[_ Old Earth _] PROOF of a world wide flood CHALLENGE!

[jwu]

They have even found giant closed clams on Everest, clams only die closed if the drown or are buried. ;)

Interesting point - they got there when the actual rocks of Mt. Everest was still a sea bed, and were lifted upwards with the mountain when the Indian subcontinent crashed into Asia and formed the Himalaya.

Think about it...giant clams take quite a long time to grow, they aren't exactly mobile, and methinks they also require rather clean water. There is no realistic way how they could have gotten there in a short and dirty flood.

 

[Barbarian]

2 Pet. 3:3-8 tells us that people who scoff at the Bible are "willingly ignorant" of the Creation and the Flood.

I don't think that you're necessarily "scoffing." You've just accepted an incorrect translation.

* Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.

Most have some similarities to the Genesis story. For example they all involve water. But the farther you get from the Black Sea basin, the more differences we find. So, there have either been major floods in all parts of the world, or there was a worldwide flood. Since we know the former is true, and since the Bible does not say it was worldwide, that's not hard to figure out.

* Noah’s ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity.

It's true that no wooden hull that long would float without huge leakage problems. It would have to be pumped continually. And even John Woodmorappe, a creationist who wrote the Ark Feasibility Study, could only fit in all the animals by supposing that Noah took on a few "kinds" and the other species, genera, and families of animals evolved by hyperevolution in a few thousand years. (far faster than evolutionary theory would have it)

Why not just declare it was all a miracle? Science couldn't deny that, and you'd have a logic-proof belief.

We've been over the other misconceptions, but of course, Mt. Everest is not "covered in shells"; it is made of shells. It was once ocean bottom, but slowly was pushed up to form mountains when India pushed into Asia. It's still going on, and we can measure the rate.

 

[Barbarian]

Where in that verse does the word "Eretz" appear? And yes, heaven here is fiturative...it referrs to the sky or the atmosphere of the earth,

There wasn't even a concept of "atmosphere" when the book was written. It refers to the sky over the land being flooded.

meaning that every high mountain under the whole atmosphere was covered.

That is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

 

[John]

Interesting point - they got there when the actual rocks of Mt. Everest was still a sea bed, and were lifted upwards with the mountain when the Indian subcontinent crashed into Asia and formed the Himalaya.

Think about it...giant clams take quite a long time to grow, they aren't exactly mobile, and methinks they also require rather clean water. There is no realistic way how they could have gotten there in a short and dirty flood.

That is your interpretation.

 

[John]

I don't think that you're necessarily "scoffing." You've just accepted an incorrect translation.

Haha very funny

Why not just declare it was all a miracle? Science couldn't deny that, and you'd have a logic-proof belief.

Because i do not need to it is too obvious, i get a hoot arguing with atheists it is truly amazing to see how blind they are.

We've been over the other misconceptions, but of course, Mt. Everest is not "covered in shells"; it is made of shells. It was once ocean bottom, but slowly was pushed up to form mountains when India pushed into Asia. It's still going on, and we can measure the rate.

Again, your interpretation.

 

[John]

That is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

No your just twisting scripture to try to squeeze your ugly theory into it. Well a circle don't fit where a square should be.

 

[Barbarian]

Ultimately, you can retreat to "I believe it, and I don't care what the evidence shows."

But it's not very convincing to others.

 

[John]

Ultimately, you can retreat to "I believe it, and I don't care what the evidence shows."

But it's not very convincing to others.

Whatever dude.

 

[Crying Rock]

I seriously don't know the answer to this question: Does Cretaceous strata exist worldwide? Are any of the deposits land deposits, or purely water deposits?

It exists except where erosion removed it. But it can be found all over the world. The key is the K-T barrier. There's a line containing a large amount of Iridium at that point. Above it, no large animals until large mammals began to appear. And no dinosaurs.

And yes, there are some Cretaceous deposits which are marine.

Let me clarify: are there any known Cretaceous deposits which were formed on land? Again, I truly don't know the answer. In my neck of the woods all the Cretaceous deposits were formed in marine environments.

So, as far as you know, Cretaceous deposits can be found all over the world (except where erosion removed them)?

Rock

 

[Barbarian]

Let me clarify: are there any known Cretaceous deposits which were formed on land? Again, I truly don't know the answer. In my neck of the woods all the Cretaceous deposits were formed in marine environments

So, as far as you know, Cretaceous deposits can be found all over the world (except where erosion removed them)?

Yep.

