God vs. Godless: ‘Expelled,’ the Anti-Darwinism Film, Expells a Critic

You know, it’s almost to the point where it’s a bigger waste of time arguing over it than actually looking at it in a scientific viewpoint. There will always be religion, and there will always be science. The two are always going to fight over who’s right and who’s wrong. Hell, I’m sure there’ll be wars over it in the future. So for now, my mind is made up. I know that evolution happens and is going to continue to happen. Untill someone from the I.D. side can show the exact same amount of plausible evidence, not just a few things, and spout that God did it as evidence, I’ll continue to believe this. I’ll also continue to believe in God as well, I can do that and know that evolution without fear that my belief system is going to come crashing down around me. I evolve, I adapt my belief system around what science tells me. Now, I’ll leave you with the greatest religious quote I’ve ever heard. “Religious wars are nothing more than two people fighting over who’s imaginary friend is better.” And with that, let the argueing begin!

If people understood both science AND faith, as complementary views, then we would not have Intelligent Design creationists pushing their blinkered views. I went to a promo for “Expelled” at a local church … and they weren’t peddling truth. But if it makes a few bucks to bash rational science, then they’ll fit right in with the anti-science Bush acolytes.

“Anti-Darwinist” film?
Well, Ned, I can see you’re buying into the rhetoric of Ben Stein and company.
Biologists don’t call themselves “Darwinists.” That’s the name the godder lobby came up with to bash science and scientists, naming them as if they’re just another dubious faith-based evidence-free religious sect.
If you’re going to call it anything, call it “anti-science.” Or maybe anti-reason, anti-intellect, or anti-science-education.

I watched the Ben Stein’s super trailer and it just about made me cry to think that there still may be people with reason left on this earth. This has got to be the best movie since Schindler’s list or something like that.

hi beatruefriend! I’m glad you were moved by it. Religion can certainly move people very profoundly. I think that’s great. But science is not based on emotions. Science and religion are both important but need to be kept separate.

It was truth of Science that moved me coming out of the mouths of human beings.

You’re right, PQQAm. There is documentation of living dinosaurs all over the place. They’re called birds.
I’ve heard many, many arguments citing documentation of dinosaurs living with man (usually it’s the Bible, itself), and it’s never failed to be question-begging. You can’t attribute evidence in a such a tenuous manner and then argue that you have evidence. That’s not how science works.

Five hundred years ago, religion was arguing for the earth being the center of the univers. Now we look back at that concept as ridiculous.
So I would imagine that in five hundred years, historians will look at Ben Stein as an idiot. Some of us do now….

The dinosaurs described in the Bible and other places are historical documentations. Yes, this is evidence and it is the only history that we have.

PQQAm – Well, there were thousands od species of dinosaurs, and most of them were quite small. And none of them breathed fire. So there was a few points the Bible seems to have missed. Which is understandable; the Bible was not intended as a scientific document.

We can figure out later if it was just ID or a biblical creation. You don’t know what the dinosaurs did or did not do because no one was there to see them …except the people that saw them 4000 years ago. They described them for us and the Bible is not the only account of a fire breathing dragon.

PQQAm – Yes, legends of fire-breathing dragons are older than the Bible, and still no one has actually found one. Dinosaurs were not fire-breathing dragons. I’m still not understanding how the Bibles description of a mythical fire-breathing creature somehow proves that evolution didn’t happen. There are a few logical steps that seem to be missing there.

Mr Potter, a salient point of the incident is the fact that Dr Myers is actually IN this film. He is thanked in the ending credits. In spite of that, the producer kicked him out. And he’s not the only person who appears in the film that hasn’t been allowed to see it; Eugene Scott (sorry if I spelled her name wrong) was also interviewed for the film and has been blocked from seeing it. What is the producer afraid of? And how does his behavior square with your experience?

The other dinosaur that was described was a sauropod. Put the two together and you have evidence that cannot be refuted because the other other one was a Spinosaurus otherwise known as “the dragon”. You don’t know that the dragon did not breathe fire because no one today has seen it. So no one today can say one way or another but the people that described it can say that it breathed fire.

Robert
Did you take pictures? If such evidence existed, where is it? Anyone who could prove what you say could easily get it published in any scientific journal and would be instantly famous. Yet this hasn’t happened. Why not? And I don’t mean “prove” it to other creationists. I mean show us all, if it is so obvious. I keep hearing about these footprints and I’m really curious, but for some reason I can’t find any pictures, anywhere. And you wonder why we don’t believe you?

If Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, let alone a full blown theory, where is the objective evidence from a single repeatable and verifiable experiment that proves even one of the NECESSARY assumptions upon which ID relies? There is no objective data from repeatable and verifiable experiments because ID as most proponents push it relies entirely upon circular logic and unprovable assumptions.
* Assumption – A supreme intelligent designer must necessarily exist.
** So, where is the objective experimental data that proves this supreme intelligent designer exists?
* Assumption – The supreme intelligent designer that must necessarily exist, also must necessarily be the Judeo Christian God of the Bible.
** So, Where is the objective experimental data that proves the Judeo Christian God of the Bible exists?
** Or, where is the objective experimental data that proves the Judeo Christian God of the Bible is the one and only intelligent designer?
** Or,where is the objective data that proves the intelligent designer wasn’t Jupiter, Zeus, Buddha, Odin, Zoraster, etc. etc.?
** Also, where is the objective data that proves the creation stories from every other religious tradition is wrong?
* Assumption – It is impossible for random uncontrolled events, even if given billions of years, to evlove more complex life from less complex.
** Where is the objective data that proves more complex life CANNOT EVER evolve from less complex life?
* Assumption – There is one, and only one, supreme intelligent designer.
** Where is the objective experimental data that proves there was one designer and not multiple designers?
*** Maybe plants, mammals, fish, insects, etc. etc. had separate designers. Or each specific plant, animal, and insect had its own designer, meaning there was one designer each for lions, and tigers, and bears – oh my, etc. etc.
*** Maybe each complex system had its own designer, and then different designers combined the systems in different ways to make different life forms. In other words, maybe muscular systems, and nervous systems, and digestive systems, etc. etc., had their own designers, and then a different group of designers designed different life forms from those systems.
*** In other words, maybe one group of designer designed the pieces of the puzzles, and then different designers put the pieces together in as many different ways as they could think of.
* Assumption – Only a supreme intelligent designer, i.e. one that is omnipotent and omniscient, is intelligent enough to design all of the life we see.
** Where is the objective data that proves a being, or beings, of lesser or non-omniscient intelligence could not possibly have designed any or all of the life on this planet?
*** Maybe a prehistoric but extinct race of people used eugenics and genetic engineering programs to design the life we now see.
*** Maybe a prehistoric but extinct race of people cracked the unified field theory and built machines able to change and manipulate matter and energy at will. Then, instead of using low tech eugenics and genetic engineering, they just had the high tech machines design and create the life we see now.
*** Or, maybe highly advanced aliens came here and did it with either of those two methods.
Now for the big irony. I actually belive in ID, and I believe it should be taught in schools – but only in authentic philosphy classes and religion classes; not science classes because ID is not science. At best ID is a religious hypothesis or religious theory.
Also, my version of ID is unacceptable to every ID proponent I have ever met. I believe that God chose to design evolution as His process for developing and changing life. I believe evolution is the process God designed for us to eventually evolve toward complete understanding and eventual union with Him. And I am intellecually honest enough to admit that I can’t prove it.

Scientists have barely tapped in to 3% of universal workings. There are so many unexplainables in the life which we live, along with the life that we don’t know about. People think they have the answer to everything or will someday find the answer, which, yes, have helped us acquire knowledge and wonderful aids for the life of which we live. However, no matter how much people keep pushing and pushing, they will never even begin to comprehend how much they will never ever know. The reason for the word mystery is because of the meaning…MYSTERY..some things are just not meant to be figured out! Science and Religion go more hand in hand than anybody can fathom.

