16267252>>16267255>>16267272>>16267628>>16267682>>16267784>>16268421>>16269161Is a complete waste of time trying to talk with animals like you. The only reasonable way forward is to exterminate all of you.
>>16269185Hey buddy, I'm the geologist here. I'm also Christian, the last time I went to church was Sunday. There is no evidence of a global flood. Noah's flood must have been regional. Hell, when the Mississippi river floods it looks like the whole Earth is underwater. I don't know if you've seen it before but I can understand why Noah and his family thought the whole world was destroyed.There's no need for this thread. There's no need for this idea of a global flood which doesn't exist in the Earth's record. Give it up. You just make Christians look stupid and I can't stand when people make Christians look stupid.
>>16269249>Noah's flood must have been regional. Hell, when the Mississippi river floods it looks like the whole Earth is underwater. I don't know if you've seen it before but I can understand why Noah and his family thought the whole world was destroyed.OP here, that’s exactly what’s being argued ITT. Regional flooding, but on a global scale. Human settlements were always close to rivers and coasts. When the Laurentide ice sheet melted into the Atlantic, the sudden sea level rise would’ve flooded all the major human settlements at the time, save for a few that were very far inland. So to the survivors it would seem the “whole world” flooded.This is in opposition to the prevailing mainstream idea that Noah’s flood was an isolated regional flood rather than one of many simultaneous regional floods caused by a single glacial melting event.
>>16269185Let it be known that this anon has lost the argument for empirical evidence of simultaneous catastrophic global flooding at the end of the last glaciation and resorted instead to personal insults.Sad, many such cases.Move along anons. We're done here.
>>16269179Where would the water come from, moron?
>>16269452The Laurentide ice sheet, illiterate dolt
>>16269531There's not enough water in any ice sheet to flood the whole world. Do the math, retard.
>>16269566See >>16269262
>>16269161>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T DISCUSS SCIENCE THAT I DON'T LIKE ON THE SCIENCE BOARD!!!
>>16269157Where the water went?The water is still there, bozo. Why are you yelling so much when you haven't bothered to listen to even the most basic part of the explanation? Ancient settlements were flooded and where they used to be is now, currently, underwater.
>>16269452I guess you don't think ocean water levels can rise or fall at all, huh? After all, where on earth could that water POSSIBLY be coming from?
>>16269572>>16269599Do the math, retards.
>>16270338Let’s see:>ice + heat = water>water + ocean = sea level rise>sea level rise + coastal communities = death by floods>death by floods + time = mythologyChecks out
>>16270450That's not math. You are able to compare volumes, right?
>>16270460I’m not a geologist, I trust they’re better at it than I am. So when they say “hey look there was a gigantic catastrophic melting of the Laurentide ice sheet over a very short timeframe, and it dumped an enormous amount of water into the ocean, and the seafloor sunk hundreds of feet and the sea level rose hundreds of feet, and since we’re scientists we’re naming it something technical like Meltwater Pulse 1b,” I lean toward believing them rather than trying to teach myself geology to double-check their work.
>>16270489You don't need to be a geologist to make simple volumetric estimates. You just need to have graduated from high school.
>>16270611You have data? I’ll do my best
>>16270614It's your claim. You're supposed to provide the data. If you can't find a volumetric estimate of the Laurentide ice sheet then work backwards and estimate the volume of water required to raise the ocean by a foot and relate that volume to the height of the ice sheet using the area. For simplicity and to get a minimum figure, model the ocean as a flat plane that builds on top of itself rather than as a liquid.
>>16270625It’s not my claim, I’m repeating the conclusions that many scientists have come to after studying the data. I don’t expect that they’re all lying about the same (very easily disprovable) claim, that there was a massive and sudden glacial melting at the end of the Younger Dryas and that it caused dramatic sea level rise. I don’t have reason to doubt it. If they’re lying, other scientists would’ve provided the counter-data by now to disprove it.
>>16270637Which scientists said that glaciers melted and drowned the whole world? Professor Nine Days?>I don’t have reason to doubt it.Because you haven't done the math. Just do the math real quick.
>>16267239this kind of puerile trolling really should be a bannable offense.
>>16267255>I'm an autist who replies to trolls and the only people I've heard this from are crackpots and cranks.fify
>>16269002If you don't subscribe to the retarded hydroplate theory of tectonics, you have no way to explain the proliferation of animals from a supposed ark in turkey. You also seemed to agree with me: we don't find signs of flooding everywhere. This shows there was no flood.
