Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[Bowman]

1. I'm not your brother.

Actually, you are.

2. There are over two thousand deities for this planet, yours is one of them. Sorry, but the archaeolgical anda rchival record proves this.

There is onle one true creator God of the Universe...and this is the God revealed to us in the Holy Bible.

Your gods are idols, are they not?

3. I have asked repeatedly for you to provide links to scientific sources stating that...
a. There is enough water on the planet to inundate the surface.

The only time that water covered the entire earth was shortly after it formed, brother, as the surface was smooth.

b. That the planet was covered with water before land appeared.
You have merely replied with more theospam and midirections.

This is mentioned in scripture and confirmed by science.

4. Modern humans exceed the one hundred thousand year mark.

And?

We have already covered this at length.

 

[Meow Mix]

My position is entirely verifiable via Biblical scripture, sister.

However, you are unable (or unwilling, or both) to even so much as address the Hebrew.

Until you can do this, and unload that chip from your shoulder, you have an argument from silence.

Please answer these questions with yes or no so I understand exactly where you stand:

1) Did Noah exist and build an ark to put animals in?
2) Did the Bible say Noah existed and built an ark to put animals in?
3) Was Noah unable to find land for at least 40 days/nights?
4) Did the Bible say Noah was unable to find land for at least 40 days/nights?

There, now you can finally make it clear what you believe and what you believe the Bible says.

The Hebrew is irrelevant if you just stop prancing around all nebulously and make your position clear. I'm not the only one complaining about your refusal to discuss these matters in a straightforward fashion. Usually beating around the bushes as you've been doing is indicative of something...

Not exactly.

The Biblical prediction of humanity emanating from one man and one woman in the span of thousands of years has already been confirmed by recent science.

Wrong. I've corrected you on this issue. Human beings did not emanate from one man and one woman. If you believe science supports such an assertion then you are incredibly mistaken. Here are some facts, please let me know if you disagree with any of them and why:

A) mDNA Eve and Y-chrom Adam lived at such long times apart that it's impossible for them to have even met each other because mDNA Eve was long dead before Y-chrom Adam existed.

B) There were many, many, many, many other humans alive while mDNA Eve was alive; likewise for Y-chrom Adam.

C) It's impossible for a species to survive from only two founding individuals; or even with a few hundred individuals.

Do you disagree with any of these facts? If you do please provide your evidence and why you argue that modern biology is wrong? Please also explain why you assert that modern biology supports the absurd assertion that "humanity emanat[ed] from one man and one woman in the span of thousands of years?"

Do you really believe that? I can't tell if you're consciously contorting the evidence to fit what you want to believe, or if you have truly convinced yourself that biology supports your assertion -- but please be aware that it most certainly doesn't.

This stands in stark contrast to naturalists who said that we came from neandertals in an near endless stream of evolution from simple life forms to complex - all of which simply does not stand up to modern science.

Ah, okay. I get it, so you're an evolution denier. You'll accept science far enough to deny that there was a global flood but you'll only go so far against the traditional beliefs of your creed (I guess). Clearly you don't understand the concept of common descent or at least with human evolutionary history since 0% of scientists assert that Homo sapiens directly descended from Homo [sapiens] neanderthalensis. You always tell your opponents that they need to "wiki" and "google" things, perhaps it's your turn to catch up on the simplest fundamentals of human history?

I'm not trying to sound demeaning, though I guess that sort of was... but don't you think that if you're making blatantly false assertions and having to dance around people's direct questions it's time to re-evaluate your position?

Thus, as science refines itself, I would predict that our two distance parents will likewise be found to have emanated from the Meso Plain.

Buzz, wrong. mDNA Eve was located in Africa. I'm not sure where Y-chrom Adam was located or even if biologists have found a way to narrow it down, but that's irrelevant since mDNA Eve already blows your assertion cold out of the water. It also blows your "flooding Mesopotamia killed all existing humans" idea out of the water -- so if you claim that's Biblical, then it also blows the Bible out of the water.

If all humanity was wiped-out, as stated, then the covenant makes perfect sense.

All of humanity was not wiped out. Therefore the covenant still needs to be explained. Either way you describe this flood, it's contradictory to the evidence. Your position is entirely untenable unless you just admit the flood story was made up completely, or at best only serves as a literary device (but then you have the problem of explaining what parts of the Bible to believe or not).

