Did Noah's Flood Kill All Humans except his family?

[quote=“03Cobra, post:9, topic:42578”]

Didn’t Sir Leonard Woolley find a 12-foot deep layer of sediment while excavating Ur that he attributed to the local flood described in Genesis?

Yes sir, he certainly did that. But that layer, geologically was not wide spread. It didn’t even cover Ur which continued to exist

“Following its publication in 1929, his Ur of the Chaldees became the most widely read book on archaeology ever printed.”
However, subsequent trenching at Ur, in the neighboring tells that surround Ur, such as Abu Shahrain (biblical Eridu), and in those extending north to other equally ancient settlements, such as Tell el Oueli and Choga Mami, have invariably failed to encounter this same silt layer. After much probing by trench and drill to trace its extent investigators have determined that the surface area of the deposit was localized and perhaps only a single breach in a levee of the Euphrates River, forming what modern hydrologists call a 'paly deposit,'covering at most a few square miles of the lateral floodplain. No archaeologist today considers Woolley’s silt layer at Ur to be any more significant than a thousand other silt layers spewed from the two great rivers during and since the last ice age. None of these local floods apparently had more importance than any other in serving as a major divide in human settlement in Mesopotamia.” ~ William Ryan and Walter Pitman, Noah’s Flood, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998), p.55

Since Smith’s death, the search in Mesopotamia for the signs of a largescale catastrophe has suffered its ups and downs. A bright moment came in 1928 when Leonard Woolley chanced upon a thick layer of homogeneous silt in the ruins of Ur such as would have been laid down by an overbank spill of the nearby Euphrates River. Not long after, another deposit was uncovered upstream in the excavations of Shuruppak, the ancient city mentioned by the poet Sin-leqi-unninni in his Babylonian version of Gilgamesh. The reporting of these observations in the popular press stimulated the public’s imagination across Europe and North America until the much awaited confirmation failed to trace the deposits laterally for any substantial distance–indeed, even from trench to trench within a single archaeological site. Accordingly, the engaging idea that a single grand deluge had engulfed all of southern Mesopotamia fell from favor. What remained in its place, except for those who read the Bible as literally true, was the raw myth unpredictable, and sometimes devastating spring floodings of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers during the snowmelt in the Taurus Mountains, or to a figment of the human imagination distilled into a remarkably uniform account by the smoothing action of retelling by a hundred generations of guslars.” William Ryan and Walter Pitman, Noah’s Flood, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998), p. 247-248

Just so you will know that Ryan and Pitman are not alone in this belief, this is on the web:

"Woolley’s first test pit was very small, so during that and the next season he had dug a number of other test shafts, including an enormous pit, seventy-five feet by sixty feet and sixty-four feet deep. In this main pit, he encountered a deposit of clean, apparently water-laid soil up to eleven feet thick. Evidence of the Flood was absent from several shafts and uncertain or disturbed in a number of others. But in many, Woolley felt he had certain evidence of the Flood (1955).

Just slightly before Woolley’s initial discovery, S. Langdon and L. Watelin encountered smaller flood levels at Kish (Watelin, 1934). Although the Kish discovery actually predated Woolley’s find at Ur, Woolley published first (Woolley, 1929) and received the lion’s share of the initial publicity. Woolley, moreover, produced a highly successful popularization of his work in which the Flood finds were recounted in a manner that is at once simple, authoritative, and filled with references to familiar biblical materials (Woolley, 1929, 1954, 1982). The finds from Ur achieved and maintain a predominant place in the public mind.

Initially, some assumed with great eagerness that the flood levels at Ur and Kish were identical and provided marvelous evidence for a historical kernel of the Genesis Flood story (Peake, 1930), but the enthusiasm could not be maintained. The level of the great flood at Ur was sandwiched between remains of the Al Ubaid cultural phase, the last purely prehistoric period of southern Mesopotamia, and a layer of debris from the early Protoliterate period. The great Ur flood, thus, can be dated with a high degree of certainty to about 3500 BCE. Kish, however, produced evidence of two floods at the end of the Early Dynastic I and beginning of the Early Dynastic II periods, around 3000 to 2900 BCE, and a still more impressive flood dating to the Early Dynastic III period, around 2600 BCE. All three of the Kish floods were much later than the great flood at Ur. Watelin argued that the earliest of these three was the deluge of the Bible and cuneiform literature.

