Banner
    T. Rex Ate Coconuts
    By Sarda Sahney | May 3rd 2007 04:25 AM | 481 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Sarda

    Sarda Sahney is a Ph.D. student at the University of Bristol studying macroevolution, with focus on the evolution of vertebrate communities. View Sarda's Profile


    A new museum in Petersburg, Kentucky greets visitors with a 20ft tall tumbling waterfall and at its base, mannequins of frolicking children play amongst dinosaurs. The Creation Museum, which cost $25 million to build, is home to many unusual sites: a diorama of ancient people overshadowed by a towering T. rex, Adam and Eve swimming in a river with giant reptiles, and even a scale model of Noah's Ark.



    It seems Noah solved the problem of fitting dinosaurs into his vessel by only taking baby dinosaurs. Indeed, the ark has a detailed display of many animals happily boarding the boat: dinosaurs cavort with giraffes, penguins, hippos, and bears.


    Museum guides tell visitors that before Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise all of the dinosaurs were peaceful plant-eaters.

    In Genesis 1:30 God gives ‘green herb’ to every creature to eat and so there were no predators. When a curious museum visitor asks, why exactly T. rex had six-inch long serrated teeth, the guides go on to explain that T. rex used his big teeth to open coconuts. Apparently it was only after Adam and Eve sinned and were cast out of paradise that the dinosaurs started to eat flesh.

    My opinion: I think the people who built this museum are smoking a bit too much ‘green herb’.


    Comments

    Cash
    T Rex ate coconuts and then evolved into chickens???"

    Dinosaurs are having a tough 2007.

    God created men,womyn, and children with the ability to comprehend and reflect on its surroundings and environment. Subsequently, God in the Qur'an (the Last Testament) informs us that God is NOT ONLY the creator & sustainer of all the worlds but also, that God is the Evolver (al-Bari).

    The last testament indeed!

    Heathen, have you not heard of the book of Mormon?

    Heathen? Seriously? You care more about a technicality in naming than the actual comment? This is the reason why scientists hate creationists, not because of the views but because of the pettiness of people like you.

    as a retired high school biology teacher I am not surprised

    Okay i don't get it. Why do you think WE can't have A museum that teaches the truth! And you can have millions that cost WAY more!

    Gerhard Adam
    Ahh yes, "the truth".  That thing YOU all say you possess, and yet lack the courage to live by.  Rather have science do your heavy lifting for you (in terms of lifestyle, medicine, and entertainment). .... but figure that as long as you don't have to live with the consequences of your "truth", then might as well speak up about it?

    Rubbish!
    Mundus vult decipi
    Because "the truth", as you put it, isn't scientifically sound or proven. In order to make such profound claims, please give me the evidence (the buybull doesn't count).

    Gerhard Adam

    I can tell by your "anonymous" posting that you're REALLY interested in the truth.  I can also tell by your blanket assertion about it not being "scientifically sound or proven" that you know neither of these things, since such a suggestion is the epitome of arrogance and is patently absurd.

    As for the evidence, I find it curious that you would presume to ask ME for the evidence when it has clearly been available for your scrutiny for decades with more discoveries and additions to the basic theories all the time.  Yet, somehow this evidence has escaped your notice.

    Somehow I suspect that you aren't remotely interested in investigating evidence, but rather you simply want to level your presumptious, unqualified opinion at a science that you aren't prepared to understand.

    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerhard, I think he was talking to the person to whom you first replied; his post makes grammatical sense when applied that way (as opposed to an answer to your reply). A careful reading of his answer would have saved you from a prat-fall.

    Gerhard Adam

    ... and I don't even have a good excuse.  Gomen nasai.

    Mundus vult decipi
    That explains a lot...

    I'm not as abundantly educated as some using this site but I DO know that the man who 'created' Islam was a pedophile and thief and had no proof. The man who 'created' mormonism looked into a hat to see gold plates and constantly changed his story to make up for the intentional displacement of already recorded 'gold plated deity dictation' and BOTH versions of Mormonism started and agree on that, which is RE-TARDED. I'm inclined to also say that perhaps Catholic Churches are rather politicians because they made themselves wealthy and at times sexually paid middle men when God probably just wants it one on one. As for the green herb, let me know when you get Arthritis.

    Goodness. These people either need to finally crack open those textbooks as opposed to using their bibles in biology classes or we need to start teaching "stupidity" in science classes.

    darksun93
    What's worse is that they can't see any connection between their goals of a Christian government and the Islamic countries in the Middle East. Personally I don't care whether I'm in jail for violating some provision of the Koran or Bible ... it's still jail and equally stupid.
    - - - - - -
    don't buy World of Warcraft Gold, make'em....
    Science is a creation by man. Man is a creation of God. This isn't a case about stupidity in science. Who is to determine what is stupid? I'll say that if you believed that you as a human being evolved from apes, why not a T-rex to a chicken?

    I'm sorry but who are you talking about when you "say start listening in science class instead of telling the teacher he or she is wrong about everything every five minutes."? I live in Ireland and it has a very high belief in Catholicism and I have never, ever experienced something like that. I am a scientific man, but also a religious man. I laughed at this article, and I agree, this museum and the explanations it gives are incredibly stupid and just plain comical. I believe in science AND religion. I take the story of Noah's Ark as just that, a story, however I also believe that it is based on something that actually happened. I am sick of the religious and scientific communities clashing, as I believe there is common ground in both. Are parallel universes not just as hard-to-believe as heaven? Is it not also hard to believe that humans are the only creatures on Earth who can talk about things such as this, who can argue about things such as this and who can think in ways such as this?

    Exactly... the Bible (or at least the first few books) are a collection of verbal histories of the Hebrew people, finally written down generations after the actually events took place. The twelve plagues have been PROVEN possible to happen by SCIENCE... that it's a likely course of events. Noah's Ark is a similar story to Gilgamesh... there was definitely a huge flood in that part of the world, and there were very few survivors (Black Sea could have flooded during this time, or Ocean Meteor Strikes are possible scenarios).

