who said it did? 

I am referring, of course, to the Bible. (I find it odd that you would forget which book we are talking about, but ok.)

I do remember that it was the "known world". It is YOU who is trying to tell us that the same word refers to more than the known world, not I. American Indians, yes.

It isn't my dogmatic assertion, it is G-d's dogmatic assertion in Genesis.

No, I asked you to give me other floods that happened in that area to prove your assertion that G-d promised that there won't be another such flood and that hence it must have been a global flood.

If there was no other flood like that in Mesopotamia, G-d's promise would have been kept.

Which rainbow are you talking about? The one mentioned in the Bible? That was in Mesopotamia and was only seen there. Other rainbows? They are seen wherever they happen. Then and today.

No, it doesn't.

That's the simple fact. Anything else is interpretation.

And I am not interested enough in other people's sex lives and hence cannot be bothered with thinking about what they might do. I know of lots of practices forbidden by scripture that can be done in a heterosexual marriage as well, but that doesn't mean that I claim that such a marriage must not happen.

Both a heterosexual and a homosexual marriage can be used for (scripturally) legal and (scripturally) illegal purposes.

Joseph. When Joseph and his brothers arrived in Egypt Egypt was already a great nation and had constructed lots of pyramids. That did not happen in just 300 years since the flood.

I guess it represents hope for them.

I found that many homosexuals are very spiritual people.

Stop making assumptions about me.  My lack of knowing about the scriptures is because I don't study the bible every day.  I did some research a while ago, I will occasionally check verses when referenced in these debates but I don't study the bible like you do.  Just because I can't quote chapter and verse or even remember all the details of a story doesn't mean I have never done any of the research.  Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim (that's basic logic and critical thinking) so if I find any evidence to the contrary, which doesn't have to be much as long as it is actual evidence and not just hearsay, then that is sufficient to disprove that affirmative claim.

The same can be said about you.  You claim that I am merely spouting off what I have heard/read from others.  That's exactly what you're doing.  You are quoting the bible left and right, you are quoting other people who assert that they have made translations from the original texts, etc. at the very least this is believing what you are reading rather than observing the actions yourself.  So I am no more guilty of that than you are.

This is a crock which is why I'm giving up at this point.  For me to buy into your belief structure you have to prove to me that it is true.  If you fail to do so then I am not going to buy into it plain and simple.  You are claiming that the bible is the word of god and that everything in it is historical fact, you must prove this for me to believe it, and no one has been able to do that.

It's not my claims that are in question, it is yours.  You are the one claiming that Noah's story involved a world-wide flood and that his boat was able to hold all those animals and provide for them for the duration.  You are the one who has to back that up not me.  I don't have to disprove your story rather you have to prove it.

Nope I'm not always right.  And I took your numbers and said "assuming that you're right ...".  I never rejected them.  Then I posed a follow up question which still remains in question even if some of the animals were hibernating.

I don't have to give you anything.  I'm not trying to prove anything.

I'm going on the fact that tsunamis have a very limited effect in-land.  Yes tsunami's are devastating but they can only affect a little ways in-land.  Hurricanes can also be very destructive (Katrina) but again they have a limited range of impact so I could see the story of Noah impacted a limited area like Leauki's version but not a world-wide impact.

Quite simply I don't know.  But that doesn't mean that your god exists.  Perhaps it was your god, perhaps it was multiple god like the early greeks believed.  Perhaps it was some alien race.  There are a lot of possible explainations but none of them are based on anything that is verifiable.  I have never said that god doesn't exist only that I currently don't believe that he does, there is a big difference.

On the contrary if they do find a boat and date it to the proper time period I would be much more likely to buy into the story.  I am rather open to changing my mind, I am just not open to doing it just because the bible says it happened.

On the scale that your talking about, yes.

You did provide an answer to this but it was on another page or lower down on the page and I hadn't read it yet.  I write my responses as I'm reading down the page so sometimes I'm a little late on some information.

So I've forgotten some of the details over the years, big deal.  That doesn't mean I didn't do the research at some point.  You constantly misrepresent what evolution states does that mean you have never researched it?  No and I don't make that assumption about you so why do you make that assumption about me?