Within a few years, excavations of a third Mesopotamian site, Shuruppak, also uncovered a flood stratum (Schmidt, 1931). It is of particular interest because, according to the Mesopotamian legend, Shuruppak was the home of Ziusudra, the Sumerian Noah. (The Sumerian Ziusudra means “life of long days.” The Akkadian equivalent, Utnapishtim, is “he found life,” while the alternative Atra-hasis means “exceedingly wise.”) This flood level separated late Protoliterate and Early Dynastic I remains and dates from around 2950 to 2850 BCE. Perhaps, but not certainly, the Shuruppak flood may be equated with the earliest flood at Kish. No other Mesopotamian sites have produced flood remains of significance (Mallowan, 1964)" The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science Education

So, how did Woolley estimate the size of this ‘flood’? It wasn’t from actually digging trenches over the 400 miles long and 100 miles wide, it was from estimating how deep he thought the waters had to be to deposit 11 feet of shale–(which can be done slowly). Here is what Woolley said:

Both at Ur and on other Mesopotamian sites there has been found evidence of local and temporary water action occurring at various times in history; sometimes this was no more than the effect of rain in an enclosed area, and never is there anything approaching what we found in our ‘Floodpit’. There, it can safely be said, we have proof of inundation unparalleled in any later period of Mesopotamian history. We were lucky to find it at all because a flood does not of course, pile up silt everywhere–on the contrary, where the current is strongest it may have a scouring effect; the silt is deposited where the current is held up by some obstacle. to settle this point we dug a whole series of small shafts, covering a large area, in which the depth of the mud differed considerably, and thus were duly plotted it was clear hat the mud was heaped up against the north slope of the town mound which, rising above the plain broke the force of the floodwaters; on the plain east or west of the mound, we should probably have found nothing. Eleven feet of silt–the maximum–would probably mean a flood not less than twenty-five feet deep; in the flat low-lying land of Mesopotamia a flood of that depth would cover an area about three hundred miles long and a hundred miles across; the whole of the fertile land between the Elamite mountains and the high Syrian desert would disappear, every village would be destroyed and only a few of the old cities set high on their built-up mounds would survive the disaster. We know that Ur did survive; we have seen that villages such as al 'Ubaid and Rajeibeh were suddenly deserted and remained desolate for a long or forever.” Leonard Woolley, Excavations at Ur," Routledge, 2013) p 35

But as we know, subsequent investigation showed that the various layers of shale were different ages and it wasn’t one massive river flood. I made sure to say ‘river flood’ because one guy N. A. Morner says the clay layer was due to sea level rise which inundated areas east of Ur. I don’t know the truth as I just ran into Morner’s article so I will look at it tomorrow.

In any event, the Mesopotamian flood has no high mountains to cover, pushed any floating ark into the Indian ocean in about a week so what is this about landing on mountains in turkey? I know of no riverine flood that has lasted a year. And one could walk to the Zagros mountains in a day or two. Why build an ark?

1 Like

The Hebrew word often translated “mountains” can also be translated “hills,” and often it is.

The Hebrew word often translated “earth” can also be translated “land,” and often it is.

In a flat land, a hill of 10 cubits would be a high hill.

According to the NET Bible translator notes, the Hebrew text actually says the water rose 15 cubits and covered the high (hills or mountains, same word). The text does not actually say the water rose that far above the hills/mountains.

And, according to the NET Bible translator notes, the ark landed on the mountains/hills (plural) of Urartu. If the ark landed on multiple hills/mountains, then a mountain the size of the more recently named Mt. Ararat in Turkey does not fit the text.

A local flood in a flat land with a few hills fits the text better than a planetary flood.

Also, the bird returning with an olive branch (too soon after the flood for an olive tree to have grown) further indicates a local flood.

Note that the air that is forced up a slope by prevailing winds generates rain. Not the situation you are proposing.

Note that the air that is forced up a slope by prevailing winds does not always generate rain.

As the local weatherman just said “It takes more than warm moist air to generate rain. It takes a front or an upper level disturbance to trigger rain fall.”

BTW I am limited to my phone so it is difficult to reply in-depth right now. I think I did reply to your creative translation for headwaters.

[quote=“03Cobra, post:11, topic:42578”]

The Hebrew word often translated “mountains” can also be translated “hills,” and often it is.

