Florida and the E-Word

This argument must be laid to rest along with all other forms of religious intervention in the education of children.
There is nothing wrong with being religious; I just don’t want any religious zealot who incapable of evaluating evidence relying on divine intervention for things they cannot understand.
The theory of evolution is just that – a theory but the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is true. There is no rational basis for creationism – it requires faith or in other words; “a belief in the supernatural”.
People who would argue this point should really consider Russell’s Teapot conjecture. That may require more mental maturity than many in the creationist wing can handle though.

Florida is the ‘new’ Kansas.

jock59801
Go back and read the posts that followed yours over the last few days and I think you will know.

arthall33
Parents can and do make these decisions, and if they feel that their children should not be exposed to science then send them to a private school. Public schools have a responsibility to educate our children with the latest available knowledge and their failure to do so has degenerated the U.S. from a world leader in science to a 4th rate also ran. The majority of us want what is best for our children as I must assume you do because of your concern. To not teach them as best we can in the available knowledge is to harm the child. Public schooling is poor enough without making it worse by denying them the same information available to the rest of the planet.
I suggest that, instead, you supplement their education at home as I have. Not undermining what the school teaches but explaining how it fits in. Our knowledge of science is far from perfect, but a working knowledge is required in the real world.

Taxpayer schools should not be teaching imagination as fact. Theory (or “evolution”) is imagination. It is not fact. It is not fact because it changes so much for one thing. It is not fact because there is evidence to the contrary. Teachers should be able to understand that if a historical record describes dinosaurs in detail, it is evidence that dinosaurs lived together with man. There is no way that we can have a description of a dinosaur if they were not living at the same time as man. This is proof beyond a doubt that dinosaurs were living as little as 5,000 (five thousand) years ago. If you want to teach something that is true, teach the knowledge of the nature of dinosaurs as described in the Bible. The Bible even speaks of people who professing (Professors professing) to be wise, they became fools. The last thing that we need is tax supported idiocy!

Why are we blaming schools for teaching theories? It’s not their job to teach religion. If parents were responsible, they wouldn’t rely on the school system to teach kids religious values anyway. It makes me sick just to think about that. That’s the parent’s job.
Let them teach theories so your kids can learn different points of view. Then teach them religion.

Whenever I hear someone say “evolution is a theory not fact” it is like a big red flag that says, “I don’t know what science is.”
Evolution will never be a fact. It is a theory that unites literally thousands if not millions of facts. When a scientific theory has so many facts under it, knocking down one, two, or even a handful, doesn’t diminish the theory by all that much.

How embarassing to be living in such an ignorant state. I can’t wait to leave this backwater.

Oh, and P.S.
Ned, you sure know how to pick them. I enjoy all your postings. Keep up the good work.

Daleri
Re: “People are willingly ignorant!”
Finally an admission of truth!

ALL:
If we were created in gods image we would all be perfect in every way. Fact is we are all imperfect in every way, some worse than others.

fatesrider
Re: “WHY it happens is where the theory lies,”
It’s gonna come back and bite you.
>>WHY it happens is where the theory is pertinant,<>…theory applies<< would have been a better choice of words.
This mindset takes EVERY WORD at face value regardless of connotation.
Good Luck

Daleri: Are you familiar with the word “fiction?” Writing something down doesn’t make it a fact.
I read the Taylor County resolution this morning. Good grief, they don’t know the difference between evolution and the big bang. Their school board needs to go back to school.

There’s another aspect to all this. That is that this country is now home to many more philosophies than just the Judeo-Christian philosophy. We have so many different religions represented in this nation that it’s ludicrous to teach only a single representation of Why Things Are The Way They Are. Even as a card-carrying atheist I can see that it’s truly necessary to separate church and state. As our nation grows in population and diversity, it also needs to grow up and understand that the Christian philosophy isn’t the only fish in the sea.

Daleri – Maybe there were fire-breathing dragons. Maybe there weren’t. But your point was that these vague descriptions were DEFINITELY dinosaurs, which proved that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, which somehow “proved” that evolution was false. I was just pointing out that such logic was obviously silly.

Dr. Carl Baugh has proven that man walked with the dinosaurs. Their footprints are on the same strata. The geologic column is a fraud as many petrified trees are found vertical penetrating so called millions of years of strata. Evolution is proven to be incorrect but still being an open minded person, I don’t mind if it is taught as a theory. Religious fanatics on the other hand can’t stand it if Creation is taught as well. Who then is the religious nut cases? Christians or Evolutionists?

DR – I love it! You claim that someone proved that man walked with dinosaurs because their footprints are on the same strata (although pictures of this are mysteriously unavailable), and then you claim that geological strata are a fraud! Well, which is it?

Dr.: “nothing more than theory” tells us that you’re unfamiliar with the meaning of the word “theory” when used in a scientific context. I’m well acquainted with science. You, however, obviously are not. As for your “sidebar” about putting people to death – huh? Where the heck is THAT coming from?

It is obvious that you do not understand what a theory is. The Theory of Evolution is just that: a theory; neither proven nor disproved, There exists a great body of factual evidence to support the validity of the theory and much of practical benefit has ensued. However, like a lot of other theories that have major practical use it has not yet become a fact in its own right.
The debate – if it may be called that – exists because some people are unwilling or incapable of thinking for themselves. These people are either lazy or dumb and quite willing to be led by the priests and shamans of the world each exercising a personal agenda involving money and power. They are scared by and of the truth – whatever it may be.

LOL … we really need to find a way to accelerate evolution. How do religuos people get up in the morning??

Dr wrote: ” I said that the geologic COLUMN is a fraud as the strata presupposed to have taken millions of years to deposit are indeed proved to have been deposited in a matter of hours as the upright fossilized trees prove.”
Nonsense. The upright fossilized trees are invariable found in areas that are known to have formed from swamps which clearly deposit sediment much faster than other places.
“This is the problem with evolutionary religious zealots… nothing that is said in contradiction is considered seriously it is only held up to mockery.”
Pot calling the kettle black. Your “vertical trees” argument was shot down years ago yet here you are continuing to repeat it.
The “creationist museum” is the true joke. Darn near every “evidence” they present boils down to “because we say so”.

“..You obviously did not look at it, or the evidence… I am not surprised…”
I read it in great detail. YOU are the one who obviously glossed over everything because they were saying what you wanted to hear. Just like you glossed over the utter demolition of the old geological column argument that has been around for years but which you were mindlessly repeating today.
Name ONE piece of evidence from said museum that is NOT “because our side say so”
“The basic argument stands that if one is a true scientist one cannot state a theory as fact without being a scientific prostitute.”
Again, another “because I say so” argument. Evolution is both a theory AND a fact. Natural selection has been OBSERVED. That makes it a fact.

OK, I take it back. Not “all” of the museum’s “evidence” is “because we say so”. A significant amount of it is appeal to ignorance fallacies (in other words, “we don’t know either way, therefore creationists win”).

Creationism isn’t science, it’s religion, no matter how you spin it. There is NO evidence that a supernatural being created the universe and no evidence that a supernatural being created life – on this planet or on any other. Do you holler just as loud about gravitationists or relativists?
As for the “evidence” from the creationist “museum”:
“The Burdick Print (or Burdick Track) is claimed by some creationists to be a “giant man track” from Glen Rose, Texas. However, it is one of several prints on loose blocks of rock which show strong evidence of a carved origin, and is acknowledged by Glen Rose residents to be one of the carvings made by George Adams in the 1930′s. It shows serious anatomic errors as well as subsurface features which truncate at the print’s surface, confirming it’s carved origin. Furthermore, the orientation of algal fossils in the rock suggests that the original “up” direction was the side opposite the alleged footprint. In other words, evidently the carver unwittingly created the print on what was originally the bottom side of the rock.”
This was proven to be false nearly 80 years ago, yet this place is still passing it off as legitimate. This guy probably moonlighted making Bigfoot tracks. But how nice of them to offer replicas for sale – along with replicas of every other phony piece of evidence.

“Evolutionary Theory” is an enormous collection of scientitific facts united by well-tested biological mechanisms. Evolution itself has been observed many times in the modern world, and its trail of evidence in the fossil record is both profuse and obvious. If anyone wants to understand the science of evolution, you may want to start with the National Academy of Sciences report that Ned pointed out to us last week: http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2008/01/evolution-overw.html

… and the descriptions of the dinosaurs in the Bible are not vague at all. Read them for yourself. They are very descriptive.

Correction: What actually happens is this: Secretory cells produce a mixture of hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals), which collects in a reservoir. To produce the blast, the beetle releases some of this mixture into a reaction chamber, where catalases and peroxidases (peroxides?) cause the mixture to oxidize in chemical reactions that generate enough heat to vaporize about a fifth of the mixture. The pressure of the released gasses causes the heated mixture to be expelled explosively from the beetle’s abdomen. … — That is what is going on from an unbeliever’s point of view. There are still mini explosions going on that can severely injure the beetle’s attacker.

Daleri: I had never heard of this insect before – very interesting. Why is this evidence of a supernatural being, or a fire-breathing dragon? There are also “accounts” of unicorns, mermaids, elves, fairies, trolls, and leprechauns. Do you believe they also existed?
The bible is scientifically unverifiable. A scientific theory must be able to be challenged. Someone who simply says “it’s true because I know it’s true” is not talking about a scientific theory, but rather a religious belief.
I believe your friend was mistaken, as was my friend who insisted the lizard in her back yard was a gecko, despite the fact that she described a green anole to me.

… and the descriptions of the dinosaurs in the Bible are not vague at all. Read them for yourself. They are very descriptive.
Daleri: I’ve read them. the descriptions are nothing that couldn’t have been inferred from bones or fossils. And the accounts are certainly more exciting than “we found some big bones and didn’t know what they came from.”

Dr.
I strongly feel that you are not aware of the difference between Hypothesis, Theory, Law and Fact. This discussion has carried over from prior posts in Evolution: the Pushback” and in Evolution: “Overwhelming and Compelling” (links at top left of this page) I suggest that you read the posts in these two blogs so we don’t have to repeat ourselves.

I don’t think that even Jesus would forgive some of the incredibly stupid anti-evolutionists on this forum. I have a feeling that there will be tomatoes thrown at you from inside the gates of heaven from God himself, who developed an amazing and delecate process by which things evolve. Ignoring His work is to ignore His grace.—- DUH.

Christian faith relies on 2000 year-old documents believed to be true. Let’s not forget that people have been tortured and/or expelled from the church for telling that the earth is not flat or that it revolves around the sun. Most rules of any faith reflect the knowledge of their time.

Eurotrash
Now THAT is a truely frightening thought.

Wait a minute. “coelacanth was supposed to be dead may millions of years ago until it was found to be a living fish” Millions of years? So you acknowledge that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

The Bible speaks of physical things together with their spiritual implications. It cannot be understood without the spiritual implications. For that we need the Holy Spirit to teach us all things. If you read the account carefully, it says later on that the plants had not yet sprouted.
What do we call a browser? We call it a window through which we access the internt. What is so wrong with saying the windows (or the clear shields) of heaven were opened?
Why do you insist on knocking the Bible when you can’t even explain how dinosaurs got there???!!!

Daleri
Issues without proofs are actually non-issues. Science offers proofs but some simply refuse to accept them. I for one, have taken a careful look at these proofs of creationism and have actually seen no proof at all, only misconceptions, falsehoods and forgeries. I also look at the evidence from science and while I do see mis-interpretations and occasionally a falsehood I also see scientific rebuttal and corrections. THAT is why the term “Theory of Evolution” is used. That evolution happens was proven by Darwin using observation and logic, albeit their are some errors in his works due to a lack of technology. The theory is all about HOW evolution occurs, not IF. And theories evolve as more is discovered, dogmatic faith can not evolve, it is anchored in thousands of years of ignorance. This is why Catholics and many other christian faiths have accepted evolution, they recognize that the reason that evolution is not part of scripture is because it was beyond the scope of the early authors of said scripture as well as the recipiants of said scripture.

Correction – “albeit their” was meant to be “albeit there”. Sorry.

