Any evidence for a great flood

[Mr Skeptic]

The biblical account in particular, would require that all the genetic diversity of land animals be reduced to that of 2 individuals (or 7 if they were "clean"); also, that the land animals had to migrate throughout the world from a central point about 5000 years ago. I'm pretty sure that the evidence contradicts this, for example, the large number of species that live only on a particular island.

[JohnB]

As no-one is trying in any way to prove or otherwise validate the biblical account (which isn't even original), what's your point?

[Mr Skeptic]

As no-one is trying in any way to prove or otherwise validate the biblical account (which isn't even original), what's your point?

 

My point is that I can read between the lines. If the genetic evidence was as I described last post, then that would be incredibly good evidence of a flood.

[pioneer]

Another way to interpret the flood is symbolically. This is more consistent with flood mythology, appearing all over the world in the light of limited physical evidence. From a psychological point of view a flood would imply something similar to a flood of emotion. The symbolism of two of every animal is symbolic of a connection to natural animal instinct, which was reintroduced into the world as the collective insanity ended.

 

If you look at the accounts in the bible before the flood, the early pre-humans had become quite perverse, such as Sodom and Gomorra. They lost their connect to natural human instincts. An modern analogy is addictive behavior which is almost like an instinct in terms of compulsion. But it does things that harm the natural body. The gathering of two of each animal was an unconscious compensation to help restore animal instinct.

 

Let me give a modern analogy. Eating is a natural instinct and eating can be pleasurable. Natural instinct eats in a way that allows the body to be a fit animal. Natural animals are fit and trim by instinct. But will power and pleasure can amplify the instinct to eat to great excess and disregard the natural limits of the instinct. The result of this can become an addiction that exceeds natural limits and begins to harm the body. The prehumans were far worse than that with all instincts exceeded and perverted. That is why the flood symbolism uses two of every kind of animal to symbolize the need to renew all natural instincts.

 

The pervert stage may have been a way to develop will power apart from instinct. After the flood of emotion and the adjustment, will power was now in the context of natural instinct so it could be focused to expanding culture and not perverting instinct. The bible says a great flood will never happen again because humanity evolved beyond the unnatural stage. This is reflected in Noah and his family or stable instinct population the world.

 

The flood does not imply all the humans died in the flood. What died was the wild and crazy stage of human evolution.

[JohnB]

My point is that I can read between the lines. If the genetic evidence was as I described last post, then that would be incredibly good evidence of a flood.

Sorry, I still don't get it. The genetic evidence (as you say) is that there was no world wide flood in the biblical sense. Such a flood would also be physically impossible.

 

Pioneer, that's an interesting idea and seems logical from a "biblical" perspective. The problem is that the biblical flood is only one of many different legends and is also not an original story. As both lucaspa and I have said, it is copied from the much older "Epic of Gilgamesh". Essentially, the ancient Hebrews took the original story, added in some bits about the wicked ways of the world and "Presto", the biblical story arises. Because of this, one can consider the question of flood myths without using the biblical myth at all. It's actually irrelevent and adds nothing to the debate.

 

Many (if not most) of the flood legends don't have a moral point to make, as such. They are legends of a time of great natural disaster which left few survivors. Sometimes the survivors were "warned by the Gods", other times they just managed to survive. (There is also the possibility that any "warnings" were added later anyway.)

 

What I find interesting is that many of them, when you strip away any mumbo jumbo are quite similar in the physical description of the disaster. In some ways the biblical account is the odd man out here BTW. "Rain for 40 days and nights.....flood.... yada, yada, yada". Rain first, then flood.

 

In many of the others I've read, the flood comes first. The sea rises and inundates the land and then the storms come. This sounds to me more like an account of a tsunami and storms caused by a meteor impact.

 

A small impactor falling near a coastline would result in purely local stories of great disaster. Even if a legend refers to "the whole world", it is only the whole world from their perspective, as in the local area. So while the legend may say "the whole world", it is only talking about a local event.

 

However, a larger impactor falling in the middle of an ocean might send strong tsunamis radially out from the impact point. An impactor in the Indian Ocean might send waves that destroy regions in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Australia. This might result in a series of local legends of a "Great Flood". Whether or not they refer to "the whole world", each legend is a purely local account.

 

This would result in a series of seemingly unrelated local legends, separated by thousands of miles that in reality had their genesis in a single event, (that probably none of them even knew of) the mid ocean impact.

 

As lucaspa said earlier, a really good underwater earthquake could give the same result. Waves from the 2005 quake washed the shores of 4 continents although they were quite small by the time they got to Africa. What if the quake had been bigger?

