Humanity’s shared history, obscured by Geology’s great error

New Data

The images in Figure 1 (a)-(d) depict submerged landscapes from around the planet. Such maps represent new data, as they became ubiquitously available circa 2010. In each figure the white arrows identify submerged rivers and drainage systems that appear to be well-preserved. Many of the systems find their terminus hundreds of kilometers from present coasts and at depths greater than 3000 meters below present sea level.

Figure 1(a). The bathymetry off Monterey, California.

Figure 1(b). The bathymetry off the Gulf of Alaska. Note in the lower right that the former river meandered between two volcanoes.

Figure 1(c). A bathymetry map of the Celtic Sea.

Figure 1(d). A bathymetry map of the Western Mediterranean Sea.

Geologists believe that these submerged structures were carved by subsurface processes because their science holds that there was never a worldwide flood. This exemplifies fitting data (submerged structures) to theory (No Flood), which is unscientific. This motivates a review of geology’s No Flood tenet.

No Flood

Geology’s prevailing No Flood paradigm finds its origin in the early decades of the nineteenth century when scientists in Europe debated whether the whole of the Earth suffered a deluge. Geologists set about various parts of the continent and discovered that diluvial deposits belonged to multiple, distinct events; some were found to have been transported by glaciers. Thus, at its essence, the argument against The Flood went like this: because there was no common event in the diluvial records, there could never have been a single worldwide flood.

Several key figures influenced the debate, among them the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, Woodwardian Professor at Cambridge University, and for two years president of the Geological Society of London. At the Society’s 1831 annual meeting, in his farewell address as president, Sedgwick recanted his belief in The Flood (italics added):

“The vast masses of diluvial gravel . . . do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. . . . Having been myself a believer [in a worldwide flood], and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, . . . I think it right . . . thus publicly to read my recantation.”[1]

Sedgwick’s standing as the Society’s president, as a Cambridge University professor, and as a reverend played an important role in imparting lasting effect to his recantation: Geology’s “no worldwide flood, ever” paradigm persists to the present.

No Flood has far-reaching effect not only in geology but also in associated disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, and human history. This was an historic, celebrated, and influential finding. An example of its status is found in Stephen Gould’s The Flamingo’s Smile, Reflections in Natural History, in which he praises Sedgwick’s scientific spirit: “I know no finer statement in all the annals of science than Sedgwick’s forthright recantation . . . it illustrated so well the difference between dogmatism, which cannot change, and true science.”[2] Sedgwick’s pronouncement rendered culturally independent, ubiquitous, ancient accounts of The Flood as either fantasies or exaggerations of local events. Thus, it is unsurprising that Pope Francis would claim, “The biblical flood, according to experts, is a mythical tale.”[3]

The No Flood Error

In drawing their “no worldwide flood, ever” conclusion, Sedgwick and his contemporaries did not consider that landscapes now submerged might once have been subaerial. Instead, they assumed that evidence of the flood would be found in presently exposed landscapes, which is not necessarily true, for The Flood could have filled the abyss from the depths upward. These early geologists assumed that the present amount of water has been with the earth since its beginning, thereby precluding the possibility that now-submerged landscapes were at one time exposed but later inundated.

The early geologists’ precise conclusion from the evidence before them should have been: a worldwide flood did not inundate presently exposed landscapes. This is completely and undeniably true, and no one can or would argue against the fact that presently subaerial landscapes were never submerged by a common flood event. That a worldwide flood did not inundate presently exposed landscapes is wholly different from geology’s claim that there was never a worldwide flood; the early geologists mistakenly passed judgment on the morphology of vast landscapes that they could not observe. Had the early geologists correctly concluded that a worldwide flood did not inundate presently subaerial landforms, they would have left open the Flood/No Flood matter until detailed bathymetry evidence could address the matter definitively, something accomplished by the submerged rivers and drainages in Figure 1.

The Flood and the Younger-Dryas Event are synonymous

The drainage systems identified in Figure 1 and the many others found throughout the planet were subaerially carved and seeking their terminal bodies of water. Thus, for the period required for flowing water to carve the myriad now-submerged drainage systems – and for the entire time preceding it, the Earth had substantially less water than the present. In addition, because the drainage systems are well preserved, they must have been covered in a relatively brief period. Furthermore, to cover the river systems by filling abyssal basins with more than 3 km of water requires an extra-terrestrial source since such a volume could not be stored in frozen form at the planet’s poles (insufficient room, as the atmosphere only extends so far). This implies that a cosmic impact delivered The Flood.

The Younger-Dryas (YD) event is an episode marked by abrupt increases in snowfall and dramatic changes to flora, fauna, mega fauna, climate, and the oceans[4], and it has been attributed by some to a cosmic impact roughly 12,800 years before present[5,6]. The impact is reported to have induced effects across at least four continents[7], and it also formed an associated layer of nanodiamonds[8], microscopic diamond crystals that are created by very high-velocity collisions, found across most of the planet[9]. Furthermore, the YD event caused sudden worldwide extinction of mammals weighing over 40 kg, as it is estimated that 82% of these animals disappeared in North America, 74% in South America, 71% in Australasia, 59% in Europe, 52% in Asia, and 16% in Sub-Saharan Africa. [10] Google Earth affords the identification of the YD impact site, as well as the determination of its size and approach direction. Furthermore, applying what is known of comet composition to the impact’s dimensions yields an approximation for the impact’s equivalent water volume, 1.29 * 10⁹ km³,which corresponds to an average ocean depth of 3.57 km. The newly introduced waters flooded the planet, and they did so from the former abyss upward; the floodwaters did not inundate presently exposed landscapes. The worldwide flood instantiated ocean-driven global weather patterns as well as irreversible ecosystem and climatic changes. Back-propagating the trough carved by the celestial object’s solid nucleus indicates that it overflew Antarctica, South America, and North America on its impact approach. Ice and debris ejected along this path account for known YD impact sites in North America and South America. [11] Flood narratives from around the planet place the impact within the span of our collective oral and written traditions (notwithstanding the past two centuries). Thus, The Flood and the YD event are interchangeable terms.

