[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I think God speaks Hebrew.
Wouldn't an omniscient God understand ALL languages? Or are you asserting that Hebrew is the native language of God and that is what He speaks while relaxing in Heaven? Geez, and you accuse nontheists of limiting God!
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]WHY? It is a perfect language, it is both numerical and phonetic.
Please explain to me what you mean by "perfect language". What makes this language "perfect", moreso than any other?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]You cant blaspheme God in this language. It is a very rich language as well.
Again, what do you mean by this. How can you not blaspheme God in Hebrew?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Getting back the "creation" side of things, I found an interesting article talking about dinosaurs and ill paste a snippet here.
http://www.rense.com/general57/part.htm heres the link to the article
LOL. Ok, hang on. Most people here get outraged when I link to so called "athiest" sites because they automatically assume that it's bias. Which, incidentally, is an uneducated response since infidels.org carries quite a few theistic writings. Anywho, if we follow that logic, how much credit do you expect me to put into this article that is hosted on a website that also includes articles on George Bush's bisexuality, UFO sightings, 9/11 "codes" and numerous world conspiracies?
You might also want to keep in mind that the author of the article, John Highfield also wrote, "The science of Harry Potter: how magic really works." (Science journalist Roger Highfield illustrates how magic and science are intertwined in the Harry Potter books. He delves into the archaeology of witchcraft, speculates on the connection between hallucinogens and flying broomsticks, and shows how potions and charms are grounded in the science of ethnobotany.)
You're not wowing me with credibility here.
I'm not exactly sure how you culled the existence of a global Flood out of that article either. The article was written to show that dinosaurs exhibited "motherly love" for their infants, as you said, not to exhibit evidence for Noah and the Flood.
In the future, you may want to check your sources a bit more thoroughly.
The article says, "that the nest
could have been enveloped in a Pompeii-like cloud of suffocating gas and dust from a volcanic eruption, been trapped in an underground burrow that collapsed or been hit by sudden, dramatic flooding." That means the nest COULD have been suspect to these three things, AS WELL AS OTHERS. How you are pulling this into corroborating the flood in Genesis is far beyond my comprehension, so an explanation would be appreciated. A sudden, dramatic flooding happens all the time, watch the news. The author didn't say that this was a part of a GLOBAL FLOOD. That is a HUGE chasm your logic is jumping, it just doesn't make sense.
Oh, and your definition of the flood in Genesis, "It was a violent eruption with the earth splitting open and geysers of water spewing out rock and steaming hot water up into the atmosphere.", well I don't seem to remember this description in the Bible. Or is this just an assumption on your part? And yes, I would love to see a detailed description of how you corroborate this into the Bible.
Keep one thing in mind when you discuss the ocean floor in relation to the flood. This comes from Dave Matsen, "A second problem involves the thickness of sedimentary rock on the ocean floor as well as missing flood layers. Let us start with Dr. Hovind's assumption that the earth was relatively flat during the flood and that the excess water was drawn off into deepening ocean basins, even as the continental regions rose up. Former ocean areas and former land areas would have received approximately the same amount of sediment during a worldwide flood which reworked the earth's original outer crust to a great depth. After all, the low hills and flat lands of Dr. Hovind's antediluvian world are not going to provide more than a fraction of the sediment generated. Thus, even if that sediment were not transported to nearby ocean areas, an extremely unlikely possibility given the assumed violence of the flood, the sediments would still be distributed about equally over former ocean and land areas. Right?
Such would be the condition after the sediment first settled out. The excess water, now rushing off the rising continental areas, would wash vast amounts of sediment into the new ocean basins. Thus, today's ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sedimentary rock than the continental areas. In addition, the first flood strata laid down on the new ocean floors should match the first flood strata laid down on today's continental areas, especially in areas adjoining the border between the two zones.
Why are the sedimentary rocks generally thinner on the ocean floor than in continental regions? Why are the sedimentary rocks of the Pacific and Atlantic sea floors no older than the late Jurassic? What happened to the Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous, and the Permian strata? Funny, that Noah's flood should deposit all those strata in many, many places while systematically missing vast areas that were to become today's ocean floors!"