>>16271761>proliferation of animals from a supposed ark in turkeyI didn’t make any such claim. But it is interesting to note that at roughly the same time as meltwater pulse 1b, we see the first evidence of complex human societies and agriculture “suddenly” arising in, you guessed it… eastern Turkey.
>>16271820Interesting, I've not heard that. I'd love to see it though, feel free to shareCan you also provide evidence of a global flood? So far it's just been avoiding my direct questions. Feel free to respond to any points I've made
>>16271822https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-seeds-of-civilization-78015429/So far the oldest evidence for agriculture was found at a site called Gobekli Tepe. In the area between Gobekli Tepe and Mount Ararat further east, there are a dozen known sites dated to around the same period. Notably Karahan Tepe is hypothesized to be older than Gobekli Tepe based on the construction quality, and is found east of Gobekli Tepe. Further east, some manmade ruins have been found at the bottom of Lake Van, but obviously the archaeology there is difficult to do and a date is hard to establish for it. Most interesting in my view is that most of these sites sit at the north end of the Fertile Crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates, and there seems to be a cultural continuity between them and the later Assyrian and Sumerian civilizations based solely on similarity in their architecture and statues and iconography.The evidence for a global flood is in the OP pic. Scientists call it “meltwater pulse 1b.” The cause is still debated but the effects are well-established in regard to sea level rise. If you want the type of visual evidence you’d see in the channeled scablands, you probably won’t get any of that until we go into another ice age and the sea recedes again. Or, at least until Graham Hancock wins a Powerball jackpot and starts funding submarine expeditions.
>>16271837So you're arguing that we're still experiencing a global flood? That's the only thing you could mean if you're arguing that the sea level rise of <30m is a "global flood."As for the fertile crescent, I was expecting more. I don't know exactly what, but something. If you think we're still experiencing a flood, you avoid the problem of animal proliferation by still following tectonics, but then there's no landing in turkey. The sea level never drowned Turkey, at all, except in local flooding. If you do believe in a global flood, then even though civilization started in the fertile crescent, you have no way to account for the geological column, the sorting of fossil layers, and no positive evidence of any one single global event. Can you present a unified theory that could explain all the facts? The most obvious one is there was never a global flood.
>>16271854I guess you could say it that way. The communities that were lost are probably still underwater, yes. Then again depending how sudden the catalyst was, sea level rise may not have been the only factor. If the comet impact theory proves correct, that would involve tidal waves with the initial event that might go much farther inland than the sea level but then recede back into the ocean afterward. So there probably is some geological relayering in some areas that could evidence that, I don’t know where or if any data is published on that though. But certainly nothing on the scale you seem to envision, probably just localized to areas with very loose or sandy ground. The flood story is essentially as global as the hypothesized flood. I never argued the Noah story is literally true to the word. Just very interesting that he was said to have landed in the same area where the earliest human agricultural and megalithic cultures seem to mysteriously spawn in the archaeological record. Very advanced cultures considering the relief carvings on those T columns, and nothing to show any earlier evolution toward that level of sophistication. Those sites are an anomaly very much unexplainable in an anthropological sense unless you consider the possibility of a transfer of knowledge from some earlier culture that we don’t have evidence for. The evidence, if it exists, would be currently underwater somewhere.
>>16271877You avoided my question again.
>>16271882Because your question is irrelevant. I never said that all animals proliferated from one guy’s boat. I never said every square inch of earth was inundated. Your line of questioning is in bad faith because you’re imagining that I’m implicitly making the same argument that a creationist evangelical minister might make. I’ve implied no such thing.
>>16271887So your claim is simply: at some point the sea levels rose?Then why bring false mythologies into this? "many people have stories of drowning!"It all points to you avoiding taking an actual stance that you could be argued from. So, once again, explain your hypothesis given all the data. If it is simply "the sea levels went up at some point," you are not describing a global flood.
>>16271891Obviously the point that is NOT widely accepted is that there were agricultural human settlements with advanced knowledge of astronomy and stonemasonry who lived along the coastlines that were flooded during this global flood ~11.5kya, that those cultures which are now lost to the sea were the progenitors of the cultures that spawned in Turkey shortly thereafter and spread therefrom, that the reason we don’t have evidence for those cultures is because of the flood that destroyed them, that any remaining evidence is likely under the sea, and that all this formed the basis for the one story that is found in nearly every human society we know of. The flood itself is widely accepted, the rest is still speculative.The point of this thread, then, was to point out that a significant portion of the scientific and academic “mainstream” still does not even accept even that a flood occurred, simply because that might bring up religious connotations that they’d like to avoid. Anti-religious bigotry is holding back the science. That’s not to say, though, that any of the religions have the complete and accurate story. Only that their stories have a foundation in real events in our recent past.