Science classes are supposed to teach our kids how to use the scientific method of discovery in the world. This methodology requires factual support of any ‘theory’ put forth. Evolution isn’t a theory and ID supports that fact. ID is like Darwinism in that it is a theory of evolution – why evolution happens. But it is a fundamentally flawed theory because it can not be scientifically proven – the initial assertion is flawed because no one has ever provided any direct evidence to support the existence of a supreme being, let alone that it is responsible for anything. Beyond that, the evidence in support of ID is equally flawed and has been refuted without rebuttal. In other words, other scientists have pointed out the flaws in the evidence to support ID and no one on the ID side has come up with any other evidence to support their side.
ID, therefore, provides an excellent example to teach our kids about the dangers of flawed initial assumptions (or hypothesis), flawed evidence, flawed presentation and flawed defense of a theory. There is often a fine line between science and pseudo-science, which the ID’iots are trying to blur. Showing our kids how this kind of thing happens in science is an invaluable lesson for them. It will help hone their critical thinking skills.
In conclusion, to “Political Fundamentalism = The Real Danger”, fundamentalism is merely the strict, unyielding adherence to a set of ideals or beliefs.
I think the danger lies in fundamentalism alone, whether religious, political, social or what have you. And regardless of how many deaths one or the other has caused, one is too many. Killed with kindness and good intentions (a hypocrisy at best) is just as dead as killed over political differences. Though you assert that “RELIGION IN GENERAL IS FUNDAMENTALLY GOOD IN NATURE AND INTENT.” I argue that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And religions have a lot of convenient excuses to send a lot of people to hell the hard way.

The “only” evidence that we have is documented historical evidence and the evidence of design. That is quite a lot of evidence if you ask me. It is the only alternative that we have. We can’t make things up so we have to go by these evidences that we have.

There is absolutely NO scientific evidence of any dinosaurs existing after the extinction event 65 million years ago. All claims otherwise by creationists have been totally disproven by science as either outright lies or misinterpetations of the evidence. For example the so called evidence of human footprints next to dinosaurs was shown to be just eroded footprints of another dinosaur that looked similar to a human but were clearly not human. And tales about fire breathing dragons doesn’t make that historical evidence. Humans have handed down fairy tales in every culture, that doesn’t make it true. No physical evidence exists for these creatures and they are not even practical scientifically anyway. Just because it says in in the bible doesn’t make it true. For example its scientifically impossible to live inside a whale for days or get strength from long hair!! The bible is loaded with errors. I will go with science on the history of life on this one.

It is impossible to have a description of a dinosaur without ever having seen one… then again, God is the One describing them but it was clearly confirmed by the writers. It is two different kinds of dinosaurs BTW plus the sea creature that swallowed Jonah. We really have nothing today that could swallow a person whole but there were sea creatures that could have in the past.

Andy,
Amen to that!

So PQQAm, the fossils we now have in museums couldn’t possibly, in any way, have lead the writers of the bible to describe what they thought they would have looked like in the flesh?
For some reason, I get the feeling a lot of the ID community spends a lot of time with their fingers in their ears yelling “la-la-la-la-la”.
Fact: The bible is a 2000+ year old book written and EDITED by men. Men who feared the sun would stop coming up if they sinned enough. Men who thought the earth was the absolute center of the universe. Men who thought the glowing orb in the sky revolved around us. Men who had no clue what a “germ” was. Men who though mental illnesses were possessions by demons. Men who though birthmarks were obvious signs of devil worship.
In other words, ridiculous, superstitious, comparative cavemen with no understanding what-so-ever of the world around them.
hopefully, someone out there reads what I’ve written and becomes aware of the fact that the bible is a good book, it tells us how we should live and that God loves us, but it is just a book of stories, written to fill in the gaps in knowledge and help us become good people of faith. It is not the end-all, beat-all authority on the world around us. Those who try to make it appear as though it is, are foolish at best and, if in a position of power, deadly at worst.

According to the footnotes in my Bible, the objective theologians and historians believe the Biblical mention of leviathon refers to the crocodile and behemoths were most often the hippopatamus.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“BEHEMOTH, is generally translated by “great beasts”; in its wider signification it includes all mammals living on earth, but in the stricter sense is applied to domesticated quadrupeds at large. However in Job, xl, 10, where it is left untranslated and considered as a proper name, it indicates a particular animal. The description of this animal has long puzzled the commentators. Many of them now admit that it represents the hippopotamus, so well known to the ancient Egyptians ; it might possibly correspond as well to the rhinoceros.”

Okay Quietman, I went to the website and looked at many of the pictures and read every label looking for the picture with the people tracks. So, where are the pictures of the people footprints the ID’ers and creationists are so excited about? If anyone claims that any of the prints I saw were supposedly made by humans, then they are merely demonstrating how most people (especially ideologues of any flavor or persuasion) only see what they believe rather than believe what they see. The few prints that vaguely had the rough shape of a human foot HAD NO TOES, and so they could have been made by anything.

You people who are soo religious should try taking some geology classes and see for yourselves that the bible is wrong in many ways.
Don’t tell me that you can agree with biology without thinking evolution has some part in it.

Try giving a hint of criticism on a fundie forum a la rapture ready and see how fast you get “expelled” there.
This movie seems like a classbook example of religious fundamentalists projecting their own intolerance onto science
I wonder what Ben Stein was thinking. Maybe he saw how easy televangelists were making good money out of the mindless sheep of the midwest and wanted his slice of the pie.

Jock
You might also find the cretaceous “hand print” and cretaceous “hand bones” articles on the same site of interest. I have a rock on my property with 3 of these prints that appears to be carboniferous rock. Of course they are foot impressions but my hands fit nicely except for the thumbs which I can’t bend in that direction.

We can only go with the information that we have. We can’t be making up things. …and please speak to the issues. Don’t ignore the facts that we have.

So you all agree that Behemoth is not a hippo and Leviathan is not a crocodile. We are making progress.

I showed you a historical account because that is all that we have right now. We have to be responsible with what we have.

Do you also question if there was ever a “horse” or an “ostrich” which were also described?

The flood lasted a good five months before the water began receding which, again, makes a lot of sense. The mistake people make is not to believe the account of the flood and the other things like descriptions of a sauropod and Spinosaurus otherwise known as that old Serpent, the Dragon.

And there is no scientific evidence of a global flood. Again – show us some physical evidence.

Do you also question if there was ever a “horse” or an “ostrich” which were also described?
PQQAm: um…no – we still have horses and ostriches, and the fossil record is full of evidence of those animals being found in association with human remains. Also dogs, cats, deer, pigeons, raccoons, armadillos, tortoises, giant ground sloths, bears, coyotes, and pigs. no dinosaurs.

…and we still have dinosaur remains that fit the descriptions of the creatures that are described in History.
If they ever did find evidence of dinosaurs and humans together, they would likely throw it out the same way they have a habit of throwing out dinosaur skin.

If they ever did find evidence of dinosaurs and humans together, they would likely throw it out the same way they have a habit of throwing out dinosaur skin.
PQQAm: “BEIJING, Dec. 4 (Xinhuanet) — A partially mummied dinosaur was found in North Dakoda with its intact skin tissues, media reports said Tuesday quoting paleontology researchers.
The fossilized dinosaur, dubbed Dakota, may reveal secrets locked away for millions of years, allowing scientists to calculate its muscle volume and reconstruct its musculature in ways previously difficult to do. “……….Don’t be ridiculous. Scientists don’t throw ANYTHING away. Scientists keep plant pollen.

Andy Clark: actually, I think “reason” is their Kryptonite.

Can someone please explain to these people that the Bible does not constitute “historical evidence”?
There are dozens and dozens of creation myths in various cultures around the world. Why do folks think the writings in the Christian bible have any more significance than what Native American medicine men might dream up while tripping on peyote? Who knows, maybe *they* are right.
You can’t take a fairy tale (i.e. The Bible), and use it as a starting point and insist that it is infallible and a true historical document, and expect that argument to be persuasive to anybody except those who follow that particular brand of religion.
I grew up a Catholic, and my priest taught that the Old Testament was a collection of parables. He believed that evolution was the tool God used to execute his grand plan. If you want to believe in God and still accept that fact that 2+2=4 and not spend all your time banging your head against scientific reality, then that would seem to be the wisest path of logic to take. Why is it so hard?

cturple, if you had read the whole article, you would have seen how they used to (or still do) routinely discard dinosaur skin.

People just don’t want to face the facts because it requires that we recognize a Creator which also requires personal responsibility for all the things that we say and do.

cturple, if you had read the whole article, you would have seen how they used to (or still do) routinely discard dinosaur skin.
PQQAm: I read the entire article, and I’ve read a few thousand other articles. Scientists do not discard dinosaur skin.
Archaeologists make use of historical accounts by using them to aid in the establishing of actual evidence. The historical account on its own is not sufficient evidence for any scientist. And there is NO physical evidence of dinosaurs being found with human remains or artificats. If you have to “go with you’ve got,” you’ve got an unsupported, vague description – and that is what a scientist would call it – not “THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

-”Begin said several other dinosaurs with fossilized skin have been unearthed around the world, but only a handful have enough skin to be of use for research and education and in most previous cases the skin was considered to be of lesser importance. “The goal was to get bones to put on display,” he said.”- – - This must be a “revelation” to some people. – “in most previous cases the skin was considered to be of lesser importance. “The goal was to get bones to put on display” – Of course, this was no surprise to me. The point of this film that Ben Stein made is that scientists themselves are routinely discriminated against if the come up with “creationist’s” findings.