How could the dinosaurs have been extinct if they were seen and described in detail no more than 5000 years ago???!!!

Your descriptions of dinosaurs are not nearly as descriptive as those of the Bible because none of you have ever described any of their nature (the way they are and the way they act.) You can’t do that with bones. The Bible can and did because they were living dinosaurs that were being described! If you are not willing to accept it, there is nothing that I can do for you because it is fact that is as clear as day.

Ed, we cannot have a discussion if you do not respond to the issue of the nature of the dinosaurs that were described. The nature is not only what they looked like but how they acted. This is impossible without having a living dinosaur. You are not being very scientific. You cannot respond to it because you have nothing to say and that is how much say you should have in our taxpayer supported schools.

If you want specifics on the nature of dinosaurs you need to be specific. There were many different types and many different natures (different types of dinosaurs acted in different ways).
Which one{s) would you like to know about?

Ed, we cannot have a discussion if you do not respond to the issue of the nature of the dinosaurs that were described. The nature is not only what they looked like but how they acted. This is impossible without having a living dinosaur. You are not being very scientific. You cannot respond to it because you have nothing to say and that is how much say you should have in our taxpayer supported schools.
Daleri: Of course it’s possible to determine how dinosaurs acted without having a living dinosaur. Have you ever looked at the teeth of a lion, and the teeth of a giraffe? Are you able to determine which teeth would be likely to cut meat, and which is likely to grind grass? With the appropriate analysis, scientists can determine what kind of food was eaten, how long the animal lived, whether it walked on four legs or two, crawled, flew, or galloped. this is what scientific research is about.

Re: “Ed, you are still avoiding the issue but in response to your issues, God gave over 600 commandments”
Now it’s your turn. State one single pieces of evidence that this is true that is NOT in the old testament.

Well, Ed, it took you 2 days to get a good fight going but I see you managed!
It has never been my intention in these discussions to question anyone’s beliefs, call them stupid, or even convince anyone to change their mind. My goal is simply to let the open-minded know that there is a rational method to science and that this method has uncovered a great deal of “Overwhelming and Compelling” evidence for biological evolution. A lot of people don’t know this because they have been told otherwise by people they trust. That’s understandable. These things can be corrected – no need for anyone to shout or get upset.

jock59801
Oh and if you only look at this one thread it would seem that way. This has been a running arguement on at least 3 threads with several on either side for almost a week now.

We know that we cannot even know what a dinosaur looked like from the bones because we don’t know what kind of muscle structure or mass or texture that it had. (BTW, all of the reptiles that I have seen do have scales) What is being described is not a crocodile in the Jordan because it is a plant eater. it is not a hippo because it has an enormously thick tail. It is not afraid of flash floods because of its size and its neck. As for the fire breathing nature of the dinosaur, bones are not going to tell that story. (and I am repeating here) the fact that there are other unrelated sources that speak of this same fire breathing creature or another one, is a confirmation of the truth of God’s word in the Bible. If the Bible didn’t speak to this issue, there would be no discussion but the fact that it does is evidence of the existence of not one but two dinosaurs spoken of in the Bible. If you want to teach something, teach that the Bible spoke of dinosaurs before their bones were ever “discovered” by so called “scientists” because these dinosaurs were still living when the book of Job was written. If you want to be a teacher, teach the truth.

We know that we cannot even know what a dinosaur looked like from the bones because we don’t know what kind of muscle structure or mass or texture that it had. (BTW, all of the reptiles that I have seen do have scales) What is being described is not a crocodile in the Jordan because it is a plant eater. it is not a hippo because it has an enormously thick tail. It is not afraid of flash floods because of its size and its neck. As for the fire breathing nature of the dinosaur, bones are not going to tell that story. (and I am repeating here) the fact that there are other unrelated sources that speak of this same fire breathing creature or another one, is a confirmation of the truth of God’s word in the Bible. If the Bible didn’t speak to this issue, there would be no discussion but the fact that it does is evidence of the existence of not one but two dinosaurs spoken of in the Bible. If you want to teach something, teach that the Bible spoke of dinosaurs before their bones were ever “discovered” by so called “scientists” because these dinosaurs were still living when the book of Job was written. If you want to be a teacher, teach the truth.
Daleri: You can absolutely determine musculature from bone structure. I learned it in my biological anthropology lab class. It’s basic osteology. Dinosaurs probably were NOT reptiles. their descendents, the birds, are warm-blooded.
the leviathan was the crocodile, the behemoth was the elephant. One site actually suggested the behemoth’s swinging “tail” was another “appendage” located at the back end of the elephant, which makes more sense than the trunk. At any rate, I am 100% sure it was NOT a dinosaur. I’m not even going to address your “fire breathing dinosaur” reference – it’s just too ridiculous. Archaeologists have been excavating the middle east – and the rest of the world – for a couple hundred years. No dinosaur bones have EVER been found with human artifacts. I’m studying archaeology, am a senior, and have yet to see any classes in “How to fake fossil evidence.” That’s not how science works.

There are no bones of a half horse or half human and the Bible does not speak of them either. There are dinosaur bones and the Bible speaks of two of them. There is evidence on both ends, now and when they were living. Mythology has nothing to do with the evidence. If the Bible spoke about something there was no proof that we knew of today, it would be even harder to believe but the Bible is speaking of something that there are remnants of so we know that it is speaking of something that actually existed… and I don’t even believe that I have to be explaining such elementary things to people who should know better.

If there is something that you can say then come out and say it for crying out loud!

jock59801:
You are right of course, no offense was meant or was taken. You made a good observation and I thank you for it.
Daleri:
I apoligise if my words have appeared to be somewhat harsh. I am willing to give you what I know of as proofs if you in turn are willing to read them.
All:
And now I will get a word or two back at me from former allies. Please bare with me for a moment; this little story will be a little lengthy.
There is a branch of science, frowned upon by the majority of scientists, known as cryptozoology. These researchers work on a slightly different premise than most researchers. They investigate myths to see if there is any truth behind the myth.
In Africa there are sightings to this day of unknown species whose descriptions sound incredably like dinosaurs. The cryptozoologist accepts that the sightings are real (not outright lies) but may be cases of mistaken identity. The key word being “may”. They investigate into areas most scientists will not, and attempt to either proove or disprove the myth.
I am not a cryptozoologist but I am of this mindset.
The “dinosaurs” described in the old testament are a “sighting”. Yes something was probably seen and I would not say NO, it can’t be. What I do say is maybe. The description is that of saurians and may well be that of a species that is still living or recently gone extinct.
But, this is where the problem lies: there is no proof, either physical or collaborative.
The old testament was written by a small population of people who were very heavily influenced by pagans all around them.
The jews left Babylon because they recognized this influence.
Unfortunately they were a little too late in their departure.
The prime example of this is the flood legend. The jews call their hero Noah, the Babylonians has called him Gilgamesh and neither legend was the original which can actually be traced back to Ur (but is somewhat closer to the jewish version) and their “Noah” was Ut-Nabishtim (I hope that I spelled that correctly – it’s been many years since I studied Mythology).
You are correct in saying that the color does not matter, the point in the mention of color was simply to inform you that the color is about the only thing there is to be known about the “nature” of dinosaurs that has had no solid evidence to date.
At the same time there is still only little known about each individual species or genera of dinosaur or their precise relationship to each other.

By “nature”, I was referring to how the creature acted which is a proof of the sighting… and the One giving an account of the “sighting” is God Himself.

Abraham migrated from Mesopotamia, where the Gilgamesh legend originated. Their legends would be the same.

“evidence of evolution”… What evidence?
All we have are creatures that are similar in one way or another… like the platypus and ducks (which otherwise have nothing in common as well as the dinosaur with a beak), birds and bats both fly but otherwise have nothing in common. Birds walk on two feet but otherwise have nothing in common with people. Dolphins and fish both swim and otherwise have nothing in common. Did it ever occur to you that the only thing that everything has in common is that of having the same Creator??? The missing chains aren’t there and no amount of time would ever fill in the gaps. Deer don’t have short and stubby legs as every other water creature has and they aren’t nearly as smart as dolphins… and what are you going to say next? … that moose turned into whales??? Give it up.

“Abraham migrated from Mesopotamia, where the Gilgamesh legend originated. Their legends would be the same.”
You don’t suppose, considering their proximity to the time of the flood, that both were describing the same event? It’s because it was an event that actually happened. Even the unbelievers of that time could not deny the flood because of their proximity to when it happened. That is the same as the unbelievers who were close to the time of creation, could not deny the existence of God and they actually spoke to God but their deeds were still evil.

Ed: Admittedly, although the birds-from-dinosaur theory isn’t nearly as established as evolution, it is still the prevailing theory.

“evidence of evolution”… What evidence?
All we have are creatures that are similar in one way or another… like the platypus and ducks (which otherwise have nothing in common as well as the dinosaur with a beak), birds and bats both fly but otherwise have nothing in common. Birds walk on two feet but otherwise have nothing in common with people. Dolphins and fish both swim and otherwise have nothing in common. Did it ever occur to you that the only thing that everything has in common is that of having the same Creator??? The missing chains aren’t there and no amount of time would ever fill in the gaps. Deer don’t have short and stubby legs as every other water creature has and they aren’t nearly as smart as dolphins… and what are you going to say next? … that moose turned into whales??? Give it up.
Daleri: there are two different methods of classification of species – homology and homoplasy. Homology refers to similarity in traits due to descent from common ancestors, such as the horse, zebra, and donkey. Homoplasy refers to similarity due to the independent evolution of the same traits in different animals, such as bats, butterflies, and eagles. Changes occur in animals as they adapt to changing environments. that’s all evolution is – change over time. And it absolutely does happen.
You’re attacking evolution without knowing anything about it. Do yourself a favor and learn about it – take a biology class or two.

cturple
Correct. So is the Impact hypotheses. But argument against either one is still very hot. I’ll wait for the final word which will move the hypothesis up to a real theory. There is an old saying – “believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see”, I need to see the proof. Until then I remain open minded.

My “only evidence” is so much stronger than your imagination because it gives a considerable amount of detail about one huge plant eating animal with a thick tail and most likely a long neck that is not afraid of flash floods.
The other…
“When he raises himself up, the mighty fear; Because of the crashing they are bewildered. “The sword that reaches him cannot avail, Nor the spear, the dart or the javelin. “He regards iron as straw, Bronze as rotten wood. “The arrow cannot make him flee; Slingstones are turned into stubble for him. “Clubs are regarded as stubble; He laughs at the rattling of the javelin.
Now, which one did you say this was? Was it the Elephant or the crocodile? …and what kind of teacher are you that would cause you to believe that it was a crocodile?

Ed: I lean towards the bird to dino hypothesis, but I’m open minded as well. I don’t need to see the evidence, but I do need to know who DID see it, what their credentials are, how they made their determination, and what the other experts have to say about it.

cturple
Sorry, I also use the royal we alot. Of course I fully accept as fact a proven peer reviewed hypothesis without actually witnessing the experiments offered as proofs, unless two or more opposing peer reviewed hypotheses are also put forward and they are all very possible. Then it’s only consensus as to the one most probable and all remain only a hypothesis. Hopefully EVO DEVO will help settle this.

The point is that with the similarities are also dissimilarities. Does a platypus have feathers and wings? Does any bird have hair or venom and walk on all fours? This evidence speaks more of having the same creator than having it does of having changed what it is to something else… which makes no sense at all.
Daleri: Which is why science recognizes that there are two different ways to classify animals that have similar traits. Having wings doesn’t make a bat into a bird. Nobody is suggesting that it does. I can’t explain a theory as complex as evolution to you in a few simple paragraphs. And I’m pretty sure you don’t care to hear it anyway. I would suggest that before you attack something, you try to learn about it first. I’ve read the bible, taught bible school, and taken religion classes. Have you ever read anything about evolution that wasn’t published by a religious source?

Forget who has what training, just speak to the issues… if you can.

Dr: “So SERVO: you did not see the pictures of the human / dinosaur footprints? Nothing was “i said so” your tenor is emotional which is not unexpected as you seem to need to defend your religion at all costs even if logic is thrown out the window.”
Did you not see the guy posting the proof that those were fradulent?