Absolutely true. But southern Iraq around Ur it is flat like southern Louisiana. It is a swamp. There are no hills. And besides you igorre the fact that such a flood would wash the ark into the Indian Ocean, so what is the point of debating about hills that don’t exist in this area when everything else is wrong about the Mesopotamian flood?

The Hebrew word often translated “earth” can also be translated “land,” and often it is

I pointed this out in my opening post. I don’t understand the point. I never said it should be translated ‘earth’.

I don’t think so, not in this setting. All the southern Iraqis have to do is look east and they will see real mountains, the Zagros mountains. They would know the difference between a 10 cubit mole hill and a truly tall mountain. I don’t think they would be confused about it. But again, why are you ignoring the direction of water flow? That alone should disqualify the Mesopotamian flood.

The game seems to be, ignore the elephant on the table and argue nits that don’t matter.

Agreed, but the question is, how high is the mountain? that is the missing piece of data.

Again, you re imputing concepts I never said. Go read the opening post again and find me mentioning Mt. Ararat! that all the YECs want. To refresh your memory in Point 7 of the opening post I specifically said:

Why I am having to correct your misreading of what I wrote I don’t know. It would be nice if people would actually read and understand what was being said before they raise what they think is a killer argument. So many people make assumptions that I must believe what the YECs believe. I don’t.

this is funny, Moist air forced upslope by prevailing winds causes rain, but moist air forced up slope by water filling a basin underneath it has different physics? Sorry, that is ridiculous.

Never said it always did. Sheesh, again I am having to point out what I didn’t say.

I didn’t post what I did here about the Toodle’s river, until yesterday so no you haven’t replied to it.

I do feel for you being limited to a phone. I wold hate that. My big fingers can’t hardly type anything correctly on a phone (but then, it seems you cobra and everyone else thinks I can’t type anything that is correct, even with a keyboard. :grin:)

BTW, I might point you to page 164 of Vol 16, No 3 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. top link on this page. CRSQ 1970 to 1979

No one recalls this now, but I am proud of that article. It was my first YEC article and it was a calculation of the surface temperature of the earth under a 40 ft water vapor canopy. That idea had been popularized by Henry Morris. Jody Dillow had just gotten a TH. D from Dallas Seminary which was an examination of the vapor canopy idea. Jody said the earth would be 70 deg or so under that canopy. That was ridiculous and didn’t pass the smell test. So, on an old non-programmable Rockwell calculator I calculated pressures, and surface temperatures for such an atmosphere.

You, Bill, might look at the atmospheric physics presented there before again suggesting I don’t know the physics of atmospheres. I will admit to being rusty on the calculations presented in the paper, but not on the adiabatic lapse rate.

Why am I proud of that article? Well, Jody admitted his dissertation made a mathematical error. Creationists tried for a decade to prove me wrong and finally Kofahl wrote.

“Morton(1979) was apparently the first to conclude that the canopy would have made the earth’s surface too hot for human habitation (Kofahl did not calculate surface temperatures). Morton made a number of assumptions that greatly simplified the problem, and his surface temperatures are much higher than ours, but the general conclusion is the same: Life as we know it would not have been possible under a canopy of 1013 mb (1 atm), nor even with a canopy of only 50 mb. When other features such as clouds are added to the model, this conclusion could be modified greatly, however. Preliminary explorations with cloud layers at the top of the 50 mb canopy have shown significant radiation effects which lower the surface temperature drastically. Unfortunately, while the surface temperature decreases when clouds are added, so does the temperature of the canopy, reducing its stability.” ~ David E. Rush and Larry Vardiman, “Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy Radiative Temperature Profiles,” in Robert E. Walsh, and Christopher L. Brooks, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1990), p. 238

As I recall he repeated my calculations and found one of the values in one table in error. Other than that, using my assumptions he couldn’t find an error. It was my paper that did the vapor canopy idea in at least for another 10 years. I don’t know if they have revived it by now. From 1980 to 1990, I was called about every bad name possible by creationists for that article. Then they finally said I was correct.

I don’t mind being called stupid ignorant and a literalist Yahoo on this Mediterranean flood idea for 10 years. I know the data supports it. But sadly, I won’t last 10 years to see people view it more kindly.

Why wasn’t there a Rainbow in Noah’s Pre-Flood World?