“you’ve got an unsupported, vague description” – Spinosaurus and Sauropod bones support the very vivid descriptions …leading us to the truth of a Creator.

“you’ve got an unsupported, vague description” – Spinosaurus and Sauropod bones support the very vivid descriptions …”
Descriptions of animals can be inferred from bones – obviously these pastoral people were familiar with animal bones, and they knew what a leg bone was, no matter how big it was. There is no physical evidence to support your contention that dinosaurs were ALIVE when these descriptions were written. That is why I keep asking you for evidence placing dinosaur bones in association with human artifacts. That is the only way to prove they coexisted. Everything else is CONJECTURE.

PQQAm: You’re quoting some guy associated with a movie about creationism to make a scientific point? really????????????

PQQAm – All of the Biblical evidence you refer to is subjective belief that you then wrap in conjecture to use for self-supporting circular logic. There is a tremendous difference between subjective evidence (i.e. opinion and belief) and objective empirical evidence (i.e. fact). The Genesis story of the flood only proves either: The author sincerely believed it had some basis in historical fact; OR that the author sincerely believed a metaphorical story about a flood was culturally useful to teach important moral lessons. The fact that so many other cultures have similar flood stories does not prove that the Genesis story is literally true in every single detail. Nor does it prove that any of the stories, let alone all of them, are referring to the same flood that happened at the same time. The fact that similar stories exist for many cultures only proves that many other cultures have a similar flood story. Any and all other conclusions are subjective conjecture. The most reasonable conclusion to form is that the ancestors of those cultures experienced a catastrophic flood event and not necessarily the same event. But that is only a probability, not a certainty.
Also, the Old Testament story about the flood only provides ONE OF MANY possible explanations for why so many cultures have a flood story about their ancestors. Here are several equally plausible explanations for why so many cultures have a similar flood story:
* All cultures with a flood myth have descended from people who were living in the Black Sea basin back when it was a large fresh water lake. During a season of powerful thunderstorms and heavy rains an earthquake caused the land bridge separating the Black Sea Lake from the Mediterranean Sea to collapse and flood the Black Sea basin with an additional several hundred feet of water. That is why the Black Sea has separate layers of salt water and fresh wate. The descendents of the survivors have since spread throughout the world and passed down the story verbally for thousands of years.
* Ditto for ancient peoples living in the Mediterranean Sea basin before the collapse of the land bridge separating it from the Atlantic.
* Ditto for ancient peoples living in the Red Sea basin before the collapse of the land bridge separating it from the Indian Ocean. Except instead of an earthquake causing the land bridge to collapse a tidal wave from an asteroid or comet impact broke down the land bride.
* Speaking of asteroid or comet impacts. Maybe ancient peoples living near the oceans experienced a catastrophic tidal wave floods caused by the impact of a large asteroid or comet – like the earthquake induced Indian Ocean tidal waves from a few years ago only much bigger. If an impact is big enough the energy transfer through the core of the earth can actually cause tidal waves on the opposite side of the plant. Or do you not believe in physics either.
* The flood stories of the various cultures with such a story had ancestors who experienced real catastrophic floods from any or all of the above causes at different times in different parts of the world and then passed down those stories verbally for thousands of years. Just because the stories are similar does not prove they are all about the same flood at the same time with the same cause.
If your logic were valid, then the fact that the Babylonian and/or Sumerian flood myth predates Genesis would mean that their descendents should be able to claim that Genesis proves their story is correct.

This description of Leviathan in Isaiah has Spinosaurus written all over it.
Isaiah 27:1 NIV
[Deliverance of Israel] In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword, his fierce, great and powerful sword, Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea.
This language is symbolic but we already know that the creature was real.
Psalms 104:26 NIV
There the ships go to and fro, and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

John, …and what do we do with History? Do we just throw it out?
That is not very scientific.

BK, I do believe the flood could have caused by an asteroid or meteorite that hit the gulf of Mexico. That may be what caused both the waters above and the waters below to flood the entire earth.

BK, I believe the earth did not have the kind of high peaks in the mountains that we have today. This happened when the flood waters receded and formed the oceans which pushed up the mountains that we have today. It also gave the impression or appearance that the earth is expanding. Do a search on “expanding earth conspiracy” and you will see what they are talking about.
I find it very interesting that Leviathan, I mean, Spinosaurus is the only dinosaur that has conical teeth similar to crocodiles and alligators. I believe it was very similar because of the rows of scales along its back that are in the first description of Leviathan, also very similar to the crocodile and alligator. The only difference is that Leviathan was much larger than a crocodile, even if the crocodile was twenty feet long (Spinosaurus was 17 meters long), and Leviathan is able to raise itself up. The crocodile cannot. Leviathan was not called a sea monster for nothing.
We need to be looking at the facts objectively. The so called theologians are wrong, pure and simple. They are also wrong about Behemoth being a hippo.

PQQAm – Well, it is certainly your right to choose to believe that there were no mountains at the time of the flood or any of the floods. However, we do not have any objective facts available to use as evidence to support such an opinion. Nor do we have any objective facts available to use as evidence to explain where what, 28,000 or more feet of water went. And, which is it – did the receding flood waters push up the mountains, or expose mountains that were already there? We also don’t have any available objective facts to use as evidence to explain which of those two choices can possibly be correct. Concluding anything beyond what the Bible explicitly says, according to the experts who did the translations, is pure conjecture.
Why are you willing to trust the experts who did the translating, but not the experts who did the interpreting?
What facts about leviathan and behemoth? We don’t have any objective facts about the leviathan and behemoth in the Bible to work with. At least nothing beyond the facts of what the Bible says. Unfortunately, the meaning of what the Bible says is totally subjective. I have no empirical or rational reason to doubt the opinions the experts who translated the Bible, or the other experts who made contextual interpretations and considered all of the available knowledge about ancient Hebrew culture and their neighbors.
Maybe the reason modern crocodiles and allegators have teeth similar to spinosaurus, and I don’t know that is fact, is because maybe the spinosaurus is an evolutionary ancestor. Just a guess because my knowledge of dinosaurs is very minimal.
Behemoth is merely a plural form of the very common ancient Hebrew word behemah, which means a dumb beast. Sometimes in ancient Hebrew plural forms contextually meant many, and sometimes the plural form contextually meant greatness.

Consider the following circumstantial evidece that God did not and does not intend for us to interpret the Bible literally.
From the New American Bible:
Gen 1:3 ends with, “Thus evening came, and morning followed – the first day.”
Gen 1:8 ends with, “Evening came, and morning followed – the second day.”
Gen 1:13 states, “Evening came, and morning followed – the third day.”
But, God did not create the sun and moon until the fourth day. It was not possible for evening and morning to occur the first three days of creation. What Genesis literally says if factually wrong. Therefore it is not meant for us to interpret it literally. Its purpose was to teach us about God’s nature, specifically that God is omnipotent.
While I am on Genesis. Verses 1-3 are a beautifully symbolic description of the big bang.

“Behemoth is merely a plural form of the very common ancient Hebrew word behemah, which means a dumb beast.”
I laughed when I read this.
This is really a very significant thing concerning Behemoth because one of the most significant attributes of the sauropods is the very small size of their brain. So, again, the description and now even the name fits perfectly. Now more than ever, I believe that Behemoth is a sauropod.

BK, the negative impact is whether or not what the Bible says is true and can be trusted. “Light” is one of the first things that was made. The text has to be read very carefully. It also says that the seeds had not yet sprouted as you read further.
PQQAm: So living creatures can’t change over a period of millions of years, but light appears magically – without any source? so now you’re scratching PHYSICS off your list of what’s real as well. oy.

“Its belly is covered with scales as sharp as glass.
It plows up the ground as it drags through the mud.”
Spinosaurus was bipedal like T-rex.

PQQAm – A large dumb beast can also refer to hundreds of land animals, not exclusively or necessarily to a dinosaur.
Evolutionary theory does not now, never has, and never will hold that animals, or any form of complex life, simply “pops into existence from nothing.” The very first living organism had to come from matter and/or energy. It didn’t come from nothing. The only intellectually valid point of discussion is how the first one began. That is debatable, and totally unknowable. The best we will every have is an understanding of what probably happened. Unless someone invents a time machine and goes back to witness the event, it will always be unknowable. All we are then left with is what we choose to believe. We can choose to shape our beliefs from the available objective evidence, and have enough self confidence and self esteem to risk admitting we were wrong and then change our opinion when we have a better and more complete understanding of new objective evidence when it is available, or not.