>>16271902So sea level rise is, to you, a global flood.And you assume the coastals, with no evidence mind, had super advanced knowledge but it was all lost to the water which is why we can't see it. Sea level rise is accepted, flooding is not. A flood is a deluge of water, sea level rise is a comparatively gradual beast. A tsunami causes flooding, sea level rise isn't flooding in a geological sense.
>>16271909You’re arguing the rate of sea level rise? Argue with the chart, my simple friend. Meltwater pulse 1b was no “gradual beast.” Considering that the only known forces that could melt that much ice in that little time are things like extraterrestrial impacts or massive solar outbursts, it’s much more likely than not, that the initial event did come with tsunamis.
>>1627191815 meters over 300 years is pretty steep, as far as things go, but it's not a tsunami.
>>16271928I’ll refer you to the fourth sentence in the post you responded to…
>>16271934Did you know that actually right before it happened all the seas dried up?If you disagree, refer to the sentence claiming it but not demonstrating it.
>>16271936Whoops guess I forgot to turn on the camcorder when the waves hit, MY BAD!
>>16271943So you don't have any evidence it was like this?"I don't know, therefore I can just guess and spew nonsense?"
>>16271950No, I don’t have millions of dollars or a submarine, correct. But I’m not dumb enough to think that all the energy that went into catastrophically melting the ice sheet just simply vanished into the ether, leaving only a slow rolling tide in the aftermath. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Unless you’re now arguing for an open-system interpretation of quantum mechanics?
>>16271975One you bring up quantum mechanics in a discussion of geology, you're out in the weeds. I'm just saying you have no reason to say your hypothesis of catastrophe is correct when there's little evidence of it. It was a rapid rise, but it wasn't a sudden washout. If you disagree, feel free to post data that says it was faster than 15 meters per 300 years. That's an overestimate of what I read
>>16271983You have an alternative theory for how the energy entered the ice sheet from nowhere and then vanished again into nowhere? I’d love to hear it. Until then I’ll assume you have no idea how much energy it takes to melt a glacial ice sheet and have no clue where that energy disappeared to. I don’t think you’re ignorant, I think you’re arguing in bad faith, and being dishonest to the audience more so than to me.
>>16271987Are you asking me why the ice sheet melted? I don't know.Do you know? Or do you make guesses to fulfill your personal pet theory of a lost Atlantis.
>>16271991I lean toward the comet theory for sure, it makes the most sense. The solar outburst theory is entirely circumstantial. No tertiary theories have emerged that could explain where the energy came from to melt all that ice in such a short time. I’m making an educated guess, based on everything I’ve learned of thermodynamics to date, that the comet folks are probably right, since their theory makes the most sense logically. Your theory about a slow gradual melting at an incredibly accelerated but not incredibly disturbing rate for no reason at all, that’s the only crackpot bit floating around here
>>16271997So do you have evidence of a large asteroid impact at around 11-10kya? Do you have a crater formed from then?Your strawmen are too strong even for you to knock over. When did I say "no reason?" You big fat retarded fatty bald fatass.
>>16272002Are craters left behind in an ice sheet after the ice sheet has melted? Are you retarded?
>>16272011So you have no evidence and that's ok because you're right and you just feel it in your heart of hearts?I'm not impressed.
>>16272012I didn’t expect a /sci/ poster would forget about logic
>>16272020So you have no positive evidence, but minor circumstance, so you're allowed to fill it in however you want and if someone doesn't agree they must be wrong?Hypocritical fagtard.
>>16272021The positive evidence is the existence of meltwater pulse 1b, the circumstantial evidence is enough to draw strong logical conclusions from. Theories are meant to be tested as new evidence comes in. While we await the new evidence, it’s best to assume the most logically sound hypothesis that fits the data best is probably the most likely to be later proven true. Your wild theory about a gradual non-destructive melting of the Laurentide ice sheet does not fit the data, you’re making conjectures based on a lack of evidence. Just because we haven’t yet found the proof for the most likely scenario doesn’t mean that the least likely scenario is “more true”
>>16272027To explain PW1b, you cite.... that it happened. Very dishonest tactic, if I'm being honest.It's not right to assume an answer when you have none, it's right to say "I don't yet know." If you were a scientist, you'd know this. "I think it may have been this, but we'd need to test." "I don't know yet, but we're working on this study." Etc.