I'm about to post a reply before I've read the next page of replies.  I suppose I should apologize in case you've addressed anything I just put here on that next page, sorry.

Are you doing this on purpose to cause confusion Leauki or to try and squirm out of what you're saying?  I asked you specificially which scripture you are referring and you say.......the bible?  The bible is full of scriptures Leauki.  You made a claim about a specific word  (world) being the same as in Genesis.    Which scripture are you referring?  You are being evasive here. 

so you're saying that there were American Indians in America during the flood times?  Are you crazy?  Where are you getting this information from?  Can you back this up? 

Now, Leauki, I usually find you to be somewhat of a smart guy so I have to say you just like to play dumb on purpose....again to cause confusion.  I keep trying to tell you that the rainbow promise was for the whole world that's why we see the rainbow.  The rainbow was a sign of God's covenant.  He said he put the bow in the sky as a promse never to do that again.  IF IT WERE ONLY FOR MESOPOTAMIA AND A COVENANT FOR ONLY THEM THEN WHY DO WE SEE RAINBOWS ALL OVER KINGDOM COME? 

Like what?

who said it did?  Joseph said it did?  Egypt didn't become a great nation or world power until AFTER Joseph made it one....remember the famine and what Joseph did?  How rich Egypt became because of the famine?  I don't know off hand from Noah to Joseph how many years there were.  I'd have to go back and check. 

we are told in scripture to test the spirits to see if they are from God or not. 

How can I do that when you don't even believe Jesus walked the earth?  I think if anything we should start from there...at least it's closer to our time than Noah was.  I've told you a whole bunch of times, it's not about me proving anything anyway.  I could talk till I'm blue in the face or in this case, numb in the fingers typing away.  Until God opens your eyes and ears you'll not believe one blooming word I say anyhow. 

Can you prove to me your love for your wife?  Staying with her doesn't prove it.  Having children with her doesn't prove it.  Buying her flowers doesn't prove it.  Not cheating on her doesn't prove it.   How do you prove love?  So I could say to you that until you prove to me your love for your wife I won't believe it.  There's really no evidence but a marriage of convenience. 

I thought I did a pretty good job in explaining how this could mathmatically and feasibly be done.  There's not much more that I can say really.  It's either plausible or it's not.  What do you think?  Is it plausible given the hugeness of the boat and the approximate amount of animals saved? 

Now, when I ask you how you got here and everything you see, you say you don't know.  Why is it you don't have to back anything up but I do?   So who has the better answer?  Can you explain to me why we see a rainbow after a good sunshine shower?   Can you explain to me why the animals went to higher ground when that huge tsunami hit in Indonesia? 

well I'm not either so should we just forget about it then? 

Well I can give you all sorts of archeological finds that support the bible.  Not the boat, yet, but there are many other very important discoveries over the years showing the bible was at least accurate in it's history.  Which makes sense if the bible was inspired. 

Mt. St. Helens was a boon for Christians and the lab because it showed how one big catastrophe could do what was previously thought to take thousands of years.   It was because of the sheer power of the blast and the power of the water that emptied out of spirit lake and then forcibly came back down taking acres and acres of trees with it.  So if Mt. St. Helens could have this much power and do so much damage that was thought before to take thousands of years to get to why couldn't a world wide flood do even more damage that looks like it was thousands of years in the making?  It sure would mess up our timing a bit wouldn't it? 

ok, that clears that up....you're forgiven....it's what us Christians do best.....

Details are important when you're debating El-D are they not?    I don't misrepresent what evolution states because I use their own words against them.  They're saying it not me.  But thanks for the confidence in my research.....  Please know that I'm not trying to make any assumptions about you.  I'm only going by what you're writing here.  You tell me how much research you've done but when I ask questions that could help you see from the Christian POV you don't know them.  Even the simple ones like how many were even on that ark to begin with.   You only are familiar with one side of this debate.  So maybe you've done your research only one one side of the issue? 

No. You are giving him information that is your faith. If you want to make it "factual", the burden of proof is on you.

I am also giving him information that is my faith. Guess which one of us is doing a better job?

I have an advantage anyway. You are a Christian and have a religious duty to convince people of Christianity. I don't have to convince him of anything, just tell him.

Actually, you constantly and consistently do. And you are very resistent to being corrected.