 

The only reason I favour impact over earthquake are the storms that came after the flood waters. Storms seem to indicate to me (although I can't really defend the idea) a water impact with the volatised water near the impact falling as rain after the tsunami has done it's damage.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

You would have to show that all of those flood myths originated around the same time though. A meteor strike wouldn't make much sense if the origin of the myths were hundreds (or thousands) of years apart. Also, the meteor would have to be quite large to cause storms on a large scale.

 

Also remember that there was alot of cross contact between different cultures in the Middle East and the Mediterranean, so it is quite possible that elements of one myth could have been borrowed or plagerized from other mythologies (the bible being an obvious example of this).

[JohnB]

You would have to show that all of those flood myths originated around the same time though. A meteor strike wouldn't make much sense if the origin of the myths were hundreds (or thousands) of years apart. Also, the meteor would have to be quite large to cause storms on a large scale.

Remember I'm not trying to prove anything, hence I don't have to show concurrency. My thought process is the reverse. Attempt to date the myths, which can be done with some of them. If the dates show concurrency, then you can consider a single event. If not, then there must be multiple causes.

Also remember that there was alot of cross contact between different cultures in the Middle East and the Mediterranean, so it is quite possible that elements of one myth could have been borrowed or plagerized from other mythologies (the bible being an obvious example of this).

Flood myths are far more widespread than just Europe. Long distance travel was not common 4-6,000 years ago. While there could be cross contamination on a regional basis, it is extremely unlikely to occur between Canada and Bolivia.

 

Actually I've just had sent to me, and have now read, a paper on this very topic. An analysis of flood myths based on 175 separate myths.

The myths are from the following regions: Artic Circle (5); North America (49); Central America and Mexico (11); South America (18); Africa (4); Europe (5); Middle and Near East (5); Russia (3); China/Tibet (11); Southeast Asia (31); Australia and New Guinea (22); and island Oceania (11). These 175 myths likely represent about 15% of all “great flood” myths printed in the English Language.

As you can see, cross contamination is unlikely given the geographic spread.

 

I haven't fully absorbed the paper yet and will need to reread it a few more times. The paper also makes certain validating claims that I will have to confirm before I can accept it as a plausible theory. (But on first read it looks very good.)

[lucaspa]

Fair enough. Will you accept "most" then? The legend is present on all populated continents.

 

Apparently not in the native tribes of Europe. There you have an imported Babylonian story.

 

If (within the limits of the dating techniques) it appears that there were megatsunamis in different oceans at around the same time, then it may be possible to conclude that many of the flood legends have a common cause. Some sort of world wide event. In that case a multiple strike hypothesis would have better grounding.

 

Agreed. You correctly emphasize the "if". If such data is found, I'll change my mind.

 

If however, the dating of the megatsunami remains show no concurrent timings, then the only conclusion is that many flood myths while having a similar cause (Tsunami) are not related and are local accounts of local events.

 

Very good. You are getting into the habit of falsification.

 

The evidence may show concurrency or indicate a number of events over a period of millenia. Frankly, I don't care which it is, I'd just like to know.

 

Also very good. You are maintaining a good emotional detachment from the hypothesis. That allows you to give it up the hypothesis easily if it turns out not to be true.

 

So ... in that spirit of looking for flaws in hypotheses and willing to give them up, let's discuss some specific ideas.

 

We're actually thinking on the same lines here. A strike in the Persian Gulf would do quite well. My thought was that with a decent strike in the Indian Ocean the wave might also concentrate as it hit the gulf. Such a strike would also (possibly) give rise to legends in India, Indonesia, South Africa and Australia.

 

I'm thinking a strike that far away would not have given "storm clouds" over Mesopotamia -- unless the strike were very massive. However, if it were that massive, we would have seen other effects that are simply not there. So ... either the account is wrong about the storm clouds but correct about the direction (and that means we have to use Special Pleading), or the strike had to be nearby and relatively small.

 

I don't know that there is enough internal information to conclude accurately whether or not the events were concurrent. On the "No" side is the statistically improbable event of a world wide catastrophe, while on the "Yes" side is that most legends speak of only one great flood event. More data required.

 

On the "No" side is also the relative dates of the cultures involved and their own internal dating systems. If you look at the dates the individual cultures ascribe to the event, I think you'll find a several thousand year spread in the date. On the "Yes" side, the internal evidence in Mesopotamia indicates several massive floods. The clay layer found by Woolsley that wiped out a civilization doesn't correspond to a flood from the south as described in the Gilgamesh epic. So those are 2 separate floods. In addition, that clay layer was not the only massive flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates river. So we know that, at least in this one very important area, that there were numerous floods, yet we have a legend of only one flood. Thus, a legend of a single flood does not correlate to a single flood in reality. There goes the argument in your "Yes" column.

