Universal Flood and People/Animals in the Americas?

Question

As you know, according to Genesis 7:17-23, when the Flood struck, everything was gone but for those with Noah in the Ark, which anchored on the Mountains of the Ararat, somewhere in Armenia.

My question is about the people and animals found in the Americas, who were found at the time of the discovery of the New World.

Answer 1

The sea levels after the flood were much lower allowing people and animals to migrate to all the continents across dry land bridges between them. The ice age after the flood gradually  warmed and melted the glaciers to fill up the oceans to todays level....separating the continents. If you look at a topographical map of the continents and continental shelves, you'll see that a couple hundred foot drop or less in ocean levels will connect the continents.....thus allowing people and animals to cross from one to another easily and also explains why some animal species are found only on some islands..Genetic research of American Indians show they were mostly Asian in origin and probably crossed the Bering Sea land bridge into America from Asia. The Bible states that Peleg, a descendant of Noah, was named for "division or it will be divided" possibly referring to the peoples being shut off from each other after the glaciers receded and the land bridges were no longer above sea level..

Answer 2

What is your question? I didn't see one.

Ok I'll do you a favour your teachers didn't. (they should have spent less time on fiction & more on fact) and answer you...

Not so long ago during the last ice age,10,000 years as I recall, the Bering Straight, that the bit of  sea  separating Alaska from Siberia, wasn't there.

It was frozen over! So life spread from the old world to the new...

Just in case you still don't get it they just walked over.

Answer 3

There are flood stories from all around the world, and they describe different ways that people survived.  One thing that really interests me, is lake Titicaca in the South American Andes, it up lifted 13000 feet in an apparently short time and you can find fossilised shells and recent ones in the same places. Most of the animals found in the Americas have counter parts  in Europe and the people here came from different places as it has been proven by their DNA and they came by boat!  Maybe some came on a land bridge, but not all.  And they have dated human settlements in the Americas over 25000 years old, this is long before the flood date, so they all did not come after the flood, so it is almost impossible to give you a good answer, the animal fossils date back many hundreds of thousands of years.  Perhaps the flood was much higher in the near East, a possible quick shift of the planet could have shifted a large part of the waters in one direction? who knows

Answer 4

There was never a flood.  The logic doesn't hold.  If it rained 100 feet a day over the entire earth, which is ridiculous, it would still only raise the sea level to 4000 feet.  That hardly makes mount Ararat the only land.  There is no place for the water to come from.  It is just a rather silly myth.

Stealth, it was likely the Black sea that was flooded by the Mediterranean when the sea level rose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporus

"....One recent theory (published in 1997 by William Ryan and Walter Pitman from Columbia University) contends that the Bosporus was formed about 5600 BCE when the rising waters of the Mediterranean/Sea of Marmara breached through to the Black Sea, which at the time (according to the theory) was a low-lying body of fresh water.

Some have argued[citation needed] that the resulting massive flooding of the inhabited and probably farmed northern shores of the Black Sea is thought to be the historic basis for the flood stories found in the Epic of Gilgamesh and in the Bible in Book of Genesis, Chapters 6-9. On the other hand, there is also evidence for a flood of water going in the opposite direction, from the Black Sea into the Sea of Marmara[citation needed] around 7000 or 8000 BCE..."

Answer 5

The known facts about the inhabitation of the Americas don't match with the bible. Archbishop Ussher placed the first day of genesis in 4004BC Clovis culture in North American appears  about 10,000BC. A good friend of mine has gotten carbon dates of 16,500 years ago and Monte Verde in the far South of Chile is dated to 16,000 years ago. The Topper Site  in South Carolina has dates claimed to be 50.000 years ago and a site in Brazil has claimed dates of 32,000 years ago.

Humans reached the Americas in one or more ways. There are several possible explanations (theories) on how people got here. These are the current theories: the Bering Land Bridge Theory, Pacific Coastal Route Theory, Pacific Crossing Theory, and  the Atlantic Crossing Theory,

Several of the theories share similar facts. The Bering Land Bridge and the Pacific Coastal Route both have the first people coming into the Americas from Siberia. The Pacific Route suggests that people sailed the South Pacific to colonize first South America then move north into North America. Finally the Atlantic Route has people following the pack ice from Europe to the Americas.

Theories are explanations of collected facts and observations. If the theory is disproved by the facts, then it's discarded or changed.

There are two reasons to believe that people came to the Americas from elsewhere.