A Fossil Dicotyledonous Woodland/Forest From The Upper Cretaceous of Big Bend National Park, Texas
http://palaios.sepmonline.org/cgi/conte ... t/16/1/102

Regularity of paleowind directions of the Early Cretaceous Desert in Ordos Basin and climatic significance
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f407vrw21v536564/

Early Cretaceous Angiosperm Invasion of Western Europe and Major Environmental Changes

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... /100/3/545

Cretaceous Phytogeoprovinces and Paleoclimates in East Coast Basins of India
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 2c23351ba5

Or perhaps where no sediment was being laid down at that time, but I can't think of an example.

 

[jwu]

Interesting point - they got there when the actual rocks of Mt. Everest was still a sea bed, and were lifted upwards with the mountain when the Indian subcontinent crashed into Asia and formed the Himalaya.

Think about it...giant clams take quite a long time to grow, they aren't exactly mobile, and methinks they also require rather clean water. There is no realistic way how they could have gotten there in a short and dirty flood.

That is your interpretation.

If you want to assert that those clams grew on top of of Mt Everest during a global deluge, then you'l have to address those points and provide an explanation why they don't blow your claim out of the water (no pun intended). Otherwise your claim is falsified and clinging to it is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[nadab]

There are many who either question the event of the Noachian Flood some 4000 years ago or rejects it. In the book Myths of Creation, Philip Freund estimates that over 500 Flood legends are told by more than 250 tribes and peoples. As might be expected, with the passing of many centuries, these legends have been greatly embellished with imaginary events and characters. In all of them, however, some basic similarities can be found. If there were no earthwide flood, then where did all these flood legends come from ?

Here are some of such legends. There were the Sumerians, an ancient people who inhabited Mesopotamia. Their version of the Deluge was found on a clay tablet unearthed in the ruins of Nippur. This tablet says that the Sumerian gods Anu and Enlil decided to destroy mankind with a giant flood. Being warned by the god Enki, Ziusudra and his family were able to survive in a huge boat.

Next, there were the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh contains many details. According to it, Gilgamesh visited his ancestor Utnapishtim, who had been granted eternal life after surviving the Flood. In the ensuing conversation, Utnapishtim explained that he was told to build a ship and take cattle, wild beasts, and his family into it. He built the ship as a huge cube 200 feet [60 m] on each side, with six floors. He tells Gilgamesh that the storm lasted six days and six nights, and then he says: “When the seventh day arrived, the hurricane, the Deluge, the shock of battle was broken, which had smitten like an army. The sea became calm, the cyclone died away, the Deluge ceased. I looked upon the sea and the sound of voices had ended. And all mankind had turned to clay.â€Â

After the vessel grounded on Mount Nisir, Utnapishtim released a dove that returned to the boat when it could not find a resting-place. This was followed by a swallow that also returned. A raven was then released, and when it did not return, he knew that the water had subsided. Utnapishtim then released the animals and offered a sacrifice.

This very old legend is somewhat similar to the Biblical account of the Flood. However, it lacks the graphic details and simplicity of the Bible account, and it does not give reasonable dimensions for the ark nor supply the time period indicated in the Scriptures. For instance, the Epic of Gilgamesh said that the storm lasted six days and six nights, whereas the Bible says that “the downpour upon the earth went on for forty days and forty nightsâ€Ââ€â€a continuing heavy rain that finally covered the entire globe with water.(Genesis 7:12)

Though the Bible mentions eight Flood survivors, in Greek legend only Deucalion and his wife, Pyrrha, survived. (2 Peter 2:5) According to this legend, before the Flood the earth was inhabited by violent individuals (Nephilim, Gen 6:4,5)called the men of bronze. The god Zeus decided to destroy them with a great flood and told Deucalion to build a large chest and get into it. When the flood subsided, the chest came to rest on Mount Parnassus. Deucalion and Pyrrha descended from the mountain and started mankind again.

Indians in Central and South America have flood legends with basic similarities. The Maya of Central America believed that a great rain serpent destroyed the world by torrents of water. In Mexico the Chimalpopoca version tells that a flood submerged the mountains. The god Tezcatlipoca warned the man Nata, who hollowed out a log where he and his wife, Nena, found refuge until the water subsided.

In the south Pacific and Asia, there are legends of a flood. For example, in Samoa there is a legend of a flood in early times that destroyed everyone except Pili and his wife. They found safety on a rock, and after the flood they repopulated the earth. In the Hawaiian Islands, the god Kane became annoyed with humans and sent a flood to destroy them. Only Nu´u escaped in a large boat that finally grounded on a mountain.

What do some conclude from these many Flood legends? Though they differ greatly in details, they have some common features. These indicate an origin in some gigantic and unforgettable cataclysm. Despite vivid colorations over the centuries, their underlying theme is like a thread that ties them to one great eventâ€â€the global Deluge related in the simple, uncolored Bible account.