 

I suppose the other factor which makes me wonder is the Younger Dryas period. A very sudden and dramatic climate change some 10-11,000 ybp. This was the most dramatic climatic event in the history of mankind. (And some have attributed it to a strike or series of strikes.) I wonder if there is a connection.

 

I know of the meteor strike theory to the Younger Dryas in North America and the extinction of many large mammals there. However, my understanding is that the meteor hit the ice and that it happened about 10,900 years ago. Also, it was a freezing event and not a flooding one.

http://hoopermuseum.earthsci.carleton.ca/climate/YD.HTM

 

Since the Gilgamesh epic happened about 5,000 BC at the earliest, that eliminates tying the Babylonian flood into the neat little package. Sorry.

 

The biblical account in particular, would require that all the genetic diversity of land animals be reduced to that of 2 individuals (or 7 if they were "clean"); also, that the land animals had to migrate throughout the world from a central point about 5000 years ago. I'm pretty sure that the evidence contradicts this, for example, the large number of species that live only on a particular island.

 

Since no one is trying to validate the Biblical account as being exact, this is irrelevant. No one is trying to defend Flood Geology.

 

What JohnB is proposing is one natural event that gave rise to all the flood legends on the planet. His hypothesized event is either one meteor strike or a series of concurrent strikes in different locations that created tsunamis that inundated coastal villages suddenly and thus gave rise to flood legends.

 

Remember I'm not trying to prove anything, hence I don't have to show concurrency.

 

Yes, you do.For the hypothesis to be correct, then all the flood legends must -- in their own time scale -- lead to a concurrent date. As you state "If the dates show concurrency, then you can consider a single event. If not, then there must be multiple causes."

 

Flood myths are far more widespread than just Europe.

 

Actually, Europe is where Andre found a lack of flood myths. The ones there were re-tellings of the Babylonian story.

 

A real test of your theory would be flood legends in Polynesia. There a major tsunami would have devastating effects since most of the islands are low-lying. You didn't give a source for the "paper sent to you".

 

"The importance of flood-myths in Polynesia was apparently not very great. Deluge-episodes, of course, do occur; but so far as the published material goes, the floods referred to are merely incidents--and, as a whole, minor incidents--in other stories. " http://www.sacred-texts.com/pac/om/om06.htm

 

What I find interesting, however, is your assertion that flood legends in areas remote from Europe must be independent. That is not the case:

"Although there may be some question whether the end of the Raiatea story shows traces of missionary influence, all these flood-tales are probably aboriginal. As much cannot be said, however, for the versions from New Zealand, 125 the Marquesas, 126 and Hawaii, 127 in all of which the Biblical parallel, extending even to names and details, is far too close to permit us to regard the tales as other than local adaptations of missionary teaching."

 

Just because the legends are geographically far from Europe, you still have to look to see if the legends arose because of missionary teaching in the 1500's.

 

My point is that I can read between the lines. If the genetic evidence was as I described last post, then that would be incredibly good evidence of a flood.

 

No, it would be evidence for the Noah story in how it relates to geographical distribution of animals. It would not support a world-wide flood.

 

For instance, genetic evidence does support a single geographic location for humans, and thus human migration across the globe. However, that does not support a world-wide flood, does it?

 

Mr. Skeptic, not everyone who talks about flood legends is a creationist. The guys who proposed the flooding of the Black Sea as a source for the Noah story weren't creationists. JohnB isn't doing Flood Geology or arguing for that type of flood. He would like a single hypothesis to explain several pieces of evidence: flood legends all over the world, evidence of large tsunamis, and the Younger Dryas. In general, science proposes hypothesis of single events to explain diverse data. I don't think it will work in this case, but it's something science does.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

Yeah, I forgot to add the part about the missionaries as part of cross cultural contamination. In any case, it just further strengthens my objection to there being a concurrent time between the flood myths, and their apparent universality around the world.

[JohnB]

Firstly some clarifications.

 

The idea of a connection between the YD and flood myths was nothing more than a passing thought, simply because it was dramatic. I don't actually think that there is any connection.