Glenn R. Morton March 21, 2020

There are two statements that Biblical scholars don’t often connect and liberals dismiss as ridiculous. I believe the Bible is a record of God’s interaction with mankind. And I believe that it can be scientifically/historically true, but not with the normal approaches taken by Christians. I believe that the events of Genesis 2-9 took place on a land that no longer exists, and that explains why these verses have appeared so troubling. Let’s look at the verses.

When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens— 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground ," Gen 2:4-5

There was no rain on the land upon which God was about to place Adam, and this was a time before farming.

The second verse is Genesis 9:11

" I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.

I do not like the translator’s choice of ‘earth’ because ’ eretz means ‘land’, not ‘planet earth’. the land that was destroyed, therefore, could have been an area of earth that no longer exists, but actually did long ago, when man’s ancestors first appear in the geologic record. It was the Mediterranean desert.

But let’s look at the other flood theories to see if any of them can explain a land with no rain and no rainbow? The global flood idea has the entire world flooded. Because rainbows can be seen anywhere on earth’s surface today, including the driest area on earth, the Atacama desert, it is difficult to see how there would be no pre-flood rainbows.

Many global flood advocates say the rainbow was just given special significance, but to me that is like God saying to someone today, I make my covenant with you and I will set my grass upon the ground. It makes no sense because God didn’t do anything as part of the covenant.

The Mesopotamian flood is popular with many Christians who don’t believe in the global flood but want a real flood any way. The problem is, there is rain in Iraq and rainbows in the sky. So again, one must effectively have God take something that was already there and give it ‘significance’, but that isn’t very satisfying. Having God give significance to something already there doesn’t show his power to keep his part of the bargain.

The answer to this question lies in the idea that Eden existed in the Mediterranean Basin 5.3 myr ago. The details can be found in the here, but the world was different back then. The Mediterranean was cut off from the Atlantic ocean and it evaporated to 3 or 4 large lakes. So you will know this large desert is a mainstream idea, see Wiki and Wiki. The world looked like this:

Click to enlarge. Note that the Taurus mountains are the Mountains of Ararat. The four rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:8-14 are found flowing into the same region of this Mediterranean desert and what looked like a nutty geography to many Biblical scholars, like Ryle and Radday:

" For Ryle, ‘The account…is irreconcilable with scientific geography.’ Radday believed that Eden is nowhere because of its deliberately tongue-in-cheek fantastic geography ." John C. Munday, Jr., “Eden’s Geography Erodes Flood Geology,” Westminster Theological Journal, 58(1996), pp. 123-154,p.128-130

The above scenario, recognized by modern geology as real, says that those rivers once were together in the same area. Details here.

Would there have been rain in that 5 km deep, empty basin? Not likely. First, the Mediterranean waters were mostly gone and the brine lakes remaining probably had salt crusts limiting further evaporation (A. Debenedetti, Marine Geology, 49,1982, p. 94.). For this post I am adding a picture of a relatively thick salt crust over water in the Salt Lake area.

There is river water pouring into the basin but, even today it is not enough to keep the Med filled with water. It is truly a small amount of water in the grand scheme of things.

Secondly, the Mediterranean is located in the Horse Latitudes. Of them, it is written:

" Horse latitudes, subtropical ridges or subtropical highs are the subtropical latitudes between 30 and 35 degrees both north and south where Earth’s atmosphere is dominated by the subtropical high, an area of high pressure, which suppresses precipitation and cloud formation , and has variable winds mixed with calm winds. " Horse latitudes - Wikipedia

You can see the 30 deg line along the coast of Egypt.

Thirdly, there is a very sharp rain shadow in all directions. The yellow lines on Mediterranean map above are the mountain ranges that cause a rain shadow.

From Wiki:

"A rain shadow is a dry area on the leeward side of a mountainous area (away from the wind). The mountains block the passage of rain-producing weather systems and cast a “shadow” of dryness behind them. Wind and moist air are drawn by the prevailing winds towards the top of the mountains, where it condenses and precipitates before it crosses the top. The air, without much moisture left, advances across the mountains creating a drier side called the "rain shadow “.” Rain shadow - Wikipedia

In addition as the air flows down into the basin the relative humidity of that air drops, making rain even less likely. Britannica says of the descending air mass:

" As it descends on the downwind side of the range, it warms again and its relative humidity is further reduced. This reduction in relative humidity not only prevents further rainfall, but also causes the air mass to absorb moisture from other sources, drying the climate on the downwind side. The ultimate result is lush forest on the windward side of a mountain separated by the summit from an arid environment on the downwind side. " Rain Shadow | Encyclopedia.com

I am adding this which isn’t in my blog post. As a reminder of what a rain shadow is, here it is in simple pictorial form.

