Leaderboard

But the most closely related story to that of the Biblical "Noah" (one that I would contend the Bible myth was derived from) "The Epic of Gilgamesh", names the hero "Ut-Napistem" (or something like that). I think the similar sounding names from the disparate cultures is simply a matter of cherry-picking on the part of the "researchers". Those with a doctrinal axe to grind are going to find evidence, even if none exists (the Kennedy Assassination is a textbook example of this phenomenon). You've got to wonder just how wonderful and loving a god can be that decides to mercilessly exterminate all the living things on earth, don't you? Yeah, I know, it was the only way. And if evidence for this dramatic event is what the faithful need in order to stay faithful, what about geological evidence? From what I understand there is ZERO evidence in the geologic record of a worldwide, cataclysmic flood of the magnitude described in The Bible. Let alone all the logistical problems (which are overwhelming in the utter, whacked-out extreme end of the scale). The fact that a wooden boat has not, and likely could not, be built in that size, the fact that with only eight people on board and MILLIONS of species to attend to, there's no farking way the animals would ever get fed (or their excrement cleaned up) on anything approaching a survivable timetable - even if the humans did NOTHING else (including sleep). And then the minor stuff like how do you keep the tigers from eating the springbucks, how do you get enough bamboo for Panda food, or how could they possibly secure enough clean water to keep everyone and everything clean and hydrated? And then how did all the fish and flora of the ocean survive the unbelievable change in salinity and pressure? How could the populations of any species survive with such a tiny reservoir of DNA? How could anything survive once leaving the ark, given that the earth has basically been sterilized and NO plants or animals (save what was on the ark) are out there to be eaten? And I've only touched on the insurmountable problems that such a feat would produce. Unless you invoke some sort of miraculous, divine intervention at every turn (at which point one would have to ask, what's the point of getting Noah and the gang involved at all?), it's utterly impossible to make the flood story work. And I haven't even mentioned the atmospheric pressure issues and a gazillion other things that simply would not have allowed such a thing to transpire. Of course, with God, all things are possible. If one really wants to believe The Bible (and for the life of me, I don't know why anyone would), wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just religate obvious fables such as this to the category of "Parable" or somesuch? I think that's what quite a few of the Jewish sects do. It seems like it would make Buhleeving a whole lot easier, without spending so much time plugging one's ears and going "la,la,la" when inconvenient facts or laws of physics are mentioned...

God first with love and a holy kiss Roy

I'm not sure where you were going with MLK's plagiarism- which appears to be documented, if worth discussing conerning ways and means. By quoting an article which lies about a sitting US President, however, you've undermined wherever you were going. You linked to here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/smartest_president_in_history.html Which includes the following bald-faced lie concerning our current President: "Obama is a man who accumulated academic credentials while giving no evidence whatsoever of achieving any depth. He was the only president of the Harvard Law Review to graduate without penning a signed article in that esteemed journal. His academic transcripts remain under lock and key, as do his academic papers." Besides saying "We haven't been able to look at his transcripts and his academic papers" (the last sentence) "but without looking at any of his academic history, we have concluded his academic credentials show no proof of depth" (the first sentence), which is obvious nonsense (how seriously do you take investigations that say "We have no evidence, so we have made up the following conclusions"?) It makes several claims: 1) Presidents of the Harvard Law Review pen signed articles. 2) Obama was an exception to the preceeding sentence. This is false on both counts. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/03/limbaugh-obama-law-articles/ The following was said by "Bradford Berenson — a lawyer who worked in the Bush White House and served with Obama on the Harvard Law Review", "As a 2L [second year law] student, Barack wrote the same amount as all of his 2L peers, although by policy of the Harvard Law Review, no student writing is signed or attributed to individual authors. As a 3L, it is true that he did not write, but that is because he was the President of the Review. Because the President does so much editing, including of all the major faculty articles, he is not expected to author original pieces himself and almost never does so." ===================== Wherever you were going, you didn't need to try to get there by getting into a faulty article about the current US President. (Unless you were deliberately attempting to take a shot at the current US President- in which case, you really should have done at least a minute's fact-checking like I did...it took seconds to correct this....)

how does FEEL TO BE ONE OF THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf2S7kKLtEQ