I am not asking you to understand evolution, but it would be nice if your "Christian principle of honesty", which you used to refer to so often would compel you to take on-board corrections about your misconceptions of other people's points of view.

For example, you have yet again claimed that evolution states that one species becomes another, whereas I have explained to you, in detail, that it does not and that one species can branch into two or more without ever becoming another species. If you were as honest as I believe Christians think they ought to be, you would stop making the claim. But you don't.

And this means that your statement regarding you not misrepresenting what evolution states is a bold lie.

You can imagine how convincing everything you say sounds to me (and others who caught you) when I know that you will happily and knowingly tell a lie to make your point.

depends on who you ask Leauki....the atheists and agnostics will love you....the Christians and those who lean towards a belief will love me....so what's your point?  I'm hearing a bit of pride here. 

First off let me make something straight.....I'm not trying to prove a thing......my gift is more in apologetics.....and rarely does a person come to Christ on apologetics.....it may make one think but it's not evangelism.  You ask me questions and I answer.  I'm actually a bigger help to Christians than non-Christians when I get into apologetics. 

oh and you're wrong Leauki....we DO NOT have a Christian duty to convince people of our faith.    See you're not as all knowing as you profess......

It's the Christian duty to tell others about Christ and to be ready to give an answer for our faith.  The convincing is the work of the Holy Spirit.  It's only God who opens eyes, hearts and minds to him.  That is usually done when someone shares his/her faith with them. 

There's three things ALWAYS present when a person becomes saved......the word of God, the soul winner for God, and the Holy Spirit.  All three are necessary elements to salvation in Christ. 

and I'm not even going to reply Leauki to your last post because it served no purpose but to insult me and my integrity. 

Do you actually believe that everyone who is not an agnostic or atheist believes in your interpretation of the Bible exactly?

That's very arrogant indeed.

Or perhaps you haven't heard of the "Great Commission".

As did your lie about evolution.

(And I know you wouldn't reply to my assertion. You ALWAYS ignore it when I remind you that you ought to be honest about evolution.)

perhaps you haven't. 

Leauki you're calling me arrogant when you yourself are trying to school me on my own book! 

Go read it yourself.......It's at the end of Matthew.  (a good Jewish read btw). 

There's nothing in there or anywhere we are to convince anyone of Christ......

he even said himself.....tell them the news, if they refuse, shake the dust off your feet and move on.

Can you show me one spot where even Jesus tried to convince anyone? 

His was an invitation......not a debate or argument. 

You either come or you don't. 

Leauki, since you keep on asserting that I'm a liar...we have nothing further to discuss. 

I've never asked you to believe that I love my wife or even that I'm married.  I can prove that I'm married because we have a marriage license so all I want is for the government to recognize it I couldn't care less if anyone else does.  I also don't care if anyone but my wife knows that I love her, it's a private matter between the two of us.

You however are asking me to believe in God and that the bible is his word therefore you must prove to me that both are true.

You provided some numbers that make it plausible that the boat was big enough, assuming your numbers are correct which I won't dispute because I don't have the time to research it.  What you haven't proven is that 8 people could possible care for that many animals seeing as how it takes a large staff to care for a zoo of animals which contain less animals.  It also takes a decent sized staff to care for the dogs in a kennel which might be the better analogy here.

The rainbow is easy, it's just water vapors refracting the light much like a prism does.  You can go in your backyard with a hose and create a rainbow for yourself.  There are theories about the animals but no hard evidence one way or the other.  There is some evidence to suggest that animals can sense micro tremors in the earth or minute fluctuations in the barometric pressure which provide warning to the animals of impending danger (this is possibly why some animals start acting odd when a storm is about to hit).  But at the same time you could just as easily say that God is warning them which is why I never disputed that, only the number of animals and where they came from.

As I have said before, I'm not the one trying to prove a case here you are.

But you are, you are saying that the story of Noah as you have presented actually happened.  If you want to drop this I am more than willing to especially if all you're going to do is accuse me of taking other people's arguments and regurgitating them to you.

For the evidence that has been found it would make sense whether or not the bible was inspired by God.  It doesn't take God to provide an accurate representation of history.  Not to mention that I'm not disputing those stories at the moment, we have been focused on Noah's Ark.