That last statement was a little rushed.
There is nothing unusual about a fire breathing dragon. That is one of the most common stories in history. The Far East is largely unrelated to the Judeo/Christian teaching and they too have a story of a fire breathing dragon. If a beetle can make a controlled hydrogen explosion, what’s to keep a dinosaur from breathing fire?
I don’t ever want to hear that evolution is a fact ever again. Theory is not a fact and evolution never has been a fact and never will be. Not only is it a theory, it is a false theory because according to the theory, the dinosaurs all died out before other life “appeared”. That takes a lot of BLIND faith. How blind and how dark that darkness is! The Bible is evidence because it has an account of not one but two living dinosaurs in it at the same time as man walked the earth and the text says they were made together with man!
So there, you unbelievers! Try to come up with another “theory”.

Servo, it did not rain before the flood. The flood came when the water under the earth came up and the water that was being held above the earth (by the “windows”) came down. The people didn’t know what rain was until it was too late. God created all things and He can destroy them just as easily. Are you greater than God to complain about what He does?

There is something wrong with your dating, Servo, the story of the flood is a part of history just the same. The Egyptians changed for a time from believing in many gods to believing in One God. It didn’t last more than a generation or so but it happened around the time that Israel left Egypt… and of course, Egypt is not going to have any record of the glories of Israel because they were enslaved by the Egyptians and then they left with all their gold.

Who are you to say the sending of Messiah to die for us in love is dirty work?
Wrong servo, it also says that water would come up from the ground at night to water the plants. You are so uninformed.
You totally don’t know anything at all about God. God is much more patient than you or I.

Daleri – If the biblical “dinosaurs” are all you have to refute evolution, then you have a problem. There is nothing in the description that proves that they are definitely dinosaurs and could not be anything else.
As for your statement that you “don’t ever want to hear that evolution is a fact ever again” — Then why are you talking with us? We are going to say that evolution actually happens (i.e. is a fact) because that’s what the vast majority of scientists say. If you don’t want to hear it, then go someplace where reality can’t intrude on you so inconveniently.

Daleri: “There is something wrong with your dating, Servo, the story of the flood is a part of history just the same.”
Ah, so whenever evidence contradicts the Bible, its the evidence that must be wrong.
“The Egyptians changed for a time from believing in many gods to believing in One God.”
Completely irrelevant to the fact that their records make no mention what-so-ever of the flood, in spite of said records covering the time before, during and after the flood.
“and of course, Egypt is not going to have any record of the glories of Israel because they were enslaved by the Egyptians and then they left with all their gold.”
And of course there is not one shred of physical evidence that Israel ever WAS a slave class in ancient Egypt, nor is there any evidence of the Exodus. You’d think that a mass migration of millions like that would leave SOMETHING behind as evidence. But NOTHING. Not a single camp site or burial ground. Not even a single shard of pottery.
I repeat, the flood is a total absurdity.
1) A wooden boat that big cannot hold out water. The ark would SINK.
2) That much water falling would release so much energy it would sterilize the planet.
3) IF the flood had happened, the erosion around the globe should be roughly the same. This is not the case. Compare the Appalachian with the Rocky mountains where one is far more eroded than the other.
4) All of the fresh water fish would have become extinct, as the lakes mingled with the salt water of the oceans. This has obviously not happened, since the world’s lakes are full of specialized organisms which cannot survive in the salt water of the
oceans.
5) Most of the sedimentary rock on the Earth should be in the oceans, since the loose material would have been largely pushed off-shore as the flood waters receded. However, most of the sedimentary rock on Earth is on high ground!. In fact, even the mountains are largely composed of sedimentary rock!
6) Animal species which are dependent upon non-Middle-east localized ecosystems would have become extinct, since they would never survive the migration back home after debarking from the Ark. For
example, the South American trapdoor tarantulas would have had to somehow journey all the way from Turkey to the Amazon jungle, over an ocean and through environments which are much too cold to
support it. The polar bear would have had to journey back to its arctic home, through thousands of kilometers of temperate zone. The giant panda would have had to journey from Europe to the bamboo forests of China, despite its poor mobility and extremely specific
dietary requirements. What did it eat until it reached the distant bamboo forests? Species like this should have become extinct, but they didn’t.
7) The distribution of recent fossils should follow a radial pattern from the point where Noah unloaded his Ark, irrespective of species. Consider the fact that all of the Earth’s creatures
had to migrate outward from a single point. This would leave obvious fossil patterns, which we have failed to observe. Instead, the fossil patterns seem to be consistent with a pattern of
long-term migrations and evolutionary adaptations.
8) All the plants in the world would have died, because plants require UV radiation and cannot survive deep submersion for prolonged periods (that’s why all underwater plants are close
to the surface). However, the ancient Bristlecone Pine trees of California show an unbroken line passing right through the Flood and dating back more than 10,000 years. In fact, one particular specimen (nicknamed “Methuselah”) is still living, even
though it dates back nearly 4800 years, or 500 years before the Flood. How did the Creationists deal with this? You’ll love this … when they heard about it, they started writing “research
papers” denying the validity of tree-ring dating.
9) Fossils of flightless animals should be depth-sorted based on their size and hydrodynamic characteristics rather than their position in the evolutionary progression. However, this is not the
case. Species of virtually identical hydrodynamic characteristics are separated by eons, while even the largest dinosaurs are found at the same level as the smallest dinosaurs (which are all, in turn, found far below much smaller and more recent primates). No
pattern of depth-sorting based on size and hydrodynamic characteristics is identifiable in the fossil record.
10) Fossils of species with superior mobility should always be found at the shallowest levels in the sedimentary rock rather than being grouped with their evolutionary contemporaries, since they would presumably have reached high ground and taken the longest time to die. Flying animals in particular would be at the very top. However, this is not the case. For example, flying dinosaur species are buried at the same depth as other dinosaur species, well below much more recent species with inferior mobility. No pattern of depth-sorting based on mobility is identifiable in the fossil record.
11) The fossil record should be composed almost entirely of land creatures, since flood geology claims that all sedimentary rock was formed during the Flood and ocean-dwellers wouldn’t die in a Flood (remember that any ocean disruption violent enough to kill the sea life would have easily capsized Noah’s boat). However, much of the fossil record is sea life.
12) Metallic man-made Bronze Age artifacts would be found at the very bottom of the fossil record, since such objects fall quicker than any organism, and will obviously not run to high ground or struggle to tread water. However, this is not the case; the vast majority of the fossil record lies beneath the earliest human metallic artifacts. The rare exceptions that creationists spill their man-juice over are easily explained. The artifacts are found in coal seams and man has been mining those seams for thousands of years so its not a surprise we find the occasional man-made artifact buried in them.
13) How did the ice caps form? They would have been broken up and melted during the flood, and there hasn’t been enough time for them to form since then. Moreover, Greenland ice cores show a progression of yearly patterns since well before the Flood, even though the entire mass should have been broken up.
14) Why aren’t the fossils of modern land-locked animals routinely found deep in the sea bed, even though a catastrophic flood should have easily pushed huge amounts of coastal life into
the ocean?
15) Why aren’t environmentally specialized fossils found away from their native environments? A flood would easily disperse fossils over very wide areas irrespective of their original
environmental suitability, yet we see no evidence of this dispersion.
16) Why do we often find sedimentary rocks which demonstrate severe erosion long after their formation? The Red Deer River valley, for example, is composed of a single region of sedimentary rock through which a fissure was eroded by a river. Exposed, eroded sedimentary rock makes up the walls of the valley. Are we to imagine that the same Flood which deposited and then rapidly compacted this rock then preferentially arranged itself so as to cut a groove through the middle as it receded?
17) Why are different components of the same organism (ie. the pollen and trunk of a plant) invariably sorted at the same layer? Did the flood somehow sort the pollen and trunk and leaves of plants so that they would always end up in consistent layers?
18) Why are exposed-surface features such as footprints found in deep rock, often layered on top of one another? How does a footprint form, remain intact, and fossilize in the midst of the
chaotic sedimentation process described by flood geology?
19) Why are fossils layered with complete forest ecosystems to match, so that soil layers and plants and animals from one epoch are always grouped together? Did the flood somehow sort this too? That’s one clever flood!
20) How did all of this sedimentary rock form without releasing the requisite amount of heat, which would have boiled the oceans? Sedimentary rock forms because the resulting rock has a lower
energy state than the loose matter from which it was formed, and the energy decrease in the rock must be balanced by an equal energy release into its environment. You can’t accelerate the process of rock sedimentation without also accelerating the consequent rate of energy release.
21) How do Creationists explain where all of the animals would have lived, or have they ever noticed that the sheer animal population indicated by fossil deposits is enough to fill the Earth to the point of being dangerously overcrowded? Not a problem if those animals lived over many hundreds of millions of years, but if they were all crammed into a 6,000 year history …
22) On the same note, how can they explain the sheer volume of organic material in the Earth’s coal deposits and sedimentary rock layers? It’s been pointed out many times that even a globe-spanning forest wouldn’t provide anywhere near enough organic material to account for all of that mass … unless, of course, it was deposited over a very long period of time rather than just one year.
23) How did the forests and jungles regrow so quickly? Why are some of the most ancient trees and densest jungles in the world found in the Americas, so far from Noah’s Ark? Did he travel to North and South America via magic carpet and reseed the jungles?
24) How did all of the human-specific diseases survive? Did the residents of the Ark simultaneously carry every disease in existence? That must have been one sick ship, particularly when you consider the fact that every other species on the boat must have also been carrying all of the diseases that are specialized for it.
25) How did species with short lifespans (eg. mayflies) survive the long trip?
26) How did Noah feed all of those species, particularly those who must eat other species to survive?
27) How did Noah provide environments suitable for all those species, since some of them can’t survive in heat and some of them can’t survive in cold? Did he have heated bays and refrigerated bays in his boat? Was there a Frigidaire logo on the side of the Ark?
28) How did unique species find themselves on isolated islands?
29) Why isn’t there any inbreeding-related damage in the
Earth’s species? Such damage should be severe if every species was repopulated from just two specimens, but then again, your average redneck Creationist probably thinks inbreeding is a
good thing.
30) How did Noah and his family repopulate the Earth so quickly? Some of the Egyptian pyramids were built in the centuries immediately following the imaginary global Flood; were they built
by a few dozen people?
31) How did life on Earth survive if all of the meteor impact craters were formed within the last 6000 years, as required by Young-Earth Creationists? This also begs the question of why none of the world’s cultures recorded the devastation of all these meteor impacts. There are numerous huge impact craters which betray evidence of impacts powerful enough to devastate the planet (such as the infamous “dino-killer” asteroid), and in primeval periods, some
that were so powerful that they would have vaporized the oceans. The huge craters are right there for all to see, and yet we’re still alive, aren’t we?
32) Why should the story of Genesis and the Flood be taken literally when flat-Earth and Earth-centered solar system models (also derived from the Bible) have both been discarded in favor of scientific observations and theories?

Daleri – no one said you have to believe the earth is more than 6000 years old. You go right ahead. But in science class we are going to teach our kids science. We are going to teach them that the laws of physics are constant, and to show them how these laws, applied to the geological evidence, shows us that the earth is in fact about 4.5 billion years old. That’s science. That’s science class. They can learn about God somewhere else.

Daleri: “The issue is that the Bible spoke of dinosaurs at a time when today’s’ scientists say that they did not exist. I choose to believe the eye witness account rather than any ones’ speculative imagination.”
McFly, the Bible is NOT an “eye-witness” account. It’s stories were written down CENTURIES after they allegedly happened.
You have nothing but a couple of vague descriptions which you ASSUME to be dinosaurs. You don’t have a single piece of evidence supporting this conclusion. The Bible doesn’t even include any cave paintings for crying out loud.

Servo
I have read articles recently that referred to a mammoth as a dinosaur. We really need better science classes for these kids.

“I have read articles recently that referred to a mammoth as a dinosaur.”
The last such “article” I saw was in a book that also included dot-to-dot puzzles.