First is the process of elimination. There are no hominids that developed in the Americas. This is the family that include humans and apes. Therefore, any humans had to come from elsewhere.

Second is physical evidence. The appearance of humans in the Americas coincides with the end of the last ice age and the existence of the Bering land bridge.

Third is genetic evidence. Native Americans have what is called shovel shaped teeth. Basically the back of the front teeth are curved, much like a shovel. This is a trait that they share with people in Northwestern Asia.

There's the fact that Native American languages show they belong to three groupings: PaleoIndians ( Pai, Pima, and Pueloans); Athapaskans (Navaho and Apache) and Eskimo-Aleut (Inuits). The roots of these languages show commonality with Asian Tongues.

Lastly there's physical remains. Like teeth shape, the earliest skeletons of Paleoamericans show that they were of Mongolian stock. That is Asian. Even today the blood grouping of Native Americans and even some of the inherited diseases show and Asian origin. Even the Kennewick Man, dated to 9,300 appears to be from Asia.

Here are the theories and discussion:

Bering Land Bridge

During the great ice age, the great ice sheets locked up much of the world's water. The sea level dropped as much as 300 feet. This greatly changed the shape of the coastlines. What was, and is now, the Bering Strait became dry land. Asia and the Americas were connected. The exposed sea bottom has been named "Beringia."

Beringia is generally thought to have been a flat plain, dry and dusty. It did support plant and animal life. Nomadic hunters followed the game animals. This eventually lead them into North America. They never knew when they crossed over to a new world.

Once in the Americas, they found the passage south blocked. The ice sheets from the Rockies had merged with the ones from the Hudson Bay region. An important part about the Bering land bridge was that when it existed, the ice blocked the way to what would be the United States. When the ice melted, the land bridge disappeared.

The major problem with the theory is that there are archeological sites found all over North America with about the same carbon-14 date. (10,500- 12,500 BCE). The southern tip of South America has sites dated to just 1,000 years later. That's quite a movement of people. Supporters must find an explanation to how the ice could retreat and people could colonize the Americas so quickly.

To do so they point to an ice free corridor that opened between the Hudson Bay and Rocky Mountain ice sheets. Once opened and "greened up" with plants and animals, this created a pathway for people to enter the new lands.

Excavations along the supposed route do not fully support the theory. There should be datable sites and a fairly haven travel pattern.

Another issue is the rate that the Americas were occupied. Most explanations go "If a group of hunters moved only 25 miles south in each generation..." The however is that mountain ranges, climatic changes and distribution of plant and animals are not uniformed. Most nomadic groups tend to stay in familiar lands and exploit the resources that they have learned about. It's only later, when a group splits or famine threatens that they move.

Pacific Coastal Route Theory

This is similar to the Bering Land Bridge theory. People came across through Beringia and settled the Americas. However, they used boats and followed the Pacific coastline.



Recent investigations have shown that there were small refuges along the western coastline. Sea faring peoples could have migrated south along the coast. However, finding their campsites now requires exploration in deep water. A few years ago, there was a dredging operation. Sites were selected based on the expected coastline of 10,000 plus years ago and on the known required for a camping spot. This yielded a manmade stone tool.

The Clovis toolkit uses a toggle shaft system. The projectile point is hafted to a short foreshaft. This then fits into a socket of a longer shaft. Such a system is often used in hunting sea mammals.

Archeological finds in Indonesia and Australia, show that Homo Erects di cross some significant ocean passages. The first Australians had to cross 60 miles of ocean. This suggests that humans could have had ocean sailing abilities.

The problem with the theory is a lack or evidence. The "Clovis First" group claims that all the oldest dated sites are Clovis and that the Bering Land Bridge theory explains them. Sites, such as Cactus Hill in Virginia do have a dateable preClovis deposits. However, actual evidence is scanty and under debate.

Pacific Crossing Theory,

This theory is based on the observation that the oldest human sites appear to be in South America. That it was South America that seemed to be settled first. Monte Verde, a site in the far south of Chile is dated to 16,500 BCE. These a propertied site in Brazil with a claim of 30,000 BCE.

Kennewick Man and the oldest known American skeletons appear to display traits more that of Pacific Islanders, Australians and the original people of Japan.

The theory has ocean traveling people making landfall in South America after crossing the South Pacific. That's a cold and barren route, with few landmasses.

Atlantic Crossing Theory

This theory is based on two main points. Siberia has no corresponding Clovis Point Culture and there's a "X factor" in the Native American Blood groupings.