PQQAm – “BK, the negative impact is whether or not what the Bible says is true and can be trusted.”
Intent is infinitely more important than content.
There is no place in the Bible where God says that God dictated the words. There is no place in the Bible where God says that we are supposed to blindly believe it as literal fact in every single detail, without exception, even when it makes a factually wrong statement and/or contradicts itself.
You are confusing trusting what the Bible says with the infinitely more important issue of trusting what the Bible means.
You are confusing putting blind trust in human translation of what the Bible says, after thousands of years of word-of-mouth pass down (Old Testament obviously), with the infinitely more important issue of trusting what the Bible means.
You are confusing putting blind trust in human interpretation of what the Bible says, with the infinitely more important issue of really understanding and trusting what the Bible means.
I have absolute trust and faith in the moral lessons the Bible teaches. I have tons of doubt about the accuracy of human understanding. Even if we manage to stay alive long enough to evolve to the point where we are pure intellect with non-corporal bodies (kind of like Q), our intellect will still be insignificant in comparison to God’s and we still won’t completely and accurately understand everything.
Of course the Bible is true, and of course I trust it. Everything the Bible says is morally true to the extent that the authors sincerely believed in what they wrote. More importantly, they sincerely believed in the validity of the moral lessons they were trying to teach. But moral truth, or sincere belief, is not necessarily totally accurate objective fact.
Everything in the Bible is also subjective truth. The authors relied upon sources they trusted and beliefs with which they agreed. But, just like moral truth, subjective truth also is not necessarily totally accurate object fact. Indeed, it is possible for both subjective truth and moral truth to be totally wrong.
When adequate objective empirical evidence is not available, or when the evidence is available but our understanding of the evidence is insuficient, or the objective evidence is rejected because it conflicts with pre-existing values and beliefs, people are left with choosing subjective truth. When people have subjective truth they sincerely belief, they also have moral truth. But they might still be wrong.
Here are some examples of subjective/moral truths that people used to have absolute confidence in:
* Women serve no part in reproduction other than being a fertile vessel to receive the man’s seed. They had no understanding of anatomy and reproductive processes. The objective evidence was available however.
* Ditto for the earth being flat.
* Ditto for the sun being the center of the solar system.
* Ditto for bacteria and viruses and other microscopic organisms being the cause of disease instead of bad humors. There are probably millions of such examples. And there will be millions more ten thousand years from now.
Objective truth however requires objective empirical evidence AND correct understanding of the evidence. Some things that are objectively true in reality are unknowable now because we either don’t have enough objective evidence or correct understanding of the available evidence. Such truths begin for humans as subjective truth or moral. When we have enough subjective evidence we can promote moral truth to subjective truth. Then when we have enough objective empirical evidence AND sufficiently accurate understanding of the evidence, we can promote subjective truth to objective truth.
Therefore, everything in the Bible can be morally true with a reasonable basis in subjective truth. But some things in the Bible are objectively/factually wrong. Maybe many things in the Bible are objectively/factually wrong. But the critical key is being able to recognize, understand, and then learn the correct lessons from the incorrect details. One of the most important important lessons humans can learn is the importance of learning valuable lessons from mistakes.
So, why would God want the authors of the Bible, particularly the authors of the Old Testament, to include wrong facts in the Bible? So we can compare their subjective beliefs to objective reality and then learn from those mistakes. So we can compare their subjective and incorrect beliefs about God’s nature to how God Himself behaved. One of the purposes for God becoming incarnate in human form as Jesus was to SHOW us how wrong the ancient peoples were with their subjective perceptions and beliefs about God’s true nature. If we did not have the mistakes available to examine and understand, we could not learn from them. Ultimately, the purpose for keeping factual errors in the Bible is so we can some day really understand God’s nature. And by understand I mean accurately/correctly.
Have faith that God is smart enough to understand and use such a process of using wrong facts to teach us valuable moral lessons. Frankly, the micromanaging puppet master of a God that the fundamentalists/literalists believe is too petty, mean, and vindictive be worthy of worship. Nor is such a micromanaging puppet master of a God smart enough to be worthy of worship. Such a God is definitely omnipotent. But such a God is also not necessarily omniscient and is clearly not pure love.
St. Augustine of Hippo (the 1st St. Augustine not the 2nd) essentially said that whenever the evidence contradicts our interpretation and understanding of scritpure, then we should change our interpretation of scripture.

PQQAm – And I bet you thought, maybe even still think, that anyone who believes in the Big Bang and Evolution had to be an atheist, or at least not Christian. Not only am I not the former, and I am certainly the latter.

*If the speed of light is constant*, that the stars appear to have been made long ago. The problem that we have is that we don’t know that the speed of light has been constant and we also do not have any verifiable constant to measure it with. You just assume too much and that is why your conclusion contradicts the historical record that we have. You don’t know because you were not there so you cannot say.
There has to be a good reason why we have so much confirming evidence in our historical records that we have. So many people that did not even know the others existed would not all be telling the same story of the same worldwide flood with all of the same details. This historical FACT takes us all the way back 1658 years before (after) the Creation itself and we have all of the generations and dates from Adam to Noah.
Spinosaurus is the largest carnivorous land animal ever found. Alligators and crocodiles swim with their tails *like a serpent*. They do not use their legs to swim and their feet are small anyway.
You guys are forsaking rational thought for the sake of your beliefs.

When God “separated the light from the darkness”, the earth was already rotating in relation to the sun.

PQQAm – “When God “separated the light from the darkness”, the earth was already rotating in relation to the sun.”
Genesis does not say anything about the earth already rotating. Again, you are assuming a fact not in evidence. Indeed, Genesis never states when God changed the earth from a “formless wasteland” into a rotating formed sphere. Besides, the earth can’t be rotating in relation to the sun the first three days because there was no sun. The light Genesis refers to before the creation of the sun, the moon and the stars, had to be coming from a different source.
The best conclusion to draw, on the basis of available objective evidence and our current understanding of physics, is that the separation of the light was due to the universe cooling enough for matter to condense and separate from the energy.

PQQAm – “Light (and electricity) has physical properties. We don’t understand it well but we do know that atomic particles are (physically) moved. The process of photosynthesis is another proof that light has physical properties.”
Technically light (i.e. photons) does not have physical properties because light has no mass or charge. Light is energy, not matter. Light, indeed all forms of electromagnetic radiation, can cause physical effects, but photons (most of which are not in the visible light spectrum) do not have physical properties. Yes, we do not yet know exactly what a photon is in every detail. Sometimes it acts like a massless particle. Sometimes it acts like a massless wave. For all practical purposes it always acts like both. That is why we describe photons as packets of quantum energy with both the properties of a massless wave and a massless particle. Oh yeah, we also know how fast they move and that gravity can effect them. Now gravity on the hand is something we really don’t understand very well yet.
Electricity on the other hand does have physical properties because electricity is entirely made up of flowing electrons. They flow from the least negative potential to the most positive potential as long as they have a complete path for current flow. Lightning (and a static discharge) is electricity. Lightning strikes when the differences between the potential charges overcome the resistance in the air and the elctrons are able to jump through the air gap.
Yes, atomic particles, and subatomic particles, and the fundamental quantum particles (both with and without mass) that fit together to make all of the other particles, all can move. They can also spin and vibrate and have other properties like a charge or no charge.
Photosynthesis does not prove that light has phisical properties. It only proves that light can cause physical effects by interacting with matter.
What is the point?

OK BK, the devil would be in the definition then of the word “physical”.
What is physical to you? Mass?
My definition of physical is opposed to being spiritual.
I am sure that you would not say that light is spiritual. There is physical light and there is spiritual light but they are not the same.

Then again, light may be the missing link between us and the infinite God of eternity through Jesus, of course. It could be like a physical shell of the “true light”.
Now you got me thinking out loud. : )

One thing that we know for sure is that something drastic happened at the time of the fall of Adam and Eve. It is like we were cut off from a perfect and holy God. It is as if all of Creation died that day and we are just running on whatever inertia energy was already in motion.

The Bible does not say what cause the flood. God is the One who controls everything anyway so it makes no difference what the was caused was. This does nothing to change the dates of anything and it could have been caused by something else.

“I thought you already said that the amount of time God took to make things was not an issue, but now you make it an issue.”
The Creation was a miraculous event. Historical events are just historical events.
It is not an issue for miraculous events that are said to occur in one rotation of the earth in relation to the light source or sun because Jesus also did miracles instantaneously.

“Also, using the ages given for important people in the Bible is not a reliable method for estimating time.”
We have some difficulty determining exactly *when* the flood occurred but it is one of the easiest things to confirm that the flood did happen. Before the flood, we have all the exact dates that people were born from Adam to Noah.
If I remember right it is 1658 years between the Creation and the flood.