    Believe what you want, but please don't misunderstand the first few chapters of the Bible... that's exactly what causes this animosity between (ignorant) creationists and (ignorant and angry) atheists.

    why is it that creationists are just ignorant but atheists are ignorant and angry? to be perfectly honest, i have never really met a religious person who wasn't angry at me for being an atheist. somehow the fact that i don't share the same beliefs means that i am attacking their religion. i am perfectly happy to accept that millions of people believe in some version of an unseen deity who acts as a loving parent. why can't all those millions of people be happy that i think we live and die here on earth and that's that? please, if we are expected to show respect for your beliefs, give us a little respect as well. it's comments like this that lead to us having such a bad reputation.

    John0877
    totally agree. i never understand why they cant just accept there are people different from them and that believe differently than they do. its not like we are forcing them to denounce their god or anything or tell them not to believe in god. we are just stating the simple fact that we do not share their beliefs, very simple. what happened to all men (and women of course) were created equal? i have read stories of people losing their jobs, their homes, being basically forced to move out of a town cause they didnt believe in god. what is with that, are you people really that intolerant of people different from you in that regard that you must shun them away. are you scared those people will infect your belief or that maybe their questions will cause you to lose some of that blind faith you love so dearly. why cant people let and let live and move on with life. its too short to be so angry with people over stupid reasons like this. just accept one another.
    i have read stories of people losing their jobs, their homes, being basically forced to move out of a town cause they didnt believe in god.

    I doubt you would want to be tarred with the brush of every action done by people who claimed to believe in evolution? Those are not true Christians.

    i never understand why they cant just accept there are people different from them and that believe differently than they do.

    I can never understand those fireman, running into burning buildings getting people out who are high on heroin. Hey, in their oblivious state, they don't want to get out. I just can't understand why the fireman can't just accept there are people different from them and that believe differently than they do.

    I would be an inhuman monster if I truly believed that those who don't follow God are going to spend an eternity in hell, but yet didn't plead earnestly with them to follow God.

    John0877
    people in their oblivious state such as on drugs are not capable of judging whats best for them. people who are sober and clean of drugs are capable of judging whats best for them. firemen go into burning buildings to rescue heroin addicts cause its their job they are not the ones to judge how one lives their lives. apparently you christians seem to think you are the ones to judge how people live their lives and must convert people aka "save them". however if one is not on drugs and perfectly capable of making their own choices about their own lives what business is it of yours to force your will and opinions on somoene who doesnt want to hear them. nice how you just compared people who dont believe in the same things as you to heroin addicts btw. shows real tolerance on your part. congrats
    Modern thought has perverted the meaning of the word tolerance. I am a tolerant person: I don't chop the heads off of people that disagree with me. That's tolerance. My ancestors were the recipients of intolerance. They were burned at the stake, drowned, put on the rack, etc. That's intolerance. Disagreeing with you and telling you the truth is not intolerance.

    The god of this world has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. As a result, they don't see the light of the Good News about Christ's glory. It is Christ who is God's image.
    (2 Corinthians 4:4 GW)

    John0877
    "Disagreeing with you and telling you the truth is not intolerance." you cant say that what you believe is the truth until it has been proven. it has not been proven til God himself comes down the the heavens and shows himself.
    In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word became human and lived among us. We saw his glory. It was the glory that the Father shares with his only Son, a glory full of kindness and truth.
    (John 1:1, 14 GW)

    Only the very ignorant deny the historicity of Jesus. There are secular accounts of His miracles.

    He will show Himself again, but then it will be too late:

    The Son of Man will come again just as lightning flashes from east to west. "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. All the people on earth will cry in agony when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds in the sky with power and great glory. He will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and from every direction under the sky, they will gather those whom God has chosen.
    (Matthew 24:27, 30-31 GW)

    John0877
    quoting the fairy tale doesnt really prove anything. also no one denies that a Jesus existed. just dont believe him as being the son of God.
    This is why I speak to them this way. They see, but they're blind. They hear, but they don't listen. They don't even try to understand. So they make Isaiah's prophecy come true: 'You will hear clearly but never understand. You will see clearly but never comprehend. These people have become close-minded and hard of hearing. They have shut their eyes so that their eyes never see. Their ears never hear. Their minds never understand. And they never return to me for healing!'
    (Matthew 13:13-15 GW)

    wow! i had no idea that my request to not be called angry would lead to such a heated debate. i feel it necessary that i say something! it was meant to be an aside, not to become a long conversation. but since it has...
    i understand 100%, having grown up in a religious household, all of the 'historicity' that you quote, hans. i know it backwards and forwards. i simply don't believe it. the same way that i believe that santa clause is a story for children, i believe that god is a story (though a bit too scary and obscene for me to tell my children). the same way that i believe the pope is not infallible, i believe that theistic texts are not infallible. also, having studied literature in depth, i recognize that there are a plethera of comman literary devices used in theistic texts (hyperbole, for example). the books were written by men, they were conceived by men, and they are studied and believed by men. the fact that there is no book that i have chosen to live my life by, the fact that i feel that there is a stronger case for the idea of evolution than creationism, and the fact that i believe that we as individuals are responsible and accountable for how we live our lives has nothing whatever to do with you.
    to be perfectly honest, you sticking your nose in my business is really quite annoying. i have studied and searched and come to my own conclusions. it is not something that happened by chance, it is the end product of years of research. i have never asked anyone to follow me, i have never suggested that i am right and everyone else is wrong. i simply believe what i believe. i would ask that you, all of you, mind your own business. we, as atheists, don't want to live our lives the way you do. we have chosen a different path. if we find out later that we were wrong, so be it. it is the conscious choice that we have made. the same is true for you. i am not a heroin addict, i am not so far out of my mind that i have no idea what i'm talking about. i have looked at the evidence placed before me and i have decided that god does not exist.

    on a separate note, i don't want your tolerance. i am not doing anything that requires your tolerance. i find the condescension and ego with which you make such a statement offensive. what i do expect, however, is your respect.

    Hey Maggie

    I just wanna say that I totally (emphasis on totally) respect your views and that it’s a pity that some Christians are intolerant towards your beliefs. I can’t tell you how much it infuriates me when people force their beliefs on others and make them feel inferior because of that.

    I regard myself as a Christian and Jesus is not just a historical figure to me. Though, I also embrace the wonder of science and it leaves me in awe of creation.

    To me it’s always ironic when Christians take the moral high ground and judge others, since Jesus’ harshest words were against the 'so-called' holy people who pretended to be better than others.