Servo
That is where it belonged. But I kid you not. It was a legitimate report in a well read paper that was otherwise factual. It just demonstrates how badly our educational system needs to do a better job teaching evolution.

Truth Hurts – who said any of us were atheists? Not all evolutionary biologists are atheists.

jock59801
Re: the expanding universe. This hypothesis has to assume that there is some kind of end to the universe. The stars and galaxies moving away from a central point in our detectable existence may actually only be a local event within an endless universe that we can not detect. We can not prove or disprove physically or mathematically an end or fixed size to the universe. That is why we refer to it as a continuum. Einsteins relativity theorem does not account for an infinite universe but does give us a working model with functional math requiring only minimal corrections.

servo, you keep on making the changes needed until you come around full circle back to the teaching that the Bible has been teaching all along.
Your ramblings of how they had no proof that God was greater than their god only shows that you have not read the Bible. Word traveled back then and everyone knew and had heard of the miracles and power that God used to deliver Israel from Egypt and so on. Rahab the harlot is one example of that and there are others.

Daleri: “servo, you keep on making the changes needed until you come around full circle back to the teaching that the Bible has been teaching all along.”
Funny how we haven’t come back around to saying the Earth is the center of the solar system and flat, even though the Bible claims both.
“Your ramblings of how they had no proof that God was greater than their god only shows that you have not read the Bible. Word traveled back then and everyone knew and had heard of the miracles and power that God used to deliver Israel from Egypt and so on. Rahab the harlot is one example of that and there are others.”
More circular logic and appealing to authority. The others knew the Israeli God was the right one because the Israelis said so. They saw the miracles the Israelis wrote about because the Israelis wrote about them seeing the miracles (which there is also not a shred of evidence for). Daleri has clearly never heard of the concept of “History is written by the victors” Sometimes the comedy just writes itself.

Daleri
Actually, there have been humongus reptiles that lived coincidental to our* ancestors (*our referring to humanity). Megalania prisca (or Varanus prisca depending on who is speaking) “roamed southern Australia, and appears to have become extinct around 40,000 years ago…” However “…There have been numerous reports and rumors of living Megalania in Australia, and ccasionally New Guinea, as recently as the mid 1990s.”
So we have evidence of coexistance with homonids and some claims to it’s being a cryptid. This was a much larger variation of a monitor lizard according to those who place it in genus Varanus but the proportions were not the same leading others to place it within it’s own genus Megalania but still within family Varanidae. This beasty was much larger than the komodo dragon and may have had a similar deadly bacterial mouth. Wiki Megalania for quick (albeit incomplete) details.

Daleri: “Servo, you have no idea of what their body temperature was just like until recently scientists didn’t know that sharks (big sharks) had a body temperature other than their surroundings.”
We have a pretty good idea. Notice though that the Bible says NOTHING about any of this.
“The dinosaurs were big and reptile and that is no longer living.”
And a truck load of other things.
“That is a dinosaur.”
No, thats NOT. There are MANY sizes of dinosaur ranging from many meters to a few inches, you ignorant fool.
“No reptile that I know if has a large brain.”
And notice the Bible is completely silent on this matter.
“The same text that speaks of the dinosaurs also speaks of an ostrich and we all know how big its brain is and it is still around.”
Irrelevant to the fact that the bible’s description could be a lot of things.
“Brain size has nothing to do with being a dinosaur.”
Because you spouted a bunch of complete red herrings?
“You have not shown that anything God says is wrong.”
I have shown pages of such. You have simply ignored it all.
Hell, the Bible can’t even get the value of Pi right (1 Kings 7:23)
“Definitions back then are not the same as they are today besides the fact that the translations are not always accurate.”
And yet you turn around and boast how the bible never changes.
The fact remains, the bible got both the bat and the whale wrong in the wrong group of animals, yet you turn around and insist that a vague description of some large animal MUST be a dinosaur.

Servo, The dinosaurs that I know of must have 101 different kinds of bone structures. Some of them walk on all fours, some walk like chickens, some eat plants (like an ox) some clearly do not. Some swim and don’t walk some walk and swim (very few animals don’t swim at all, if any). Some fly, some do not fly. Some have one kind of armor, others have another kind of defense and armor. What kind of bone structure is there that defines every one of these dinosaurs? You are making less sense as you go along and the Bible does not say anywhere that the world is flat.
Ed, it sure seems to me like a fine line between reptiles and dinosaur. You might want to keep in mind that speed of light curve.

Daleri: “Servo, The dinosaurs that I know of must have 101 different kinds of bone structures. Some of them walk on all fours, some walk like chickens, some eat plants (like an ox) some clearly do not. Some swim and don’t walk some walk and swim (very few animals don’t swim at all, if any). Some fly, some do not fly. Some have one kind of armor, others have another kind of defense and armor.”
Exactly, so there is no reason to assume the mysterious animals mentioned in Job are dinosaurs.
“What kind of bone structure is there that defines every one of these dinosaurs?”
Ask your nearest dino-expert.
“You are making less sense as you go along and the Bible does not say anywhere that the world is flat.”
Job 38: 4-6 The Earth has a foundation and corner stone.
Rev 7:1 The Earth has four corners
Deut 13:7 The Earth has ends.
How does this NOT describe a flat Earth when the thing is clearly described like a house.

The spiritual implication have to be considered. The foundation is the structural foundation of rock as it relates to the rock which is the word of God. The cornerstone, as every Bible scholar knows, relates to Jesus. Every piece of earth has an end. You are picking at definitions when what you should be doing is to try to understand what is being said… and stop believing everything you read or hear. Not everything you read on the Internet is true. There is no problem with anything that you have said against the Bible. You are trying to make something out of nothing. Only God can do that and only God does it the right way.

Servo, your rationale is getting lower all the time. Just because dinosaurs were big does not mean that they also were not small but it is true that we have never seen any evidence of a land mammal as big as the biggest dinosaur. Another thing to consider is that it is likely that after the flood, there was not enough nutrition to sustain creatures of this size after the flood.
Tell me what mammal was ever that big as those dinosaurs described in the Bible?
There were none! These creature that were described are huge. A whole chapter is devoted to what might be the largest of them. They are not vague descriptions as you say. It has to be a dinosaur because nothing else was ever that size.
A vague description is your description of what determines a dinosaur bone structure.

Funny because Servo was using the Bible as a scource as well. And what about pi being 3?

Ed, Jock, cturple, Servo, JJ et. al. — kudos for championing rational thought over superstition, fear and ignorance!
Brando

From Belgium
Cheddar or Swiss?

cturple
Funny that you should mention chimp behavior this morning. My daughter-in-law was just pointing out to me how much her youngest son was acting just like a chimp. (My grandson in question is now 9 months old and my daughter-in-law is very close to getting her degree in Paleoanthropology). The similarities at this young age are indeed very strong.

Ed: The similarity is incredible. Kanzi, a bonobo chimpanzee, actually learned ASL by WATCHING the researchers teaching his mother. He signed independently, now has a vocabulary of ~500 signs, and his comprehension of spoken language is about equivalent to that of a 2 1/2 year old human.
I envy your daught-in-law. If I were 30 years younger I’d be focusing on paleoanthropology myself.

For those of you interested in maintaining the integrity of science education in our schools, the National Center for Science Education’s website has current information on all the religious assaults on our children’s science education. natcenscied.org/
Also, the first issue of the new journal, Evolution: Education and Outreach, is available online.

The behemoth described in the Bible fits perfectly with the Brachiosaurus and the Leviathan fits to a “T” the Tyrannosaurus Rex (the tyrant lizard king)… Just like the Bible also calls it “king over all that are proud”
Try that on for “integrity”.
…and try not to teach so many lies in the classroom. What do you want? A bunch of ignorant people that don’t have a clue as to what is going on around them?

This world does need to face the fact that Darwinism is a Religion even though it is quite clear to Darwin himself that was not his intention.
We need to be dealing with only verifiable facts and the fact is that the two largest dinosaurs ever discovered are described in the Bible. It is a fact, it is historical and it should be taught in schools. Just present the evidence without imagination.

Could a box evolve?
Could a paperclip evolve?
Did the Rushmore president faces just happen?
Why do religious fanatics assert that a human with 50 billion + cells just happen?
I believe that we were created from God.
Religious fanatics of evolution believe they came from a ROCK.
Who has greater faith?
The first law of Biogenesis states that life can only come from life. This one law alone relegates evolutionists to the sad state of illogical emotional religious fanatics.
HAECKEL’S CONFESSION:
Haeckel claimed also the spontaneous generation must e true, not because it had been proven in the laboratory, but because otherwise… IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO BELIEVE IN A CREATOR”
You see evolution religious fanatics have no interest in science beyond that of avoiding a belief in our Creator. It is not important to be true or not true, just so we don’t have to believe in God… I know, I was an evolutionist scientist once. Many of us are realizing our hypocrisy and becoming real scientists.

See what happens when legislators, who are NOT scientists, try to interfere with science and scientific precepts? Instead of joining the fray about evolution and creationism, much of which has been previously discussed above and elsewhere by minds greater than mine, I’d just like to add that it’s a wonder those intrepid Florida legislators haven’t yet tried to repeal the law of gravity! Or are they working on that next?

Re: “The first law of Biogenesis states that life can only come from life.” This is being disproven even as we speak. The odds against are so extermely high that recreating life in an experiment is close to impossible but close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. Look for the answer to this riddle in Nanotechnology.
Nothing is impossible.

Ed,
It’s too late to be saying that life could form itself because even if there is such a thing as spontaneous DNA, that program is already written!
It was written when, “In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth.”.
You are 6000 years too late!

Only God’s word is “Christian” and God’s word does not change.

Daleri: “Servo, your rationale is getting lower all the time. Just because dinosaurs were big does not mean that they also were not small but it is true that we have never seen any evidence of a land mammal as big as the biggest dinosaur.”
No, YOUR rationale is what is pathetic. YOU are the one trying to say this unknown creature MUST be a dinosaur simply because it was “big” in spite of the fact that the Bible doesn’t even give any measurements.
“Another thing to consider is that it is likely that after the flood,”
The flood which never happened and is a complete absurdity.
http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/Hartman-6.xhtml
“there was not enough nutrition to sustain creatures of this size after the flood.”
After a global flood, there wouldn’t be enough nutrition to sustain ANY life. ALL land animals would have starved to death.
“Tell me what mammal was ever that big as those dinosaurs described in the Bible?”
Tell me exactly how big those animals described in the bible are. Oh, thats right, you can’t, because the Bible doesn’t say. You simply ASSUME that “big” means “dino-sized”:
“There were none! These creature that were described are huge.”
HOW HUGE?
“A whole chapter is devoted to what might be the largest of them. They are not vague descriptions as you say. It has to be a dinosaur because nothing else was ever that size.”
A size that is NOT STATED other than to say it was “big” or “huge”.
Were you aware that in Job 38, God refers to the constelations of Orion and the Pleiades as if they are actual physical objects, rather than a pattern seen in a group of stars? does this mean there actually is a mighty hunter in the sky?

Daleri: “Definitions servo, definitions! The land (earth) ends where water begins. For everything physical, there are spiritual implications.”
Doesn’t change the fact that the analogy itself states bullcrap.
“What part of “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” did you not understand?”
What part of “no where does it say ‘out of nothing’” do you not understand.
“The cornerstone is Jesus because He is the Word that created the heavens and the Earth.”
Thats the analogy. Doesn’t change the fact that the Biblical deity thinks the Earth has a literal foundation and cornerstone.
“Yes you do believe everything that you read because your sources are something someone posted on the Internet and it is all wrong just like what was posted on the Internet. They are some of the lamest arguments I have ever heard in my entire life.”
They you’d think it would be trivally easy to refute them. Instead you ignore the vast majority of them and when you DO try and address them, you end up contradicting your own primary argument, which was that the Bible is a literal eye-witness account.

Daleri: “The value of pi
The artisans (not Jewish) used rules of thumb because measurements were NOT standardized.
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm”
Doesn’t change the fact that those incorrect values somehow made their way into the Bible, your alleged perfect “eye witness” account of world history.