The object that delivered The Flood

We will refer to the celestial object that delivered The Flood as Phaeton, though it is also known by other names such as Typhon, Set, Ta-vi, and Satan. It is interesting to consider its appearance as it neared Earth impact, particularly in the context that we can see small comets from millions of miles away. In contrast to Halley’s comet, Phaeton was on the order of 10,000 times larger by surface area and 1,000,000 times larger by volume. Therefore, Phaeton’s illumination and its prominent tail must have been frightening and memorable, particularly since The Flood ensued nearly immediately after its impact and disappearance. Pliny the Elder described Phaeton’s approach: “A terrible comet was seen by the people of Ethiopia and Egypt…. It had a fiery appearance and was twisted like a coil, and it was very grim to behold; it was not really a star so much as what might be called a ball of fire.”[12] According to Allan and Delair, Phaeton “was anciently regarded as a generally round, brilliantly fiery body of appreciable size, and much more star-like or sun-like than conventional comets: and it was held to have in some way caused the Deluge.”[13] Phaeton’s fiery, comet-like appearance as it neared Earth impact and the irreversible changes induced by its Flood likely account for the long-held notion that comets are harbingers of change. The Chinese New Year dragon, a glowing, fiery serpent depicted above the clouds with water emanating from its mouth, memorializes Phaeton’s frightening appearance and effects; it is plausible that the Chinese New Year is an annual commemoration of Phaeton’s impact. Due to its size, Phaeton was observable in the night sky for many years prior to impact, likely in the constellation known as Aquarius, the water bearer. Snake images carved into stone at the prehistoric observatory known at Göbekli Tepe almost certainly refer to Phaeton.

Our shared past: pre-Flood Earth

Figure 2 shows an ArcGIS-produced model of pre-Flood Earth with an estimated average of 3 km less water than the present. The figure shows that formerly exposed landscapes (tan and beige) were more abundant than those submerged (blue); vast seas and oceans existed, but they were disjointed – there was no common, pre-Flood sea level. Prior to The Flood, presently exposed landscapes (beige) were more than 3 km above abyssal landscapes. Earth’s atmosphere filled former abyssal regions, meaning that landscapes we now occupy (beige) would have been on the order of 50^oF (or more) cooler than abyssal regions due to lesser atmospheric pressure. Earth’s tallest peaks were either at the top of the pre-Flood atmosphere or beyond it. The Flood’s waters are an immense heat sink; in their absence, abyssal Earth temperatures would have been much warmer, and polar ice regions would have been markedly smaller than the present.

Figure 2. A model of land and sea distributions in pre-Flood Earth shows formerly subaerial but now-submerged landscapes (tan), presently exposed landscapes (beige), and former oceans and seas (blue). The pre-flood extent of the Mediterranean Sea is not shown as blue because the bottom of the basin is at an altitude above that used to create the tan regions.

Some implications and corrections

Abyss-dwelling species unable to flee upward to survivable landscapes would die. In addition, those species indigenous to presently exposed landscapes that were unable to cope with Flood-induced climatic changes would also perish (e.g. wooly mammoths). Humans are among the species whose homelands are now submerged beneath more than 3km of water. We survived upward, but planet-wide climatic changes render us ill-adapted to the Earth’s Post-Diluvian ecosystem. Other surviving, former abyss-dwellers were fortunate to find suitable habitats.

Although we will never know exactly what it was like in the abyssal, pre-Flood regions that we inhabited, our physical attributes lend insight. Certainly, it was much warmer, which accounts for our furless appearance. (Ecosystems that were more than 3 km above the abyss were much cooler, which is why our simian relatives have fur.) Human forays to pre-Flood upland regions would have required adaptive clothing. We need fresh water, so it is nearly certain that diverse cultures or clans shared abyssal fresh water sources. It is unlikely that there were pre-Flood cities because there was no need for the aggregation and distribution of resources: we were properly adapted, and suitable food was indigenous to our various habitats. (Atlantis was not a city; rather, it was a region through which an abundant fresh water source flowed, and its canals increased fresh water access for the clan.) The structure of our feet might indicate that we traversed sandy or soft domains. We walk upright, allowing us to see greater distances, indicating that our natural ecosystems might have been lightly forested.

The atmosphere was thicker above our abyssal homelands, and this caused the attenuation of UV and higher frequency sunlight, especially in locations further from the tropics. Diversity in human skin pigments and hair colors is a consequence of homelands’ latitudes north or south of the equator. Higher frequency light attenuation by a thicker atmosphere would also explain why humans only recently began to see blue.[14] Lesser atmospheric attenuation of starlight relative to that at abyssal depths would explain why the celestial observatory at Göbekli Tepe would be situated so far above the abyss.

Immediately after The Flood, human survival required stamina and problem-solving skills. Acquiring suitable foods, combatting cold environs, building shelters, and accomplishing simple tasks such as walking would favor those inclined to discovery and innovation. Ecosystem changes induced by the new oceans would cause migrations in search of suitable domains. The myriad survival tasks would be difficult, if not impossible, for an individual. Thus, our continued existence necessitates eusocial behaviors. Specialization in post-Flood survival-related skills would provide advantage to the clan; region-specific eusocial adaptations would lead to distinct cultures with associated, survival-related norms. Successful cultural norms, strategies, and implementations would foster larger populations which, in turn, would lead to greater demands for – and exploitation of – natural resources. Inevitably, migration and expansion would lead to clashes between clans.