    Again, I get hot under the collar when other Christians pretend to know everything about everything, and when they treat the Bible as a scientific book. I won’t even go there since this book has spiritual significance to me. And if others don’t believe that, it’s 'ok'! You don’t need to feel threatened by it.

    And you're totally missing out on meeting real cool people who coincidently don’t share your beliefs.

    Just want to clarify. When I say "You don’t need to feel threatened by it." and "you're totally missing out on meeting real cool people who coincidently don’t share your beliefs", i refer to those religious people who use their believes as a bat to hit others over the head with.

    thank you. :) you made my day, philip.

    Only the very ignorant deny the historicity of Jesus. There are secular accounts of His miracles.

    It's strange that you say that and then neglect to give us even a single example of a "secular account" of Jesus' miracles, let alone his existence. If we are ignorant of this fact, by all means shed some light on the issue.

    It's funny that you chose Matthew 24 as your proof of Jesus' alleged return. Intrigued, I opened my Bible (yes, I own one) to that particular chapter and actually read the whole thing. A mere three verses after the bit you quoted, Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." (Matthew 24:34-35)

    So if what you quoted is true, that Jesus will return, then surely what I quoted is equally true, that he would return before that generation passed away. Which doesn't make sense. So either the Bible is accurate and Jesus is a liar, or the Bible is inaccurate.

    Google "Jesus Tacitus" "Jesus Josephus" "Jesus Suetonius".

    There's also the simple fact that most biblical scholars, regardless of their own religious beliefs or lack thereof, believe that at the very least, man named Jesus lived in Palestine in the early part of the 1st century, began a religious movement or was the center of a religious reform movement, and eventually ran afoul of the authorities and was executed.

    I know it's very posh and chic to deny the existence of Jesus these days, especially on the Internet, but the reality is there is little to no support for your position and the vast majority of evidence is against you. It's a bit like denying evolution; it may be the cool thing to do in some circles, but its hardly the view that the evidence leads you to.

    Tacitus: born after the alleged Jesus would have died. Hearsay.

    Josephus: works regarding Jesus are largely believed to be forgeries.

    Suetonius: Never refers to an earthly Jesus; only a "Chrestus," a popular name at the time.

    A regular man who may or may not have been named Jesus and who may or may not have led a religious uprising may have existed. But I maintain that there are no secular accounts which refer to a Biblical Jesus - in other words a son of god who performed miracles publicly.

    Part of the Bible MAY be true. But most of it is lies. Even if you believe all these fairy tales, please make sure your children learn and understand science. Well educated citizens lead to peace on earth.

    Sanskrit,

    I think you'd have a real problem demonstrating that most of the Bible is lies.

    Answers in Genesis doesn't follow Genesis. Instead they follow the visions of Ellen G. White. Before the conservative evangelical church adopted White's visions in the 1960's, christianity almost universally understood Genesis to be discussing a very old earth.

    That is what the Bible teaches. Genesis 2:3 claims that the God's seventh day of rest after creation was finished was on-going. Hebrews 4 claimed that God's rest had still not ended. Genesis 2:4 claims that the 6 days of creation are many generations long. They didn't have any big numbers.

    Modern geology was invented primarily to answer the question, "Precisely how old?" As the answer became millions and even billions of years, none of the church men in the 1600, 1700, and 1800's saw any problem or contradiction with the Bible.

    You'll have trouble finding many lies in the Bible. The Bible is far more accurate than you imagine. Unfortunately, a lot of the people who claim to follow the Bible, follow something else.

    JL

    How do you know no church men in the 1600, 1700, and 1800's saw any contradiction with the bible? Most likely, there were some atheists out there and were silent about it or were silenced (ahh, the good ol days of drawing and quartering). fun stuff

    Anon,

    People who don't write down what they believe are forgotten. Those who wrote, and who's writings survived, I have described them accurately.

    JL

    not_bob
    SO I guess the writing of Thomas Paine (doubting Thomas) dont count, one of the founding fathers of our nation that was clearly not a christian and thought the bible was full of fairy tales.
    Fascinating idea, JL:

    "Answers in Genesis doesn't follow Genesis. Instead they follow the visions of Ellen G. White. Before the conservative evangelical church adopted White's visions in the 1960's, christianity almost universally understood Genesis to be discussing a very old earth."

    This is utterly disconnected with reality. Perhaps this is tongue in cheek but for the benefit of all, Mrs. White died, I believe around 1915. Her ideas have never been adopted by the "evangelical church" generally, though they do form a basis of the Seventh Day Adventist groups.

    The 1960's connection to modern creation science is the 1961 publication of "The Genesis Flood" by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. But creationists have opposed evolution in various forms from the time of St. Paul (Acts. 17), and especially since Erasmus Darwin advocated it in the late 1700s.

    This statement is also inaccurate, JL:

    "Modern geology was invented primarily to answer the question, "Precisely how old?" As the answer became millions and even billions of years, none of the church men in the 1600, 1700, and 1800's saw any problem or contradiction with the Bible."

    James Hutton (most famous early anti-creation geologist) wrote in the late 1700s that he was studying the earth to find ways to undermine the Bible. When John Wesley (d. 1791) was asked in a letter about the longer ages Hutton proposed, he wrote back "we cannot give up the fall." That, BTW, is oppostion to the steady state earth which developed gradually over a long time AND implicit opposition to evolution which believes death is a part of the mechanism of "creation" rather than (as the Bible says) death being a consequence of sin.

    Lots is being and has been written and accomplished in science and theology by creationists. Edward Blyth, a creationist, was one of several who wrote about natural selection prior to Darwin's publication of his bright idea of evolution. Natural selection as observed does not conflict with Biblical creation. Please don't confuse it with evolution in the most usual sense: common ancestry of all living things.

    BTW, it takes a great deal of faith to believe that an ant and I have a common ancestor whose descendents became each of us.

    Please help me understand any evidence that supports that!

    No, evolution (common ancestry) is not science. It's not a theory. It has no hypotheses demonstrated by observations which support it which do not also support creation in six regular days a few thousand years ago.

    How in the world did evolution move from Darwin's bright idea to supporting evidence observed by testing hypotheses to well supported scientific theory. It hasn't happened. It's really a bright idea that is now less bright. It seems to me that it was a victory of publicity or propaganda led by Huxley and others.