PQQAm – “Have you ever considered the possibility of the speed of light being infinite or instantaneous?”
No. No reason to because that would be testable and therefore it would have already been proven one way or the other. At this time we know that is not the case and it is demonstrable.
*** ” …and that now the speed of light is slower, it gives the Universe an appearance of age because it is taking so long for the light to get here?”
This I have considered, but in a different way. One possibility I thought of was that time is a variable function of the the decay and consentration of chronoton particles while the speed of light remains constant to any observer within our space-time continuum (i.e. our universe). Howerver, to an observer outside of our universe, where their time was constant relative to them, our sped of light would appear to be slowing down. So, for our universe, the first billion years for us might have gone by in a second to the outside observer. Then the next billions for us took an hour for the outside observer etc. etc. Consequently, as far as we are concerned, 14 billion years have gone by in about 6,000 years from a different perspective.
But there is not any proof for any of it, except that time is a variable function of velocity. Which Einstein predicted and we proved in the 60′s or 70′s. We have no evidence that chronoton particles actually exist, nor that they might decay. As far as I know, physicists do not yet even seriously consider the possibility of chronoton particles. They have too many other particles to hypothesize about and test for.

PQQAm – “This PROVES that you have not read any of the individual account of the flood. These account speak of the same event of the same boat or ark and the same birds that were released to see if it was safe outside.”
Not true that I have not read any other accounts. How about 20 different Native American flood myths? Only the Hareskin story has some significant similarities to the Genesis story.
How about 3 different African flood myths? Only the Masai (East Africa) story is significantly similar to the Genesis version. This one is pretty close actually. But that is not surprising when you consider that part of the Ethiopian (East Africa) Chrisitan tradition is that the Ark of the Covenent and one of the lost tribes of Israel ended up in Ethiopia.
How about 3 European version? The Greco-Roman version has some similarities to Genesis, but the Celtic and Scandanavian versions don’t.
How about 11 different Asian versions? None of them have many significant similarities. The Hindu version mentions a raft. The Jino (China) version felled a great tree. The Kammu (Thailand) version used a drum. The Lisu (China) version used a gourd. The Miao/Yao used a gourd seed or a gourd. In the Santal (Bengal) version they hid in a cave. The Shan (Burma) version used a stron raft and he only took a cow.

PQQAm – “God is the One who controls everything anyway so it makes no difference what the was caused was.”
We have no objective empirical evidence that God controls anything let alone everything. We have subjective evidence that people believed this – but no objective evidence that those beliefs are corrrect. Just because God is omnipotent and CAN control everything doe not necessarily mean that God actually DOES control anything. We only have evidence of peoples beliefs, not the accuracy of their beliefs. Of course there are exceptions, particularly regarding the New Testament. But the older the stories the less objective evidence we have.

PQQA – “You guys are forsaking rational thought for the sake of your beliefs.”
Wrong again. We are using rational thought, and objective empirical evidence when it is available, to form our beliefs.
You on the other hand are constantly using unprovable assumptions, circular logic, and convnient hypocrisies in an effort to twist and distort reality to fit your beliefs.
*** “BK, the negative impact is whether or not what the Bible says is true and can be trusted.”
The potential negative consequences of a person blindly relying on literal interpretation of the Bible are:
* One ends up worshiping the Bible instead of God.
* One might end up substituting blind irational trust in the literal words of the Bible for having faith in God.
* One might end up focusing so much on what the words say they lose sight of what the words mean and the lessons they can teach.
* One can become blind new ways that God might choose to reveal new and different understanding whenever such revelations differ from already accepted literal interpretation of what the Bible says. In other words, one essentially puts God into a box and says God will never again provide any understanding beyond what the Bible says.
In other words, one risks becoming a hypocrit just like the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The letter of law meant far more to them than its meaning.
If God did not intend for us to continually search for better but possibly different understanding beyond what the Bible says, and if God did not intend for us to think anything beyond what the Bible says, then does any human being ever have an intellect beyond that of a five year old, or an IQ above 60 or 70?

“Evenings and mornings were not possible before the sun was made. If the Bible meant one rotation, then it should say one rotation. The Bible does not say one rotation, so that is not what it meant.”
People would not have understood “rotation”.
There was light, physical light, from a physical source to illuminate a physical planet that was physically turning causing the evening and morning on the said planet (Earth).

PQQAm – “People would not have understood “rotation”.
Again, you are assuming facts not in evidence. Where is your objective empirical evidence to support this assumption?
How do you know they would not have understood rotation? Are you saying they were not smart enough to understand that rotation is only turning on a horizontal plain, while a wheel turns on a vertical plain? Nobody had ever held a piece of fruit in their hand and rotated it? Nobody had ever held their arms out rotated just for fun? Nobody had ever seen a child do the same? Nobody had ever held onto the hands of their child and spun around, you know, rotated, just for fun? Nobody had ever seen a dust devil swirling, you know, rotating, in the desert? Nobody had ever seen a warrior or hunter twirl a sling, you know, rotate a sling, above their head? Oh, let met guess, David was the first to do that.
Even if there was no ancient Hebrew equivalent word to use that would effectively communicate the concept, there had to be some way to communicate the concept in a manner people could relate to and understand. Besides, Genesis was passed down verbally for hundreds of years at least before being written. The speakers could have simply demonstrated rotation.

PQQAm – “About physical and spiritual. The physical is patterned after the spiritual but the physical is limited and temporal.”
Evidence?
Oh, so now we believe in the ancient Greek concept of physical things being imperfect copies of perfect forms that exist someplace else? Socrates and Plato would be proud.

PQQAm – “What is the problem with the Creation happening in six rotations of the earth in relation to the light source? Is it because He made the stars later on? Does it blow up your big bang theory? I thought that big bang theory was discarded already.”
It isn’t only because God made the stars later on; it is because God didn’t make THE SUN until later on.
The problem is not with creation happening in six rotations of the earth in relation to the light source. The problem is the hyprocrisy of literalists and fundamentalists who insist on a myopic literal interpretation of Bible, EXCEPT WHEN IT SUITES THEM TO NOT BE LITERAL!!!!
Genesis does not say six rotations, you said that. The Bible literally says evening came and morning followed. That is a fact, not an opinion. Evenings and mornings here on earth were not possible before the sun existed. That is a fact, not an opinion.
Genesis does not say rotations in relation to a light source, you said that. The Bible does not mention a single light source, you assumed that. There could have been many unnamed light sources. The Bible does not identify specific light sources until mentioning the sun, moon, and stars, which were not made until the 4th day.
There could have been one light source. Maybe that single light source was a gaseous light emitting nebula surrounding the earth. And, maybe that gaseous nebula was the source of the wind that swept over the waters covering the FORMLESS earth – you know formless, as in it is kind of hard for earth to rotate if it has no form. Then the light could have been coming from all directions. Regardless, if there is not sun until the 4th day, evenings and mornings were not possible on earth the first three days of creation.
Genesis does not say six consecutive days. You assume that the days were consecutive. The ordinal numbers of first, second, third, etc. etc. only order the days in which God took creative action. They do not necessarily indicate continuity of those days. Now, if the Bible said the first day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, then God rested – that would indicate consecutive days.
If you are going to insist on literal interpretation, then be consistent and stick with with literal words the Bible actually uses. Don’t make stuff up.
And, if it is okay for you to speculate, then allow everyone else to speculate. But don’t reject their speculation merely because it is speculation. If merely being speculation is sufficient cause to reject the speculation of other people, then your speculation is also rejectable just because it is speculation. If you are going to reject an argument, then identify the logical and/or factual fallacy. Rejecting ideas only because they don’t fit into your myopic belief system is by definition irrational.
At least when we speculate our arguments are logically valid, don’t rely on cirular logic, and we support them with a rational interpretation of objective empirical evidence whenever it is available.

If they didn’t know what “rotation” was, then they were surely the dumbest people on the planet. Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the planet about 200 bc. He also calculated the tilt of the earths’ axis, and the distance to the sun and the moon. Greek scientists knew the earth was round, and that it revolved around the sun. PQQAm, you surely give very little credit to the people that wrote that book you think so highly of.

Well, after doing a little research I see that Eratosthenes was the first to do it. And, considering where he did it, he probably taught the Arabs how to do it.

You have to admit that throughout many centuries many people did not understand that the earth rotated. Even so, the definition of one day has been there from the very beginning in the word of God. Evening and morning constitutes one day.

You have to admit that throughout many centuries many people did not understand that the earth rotated. Even so, the definition of one day has been there from the very beginning in the word of God. Evening and morning constitutes one day.
PQQAm: It was the church that was unable to comprehend the nature of the universe. Scientists had no problem understanding it. It seems that very little has changed.