Some claim that we are in a new geologic era, the Anthropocene, wherein human activity is the dominant influence on the environment. In the proper context that The Flood rendered us an ill-adapted species, the Anthropocene is the most recent ~12,800-year, post-Flood period during which humanity’s innate desire to survive, along with the associated demands that our ill-adaptation inflict on the environment, has dominated the planet.

Some recent findings in proper context

An eight-mile-long mural was recently discovered at Serranía La Lindosa on the northern edge of the Amazon in South America. Indigenous people started painting the images about 12,600 years before present, two-hundred years after The Flood. The mural includes handprints, geometric designs, and a wide array of humans, animals, hunting scenes, and images of people interacting with plants, trees, and savannah creatures. At the time the paintings were created, Flood-created ecosystem changes had the Amazon transforming from savannas, thorny scrub, and forests into today’s tropical rainforest.[15] The extensive mural commemorates this clan’s Flood survival endeavors and the many challenges brought by ill-adaptation. We should expect to find references to Phaeton somewhere on the mural since its approach path was directly above this region.

Geology’s error has created a gross misunderstanding of the peopling of the Americas, as we are led to believe that humans from Australia and other eastern Pacific regions made their way northward during an ice age, then eastward across a presumed land bridge into Alaska, and then down into South America. Human DNA similarities between indigenous people in Australia and the Amazon in South America put an end to that theory due to the absence of DNA similarities in regions through which the sojourners traveled (regions north of the Tropic of Cancer).[16] Instead, the DNA similarities are better understood in the context of pre-Flood Earth: a large clan spanned the pre-Flood abyssal Pacific basin. Today, descendants of Flood survivors from the west in Australia and in regional Pacific islands remain DNA-linked to descendants of flood survivors to the east in South America.

Like the many rivers and drainages in Fig. 1, the Flood waters preserved in the bathymetry many other geologic features and evidence. For instance, the discovery of a massive subglacial trough 300 km long, up to 25 km across, deeper than the Grand Canyon, and more than 2 km below present sea level [17], is easily understood in the context of pre-Flood Earth: the glaciers formed in Antarctica and flowed down into the former abyss, subaerially scouring the valley over the eons before the Flood.

Similarly, International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) Expedition 354 recently discovered abundant woody debris in the Bay of Bengal 3.7 km beneath the surface and preserved within coarse sediment layers of turbidite beds with recovery spanning 19 My, delivered episodically in high-magnitude, low-frequency wood export events.[18] The wood samples were found at various layers of core samples obtained 1600 km from where the Ganges and other systems flow into the Bengal Fan. Implied by the report is that somehow the tree fragments survived extensive transport and deposit in coarse sediments to become submerged beneath 3.7 km of water, millions of years apart, and at the exact location. Under No Flood, the transport and deposition mechanisms cannot be explained. However, in the proper context that there was a worldwide flood, the discovery of the wood samples from sandy cores is simply explained: prior to The Flood, the Ganges and other river systems carried water down the continental shelf and then southward into abyssal regions, and the rivers suffered episodic, high-magnitude, low frequency wood export events, or floods. Such floods were of sufficient velocity to transport coarse sediments that preserved the wood fragments in riparian regions. The age discrepancy in the recovered samples indicates that the river suffered floods for millions of years, and we now discover them submerged in the Bay of Bengal beneath 3.7 km of Flood water. For visual corroboration, the image on the left of Figure 3 identifies the drill location from which the IODP wood samples were obtained, and on the right is a portion of the present-day Ganges.

Figure 3. IODP Expedition 354 drill site’s location is indicated by the pin on the left image. On the right is a portion of the present-day subaerial Ganges.

Conclusions

Geology’s No Flood error is an historic blunder that adversely affects our understanding of what we are, where we are from, and what has happened to our planet. There was a worldwide flood ~12,800 years before present; The Flood and the Younger-Dryas event are equivalent terms. Humans are from abyssal regions now submerged in more than 3km water. Although we survived the event, we are ill-adapted to the post-Flood Earth ecosystem; our continued survival requires innovation and abuse of Earth’s natural resources. For two-hundred years, geology, archaeology, anthropology, and human pre-history have suffered from the No Flood error. These disciplines warrant complete review and correction based on the proper context that there was a worldwide flood.

References

[1] Sedgwick, A. 1831. Address to the Geological Society of London, on retiring from the President’s Chair, February 18.

[2] Gould, S.J. 1985. The Flamingo’s Smile: Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

[3] Pope Francis. 2021. Dei Vizi e delle Virtù. Rizzoli.

[4] Firestone R.B., West, A., Kennett, J.P., Becker, L., Bunch, T.E., Revay, Z.S., Schultz, P.H., Belgya, T., Kennett, D.J., Erlandson, J.M., Dickenson, O.J., Goodyear, A.C., Harris, R.S., Howard, G.A., Kloosterman, J.B., Lechler, P., Mayewski, P. A., Montgomery, J., Poreda, R., Darrah, T., Que Hee, S.S., Smith, A.R., Stich, A., Topping, W., Wittke, J.H. and Wolbach, W.S. (2007) Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger-Dryas cooling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 104, iss. 41, 16016-16021.