    More accurately, evolution is a model that strings together observations into a framework that itself is not supported. Evolution is a faith, accepted by faith, fiat or default.

    I would certainly agree, JL, that there are no lies in the Bible, except those where a person in a narrative tells a lie.

    Part of Evolution may be true, but most of it, at best, could never be proven in many lifetimes, which leads me to wonder why it is called a scientific theory and considered to be fact. It has been estimated by scientists, I think Dr David Berlinski for one, that about 50,000 morphing changes would have to take place in an animal to make them go from a land animal to a sea animal. Think about it, that is amazing. I think believing in evolution takes a whole lot more faith than believing that everything in this amazing universe was created by God. Just think abour our DNA and how complicated it is. Scientists work so hard to understand all of the crazy stuff in our world and aren't even close to cracking half of the answers. Doesn't that point to a divine creator? Believe what you will, but when it comes down to it, I will be teaching my kids that God Himself created them to be unique human beings who can do good things in this amazing world we live in. You can teach your kids what you want and I won't think any less of you.

    John0877
    just because you or anyone dont fully understand how things were made yet doesnt default to a divine being creating it. just means we dont know yet and i do think that theory of evolution is closer to explaining how things happened even if it doesnt have all the answers YET. key word being yet. scientists never claimed to have all the answers, but creationists seem to think they have all the answers. i refer back to native americans and greeks and romans thinking that there was some god responsible for lightning or volcanic eruptions or whatever other natural happening. now we have figured out why those things happen, what leads up to them etc. they also thought if they did certain things that they would be making those gods happy and the volcanos wouldnterupt or lightning wouldnt strike or rivers wouldnt flood etc as well. some sacrificed innocent people cause of that belief even. would you sacrifice some innocent person to make your god happy in this day and age or are you smart enough to know that there are other causes for things in life and that killing an innocent person wont stop that from happening?
    "It has been estimated by scientists, I think Dr David Berlinski for one, that about 50,000 morphing changes would have to take place in an animal to make them go from a land animal to a sea animal. Think about it, that is amazing."
    Yes it is amazing. It's also more plausable than any argument laid forth in this blog in favor of creation. Lets take a look.
    The Dr. would be reffering to the simple miniscule changes that need to occur. For the sake of this discusion lets give alot of room for adjustment and say each change 5 generations. Each generation lived 1 year as fish and as land creatures 10 years. Over the 50,000 cycle it averages out to 5 years for each generation, 5 generations = 25 years roughly. So theres a starting point. 25 years each morph.
    Let's make it more interesting and double it to 50 years for a single morph.
    Now lets multiply the years against the number of changes needed.
    50*50,000= 2,500,000
    Now if I where to say it only took 2.5 to 3 million years for a land creature to adapt back to live in water you would say I was way too generous with that amount of time.
    But according to the aurgument put for 50,000 morphing changes sounds like alot.
    Stop letting others think for you. It's embarrasing to you and your friends.
    Evolution is FACT not theory.
    Oh, one more thing... Bite my balls

    You don't understand it so it *must* be God's work, right? Erm, I'm afraid not.

    Lol. Yes, since we do not fully understand DNA and evolution, it must be false. It MUST mean there is a God. Remember back in the day when everyone KNEW that the Earth was the center of the universe. Everyone KNEW the Earth was flat. Remember when Christopher Columbus "discovered America" even though there were 10's of thousands of people already living here. Remember when everyone KNEW the element theory(that everything on Earth was made of earth,fire,water,air). What do you think we will KNOW in a 100 years.

    I honestly do not intend this as a flame but how can a person be scientific and religious at the same time?

    Science is, at its core, the scientific method. That is to say a person "believes" something is true, or possibly true, then seeks to test that theory by proving it wrong. Provided the scientist is honest with themselves, the "belief" in that idea is strengthened or weakened accordingly. But fundamentally, a "scientist" believes nothing without evidence commensurate with the claim and is willing to discard a belief if evidence contradicts it.

    Religion, on the other hand, *begins* with a conclusion and if the evidence doesn't fit, then the evidence is wrong or misunderstood or incomplete.

    Put another way, when you buy a used car you have on your "scientist hat." You kick the tires, you check the oil, maybe you bring it to a mechanic (a better scientist) for examination. When you go to church (or pray, or worship, etc.) you put on your "theist hat." You don't question anything because there isn't anything to question. You have "faith" which is, by definition, belief without evidence.

    If you were a full-time theist, you'd simply pray about the car.

    This isn't intended as a troll, I promise, I'm just always confused by people who claim to be theist scientists. They're mutually exclusive. If you can accept something without evidence (eg; faith) then you're not a scientist. If you accept nothing minus evidence then you can't be a theist.

    Jason

    It seems that you are basing your definition of science purely on the method being used. Whereas I would define science as the discovery of the natural laws that surround us in our universe.

    Given the difference in our definitions, we will undoubtedly have different feelings concerning science vs. theism. You can provide no common ground between the two because they depend (at some level) on different methods. However, the definition of faith (according to the Bible) is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". If you read the beginning of Psalm 19, David is writing about seeing the evidence of God by looking into the sky. He is seeing evidence of the creator by the creation. If you saw a cake sitting on a table, wouldn't you believe that someone baked it even if you saw no one else in the room? Of course, because no one is stupid enough to believe that a cake just appears, that breaks the natural laws of science.

    Since the baker of that cake exists independently of the cake and outside the cake, there is no problem with believing in a baker while still not seeing the baker. The same is true when talking about God. He exists outside of his creation, he doesn't have to follow the laws of science himself just his creation (the universe) does that.

    Given that, there is no problem in believing that our creator exists but can not be proven by natural laws. If he can't be proven (or disproved) by natural laws, he is outside the scope of science. Given that God is outside the scope of science, there is no conflict.

    However, the fact that the laws exist does somewhat prove an intelligence in the creation and thus an intelligent creator. After all, the cake had a creator and it isn't nearly as intelligent as the universe. I realize that I have not proven the existence of God and that was not my attempt. However, I feel that I have proven that science and God can coexist and that a person can be a scientist as well as a theist.

    how would you go about discovering the natural laws without using the scientific method? i can believe that god is holding my feet on the earth so i don't float away, or i can do tests and discover that gravity exists. i can believe that the bright lights in the sky are called to earth randomly, or i can do tests and harness the power of electricity. i'm not seeing how these discoveries were made, or could possibly be made, without using the scientific method. and i fail to see how tests can be done to determine whether god exists--it's all about faith. faith in something without any evidence to support it. your explanation wasn't detailed enough for me to understand what you meant.