You failed to even read my detailed reply.

I did read your non-response, which didn't answer any questions. You only asserted that Noah being unable to find land in 40 days was due to some numerical chiasm -- but didn't explain why it's in the Bible if it isn't true. I'm not even sure if you believe it's true. You haven't made your position very clear at all, and you've hopped around questions delicately being as vague as possible. As I said before, usually that's strongly indicative of a person who has a weak position and knows it.

Why?

Because never at any point in history -- ever -- has all of mankind been concentrated in Mesopotamia, and that's a fact. At all times in human history humans have at least inhabited Africa. Humans were also inhabiting other areas when Mesopotamian civilization was starting up. So, your belief that at any time humans lived exclusively in that area is outright and utterly false.

Since you don't study Hebrew, your assertion is meritless.

The Hebrew is meritless if it's asserting things that we know aren't true. If the Bible said in Hebrew the sky is green would you believe it? The fact of the matter is that if you take the flood story literally then it's false... and if you take the flood story as you've been giving it so far then it's false as well. Either way you're stuck with a blatantly false belief. Why?

 

[Bowman]

Please answer these questions with yes or no so I understand exactly where you stand:

1) Did Noah exist and build an ark to put animals in?

Yes.

2) Did the Bible say Noah existed and built an ark to put animals in?

Yes.

3) Was Noah unable to find land for at least 40 days/nights?

No.

4) Did the Bible say Noah was unable to find land for at least 40 days/nights?

No.

There, now you can finally make it clear what you believe and what you believe the Bible says.

Moreover, you can actually read the account for yourself (perhaps for the very first time) and see your blunders.

The Hebrew is irrelevant if you just stop prancing around all nebulously and make your position clear.

The Hebrew is very clear, and, in any discussion of Genesis, is mandatory that you have command over it - of which, you most certainly do not.

I'm not the only one complaining about your refusal to discuss these matters in a straightforward fashion. Usually beating around the bushes as you've been doing is indicative of something...

Thus far, there has been no one willing to discuss the Hebrew.

This tells us all we need to know...

 

[Bowman]

Wrong. I've corrected you on this issue. Human beings did not emanate from one man and one woman. If you believe science supports such an assertion then you are incredibly mistaken. Here are some facts, please let me know if you disagree with any of them and why:

A) mDNA Eve and Y-chrom Adam lived at such long times apart that it's impossible for them to have even met each other because mDNA Eve was long dead before Y-chrom Adam existed.

Even your googled links show enormous error bars with obvious overlap.

Do you want to google some more links and take the best 9 out of 10?

Your call...

B) There were many, many, many, many other humans alive while mDNA Eve was alive; likewise for Y-chrom Adam.

Show us...

C) It's impossible for a species to survive from only two founding individuals; or even with a few hundred individuals.

Show us...

Do you disagree with any of these facts? If you do please provide your evidence and why you argue that modern biology is wrong? Please also explain why you assert that modern biology supports the absurd assertion that "humanity emanat[ed] from one man and one woman in the span of thousands of years?"

Do you really believe that? I can't tell if you're consciously contorting the evidence to fit what you want to believe, or if you have truly convinced yourself that biology supports your assertion -- but please be aware that it most certainly doesn't.

The above are your assertions, thus the onus of proof is upon you, sister...

Start googling...

 

[Meow Mix]

Bowman, you answered "No" to the question "Was Noah unable to find land in at least 40 days?"

Are you saying that Noah did find land within 40 days, or did you misread my question on accident?

If you assert that Noah did find land within 40 days, can you post a reference that shows Noah found land while the flood was happening?

Also, you say you believe Noah built an ark to avoid a local flood. Can you explain why that was necessary to do?

 

[Bowman]

Ah, okay. I get it, so you're an evolution denier. You'll accept science far enough to deny that there was a global flood but you'll only go so far against the traditional beliefs of your creed (I guess).

Nope.

Science does not disagree with the Holy Bible.

The Holy Bible has origins covered.

Clearly you don't understand the concept of common descent or at least with human evolutionary history since 0% of scientists assert that Homo sapiens directly descended from Homo [sapiens] neanderthalensis. You always tell your opponents that they need to "wiki" and "google" things, perhaps it's your turn to catch up on the simplest fundamentals of human history?

