You make a good point!  Lara has killed more animals than the gulf oil spill.

Noah's flood just raises more questions than it answers.

For example...

Why do none of the six major extinctions coincide with Noah's flood?

Why do we not find a global deposit of mud around the world from the flood waters?

Why do we not find massive amounts of fossils all in the same layer at the same point around the world?

Why is it that most rivers and canyons meander? If there was a global flood then most would travel in a straight line.

How did every animals fit inside the ark, and where did they store the supplies?

Why was every animal within walking distance of Noah's house, but unevenly distributed around the world after the flood?

Where did the water come from or go? (nobody mention Kent Hovind's ice shield, it defies all physics)

I could carry on all day, but I think that it's obvious that Noah's ark is meant to be allegorical and not literal. It's a good story, but not true.

There is certainly a lot of evidence that many ancient cultures are now buried underneath the sea. Interestingly many of these were highly developed to an extent that they go against the current accepted history of man on this planet. They are finding very, very old temples off the coast of Inda and even some temple-like structures off the coast of Japan.

I'm definitely not in the school that believes the Bible is absolute truth. How could it be? It's not presented in a way that an all powerful being would transmit knowledge to His creations. Rather, to me it's a mish-mash of truths and myths and stories and histories that are mostly untraceable and have been altered by powerful men in history. Like Constantine who threw out a lot of what was in the bible to suit the socio-political climate of the day.

In any case, I do feel there is a lot of archeological evidence that flies in the face of modern man's view of his history. It's just a shame that the academic world is so religious about it's view that the information gets filtered to suit the current paradigm.

Anyways, interesting link - thanks.

Oh, and some people get waaaay to pissed off as soon as the word God is mention. Talk about being religously atheistic. FFS.

Ya just keep up patting each other on the back.

So how old are the oldest trees that exist again?

I don't believe it rained for 40 days or whatever, but is there no possibility that the ice caps could have melted before? Is there no possibility that continents could have rapidly shifted and buried large parts of themselves under the ocean?

Why is there always such hate between you 'masterfully intelligent' scientific geniuses and the fanatic reliogionists?

I can tell this one is false. 4 men and one women, with 3 of the men being children of the other two. We would have all died of inbreeding. There are a fair few myths/legends that have this basic problem. Adam and Eve is another one.

Seriously, I cant tell if your actually a devote religious fanatic or someone who is just trying to have a joke. Either way its getting out of hand.

Well the sceintific evidence of a complete global flood have already been covered. What I will mention however is that you should really read up on the story of Atrahasis, which is the mesopotamian myth about a flood (also mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh) which was written around 1000 years before the bibles account of a flood. The biblical story of Noah's ark is blatantly derived from the mesopotamian myths.

i mean the titanic had no chance and the world wasn't flooded, how could a wooden boat full of animals have a chance in a flood?

it is simple, Noah was an alien motherfucker who beamed up the animals to his mothership.

fixed. :)

I think thats pretty much Bungie's take on the whole story. For further study, i refer you to the Halo trilogy.

Are we including clonal trees in this? Because they can extend way past 10,000 years .

Anyway, at the end of the day atheists and theists are just debating two sides, like with any other subject such as politics. I prefer a nice friendly debate, I hate it when things get nasty, and I think that both parties can rub each other up the wrong way. I appologise on behalf of atheists if you feel as though they lack respect or form some kind of inclusive group, generally speaking I don't think they mean to be outright rude from the start, it just happens like with debates about most other subjects.

Besides, I'm personally trying to get rid of my "mean atheist" reputation, I don't like it.