    I think your confusion arises because our modern world has defined anything supernatural as a lie and a nice way to make us have an orderly society, but ultimately still a lie. We're not post-modernists; we believe that God actually, literally exists and that the Bible is the literal story of His dealings with mankind. Science, then, is merely the quantifiable, provable study of the world he has placed us in. We believe what He has told us to be truth and that it will not contradict science. We have seen through history that while men think they have disproved the existence of God or proved the Bible to be in contradiction to the evidence, they, in their imperfect humanness, turn out to be mistaken and the Scriptures are fulfilled which say, "let God be true, but every man a liar".

    Here is the thing. You could pretty much trump any argument with "God made it that way," or "because god willed it," or something to the like. But the fact of the matter is this: Science will not name a theory "true" until it is proven. Meaning it can be seen, felt, heard, tasted, etc. I can tell you that a fire is hot and if you don't believe me I can build you a fire; have you stick your hand in it and lay that argument to rest. Most importantly not only will my statement hold true for just you but for anyone else who sticks their hand in that fire.

    God on the other hand can not be seen, heard or felt universally. Some may claim to have observed god with their senses but others can say with absolution that they have not.

    As a man of science I can not deny the existence of god because his existence has not been disproved. However, religious or not, we all know when we're being told a fish story. And as much as we'd like to tell that person telling us the story that we don't believe it, we hold our tongues because we weren't there and really it's just easier to let it go.

    With that logic, heaven is merely a theory as parallel universes are merely scientific theory. With that logic, Bigfoot told me that his god told him to tell me to tell you that you are his favorite and that he has a spot saved for you next to him and his only begotten crucified, messianic son, El Chewbacca kabra Yeti Christ the third. -is that believable? have we used the superior parts of our brains (as well as the reptilian part) to invent Bigfoot and its god, the same way as early "civilized" humans invented thousands of personal deities, asserted their own ideas about what their god approves, posited claims about the existence of these deities without evidence, and have given attributes to these supposed inconceivable gods as well as the planes of existence in which they dwell? heaven and hell exist as much as middle earth, the hogwart academy, never never land, carebear castle, and Gotham city. Is it true that dino's lived along side men only a few thousand years ago? The Flintstones cartoon series must be a documentary, right?

    The problem with taking religion in one hand and science in the other and attempting to make them both work, is the fact that they both contradict each other. That leaves you with one choice; do you take science which uses logic, observation and the scientiffic method to answer the questions man has or faith ( believing something without the need of proof)?
    Catholicism states that it is a mortal sin to NOT believe that the wine and the wafer you are given in communion turn into the actual blood and flesh of Jesus Christ when placed in your mouth.
    So my question is: How can you believe both science ( which would tell you that you can't take rice paper and wine and turn them into meat and blood from a two thousand year old man) and religion (magic)?
    Now, you can marry the two in only one way, take the sacrament, get an operation to check your stomach for DNA from a middle eastern man and you will have a true marriage of the two. As a side note, if you did this and it was verifiable or recreated in a lab, you would convince many of us. However, I believe you see how ridiculous this sounds.
    Good luck in your struggles and I hope you find real enlightment.

    Science is a creation by man.
    God is a creation by man, too.

    Science just came out better, because men who "created" science were more clever (and some times more ethic as well) than people who invented gods.

    Science is not a creation of man. It exist, and man has uncovered the truth of it. We continue to uncover the truth, hence research and discovery.

    Before you start with, God exist and man has uncovered the truth of it. Just think about that statement. Scientific discoveries occur nearly everyday, with endeniable and reproduceable results. Can you say the same about God?

    Anyways, I thought according to the religious zealots that man was incapable of creation since only God is the Creator.

    Welcolme to the paradoxical logic that everyone else sees in religion.

    Science is not a creation of man. It exist, and man has uncovered the truth of it.

    While scientific truths certainly predate man, science itself is a creation of man. 'Science' simply comprises the tools that we use to discover and describe our universe.

    god is a creation of man, not the other way around. who says knowledge is bad? your "god" created eden with the apple tree told them they'd die, they ate it and didn't die so who lied, we were never meant to life forever even before. there there are the "other people" not in eden who were blessed with knowledge.

    Read the Bible before you attempt to describe its content. The tree was not simply a tree of knowledge, but a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you are not aware of sin, you are incapable of it. The Bible also says that death came as a result of sin. Therefore, no one died until sin came into the world, and sin didn't come into the world until Adam and Eve were aware of it. So yes, they would have lived forever had they not eaten the fruit. Also, if you're going to discuss Eden as though it were fact (I'm not saying it is or isn't), you should know that there weren't other people outside of it. Adam and Eve were the only two humans in existence at that time.

    If Adam and Eve were the only humans on the planet, mated and had two kids... then where the &*@&# did the two boy's WIVES COME FROM??? Another planet or dimension? Or was it an editing mistake? Guess that shows "God" is NOT INFALLIBLE!!

    Wake up people... the Bible is a series of stories... not facts!

    Adam and Eve had more than two kids:

    After Adam became the father of Seth, he lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
    (Genesis 5:4 GW)

    The two boy's wives were their sisters.

    The Bible says Adam had many sons and daughters. They married each other. And before you go on about incest and "genetic similarities," remember that you believe ALL life on earth came from a single cell. Marrying sisters is much more plausible than that.

    Science is not created by anybody, it is a lot of self-supporting theories that are open to change in case any of it is disproved.

    Religion, various gods, and the bible are all creations of man. The Bible is a self-contradicting conglomeration of stories put together by a group of men. Seriously, there are two contradicting stories of creation right at the beginning of Genesis.

    "Science is not created by anybody, it is a lot of self-supporting theories that are open to change in case any of it is disproved."

    Science in the modern sense of using the scientific method was definitely developed by human beings. Sir Francis Bacon is credited as being one of the most important. Surely as an evolutionist you don't think that science existed among the first single-celled creatures, do you? Do any other evolutionists believe this?

    "Religion, various gods, and the bible are all creations of man. The Bible is a self-contradicting conglomeration of stories put together by a group of men. Seriously, there are two contradicting stories of creation right at the beginning of Genesis."