If Clovis had started in the Americas, traces of similar stone technology should also appear in Asia. It doesn't. About the closest similar stonework comes from Spain.

The "X Factor" in Native American blood is present in a very small percentage of the population. It is found in Europeans, not Asians.

The theory has hunters following the edge of the polar ice pack. They lived off marine animals and sealife. Once in North America they spread out.

Most likely, there were a number of waves of immigrants to the Americas. The arguments for the number and route seem to change daily.

The current contender for the "most probable" seems to have the Pacific coastal route on the rise. Basically it is supported by most of the current facts and does explain the very early dating that is currently being discovered. However, it would be better to wait 20 years to see what else happens.

Answer 6

The native Americans probably set out at the time of the dispersion at Babel.

The ice age meant that the sea level was lower, which would have made some land migrations easier. But most likely some groups built boats and sailed off to America. Likewise to places like Indonesia and Australia.

Odd how some people are so ready to dismiss the Global Flood.

What do we see when we examine the earth? The whole earth covered in sedimentary rock, laid down by water, containing billions of dead creatures.

And what would one expect to see after a Global Flood? Hmm.

And why do people from all over the earth have a 'memory' (stories) of a global flood? Because these stories are based on a real event, as recorded in the Bible.

Indicentally, there is no proof' that man was living 25000 years ago. All such dates are based on various assumptions (typically the assumptions ignore the effect of the Flood!).

The actual evidence (rather than its interpretation) is completely consistent with the Flood occuring about 4500 years ago.

It would be interesting to see what the nay-sayers have to say about the evidence, instead of the usual 'nah nah you're stupid'.

I have investigate the evidence, and I find it fully in accord with the Biblical account. [And I'm not stupid :) ]

Answer 7

The Ark on the Ararat versus living beings in the American Continent can be explained by two modalities which will give you the chance to choose from and still be found within logical reason. In the first place, let me remind you of your Geography at the time of High School.

The Suez Canal used to be a strait, remember? Many many years ago, one could pass from Africa to Asia on terra firma. Don't you remember that Gibraltar used to be a strait? Today it is a canal. There was a time when it was possible to walk from Africa to Europe. The same about Panama, which is a canal today. But once upon a time one could walk from North to South America and vice-versa.

You must know by now where I am heading: To the Strait of Bering. Still today a good swimmer can cross it easily. That's where many years ago people crossed from Asia into America. Not only men have enlarged those passages, but also Nature throughout millennia of History. You must be familiar with the moving away of continents, which is no longer a theory but proved reality.

You must have got the point of my reviewing of your Geography lessons. The actual feasibility that people crossed at Bering and populated America is so real that it makes obsolete the necessity for the second explanation. But

here it is:

Biblical paroxysms or superlativeness. "The whole earth and all the mountains covered with water,"  being an exaggeration of the human mind, which is classified as paroxysm, not contradiction.

When it is said, for example, that Alexander the Great conquered the whole world, or Rome after him, we know it can't be true, but it's not a tale either. When Lot's daughters said that the whole world had been destroyed, they were simply exaggerating the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Therefore, the Flood must have had been local, but since land was not visible from the Ark, human reason interpreted that the whole world was submerged. Simply Biblical paroxysms, not discrepancy of the word.

Either modality you choose, you will be in tune with reason. Personally, I am for both: Biblical paroxysm to explain the universality of the Flood, and migration through the Bering for men and animals in America.

Answer 8

The theory that I agree with is that the continents were closer together then and the rate they are separating is slowly decreasing since. You can look up the "hydroplate theory of plate tectonics". I don't agree with all of it but the idea is sound.

Answer 9

Why is this in science? Move it to religion, or fiction.

Answer 10

The only place that flooded on a large scale, 7,000 years ago, was the Mesopotamian Valley. Mud-core samples show 10' of silt excavated from that point in geologic time...

The Tigris & Euphrates Rivers flooded, because the Black Sea overflowed, as the glaciers melted, sending tremendous amounts of water into this valley!

The reason it was recorded in Genesis, is because Mesopotamia constituted all of the literate world of that time. The Eastern Semitic tribes who lived in the Zagros Mountains, just east of Mesopotamia, came down into the valley after the floodwaters subsided (That's also in Genesis).

If both Polar Ice Caps melted, it would only raise ocean levels less than 250', and that didn't happen 7,000 years ago. Just accept the fact, that the Bibical Flood was a local phenomenon, which only wiped out the pre-historic Ubaids, and lead to the surviving Sumerians to later flourish!