Ed, Knowledge and information is something that we have to build on from the things that we know to be true.
For us, we have to start from were we are at and work back or we have to find strings of truth and follow them. Prophecy is one of the easiest ways to follow truth. In particular the prophecies of Messiah who is Yeshua. It requires a great deal of honesty. The Bible is not the best seller of all time for no reason. It is because it speaks truth, all kinds of truth relating to everything about us. If we are going to trust something, we have to trust what has been proven to be true.
As it relates to dinosaurs, we do have two direct descriptions of the two largest land animals that have ever walked on the face of the earth. One was a plant eater (the Behemoth/Brachiosaurus) and the other was a carnivore (the Leviathan/Tyrannosaurus Rex). These descriptions are there in writing and they have been there for some 5000 years… long before any scientists ever uncovered any dinosaur bones.
What does that tell you Ed?
These dinosaurs (and others) were living when the oldest book in the Bible was written.
What does that tell you about the theory of evolution, Ed?
It tells us that dinosaurs did not live millions of years before man lived. It tells us that dinosaurs and man lived together at the same time (contrary to the theory of evolution).
The proof, Ed, is that it is written! It is the same way that we can know that God’s word is true, because, it is written! Everything we needed to know about Messiah was written… before Messiah even came. That’s how we know that God’s word is true. The fact that dinosaurs were also written into the text from the very beginning, is more proof that God is the Creator and that His word is true.
All the time and money spent on the study of these dinosaurs only serves to show that what the Bible has said all along is true from the beginning to end because what was true then is true now.
The truth is as solid as a Rock. The theory of evolution has proven instead that what the Bible says is true.

And that brings us back to this. A book is not evidence. It was true then that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and adulterers should be stoned to death. hmmmm, let’s see – have any of these biblical truths changed?

what it comes down to is this. the creationists have NO evidence that their “theory” is anything more than an interpretation of a book. When asked for evidence of the existence of “god,” we’re told to “look in the mirror.” Any third grader knows that is evidence that my mother had sex at least once, and nothing more. I’m apalled that anyone in a position of authority would actually consider “look in the mirror” to be scientific evidence. Creationism is not science – anyone with half a brain can see that.

Daleri: “The behemoth described in the Bible fits perfectly with the Brachiosaurus”
No, it does not. A brachiosaurus’ “force” was not in its navel. Its bones were NOT like brass or iron, they were the same as any other skeleton. Nothing “brought” any food to a dino, particularly not mountains. They had to go forage for it themselves.
And for all the ___ you do over its size, this thing can supposedly take shade in reeds and hide unter a lotus
“and the Leviathan fits to a “T” the Tyrannosaurus Rex (the tyrant lizard king)… Just like the Bible also calls it “king over all that are proud”
Again, you are completely wrong. The bible describes an animal with two “coats” and “armor”. That MIGHT be a giant turtle but definately NOT a T-Rex.
Job 41 describes an animal breathing fire. The ONLY place we find such animals is in fairy tales.
Job 41 describes air tight “shields”. Again, no animal has such “armor”, not even dinos.
The T-rex did NOT have “jagged potsherds” on its belly.
“Try that on for “integrity”.”
Pretty sucky if you ask me. Your dishonest selective quoting of the text is the exact OPPOSITE of integrity.
Face the facts Delari, your “eye-witness” is describing an animal that exists only in mythology, not reality. Yet you keep spanking your monkey over the fact that it was described as “big”
“…and try not to teach so many lies in the classroom.”
Exactly, which is precislye why we don’t want creationism there.
“What do you want? A bunch of ignorant people that don’t have a clue as to what is going on around them?”
Again, no. And that is precisely why creationism should NOT be taught in science class.

Daleri
Again, I am sorry to say it but without proof the written word is still only the written word of a religeous sect. Science requires non-sectatian proof.

Dr: “Could a box evolve?
Could a paperclip evolve?
Did the Rushmore president faces just happen?”
No, because (are you ready for this shocking revelation?) they do not self-replicate. Anything that does self-replicate can and does evolve.
Another day, another creationist mindlessly repeats an argument that was refuted decades ago.
“Why do religious fanatics assert that a human with 50 billion + cells just happen?”
Why do creationists insist on lying about evolution. Nothing “just happened”. Its all driven by reproduction and natural selection.
“I believe that we were created from God.”
You can believe that all you want. You have no EVIDENCE for it.
“Religious fanatics of evolution believe they came from a ROCK.”
Liar. Its the BIBLE that teaches man was made “from the dust of the Earth”
Biologists describe a sea of organic material that somehow formed molecules that can make copies of themselves.
“Who has greater faith?”
The person who bases their ideas on a book of mythology obviously, not the one who bases their ideas on observation.
“The first law of Biogenesis states that life can only come from life. This one law alone relegates evolutionists to the sad state of illogical emotional religious fanatics.”
MODERN life can only come from life. Please refrain from distorting what science does and does not say.
“HAECKEL’S CONFESSION:
Haeckel claimed also the spontaneous generation must e true, not because it had been proven in the laboratory, but because otherwise… IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO BELIEVE IN A CREATOR”
Ah, another “because someone says so” argument.
“You see evolution religious fanatics have no interest in science beyond that of avoiding a belief in our Creator.”
Funny then how there are plenty of theistic evolutionists out there.
“It is not important to be true or not true, just so we don’t have to believe in God…”
Out-right lie.
“I know, I was an evolutionist scientist once. Many of us are realizing our hypocrisy and becoming real scientists.”

Ed, it is not true because you don’t like what it says?
What kind of standard is that?
It is true because it describes two of the largest dinosaurs that ever walked the face of the earth! … the plant eater and the one with the fierce teeth that we all know of. It’s right there in front of you clear as day!
You guys are just like that goofy turtle that says, “duh no, no, no!”
No matter what is told to him, he just says, “duh no, no, no!”
It’s time to wake up in the morning already!
All this time the Darwinists have believed they were studying something outside of the realm of the Bible when in fact the Bible has spoken all about them all along! …and you say that is not proof!
Then you people have a problem with reality!
“duh no, no, no!”

Daleri: “Ed, it is not true because you don’t like what it says?
What kind of standard is that?”
Obvioously its YOUR standard. You don’t like evolution so it can’t possibly be true in your mind.
“It is true because it describes two of the largest dinosaurs that ever walked the face of the earth! … the plant eater and the one with the fierce teeth that we all know of. It’s right there in front of you clear as day!”
For the umpteenth time, NO IT DOES NOT. It describes animals breating fire, hjaving TWO coats of skins, having spikes on their bellies, etc, etc, etc.
And your “enormous animals” can supposedly hide among lotus plants. Thats not very big.
“All this time the Darwinists have believed they were studying something outside of the realm of the Bible when in fact the Bible has spoken all about them all along! …and you say that is not proof!”
Argumentum ad nauseum.

Daleri, asexual reproduction is something we teach to pre-pubescent teens.
You just blew an enormous hole in your credibiltiy.
Do you honestly think bacteria have sexual intercourse to reproduce?

Matthew said the prophecy said he would be CALLED a nazarene, not that he would be one.
And the whole “missing scripture” point only further destroys your argument about the Bible being perfect.

Double mail is just a term for armor.
Just because there is more information in the Bible about the T-Rex than Darwinist have discovered, doesn’t mean that the accounts are in error. It’s a surplus of information about creatures that we have always wondered about!

Servo, Moses did not write the book of Job. That was long before Moses.
…and another thing! If the account was not true, how could centuries immediately following the events tolerate the account as true if it was not? The obvious answer is that it always was true and still is true.
We know it it true because it describes in detail (more detail than Darwinists have) two of the biggest land animals that ever walked the face of the earth!
No amount of propaganda will ever change that because, “It is written!” and it has been written for 5000 years!

Daleri: “Servo, just because we do not have a prophecy, whatever prophecy, does not mean that they, at that time, (It does not mean that they) did not have a prophecy.”
Completely ignoring the fact that “missing scritpure” proves that the Bible is anything but perfect, thus destoying your primary argument.
“Even so, the Branch connection, the actual name given to Messiah in prophecy, is still there and it always will be there! Forever!”
Its not there now, therefore its not there “forever” Once again, Daleri demonstrates his willingness to out-right pervert the language to further his argument.
And I repeat, it is NEVER said that “branch” or “netzer” would be a “name” of the messiah. The only NAME that was ever ascribed to him in the OT was “Immanuel” which is NOT what the Messiah ended up being named.

Servo, you are a propaganda machine. There is only one thing, machines are not forever and they do not inherit eternal life because machines cannot know or speak eternal truth.
…and you cannot change the prophecy of the Branch from coming true because it already did come true.

Daleri: “Servo, you are a propaganda machine.”
This is just an evasive way of saying “I can’t answer your points but I refuse to cry uncle” Pathetic.
“There is only one thing, machines are not forever and they do not inherit eternal life because machines cannot know or speak eternal truth.”
More preaching without any evidence. Standard operating procedure of fundy morons getting their @$$ kicked. Its rather ironic that Daleri calls ME a machine when he is the one mindlessly reciting what he heard from his preacher.
“…and you cannot change the prophecy of the Branch from coming true because it already did come true.”
Don’t need to change it to show Matt got it wrong or that you are simply making more groundless assumptions about it. That is what YOU are doing.
Matt said a prophecy said the messiah would be CALLED a nazarene. The verses about a “branch” makes no such statement. I don’t need to change anything to make my point. You do.

Servo, just because you don’t know of something does not mean that it does not or did not exist.

Daleri, repeating a false claim over and over does not make it true.
Here is how it works logically–if there is no evidence something exists, we conclude it does not exist. Thats why we don’t accept the existence of the Easter bunny

Servo, you are beginning to stutter.
Life (“higher life”) has male and female because that is the way that God made it.
Descriptions of Brachiosaurus (Behemoth) and Tyrannosaurus Rex (Leviathan) is proof of the existence of Creator God and His word of truth.

Ed: I don’t like people lying about what I said.
Daleri: “Life (“higher life”) has male and female because that is the way that God made it.”
Circular logic.
I always do wonder though, Creationists, on what “day” did God create bacteria? Oh, thats right, the ignoramouses who wrote Genesis hadn’t the first clue such life forms even existed. You’d think an omniscient “eye witness” wouldn’t leave such important details out though.
“Descriptions of Brachiosaurus (Behemoth) and Tyrannosaurus Rex (Leviathan) is proof of the existence of Creator God and His word of truth.”
The descriptions do not match fact. You lose. You’re still trying to win a point by repeating yourself over and over–more proof of your playground mentality.
‘The Bible describes dinosaurs infinity plus one!!!’

Ed: go over what the point was about. I made a point about inanimate objects don’t evolve because they don’t reproduce.
Daleri argues that the gender requirement only complicates matters.
I point out that gender is not required for reproduction.
Daleri replies with “Servo, you are the one that said it had to be male and female.”
That is a verifiable lie.

Daleri: The description DOESN’T fit. T-Rex did NOT have air-tight “shields” or “jagged potsherds” on its belly or breathe fire or any of the other absurdities described in Job.
There is no way a bracheosaur could “lie beneath the lotus”
You’re wrong. You’ve been proven wrong. You’ve been proven to be engaging in selective quoting and lying. But you refuse to cry uncle.

The genealogies are among the more important things in the Bible that are very useful for dating when things happened.
The brachiosaurus being described is in the marsh. You should also know that its nostrils are on the top of its head or nose, not unlike a crocodile, suitable for being in the water. So of course it can hide among whatever bushes or trees there are.
It should be getting kind of hard to explain away God’s word. …unless you have a problem with reality itself.

…and Servo, you have never seen a T-Rex so you cannot say what it was like. The author of Scripture did see it and did relay that information to us. It fits to a “T”, the description it has of the T-Rex. You cannot fault Him for giving more information than you expected.
Darwinist believers are wrong!

Biblical scholars disagree with you.