    These comments are simply silly, unsupported assertions without real foundation. They are a faith statement, since there is not any evidence of all this stuff. It's an opinion, to which you are entitled, but nothing more.

    Ok, before you get into Bible "contradictions" like the supposed one in Genesis, do your research. If you honestly read the first book of the Bible you would notice that Genesis chapter one is the overall scheme of creation. Chapter two deals with day six and with humanity.

    Genesis 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

    The key words here are HAD FORMED. God brought them (already having been made before man) to Adam so he could name them. See? In chapter one it speaks of creating the birds and beasts of the field before Adam. In chapter two it also says that they were formed BEFORE Adam. All God had to do was bring them to him. No contradiction when you actually read what is there.

    Science is not a creation! It is the process by which we study and strive to understand our surroundings. These theories proposed by this museum are simply an organized religion's attempt to give scientific validity to their beliefs.

    Wow, the world's best scientists and smartest readers, yet someone doesn't know the difference between "sites" and "sights".

    Smart ≠ good speller - thank Microsoft for that...ever heard of the Spell Check Generation?

    "In Genesis 1:30 God gives ‘green herb’ to every creature to eat and so there were no predators. When a curious museum visitor asks, why exactly T. rex had six-inch long serrated teeth, the guides go on to explain that T. rex used his big teeth to open coconuts. Apparently it was only after Adam and Eve sinned and were cast out of paradise that the dinosaurs started to eat flesh."

    Well, if you eat some green herb, you're gonna be hungry for whatever crosses or happens to be growing along your path.

    Thank you, God! :D

    Ed.

    the part that always gets me is according to the bible the world is 6000 years old yet these dinosaurs have been confirmed millions of years old. how does that fit into the bible logic i wonder.

    do you also know that a scientist in Montana has recently discovered dinosaur bones with traces of red blood cells still intact? the story goes that she and her fellow scientists tried to explain it away, but a 60-million-year-old dinosaur could never still have blood within its bones if it really were that old. i suggest you study the dating methods that scientists use when they give rocks, bones, fossils, and other matter ages that number in the hundreds of thousands, millions, and billions. there are many unknowns that could have disrupted the molecules that they measure in order to ascertain their ages. they assume a certain process has continued uninterrupted and untainted for the entire life cycle of the matter, and this is an assumption. don't go around believing scientists the same way some Christians and some Muslims go around blindly trusting their ideologies.

    No, they did not find red blood cells. They found soft tissue.

    So you just rather believe one scientist in Montana (you don't even give us her name) instead of thousands of physicists who are in agreement about radiocarbon dating. Great.

    it was soft tissue and not intact cells, they were able to determine that there were proteins that were remarkably similar to modern birds, that's about it as of yet.

    Ssssh! You're giving the rest of the information that doesn't support their beliefs. You're only suppose to hear the part they want.

    Just listen to the part that makes dinosaurs live with humans, not the part that supports evolution.

    This is a line of "logic" that makes no sense at all to me. It seems that there a lots of folks out there that say they support science and therefore believe in evolution. One of their major points for evolution is that many creatures have common aspects.

    However, in engineering (which is based on science) it is enforced that it is important to not create the same thing over and over. As a software engineer, I don't build a new OS for every project that I develop. I don't build a new programming language for every project. I don't even build every line of code from scratch.

    I select the OS and language that lend themselves best to the project. I copy code from previous projects or use libraries that have been built from many previous projects. The parts that I copy have been proven to work and therefore I know what I am working with.

    Why would it be so wrong for God to have done the same thing? Why wouldn't he have used some of the same parts from earlier creations in the later ones? Why would it be so wrong for a bird and a dinosaur to have things in common? The same solution for similar problems. I'm sorry but this just sounds like good engineering to me!

    It isn't a matter of supporting evolution, it is a matter of interpretation. I interpret these facts as supporting good engineering and science and you interpret them as contradicting creation.

    Hank
    Kelly Fulks - It isn't a matter of supporting evolution, it is a matter of interpretation. I interpret these facts as supporting good engineering and science and you interpret them as contradicting creation.

    That's a succinct and elegant argument.

    That's a good point. Evolutionists, with their concept of natural selection, should understand that creatures with different lung systems, for example, wouldn't survive, leaving only a few types of lungs among all of the animals. Why do all fish have gills? Is it because they came from a common ancestor? No. It's because gills work, and any other system wouldn't.

    Well, unless you're a really bad software engineer I hope that when you feel the need to copy a function or a few lines of code from one project to another you don't copy all the extraneous comments from the old function. That if you spot a bug that won't immediately impact the new project you don't fix it - and if it's your code you're copying from I hope you fix the original project too.

    The commanality of certain pieces of functionality across the DNA of many organisms includes a commonality of extraneous junk and "bugs".

    If this is indicative of a common designer it is indicative of a very slap dash and sloppy designer - certainly not one both perfect and omniscient (how does omniscience gel with buggy code exactly???)

    Who is to say what is extraneous and what is necessary? When it comes to my code only I can decide what are extraneous comments and what I believe to be necessary to understanding the code may be different from you. When it comes to creation, only the creator can decide what is necessary. You might create a cake and sprinkle coconut over the top of it. I (not liking coconut) would call the extraneous while you believe that it makes your cake.

    We might not understand the need for everything in our DNA, but since we are just discovering science, we don't have to whole picture. What looks like junk may actually serve a purpose which we do not yet understand. "Bugs" are easy to understand and it does go back to Genesis when man (and woman) sinned and started to die. Those "bugs" are often brought on by the sin of man. And unfortunately, it is always not the person that sinned that has the bug (think of the baby of a drug addict mother). God created a perfect creation, but when man failed to follow the one command provided by his creator, bugs were introduced.

    Yeah, I'm sure that that DNA is extraneous in the same way science only a few short years ago thought the tonsils were extraneous and removed them en masse.

    "If this is indicative of a common designer it is indicative of a very slap dash and sloppy designer - certainly not one both perfect and omniscient (how does omniscience gel with buggy code exactly???)"

    Your ignorance of Biblical creation is showing!

    This world isn't the one God created, it's the one we made from that world by sinning, i.e., these "flaws" are consequences of sin.

