Phoenixstar

Please forgive me if I am wrong, but I see all the time that many peoples of the Christian faith and others that believe in a flood say that proof of it happening is in the many stories found world wide. My question is has anyone done a date by date comparison to see if these stories even happened around the same time? I don't believe they did but does some one know if that has been done?

ElCid

Technically, according to the christians, everyone save Noah and his cronies perished in the flood. IF there are other societies that claim there was a global flood, especially ones on different continents than the middle east, then not everyone would have been killed in the flood. if they survived the flood then the flood did not cause the holocaust the christians claim. I think. but i don't really know.

Doctor X

YE OF LITTLE FAITH!!!! [!--Ed.]

Do you not see that EVERYONE came from NOAH?!!!

--J.D.

P.S. Welcome to the forums.

ElCid

on the same topic, if we are all descended from Noah, then technically wouldn't we all be white. As i understand, skin colour is an evolutionary adaption to climate (black skin is better for protection against heat and UV rays). Since most christians do not accept evolution, then i would be intersted to see what the christian explanataion is, considering that geneology is a scientific fact (2 white parents WILL produce a child with white skin and 2 black parents WILL produce a child with black skin).

Peace

BrotherMan

No, ElCid, it isn't that simple. God didn't split the races until after the flood. It was when we decided to ban together and build a tower to heaven that God split us up into seperate skin colors and languages.

xorbie

Let me get this straight. Half the fundies I hear complain that attacks on the Bible are not valid because we haven't hear the Bible in it's original language, and the interpretations may be way off. Now ignoring the argument that it is idiotic to say that whatever bits they like were translated correctly and whatever is suspicious was translated incorrectly, WHY WOULD GOD MAKE DIFFERENT LANGAUGES IF IT MEANT NOBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE CORRECTLY?

Doctor X

ElCid:

MORE DOUBT?!!!

"You have ears . . . but you do not see."

Anyways, I cannot keep the "fundi act" up--welcome to the forums, by the way--because there are "explanations" for racial differences which all border on racism . . . sort of the "they" all are not really human crap.

The problem you probably recognize is anyone can distort a text to make it say whatever they want.

I think the some of the best arguments against a biblical flood I have encountered are:

1. Where did all the water come from?
2. Where did it all go?
3. How did the platypus make it to New Zealand . . . or is it Australia?
4. How did the inhabitants of the Ark feed the animals--we are talking actual manual labor.
5. How did the inhabitants of the Ark shovel out all of the shit produced by said animals?'

There are others of course.

--J.D.

[Edited to correct the story Arc.--Ed.]

EGGO

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/bl.../ax/frame.html

http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13...lood.finds.ap/

Have fun

never been there

Actually, black skin is the "default model", despite what you see in drawings produced by (presumably white) paleontologists.

White skin is an adaptation to the reduced intensity of sunlight and the necessity of wearing clothes most of the year in northern regions. Melanin absorbs the UV light that we need to produce vitamin D.

On a related note, did you know that the requirement that makeup contain sunblock is contributing to vitamin D deficiency? A recipe for future osteoporosis.

mark9950

in cubits of the flood?I do not know off hand what verse it was,but as I remember it may be only 30 feet high.