doesn't matter the water only went up 100 feet. the level it is at now.



but that doesn't explain the similarities in the story.

only a small group of people survived the flood.

again Gilgamesh about a flood that washed a merchant out to sea. that would be a local flood.

the black sea would have destroyed the world around the black sea. but since it didn't cover any mountains. that doesn't correspond with the Noah story.

nor does it explain why there are only a small group of animals on the planet. there are only about 200 types of animals on the planet. yes there are thousands of species but their all related to each other.

Leauki, I hope this thread is a lesson to you that when you're looking for an analogy, you need to look for one that's less controversial than the argument you're already having, or you will be having a whole different argument far from your original point.

Anyway, on the crucial issue of kangaroos on the ark, I find it more plausible that there was Pangaea before the Flood and Noah got kangaroos that way. It is really, really stretching the idea of "microevolution" to say kangaroos got selected from the marsupial "kind" all in a few thousand years after the flood. Seems to me like creationist theory is now exactly like evolutionary theory except that the entire 100 million years of migration, speciation, and continental drift is compressed into 10,000 years.

Anyway, on the crucial issue of kangaroos on the ark,

maybe he cross bred some animals and that is where the Platypus came from.

Back to the topic at hand.

It is interesting that many on the left find the stuff reported & written by ex-insiders to be gospel, "first hand" and so self-evidently the truth that any doubters are simply called idiots. Particularly in the standard political realm (see Gene, Col.)

Here's an ex-insider debunking the left's current fave religion and whoa, Nellie, he's just a disgruntled has-been who didn't know shit from Shinola then & is only trying to justify his ignorance now.

Do I need to point out the hypocrisy here? Good, then I won't.   

we were talking about how man is the only cause of global warming and i am still waiting an answer to how we are causing global warming on mars and pluto. of course it may have been the other post that i asked that on. so if i hadn't asked it here. i have now.

Oh, please. I did explain the similarities. Some things just make for nice stories. You don't make up stories like "there was a local flood and thousands of people escaped it". The more exciting variant is "there was a world-wide flood and only one family escaped". The first story simply isn't news.




That explains the similarities. However, saying that the story is exactly true, despite the fact that it is physically impossible and that there is no geological evidence does NOT explain the similarities.

Daiwa, I don't think Coleman qualifies as an ex-insider because he was really never "inside" the global warming movement. It's not like he had to resign his job to speak out on this issue like those Guantanamo lawyers.