Not really because Mt. St. Helens was in a limited area, not world wide.  Now if all the water gysers/volcanos on earth all happened to go off at the same time that would provide evidence for your argument, but with the exception of your version of Noah's ark there is no record or even theory to suggest that ever happened to the best of my knowledge, if you have other evidence of that please pass it along I would be very interested to read it.

Thank you.  It may be what you do best but I have met some that don't do it well at all.

Details are important when you're trying to prove a point.  I'm not.

But you are.  Leauki has pointed it out a number of times like in post #314 "It's the whole fish turning into a bird thing we have trouble with....or a watermelon into a tomato. "  That is a complete misrepresentation of evolution.  Evolution doesn't state that a fish turns into a bird or a watermelon into a tomato, or anthing remotely similar.  What evolution states is that through a series of genetic mutations species evolve because those mutations make them more or less likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes.  Sickle Cell Anemia is a perfect example.  It evolved because of malaria, people with Sickle Cell are immune to it and can then survive long enough to procreate.  Unfortunately they don't live much longer than that because sickle cell eventually kills them.  Humans did not evolve from gorillas or chimps, we do however share a common ancestor with them.  There is a very big difference between that mechanism and what you have stated here.

I knew some, if not most, of the details once, but like with many things if I don't use that information on a daily basis I have a very difficult time recalling the information and I don't have the time to redo the research now.  At least I was close on the number of people on the ark I was only off by three.  If I asked you to recall the horse power on the car that you owned a few years ago would you necessarily remember it even if you had research it intently before making the purchase?  Probably not and I wouldn't take that as proof that you never owned the car.

Very good. That's what I thought. People do notice these things.

And she is representing evolution despite her claims that she is not and despite having been corrected several times. At some point it really becomes a question of integrity.

(Your sickle cell example is a bit too summarised. If I recall correctly it is actually the carriers of sickle cell anemia genes that have an advantage when it comes to malaria, while the rarer case of a person hit by the sickle cell anema condition is eventually killed by it. That's how the gene survives. It does not actually benefit from those that die from sickle cell anemia, only from those that carry the gene but don't get the condition. It's similar to type 2 diabetes in this regard.)

first of all the watermelon into the tomato was tongue in cheek.  But you have to remember I'm a bit older than you...I was taught diff than you.  Lula's even older than I am...so we've heard all this stuff for years and years........We were taught in schools and it was pretty universal that humans came from monkeys, birds came from dinos etc all in the name of Science.  If I remember right......Thomas Huxley was a proponent of the dinos to bird thing. 

Remember Lucy?  She was the supposed ancestor of ours..... ape to man.   Do you just chalk that up to evolutionists embarrasment? 

The evolution that they're teaching now is diff than the evolution I was taught then.  I guess the whole evolution thing did some evolving on it's own.  Without going into an evolution debate (already been there many times)  I only went to public "government" schools so I only had secular Science classes, but yet today, I'm a big believer in the Christian viewpoint of Science when it comes to origins....because that's really where the debate lies anyhow.  How this all got started in the first place. 

and as far as facts go, it's not about who has the most facts but how we interpret the facts.  It really does come down to our bias.  When you peek into my brain I'd hope you'd see the bible in there.  When I peek into an evolutionist's brain I'd see Darwin's book there or some other book on man's theories.  Then when the facts present themselves we go back to our foundation and interpret them as we page thru our biases. 

And I don't even know the HP of the car I have now....

I don't know... I read Darwin's book and several biology books written in the sixties and I am not aware of a single book that claims that one species changes into another according to evolution.

Either way, I have told you again and again that the way you describe evolution is WRONG. The fact that you keep doing it basically forces me to doubt your integrity.

And I really cannot imagine that you were actually told that stuff. For example, the ONLY sources for your claims about evolution I have ever seen are Creationist Web sites. I have never ever heard or read a biologist make these claims about evolution. And I read quite a bit about it.

I am a believer of the Biblical viewpoint when it comes to _origins_ (of life). But that's not where the debate lies because evolution doesn't say anything about the origins of life. It only refers to the origin of _species_, i.e. it explains where different species come from, not where life comes from.