Of course. But your questions were predicated on what the Bible says.

<I admire your faith because the ppl i know who have faith are some of the happiest and nicest ppl iv ever met,but i just cant believe in something i thinks impossible,id be deceiving myself,though i do admire those of you with this faith..>

You shouldn't deceive yourself. You should search for truth and respond to it. For me, it's all about truth.

<the world would be a better place with ppl like u,but its just not true....its too far fetched!>

I am convinced it's true. I guess to a degree the world could be an okay place if people were deceived into believing something that made them act in a societally beneficial manner. But it still goes back to truth.

< All that"and on the 7th day god created light"etc.. Come on...whats more believable.some invisible being creating,or earth being created by some universal explosion..crazy!>

That's an argument for my side.

<So surely somethings happened during the past (let say gazillionillionmillion yrs?)and things have just formed over the infinite period of time...>

So a world of order was produced by a series of catastropic events? That's a hard case to make.

<thats easier to believe than some superior being just clicking his fingers(you know what i mean tho ocf)and saying...."ok today il create an earth,put two ppl on there,as well as how many species of animal,fish,insect,bird.etc....then after a few thousand yrs il create a flood,tell someone to build a big ship,save everyone and every thing and species...etc.... >

It's not easier for me to believe that matter is infinite and came from nothing, that uncaused motion exists, and that consciousness and morality evolved from raw material.

<I mean how does anything but some type of explosion that formed a planet over millions and millions of yrs,sound stranger than "somebody,something,"just making earth(and the rest of the infinite solar system).....just making it out of what?? >

So you believe that some raw materials have existed forever, that some inexplicable energy source acted upon that raw material, and Elvis Presley walked out a few gazillion years later? Yes, that sounds mighty strange.

<I really dont understand,yet do admire,ppl who have faith in a god...any god! Way beyond my comprehension,but i believe evolution is the more plausible>

It's not beyond your comprehension.

Many differentiated species are simply different based only on geography. And why are you demanding all "species" have been on the ark?

<There are, for example, 300,000 kinds of beetles. How did some insects indigenous only to South America get the message to find a way to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers?>

Were they indigenous to South America back then?

< Who told them? Did they build a raft?>

I doubt you'd deny that there has been migration of many species. Why in the world would you be inconsistent enough to imply there wasn't?

<When the bedbugs, ticks, lice, fleas, roaches, etc, started to come aboard, maybe Noah should have put his foot down. Literally. Two of each animal, seven of each clean animal - a boat the size of Rhode Island could maybe handle.>

I don't see each "species" of animal. Could you point it out in in the Scriptures or otherwise explain why you are insisting on that designation?

<A small forest growing on board would be needed to feed them.>

They weren't hibernating? They weren't newborns? Again, this is all predicated on your insistence on "species".

< The bible says nothing about hibernation on the ark. >

And?

<BTW, your previous answer to my question <The flood?> seems to indicate that you believe the dinosaurs went extinct because of the flood, unless I am not reading it right. Otherwise, the dinosaurs got on board the ark and went extinct later?>

I believe the dinos were on the ark though I am inclined to think they weren't as populous immediately before the Flood as in times before that. Just speculation though.

< What harm would it be for your faith to just admit that some of the bible is just conjecture?>

Yes.

< - the real source for the ark story?>

You're sure of that?

< Are you aware of any contradictions or inconsistencies in the bible?>

No.

< I would point them out, chapter and verse, but you can find them listed on the internet, if you wish to disprove them.>

Been there, done that. I once addressed 40 of them over the course of a week and the would be challenger to me didn't respond one time.

< Would you agree that there should be no contradictions in the bible? >

Yes.

<And you don't think that there should be at least two of each species on the ark, that separate species developed later? Isn't that evolution?>

How long after the ark did Moses write Genesis?

<So the insects drowned?>

I don't know. You tell me as I pick some fleas out of my dog's fur. And I'm aware insects can burrow in mud and float on leaves etc for long periods of time.

< And why are there birds that can't fly?>

Because it was advantageous for them to not fly, hence they evolved into nonflying birds.

< Emus, ostriches, cassowaries, penguins, etc? Didn't they fly originally and later evolve into an earth-bound creature?>

I don't know. You tell me. Seems a pretty hard case to make that was an advantage.

< For what purpose does an ostrich have such puny useless wings?>

I don't know. If it had strong wings, it'd still be an ostrich.

< And aren't a penguin's flippers actually wings that have evolved? >

I don't know. It would still be a penguin I guess.

<You agree that a penguin is a bird?>

<Deus>: I'm not a biblical literalist myself, but I wish to make a couple of observations on your last few posts here.

If you are going to argue from a scientific perspective, from the perspective of getting "the material facts as they are currently known" correct, I suggest you do a better job.

<Epic of Gilgamesh> was not "written in stone." The oldest known surviving record of this work was "pressed in clay."

Minor point? Yes and no. If you are going to argue with the support of archaeological evidence, you had better get your evidence up to the standard that can be reached by a two minute scan of Wikipedia eh?

Second, your truth claim that <Gilgamesh> is "the real source" for the ark story- I've read both Gilgamesh and the Bible (all of it) more than once, and I do know what you mean.

However, your claim is too strong without adequate support. If you make this particular truth claim, the onus is on you to demonstrate the provenance of how the Gilgamesh version became "THE source" for the Biblical account of the flood.

Many other sacred texts, stories, traditions also have flood stories, some of which pre-date Gilgamesh.

Final point, an extra one- to speak of the contents of a literary text like <Gilgamesh> in terms of "bullet points" is, at best, crass.

At worst, it's a bastardization of both the content of a literary work and the process by which "meaning" can be divined from such a work.

If "bullet points" were all that was needed, then nobody needed to write the bloody thing in the first place.

This is wonderful ex post facto reasoning. Instead of evolving into something useless, why didn't they evolve into something more useful?

< Where did I say that they (the animals) evolved into something less than ideal? I didn't. >

You admit they evolved from useful appendages to useless appendages. It's reasonable to say that is evolving away from the ideal.

<Did I say that man had evolved into something less than ideal? Nope.>

Nor did I. So what?

< Did I imply that evolution is a downward process? >

No, but it's a logical conclusion from your arguments. I am sitting here amazed you don't recognize that even now.

<The fact that flying birds evolve into walking birds does not mean that birds evolved into a less desirable condition and I never said it nor implied it.>

"The fact"? Really now. Please set forth the evidence for that claim.

< They evolved.>

Evidence?

< "Less than ideal" is your phrase not mine. You are attaching value statements to a natural process. I don't.>

I understand that material archaeological evidence of "first appearance of a text" is concrete, and the best kind of evidence- but this doesn't mean you can just discount the existence of oral traditions either, which are notoriously difficult to date. Impossible to date precisely, in fact.>

Hi Nako. Just noticed your comment and thought I would meddle a little too. :-)

I (as a Christian) always figured that Moses' writings were both inspired AND oral tradition.

Anyway, I guess I should have said "many of those who believe," e.g., OCF. But if some religious people believe like you do, I guess Jess's point stands.

<I wouldn't think that Moses could get away with writing up an account of Israel's history, and then present it to the people of Israel -- and have them accept it -- unless it agreed with the historical accounts that they were already familiar with.>