[5] Holliday, V., Surovell, T., Meltzer, D., Grayson, D., Boslough, M. (2014) The Younger-Dryas impact hypothesis: a cosmic catastrophe. Journal of Quarternary Science, Vol. 29, issue 6, 515-530

[6] Wolbach, W. S., Ballard, J. P., Mayewski, P. A., Parnell, A. C., Cahill, N., Adedeji, V., Bunch, T. E., Dominguez-Vazquez, G., Erlandson, J. M., Firestone, R. B., French, T. A., Howard, G., Israde-Alcantara, I., Johnson, J. R., Kimbel, D., Kinzie, C. R., Kurbatov, A., Kletetschka, G., LeCompte, M. A., Mahaney, W. C., Melott, A., Mitra, S., Maiorana-Boutilier, A., Moore, C. R., Napier, W. M., Parlier, J., Tankersley, K. B., Thomas, B. C., Wittke, J.H., West, A., Kennett, J. P. (2018) Extraordinary Biomass-Burning Episode and Impact Winter Triggered by the Younger Dryas Cosmic Impact ∼12,800 Years Ago. 1. Ice Cores and Glaciers,” The Journal of Geology Vol. 126, iss. 2, 165-184. 2. Lake, Marine, and Terrestrial Sediments. The Journal of Geology Vol. 126, iss. 2, 185-205.

[7] Kennett J.P., D.J. Kennett, B.J. Culleton, J.E.A. Tortosa, J.L. Bischoff, T.E. Bunch, I.R. Daniel Jr., J.M. Erlandson, D. Ferraro, R.B. Firestone, A.C. Goodyear, I. Israde-Alcántara, J.R. Johnson, J.F. Jordá Pardo, D.R. Kimbel, M.A. LeCompte, N.H. Lopinot, W.C. Mahaney, A.M.T. Moore, C.R. Moore, J.H. Ray, T.W. Stafford Jr., K.B. Tankersley, J.H. Wittke, W.S. Wolbach, and A. West. 2015. Bayesian chronological analyses consistent with synchronous age of 12,835–12,735 Cal B.P. for Younger Dryas boundary on four continents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (32): E4344–E4353.

[8] Kennett, D. J., Kennett, J. P., West, A., Mercer, C., Que Hee, S. S., Bement, L., Bunch, T. E., Sellers, M., and Wolbach, W. S. (2009) Nanodiamonds in the Younger Dryas boundary sediment layer. Science, Vol. 323, iss. 5910, 94.

[9] Kinzie C.R., S.S. Que Hee, A. Stich, K.A. Tague, C. Mercer, J.J. Razink, D.J. Kennett, P.S. DeCarli, T.E. Bunch, J.H. Wittke, I. Israde-Alcántara, J.L. Bischoff, A.C. Goodyear, K.B. Tankersley, D.R. Kimbel, B.J. Culleton, J.M. Erlandson, T.W. Stafford, J.B. Kloosterman, A.M.T. Moore, R.B. Firestone, J.E. Aura Tortosa, J.F. Jordá Pardo, A. West, J.P. Kennett, and W.S. Wolbach. 2014. Nanodiamond-rich layer across three continents consistent with major cosmic impact at 12,800 Cal BP. The Journal of Geology 122 (5): 475–506.

[10] Firestone RB (2019) Disappearance of Ice Age Megafauna and the Younger Dryas Impact Capeia: 20190724.006

[11] Jaye, M (2019). The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 19(1): 71-83.

[12] Rackham, H. (transl). 1938. Pliny the Elder Natural History (London); vol ii, p 91.

[13] Allan, D.S. and J.B. Delair. 1997. Cataclysm! Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C. Rochester, Vermont: Bear and Company. Originally published as When the Earth Nearly Died (Bath, England: Gateway Books, 1995).

[14] MacDonald, F (2018). There is evidence humans did not see blue until modern times. Science Alert, April 2018.

[15] Gaspar Morcote-Ríos, et. al. 2021. Colonisation and early peopling of the Colombian Amazon during the Late Pleistocene and the Early Holocene: New evidence from La Serranía La Lindosa. Quaternary International, 578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.04.026.

[16] Llamas, B., et. al. 2016. Ancient mitochondrial DNA provides high-resolution time scale of the peopling of the Americas. Science Advances 2 (4).

[17] Ross N., T. Jordan, R. Bingham, H. Corr, F. Ferraccioli, A. Le Brocq, D. Rippin, A. Wright, M. Siegert. 2013. The Ellsworth Subglacial Highlands: Inception and retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 19 Sept 2013.

[18] Hyejung Lee, Valier Galy , Xiaojuan Feng, and Sarah J. Feakins. 2019. Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19 My. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (45) 22518-22525 doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913714116.

Out of Eden, the Anthropocene, and the last Younger-Dryas extinction

To understand what follows, the reader should be familiar with my paper, “The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary” and its findings. They include: (1) identifying geology’s historic and far-reaching ‘no Flood’ error; (2) identifying and analyzing the Younger-Dryas impact that delivered the worldwide Flood waters (i.e., the Younger-Dryas event and the worldwide Flood are synonymous); (3) establishing that the Mediterranean Sea flooded through the Strait of Gibraltar ~12,800 years before present; (4) recognizing that humans are not out of Africa – we are from landscapes now submerged under more than two miles of water; (5) recognizing that humans are ill-adapted to the post-Flood ecosystem and that continued survival necessitates environmental abuses. Thus far, the paper has received little recognition, likely because it invalidates all of submarine geomorphology, as well as nearly two-hundred years of accepted “science” in fields dependent on geology such as anthropology and archaeology.