 

TBH I have severe reservations about the YD being caused by an impact event in any case. The records show that the YD began with a sudden dramatic drop in temp. This situation continued for around 1,000 years and then the temp rose just as suddenly and dramatically. An impact event would show the sudden drop, however the temp should have returned to normal over a 5-10 year period. As it did not do so, there was either another reason for the onset of the YD, or there was another factor that acted to keep the temp down. Any hypothesis put forward also has to account for the sudden ending as well.

 

As has been pointed out, I'm not a creationist. Mr Skeptic, you may get more from reading the actual lines rather than what you imagine is to be found between them. Besides, what will the other coven members think?

 

Lucaspa, I applaud your scepticism re the paper I was sent. I found it was not actually a peer reviewed paper, but Chapter 2 from the book Comet/ Asteroid Impacts And Human Society. A good summary of this work can be found at About. As it was sent in a personal communication and there may be copyright involved, I'm a bit reluctant to say who sent it. The book, as you can see is by W. Bruce Masse from Los Alamos. He and others form the Holocene Impact Working Group. Their website contains links to published peer reviewed work. There is also an article in Discover that outlines the idea.

 

Dr. Masse has done more work in this field than I have (obviously:D) and has come to the conclusion of an Indian Ocean impact. While I've favoured the impact idea for some time I've always had trouble with the lack of meteoric dust that should accompany such an event. The new wrinkle that he applies is that the impact was not meteoric, but cometary. Same bang, less dust.

 

Lucaspa and I_Pwn_Crackpots (Love the name, btw:D) if I may deal with the "diffusion" idea first. While there was certainly some diffusion of the biblical myth through missionaries, this by no means accounts for the majority of myths. Masse references Frazer 1919 and Dundes 1988 to refute the idea. (I'm afraid I'm still trying to find copies of the papers or books.) There is also the simple fact that many of the flood legends are different enough from the Sumerian account to preclude diffusion. I would suggest that the best bet is to examine each legend and reject those that show evidence of influence by the Sumerian legend. For example, from http://www.sacred-texts.com/pac/om/om06.htm

In Mangaia, in the Cook Group, a tale is told 121 of a conflict between Aokeu and Ake, a sea-deity. The two quarrelled as to which was the more powerful, and Ake, to show his might, caused the sea to rise and dash upon the land in great waves, while Aokeu made rain to fall in floods, so that, between the two, the island was covered, except for a small bit which protruded. Rangi (not the deity, apparently), the first king of Mangaia, took refuge on this fragment of dry land, and, alarmed lest he should be drowned, prayed to Rongo to aid him, whereupon the latter deity forced the two contestants to cease their display of power, and the deluge subsided.

I don't see a parallel with the biblical account there.

 

On the "No" side is also the relative dates of the cultures involved and their own internal dating systems. If you look at the dates the individual cultures ascribe to the event, I think you'll find a several thousand year spread in the date.

According to Masse you would think wrong. (Again, I'm still checking references.)

 

I really don't want to fall into the trap of quoting only one source, however Masse does make a good case. The pdf I have might be from a book, but is as heavily referenced as any published paper I've ever read.

 

Bottom line, on or about May 10, 2807 BC he suggests we got hit.

 

I believe that one of the tenets of the scientific method is to make predictions from your hypothesis. From his study, Masse did make a prediction as to where the impact crater might be found. A search of the predicted area discovered Burkle Crater at a depth of some 3,800m in the Southern Indian Ocean. To me, a successful prediction adds to his case.

I'm thinking a strike that far away would not have given "storm clouds" over Mesopotamia -- unless the strike were very massive.

The putative diameter of abyssal Burckle Crater at around 29 km can be modeled as the impact of a comet slightly larger than 5 km in diameter and a speed of 51 kms–1 entering the ocean at an act angle of 45° (Marcus et al. 2005). The energy produced by such an impact is approximately 2 × 10⁷ MT. Of interest is the fact that such an impact would eject rocky debris to a distance of approximately 9000 km from the impact site, which is the approximate distance in which myths mention hot or fiery water falling from the sky

Would that be massive enough?

[Physiman]

Its how the Grand Canyon was formed duh

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, I applaud your scepticism re the paper I was sent. I found it was not actually a peer reviewed paper, but Chapter 2 from the book Comet/ Asteroid Impacts And Human Society. A good summary of this work can be found at About. As it was sent in a personal communication and there may be copyright involved, I'm a bit reluctant to say who sent it. The book, as you can see is by W. Bruce Masse from Los Alamos. He and others form the Holocene Impact Working Group. Their website contains links to published peer reviewed work. There is also an article in Discover that outlines the idea.