“Adam & Eve were the first man and woman. They had 2 sons, Cain and Abel. Cain slew Abel and was then sent into the wilderness.
Cain came back later with a wife and children. Where did they come from, if Adam & Eve were the first and only people? ”
Obviously, Cain cloned himself, did a sex change and made sweet, sweet love ;)

This movie of Ben Stein should cause a lot of people to snap out of their trance that the religious cult of evolution, belief in the false idea of just popping into existence, has put them in.

What Creation has is more than evolution has any day of the week.

I was referring to the proof and facts that Creation has compared to having no basis that evolution has.

BK, there is more evidence than you realize.
Why change the definition of Marriage?
I have not changed any definitions although many definitions have and do change over time. It is not something that is in my control. Biblical definitions also vary from secular definitions.
This is what we have:
We have historical evidence of a worldwide flood (some do not agree the food was worldwide and some do not believe the mountains were pushed much higher after the flood).
Geological evidence shows a wide variety of many buried species of plants animals and insects. This same evidence shows geological upheaval so that sea creatures are actually found in mountain ranges and other places.
There is historical documentation of several dinosaur like creatures. The descriptions are like cookie cutter descriptions that fit different identifiable species. One is a “dumb beast” cedar tail and the other is a monstrous serpentine dragon.
We also have archaeological confirmation of numerous cities that were described in the same historical record that the flood and the dinosaurs were found in.
Now we have this historical record of the Bible that addresses the errors of mankind also speaks of a Redeemer Savior known as Messiah. This is God Himself born as a man. He is the eternal God in our temporal realm.
It is widely recognized that the prophecies of Messiah (Christ) have been fulfilled in Yeshua (Jesus). There are many reasons for this. One has to do with the authority that Judah (the Jews) had and lost when Yeshua was about thirteen years old. Another has to do with the Temple being destroyed and there are many more.
Now the recent discovery claims that when Yeshua died, there was an earthquake and the ground split open right were the center cross of Yeshua was located. It is said that the blood of Yeshua drained down some twenty feet on the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the covenant that had been hidden some six or eight hundred years before by Jeremiah before the Babylonian exile.
This claim is so wild but if it is true, there is absolutely no doubt that Jesus is the promised provision that Abraham spoke of when he was on Mount Moriah (the exact same location) saying “the Lord will provide for Himself the Lamb.” and it became a saying “in the mount of the Lord, it will be provided” (this is exactly what was said). Half of Mount Moriah is inside the old city of Jerusalem and half of it is outside of the city walls where Yeshua was crucified. There was a second earthquake when Yeshua was said to have risen (where the huge stone was rolled away) and it was said to have closed up the crack where the blood of Yeshua dripped down onto the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant.
This discovery was made back in the 80s and it was kept a secret for some fourteen years. It is discoveries like this that should be headline news but the truth, more often than not, is hard for people to accept or believe.
There apparently have been attempts to remove the Ark but a number people have died trying although samples of the blood have been taken and have been tested and it was determined to be human blood.
If you want to study something really significant, this the the thing to study and there are many more details that I have left out because there is so much information concerning Messiah.
Happy studies!

PQQA- “BK, there is more evidence than you realize.”
It is not objective evidence! Almost everything you call evidence is nothing more than subject reasons. Subjective reasons can support subjective opinion and subjective truth, but never qualifies as objective evidence in support of objective truth. Reasons and evidence, especially verifiable objective evidence, is not the same thing. You are effectively changing the definition of objective evidence when you call subjective reasons evidence. I am very well aware of the many if not most of the reasons to which you refer. But almost none of them qualify as objective evidence. I don’t count them as evidence and I interpret them differently.
*** “Why change the definition of Marriage?”
I never said I want to change the definition of marriage or that I am even in favor of doing that. You completely missed the point I was making about hypocrisy. If it is wrong to change the definition of marriage, then it is wrong to change the definition of science. If it is wrong to change the definition of marriage, then it is wrong to change or misuse the definition of evidence. Most of the people who screamed about changing the definition of marriage don’t hesitate to change other definitions when it is convenient for them to do so.
Additionally, all of the reasons you refer to equally support multiple interpretations and conclusions. What really makes a difference in the conclusions are the provable or unprovable basic assumptions people start with. Unprovable assumptions CANNOT, by definition, yield logically valid conclusions with any level of certainty. They can yield possibly valid conclusions. They can yield probably valid conclusions. But not certainty.

It is a very long story. It is all about the prophecy and the animal sacrifices where the blood of the animals were sprinkled on the mercy seat of the Ark. The prophecies indicate that God Himself would provide the sacrifice for all time. It is so shocking because it was completely unexpected by us that God would do such a thing to bring home the message of His love for us. It is thousands of years of history that has to be explained.

Eric – “Then why was it changed in the first place?”
It was changed because the most influential leaders of the early church in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries had a preference for natural philosophy and pure rationalism over real science. Ironically, St. Augustine effectively said that when observation conflicts with interpretation of scripture, then we should change our interpretation of scripture to match what we observe.
Anyway, without the scientific method as the foundation for legitimate science all we would have is battling opinions. Real science relies on repeatable verifiable tests to generate objective data, and rational analysis of the data using valid logical processes. Without objective data and rational thought, then anyone can “prove” anything by using circular logic. Thus, battling opinions.
If you go back to one of my first comments on this blog you will see that I do believe in ID. But it does not and cannot qualify as a real science. Not one of the necessary fundamental assumptions for ID and creationism are testable. Therefore it should be taught in religion or authentic philosophy classes. By definition it is not possible to study the supernatural with the scientific method. As soon as somebody is able to test the supernatural in a way that generates objective data using repeatable and verifiable methods, then and only then will it be possible to include supernatural phenomenon, such as ID or creationism, as legitimate scientific subjects.
I believe God designed the fundamental laws of nature. God designed and made the fundamental particles of matter and energy. Then, God used the Big Bang to begin the natural process of developing the universe as we see it today. Also, evolution is God’s designed natural process for developing life.
The only difference between my hypothesis and the traditional ID concept is that mine does not require God to be a micromanaging puppet master. Basically I admire God’s omniscience more than God’s omnipotence. I think God is smart enough to figure how to have natural processes accomplish what God wants them to accomplish without having to cause, control, and sustain every event. My beliefs about God’s nature are different than those of the traditional ID’ers and Creationists. How is anyone ever going to test for God’s true nature? Another difference is that I am intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that any version of ID, including mine, is not science.
If all you really want is an open, honest, and complete discussion about all of the possibilities (including the ones I describe much earlier in this blog), what is wrong with that discussion taking place religion or philosophy classes?
*** “A scientific approach can be used to detect design in nature.”
But it can’t prove that infinite random interactions are not the cause of the apparent design. It can’t prove that a supreme intelligent designer exists. It can’t prove that there is one and only one supreme intelligent designer rather than many. It can’t prove that the supreme intelligent designer (if there is only one) is necessarily the Judeo Christian God of the Bible instead of the God (or Gods) from a different faith group. It can’t prove that the intelligent designer necessarily has to have supreme intelligence (i.e. is omniscient) instead of extremely advanced mortal beings with supremely powerful technology, or mental powers ala “Q”.

PQQAm – But that is a purely subjective experience and not OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE. One can either conclude that that experience is the result of a peronal relationship with God. Or one can conclude that it is the result of self delusion. Both possibilities are rationally valid, and NEITHER IS OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE. That is why the former is a function of faith. And that is why matters of faith and the supernatural cannot be valid science.

If everything is found as it was described, why doubt that historical record? It is the best and only thing that we have to establish things that have happened in the past. Even the fossil record backs up the Biblical record.

B K “Because finding the things you speak of is a miniscule piece of the puzzle and proves nothing about the overall accuracy of anything beyond those places.”
Many of the civilizations known in history are recorded in the Bible. There are many cultural clues that suggests the Bible is accurate. For example, Boaz took off his shoe to seal an agreement. So there is not just a few places but cultures from all over the known world! If we are rational and logical then we should consider the amount of evidence!
B K “Also, the accuracy of the historical record does not and cannot have any impact on my faith in God or my relationship with Jesus.”
A lot of people talk about errors of the Bible. What errors? If they understood what we mean about inerrancy, then they would not be able to claim all these as errors! There are a few copiest errors, but these in no way take away from the overall document. When you look at the Bible in detail it is a very powerful book!
B K “Only your irrational interpretation of the fossil record backs up the Biblical record.”
There was a short time when the creationist perspective was advocated by mainline science: but the actual brainpower and maoney applied was miniscule compared to the money spent on advocating evolution. The theory essentially gets a free ride. The fossil record has a number of assumptions built into it. It is important to expose them, and show the faulty science built around the fossil record.