If you look at where the region I say was Eden was, it is in the rain shadow of the Turkish, Roumanian, and Alps mountains. Any moisture laden front coming due east from the Atlantic, first has to drop rain on Spain, then again it would lose moisture at Sardina and then Italy and then Greece, which when the Med was dry was a high mountain. I have marked the mountains in red.


As the air descended 5 km down into the Mediterranean basin, the relative humidity would seriously drop, more so than anywhere today on the present earth. Rain would almost be impossible in such a basin.

No rain, no rainbow.

As for your view that the flood would have washed the ark into the Indian Ocean, that is just one more item that shows the story is not literal history.

I think you misunderstood my point about the water rising 15 cubits. The text doesn’t say the water rose 15 cubits above the top of the hills/mountains. It says the water rose 15 cubits and cover the high hills.

With so many inconsistencies in the story, why do you think people try to make it literal history?

[quote=“03Cobra, post:16, topic:42578, full:true”]

As for your view that the flood would have washed the ark into the Indian Ocean, that is just one more item that shows the story is not literal history.

Cobra,what you wrote is unclear. It is only the Mesopotamian flood that would wash the ark into the Indian ocean. The Mediterranean flood would land the ark somewhere in the eastern part of the Med. Bible says mountains of ararat, Well, that is Turkey and I see that as good as any other place to land the ark.

To be perfectly clear, when the Mediterranean was dry, there was no water pathway from the Med to the Indian Ocean.

I think you misunderstood my point about the water rising 15 cubits. The text doesn’t say the water rose 15 cubits above the top of the hills/mountains. It says the water rose 15 cubits and cover the high hills.

Yes, I did misunderstand you. Hebrew has no punctuation so the sentences are somewhat up to the person. One could, I guess read it the way you do–but I think the artificial verse division is not letting you see an equally good option. Consider this Ge 7:19–20:New American Standard:

The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the
high mountains everywhere under the heavens were
covered; the water prevailed fifteen cubits higher

if this is the sense of the passage, then the ark privaled 15 cubits higher. Some suggest that this was the draft of the ark. If it hadn’t prevailed 15 cubits higher it would have grounded on something. Then the next sentence.
“And the mountains were covered”.

Most translations make each sentence an independent clause, but the NIV translates it the way I have advocated:

They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet

With so many inconsistencies in the story, why do you think people try to make it literal history?

Your whole note seems to have taken my criticisms of the Mesopotamian flood as if they applied to my Mediterranean flood. Please tell me the inconsistencies in the Mediterranean flood. None of what you have said is an inconsistency for my view. Both views start with an 'M" but that doesn’t mean they are the same.

For Pevaquark, I would be interested if he would agree that the breach in the dam at Gibraltar, which resulted in a massive influx of Atlantic water into the Med could be described as the fountains of the deep breaking forth? The water was moving at 223 mph or more.

For cobra, of the shale layer at Ur, here is what that paper I found last night says:

"At around 5000 years BP sea level peaked in the Persian Gulf region at a level of +0.3 m as now determined in Qatar. This coincides with the famous flooding of the ancient city of Ur, originally interpreted as due to local changes in the fluvial system. We can now propose that, in fact, it was the sea level rise that triggered the fluvial reorganization and rise in ground water level that ultimately led to “the flooding of Ur”. Nils-Axel Morner, “The Flooding of Mesopotamia in New Perspective.” Archaeological Discovery, 2015, 3, 26-31, p. 26

By the field studies in Qatar, we have now fixed the regional maximum Holocene sea level in elevation (+0.3 m) and age (~5000 BP), and found that this event is likely to have driven the classical flooding of the ancient city of Ur.” Nils-Axel Morner, “The Flooding of Mesopotamia in New Perspective.” Archaeological Discovery, 2015, 3, 26-31, p. 30

But note, this criticism of the Mesopotamian flood has nothing to do with the Mediterranean flood concept.

I was describing what the translator’s notes of the NET Bible said about the Hebrew text. There were five Hebrew scholars who translated the Torah.

I have listed several in earlier posts.

They include the landing of the ark on the hills (plural) of Urartu.