It is worthwhile to review Geology’s “no Flood” error because it is so entrenched and pervasive. It finds its origin in the early 1800s when geologists set about Europe in search of a common deposit layer left by the presumed worldwide flood. Adam Sedgwick, president of the Geological Society of London, professor at Cambridge University, and an ordained minister in the Church of England, led the effort. Unfortunately, the sought-after deposit layer was not to be found. Consequently, in his 1831 president’s address, Sedgwick renounced belief in the Flood. He stated, in part, “The vast masses of diluvial gravel…do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth…. Having been myself a believer [in a worldwide flood], and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, … I think it right … thus publicly to read my recantation.”

The pronouncement has been celebrated as the triumph of science over religion, and Sedgwick’s recantation has had lasting effect: to this day, all of science accepts that there was never a worldwide flood. Yet Sedgwick erred. From the evidence before him, Sedgwick should have concluded: presently exposed landscapes were never inundated by a common flood. That is an indisputably correct statement, yet different from the claim that there was never a worldwide flood. Sedgwick went too far: he passed judgment on the morphology of vast, submerged landscapes that he could not observe. He assumed that Earth’s present amount of water has always been here. He mistakenly assumed away the very event he sought.

Geology’s incorrect finding persists for several reasons: (1) There was little contradictory evidence on presently exposed landscapes that would call into question the prevailing theory. (2) We could not see into the abyss to observe submerged landscapes until the publication of detailed bathymetry maps within the past decade or so. (3) Among academics, the fear of being associated with a presumed religious tenet has prevented critical review. (4) The error invalidates a host of academic credentials, degrees, publications, and journals. (5) Research money.

Out of Eden

The celestial body that delivered the Flood had many names, among them Typhon, Set, Ta-vi, Satan, and Phaeton. The nearly unimaginable volume of water delivered by its impact and subsequent melting chased humans upward from landscapes where they had evolved and occupied for millions of years. It was an unrelenting pursuit that lasted several weeks, and it would nearly kill our species – exponential growth models indicate that the number of human survivors across the planet numbered in the thousands. Survival trauma inspired Flood commemoration in ubiquitous oral and written traditions. Some of the oral traditions, however embellished over time, found their way to the written. Examples include two biblical accounts, Noah’s ark and the story of Adam and Eve.

Regarding Noah and the Flood, we should first note that the story pre-dates biblical times by roughly 10,000 years; that is, the Flood is not biblical. If Noah was an actual person, then he probably operated his craft in the pre-Flood sea that existed in the western half of the Mediterranean Basin (see Fig. 6 in my paper). Med denizens would have observed Satan on its approach, felt the impact-induced earthquakes, and experienced nearly immediate changes to regional weather – persistent rains were among the monumental changes taking place across the planet. Thus, the reported forty days and nights of precipitation represent the period of time from immediately after the IO’s impact until its waters began flowing through the Strait of Gibraltar from the west. As the story evolved, rainfall would be attributed as the cause of the Flood.

The animals that Noah encountered, post-Deluge, would include a mixture of those that existed for tens of millions of years in formerly upland, pre-Flood domains, as well as species from formerly abyssal landscapes that survived upward, like us (related discussion here). Today, we encounter a subset of initially Flood-surviving species – as the post-Diluvian ecosystem emerged, some of them would become extinct because they could neither adapt nor migrate to suitable landscapes (e.g., wooly mammoths).

Noah’s craft is reported to have landed on Ararat, so candidate locations are post-Flood landforms either in or surrounding the Med. Ararat might have been the name of a pre-flood mountain that was sufficiently tall as to become a post-Flood Mediterranean island, like Sicily. Certainly, Noah’s Ararat is not a mountain in Turkey.

Like Noah and the ark, the legend of Adam and Eve is another Flood-survivor story – it has nothing to do with creation (unless one considers the post-Flood period as a ‘new Earth’). Pre-Flood humans, represented by the pair, were naked (better said: furless) because they were adapted to the pre-Flood, warmer abyssal ecosystem. Post-Flood Earth is much cooler, so Flood-surviving humans recognized that they were ill-adapted and that clothing would be necessary to survive; it is not that the pair recognized that they were naked after eating something.

At roughly 2500 km in diameter, the Flood-delivering celestial object was not a comet but rather the source object from which comets fragment. As it approached Earth impact, its immense tail would have been brightly illuminated, incredibly long, and serpentine. Thus, the snake, Satan, is associated with banishment from those pre-Flood domains for which we were properly adapted, generalized as Eden. Post-impact effects were so planet-altering that ill-adapted humans must work, toil, compete, cooperate, and acquire and transform resources to create survivable habitats. That is, Satan, the celestial IO, cast us out of Eden and caused an immediate change to our nature.

Although we will never know exactly what it was like in abyssal, pre-Flood Earth, our physical attributes lend some insight. Certainly, it was much warmer, which, as already stated, accounts for our furless appearance. (Our simian relatives evolved in ecosystems that were more than two miles above ours, which made them much cooler, thereby accounting for their fur.) We need fresh water, so we lived close to its sources; it is nearly certain that diverse cultures or clans shared a common fresh water source, e.g. the Ganges. The structure of our feet might indicate that we traversed sandy or soft domains. We walk upright, which implies that our ecosystems were lightly forested – being upright allowed us to see further. The atmosphere was thicker above our abyssal landscapes, and this caused the attenuation of UV and higher frequency sun light, especially in locations further from the tropics. This would account for reports that humans only recently began to see the color blue, as well as regionally dependent skin pigment variations and hair color diversity.

There were no pre-Flood cities because there was no need for the aggregation and distribution of resources – we were properly adapted, and suitable food was indigenous to our various habitats. Atlantis was not a city; rather, it was a region through which an abundant fresh water source flowed, and its canals were created to increase fresh water access to as many denizens of the clan as possible.