PQQAm – “People do not understand what the Bible says because of their false assumptions.”
Tell me which of my assumptions is false:
* God is omnipotent.
* God is omniscient.
* God always has been and always will be and does not change. Consequence from Deduction – God exists outside and independent from time. God does not predict the future; God knows the future because God exists simultaneously in the past, present, and future.
* God is pure infinite love and therefore incapable of an evil act because an evil act is too far outside of God’s nature. Consequence from Deduction – The choice exits for God to commit an evil act, but nobody, not even God, can make a choice that is too far outside of their nature. That is why there is no such thing as absolute free will. Free will exists, but absolute free will is an illusion.

I have not been convinced of there being any errors in the Bible. I assume first that my understanding and my conclusions are wrong. Then I try to see where my errors are. This way it is easier for me to find my errors in thinking.
BK, your assumption (your error) is that you believe there is error in the Bible instead of trying to understand what has been said. Don’t forget that the text and thinking was written in another language and the assumptions that we have in English do not necessarily translate into the original language of expression.

PQQAm – Please remember that there is one critical caveat/condition as to whether or not there are errors in the Bible. My contention all along has been that the errors of fact I have been referring to only matter when applying a strict literal interpretation. When developing interpretations that are contextual, and/or metaphorical, and/or symbolic, and/or figurative, and/or allegorical, and/or a parable, basically anything other than literal, then there are no errors of meaning and any minor errors of fact are then irrelevant. The meaning of the message is more important than the literal words.

At least I have a clear conscience knowing that I did everything I could to understand everything that has been recorded for our sakes.
When something as simple as cloud cover could explain what you say is an error, how many more examples like this of a person’s lack of faith in the validity of Scripture are there?

PQQAm – “When something as simple as cloud cover could explain what you say is an error, how many more examples like this of a person’s lack of faith in the validity of Scripture are there?
Cloud cover explains nothing, and Genesis does not say anything about cloud cover. That is data you invent so you can rationalize away a paradox. Even if there was cloud cover it would have been irrelevant. The sun was not made and place in position in the dome of the sky until the fourth day. Evenings and mornings were still not possible regardless of whether or not cloud cover would have prevented an ability to observe them on the surface. Besides, evenings and mornings would still occur above the cloud cover back then just like they do now. Except of course for the annoying fact that there was no sun to cause evenings and mornings until the fourth day.
I have total faith in the validity of the meaning and messages we can learn from scripture. Having sufficient intellect to recognize and logically deduce factual errors and fallacious logic that can be found among the literal words has no impact on my faith in their message. Independent rational thought and religious/spiritual faith are completely separate processes even though they can inform and shape each other. Having faith does not require a person to stop thinking rationally. Indeed, thinking rationally is necessary to recognize and then understand the best interpretations.

BK, you are making a mistake to assume there is something wrong with the historical record. Do you think that Moses (or God) did not know there has to be a sun to mark evening and morning?
The account does not say that there was another light source. That is a much worse “addition” than to say there could have been cloud cover. We can only say things that fit with the context and cloud cover fits with the context but the context itself cannot be changed. There are warnings about that. Another light source does not fit with the existing context. I should not have to say more because the warning not to add or take away from God’s word is written into the same Scripture. In fact Moses is the very first one to have said not to add or take away from God’s word.

PQQAm – “The account does not say that there was another light source.”
I know that. You are the one who kept insisting that some source other than the sun was causing the evenings and mornings on the first three days. I kept saying that is wrong because only the sun causes evenings and mornings here on earth.
*** “We can only say things that fit with the context and cloud cover fits with the context but the context itself cannot be changed.”
Oh how convenient to only allow changes and additions that support a myopic literal interpretation. Insisting upon literal interpretation and then adding non-literal things that happen to fit is hypocrisy. That is one of the points I have been making. You want to have your cake and icing and eat it all. Either everything is literal and nothing more, or everything is open to logical contextual interpretation – INCLUDING the possibility that scripture can be metaphor, and/or symbolic, and/or figurative, and/or parable, and/or allegory. Any deviation from the strict literal language that is a reasonable/logically valid extension of and authentic contextual interpretation is fair game. But going beyond the literal language ONLY when it suits you and ONLY IN A MANNER that suits you is hypocrisy.

We cannot project our “English” understanding onto a foreign language.
It is saying that God made the Sun, Moon and the Stars but they had already been made on the first day.
What was “made” on the fourth day was the visibility of the Sun, Moon and Stars on the fourth day and their placement.
God left those clues in the text for us to be able to understand it today because why else would He say that He made light on the first day? It all makes so much sense! It is like a light was turned on! : )

The Bible does repeat itself quite often. If there was no light on the first day, I would say that you had a point but there was light on the first day. Light sources (pl) were not established until the fourth day.
The first three days there was light without identifiable light sources. On the fourth day, God “made” each of the light sources identifiable.
God made one thing at a time. First, God made the heavens and the earth. That was the very first thing that was made which makes sense. The only thing we do not have at this point is life and order on the earth. That is when God said, let there be light. Suddenly there was light on earth and evening and morning determined by the rotation of the earth but no identifiable light sources. On the fourth day God said “let there be lights” then it repeats the fact of the heavens and the earth that God made which consist of the Sun, the Moon and the Stars.
We know for a fact that the Sun had already been made on the first day because there was light and evenings and mornings from the first day on.
It is all very orderly and very logical.
When Jesus healed a blind man, He did the same thing. He healed one thing at a time. First He cause the blind man to see and then He gave the man 20/20 vision. It was two separate miracles one at a time dealing with two different problems in an orderly progressive manner. The same thing is true in Creation.
If you want, you can have God turning on each of the other lights individually including the moon which had to be turned on but the Sun had already been shining the whole time and I believe all the stars were shining the whole time too since the first day.
It is more logical to believe that a kind of cloud cover over the earth was removed to reveal each of the lights because having light since the first day is a big problem if the Sun was not already shining …and what ever happened to the creation of the heavens and earth on the first day? Everything was already created except for life and order on earth.

PQQAm – “We know for a fact that the Sun had already been made on the first day because there was light and evenings and mornings from the first day on.”
Oh too bad, and you were doing so well for a little while. We know no such fact. The only facts we have regarding the sun are that it was made on the fourth day, it was put in its place in the dome of the sky on the fourth day, and that it began marking the fixed times of days and years on the fourth day, and that its purposes are to shed light upon the earth and govern the day and night. Anything else is pure supposition and goes beyond the literal language. Genesis clearly, explicitly, unequivocally, and literally says that the sun was made on the fourth day and put in its position in the dome of the sky on the fourth day. That is what Genesis literally says. It does not say the sun was revealed, exposed, or made to shine, or turned on, or allowed to be seen or anything else except that it was made and put in its place in the dome of the sky; on the fourth day. I have given you many other potential light sources for the first three days. Too bad none of them can cause literal evenings and mornings.

BK, yeah, the lights were made to be seen on the fourth day. He said “Let there be lights” He had already said, “Let there be light” on the first day, OK? The heavens and the earth had already been made. The light had already been made but it was only distinguishable as Sun, Moon and Stars on the fourth day. This is the natural progression that is common in Scripture and it is very logical. There are many things that are repeated when you read through Genesis and the rest of Scripture. It is really very simple. They can’t mark times and seasons if they can’t be seen. …and it still doesn’t matter because each day is still one rotation of the earth regardless what was made when.

God cannot say, “Let there be lights” if there are clouds that keep the lights (pl) from lighting the earth.
God can say, “Let there be lights” if He removes the clouds in the sky.
Clouds are a possibility. Dust is a possibility. Smoke is a possibility. Other things that we don’t understand are a possibility.
The fact is that the light was already made on the first day. That is the fact. When God said that He made the Sun, the Moon and the Stars, it is a repeat of when He said that He made the heavens and the earth. Or He fixed their locations on the fourth day or whatever but you have to admit that each of the days was one rotation of the earth in relation to the light that was already made on the first day. God said “light” the first time and God said “lights (pl)” a second time so it is a repeat. Anything else is arguing with the text.