What modern scientist would, sister?

Nuclear DNA has destroyed Darwins centerpiece for human evolution in the past decade.

Buzz, wrong. mDNA Eve was located in Africa. I'm not sure where Y-chrom Adam was located or even if biologists have found a way to narrow it down, but that's irrelevant since mDNA Eve already blows your assertion cold out of the water. It also blows your "flooding Mesopotamia killed all existing humans" idea out of the water -- so if you claim that's Biblical, then it also blows the Bible out of the water.

Nope.

Each of your googled links gives you a different date to work with.

All of humanity was not wiped out.

All but eight people.

Therefore the covenant still needs to be explained. Either way you describe this flood, it's contradictory to the evidence. Your position is entirely untenable unless you just admit the flood story was made up completely, or at best only serves as a literary device (but then you have the problem of explaining what parts of the Bible to believe or not).

You would first have to comprehend the Biblical flood story..of which, you are unable to even get the story correct as a premise...

I did read your non-response, which didn't answer any questions. You only asserted that Noah being unable to find land in 40 days was due to some numerical chiasm -- but didn't explain why it's in the Bible if it isn't true. I'm not even sure if you believe it's true. You haven't made your position very clear at all, and you've hopped around questions delicately being as vague as possible. As I said before, usually that's strongly indicative of a person who has a weak position and knows it.

Go back and read it for the first time.

There is no shame in admitting that you didn't...

Because never at any point in history -- ever -- has all of mankind been concentrated in Mesopotamia, and that's a fact. At all times in human history humans have at least inhabited Africa. Humans were also inhabiting other areas when Mesopotamian civilization was starting up. So, your belief that at any time humans lived exclusively in that area is outright and utterly false.

According to what?

The Hebrew is meritless if it's asserting things that we know aren't true. If the Bible said in Hebrew the sky is green would you believe it?

Since you don't know any at all, how then would you even know?

The fact of the matter is that if you take the flood story literally then it's false... and if you take the flood story as you've been giving it so far then it's false as well. Either way you're stuck with a blatantly false belief. Why?

Fact is, even in English, you are unable to tell us what the 'literal' definition even is, sister....

 

[Bowman]

Bowman, you answered "No" to the question "Was Noah unable to find land in at least 40 days?"

Are you saying that Noah did find land within 40 days, or did you misread my question on accident?

If you assert that Noah did find land within 40 days, can you post a reference that shows Noah found land while the flood was happening?

Also, you say you believe Noah built an ark to avoid a local flood. Can you explain why that was necessary to do?

Why don't you post the verses which you are referring to, sister.

This way you can see your gaff first-hand...

 

[Meow Mix]

Even your googled links show enormous error bars with obvious overlap.

The error bars depended on the assumptions as per the articles, which ranged from (if I remember) 10-20%. Even if we assume a 20% error margin it still isn't possible for mDNA Eve to have coexisted with Y-chrom Adam. You're grasping at straws at this point.

As for other humans existing during the time of mDNA Eve, there is abundant evidence that humans were alive and well 100,000ish years ago.

Here's a quick "google" for you (I know you love that so much):
Arizona State University (2007, October 17). Earliest Evidence Of Modern Humans Detected. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2007/10/071017145252.htm

An excerpt: "Evidence of early humans living on the coast in South Africa, harvesting food from the sea, employing complex bladelet tools and using red pigments in symbolic behavior 164,000 years ago, far earlier than previously documented, is being reported in the journal Nature."

These humans were thriving well before mDNA Eve and clearly not in Mesopotamia. If you really want me to I can get more references but something tells me that no amount of evidence is sufficient to shake the foundations of your beliefs.

As for a species surviving from two originators, I don't even feel I need to comment on that. If you really don't understand why that isn't the case then you simply don't have the biology background to even have this discussion in the first place. If you really feel I need to explain why genetic bottlenecks are unsustainable I can, but you know as well as everyone else what a waste of my time and patience it would be.

 

[Bowman]

The error bars depended on the assumptions as per the articles, which ranged from (if I remember) 10-20%. Even if we assume a 20% error margin it still isn't possible for mDNA Eve to have coexisted with Y-chrom Adam. You're grasping at straws at this point.