Since the Flood legends are generally found among people who did not come in touch with the Bible until recent centuries, it would be a mistake to contend that the Scriptural account influenced them. For those who are look at this with an open mind, many have concluded that the flood of Noah's day was not just a fictitious event, but was a reality.

The apostle Peter wrote however that many "according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water."

 

[nadab]

Of interest that the earth was once covered by a global deluge is the fact that over 500 fossilized giant oysters, some with a circumference of up to 11 feet [3.5 m] and weighing up to 650 pounds [300 kg], were found in Acostambo, Peru, at an elevation of 12,300 feet [3,750 m] above sea level, reported the newspaper El Comercio in 2001. Paleontologist Arturo Vildozola found the oyster bed just a few meters from a highway that runs between the towns of Pampas and Colcabamba. Apparently, the oysters had not caught anyone’s attention in the past, despite being scattered on the ground for many years. This find of giant oysters reinforces the idea that at one time the ocean covered the Andes mountain range.

The National Geograhic once stated that “there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.†Many are unwilling to grasp that above the earth was a "heavenly ocean"(Hebrew, ham·mab·bul´; Latin, di·lu´vi·i , "flood of waters", King James Bible) that God caused to fall to the earth at his command in 2370 B.C.E.(Gen 6:17; 7:6)

 

[Crying Rock]

Let me clarify: are there any known Cretaceous deposits which were formed on land? Again, I truly don't know the answer. In my neck of the woods all the Cretaceous deposits were formed in marine environments

So, as far as you know, Cretaceous deposits can be found all over the world (except where erosion removed them)?

Yep.

A Fossil Dicotyledonous Woodland/Forest From The Upper Cretaceous of Big Bend National Park, Texas
http://palaios.sepmonline.org/cgi/conte ... t/16/1/102

Regularity of paleowind directions of the Early Cretaceous Desert in Ordos Basin and climatic significance

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f407vrw21v536564/

Early Cretaceous Angiosperm Invasion of Western Europe and Major Environmental Changes

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... /100/3/545

Cretaceous Phytogeoprovinces and Paleoclimates in East Coast Basins of India
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 2c23351ba5

Or perhaps where no sediment was being laid down at that time, but I can't think of an example.

Thanks.

Have you read these reports?

I wonder what type deposits these trees and angiosperm were found: marine; alluvial; colluvial; fluvial; lacustrine; eolian; volcanic; etc...?

Rock

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian cites examples of non-marine cretaceous deposits)

Have you read these reports?

Some of them, and many others. All over the world, they are.

I wonder what type deposits these trees and angiosperm were found: marine; alluvial; colluvial; fluvial; lacustrine; eolian; volcanic; etc...?

Do you know what those words mean? If you do, the abstracts would mostly tell you.

 

[Crying Rock]

(Barbarian cites examples of non-marine cretaceous deposits)

Have you read these reports?

Some of them, and many others. All over the world, they are.

[quote:2i2zq6cd]I wonder what type deposits these trees and angiosperm were found: marine; alluvial; colluvial; fluvial; lacustrine; eolian; volcanic; etc...?

Do you know what those words mean? If you do, the abstracts would mostly tell you.[/quote:2i2zq6cd]

Yes, I'm a NA geoarcheologist, so I'm quite familiar with: marine; alluvial; colluvial; fluvial; lacustrine; eolian; and volcanic deposits.

Lets start with your first citation, which refers to the Aguja formation.

The Aguja formation consists of alternating mudstones and sandstones interpreted as having been deposited by a prograding delta complex and to some extent more proximal fluvial facies.

Do you know what those words mean?

No, but they sound good, huh?

Makes me sound all professional and stuff.

You know you're impressed!

I learned the words in my studies of an online class I signed up for that was promoted on late

night TV. ;)

Rock

 

[Barbarian]

So then, you'd know that the environment in the deposits is not the same thing as the deposit, um?
It's kinda cool having an um, "geoarchaeologist" on board.

But I'm a bit puzzled. How did you not know that there were so many non-marine cretaceous sites?
I know you guys mostly analyze soil, but don't geoarchaeologists have to study geology?

Makes me sound all professional and stuff.

Maybe, if you used them correctly in context.

 

[jwu]

Of interest that the earth was once covered by a global deluge is the fact that over 500 fossilized giant oysters, some with a circumference of up to 11 feet [3.5 m] and weighing up to 650 pounds [300 kg], were found in Acostambo, Peru, at an elevation of 12,300 feet [3,750 m] above sea level, reported the newspaper El Comercio in 2001. Paleontologist Arturo Vildozola found the oyster bed just a few meters from a highway that runs between the towns of Pampas and Colcabamba. Apparently, the oysters had not caught anyone’s attention in the past, despite being scattered on the ground for many years. This find of giant oysters reinforces the idea that at one time the ocean covered the Andes mountain range.