*** “When God said that He made the Sun, the Moon and the Stars, it is a repeat of when He said that He made the heavens and the earth.”
It is not a repeat because Genesis never mentions the sun, moon, or stars until the fourth day. Genesis can’t repeat what has not yet been said. When the heavens were made on the first day they were made empty, except for the earth. That is all Genesis literally mentions. Genesis never says anything about anything else in the universe other than the earth and what is on it until God makes the sun, moon, and stars and puts them in their place on the fourth day. If you strictly follow the literal language of Genesis, the heavens were empty until the fourth day. The heavens of the first day were only the place where God was going to put things on the fourth day.
*** “…but you have to admit that each of the days was one rotation of the earth in relation to the light that was already made on the first day.”
I don’t have to admit anything of the kind because that is not what the literal language of Genesis states. And, if that light was coming from a nebula surrounding the earth, then earth’s rotation is irrelevant because the light would be coming from all directions at the same time. And, if that light source was more than four light days away it was too far away to be seen on earth until the fifth day at the earliest. That light could have been coming from anything (except the sun, moon, or stars) anywhere in the universe. Maybe we still can’t see that light yet because it was made so far away. I especially don’t have to admit that that light was coming from the sun because Genesis explicitly states with crystal clear literal language that the sun, moon, and stars were made on the fourth day and put in their places in the dome of the sky on the fourth day. Therefore, the light on the first day had to be from some other source.

PQQAm – “God did mention light on the first day so there was one or more light sources on the first day.”
No, there did not have to be a source because God could have just made a lot of photons, or maybe even one single photon. The only source necessary was God. A good analogy would be to go into your backyard at night with a flashlight. Turn it on and shine it into the night sky for a few seconds. Then turn it off. Then take the flashlight back inside. Those photons you made will go on forever unless something absorbs them and converts them into some other form of energy or matter. You need a source, in this case the flashlight. God does not need a source. God can be the flashlight. Are you saying God is not omnipotent enough to make light without also making a source?
All God had to do was create light, for as long as God wanted to create it, and shine it in any specific direction or in all directions. God does not and did not need to also create a source. Genesis says God made light the first day, but says nothing about also making a temporary or permanent source. And, even if God did make a source (either permanent or temporary), there are many different sources God could have made other than the sun, moon, and stars which were not made until the fourth day anyway. Also, God could have made that light anywhere within the huge universe. Maybe the source was made so far away we can’t even see it yet.
If God did make an unnamed source, it was a single source because on the first day Genesis uses the singular form for light and not the plural form.

PQQAm – “Is God now doing miracles for the sake of evolution?”
That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Evolution has nothing at all to do with this issue. I will try to restate as simply as possible.
The only thing Genesis literally says about light on the first day is that God made light, singular. THAT IS LITERALLY ALL. Genesis does not identify a source (so the light could have come from anything, or it could have come from nothing except God willing it into existence). Genesis does not identify a location (so the light could have been made any place in the universe). The only other fact we have to work with is that the light could not have been from the sun, moon, or stars because they were not made until the fourth day. That is what the literal language says, and those are the only facts we have to work with.
All I was doing was identifying possible explanations for where the light came from while working within the literal facts Genesis gives us. Every single possibility I have suggested stays within the limitations of the literal language. So please, take each of my previous possibilities one at a time and check them against the few literal facts we have to work with. None of them violate any of our literal facts. Every one works within those known limitations, without exception. It is not that hard to deduce logical conclusions within the limitations of known assumptions.
Every single explanation you suggest however changes/violates the literal language of Genesis. That is why every point you make demonstrates you hypocrisy. You insist on literal interpretation; and then you use non-literal interpretations and non-literal data that you fabricate whenever it is convenient for you. I do much more than you to stay within the literal language.

BK, by your own argument, if there was darkness covering the earth as it says (it doesn’t say darkness was anywhere else), that means there was also light because darkness is the absence of light.
The earth’s surface in relation to the atmosphere is “the deep”. It actually says “surface of the deep” Tell me how the deep has a surface. The surface is called the deep because of the atmosphere that was covering the earth with darkness.
The rest is history as we know it. “Let there be light” and then on the fourth day, “Let there be lights (pl.)”. It only makes sense when you understand that darkness was over the surface of the deep because you can’t have the light being made twice which really makes no sense and you can’t have the heavens and the earth being made twice.
The key to understanding the Creation is that darkness covered the surface of the earth on the first day because there was already light on the first day.
This is really significant because you can have as much time as you want or need for the Universe to be made before the first day. That explains the light and the distance of the stars (but I still don’t believe the stars are that far away but any case scenario is possible with the Universe being made before the first rotation of the earth was counted).

BTW, volcanic ash goes up higher in the atmosphere than planes can fly. There you have the very simple explanation that shames everyone that ever doubted the historical record of Scripture. It may not say “volcanic ash” but it does say darkness covered the surface of the deep.

PQQAm – “The lights were not in the dome of the sky before because of the darkness that covered the earth.”
Darkness had nothing to do with it. The lights, specifically the sun, moon, and stars were not in the dome of the sky before the fourth day because God did not make them and put them there until the fourth day. That is what Genesis literally says.

PQQAm – BTW, I finally figured out that nonsense you were spouting earlier about someone supposedly saying something about rotations taking millions of years. What I said was that there could have been hundreds of millions of years in between each creative day. Genesis does not explicitly state that the days were consecutive. So because Genesis does not literally and explicitly say the days were consecutive then they did not necessarily have to be consecutive. At least not according to the literal language of Genesis.

BK, “darkness covered” that means that elsewhere, there was light.

Yes, when darkness covers something it does mean that light is elsewhere.

Even when God said, “Let there be light” in that darkness that covered the earth, the sun and stars were still not distinguishable until the fourth day but the heavens and the earth had already been created.
So when did God “turn on the lights”?
Doesn’t it make sense that when God made the heavens and the earth that all the stars in the Universe were already shining? Why should God have to “light” each and every one of them?
Even if this was the case, it does not change the length of the evenings and mornings. It really does not matter when God made the stars to shine because each day was one rotation of the earth in relation to the only significant light in relation to us that God made, which is the Sun.
The clue really is that darkness covered the face of the earth.

PQQAm – “So when did God “turn on the lights”?
God turned on the sun, moon, and star lights when God made them on the fourth day and put them in the dome of the sky, i.e. when God filled the empty heavens/universe.
Light from lightning (the wind sweeping over the waters requires some kind of atmosphere) and nebulas are fair game because Genesis does not specify when nebulas were made. Light from pulsars, quasars, and other galaxies are iffy depending upon how strictly we apply the term of star. I am willing to include them on the first day. I am equally fine with excluding them until the fourth day. It is up to you.

BK, give it up, admit that you never thought of the heavens and earth having already been made from the very first day.
: )
As long as darkness covered the surface of the deep and cloud cover, there was no dome of the sky for the sun, moon and stars to be in. You really need to understand that.

PQQAm – One thing you understand is that my belief that Genesis is metaphorical has absolutely no bearing on my ability to objectively and accurately apply the rules of grammar and valid logical processes to anything I read, including the Bible. If you insist on literal language then that is the standard I will strictly and objectively apply. Now, if you want to change the standard for interpretation to metaphor, or symbolic, or figurative, or allegorical, or parable, I can do that also.

It does not say that in the beginning God was about to create the heavens and the earth.
It “literally” says, God created the heavens and the earth (before the first evening and morning).
The “dome in the sky” is just that. It is everything around the earth.

BK, it does not say “When”
The sun and stars were mentioned in the first verse when God said, “the heavens and the earth” and there was “light” from the heavens and the earth that were made or finished on the first day only “darkness covered the surface” of the earth. That is the only place where it says there was darkness, on earth.
For three days, there was evening and morning marked by the light of the already existing sun on a rotating earth. On the fourth day God said, “Let there be lights” as seen from earth in the dome of the sky.

Some evolutionists are not really evolutionists but are anti-religious. The same is true for the religious’s. What could go wrong if God created evolution. The eternal God makes the living dinosaurs thousands of years ago.And he will also manage the future…

I find it funny He waited so long to creat somebody to write it all down. Talk about procrastination.

This entire debate is ridiculous. Intelligent design indeed. As the video blogger Thunderf00t has mentioned and innumerable scientists, and other researchers in a position to know get animated about Intelligent Design, is that – AT BEST – it is a conjecture – an idea which awaits ANY data.
Here again, because intelligent design has proposed it’s concepts, Mr. Thunderfoot has gone to the trouble of designing an experiment for them (as they would be the only scientific “theory” we teach to children which has no data, no empirical evidence, nothing but a smattering of like minded folks conjecturing about things they freely admit is to further their religious viewpoint into the secular classroom (as the Dover school board members did).
That science offends someones religious sensibilities underscores – NOT the failure of science – but the failure of our citizenry to even bother to keep themselves marginally educated beyond the minimum required by law. In this way it’s a larger failure of our culture to value and promote continuing education and provide a supportive environment.
I think lastly what it does is underscore our continued incapacity to help our fellow citizens understand why and how we know or believe a certain way.