I checked every version of the bible available at bible.com – not one of them refers to a behemoth or a leviathan as a dinosaur. You on the other hand have stated unequivocably that they ARE dinosaurs. You are saying something other than what the experts say. Therefore there is disagreement.

“It ranks first among the works of God”
Brachiosaurus is the largest land animal (even though with that kind of size it would be quite comfortable in the water with a long neck and nostrils on top of its head like a crocodile).

The Brachiosaurus is not the largest dinosaur.

and it’s not “sort of relative” to anything. You’re not qualified to make the statements you’ve made. The people that have studied the bible professionally for decades say otherwise. How presumptious of you to suggest that you’re more qualified than they.

No they don’t say otherwise because it it clear that they don’t know what to say!

what makes you more qualified than they are?

The only real qualification is honesty.
That’s what it is all about, speaking the truth (in love).

Are you saying the biblical experts are liars?

If what the Bible says about dinosaurs, is true, how much more of what the Bible says is true? If what the Bible said about Shiloh turned out to be true, it wouldn’t surprise me if everything the Bible says is true.
That must be the biggest fear of the Darwinist belief.

Why is it that you seek to hide information? Is that part of your belief? You say that it is wrong you but you don’t offer any help to correct the information. Why do you insist on keeping people in the dark just to beat them over the head with what they don’t know? Why don’t you come out with the information? Is that all you want to do is to hit me over the head with supposed “information” that you keep hiding?
In Bible study, there is nothing to hide and there is no reason to keep people ignorant. In that sense, I am more qualified than you to speak on Bible teaching… and you can’t require more from me than you do of yourself. It also would be insignificant to you how qualified I am if you cannot relate to it.
What else do you want to know about the Bible? Let’s see if I am qualified enough for your standards. Just don’t forget that you have to live up to your own standards.

The only thing that people need, in regard to anything, is honesty which requires humility.
It is the only way that a person will be able to confess the truth of God’s word which is to confess that Yeshua is the Lord.

Ed: You’re welcome! Chimps are really remarkable beings.

You said the Brachiosarus is not the largest land animal but you did not say which one is.
You said the Tyrannosaurus Rex is not the biggest land carnivore but you did not say which one is.
You are hitting and running and I am having to repeat everything for you.
There are no experts that emphatically say what the animals being described are.
You say that you don’t want to be qualified and just want to hear what the “experts” have to say. In other words, you don’t want to know what the truth is.
Again, I ask you, what do you want to know about the Bible. I know more than the average individual for sure and if the texts of Job are any measure, I know more than the so called “experts”.

Daleri
Oh I forgot to tell you – the length is measured in meters and I omitted all less than 25 meters. Also there are a few that I do not have specific sizes for so they don’t appear in the list. The only one that I find questionable is the 30 meter Yingshanosaurus because it is described as a stegosaurid which seems improbable but as I said before, I have an open mind. :}

It figures that what was described in the Jordan River was some kind of Brachiosauridae.
As for the Leviathan, I am prone to say that it could have been a Spinosaurus or something similar it seems like it would have to be the biggest and Africa is not far from the Middle East or Iran (the land of Nod where Job lived).

Dr
“Could a box evolve?
Could a paperclip evolve?
Did the Rushmore president faces just happen?”
Oh snap, that’s tragically funny. Obviously you are completely oblivious about evolution that’s about LIVING, REPLICATING organisms
“Religious fanatics of evolution believe they came from a ROCK. ”
Actually that’s closer to what Genesis claims
“Who has greater faith?”
Obviously you have. And this is a virtue… how?!? I rather make my decisions based on reality tyvm
“I know, I was an evolutionist scientist once.”
Enjoy your Lying for Jesus award

There are no experts that emphatically say what the animals being described are.
there certainly aren’t – and you’re no expert, so what you say is exceptionally questionable.
You say that you don’t want to be qualified and just want to hear what the “experts” have to say. In other words, you don’t want to know what the truth is.
Experts on any subject are more qualified than non-experts to make determinations. What the experts say is more likely to be truth than what you say.
Again, I ask you, what do you want to know about the Bible. I know more than the average individual for sure and if the texts of Job are any measure, I know more than the so called “experts”.
Why would you ask me again, when I’ve already said I don’t want to know anything about the bible – ESPECIALLY from you. You’ve been spouting off for days about brachiosaurus and T-Rex being described in the bible, and now it’s obvious you don’t have a clue – about dinosaurs or anything else. I’ll stick with asking questions of those who DO know what they’re talking about. In case you’re going to ask me again – you’re no expert on the bible. You just make things up to suit your political agenda.

Daleri
Well. I still feel that the description in the OT does not match dinosaurs but I really do not wan’t to argue the point. Just wanted to update you. :)

cturple
As I mentioned to Daleri I agree with you that the description does not match those of dinosaurs but I do not believe that it should be an issue. The ancients may have seen the same type of fossil evidence as we see today and just did not know how to describe them. That they were described as living creatures is not inconsistant with the way that we describe them, it just takes a little imagination, of which I am sure they were capable. These primitives were ignorant, but completely sapient. The issue is: are we to take the source as fact, or just as a view held by primitives. Arguing against a dogmatic belief will only give you headaches (it gives me one for certain).

Ed: It becomes an issue when the education of our nation’s children is at risk. Creationists use falsehoods to prop up their views, and I will always argue against falsehoods when they affect children. Daleri repeatedly stated that evolution is a lie and should not be taught in schools. I’m not inclined to cut such a person a break.

This thread began with a statement by jock59801: “Ned, do you really want to start this again? LOL Seriously, it will be interesting to find out who is behind this new campaign to manufacture “local” school board resolutions.”
Followed by one by Andy Clark, “This argument must be laid to rest along with all other forms of religious intervention in the education of children.”
Daleri put us on this dinosaur issue early on but the problem is, while illogical and highly improbable, not impossible. It is an issue not worth debating.
I agree with Andy, it needs to be laid to rest and that is why I want to see evidence.
Darwin’s ideas on mutation and variation are the foundation of the Theory of Evolution. They were proclaimed false by Owen on the basis of Creationism but he could not disprove this new idea and neither has anyone else since.
:}

Gotta love creationist/ID persistence.
First they failed pushing it into science, then they failed when pushing it trough court and now they are trying to push it trough politics, the forum with the lowest standards. That fact alone should speak volumes about the weakness of their argument.
Actually, why am I kidding. It’s genious to let people vote about what is true and what not. To start, let’s vote that AIDS really isn’t that deadly after all. If the majority of the voters doesn’t even know what AIDS mean you get a bonus. You might save millions of lives in Afrika alone!
After all, it’s not up to those pesky scientists to say what claims[/sarcasm]

From Belgium
Understood. Assume the base elements of those organic materials to be seperated at a molecular level. ie. remove the gas from the equation. Chemically, what is left?

In fact, no known land mammal has a large (thick) tail and no known land mammals were ever as large as either of the two reptiles that were described in the Bible. Use your heads!

Ed
About 96-99% of the human body consists of water and organic molecules. The rest of it are salts and minerals.

It is clear from the text that a dinosaur such as the Spineosaurus could not be kept as a pet. The obvious answer to the question is: Of course it could not be kept as a pet!

I found out yesterday that I am not the only one that believes the creatures are dinosaurs. I posted a youtube address but they took it down.
A true story: One time I was in the Amazon jungle snatching up baby cayman (alligators) with a friend and putting them in a bucket. They were all squawking when suddenly their big momma came up out of the water and was headed straight towards us. We nearly died laughing grabbing what we could and running as fast as we could out of there! We played with the baby alligators for a while and then we returned them to the pond.

I don’t rarely listen to commentaries for that reason. I want to know only what the text says. Commentaries are not a part of the translation and they had nothing to do with the translation.
A crocodile doesn’t raise himself up or make thunderous steps when it walks. Use your head!

From Belgium
But I do see where the confusion lies.
I attempted an explanation using the antagonists’ terminology. But the creation of life is also not an issue in evolution. The theory of Evolution begins with existing life and explains the mechanism of change. Because it does not deal with the creation of life or the creation of the universe for that matter, it is not in conflict with faith. (The conflict is what this post is about.)

Daleri
Re: “People seem to be arguing that it takes too much faith to believe in a Creator.”
It only seems that way to you. Please remember that there are several different backgrounds in this little discussion. There are creationist views, ID views and views from athiests and believers of assorted flavors who also happen to accept the Theory of Evolution as a valid science (as I do along the a vast majority on the planet). So please keep in mind that you are responding to a mixed bag here.
ps – To “from Belgium” – pun intended :}

Andy, please speak to the issues because you will never be able to change the issues. The facts have already been written and they will never change.

Daleri
Re: “If that is true then they must be following a different book or a different word from someone or somewhere”
Please refer to the new book from The National Academy of Sciences (you can find the links in two prior blogs:
Evolution: the Pushback
and
Evolution: “Overwhelming and Compelling”
(both by Ned)
This book explains this florida mess is a farce. It has endorcements indicating that there is no conflict with evolutiion from various faiths including the largest christian faiths in the world.
You have in fact been arguing with a few christians that accept evolution without any trouble at all.
In fact, the sects who take the old testament literally is a very small minority of christians and miniscule part of the world’s population. They just happen to be the most vocal.

From Belgium
I really do understand. I do not disagree with you.

Ed
“I really do understand. I do not disagree with you.”
Oh ok, I think I misunderstood you then.
*drops chainsaw and fetches box of cookies*

I don’t rarely listen to commentaries for that reason. I want to know only what the text says. Commentaries are not a part of the translation and they had nothing to do with the translation.
A crocodile doesn’t raise himself up or make thunderous steps when it walks. Use your head!
Apparently my remark, wasn’t appreciated by those in charge, as my comment appears to be gone, so I won’t repeat it.
The footnotes have everything to do with the translation – they reflect the opinion of the translator. The fact remains – you are not qualified to make assertions that the experts do not. If you don’t trust the experts to make express informed opinions, how is it you trust the text translation? You do know that biblical translations are very much a matter of opinion, don’t you? Ancient cultures had words that do not appear in English – the translations are NOT word for word.

“They accept a bad word but they do not accept a good word.” – Daleri
With you or an imaginary non-human authority filtered through your interpretation being the defining judge of what counts as “good” and as “bad”?

It’s their blog. They can do anything they want. We need to abide by their rules.

Re: “Their blog”
As long as they don’t complain about the outcome that they make for themselves.
If I may leave a quote from the Bible,
“Their webs will not become clothing, Nor will they cover themselves with their works.”
…but this is a(whole)nother way of looking at things because diabolical influences keep people from hearing things like this.

“To advance their anti-science and anti-secularism agenda, ID
creationists at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture seek to use public schools
“to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies,” “to
replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings
are created by God,” and to “see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and
political life” (Discovery Institute, 1998).”
Wake up people. The creationists are trying to destroy the very foundation of our nation by turning our Republic into a theocracy.

Since when was evolution a theory? The proof of it can be seen in your own family trees. If you want proof of long term evolution look at the various colors of skin in humans… God only started with 2 people and now we have how many different colors of people … how can you have that with out evolution… Secondly I believe in God but I think of him more as a 4 year old child playing with wooden blocks because if god was at all intelligent and if he really did make this world we call earth he would have done a better job.. so yeah all you people who look to a two-thousand year old book that has been modified over and over to better control masses of people, I consider you a fools….
but then what do i know I’m just a simple guy who doesn’t even bother to write properly…. yet i hope you get my point.