Thanks for proving my point - such huge clams take way longer than the supposed duration of the noachian flood to grow.

 

[lordkalvan]

...* Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.

There are tens of thousands of legends and myths from all around the world. Many of these involve floods of one sort or another. Can you think of a reason why flood myths might be common that has nothing to do with the occurrence of a global flood? There are only a certain number of themes that can be played in the context of a flood. Even if every one of these legends had the same origin - which I would doubt anyway - this is not evidence that they are anything other than legendary.

* Noah’s ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape.

The description of the Ark is so imprecise that it could be any shape you care to imagine. Barges are flat-bottomed and generally blunter at bow and stern than sea-going vessels for a simple reason: they do not have to weather the sea-states that sea-going vessels have to cope with. Postulating an Ark that is more like a barge than a boat only compromises the seaworthiness of a vessel that is already facing enormous problems because of its size and lack of power.

This would greatly increase the cargo capacity.

How greatly is ‘greatly’? How about running some figures past us?

Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts, and sails to catch the wind. Noah's ark needed neither of those and therefore had far less torsion related stress.

The stress on a ship's hull is largely imposed by the fact that the upthrust from the water in which it floats is not constantly and evenly distributed throughout its length and breadth, i.e. the bulk of the stresses imposed on the hull are caused by wave-action. Any vessel will flex and twist in anything other than the gentlest of seas; the effects of this flexing and twisting on large wooden hulls are serious and, in the case of a vessel of the Ark's dimensions, most likely catastrophic – especially if it is more ‘barge’-like than ‘boat’-like. Put simply, in heavy seas the vessel would flex itself to pieces.

* Even using the small 18-inch cubit (my height is 6-ft. 1-in. and I have a 21-in. cubit) the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals, people, and food with room to spare.

Perhaps you can support this assertion with some facts and figures?

* The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. (God thinks of everything!)

Do you want the Ark to be a ‘barge’ or a ‘boat’? Make up your mind. Keel weight, in relation to waterline length and beam is what gives a vessel stability. Beam provides form or initial stability, but keel weight (or keel ballast) is what gives a vessel ultimate stability, i.e. the ability to return to a level position after heeling. The rule-of-thumb used throughout much of the time that single-hulled wooden vessels were built is that a vessel needs to be about three times as long as broad. Actually, the situation is more complicated than this, because the longer a vessel, then the less beam it requires proportionately. The heeling moment of waves and swell on a ship’s hull varies as the cube of its length. High ratio length-to-beam vessels are usually the consequence of a need for speed, not a requirement of the Ark. Contrary to your assertion, God does not seem to have thought of everything after all.

* The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature:
* It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships.
* The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board.
* The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.

Speculation devoid of evidence. The Ark may have had wind-powered electrical generators, hamster-powered conveyor-belts and food-hoppers operated by trained gerbils, but there is no evidence for any of this either, so why would you think that it may have had a moon-pool rather than these other improbable devices? I am intrigued also at the idea that piercing a hole in a the bottom of the hull of a ship actually increases its seaworthiness; hull-strength is largely a factor of the structural, load-bearing components of that hull, not the skin that provides water-tightness. If moon-pools are as advantageous as you suggest, I am minded to wonder why marine architects don’t incorporate such a feature in all large vessels, rather than just those that appear to need it for the purpose they were built for?
The ventilation idea is just bizarre. Have you worked out the mechanics of how this would function?
What garbage would be dumped in the moon-pool? How much of it would sink and how much of it would simply float in the moon-pool, decaying and adding an even more noxious aroma to the Ark as the gases of corruption were circulated by the proposed ‘piston’ action of sea rising and falling in the moon-pool?

* The ark may have had large drogue (anchor) stones suspended over the sides to keep it more stable in rough weather. Many of these stones have been found in the region where the ark landed.

How do you propose these would have worked? Drogue and sea-anchors are not used to stabilize vessels in heavy seas by hanging them over the side. I am interested in the stones that you claim have been found. How do you know they come from the Ark and how do you know they were used in the manner suggested?

* Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio. See Seminar tape #2 for more info on this.

If you can find any evidence that any human anywhere has lived to an age greater than about 120, I would be interested to see it. Likewise 11-foot skeletons. A larger Ark only compounds the already existing seaworthiness problems. If the size of a cubit is a movable feast, perhaps the Ark was much smaller than you propose, rather than larger.