The Anthropocene

Out of Eden for nearly thirteen-thousand years, we continue our quest to survive as an ill-adapted species. Unfortunately, there are few places, if any, on post-Flood Earth that are Eden-like (where could we walk around naked while simultaneously supported by adequate food sources?). To survive, at least initially, required stamina and problem-solving skills. Acquiring suitable foods, combatting cold environs, building shelters, and accomplishing simple tasks such as walking would favor those inclined to discovery and innovation.

The myriad survival tasks would be difficult, if not impossible, for an individual – it would become readily apparent that our continued existence required group effort, or eusocial behaviors (yes, I communicated with EO Wilson prior to his recent death). Specialization in post-Flood survival-related skills would provide advantage to the clan; region-specific eusocial adaptations would lead to distinct cultures with associated, survival-related norms. Successful cultural norms, strategies, and implementations would foster larger populations which, in turn, would lead to greater demands for – and exploitation of – natural resources.

Some claim that we are in a new geologic era, the Anthropocene, wherein human activity is the dominant influence on the environment. In the context of the above discussion: the Anthropocene is the most recent (~12,800 years) post-Flood period during which humanity’s innate desire to survive, along with the demands our ill-adaptation inflict on the environment, has dominated the planet.

The Last of the Younger-Dryas Extinctions

The Flood changed the entire planet. In addition to the obvious inundation of formerly abyssal landscapes, the newly introduced waters initiated global, ocean-driven weather patterns that would transform regional ecosystems. Inland seas would evaporate, former rainforests would dry up, burn, and become deserts, former steppes would become rainforests, etc., – all recognized Younger-Dryas effects. These irreversible, Flood-induced changes would cause many extinctions.

Though we will never know the flora and fauna lost in our ancestral, abyssal landscapes, we are nonetheless aware of many species that became extinct ~12,800 years before present in landscapes that we now occupy. For instance, in “Disappearance of Ice Age Megafauna and the Younger-Dryas Impact,” Firestone reports the loss of 82% of mammals weighing over 40kg in North America, 74% in South America, and 59% in Europe, 52% in Asia, and 16% in sub-Saharan Africa. Other publications reporting Younger-Dryas extinctions are readily available (e.g. here and here).

Despite the monumental changes to the planet, we coped and are now more than 600 generations into our post-Flood survival story. In a sense, we have more than ‘coped’ – we have succeeded: presently, there are roughly 8 billion of us, each ill-adapted and seeking suitable environments. (Not too long ago, it might have been said that we sought suitable environments so as to propagate the species; however, we have ‘progressed’ to a point where that is no longer necessarily true.) Our ability to adapt has led to the creation of personal Eden’s that provide shelter, warmth, and food – all supported by infrastructures that afford the transportation and distribution of necessary resources. These individual Eden’s exist within major clans (aka nation-states) that compete for survival-supporting natural resources, as well as what might be the optimal system for distributing them.

Some say that we have succeeded to such an extent that our present numbers exceed the planet’s carrying capacity for our species. Thus, our population must be reduced. If so, then the unique feature of the Anthropocene is that humans have become the primary threat to their continued survival.

How will our numbers be reduced, and who will enact it? And, even if our numbers were to be reduced to some agreed upon level, what would prevent a repeat of technology-supported exponential population growth that led to the present problem? The answers to these questions exist, and they are not pleasant (at least not to me).

Finally, though we are sentient, we are wholly clueless about the nature of our survival problem due to the pervasive effects stemming from geology’s ‘no Flood’ error. Would a universal and correct understanding of who we are, where we are from, and what has happened to our planet somehow help? Possibly. Otherwise, the last of the Younger-Dryas extinctions will be us.

Interpreting portions of the sprawling 8-mile-long ‘canvas’ discovered in the Amazon rainforest

In a previous post, I discussed the immense mural found in the Colombian Amazon, as well as an interaction that I had with the researchers who discovered it. In this post, I will interpret some of the mural contents from the perspective that there was a worldwide flood and that ensuing ecosystem changes made survival difficult for most animals, especially so for those that inhabited the former abyss.

I will concentrate on a portion of one of the images found in many articles reporting the discovery of the mural. A few comments before doing so: (1) Some of the articles mention that the Amazon was transforming from savannah to rain forest at the time the mural was created. This is correct; the introduction of the worldwide flood waters 12,800+/- years before present – essentially the same time as the mural’s creation – induced planet-wide climate changes and, therefore, local environmental changes. (2) Some articles claim that humans hunted some species to extinction. This is incorrect: all known extinctions at this time (e.g., the Younger-Dryas extinctions) were caused by changed environments.

In this analysis, I assume that time moves upward, that triangular waves represent water, and that rectangles represent landforms. Here is a portion of the mural found in many of the articles reporting the mural’s discovery.

In the blue oval, below, is a region of pre-Flood Earth with which the mural’s author(s) was(were) familiar. To the left is a large land mass (square with dots aligned in an X pattern). Perhaps the dots inside the square represent trees, or maybe the interior pattern is meant to convey the shape of mountains. This region was separated from other landforms by a ridge (vertical lines enclosing cross hatches). In the center of the oval were two major inhabited areas that included water, animals such as deer, and humans. I am not sure what the square waves (on the right) represent, though I suspect it could be an uninhabitable region because humans lived outside it (below and to its right).

The next oval captures the Flood’s effects. Note that the introduction of the water has covered the ridges, one of the square landforms that was between them, and most of the uninhabitable regions (square waves). Note that the animals are headed toward the central square! They were flushed out of their natural domains by the water, and they headed toward survival on dry land.