>>16272033That’s sort of the core of the issue here, I wish scientists were a little less stubborn in their “I need to see it to believe it” stance. Science would advance much faster if we were to allow logical extrapolations to enter into the mix. You’d have hypotheses ready to test even before the first observation comes in. The scientific method as it stands is flawed not because it allows incorrect information to be validated, but because it precludes correct information before it is validated. Correct information is useful even before it’s confirmed. Just ask your bosses at the Agency.
>>16272038>there were tsunamis>"demonstrate">if this happened, there would probably be tsunamis>"demonstrate" >it's just how it happened, ok? I'll prove it later. There WERE TSUNAMISYou haven't shown such.
>>16272044Because that’s obviously a difficult thing to prove, y’know, given I wasn’t there with a camcorder at the time. But thanks for shitting up the thread, rabbi.
>>16272050So you mean to say that you cannot demonstrate a global flood. You just assume one happened. Assumptions on assumptions, not very "logical."
>>16272053Assumptions based on strong circumstantial evidence that would very likely be proven true if the direct evidence were available. That’s called “logical reasoning” that’s when you take what you do know and apply it to what you don’t know. That’s how science works. Thanks for visiting, though, I think you may be better off spewing your wild takes on >>>/x/
>>16272059The sea level rose, therefore there was a global flood.Unless you define a global flood as sea level rising, you have a positively provable claim with no positive evidence. Why should anyone believe you? >Muh bible
>>16272063Ah there it is, ignoring everything I’ve said so far to argue against a proposition I never made. Very Talmudic of you, props, you’ll make a great rabbi someday my friend!
>>16272067>if we assume there was a comet... >if we look at quantum thermodynamics....>if we had a multi-billion dollar submarine...and if not? You don't even consider it.
>>16272069>oh it just happened magically >don’t look into itYeah I bet, you’re right, rabbi, all that heat came from nowhere all at once and then vanish again into nowhere in an instant, but nobody was affected by it at all, because you say so.
>>16272074>straw men>can't even attack them properly You should learn to argue. The heat obviously stayed, it's not like the seas went back down, you silly asshole.
>>16272076They didn’t? Oh now you’re agreeing that we live in a “flooded world?” How peculiar…
>>16272076…Congrats though on making this much progress. Truth is prickle to those who prefer to avoid it.
>>16272077so, to be clear, when I posted this >>16271891 you could have said>yes that is the only point I'm makingand I would have simply said>that's not what is called a "global flood" it's called "sea level rise"and you would have said>oh ok, good to define the terms we're using here.But instead you strawman, ignore, and raltionalize
>>16272077I'll also have it pointed out, like I said here >>16271891, that you tried to avoid making any attackable points or positions.And then, once you did, you had literally no evidence
>>16272086No I don’t have the money or manpower to acquire the physical evidence you seem to require in order to believe the most clearly and obviously rational conclusions based on the scant evidence we do have. I don’t care to earn and spend millions of dollars just to prove that some idiot on 4chan was wrong to wrongly assume that the most probable and best-evidenced theory in regard to ice age anthropology is wrong simply because Neil deGrasse Tyson didn’t explicitly say it was so.
>>16272094There is a gap between none and even someAnd you are on the "none" side of the gap. Let me, once more, run through your claims>during the sea level rise of 40mm/yr (as per OP's image) there was massive global flooding>this was caused by tsunamis>which were caused by asteroids>neither of which we have evidence for, beyond the fact that the sea levels rose The sea level rise has evidence, so why not the other two points? Tsunamis and asteroids, you're trying to demonstrate >so much historical, archaeological, and geological evidencePlease detail such in your next post. Note: flooding, not general sea level rise. A deluge, a tsunami, an impact, something like that.
>>16267239There was no "global flood," there were multiple separate floods around the globe over thousands of years due to the melting of the ice sheets, combined with general sea level rise due to the melting ice and warming temperatures.