* God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind, which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The "kind" grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark.

More speculation devoid of evidence. Where are the genetic bottlenecks that would support this speculation? The dog ‘kind’ is pure invention; you have no evidence whether Noah took dogs, foxes, coyotes, wolves, etc onto the Ark or not.

Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach. (They teach, "Kelp can turn into Kent," given enough time!)

More assertion without evidence. The rate of diversification proposed is wholly absurd and how it is supposed to be dissimilar from evolution remains unknown, except for your statement to this effect. There are over 350,000 beetle species; did all these diversify in a few generations from the two representatives of the beetle ‘kind’ taken on board the Ark?

* Noah did not have to get the animals. God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20, "shall come to thee").

Selective quoting there. Genesis 6:20 refers to ‘fowls’ and ‘creeping things’. Genesis 6:19 casts a different light:

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

So quite clearly Noah is told that he must bring ‘every living thing of all flesh’ to the Ark, not that they will come to him.

* Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.

Selective interpretation. If you think insects can survive without air, trying placing them in an airless environment and see what happens. Insects are aerobic organisms and require the ‘breath of life’ o survive. Also, if ‘creeping things’ does not include insects, why does it exclude them?

* Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.

Examples, please? Most do not.

* All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.

I thought meat-eating was supposed to be a consequence of the fall, not the flood? Do you not think fossil coprolites are evidence that invalidates this observation?

* The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than people today. The longer life spans, Adam’s direct contact with God, and the fact that they could glean the wisdom of many generations that were still alive would greatly expand their knowledge base.

Speculation. There is no evidence that the ‘pre-Flood people’ as you describe them either existed or were any smarter than anyone else.

* The Bible says that the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. This is half the height of the ark. The ark was safe from scraping bottom at all times.

The Ark was reputedly 30 cubits high. Where is your calculation of the Ark’s draught the Ark how this impacted on its stability?

* The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8).

Unsupported by the geological evidence.

* There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.

If we had some ham we could have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs. The surface of the Earth has not been smooth at any relevant point in the past.

* The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then. See Seminar Part 6 for more information.

Unsupported by the geological evidence.

* The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.

This is not evidence of a global flood. It is evidence that the rocks that now make up the Himalayas were once sedimentary deposits in a sea. Geology explains this feature quite satisfactorily – supported by evidence - as the result of orogeny along the line between the Indo-Australian and Eurasian plates. This collision began about 70 MYA.

* Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.

The world is mostly water. How is your point relevant to the occurrence of a global flood? There is no evidence to support the idea that all sedimentary rocks were formed by a single global immersion event. The Western Ross Sea in Antarctica is underlain by around 14,000 metres of mostly flat-lying sedimentary strata; are you suggesting that this nearly 10 miles of sedimentary rock was deposited by the Noachian flood?

* Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

Evidence of rapid burial, perhaps; not evidence of a global flood. Consider the case of crinoid fossils, which are evidence against a global flood.

* Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.

How?

* People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Pet. 3:3-8).

As opposed to the absence of evidence reason?

 

[lordkalvan]

There are many who either question the event of the Noachian Flood some 4000 years ago or rejects it. In the book Myths of Creation, Philip Freund estimates that over 500 Flood legends are told by more than 250 tribes and peoples. As might be expected, with the passing of many centuries, these legends have been greatly embellished with imaginary events and characters. In all of them, however, some basic similarities can be found. If there were no earthwide flood, then where did all these flood legends come from ?

Where, indeed? People who live by or near large sources of water, whether rivers, lakes, seas or oceans, are subject to periodic floods of more or less severity. Natural disasters were seen as the possible result of divine displeasure: for example the anger of Poseidon manifested as an earthquake. Some people survive floods, some don't. Some survivors survive by taking refuge on a boat (with or without livestock), some don't. When a flood subsides, survivors in a boat are more likely to ground on higher than lower ground. Survivors recount the tales. There is nothing surprising in some common threads amongst flood stories. There are many common threads in tales of volcanic eruptions. Does this mean that all such tales have a common origin in a single catastrophic event?

....Since the Flood legends are generally found among people who did not come in touch with the Bible until recent centuries, it would be a mistake to contend that the Scriptural account influenced them. For those who are look at this with an open mind, many have concluded that the flood of Noah's day was not just a fictitious event, but was a reality.

What reason do you think it a mistake to suppose that some of these accounts may have suffered cross-cultural contamination? The biblical flood is sufficiently similar to the much older flood epic of Gilgamesh, that it is equally reasonable to conclude that the biblical version was lifted wholesale and adapted for its new audience as necessary. A common origin for a legend is not evidence that the legend is anything other than legendary.