Let me first say that I am neither a Christian (or Jewish) nor a scientist, but I am a public school teacher.
I have been reading the past week’s comments with both humor and horror. It seems as though several reasonable people with more or less scientific knowledge have been doing their best to educate a single fundamentalist with set ideas who has no intention of ever actually learning anything.
It is a well-known fact among educators that you can only educate people who want to learn.
Give it up friends! This person (we all know who it is) revels in his/her ignorance and is oviously so afraid of uncertainity that he/she would rather die from a rock falling on his/her head rather than admit that God didn’t plan it out in advance.
Many of us wake up in the morning aware that anything could happen. An asteroid could hit, a tsunami could swamp us, or a bus could hit us on the street corner. Most of us get up anyway and choose to face the day. A very few people hide in their houses and collect food, weapons and other emergency supplies in the vain hope they themselves can control the future. But many more people refuse to aknowledge our total lack of control over the universe and choose to believe in a mythological being that can control everything for us.
These people can go through the day in the comforting knowledge that “God” will not allow anything bad to happen to them. Other people might get hit by that bus, but they are safe because they pray the right way and use the correct name for God in their prayers.
No, I’m not an athiest, either, I just can’t seem to fool myself into believing in some grand being that is so full of him/herself that if I don’t pray to him/her the right way that I’ll eventually get hit by a bus and burn in hell for it.
I also can’t fool myslef that God wrote a book several thousand years ago that includes all the important information that humans will ever need to know to navigate their way through life until the end of time (if there is an end, I find that one hard to swallow, too.)
And I find that I have been horribly offended by a certain person who said in this commentary “On the other hand, anything that is not the word of God will hurt you.”
Face it, there is no proof that any one god is more real than any other, yet this person seems to be arguing that not only is it a fact that the Judeo-Christian God runs everything, but that simply by listening to other’s beliefs I can be harmed–and am in fact harming my children by perpetuating it.
Who is harming who here? My children go to school and follow the golden rule, but fundamentalist christians of all ages have no problem telling them that they are going to burn in hell–and they have been saying this to them since they were five-years-old. This conversation happens on the playground so often that my son’s counselor actually went into his classroom and warned the teacher about it.
I have had fellow teachers pray for my soul in front of my students–not on campus but at the church next door. I have had teachers insist that no child use the word god in casual speech, but find it perfectly acceptable to allow my children to be marginalized when discussing community issues and personal beliefs in class.
The pressure to be Christian is all around us in America. Those few of us who ignore the moments of silence (that are really meant for morning prayer) and pass over the words “under god” in the pledge, are demonized not only in the press and but in real-life. This pressure has not eased over the years, but become more oppressive. As far as I can tell, the ONLY place they don’t talk about God in public schools is in the science classroom.
Science belongs in the science classroom. God is in literature class, social studies class, even math class (remember how Descartes used math to prove the existence of god?) I don’t care what you belive, eat, watch, do, or think about me and my beliefs, but I really wish you and your buddies would keep your personal beliefs out of my kid’s classroom!!!!
Blind faith is something you have chosen for yourself. I, and the other people commenting in this blog are trying to live in the real world.
My children deserve to go through their childhood without living in fear that your personal fantasy is about to come true.
If you are afraid that a little bit of reality might corrupt your children, then pay for a private school that caters to your personal fantasy. I have considered private schools myself, but the sorry fact is that my children will have to learn to deal with people like you as adults, so it is pointless to hide them away by homeschooling them. You might want to consider that from your point of view. Eventually, your children will have to deal with the real world too!
One other thing, you said that science has already discredited evolution early in the commentaries. That’s funny, because every scientist (who is actually a scientist and not a preacher in a lab coat) I have ever spoken too says that everyday there are more and more facts to support it. All you seem to be able to do is quote the bible. the bible is a book, not scientific research. The vast majority of people in this world consider it a worthless stack of garbage–because they are Buddhists, Hindu, Muslim, etc. You can’t prove anything without actual scientific research.

DR.
Name just 1 (credable) scientist who has done (exactly) that please.

Dr
“To the readers of this wayward forum… please note on the following copy of a post from Belgium that once again demonstrates that when atheists are backed into a logical corner the only recourse they have is to call names, and make accusations.”
I’m sounding mean so I must be wrong is the best you can do?
“The news article which has rarely been addressed here is essentially should the creation and evolution theories be taught to children. If education is honest then it becomes mandatory to teach all points of view.”
There are hundreds of creation myths. Why don’t YOU teach all those alternatives in church. Meanwhile, teach science in scienceclasses
“It happens that evolution theory is not supportable by scientific method”
Quite a feature to speak about honesty and then come with such a bold lie
“well apart from fraud, ie the PILTDOWN fraud.”
Are you serious? That’s been found out as a fraud THANKS TO the scientific method

Dr.
“By the way many scientists are beginning to understand that evolution is not logical, not scientifically supportable, and not honest.”
It has a mountain of evidence supporting it and it is perfectly falsifiable. Unfortunatly for you, there is yet to be found proof AGAINST evolution so untill then, it’s here to stay

I think it is absurd when people insist that the Creation story was fact. What small little minds they have, trying to limit God by boxing Him into irrelevant concepts of time and days and nights. I guess it comes down to a question of faith. Can you believe in a God of mystery whose majesty spans the universe, or do you need easy to understand concepts that require little thought?

Oh and by the way these attacks on the Bible and creation won’t work either you say there is no evidence for a flood like there’s no land based fossil evidence in the sea – has there ever been a large dig in the ocean floor so you don’t know to attack creationism as a untennable position with no evidence is a position of ignorance – there is much data which show the Bibles truth so according to the definition of a theory (a partially verified idea) creationism is a scientific theory as much as Macro evolution is – I am a science teacher 15yrs, as well I have worked in corning (clinical) rugby (drugs) and Ren (renal) Laboratories as well as working on the Agm69 nuclear missle – so I am not speaking from a position of ignorance or bias if you inperpet the Bible for what it says it is very accurate – and yes the earth could be billions of years old – in the beginning the God created the heavens and the earth, (how long was it like that before there was life??? it dosen’t say and you can’t read into it) Also to say there is no God is also an unscientific statement – science cannot prove or disprove a universal negative -

The various school boards in the southern states who oppose the presentation of the theory of evolution as the foundation stone of modern biology are the laughing stock of the world.

Whether we are the laughing stock of the world or not means absolutely nothing – the worold laughed at most of those who dealt in truth – truth verifiable truth is all that need be taught in science -Evolution – macro evolution is not the basis of all biology – micro evolution is – Florida schools had no problem teaching gradual changes over time – micro evolution – Changes from one species to another is ludicrious no matter what anyone believes – biologically, intellectually, statistically it’s impossible – and when it’s taught as a fact when it isn’t it’s wrong and shouldn’t be taught without the other view point – although a moot point since it was adopted – as theory – which it is
________________________________________
and by the way the earth being billions of years old is based upon our ability to measure it – if were wrong the earth is much younger – especially since if the bible is correct – decay rates as well as the the physical laws that governed this world were changed – at the flood see Science is limited to what we can interpet unffortunately we don’t know as much as we proport to know

Science constructs MODELS of nature’s processes. One such model is Evolution. This model is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence found in the physical world. This does not in any way prevent many scientists to believe in God. Although very well supported models of a natural processes exists, all scientists know that there will always be questions that we will not be able to answer within science. Such questions are, for instance, whether God exist and whether he acts in this world? Science does not make any statement about religious questions, and religion should not make statements about science because science is based on the interpretation of the physical world, and religion is based on believe. Both are fundamentally different and are for that reason not equivalent.
In school, science classes teach science and not religion. Religion may be taught in religious study classes, whether in schools or churches. Mixing both and presenting religious believes as scientific material is just as incorrect as trying to force churches to teach evolution (science) during bible studies.

Norm
Your statements about Darwin are outright lies. Shame on you.

Quietman, since you have declared my statements about Darwin to be lies, I would like to know what I said that was either incorrect or shameful. Below is what I said about Darwin:
Charles Darwin, (the seminary student) observed the natural world and published his beliefs. (The origin of species) He claimed that instead of a creator, the universe came about through the big bang, and life has proceeded through the eons until today.
What is shameful about that? He DID believe that the universe started with the big bang, didn’t he? He WAS a seminary student, right? I would like to know what I said that was so wrong.
Perhaps you are annoyed that I delved into the historical misuse of belief.
I mentioned the Nazi’s, I countered that with talking about the crusades. I don’t believe that anyone can condone the second world war OR the crusades, they both were terrible events!
Now, I said MISUSE. I don’t see how one can go into the history behind the argument without talking about the negative and the positive side of things.
Why I posted earlier was because Christoph was talking about Religion, Belief, and Evolutionary theory, and he was making a few errors. All I did was to outline the difference between the three, and to go into the historical misuse of both Religion and Evolution.
I agree with Christoph that it is wrong to teach Religion in school just as it is wrong to teach Evolution in Religious meetings.
But the discussion is NOT about whether or not to have the two intersect, the discussion is about two different scientific theories. Why shouldn’t it be labeled as “The Theory” of Evolution? It is a theory. This has nothing to do with teaching Religion in schools.
Re: “The Theory itself has evolved and continues to do so. That’s why it’s a theory and not a law.”
But should it be a U.S. LAW that it has to be the only thing taught in schools?
Christoph started going into the moral wrongness of teaching Religion in schools, and vice versa; I suggest we get back into what the realm of physical evidence and observable facts.
How about we discuss the Geologic strata?

So what strata lines, big deal, there are trees growing through strata lines – as well as the fact when Mt st helens blew her top and sprit lake was displaced down the mountain it created instant strata lines – not to mention the newest evidence finding Bronze age tools below stone age – all of that dosen’t mean anything you haven’t proved nor will anyone prove the lie that a lizard turned into a bird or a fish became a man – There is NO eveidence for it if you believe there is either your mistaken or deluded – I have a picture of a fossilized foot prints crushing underfoot trilobytes – Which were not supposed to exist at the same time – and before you say that the prints were steping on fossils – the Bugs are crushed underfoot – Because you suspect or summize that strata lines were laid down over millions of years means nothing there are other ways and other theory’s that can explain it in a short geological time – Uniformitarianism – guides your beliefs – it could have happend as well by a flood and that would explain the trees (fossilized trees) Growing through millions of years of strata lines – your key word is TEND to be found their not always found that way – sometimes their found inverted or jumbled – by the way a uniform flood would have done a uniform job over it’s scope of destruction – Your suppositions of the lowest fossils living closest to the ground is based on what LOGIC of something you didn’t observe – I do not buy into supposition PROVE IT! – You can’t you weren’t there – hence the basis of your foundational argument is based on maybe’s

Christoph, Quietman? I’d like to see what either of you think the four basic points suggested.
And Albert, please don’t assume that I believe in the theory of evolution.

Norm
Re: “He claimed that instead of a creator, the universe came about through the big bang, and life has proceeded through the eons until today.”
This is the outright lie. Darwin was not alive when the Big Bang theory was proposed so how on earth could he have said it. I own copies of all of darwins major works – He never said that there was no creator because he was a christian and believed in god. His books are not about the origin of life, they are about how species evolve. I said “shame on you” because the man is dead and could not say so himself.

Finally – Teaching evolution is teaching facts, it does not involve the origin of life or planets or suns or the universe. It is the facts that we are aware of (up to this point in time) that explain how life changes over time. The base of this theory is mutation in isolation. It does not deny god and it does not support any single religion. It is important to understand for anyone who will be learning to be genetic scientist and that is where medicine to going. The concept is to prevent diseases before they can happen.

Quietman, I don’t have a problem with schools teaching Biology, Biology is a VERY useful science! I don’t think however, that the science of biology would fail if macro evolution weren’t present.
I agree with you that Evolution is not a law, that it is a theory. I happen to believe in the theory of Creation, why creation is a theory and not a law is because unless it is universally accepted it is not a scientific law, and why it is a theory and not a hypothesis is because some of the same evidence that scientists observe to support evolution can be explained by the creationist theory.
And I’m sorry about my mistakes about Darwin, I haven’t researched him extensively, perhaps in a few days we can discuss him?