    This, BTW, may be the reason Adam & Eve's kids could marry each other without the danges associated with such marriages today ... not yet so much deteriorization at that time.

    At least find out what you are opposing, then you can actually criticize it's weaknesses. Speaking to its strengths isn't effective from your side or helpful from ours!

    Blessings!

    "This, BTW, may be the reason Adam & Eve's kids could marry each other without the danges associated with such marriages today ... not yet so much deteriorization at that time."

    Adam & Eve's kids? According to bible, they only had sons. Who did they marry? How does the bible explain how they continued they lineage? If anything, I think this is one valid points that discredits the bible as an accurate historical and scientific medium.

    Marriages in the bible experienced infidelity and strife much as the marriages do today. Women's right and liberation did not exist back then, therefore of course, divource did not exist.

    They are all in agreement because of a little thing called a "confirmation bias." The idea is that you're less likely to question something that confirms what you already believe. That's the case with radiometric dating.

    Radiometric dating is based on the principle of elemental decay. Basically, the older an element is, the less there will be of it and the more there will be of another element that it produce. However, these values are often incredibly small, so it doesn't take a lot to throw off the results. I believe that Carbon-14 decays into Nitrogen-14; it's not really relevant, but I'll basing my example off of that. Since the carbon becomes nitrogen over time, you can theoretically analyze the amount of nitrogen and carbon in a sample, add the numbers to determine the initial amount of carbon, and determine how long it would take that amount of carbon to decay to the present amount of carbon (simplification of the actual process). However, if there was any nitrogen to begin with, the sample appears older than it really is.

    Now, scientists know this. However, the first group of scientists probably kept the results because it matched what they already thought. Once another group did the same thing, they kept the results because it agreed with their beliefs, and because another team got the same results. So you can't say, "If so many people believe it, it must be right," because each additional test compounds the problem. Radiometric dating can't be trusted, because too many assumptions must be made to obtain the results.

    Here is a good scientific principle for anyone to follow :

    If there is a field of scientific endeavor which has been developed over years, is used routinely, and is based on a large body of research, and if you think that, even though you are not in that field, you have discovered a simple and obvious mistake that invalidates the entire field and all of its conclusions, you are wrong.

    In this particular case, I don't think that you understand radioactive dating, which comes, by the way, in a number of different forms, and has been validated and cross-checked in many different ways, and yet you think that there is a simple and obvious mistake that invalidates it.

    @ Marshall Eubanks
    You are so wrong in your assumptions about the superb accuracy of dating material on the basis of radioactive decay. Any good Pastafarian can tell you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) messes with these methods and the data obtained by them. The earth and the visible universe are actually only a couple of years old; that's when the FSM created everything, including mountains, a tree, a midgit, and pirates. Refer to our website, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for detailed information.

    May his Noodly Grace forgive you for your brash support of false empirical methodology. I will pray for you.

    RAmen
    FENWICK

    There's no "mystery" behind the find in Montana. This is already the fourth mummified dinosaur ever found and does not in any way cast doubt on radiocarbon dating. And they're not actual blood and tissues... but fossilized minerals. We learned about permineralization in high school!! Give me a break!

    Radiocarbon dating only can go back some 12,000 years... due to the rather short half-life of the isotope Carbon 14.

    FFor dating that old... say 70,000,000 years, a dating system like Potassium 40 - Argon 40 would be used. There are others... but I can't think of any at the moment. Besides.. I used to be a geological technolgist in the oil patch.

    No John,

    Usher dated the "6th day creation" of Adam to 4004 BC. He didn't go back any further than that. Usher knew the days of creation were long periods of time. Genesis 2:4 says they were many "generations."

    Since Genesis says that Adam was placed in a garden near the city of Eden in lower Mesopotamia, that date checks out quite well with anthropology.

    Ellen G. White had visions that said the world was only 6000 years old. Answers in Genesis follows Henry Morris who followed George McCready Price, who followed White. White's visions are not in the Bible, no matter what Answers in Genesis claims.

    JL

    Long periods of time, eh? It must have been pretty hard for the plants on Day 3 to grow for those millions of years before the sun came on Day 4.

    Also, the term "generation" in this context is used to describe distinct periods of time (the days, and the events that happened in each). Genesis 2:4 doesn't say "many generations"; it just says "generations." Where did you hear that a generation had to be a long period of time? The most common use of the term puts "generation" at 20-30 years. Other uses (such as those referring to technology) can be significantly shorter.

    Lastly, the 6000 year earth isn't the product of "visions." If you read through the genealogies listed in the Bible, you can determine the age of the earth through the ages of the people. Complete genealogies are listed from Adam to Jesus, and there's very little dispute that the present day occurs about 2000 years after that.

    Garner,

    As I recall, the Light was called Day and the Darkness Night on Day 1. The day-night cycle needed for life started before plant life.

    The word translated "make" on Day 4 for the "greater light to rule the Day" is ambiguous. It is used for assignment, appearance, declaring a purpose, as well as actual creation.

    Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe has a very literal view that discusses this. Another view that is less "literal" but is more in tune with the ancient mindset can be found in Milton Terry's book "Biblical Apocalyptics."

    The early church (second century) interpreted the days to be idealized generations of 1000 years each. It's not clear how literal they meant that to be. They also believed that the 7th day was nearly 6000 years old at that time and would be nearly 8000 years old now.

    The early church used the Septuagint. Using Lightfoot and Usher's methods, that puts the creation of Adam around 5500 BC, not 4000 BC.

    Lightfoot believed in a gap and a local creation. He did not give a date for the creation of the universe, but for the start of God's preparation of the Garden of Eden. Usher believed the days were long, probably also believed in a local creation, and gave a date for the creation of Adam on the 6th day, not for the initial creation.

    Lightfoot and Usher's colleagues were among those who invented modern geology. They saw that the Bible claims the earth is very old, but not how old. They understood that the Bible claimed an unimaginably long past and future for the earth and that long past and future demonstrated the eternality of God. They invented geology to answer the question of how old.

    The history of this issue in the church is far more complex than you imagine.

    Blessings

    JL

    The most absurd thing about the day-age theory is not the fact that Genesis uses the Hebrew word for literal day, yôm, or even that it includes the phrase "the evening and the morning were the first day" to make sure that if we tried to twist yôm, we'd still get the point that this was one literal day. No, the most absurd thing about the day age theory is that it solves no problems. It manufactures the worst of both worlds. Not only does it not include enough time (according to evolutionists) for evolution to have occurred, but it also goes against a literal reading of "evening", "morning", and "day". It really satisfies neither scenario.

