Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago

Jar you were losing me at first, but I agree totally with the last sentence. Excellently put. I beleive the Genesis story is the same in 1 and 2. If you look at it as one story instead of two. We do not ever speak in perfect chronological order. We tell a general summary of what happened gen 1. And go back to further explain how it happened. God's planning is the creation, so I don't believe the pre-planning and the implementation. When I read Genesis, I see clear evidence of a flood. Many "will" dis agree. The evidence I see is dead dinosaurs. I believe the bible is very accurate; our language is not. The meanings of words have just changed so much. Before the flood (maybe even immediately before the flood), the Bible, for some strange reason, speaks of "giants in the land in those days." Why do we ASSume giants meant giant humans? We have never found giant human bones; but we have found giant bones. We found the bones years later and called them dinosaurs and yet wonder why the Bible never speaks of "dinosaurs." THEY DIDN'T CALL THEM THAT, WE DID! (excuse the yelling please) No one really knows what killed the dinosaurs. Some say an Ice Age, but in "Day After Tomorrow" a flood causes the second Ice Age. I, on my own, came to that same conclusion though that Adam and Eve were probably cavemen. In Genesis somewhere (Go read it I'm not sure where) it said God made them a coat of skin when he kicked them out of Eden. We ASSume again that this means clothes, but I will point out that it could just as well mean fur like bigfoot. The only thing about the time I can say is. . (Scientist are going to have fun with this I know) God controls time. I beleive this. When it says creation lasted 6 days. It, for some strange reason, mentions that a day is when the sun rises/falls and the moon rises/falls. The sun could have stayed up for however long God wanted it to. We ASSume once more that it took 24 hours. I am not just making things up. Joshua, I believe it was, defeated an army before the sun went down. God made the sun stand still until the army was defeated. Bible scholars tell us which scripture that was from. The Bible makes sense because God is the ultimate cheat code. I mean come on 2007 and we(nice way of saying ya'll) still haven't proved the Bible wrong. It's time to stop trying and start trying to understand it.One last thing, if life started in the Garden of Eden and spread from that point out for a few generations, then even a local flood would have destroyed the world as they new it and all the life that was on the Earth at that time. Now if we are speaking of let's say Pangea, the land would have been one solid mass. If that flooded then the whole world and all life would be killed. All life except maybe some marine life and some that could fly maybe. Which is supported by historical accounts of Seamonsters(possibly "dinosaurs" that lived in the water).The answer is going to be found in what we haven't thought of yet.

I used to be interested in knowledge. I view that as mental masturbation. Why would you try to attack my opinion as if I don't have the right to believe what I choose. I really believe your opinion is silly, childish, mental masturbation, even arrogant; but I know how to just think that to myself. I'm know more interested in wisdom. Wisdom is the exact opposite of knowledge. Knowledge you learn from another man/woman. Knowledge will tell you the Earth is flat until someone with wisdom refuses to except the arrogant babling of ignorant men in white coats. Basically wisdom is a God sent revelation to you, for your understanding purpose. If someone with wisdom gets famous enough, your revelations suddenly becomes scientific law or some other form of knowledge. Let's try to bring back wisdom. I mean seriously, if Newton, Einstein, or DARWIN were wrong in anyway then we(nice way of saying you) would be really wrong by now. I believe the word of my God, you believe the word of yours, Darwin. It's possible that the bible has changed, but by that same way of thinking it is also possible that Darwin's words have changed. We(you again) trust man quicker than we trust God. sorry to get off subject a little, but please ask Jar to give everyone here the right to think and voice their opinion without being called silly. The childish part, my bible does say you must have child like faith. In other words you must believe in something you can never prove. Sorry again you disagree; but I really believe they are the same. Most christians feel you, Jar, are willfully ignorant, lying or deluded. Do you not think it possible that someone can think and genuinely believe opposite of you? That's arrogant. That's 13,085 posts that I really care less to read if this is how you discuss ideas with people. Not very professional.Now the Nephilim post - Young's literal translation: Even when reading the King James Version, I read it as saying the Nephilim(how ever it's spelled) were already here when the sons of God come in unto the daughters of men. I believe the offspring of angel and woman were men like Hercules (men of old and reknown). I believe the bible supports Greek Mythology right here. I believe ancient civilizations were just as intelligent, if not more, as we are(Jar, I didn't say they had as much knowledge). I don't believe they made up the few things they found important enough to pass down(Wisdom tells me this). I did not know of the other account pointed out about the Nephilim(That's the proper way to argue Jar). I will read more on this. Excellent post Dr. Adequate. !@#$ you Jar.

the young's literal translation: King James Version: contemporary english version: might I ask what version/translation of the bible do you use? Not saying you are wrong, what version do you believe is the most accurate?

