So basically you have flood myths all across the globe from all the older civilizations. You also have large structures (the largest ever built) utterly destroyed. 1 + 1 = 2
Not all destroyed, and not by flooding. You see lots of similar myths from old civilizations. Doesnt mean those things actually happened. Especially with the differences in the myths.
And the difference in the myths relies with details. Exactly what one would expect to see if different cultures would talk about the same event but from their very own perspective.
With the events not happening at the same time everywhere. How does a global event not happen at the same time?
Well that's the thing, they talk about the same event otherwise they wouldn't share the same myth.
So if I saw I saw a flood on the flood plains at 6000 years ago, and someone else saw a flood 5000 years ago in India, you conclude they were the same flood, and happened globally?
No but the odds of such thing are quite slim.
Well you are currently doing just that.
Otherwise how can humanity completely lose their construction techniques that was globally known and spread?
We didnt lose anything. We have far better techniques now. It is like the myth that Roman's made better concrete. Just because we we often cheap out doesnt mean we cant.
I meant that the odds of such multiple desctructive events happening is such a short time frame are slimmer than a bigger happning just once.
We have seen such events over a far short time span, I think you are wrong. Natural disasters happen. Especially since the disasters those places had were common to their area.
Not flooding? Then how? And how complete sites managed to be buried in the ground?
Not all of them were buried. You would think there would be a massively disturbed global sediment layer around the world if there was a global flood. There is no such layer though.
I think the ones near the "event" were burried while the ones further or those protected by mountains have simply been destroyed except for the pyramids because of their shape.
There is no further off, and closer, if the flood was global.it should have happened everywhere is Everest was below water. So it should be all, or not.
Obviously it was global to some extent. AFIC there were survivors.
What do you mean by "global to some extent?" Are you claiming it was a global shallow flood that only hurt coasts? Are you saying it was only certain continents?
Meaning that the coasts were probably the most affected and what would have standed behind mountains would have suffered less damages.
The sediment movement something that ridiculous would have caused would have been very noticable. It would be impossible to cover up. There is no evidence to support such a wild idea.
I just mean that damages was probably not equal everywhere depending on how far you were from what triggered the water movement and the geographic landscape.
Nothing could trigger something like that. It would take magic. Physics wouldnt allow the continents to sink below the ocean or for water to flow up onto land out of the oceans.
Their shape offers no protection, except against gravity.
It absolutely offers protection. Water pressure on pyramidal shape would be inferior than applied on a perpandicular wall.
As I said, from gravity. Which is irrelevant. The world was not suddenly crushed uned a new ocean. Oh wait, you are going to claim that coal and oil appeared suddenly during the flood.
No I'm saying that water somehow moved accross lands coming from the oceans. The water movement was horizontal, not vertical.
That is an even worse idea. You are saying water decided to flow up hill out of the oceans then. God did it is the only way to explain such nonsense.
