Summations Only

Dr AdequateIf you want to make like a scientist, you would adopt this superior theory, abandoning your previous hypothesis with a gladsome cry of: "Oh, I get it ... if Genesis 6-8 is completely wrong, that explains everything!" If you don't do that, then it would be more dignified, not to say less hypocritical, for you to cease to draw parallels between the behavior of scientists and your stubborn adherence to the fables you learned in Sunday School./////Hmmm...
Adopting a new Hypothesis would be appropriate but admitting that Genesis was wrong does not logically follow.Genesis supplies a lot of information that paralells what Science tells us, and is too, too specific and on target to just be pushed under the rug and ignored.There was a mass extinction of all species of man, except our own, 40 thousand years of "days" ago.
Genesis specifically refers to just such an event:Gen. 6:7 And the LORD, (the Reality of the Universe) said, I will destroy man (of these types and species) whom I have created (for the purpose to mentally model my image of Reality), destroy them, (of these types and species), from the face of the earth, (deeming them extinct); both (this species and kind of) man, and (his present abstract idea of) the beast (of the earth), and (his idea of) the creeping thing (of the earth), and (his idea of) the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (in this process of evolution).That Genesis left out the detail, that these"'days" were thousands of years long, makes literary art clearly at work in by-passing the problematic statement to those ancient readers.
But Genesis does tell us that the survivors came in three racial stocks, please this Noah kind of man, which suggest this refers to Cro-magnon man, perhaps:Gen. 5:32 And Noah, (an archaic type of Homo sapiens forebearer), was five hundred (thousand) years old: and Noah begat (three racial stocks of Modern Homo sapiens); Shem, (Mongolian), Ham, (Negroid), and Japheth, (Caucasian).Genesis also mentions the now confirmed interbreding between our ancestors that accounts for the presence of Neanderthal genes in all men living today, (with some exception for Africans).Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus, two species, Methuselahian and Methusaelian), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (the Methusaelian Homo erectus), came in unto the daughters of men, (Lamechian Homo antecessors, and even Neanderthal), and they bare (Neanderthal) children to them, the same became mighty men, (hybrids preceding the advent of Archaic Homo Sapiens, Cro-Magnon man), which were of old, men of renown.These rather scientifically supported statements in Genesis implies a new hypothsis ought refer to whatthe church has been explaining in regard to they way they understand genesis.The "flood" seems more likely to refer to people, us, flooding Out-of-Africa.
This is actually a Scientific Hypothesis called by the name of "Noah's Ark:"www. anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htmThe replacement model of Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews:
This hypothesis is also referred to as the "out of Africa", "Noah's ark" and "African replacement" model.All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct. From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.Using this different Hypothesis, one can add that the "Ark" that actually carried all the names and visions of the animals Out-of-Africa 40 thousand years of "days and nights" ago was the Skull of modern men:

stile:So... Noah built the skull of modern men? Was Noah an ape? Or did he use a rib and is Noah actually God Himself? This seems incredibly strange and really stretching the story.I mean, if the story is going to be used as a metaphor, there are metaphors that are much better. Like having the story be about a local flood instead of a global one. That makes a lot of sense, and barely stretches anything. But having Noah be the creator of modern brain anatomy? That just doesn't make any sense at all, and stretches the story beyond all reasonable limitations.No. There was never a global flood, "all animals" were never herded onto an ark, and Noah is likely entirely fictitious.
It does make for a good children's story, though.//////////kofh2u:The story was written in a way that it would be acceptable to early audiences yet in a style that encouraged popularity and common retelling from memory just so it would reach us, today, in this Age when knowledge abounds and men run to and fro so easily, able to see the analogy clearly:Dan. 12:4 But thou, Daniel, shut up the words (of the Old Testament), and seal the book (read by many concerned with death and hell; [Rev 1:18]), even to (2K25AD), the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, (traveling freely by land, sea, and even air), and knowledge (in the Information Age) shall be increased and become great. The story used a measure to Scale that pretty much fits over the entire Central Nervous System where the visions of all the animals would all so easily becarried into the nextAge by theonly survivors of a mass extinction of humanoids.