As for other humans existing during the time of mDNA Eve, there is abundant evidence that humans were alive and well 100,000ish years ago.

Here's a quick "google" for you (I know you love that so much):
Arizona State University (2007, October 17). Earliest Evidence Of Modern Humans Detected. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2007/10/071017145252.htm

An excerpt: "Evidence of early humans living on the coast in South Africa, harvesting food from the sea, employing complex bladelet tools and using red pigments in symbolic behavior 164,000 years ago, far earlier than previously documented, is being reported in the journal Nature."

These humans were thriving well before mDNA Eve and clearly not in Mesopotamia. If you really want me to I can get more references but something tells me that no amount of evidence is sufficient to shake the foundations of your beliefs.

Show us the error bars, sister.

Moreover, show us independent research giving the same exact dates.

Good luck...

As for a species surviving from two originators, I don't even feel I need to comment on that. If you really don't understand why that isn't the case then you simply don't have the biology background to even have this discussion in the first place. If you really feel I need to explain why genetic bottlenecks are unsustainable I can, but you know as well as everyone else what a waste of my time and patience it would be.

If you are unable to comment, then why bring it up as a point for your position?

 

[Venatoris]

Do you want to google some more links and take the best 9 out of 10?

I'd just like to point out that if Meow mix already has 8 out of 10, she kicked your ***!
Best 6 is a win out of 10, best 9 out of 17 would be the way to say it if you truly have 8 wins against her.
Remember, 5/4 of people are bad at math.

 

[Bowman]

I'd just like to point out that if Meow mix already has 8 out of 10, she kicked your ***!
Best 6 is a win out of 10, best 9 out of 17 would be the way to say it if you truly have 8 wins against her.
Remember, 5/4 of people are bad at math.

Perhaps you could lend her a hand, then...

 

[Venatoris]

Perhaps you could lend her a hand, then...

Perhaps, but I think she's doing a pretty good job on her own.
My contributions would seem redundant alongside hers.
I may chime in if I think she needs help but at this point it seems unlikely.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps, but I think she's doing a pretty good job on her own.
My contributions would seem redundant alongside hers.
I may chime in if I think she needs help but at this point it seems unlikely.

Agreed
Agreed
Agreed

 

[Meow Mix]

Nope.

Science does not disagree with the Holy Bible.

The Holy Bible has origins covered.

This is a non-answer. I'm beginning to realize that you are (whether consciously or not) employing the shotgun debate tactic: you ask as many time consuming requests as possible while diminishing the amount of time it takes for you to answer your own questions, thereby placing a burden on the opponent to dig things up while you sit around giving unsupported 3-second answers.

I don't mind having to support the things that I say; but if you're going to have high standards for me can you please hold yourself up to the same?

The Bible's creation story is not supported by science. The Genesis account is very different from modern cosmological theory of how Earth formed in the accretion disc of Sol, a 3rd generation star. The creation of life is different from any of the models for abiogenesis, which science supports. The Bible fails to mention evolution so far as I can see, which science supports.

What modern scientist would, sister?

Nuclear DNA has destroyed Darwins centerpiece for human evolution in the past decade.

Darwin is long dead and his incomplete, primitive theory no longer resembles what the man put forward after being in the hands of other scientists and superior data for decades. Darwin literally has almost nothing to do with modern biology other than getting the ball rolling.

Can you clarify what you mean by this sentence, anway? I don't recall seeing any journals or pop science magazines declaring evolution falsified -- in fact I keep seeing them trumpeting further evidence that evolution is indeed the best model for the origin of diversity of life.

Nope.

Each of your googled links gives you a different date to work with.

Please re-read the most recent one: different dates arise from different assumptions about population models; but all of them trend towards 200,000 years ago within 10-20% (depending on pop. assumptions) in southeast Africa.

All but eight people.

Wrong. Humans were inhabiting Africa before Mesopotamia and continued to inhabit Africa even up until modern times. Therefore, no amount of flooding in the Middle East could destroy all of humanity. I know (or hope) you aren't ignorant enough of archaeology to fail to realize that by far the most evidence for any model of human origins is from Africa -- modern humans' and other, earlier species of humans' migrations from Africa are pretty evident in the dating of fossils slowly spreading out from there.

