The thing is why so many people and many articles talking about the flood story calling it a myth, when the historical records of virtually all ancient civilizations have expressed there was such a thing?
Would this be the case if we were not talking about something that had nothing to do with the Bible?
"Dr. Ager discusses in detail all the various types of geologic formations, even those traditionally believed to have been formed very slowly, concluding that all must have been formed rapidly.
Case in point. The existence of categories is not Catastrophism, and the science of geology has rejected the Catastrophism hypothesis for very good reasons. Catatonic** floods are relatively common, historically speaking, and the sort of thing that will be recalled in oral histories. It’s not at all surprising that most cultures have such a story. It doesn’t mean all cultures are recalling the same floor recent.
And speaking of catastrophies, a global flood is impractical from a physical standpoint. Where does the water come from? Where does it go? All the water moving around must generate an enormous amount of heat, enough to boil the oceans away; how does ANYTHING survive that?
Rhetorical questions ^^^, but the sort of questions that young people are lied to about. It is possible to understand science AND have faith without lying about either.
The late Dr Ager was not a Young-Earther. Indeed, so far as I can tell his ideas have largely been incorporated into mainstream geology. I have yet to see any reliable source claim that he attributed all deposits to sudden catastrophes. Likely this is just another YEC misrepresentation.
I would note that NONE of your cited sources claim “historical records”, but merely “stories”, “myths” and “legends”.
Flooding is a fairly common natural disaster. It is therefore completely unsurprising that many (most?) civilisations have stories, myths or legends, and that not infrequently the scale of the disaster grew in the retelling. None of this is in any way substantiation of Catastrophism, let alone sufficient substantiation to outweigh its flaws.
I have no more reason to accept anything that the ICR has to say on a Global Flood than I have to accept anything the International Flat Earth Society has to say about a Flat Earth, or any other crank organisation has to say about its particular field of crankery. All of them will earnestly tell me that their crankery is really real and that they have simply amazing evidence to support it. All such ‘evidence’s’ credibility quickly evaporates when viewed from a viewpoint outside of the particular field of crankery’s echo chamber.
Except for the fact that there are no historical records from ancient civilizations that speak about a flat earth, as they have recorded in their history about a world wide flood.
“Flood stories may explain geological phenomena such as volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, fossils, and other natural features of the landscape”
Source: A Flood of Myths and Stories | Blog | Independent Lens
" Global flood traditions
Dr. Duane Gish, in Dinosaurs by Design, says there are more than 270 stories from different cultures around the world about a devastating flood. This chart shows the similarities that several myths have with the Genesis account of Noah’s Flood. Although there are varying degrees of accuracy, these legends and stories all contain similarities to aspects of the same historical event—Noah’s Flood."
Now, with so many civilizations having a flood, a global flood as being part of their history, does this not cause the global flood to be set aside from something as easy to disprove as the “flat earth speculation”.
So, come on, you don’t really believe that the global flood, doesn’t have actual global evidence to support its possibility, do you.
There are even articles stating that there could have been massive reginal global flooding, but, they say it wasn’t global.
" Fossils are one of the best evidences of a global flood, especially where many fossils are found. For example, we don’t find marine creatures, such as fish, clams, and corals, buried and fossilized on the sea floor where they once lived. Instead, we find most of them buried in sedimentary rocks on the continents, even on high mountains. For that to happen, the ocean waters had to totally flood the continents. And that’s exactly what the Bible describes during the global flood.
We find ammonite fossils (squids with coiled shells) in limestone layers, high up in the Himalayas in Nepal, near the top of Mount Everest. Of course, Mount Everest wasn’t there before the flood, so the ocean waters didn’t have to rise to over 29,000 feet (8,840 m) above current sea level to cover it. Instead, the sedimentary layers now making up the Himalayas were first deposited on the continent during the flood. The layers buckled and uplifted at the end of the flood to form the towering Himalayan mountains we see today.
Similarly, we find marine fossils in most rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon’s walls in Arizona. At over 2,950 feet (900 m) above sea level, the Redwall Limestone is one of the best examples of these rock layers. It commonly contains fossil brachiopods (clam-like organisms), corals, bryozoans (lace corals), crinoids (sea lilies), bivalves (clams), gastropods (marine snails), trilobites (horseshoe crab-like animals), cephalopods (squid-like creatures), and even fish teeth.
These marine fossils are found haphazardly preserved in this limestone bed. For example, though live crinoids have columnals (disks) stacked on top of one another to make up their stems, in the limestone these disks are mostly separated from one another. These marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment now high on the continent."
Source: Global Evidences of the Genesis Flood | Answers in Genesis
Are you ready to retract your claim and admit there is some evidence that could at least in part be construed as evidence for a global flood?
There is ancient Hebrew cosmology, which specifically depicts a three-tiered universe with a flat Earth.
The best evidence against a global flood is simple physics. Moving vast quantities of water around necessarily generates heat from friction. The Vapor Canopy scenario bathes the planet in 700 degree steam. The Fountains of the Deep scenario parboils everything at over 2000 degrees Celsius. Either way only extremophiles might survive. The latter is basic high school physics, if anyone care to work it out for themselves.
The claim that fossils are evidence of a global flood is also nonsense, That the fossil record had an order was established before Darwin, and as yet there is no plausible explanation of how a global flood could manage it, the fossil record is very good evidence against YEC Flood Geology.
This is not evidence. And it especially is not empirical evidence. All of this is pure unsubstantiated speculation.
And what scientists should be doing is finding out how it was possible, instead of trying to find out ways to disprove it occurred.
As, I’ve already pointed out, there are a number of ancient civilizations that dispute the claims of those who lived thousands of years after what they claimed occurred.
Our ancestors were not stupid brutes. Especially during this time.
They were intelligent enough to form historical records, to pass along to their descendants. THAT WOULD BE US. So, explain why they would decide to pass along lies?
Would our historians think to do this?
And again, you did say that this was like the flat earth speculation, and it most certainly is not.
Because there are geologists who have provided plenty of evidence that supports a global flood.
And then there are those scientists who recognize there was a massive cataclysmic regional flood.
But, there is evidence AROUND THE WORLD THAT EITHER THERE WAS A SINGLE MASSIVE CATACLYSMIC GLOBAL FLOOD, OR THERE WERE SEVERAL THAT COVERED THE ENTIRE EARTH AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
The best explanation is a global flood.
And remember we have humans, intelligent historians who record these events and they support the global flood evidence.
Seriously? Have you also an earth in your back pocket to apply those figures to?
It is unsubstantiated. There have been figures about other science that some thought was not possible and then they were proven wrong
The only difference is, you can not apply your figures, so you have no idea whether or not those figures are sound.
It’s clear that if this were true, you’d be providing evidence to support your views.
Where is it?
Provide what I have said that is not supported or what I can not provide support for.
Please, please, answer this post.