I'm sorry, but that statement is very likely incorrect. 15kya was very soon after the last glacial maximum (24-18kya) and sea levels weren't significantly affected by then. The receding of the ice sheets started at cca 18kya, but was going slowly at first and only accelerated after 15kya.

Most of middle east cultures draw the myth from Mesopotamian cultures, whose flood myth most likely refers to the flooding of the Persian gulf (which Eufrat and Tigris drain to currently, but used to be a fertile lowland with multiple rivers) cca 8kya.

https://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-civilization-existed-...

Considering the map in this article, with abundance of rivers across the whole Persian gulf plain, I would suggest that the myth of exile from Eden is also related to it - after the flooding and subsequent move of people upriver between the Eufrat and Tigris there was a need to create irrigation channels to keep the agricultural production up at necessary levels. Creating and maintaining these channels is hard, back-breaking work, and it might have inspired the famous 'By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food' line.

> Most of middle east cultures draw the myth from Mesopotamian cultures, whose flood myth most likely refers to the flooding of the Persian gulf

I thought the GP was actually referring to this event. Do we have a time frame for that which negates that possibility, because otherwise I'm not sure how your evidence refutes rather than corroborates.

I thought they were referring to the black sea deluge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis). Some quick googling didn't reveal much, do we know when the persian gulf flooded?

No, I was not referring to the Black Sea deluge. That one is responsible for flood myths in Indo-European cultures (and also for the spread of the Indo-European cultures themselves), and it is more recent (6.5kya if I'm not mistaken).

The article I linked clearly states that it was a fertile land basin until 8kya. I decided to ignore kbenson's lack of reading comprehension hiding behind an attempt to insert himself as an arbiter through nitpicking about a thing he obviously knows nothing about, but I see he's not the only one refusing to read the article, so I'll restate my point:

My point of contention is the 15kya date. By 15kya the receding of ice age ice caps has barely started, so 15kya the ocean levels were not affected in any major way. The major geography-changing ocean level rise came a few thousand years later.

The linked article clearly states the following: "Then, about 8,000 years ago, the land would have been swallowed up by the Indian Ocean, the review scientist said." and "The Gulf Oasis would have been a shallow inland basin exposed from about 75,000 years ago until 8,000 years ago, forming the southern tip of the Fertile Crescent, according to historical sea-level records."

> I decided to ignore kbenson's lack of reading comprehension hiding behind an attempt to insert himself as an arbiter through nitpicking about a thing he obviously knows nothing about

While I see how it's possible you could interpret me as trying to insert myself as and arbiter instead of expressing my own lack of knowledge and asking for clarification, it was fully your own choice to not only decide that was the interpretation you believed as fact, but to then broadcast that negative interpretation as fact to others. A little assumption of good faith goes a long way, and I don't think it's too much to ask for.

You literally didn't read a very short article I linked in the comment you objected to; in that article the date of cca 8kya is mentioned at least twice very clearly.

But like I said, that's ok.

That's ok.