Tell you what: give me a time frame in which you assert all human beings were in Mesopotamia and I'll provide you evidence of humans living elsewhere.

You would first have to comprehend the Biblical flood story..of which, you are unable to even get the story correct as a premise...

I understood the flood story as much as most Christians do (who believe it's telling of a literal world flood)... and as much as Christians have historically understood it.

I notice that you failed to answer my question of why God would write something in such a way that even 99% of His followers throughout history have gotten it wrong. Why would God do that? Is He fond of playing games?

Go back and read it for the first time.

There is no shame in admitting that you didn't...

I've read the Bible -- this is the 3rd time I've told you -- so you can stop slapping me with this annoying ad hominem at any time. Seriously.

If you assert that I haven't read the Bible because I interpreted the Flood as global then that's just asinine. Do you assert that historically nearly all Christians haven't read the Bible then since they interpreted it as global?

Let's keep this impersonal. Don't assume that I'm talking about something I've never read and I'll assume the same -- you call me sister, but you're treating me more like a child. Let's bring back civility, brother?

According to what?

I provided you with at least one reference for human habitation of Africa nearly 200,000 years ago. I haven't seen you comment on it.

Since you don't know any at all, how then would you even know?

The language is irrelevant if what it says is wrong. That was my point. There is no language on Earth that turns lies into truth just by saying it in that language.

 

[gnostic]

This is a non-answer. I'm beginning to realize that you are (whether consciously or not) employing the shotgun debate tactic: you ask as many time consuming requests as possible while diminishing the amount of time it takes for you to answer your own questions, thereby placing a burden on the opponent to dig things up while you sit around giving unsupported 3-second answers.

I don't mind having to support the things that I say; but if you're going to have high standards for me can you please hold yourself up to the same?

I've already decided not answer any more of his questions a while ago, because it has proven to be a fruitless exercise.

 

[Meow Mix]

Why don't you post the verses which you are referring to, sister.

This way you can see your gaff first-hand...

Source: KJV, Genesis 8 - Passage Lookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com

And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;

2The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
3And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
4And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
5And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
6And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
7And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
8Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
9But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
10And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
11And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. 12And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

So, looks like it was quite a while before Noah landed or got out of the ark. So, can you explain why -- if the flood was local -- Noah didn't just head for land? Why would it take him so long to reach land; are you saying he's the worst navigator ever to have existed?

Can you also explain why it took a while for "the tops of mountains to be seen?" I'm assuming KJV just got the Hebrew wrong in your opinion, so can you explain what's "really" meant there according to the Hebrew? How could a local flood prevent mountain tops from being seen if the waters aren't covering them?

 

[Meow Mix]

If you are unable to comment, then why bring it up as a point for your position?

There's a certain point at which when you're having to teach your opponent high school genetics to even continue the conversation that it simply isn't worth it. If I really have to explain genetic bottlenecks to you then I think we're done here -- time to make friends and break out the martinis and relax? :beach:

 

[AxisMundi]

Actually, you are.

There is onle one true creator God of the Universe...and this is the God revealed to us in the Holy Bible.

Your gods are idols, are they not?

The only time that water covered the entire earth was shortly after it formed, brother, as the surface was smooth.

This is mentioned in scripture and confirmed by science.

And?

We have already covered this at length.

1. No, you are not my brother. It is nonsense to say we are all related.

2. Revealed in the same book that claims the earth is the 6,000 year old, flat center of the universe, a source so filled with disproved "miracles', self-contradictions, and inaccurate history that you must twist the human language into unrecognizable squiggles to attempt to get the book to make sense. You have failed utterly to do so, as has every other Apologetic who tries.

3. No, they are not "idols", no more than yours is. In the 100,000+ history of the Human Race, your god is completely absent from the archaeological/archival library until app. 3,000 years ago. We have hard, physical evidences, in artifacts and ancient writings, of the thousand plus gods who are older than yours. Considering the nature of the evidence for the other gods, plus the complete and utter lack of credibility in the only sources that mention your god, one can plainly see that the idea that your god is the "only one" and a demiurge are both patently false.

