faith is a very personal thing, I hope you have peace and happiness in your life though

For sure I realized my posts were kinda down and negative
But I do respect people's faiths and beliefs I have my own

Thanks for the back and forth on here helped the time to pass

What's the most common cause of fossils? Oh yeah...floods. But not just any flood, the flood has to be powerful enough to almost instantly bury a corpse deep into oxygen deprived soil (preferably sand). A global flood couldn't do that. NAH! You are right, there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood...other than the entire fossil record, there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood.

Logical Fallacy: Ignoring a Common Cause

You assume that the Hebrews stole from previous cultures, when both groups of beliefs could originate from the same event.

Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question

You assume that the events in the Bible couldn't have happened and conclude that the story was stolen, instead of simply repeated in different cultures. (See "Ignoring a common Cause" above)

Spidercmb, didn't you hear?

You can't argue with people who think they know it all...

He brought at least a pair of every species, but he also brought more than just a pair of the clean species. Genesis 6 doesn't say "Only one pair", so Genesis 7 is supplementary. Perhaps Noah decided between chapters 6 and 7 that he would sacrifice one of every clean species to God and God, knowing this, adjusted his command to Noah. We don't know, but it's clearly not a contradiction. Words mean things and since Noah wasn't told "Only take two of each species!", God later saying "Take seven of the clean species" isn't a contradiction.

Red herring...I think I understand...It's kind of like how you ignored my first point (which answered your question) and instead focused on my second part (as if that was all I posted), which was a just a joke. Amirite?

My statement was clearly not a Red Herring, because I had already answered your question. My second point was clearly satire, poking gentle fun at your extremely long run-on sentence and the fact that you are an English teacher. I didn't claim that you were wrong because your sentence was a run-on, so it's not a red herring or a Ad Hominem Abusive. If you can't laugh at yourself, that's understandable. It's just a forum, grammar isn't all that important. I understood what you were saying, it was just an unusual way of posing your question.

Didn't your mama ever tell you: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?"

Oh, but neat. You kept insisting that I interpret one verse, but now you say I can interpret the whole thing? That's awfully kind of you. Well, it's like this...Wait a second. I get the feeling whatever I say will be taken out of context and used to smear the Bible and Jesus. Since you have "grounding in Biblical study that is more in depth and stronger than your own", maybe you should be telling me what it means.

How can you "prove" a soul? Do you mean prove that we have one?



I would say that everything with a brain (at the very least) has a soul. Possibly every living thing, for all I know.

Almost every religion teaches that the "soul" is the self. The creature, the personality, the feelings, the emotions, the experiences...

So a cat has a soul, it might not be as advanced as your own, but there it is.

I'm anything but typical.



It's not an insult, if it's true.



There is a lot about me that is ungodly. I'm a carnal man, I sin and I get bad breath when I eat garlic or onions. But I don't use religion to insult others, that's a bit of projection on your part.



I don't need your permission to say anything, I'm not sure why you feel that you have to give it to me. The request was to interpret a single verse. I know the traps that you guys lay, I'm not green anymore. I know that the context to the answer would have been ignored and you guys would have made that verse look as bad as you possibly could. Is there any truer sign of those who don't see the truth, than the desire to take the words or actions of another completely out of context?



Absolutely, you guys were chomping at the bit to do it for me. A 3000 word answer would have been reduced to a 20 word sentence and you would quote it endlessly to yourself and chortle with glee at having tricked me into saying something that could be taken completely out of context.



No, being so filled with rage that you can't think rationally about a religion you disagree with you is lame. I'm cautious.

Actually it's just the opposite of how you are thinking Spider.

If a global flood had taken place over a 40 day period as the biblical tales suggest, that catastrophic event would have produced an extremely high abundance of fossils from that particular event. But we don't see that.

You can't just take all fossils and attribute them to a single 40 day flood.

DUH!

So the reasoning you've just given here actually supports the fact that no such momentary flood ever took place, but there is no single sentiment layer that suggests any such thing.

However, none of that is even relevant. We're way beyond that now. Modern day scientists have been piecing together the human genome story of our evolution and that story is perfectly in tact from the time we left Africa as roaming nomads to the time that we began to evolved into larger civilizations.

The flood itself could not have occurred in early cave man days. That would be impossible because the fable of the flood describes the existence of cities, as well as having Noah's family building a large Ark. This is well beyond the capabilities of cavemen. Not mention that the story itself supposedly survived the period in some sort of written form.

Therefore this catastrophic biblical flood would have had to have occurred beyond the period of civilization and a major use of tools.

Well, the genome project has clearly shown that no such catastrophic flood could have possibly occurred. Because if it had occurred it would have disrupted the genome record. But that didn't happen. Thus no such flood could have possibly occurred.

It's a done deal.

The idea that the biblical flood could have actually occurred is nothing more than a pipe dream of religious zealots. The scientific evidence shows clearly that no such catastrophic disruption of human development had ever taken place.

So just like we dismiss Greek Mythology because there are no Gods on Mr. Olympus, we can likewise dismiss the biblical mythology because there never was any "Great Flood" that is part of what these tales claim.