Jar I pity you. that was just making sure my sentence was read correctly by ignorant folks and just to pick on you Jar. It was not in response to anything you said. Once I said "Now the Nephilim post" I was no longer speaking directly to you Jar. Sorry I should have probably used a different post for people who can't follow a conversation. If you read the next sentence Jar: this was the only reason I said that. Again, Jar this was not to you. I appologize for confusing your cluttered brain. Jar, wisdom and knowledge are opposite to the point that the more wisdom you have; the less knowledge you have. The more knowledge you have; the less wisdom you have. The more you learn what other people thought; the less you actually think. Knowledge, is for people who can't think for themselves. So Jarhead, I mean Jar, you might need to stick with knowledge; I choose wisdom. I lead people; you follow people like me(I didn't say you follow me just people like me). My bible tells me that all things are possible to him that believes. So once again, you are wrong. Now once one person actually flies; he'll write a theory, it'll become law. And people like you will buy it and speak of what great knowledge you have. Who is really greater, the one who thinks, or the one who follows the thinkers directions? A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. Jar how do you know this? Did you actually know Noah? Lack of evidence does not prove or dis prove anything. If someone builds you a house; you never meet him, does this now mean your house was built by no one? And if you have to ask how this relates you are an idiot with too much knowledge. We find/learn new things everyday. No one having proof that there was a flood is not a fact proving there was no flood moron. Also Jar, don't knock the bible until you study it(not just read it once). The bible says God told Noah exactly how to build the ark. Everyone else laughed at him building the Ark. So they probably didn't have ship building experience. God has everything you need. I can introduce you to him. I mean we know, from science/knowledge that something killed the dinosaurs. The bible says there was a great flood. Is it that hard, with wisdom not knowledge, to think that these events are linked? Futhermore; knowledge can't help you with the flood because to Truly know is to be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight or experience. Did you live in that time? No one on this site, including myself, knows anything about the flood. The only thing we can do is choose to believe what we read about the flood. The oldest and maybe only source of information on that is the bible. And if you say there are other sources of information; then Jar lied. If the only proof of the flood is the bible, then you have to be a moron not to believe it. What other proof is there? The bible(which is an historical document) is a sign/proof/evidence, but you won't see it that way.

Jar this is where your arrogant attitude shows. A fact is something that can be proven. In order to prove ANYTHING you need evidence.Right or wrong? Right. I'll go slow for you Jar.If evidence must be present to prove anything; then without any evidence, as you so boldly stated, you prove Nothing, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Zero.That should have cleared up proof, unless you just want to be right; which I will let you get the last word after this.Now Jarhead, I mean Jar(sorry lol), to know something you had to experience it. If you look at evidence and prove something; you still don't know, for sure.No one here lived in those days and without evidence no one can prove anything one way or the other. Stop trying to be right unless you have Noah's autograph.We are discussing ideas and theories, Nobody here "KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT A D!@# FLOOD!!!! This includes you Jar.This also includes myself Jarhead. I am simply stating what I believe could have happened. You should state what you believe could have happened and not try to attack my beliefs. You don't know s@$%.By the way Jar, how many "cores of coral," "ice cores," or "geological columns" did you personally examine; or are you just arguing with me over second hand info?If you are prepairing your answer to this question Jar, YOU ARE A MORON. Because regardless of your answer, which is probably 0 for all three, you still don't know sh.. about the flood.The most you can do is believe something. So don't knock my beliefs and I'll let you believe what ever stupid bable you choose to. Whether Science or Religion, Man or God, you can not know; but only believe.Any disagreements with my beliefs should be taken up with God. I will not be discussing this foolishness any more. F@$% you Jar. Goodbye.

Jar may have pointed out evidence, but he was the first to call me childish, and silly.
My attacks were only in defense. With respect, someone should have stepped in then and told him something about that and that would have ended that.Also I believe(agree) that there is no evidence of the flood. There is no physical evidence of anything the bible says really. To truly discuss creation vs evolution(or any aspect of it including the flood), the evolutionist must support his argument with facts while the creationist must rely on beliefs. The "theory" of evolution and science is derived from facts and laws and such; the "theory" of creation and religion is derived from belief in the bible and God. To truly discuss/debate creation vs evolution; the Evolutionist must respect ideas and belief in the bible. Likewise; the creationist must respect facts(which I do).
But it does anger me a little that on every post an Evolutionist is calling a creationist's idea or belief foolish, ignorant, or childish. He stated science facts and beliefs; I stated bible facts and beliefs. Why did he have to call mine "silly, childish, mental masturbation?"
I believe the facts. I believe the facts support the bible in it's original form (which I can't read until I learn Hebrew and Greek. I believe if a creationist and an evolutionist team up, the two could figure this whole thing out. But in order to achieve this both would have to respect the other.I appologize for how intense it got.

I agree with you on this. That was very wise.

I will leave the science forums in that case. As I stated before, I agree that creation can not be looked at as a science because there simply is no proof. But the site is called Creation vs Evolution; how can you debate this in separate rooms? If you look at the bible as an historical document, it can be considered a whole lot of fact. If not then it's pointless. The only people that will discuss anything is Evolutionists.By the way, are the rules of the faith and belief section "no facts?" If not then it should be. I have countered that. Lack of evidence is not evidence that anything is definitely not true. Before Columbus, there was no evidence that the earth was round. I think Columbus was wise and everyone who relied on what was proven was childish. So he has no evidence. Also if I call you childish I mean you think like a child. There really is no difference. Later. Evolutionist always have to get the last words.

I DO agree with the technology/bottleneck concept; but I have to point out that they wouldn't have to start all the way over. Noah lived before the flood and after the flood. He would be able to teach the technologial ways of the old to his sons and their sons. There would be some things lost but they wouldn't start back with "does anybody remember how to make a wheel. Noah, however, wouldn't know how to do everything they did so some info would be lost but the memory about it would not be. I might not know how to make a car but if I had to start life over again I would remeber the concept of a car. I would probably see some version of the car being made before I died.