4. Hol-ee Cow. Smooth? I've asked you to cite a scientific source stating that the world was covered in water. I will now ask you to cite a scientific source stating that the earth's surface has ever been smooth. And I will, of course, expect you to ignore those requests since there are no legitimate scientists who will back up your claims.

5. Again, your scripture is not self-supporting evidence and holds no credibility. Cite scientific sources.

6. And, you have been proven wrong on all counts. I linked you to a quick source listing the generations as shown in the biblical time line. Following that time line, even calculating in the ridiculous idea that people can live to be centuries old, the age of the earth, according to your precious scriptures, is app. 6,000 years old. Also, according to your scriptures, your Great Flood occurred at app. 2,200 BCE. We have writings from civilizations many millenia older. No one mentions so much as a prevailing damp.

 

[AxisMundi]

In addition, Bowman, another factor completely dismantles any idea of a flood, great or local.

No wooden ship, even Noah's biblical ark which far exceeds the structural capacity of wood, could carry food and fresh water for more than a year.

And that is even taking the Apologetic stance of "well, he only had to take his farm animals and family along".

 

[Bowman]

The Bible's creation story is not supported by science.

Yes, it is.

The Genesis account is very different from modern cosmological theory of how Earth formed in the accretion disc of Sol, a 3rd generation star.

The Holy Bible does indeed demonstrate earth formation via accretion, sister.

That is why our sun was created before 'day 1'.

The earth could not have formed without our sun first being in place.

You should have already known this.

The creation of life is different from any of the models for abiogenesis, which science supports.

Give us an example and scripture to compare.

The Bible fails to mention evolution so far as I can see, which science supports.

Evolution is merely change over time.

This also, you should already have known.

The Bible informs us that it is the property of all life to go extinct. When life goes extinct, God creates new life.

This is why all fossil evidence has fully formed life. One species did not 'evolve' into another.

Darwin is long dead and his incomplete, primitive theory no longer resembles what the man put forward after being in the hands of other scientists and superior data for decades. Darwin literally has almost nothing to do with modern biology other than getting the ball rolling.

It's too bad that that he seems to still have a loyal following....mainly from old school people...

Can you clarify what you mean by this sentence, anway? I don't recall seeing any journals or pop science magazines declaring evolution falsified -- in fact I keep seeing them trumpeting further evidence that evolution is indeed the best model for the origin of diversity of life.

Where have you been, sister?

Do you know what the main topic was at the recent 'origins of life' conference?

That's right....all these 'brillant' minded people have come to the conclusion that life could not have originated on earth!

I could have told them that...

Please re-read the most recent one: different dates arise from different assumptions about population models; but all of them trend towards 200,000 years ago within 10-20% (depending on pop. assumptions) in southeast Africa.

Already have, sister...

Wrong. Humans were inhabiting Africa before Mesopotamia and continued to inhabit Africa even up until modern times. Therefore, no amount of flooding in the Middle East could destroy all of humanity. I know (or hope) you aren't ignorant enough of archaeology to fail to realize that by far the most evidence for any model of human origins is from Africa -- modern humans' and other, earlier species of humans' migrations from Africa are pretty evident in the dating of fossils slowly spreading out from there.

Tell you what: give me a time frame in which you assert all human beings were in Mesopotamia and I'll provide you evidence of humans living elsewhere.

You would have to somehow get the rather large error bars down to even remotely convince anyone...

I understood the flood story as much as most Christians do (who believe it's telling of a literal world flood)... and as much as Christians have historically understood it.

I notice that you failed to answer my question of why God would write something in such a way that even 99% of His followers throughout history have gotten it wrong. Why would God do that? Is He fond of playing games?

How many Christians have actually studied the Hebrew in which it was written?

Not you, of course...

I've read the Bible -- this is the 3rd time I've told you -- so you can stop slapping me with this annoying ad hominem at any time. Seriously.

Reading it and studying it are two entirely different things, sister.

Further, its clear that you haven't even read it by your repeat '40day'40night' comments...lol...

If you assert that I haven't read the Bible because I interpreted the Flood as global then that's just asinine. Do you assert that historically nearly all Christians haven't read the Bible then since they interpreted it as global?

Then quote some scripture.

Simple.

The language is irrelevant if what it says is wrong. That was my point. There is no language on Earth that turns lies into truth just by saying it in that language.

And the meritless assertions keep right on flowing.