By the way, this explanation accounts for the diversity of creatures found in the Galapagos Islands – non-indigenous species survived upward and those that could adapt are now found mixed in with indigenous species.

In the next image, the arrows capture the time evolution of the two land masses that remain exposed after the Flood. If the dots inside the square represent trees, then it demonstrates the transformation of the region associated with the yellow arrows from steppe to rainforest.

In the uppermost oval we observe that a subset of the animals from the central oval is leaving the region. This might represent the extinction of some species. In addition, the outward migration reflects that some surviving species could not adapt to the region’s Flood-induced ecosystem changes. (Note that the four-legged creature with large ears found in all three ovals survives the ordeal. Could it be a flying squirrel or a bat?)

Hand prints in another image are found above the triangular wave. The meaning: I am human, I survived the Flood, and I wanted you to know.

Also, it appears that pre-Flood vegetation (plant leaves below the triangular wave and to the right of the hand) differs from the vegetation that survivors encountered afterward, depicted to the right of the hand prints. It would be fascinating to understand the human pre-Flood diet and how it differs from what we now consume….

Does the mural depict the IO’s appearance and debris trail on Earth approach?

In my paper (and book), I refer to the celestial object that delivered the Flood as the IO (impacting object). It was very large, about 1500 miles in diameter, and it was made up primarily of loosely compacted ice chunks. It was loosely packed due to very small gravitational accelerations (relative to Earth) induced by its solid core that attracted ice and other debris in the Oort Cloud where it formed. The IO would have been visible for many years prior to its impact, and, along its way, the Sun’s gravitational acceleration and other forces would cause the IO to shed some chunks that we now call comets. Its sun-illuminated approach would have made a lasting impression….

The IO’s path led to its capture by Earth’s gravity, as well as its ensuing impact in what is now the Southern Ocean. Back-propagating the IO’s core impact trough reveals that its pre-impact approach path overflew North America, Central America, and South America. Schematics of the approach path are shown, below. The first is a side view showing that the IO was highest over North America during approach, which would account for the continent-wide spread in its debris field (from off the Monterey, CA, coast to the Carolina Bays).

The second depicts the IO’s core overflight “shadow” just prior to impact.

On its approach, the IO would shed a long tail of debris that created impact craters in North America, South America, and South Africa. Examples of impact craters are shown below:

Carolina Bays (North America):

California coast (North America):

Colombia (South America):

Argentina (South America):

South Africa:

The fragile IO split in two just before impact, and this accounts for the gap in the impact crescent.

Identical perspectives of the IO impact site in the Southern Ocean include: (top) bathymetry image with a superimposed diameter that measure 1500 miles (2500 km); and (bottom) a magnetic anomaly overlay. Note the parallel central scrapes, scoured by the IO’s solid core, that are perpendicular to the blue diameter segment (top) and corroborated by a red band (bottom). To the northwest of the impact site is South Africa (upper left), and to its south (below) is Antarctica.

The IO split was also recorded in a South African cave painting, shown below and described here.

Why all this? Because the mural tells the story of what survivors encountered, and it is nearly certain that they witnessed the debris that rained down as the IO flew overhead. As such, I strongly suspect that somewhere in the mural is a depiction of the debris storm.

Two final comments:

It would be interesting to know if anyone was “in charge” of the mural, as well as how many years it captures.

The Flood completely changed the Earth, it created a horrific scenario for inhabitants, and survivors wanted to tell their story. The Amazon mural is another commemoration of the event.

The Sacred Ganges

Background: the Ganges river system

A recent paper reports the discovery of ancient wood chips in a sediment sample obtained from the Bay of Bengal. The authors conclude that “woody debris can survive thousands of kilometers of transport in rivers and in turbidites, to be deposited in the fan.” (Lee et al, 2019)

The notion that millions-year old wood could be found at various depths in the sediment column (meaning that the deposits occurred many years apart) – at the exact same location, more than a thousand miles from shore and more than two miles below present sea level – should cause the authors, reviewers, and any scientist to question the matter. For, what is the probability that trees would float to the exact same spot, thousands of miles from the present coastline, sink more than two miles, and then become quickly covered in sediment so as to survive for millions of years? How did the sediments get there? Where did the sediments originate? What mechanism transported the tree-preserving sediments through the Bay’s essentially stagnant water?

All rhetorical questions because the idea that the trees became submerged thousands of miles from shore is as absurd as thinking that Monterey Canyon was created by subsurface flows. The paper’s claim is yet another example of geologists fitting observations to their erroneous “no Flood, ever” paradigm. It is fantasy masquerading as science. The ridiculous findings prompted me to investigate the matter.

The drill region from which the paper’s cores were obtained is shown on the Google Earth image, below (left, centered vic 7.91°N, 85.854°E). There we observe a former river bed with its oxbows, found nearly 4000 m below sea level and 1600 km south of where the Ganges River presently drains into the Bay of Bengal. The map to its right is a portion of the post-Flood Ganges drainage (centered vic 26.732°N, 82.252°E and rotated 90^o clockwise from north for comparison). Each displayed region measures roughly 30 km by 50 km and is viewed from a height of approximately 90 km. (Google Earth, 2020)

The ship that obtained the cores also mapped about 1500 km of the bay’s floor over an extensive track oriented mainly north-to-south. Its path can be observed on Google Earth; segments are identified by orange parallel lines in upcoming maps. Several portions of the ship track reveal oxbows of the pre-Flood Ganges.

The next map is a screenshot of the Ganges system draining into the Bay, as well as where it once flowed down the continental shelf (top center). The light blue/aqua coloring denotes the extent of the post-Flood sediment deposit in the bay (sediments do not transport through essentially stagnant water!). Gravity brought the pre-Flood Ganges waters from the higher plain, down the continental shelf, and then into the formerly subaerial abyss. We can identify its oxbows in parts of the yellow oval.