Of course there are many other reasons to dismiss these tales as well, but the flood story is definitely false.

Well, you've got me fooled.

You don't appear to be any different from any other bible thumper I've ever seen. You totally ignore facts and pretend they don't exist, and when you lose an argument all you do throw insults at the other person.

That's about as typical as it gets my friend.

Why not?



That clears things up for me. Thanks for the well reasoned response.

Have you heard of Mt Saint Helens? When it erupted, it laid down many layers, which appeared to have been laid down over a long period of time. A global flood could lay down hundreds of layers, each one with their own fossils. The first animals to be fossilized would be the most simple, because the larger and more complex a creature is, the better it could survive and the less likely it would be that it would be covered deeply enough to form fossils. But as the flood went on, more and larger creatures would be killed and fossilized. Matching the fossil record we have.

Also, the global flood would explain the proliferation of polystrate fossils.

Seriously? ARE YOU BLIND???

You can check my FACTS. The Bible does not claim a worldwide flood.

You show your lack of knowledge about Scriptures with just about every post.

There are 3 words in Hebrew translated to "earth".

Look them up and then try debating your flood theory.

How then do you explain the tales of a large scale flood found around the world?

Not to mention the sea shells and fossils found on mountain tops?

The layers of sedimentary rock? It's thought that these layers were deposited by water.

And the vast amounts of fossils?

I gathered this info HERE: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm

Trying to use various 'translations' of the word "earth" is a moot point, IMHO.

There would have been no need to build an Ark to save the animal kingdom if the flood was merely local. So trying to salvage the story by claiming that it was just a local flood fails.

Just look at the extremes that you need to go though to try to keep these fables afloat.

Why bother?

That's easy. It's the oldest fable on Earth. So it got around. Should that be surprising? I think not.

People also spread rumors that gods are appeased by blood sacrifices. You'd be hard pressed to find a man-made mythologies that doesn't include that kind of superstition.

In fact, that would be my question to you. Why would any real creator of the universe just happen to be like all the other gods in the man-made fables? Why is Yahweh so much like Zeus?



I didn't bother going to the web site you've offered because I've already been to college and took courses in this stuff, plus I continually take refresher courses and read scientific articles about these things.

There's no surprise at all that fossils would be found on mountain tops. I think you'll learn in geology 101 that mountains rose up from sea floors. So it would be expected. Moreover, the kinds of fossils you find on mountain tops are very ancient fossils of extremely primitive ocean life. You're not going to find fossils of human civilizations on mountain tops unless it's a special case. Like a tribe being frozen in a blizzard. But those fossils are going to be near the surface in ice, not in sedimentary layers from long ago.

What happens is that religious zealots take this information and twist it and distort it to try to support the biblical account of God, but in truth they are misrepresenting the facts.

In fact, I just took a peak at the site you linked to. That's precisely what they are doing on that site. Twisting and distorting facts.

For example they say:


Well, that's absurd. The biblical flood only lasted for 40 days and 40 nights. That's not going to be an explanation for all the fossils found throughout the world because those fossils span a very large period of time and many different species including dinosaurs and were not put down in a single month.

In fact, the argument they give here actually backfires when considered deeply.

If such a catastrophic flood had occurred in a mere 40 days, then there would be a HUGE SPIKE in the fossil record of dead things from that precise point in time. That would have basically been a SNAPSHOT of all the species that happened to be alive during that particular month in which the flood occurred.

But geologists don't see that. There is no huge global outstanding SPIKE of fossils from one particular point in time like that.

So this argument actually backfires. What they are calling support for their claims is actually a refutation that it ever happened. They just proved that no such instantaneous flood ever happened.

So their arguments are bogus.

Why do you go to the other extreme?

I have proven time after time that you do not know scriptures.
I have demonstrated that the words of hate you post have no validation except to yourself.

You didn't even understand what I said, do you need proof of that too?

"There are 3 words in Hebrew translated to "earth"."

to which you responded:

"Trying to use various 'translations' of the word "earth" is a moot point, IMHO."

You are backwards in your thinking. The Hebrews didn't translate their words from the the English word "earth", so that's just a weak trick to try to deny what is the truth.

I know you can't refute anything I say. I know you will continue in your denial.

Don't worry though, I'll be here to make sure those who might possibly read your hate know the truth about what is actually written and NOT what you think.

Trying to deny the truth is a moot point.

The truth is as obvious as the PP in your mouth.

can anyone watch the devastation of hurricanes and tsunamis and doubt the power of a flood to OBLIVIATE life and its resources? even if its ONE area or ONE country or ONE city,,and imagine the aftermath if rain continued for days after,,,,


shrugs

I did refute your point.

Any argument that tries to claim that the biblical story of a flood was of just a local flood fails, because there would have been no need to build an ark to save the animal kingdom in the event of a local flood.

Like all the other "bible thumpers" you try to claim that I don't know the biblical stories.

Sorry but that doesn't work here. The only thing that needs to be acknowledged about the biblical story of the Great Flood in this case is the building of the ARK to save the animal kingdom.

If you want to claim that I have that all wrong, by my guest. But I doubt that you're going to impress very many people with that one.