Proof? I'm almost sort of a little disappointed to let you down and give you some proof.

Mind you the link leads (and is just here) so that you know that I'm not making it up. and really, if they can get up there that would use had to have been allot of water that couldn't just be secluded to a local flood.

Proof? I'm almost sort of a little disappointed to let you down and give you some proof.

I'm excited, I like learning new things.

Mind you the link leads (and is just here) so that you know that I'm not making it up. and really, if they can get up there that would use had to have been allot of water that couldn't just be secluded to a local flood.

And now I'm disappointed.  Did you even read that, or look it up at all?

Google is your friend. Just do a simple google search and find that nobody is asking is it actually true because it's established as a fact.

*Also, I looked that up specifically I didn't do any over search that led to that.

Google is your friend. Just do a simple google search and find that nobody is asking is it actually true because it's established as a fact.

Google is your friend too.  If you used it you wouldn't be using that as evidence for anything.

The definition of species is still very much debated on about, besides taxonimical units like genus and family are hardly even used anymore; we just speak of taxa for each group, because one genus might not necessarily be taxonomically homogenous with others. So debating using such arguments is a bit nonsensical...

Besides, even if one would reduce the amounts of "kinds" of animals to the apparently biblical idea (which sounds more like a defensive "But!" to me), the amount of individuals one would have to take on board just to make sure the species could survive at all, would be too **** high even for the biggest boat (taking into account genetics, incest, bottlenecks, plus all the food needed etc. etc.).

Lastly, the marine ecosystems can be very sensible; disregarding the fact that the mix of fresh water and salty water would kill most freshwater species, the raise in water height would have killed ALL of the corals due to lack of sunlight, and all the animals dependent on corals too. Lastly all oceanic streams would have been completely thrown off balance which would certainly not have been without effect, e.g. nutricients might not have been able to reach the surface anymore (no coastline, duh!).

I'm sorry, you can argue as much as you want, the story of Noahs ark cannot be true. Extended floods certainly happened, but they certainly were accompagnied with the necessary consequences.

But what am I telling, you're not even arguing. You're copy-pasting and then copy-paste more completely ignoring any counterpoint, so that I've written my post completely in vain, YEY!

homogenous

*homologous. Small detail, but details are important especially considering correct terminology.

Adding on to the extensive list of how Noah's Ark is simply false, the amount of water that would be needed to cover the entire world would be many times the amount of water on the planet. Also, it would all have to be in the atmosphere for it to rain that much, and it would have to come down at a rate many, many, many times greater than even the most severe hurricane rainstorms, all over the planet at once.

Mind you the link leads (and is just here) so that you know that I'm not making it up. and really, if they can get up there that would use had to have been allot of water that couldn't just be secluded to a local flood.

Seriously? A yahoo or w/e question, in which the user likes the Noah's Flood answer best, is your "proof?" It's explained in the very first post below that.

Google is your friend. Just do a simple google search and find that nobody is asking is it actually true because it's established as a fact.

Humor us and give us an actual article that proves Noah's flood. Stop just groundlessly claiming that there's evidence and that we can find it and just give it to us.

Want an example of what you're doing?

Person 1: Aliens exist.
Person 2: I don't think they do.
Person 1: The evidence is everywhere man.
Person 2: What evidence is that?
Person 1: It's everywhere, just look for it.
Person 2: But what is it?
Person 1: Look, I don't need to tell you, just look for it. Aliens are fact.
Person 2: If there's evidence, why can't you just tell me what it is?
Person 1: I'm done with this conversation.

^Is what happens EVERY time I ask proof for religious claims, except not with aliens.

Keep saying that it's stupid as they keep finding evidence for the flood.

*A flood. Floods are not all that uncommon of natural events by any means.

Super-evolution? You mean selective breeding?

Hard to tell, since the term "kind" is so vague it could mean anything from hundreds of animals to tens of thousands.

Google is your friend. Just do a simple google search and find that nobody is asking is it actually true because it's established as a fact.

I'll test this, actually, let's see what comes up shall we?

Search phrase, "Noah's flood proof."

Article 1

Person claims to have found what they think is the Ark, but was not a world wide flood and was only local.

Not proof for a global flood.

Creationist site

Basically pseudo-logicing that because the first article I linked said it was a local flood it can't be Noah's Ark, gets some scientific things wrong and then dismisses the whole thing because it didn't exactly follow scripture.

Not proof for a global flood.

Article 2

Article about stuff found in shipwrecks in the Black Sea...

Not proof for a global flood.

Creationist site 2

Gets a butt load of scientific things wrong and makes groundless assumptions about what certain finds mean.

Not proof for a global flood.

Article 3

National Geographic article about how the biblical flood was most likely not global.

Not proof for a global flood.

Tell me, how far are we supposed to look to find proof, since it's supposed to be everywhere like you say? All I can find is a bunch of articles either trying to rationalize it, or articles that don't understand what science is, how it works, and what it claims.

And most of it is about judism.
The real bible is about the story of the hebrews, there story and origins. It has a full book full with rules, who apwarently got dissmised by jesus, exept some others. Being Gay is still wrong, but eating pig is ok. Counting the days from the  "creation of earth" is not relevant, but from the birth of jesus is ok.

I just hate when christians use the bible (the jewish bible) as proof for jesus being real. They just pick what they like and drop what will make it harder to make new belivers.