 

The book isn't by Masse. Masse just has one chapter in it. Masse W.B. (in press) The archaeology and anthropology of Quaternary period cosmic impact. In: P Bobrowsky and H Rickman (eds.) Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society. Springer.

 

However, you don't have to worry about copyright. The full paper is here: http://tsun.sscc.ru/hiwg/PABL/Masse_2007_ICSU_Paper.pdf

 

Give us a bit of time to read it.

 

Dr. Masse has done more work in this field than I have (obviously:D) and has come to the conclusion of an Indian Ocean impact.

 

The Indian Ocean impact won't account for the Babylonian Flood. Geography is against it. If you look at the geography of the Strait of Hormuz, it curves in such a way that there is no straight shot for a tsunami into the Persian Gulf. The wave would break at the entrance to the Gulf. Nor will an Indian Ocean strike account for the story from the Cook Islands you quote below. Any tsunami from the Burkle impact site would have broken up on the Indonesian islands.

 

Lucaspa and I_Pwn_Crackpots (Love the name, btw:D) if I may deal with the "diffusion" idea first. While there was certainly some diffusion of the biblical myth through missionaries, this by no means accounts for the majority of myths.

 

Your original claim was that ALL myths in the Pacific Ocean must be unrelated to the Babylonian one. Our response was that you could not make that claim. I see you have now come around to our point of view:

 

I would suggest that the best bet is to examine each legend and reject those that show evidence of influence by the Sumerian legend.

 

Bottom line, on or about May 10, 2807 BC he suggests we got hit.

 

That seems to be far more specific in the timing than any data would permit. Let me read the paper.

 

From his study, Masse did make a prediction as to where the impact crater might be found. A search of the predicted area discovered Burkle Crater at a depth of some 3,800m in the Southern Indian Ocean.

 

Notice you are talking about "the impact crator". To repeat, this impact area would not account for the Babylonian or Cook Island stories because a tsunami from here could not reach either. Nor is it going to account for the South American stories you mentioned a couple of posts back.

 

Would that be massive enough?

 

Don't think so. And again, we have the problem of the tsunami breaking at the Staight of Hormuz. If you say the wave was big enough to get by the Strait of Hormuz, then it would have been large enough to get into the Red Sea and flood Egypt. But Egypt doesn't have a flood story and aren't there historical records that old from there? There's no storm or flood mentioned in them, is there?

[swansont]

Its how the Grand Canyon was formed duh

 

By "It" are you referring to millions of years of erosion, cutting through layers of sedimentation and other deposits that are millions of years older? i.e what the scientific evidence indicates?

[JohnB]

The Indian Ocean impact won't account for the Babylonian Flood. Geography is against it. If you look at the geography of the Strait of Hormuz, it curves in such a way that there is no straight shot for a tsunami into the Persian Gulf.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

That seems to be far more specific in the timing than any data would permit.

Something that concerned me too. He claims enough information is contained in some of the legends, however he would have to show why the identification of the planets is actually correct.

Notice you are talking about "the impact crator".

Maybe I should have said "an".

But Egypt doesn't have a flood story and aren't there historical records that old from there? There's no storm or flood mentioned in them, is there?

Hmmm, first dynasty. Records are a bit sparse. They do have the one about Sekhmet going on a rampage, but that's may be a long bow to draw. It would be nice to have access to the records Manetho used, or the ones the Horus priests used when talking to Solon, but it is not to be.

 

I have been wondering if some of the creation myths may also be flood myths. Giza is where the land first rose above the waters in the Zep Tepi. The Great Pyramid is supposed to be on the exact spot. Some of the Pacific myths at Sacred texts sound rather like some poor survivor floating in a canoe until an island rises up.

 

The motif of the land rising from the water is very common. I'm not trying to attach any significance to this, just going "Hmmmm". (Of course, if you create the land first and then add the water, then you would have a very messy creation myth.)

 

Re Masse. While I agree with his premise I'm not fully convinced. I'd much rather see the full methodology that was used for his conclusions. Which legends were used and why? How were conclusions drawn from those legends?

 

I will say that since looking at what the working group are doing, I've also spent some time with Google Earth and am becoming more convinced by the day that large oceanic impacts were far more common than we thought. I've found at least three areas around the Australian coast where waves have penetrated at least 20 km inland. Although I grant that the waves could have been the result of earthquake. Either way, mega tsunamis don't really appear to be all that rare. (And that is a truly frightening thought.)

 

Over the last couple of days I've also been wondering. If there was a comet, what would it look like from Earth? Looking up at the night sky and seeing the tail spread across the sky, firey and bright. Scare the bejeesus out of you, wouldn't it?