The ability to model other people in our minds like the ability to model sequences of events, or to narrate, is some sort of an innate ability we had to learn to use and develop after the flood.
How charmingly naive. We have this little legend about a flood, and its so nicely engrained as an historical "fact" that the mere lack of evidence of same is no problem to the followers of Biblical literalism.
Id feel a bit foolish parading this kind of conclusion in front of an audience of skeptics. Just be aware that , youre getting laughed off the stage.
I was at Penn State yesterday , listening to the new degrees that the College of Earth and Mineral SCiences is now offering, and its an exciting time for geo- science (what with all the evidence being found regarding earth history). Alas, nobody is offering a degree in Flood Geology...
....One of the problems in Velikovskian research has been the inability to distinguish between catastrophes that occurred close in time to one another. It is also difficult to distinguish the different time frames of the worldwide floods. Immanuel Velikovsky documented mythological and geophysical evidence of a worldwide flood occurring 3,500 years ago.1 He also spoke of earlier catastrophes that produced immense global floods; such floods would have left distinctive evidence.
The evidence I present below is a mlange of data regarding more than one global flood. Apparently, the earlier global floods occurred when major icecaps covered the continents and later floods occurred after these were destroyed. Recent findings verify that such global floods occurred and negate the uniformitarian argument that the flood evidence indicates only local flood episodes. The basic uniformitarian argument is that the great floods were unique events caused by ice-dammed lakes unleashed when the ice dams broke. However, if individual, localized floods occurred repeatedly during the last Ice Age, they would have washed away the whale fossils found on or near the earth surface. However, whale bones and other marine fossils have been found far inland, without having been either destroyed or eroded down to tiny fragments. This strongly supports the global flood hypothesis and contradicts the local flood theory. This evidence fully supports Velikovsky's hypothesis....
....All the supposed glacial floods described above flowed south but did not generate either the amount or depth of muck found around the Arctic Ocean. Again, this indicates that the original flood flowed northward and dropped most of its debris and sediment into and around the Arctic Ocean. The backflow traveled southward, breaking up the icecap, over the land and into other oceans. This backflow has been described as the floods occurring from the Washington scablands to Siberia's Altay Mountains.
However, this backflow carried with it less massive sediment particles, or loess. The loess is found south of the Pleistocene icecaps as a broad band across Europe, Asia, the United States and parts of southern Canada--between the 40 and 70 north latitudes. Southern hemispheric loess deposits are found in the Argentinean pampas, southwestern Australia, New South Wales and New Zealand. The band of loess in the northern hemisphere is broken in many places and is missing from the far eastern end of Siberia, which experienced the largest flood. However, south of the Siberian flood, in China, some of the largest loess deposits on Earth are found. This, of course, would be congruent with a large Siberian flood.
There are two theories for the formation of the loess: The establishment consensus theory, based on uniformitarian concepts, suggests that loess originated from glaciers and was laid down by wind currents over tens of thousands of years. However, boulders too large to have been carried by the wind are found all through loess deposits. Aeolian theory advocates suggest that, after the loess was deposited by wind currents, massive glacial floods moved it to new areas--thus explaining the nature of boulders, freshwater clams and snails found in deposits.
However, there is decisive evidence that the loess was not laid down gradually over tens of thousands of years. The loess contains Ice Age animal remains. Since loess had to have been the source of herbivore and snail plant food, then plants and trees had to have grown on the loess over long timespans. Today, in rainfall and temperate regions, grass, shrubs and trees are found growing in the loess' top layer--as can be seen in photographs taken of these regions. Loess is well known as a promoter of plant growth and is the source of China's river valley fertility. Therefore, over time, the loess soil in which these plants grew would produce a rich, dark humus or loam throughout the entire deposit. Over these large timespans, as the loess built up, layer upon layer of vegetation would decay into humus to be buried gradually by new aeolian-borne loess. But this is denied by the evidence. As J. K. Charlesworth pointed out in 1957, there is "some dissent [with the aeolian theory of loess formation] because the entire profile should resemble a humus horizon, [yet] the tubes [in the loess] have scarcely a trace of vegetation."76
Even if some of the loess, after being built up, had been moved by gigantic glacial floods to its present locations, it would be filled with humus and plant remains from top to bottom. What the aeolian advocates expect one to accept as probable is that glacial floods washed away the loess from the humus and vegetative remains, leaving these behind. Only by ignoring the evidence which supports a strictly fluvial origin for loess have the aeolian proponents been able to maintain their theory. No aeolian, gradualistic production of loess will create deposits nearly devoid of humus and other decayed vegetation, even by invoking later floods. ...