The region in the yellow oval is shown in following two maps, one with superimposed icons depicting the ship track sounding region with orange lines and yellow arrows that identify pre-Flood Ganges meanders. [Note: depth, and lat, lon locations for map centers are shown in the lower right of the Google Earth screen captures in each of the following maps.]

We follow the ship track southward in the next several images, and we discover more meanders and oxbows.

The ship track ends near the following map center where we observe the oxbows from which the paper’s cores were obtained (left side of first image, above).

Note that the depth of the oxbows decreases as we moved from north to south (-8323 ft, -9177 ft, -10527 ft, and -12364 ft). This should not surprise us – the pre-Flood Ganges waters followed the path of least resistance while accelerating due to gravity.

A bit further south, another ship track sounding with an east-west orientation reveals other river systems, identified again by the yellow arrows. Note that the riverbeds have essentially north-south orientations. (I believe that the Ganges is the system furthest east.)

Based on the riverbeds found in the ship track soundings in the above maps, we can piece together that the Ganges flowed from its mountain source region, through presently subaerial landscapes, down the shelf, and then through thousands of abyssal kilometers. The estimated pre-Flood Ganges River path is depicted by the red line on the next map.

The Ganges water would eventually drain into a pre-Flood sea. It is circled in black on the map, below, and the approximate path it followed is depicted in red. (The pre-flood Earth map comes from my paper, “The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary,” that addresses the worldwide flood and geology’s historic “no flood, ever” error.)

We should note that this formerly subaerial river system explains why we find millions-year old tree remnants submerged in various sediment layers thousands of miles off the present shoreline: the trees were carried by the Ganges, then buried and preserved by the river’s sediments over the millions of years prior to the region becoming submerged by the worldwide flood.

Sacred Ganges

For tens of thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, the Ganges provided life-supporting water to humans occupying pre-Flood abyssal regions beneath what is now the Bay of Bengal. It is very likely that humans from the region shared a common culture. No doubt, some ventured to upland Ganges plains that would have necessitated some sort of clothing for warmth, perhaps the origin of khadi clothing. (Note: the adiabatic lapse rate would have the pre-Flood upland region about 35^oC cooler than abyssal landscapes.)

The Flood’s survivors either made their way up the continental shelf, or they occupied the upland plains (that remain subaerial) when the Flood-delivering impact occurred. There, the Ganges would continue to provide requisite water. Portions of pre-Flood culture would have survived as well, which would account for the river’s reputation.

I suspect that Flood legends exist in Indian historical traditions. As such, this essay should be of interest to those responsible for maintaining them.

Bibliography

Google Earth: left, centered vicinity 7.91°N, 85.854°E; right, vicinity 26.732°N, 82.252°E. Google Earth, earth.google.com/web/.

M. Jaye, The Flooding of the Mediterranean basin at the Younger-Dryas boundary. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 19(1), 71-83 (2019).

H. Lee, V. Galy, X. Feng, C. Ponton, A. Galy, C. France-Lanord, S.J. Feakins, Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19My. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 22518-22525 (2019).

Sprawling 8-mile-long ‘canvas’ of ice age beasts discovered hidden in Amazon rainforest

Ice age canvas painted 12,600 years ago discovered hidden in Amazon rainforest

A report detailing the discovery of an 8-mile long mural appears in “Colonisation and early peopling of the Colombian Amazon during the Late Pleistocene and the Early Holocene: New evidence from La Serranía La Lindosa,” available here. According to the paper, indigenous people likely started painting the images at Serranía La Lindosa, on the northern edge of the Colombian Amazon, about 12,600 years before present.

The thousands of paintings include handprints, geometric designs, and a wide array of animals, from the small (deer, tapir, alligators, bats, monkeys, turtles, serpents, porcupines) to the large (camelids, horses, and three-toed hoofed mammals with trunks). Other figures depict humans, hunting scenes, and images of people interacting with plants, trees, and savannah creatures.

According to one of the paper’s authors, at the time the paintings were created, the Amazon was transforming from a patchwork landscape of savannas, thorny scrub, and forests into today’s leafy tropical rainforest. He added that many of South America’s large animals went extinct during this period, likely through a combination of human hunting and climate change.

“These rock paintings are spectacular evidence of how humans reconstructed the land, and how they hunted, farmed, and fished,” study co-researcher José Iriarte, an archaeologist at the University of Exeter, said in the statement. “It is likely art was a powerful part of culture and a way for people to connect socially.”

A few comments on the report:

The transformation of the Amazon from savannah to rain forest is wholly due to the planet-wide climate change induced by the worldwide flood waters.

The extinctions were caused by the animals’ changed environments, not human hunting.

The images caused me to wonder: what would inspire ancients to create such an extensive memorialization? So, I contacted the authors of the paper with the following email:

“I came across your paper due to the appearance of findings in recent news reports (e.g. here).

That you date the images to 12,600 years before present caught my attention. It is consistent with the ubiquitous nano-diamond layer formed by a cosmic impact at the Younger-Dryas boundary (approximately 12,800 years before present). I discuss the matter in my recent paper, The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary, available here.

Your discovery prompts an important question: what would inspire the ancients to memorialize some event in an 8-mile long mural? The answer: survival after the Flood (discussed here).

I hope that you will keep this in mind as you go about deciphering the images. For instance, could the triangular waves represent the Flood’s waters? Could the block-shaped waves represent the ice that accompanied the newly introduced, planet-changing waters?

Regards,

Michael Jaye, PhD”