As for the Med being empty, that appears to have changed long before modern man existed.

I guess I am confused about what the quote actually was. But, we have probably covered the issues on the Mesopotamian flood. Do you have any problem with the science of the Mediterranean flood?

Did Noah’s Flood Kill All human except his family?

Depends on how you define “humans.”

If human beings are just a biological species then I would say that this is impossible and does not agree with the genetic data.

But if human beings are more than just a biological species, as I believe, and have an entirely different inheritance of the mind as well, then it is entirely possible, as I think is the case, that the flood did kill all human beings except Noah’s family.

This is exactly what is suggested by the Bible with its indication that there are more people on the Earth than Adam and Eve and with the talk in Genesis 6 of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men.

Of course if people want to INSIST that human beings are just ANIMALS and all about having the right genetic code such as that of white anglo saxon bigots then people CAN try to hide from the genetic data by pushing Adam and Eve along with the relationship with God into near insignificance by giving a date to the flood which is millions of years older. Then people can look down their nose at not only other races but upon all of human civilization in general as having nothing of value to God whatsoever, who would much prefer a human beings as mindless animals obedient to a divine zoo trainer with no knowledge of anything at all let alone imagining that they have any comprehension of what is good or evil. I guess that might work but I would stay far far far away from any Xtianity like that.

If you say man=homo sapiens, then yes, that was gone before H. sapiens was here. Having spent 10 years reading 500 anthro books and 3000 or so anthro articles, I am of the opinion that human consciousness existed long before H. sapiens arrived on earth. Neanderthals most certainlly had human style consciousness as did the Denosovians, and I also believe H. erectus.

As I pointed out, evidence of religion exists in H. erectus which means, they were spiritual. I find it very hard to exclude them from God’s plan. I know pain in childbirth existed 2.4 myr ago, so H. habilis was post curse. I also know that both Adam’s and Eve’s curse involved them having bigger heads. And I find the Adam and Eve was really a Village to be a major re-write of Christian theology

As I said earlier, what you listed applies to Mesopotamia not my view.

The thing I find problematical about the liberal christian approach (defined in reply to Pevaquark), is that if someone doesn’t think something is real, they just make it mean something other than what the words obviously mean. Why not just rewrite the Bible to your . satisfaction and approval. Start by ditching Genesis 1 and writing about the Big bang, evolution of life, then ditching the embarrassing Eden part and talk about the evolution of morality, and then ditching the flood by just saying nothing of the sort happened? To me, that would be a more forthright approach to changing what the Bible means. At least no one is hiding that they are totally changing what Scripture says. Amazingly no one wants to do that.

I compare that to my advice to YECs. They should merely say the flood was a total miracle, the fossil record was a total miracle and no one can dispute them. But they too won’t do what is necessary to become logically consistent.

Apparently that would be all the scientists and people with the arrogance to get a university education and thus think they might know better than those who have real knowledge directly from God.

Mitch, another amazing agreement between us. I am certainly not one who has ever defined man as an animal.

First off, I think I am offended by this. Adam and Eve are everyone’s parents and there is nothing to that Japheth, ham and shem racist stuff, I don’t hold to that. Maybe you should ask what people believe before you rip off and condemn them for what they don’t beleive.

I haven’t looked down my nose at any ethnic group and you know nothing about my family. My grandkids are a mix of Arab, European, Spanish, Native American, Chinese, other East Asians, African and Jewish. So please cease your look down the nose attitude towards me You are picking on the wrong person.

If it doesn’t apply to you then you have no reason to be offended.

Doesn’t change my principle objection which has always been that pushing Adam and Eve back millions of years makes the relationship with God from Adam and Eve insignificant to human civilization. …and thus by implication that civilization itself is of little significance to God either.

Mitch start your own thread on this kind of snobbery. It doesn’t belong here. Frankly some of the smartest people I know of didn’t have a college education–Lets see, Michael Dell? Bill Gates?

I don’t think Adam and Eve were involved in our civilization observational data says the curses were long long before the Neolothic, but I guess data doesn’t matter to you

Mitch when you reply to me with that kind of trash talk, I have to think it is intended for me. YOu are, after all, REPLYING TO ME!!!

I have no problem with the fact that the Mediterranean was flooded millions of years ago, or that when it rose high enough it flooded the Black Lake to create the Black Sea.

Trying to turn Genesis 6-9 into literal history is quite problematic.