The problem with Evolution and Faith is that if there is no God (as many evolutionsits say – the preponderance of them are athiests) and we Evolved (against the laws of thermodynamics- and common sense) on our own then were no less than educated apes – people have debated why Godly people have a problem with the theory in it’s present form (not it’s original form) is because if this is to be adopted as fact what does this say about our society “were endowed by our creator with certian unaliaiable rights…” Etc no creator no rights – all laws in modern judeo Christian lands are based on the 10 commandments given by God – even lab and hospital cleanliness laws come from the Bible – if there is no God there are no rights there is no law and there is no eternal punishment for the guilty – why not kill or steal or commit sexual sins – if there is no God who cares – see the problem with taking the THEORY to it’s ultimate ends – Creation Scientists – see creation in the evidence just as strongly as Evolution scientists yet because the information is in a “religious” book it’s not allowed to be taught??? If there is evidence on both sides of a THEORY present them balanced and logically with teachers who know it and let the students decide for themselves – that’s all anyone is asking for – Why are people scared and frightened to allow that?? They pundits claim the Christians are scared to teach both – not so! Most christian schools teach both and yes it’s biased all people are biased but the evidence and the arguments are presented (at least in my class) and the children can descide as well as challenge anything said – if you know your subject you can answer if not you can’t -

Norm
We need also to understand what a Theory is in science – A factual working hupothesis that can be shown to be functionally true, while remaining open ended to allow addition or modification for improvement and advancement.

Albert Re: “(against the laws of thermodynamics- and common sense)”
This was argued by Eric in a previous column: “Evolution: “Overwhelming and Compelling” (by Ned) on January 03, 2008 3:55 PM. 423 comments!
It did not prove anything. You might want to read that column before starting it up again in this one.

Norm
You are right in that more discoveries need to be made. But I doubt any of us will live long enough to witness speciation. The P.E. hypothesis is a modification of Darwin’s theory (that Darwin had actually suggested first in “Origin”) that although speciation takes a very long time to build from small changes, catastrophic events put enough pressure on species to cause abrupt changes. If we look at this logically with an example using the giraffe we can see how it works. The giraffe is descended from an antelope-like animal that had a lot of variation in neck length (some had short necks, some longer). There is a climate change and for one reason or another the low vegetation becomes scarce. The short necked offspring can not get enough food and die before they can mate. This leaves only the long neck variation to reproduce and in a relatively short period of a couple generations all giraffes now have long necks. If we look at the fossil of the parent species we can see it was similar to the giraffe but it was not what we now call a giraffe. This is how we get from micro to macro in a short burst.

Norm
Last, for evidence (not proof) of macroevolution I suggest you visit Dr. Fillers website “The Upright Ape”, as it is the most current (and naturally disputed) hypothesis, to get an idea as to where the theory stands today.

Norm
In the case of the giraffe the major variation was in the length of the neck vertebra, the number of vertebra did not change (8 I believe). I am not sure of the exact conditions that caused the sparcity of lower vegetation. It has been a long time since I studied cenezoic mammals in general. The last major climate change that caused a lot of extinctions and led to this type of speciation was a thermal maximum that occurred about 55 million years ago. If I remember correctly it was about 7 degrees C hotter than today. This is Darwin’s hypothesis – there other views that are still debated as to why the long vertebrae was successful but it really doess not matter why – the fact is that a short necked animal is the parent species of the giraffe.
The best documented evidence of evolution is for the horse, going from a multi-toed dog-size animal to the single toed horse of today. Wikipedia has a brief history of horse evolution if you would like to see the illustrations.

Norm
As for DNA evidence, that is a new field. Most of these fossils were never even looked at for DNA and once the fossil has been treated it can no longer be used to check DNA because of contaminants. We have to find more fossils and check for DNA before any treatment is done for preservation.

Well, I think that it actually confuses the issue more to have both micro and macro know simply as ‘Evolution’. Micro indicates changes Within a species, whereas Macro indicates changes resulting in a New Species. If there isn’t this distinction, someone could ask if you ‘believe in evolution’ and mean either kind, even though they are very different.
I think the evidence for having a common ancestor for members of the Equidae family (horses, donkeys, zebras) is accurate. Horses, donkeys, and zebras can still interbreed if two of the animals are raised together. Horse breeding (micro evolution) has been recorded in history for a while now.
However, I don’t think there is compelling evidence for the Order Perissodactyla; by this I mean that I do think that the members of the Horse family share a common ancestor with the members of the Tapir and Rhinoceros families.
None of the three families of the order perissodactyla can interbreed; we have such things as mules, zorses, and zedonkeys, but no tapir-horses, rhino-donkeys, or any other such combination.
If they could interbreed, the differences in evolution would be micro. But since they are in different families of species and cannot interbreed, there would have had to have been macro evolution to explain how that they cannot interbreed and yet still have a common ancestor. I personally don’t think they had a common ancestor.
As for bear-dogs, the google search didn’t turn anything up. I think to prove macro evolution through a common ancestor for bears, cats, and dogs would be pretty hard, partly because you’d have to find the missing links and do DNA testing on them, and also because of the way cats and dogs fight I don’t think we’d EVER get THEM to accept it!
I don’t think anyone disputes the heritage of dogs and wolves; it was my understanding that dogs are just domesticated wolves. Wolves can be made into dogs, and dogs if left in the wild act just like wolves.

Norm
Please note that I said “classic” definition. Definitions are by consensus and therefore not etched in stone.

Norm
The mount may or may not be actual bones. The museum in New York does normally use the bone when it is available (or I should say did, I have not been there since the renovation).
Either way the mount would look the same.
There are other fossils that were found before the bear-dog showing a common ancestry. I pointed out this one because even though it was a dead end, it was nearly complete and has an accurate mount for you to look at.
The classic definition is fine for such a discussion but keep in mind that a second definition is used more commonly today because of DNA studies.

Well, my point is that until somebody has a complete or at least a very nearly complete skeleton of a common ancestor for dogs and bears, the theory doesn’t have much plausibility.
And until DNA testing has been done on the fossils, it shouldn’t be taught in schools as evidence in favor of the theory of macro evolution.
Granted, if full skeletons have been found or are found, but DNA testing is impossible due to the conditions, it could be taught as possible but UNCONFIRMED evidence in favor of macro evolution, and only that. It shouldn’t be taught as or treated as reasonable proof until there is enough evidence to back it up.

Norm, I think that just the osteology is all that is needed to show transition. DNA tells us more but so far all it has done is confirm what we had already suspected.
As the study of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself (creation) I see no conflict with faith.

Norm – yes.

Albert
I can and do follow the teachings of Christ but I still can be a Naturalist because it is not a faith, it is a science, and does not interfere with Faith.

Now, so far as I know, most religions can accept naturalism in some form. (I hope the below doesn’t offend anyone.)
The ancient Greek gods and goddesses were for the most part just a commentary on humanity, fate, and morality; so far as I know they wouldn’t have any problem with a Hybrid Naturalism, having their gods start everything and then leave the processes alone.
I could go on, but I think any polytheistic religion can accept a hybrid of naturalism without too much doctrinal change.
As for Monotheism:
I don’t think moderate Islam would have a problem with yet another form of Naturalism, this one having Allah setting up and in control of the universe. Personally, I don’t think they’d go for osteology as they don’t seam to have much respect for lower forms of life, but that may be only a cultural issue and not a religious one.
For Christianity and Judaism however, naturalism or a hybrid of naturalism is not really going to work.
Both have a God who is not a part of the machinery, by this I mean that He is not the spark plug or just there to turn the key, He made all of nature and He is involved in the universe while not being a part of nature. So the condition requiring him to be a part of nature doesn’t work.
Both have a God who is not bound by the physical laws of the universe, (time, space, dimension, etc.) He has these laws in place for a purpose, but they are subject to Him, not the other way around. So He CAN interfere with the system, and HAS interfered, according to the Bible and the Torah. Thus the second requirement also doesn’t work for these two.
In my opinion, Judaism and Christianity cannot be reconciled with Naturalism without denying the core truths they profess.
So if you were wondering why Christians and Jews seem to be the major objectors to naturalism being the ONLY theory taught in public schools, it is because they hold a totally different world-view than naturalism offers.
That’s why there is a conflict between faith and naturalism.

Quietman, I’d like to point out that I wasn’t referring to micro evolution, but to Naturalism. Ideologically no-one has a problem with micro evolution.
As for radical sects, because sects are always formed by people who are imposing leaders, they don’t need to follow what is written. Sects are formed by these people because they think they have a better understanding, it doesn’t matter if they believe in the bible, the leader can either twist it beyond recognition or declare it null.
Your right, some sects will never accept evolution. But that’s because leaders of sects and cults cannot have the truth coming from any source other than themselves, it would destroy their power over information.
The bible gives the common man the source of truth, no-one is supposed to give rulings over it, if they do, they deny it and they establish themselves as the only source of truth.
As for Catholics, did the John Paul II mean micro or macro? If he did mean macro and thus Naturalism, its worthy to point out that the bible doesn’t anywhere permit one person on earth to be the voice of God. Papal law is what allows papal power.
As for Protestants, I don’t know who it is that has embraced naturalism, but I cannot see how they could embrace something that denies the existence of the God of the bible. Are they still Christian if they don’t believe in Christ?
So, the “problem” doesn’t lie with people not believing their leaders, the “problem” is a difference in what the bible says and what naturalism allows. To state that naturalism has nothing to say about faith in God is incorrect, to accept naturalism you have to accept preconditions about the the way universe is, a way that doesn’t allow for the God of the bible.
So it IS a matter of faith, because although naturalism is a scientific theory, it only allows a certain kind of God, so you have to take it on Faith that only THIS kind of God could exist.

Quietmen,
You are misunderstanding my point. God is in Nature, but he is not OF Nature. I believe that Jesus does want us to see his work in Everything around us. Wherever we look we will find him, consider psalm 139:
“Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Death, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, Even there Your hand will lead me, and Your right hand will lay hold of me.”
I really think that Naturalism doesn’t allow for a God who is actively involved in Nature and not merely a part it. And I believe that is who the god of the bible is.

Yes, belief in God is a matter of the soul. But how a person understands the nature of the universe is a reflection of how they view the universe. If you believe in God you perceive things differently than if you do not.
Naturalism and Creationism differ on this point, to accept a theory you have to accept the thinking that leads up to it, the presuppositions.
With Naturalism, the presupposition is that the universe was started either by the Big Bang or a God who planned the whole thing and hasn’t interfered with it; thus you get macro evolution, things changing species and gaining a better understanding of the universe.
With Creationism, the presupposition is that the universe was created by a God who can and does interfere with nature, and who one who gave us free will and reason; thus you only get micro evolution, things changing with the passage of time, but not getting better and better until we turn into the X-men.
Where does this come into teaching the theory of Evolution in schools? In that, if there is only one of these theories, the child is not getting a good education, one that teaches both schools of thought while remaining objective.
Either theory states things about the nature of the universe that are at best borderline philosophy and at worst indoctrination. Is it the job of the U.S. government to teach this? I don’t think so.
Either we should teach our children both points of view, (which isn’t done now) or Public schools should only teach Biology without an emphasis on either Naturalism or Creationism.
Also, genetic research would not fail if there was no emphasis on Naturalism in schools, do you know of anyone who has objections to ethical genetic research aimed at curing people of disease? I don’t.
To recap: Teach both theories or teach neither.

We homeschool our Children for this very reason. The STATE should not be educating your children…YOU should..but americans are greedy for mlore stuff so they put there kids into the “public fool system”. Homeschooled kids typically graduate high school no later than the age of 16, as very mature ytoung people, and have a Bachelor degree at the age of 18….when most peoples’ kids are just graduating high school.
OH, FYI…the STATES did a study to determine how many HOURS of home education equal an 8 hour public school school day….the answer will blow your mind, and hopefully start you on the path of truth (that most of what youve been taught is a lie, that up is down and down is up) 3 HOURS!!!
Me teaching my child for 3 hours is the equivalent of someone else teaching them in an 8 hour public school day. And I know several teachers that want to homeschool there children, but they work as teachers and are embarrassed to not shwo support for the “system” they represent.
Home schoolong is better if you are intelligent enough to follow a lesson plan, however; If you have some college yourself then forget the lesson plan, make your own based on what you want for your children. We created our own curriculum and our children are far advanced from there age peers.
We as a people, Americans, have gotten lazy, obese, and ignorant…believing anything the government, or there extension (media)tell us. Question Authority. A Ficticious entity (a STATE, or non human, a PERSON like the Government) will never have YOUR best interest at heart.

Wow