>>16272103The change in the earth’s tilt toward the sun is far too gradual to account for the sudden and unexplained input of heat energy that melted the entire Laurentide ice sheet in a just a fraction of the time it took to form…There are very few things we know of that could provide enough energy in such little time to cause that much melting. The top theoretical contenders are a comet impact and an erratic solar outburst. The former has some evidence for it, in the vast iridium deposits found globally in a thin layer corresponding to the end of the Younger Dryas. The latter has very little evidence, but can’t be expected to leave much, assuming it has a largely non-physical nature. Either way, the only means to melt that much ice in that little time is with some sudden and enormous input of energy. That energy, given all that we know about the way energy acts, is unlikely to disappear into the void. There’s no reason to think that energy didn’t manifest itself in any more dramatic a way than a slow rise in sea level.The moment “it” happened, whatever “it” was that caused this unprecedented inexplicable meltdown, that’s when I’m hypothesizing a tidal wave likely happened. I’m drawing that hypothesis from my previous knowledge and experience, which tells me, “a sudden large input of energy will tend to cause disturbance to the whole system” - in this case, that principle theoretically manifests as a gigantic tidal wave that washes over all coastlines around the Atlantic, that event being hypothetically the historical genesis of all future flood mythology.The reason that a large global tidal wave is a logical and rational proposition, given these circumstances, is that the only way our understanding of thermodynamics justifies that quick a melting is if some gigantic external input of energy occurs. Whatever be the source thereof, be it a comet, or the Sun, or some alien mothership that Will Smith was creeping around on.
>>16272134>is unlikely to disappear into the void.It didn't. It's warmer now than then, which is why our ice sheets are smaller than then.Disingenuous retard. Do you think you have to constantly add energy to water to keep it from freezing? Once you have enough heat that it doesn't freeze, it won't freeze anymore.
>>16272143If your gradual models were right then Quebec would still be under a sheet of ice, you dolt
>>16272146Can you demonstrate anything you say? Or are you assuming and asserting again with no evidence?You can reply to >>16272101 anytime.
>>16272150>>16272146And you still haven't done the math >>16270625>>16270876
>>16272134>The change in the earth’s tilt toward the sun is far too gradual to account for the sudden and unexplained input of heat energy that melted the entire Laurentide ice sheetIts isn't, you're just unfamiliar with the mechanics involved. In the simple model, which is accurate enough for quick rough estimates, atmospheric absorption, dispersion and reflection of solar energy is an inverse tangent function of solar elevation above the horizon, so at high latitudes very small changes in axial tilt can result in very large changes in solar energy input.
>>16267240Most cultures have a flood origin oral tradition. Not unique to abrahamic religions.
>>16267239>still doubtThey don't doubt, they are indoctrinated into believing that the melting was gradual and that catastrophes never happen. Doubt would require that they're actually willing to engage the topic honestly.
>>16275075>>16275132Can either of you address ether of these>>16272150>>16272345
>>16269120Atheists are losers because The Bible is true. They always try to deny The Bible and they're always end up being wrong and embarrassing themselves.
Which Bible?
>>16276654Did Jesus's followers wait for him in Jerusalem or go to wait for him in Galilee? (Luke, Acts vs Mathew, Mark, John)
>>16275132>that catastrophes never happenAs a geologist, I can tell you that you're very wrong. The geollgic record is littered with catastrophes, but not with a global and sudden flood at the end of the last glaciation.
>>16278321>youtube
>>16279126>hay everyone look!!!! i'm attacking the source because i'm incapable of refuting the central point of what was presented to me its as much as admitting that you're wrong, but you're too smallminded and egotistical to ever do that, not even on an anonymous imageboard. you're incapable of learning because you're too much of a know-it-all
>>16279893>youtube
>>16279917>general
>>16277113explain all the underwater archaeological sites in the black sea
>>16281981People in the ancient world initially built cities underwater because they hadn't yet discovered that building their infrastructure on dry land was a better strategy for creating civilization than submerged construction was. It wasn't until about 10000bc that someone got the idea for building cities above the water line.
>>16271349The /sci/ jannies would never make it a bannable offense because if we ever ran the /rel/ shitposters off this board, the jannies would lose their jobs since they'll have nothing to do
>>16271987>giant space rock strikes ice sheet>gigantic shockwaves ripple through hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of ice>the energy fractures the ice sheet>since ice isn't a fluid, the energy dissipates throughout the ice sheet, creating rifts and canyons that enable meltwater to leak towards the ocean>eventually, the meltwater flow starts to grow in intensity>cue meltwater pulseThat's my speculation.
