LittleNipper wrote:Here is what I see as your problem areas, starting from the bottom.
I don't really care what you think. You've shown many times over you have no competence at all when it comes to linguistics, etymology, exegesis, history, or archaeology.
LittleNipper wrote:How did the fossils fuels (found hundreds of feet below the level of the earths surface) originate?
Anaerobic decomposition of organisms.
LittleNipper wrote:How did they get submerged there if not the result of an oxygen depriving turbulent flood?
They weren't submerged. They're millions of years old, and millions of years of sediment have piled up on top of them. Plate tectonics is also responsible for certain stratigraphic changes. There is not a shred of evidence whatsoever for a widespread turbulent flood. The evidence absolutely unilaterally precludes such a ludicrous notion.
LittleNipper wrote:Coal and oil are mainly the end result of pressure and not oxidation.
Which is what happens when millions of years of sediment collect on top of you.
LittleNipper wrote:Plant and animal residue dissolves, is eaten, dries up and is blown away. It just doesn't remain In in one spot long enough to amount to anything ----------- UNLESS something special happens out of the mundane.
No, what happens is that sediment traps it between strata and it stays there.
LittleNipper wrote:Secondly, did you ever wonder why women were looked upon as a negative connotation?
Because ancient history is almost exclusively patriarchal.
LittleNipper wrote:Adam certainly blamed God for creating the woman. Why two trees and not 3?
Because the early writers chose two.
LittleNipper wrote:There were two trees in the Garden.
There are also two trees in my front yard. So what? None of this changes the fact that the sign means "forest" or "grove."
LittleNipper wrote:The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (which man was not to touch) and the Tree of Life (which man was driven out of the Garden so as to prevent eating of it, and remaining in an endless state of eternal worsening depravity).
Thirdly, the wheel is not something I considered, because unless the men, horses and chariots were submerged in heaps of mud ----- everything disappears ----- which again brings into question any thoughts that fossil fuels could come about by any means other than a gargantuan cataclysm, such as the Flood/asteroid strike.
You literally haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
LittleNipper wrote:And finally, concerning the boat, as the stereotypical conceptualization of the generic family is two great-grandparents, two grandparents, two parents, and two children. I thought that people once had large numbers of children, and that people died off at very young ages, and that there are parents for both the wife and the husband (the joining of two families). I just see your opinion is a "conceptualization" of how such a Character might have come to be,
No, it's not my opinion. That's a demonstrable fact. That's what the character is understood to represent.
LittleNipper wrote:and not the end all logical absolute. My educated guess is that the ones who came to a non-biblical opinion simply had no knowledge of the Bible or were looking to ignore it and sound more "conceptual."
No, you cannot make an educated guess here. You are not educated in any of these fields. You're just making ignorant assumptions that serve your dogmatism.
LittleNipper wrote:I find the Biblical "conceptualization" far more intriguing.
Of course you do. That doesn't make it any less ludicrous, though.
LittleNipper wrote:And since even linguists are now pretty certain that all language originated from one area,
Utter and complete nonsense. You cannot point to a single example of a publication within the field of linguistics that at all suggests such a ludicrous concept.
LittleNipper wrote:it is likely everyone shared many of the very same "folk" stories that they carried away with them to various parts of this planet.
What astonishingly mindless dogmatism. What grade are you in?