    Hans,

    Please try again. You obviously have not tried to compare Scripture with Scripture to determine what the phrase "evening and morning" means.

    The Hebrew phrase "evening and morning" is used only 3 times in Scripture outside of Genesis 1. Psalm 55:17, Dan. 8:14, 26. The first makes no sense except as something on-going for a long period of time. The later two, the NIV translates the Hebrew singular into the English plural. You can't find an example where the phrase means an ordinary day. There is no reason to believe that it does in Genesis 1 either.

    In Genesis 1, the earth starts in full darkness. Then full light. Then half dark, half light. Day is defined as the light part. Night is defined as the dark part. "Evening and morning" is not defined. The first day did not start at sunset and end at dawn. It started full dark, then full light. That's a different pattern.

    On the 4th day, we are told the "greater light" is given for a sign to mark days. This outright denies your assumption that "evening and morning" marks a day. Taken literally, "evening and morning" can't mark anything but the boundaries of a single night. Since the sun marks the day, sunset marks the end of the day or beginning of the night, and sunrise marks the end of the night and beginning of the day. If a phrase was being used to define a 24-hour day, it would be "evening to evening" or "morning to morning."

    Taken as the Bible uses the phrase, "evening and morning" is an idiom, the same as the more familiar Greek idiom, "night and day." I've been working "night and day" to finish this project.

    Ancient Hebrew did not have written vowels. The phrase "evening and morning," in Genesis 1, might have originally been "chaos and order" or "conceal and consider."

    The most absurd thing about 6 24-hour-day creationism is the Bible doesn't teach it. The Bible teaches creation over unnumbered generations. This was widely recognized by the entire Church for 1900 years.

    "But at least we know that [a creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 5, Chapter 2.

    JL

    The Hebrew phrase "evening and morning" is used only 3 times in Scripture outside of Genesis 1. Psalm 55:17, Dan. 8:14, 26.

    Not true:

    And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning (1242) unto the evening (6153).
    (Exodus 18:13 KJV)

    Hate to break it to you, but that's a literal day. I kind of doubt Moses sat in judgment for 1000 years. And that's just the first example I found.

    In fact, "evening (6153) and the morning (1242)" were so much considered a single literal day, that one time in the Hebrew text where the two words appear one after the other, they are simply translated "day":

    And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days (6153, 1242); then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
    (Daniel 8:14 KJV)

    According to your mis-exegesis, the above verse means 839,500,000 (2300 * 1000 years * 365 days) days. I don't think so. I'm afraid your little (dishonest) attempt to interpret Scripture by Scripture backfired.

    JL, JL, you are playing fast and loose with your facts again:

    "The most absurd thing about 6 24-hour-day creationism is the Bible doesn't teach it. The Bible teaches creation over unnumbered generations. This was widely recognized by the entire Church for 1900 years"

    This is easily shown false by the controversy in Martin Luther's time over why God took six days when he could have done it in the blink of an eye. And there are quite a number of writings from the 1500s which discuss this. There would be no controversy if you are right in your claim.

    Dozens if not hundreds of documents exist from a good may different times in church history expressing belief in the six ordinary days for creation.

    Since Darwin's time alone, there is a continuous tradition of opposing older dates for creation.

    @Dan - Think for yourself rather than relying on what some book tells you to believe. By teaching evolution as taught in Biology classes, we are already teaching "stupidity." If you want to believe we evolved... explain how what we supposedly evolved from got here in the first place.

    As for this article, I half-heartedly agree with the mission set forth by this museum. I feel that they have some very valid and true points, such as all animals were herbivores during the time of Adam and Eve. For all we know, the T-Rex may have chewed on trees to keep their teeth dull, or their teeth may have served some other purpose. I'm not ruling out that they could have eaten coconuts, but to go as far as to say that definitively is pushing it. I wish the Christian community could focus on providing accurate data without trying to add in their own agenda or ideas of how/why things happened.

    "Think for yourself rather than relying on what some book tells you to believe."

    The Bible....you lose thanks for playing.

    Can anybody be this ignorant? Do you even know that humans were not around when dinosaurs ruled the earth? So you believe God put all animals on earth at the same time, and according to the story you believe, God only put two humans on earth. The same book that tells you that story also tells you that those two humans have two children, both of them boys. Two boys? So the only way to keep reproducing is through incest. Mothers having sexual intercourse with their children, what a nice bedtime story.

    They had sisters too, but Cain and Abel are the primarily mentioned one.

    So incest with your sister is better than with your mother. Thanks for the clarification.

    The reply I always got when I asked this question was that the bloodline was still pure and near perfect, so it didn't cause problems to have incest.

    Thank FSM I learned my way out of religion.

    Jennifer,

    Genesis says Cain was driven from the land near Eden to another land with a strange people. I think it's likely that if there were strange people there, there were marriageble women. No need to marry your sister when 1) she's nowhere around and 2) there are so many exotic beautys available.

    As for Adam's son Seth, there were certainly women in the city of Eden. Seth just had to go to town and find one. Farm boys have been doing that for thousands of years.

    JL

    I grew up studying the bible! I've never read that there were sisters. However, in the case that there were, the bible clearly condemns incest.

    Scientific facts or hypothesis are supposed to be clear. When there is a gap we hypothesize and test again. The process continues on and on. The same can not be said for the bible. It is extremely ambiguous and incomplete. Furthermore, the bible as we know it today was put together by the Catholic church eons ago. Books were added and omitted. In other words, the bible as we know it today has been replicated and recreated by man many times over in history.

    I grew up studying the bible! I've never read that there were sisters. However, in the case that there were, the bible clearly condemns incest.

    Scientific facts or hypothesises are supposed to be clear. When there is a gap we hypothesize and test again. The process continues on and on. The same can not be said for the bible. It is extremely ambiguous and incomplete. Furthermore, the bible as we know it today was put together by the Catholic church eons ago. Books were added and omitted. In other words, the bible as we know it today has been replicated and recreated by man many times over in history.

    "Can anybody be this ignorant? Do you even know that humans were not around when dinosaurs ruled the earth? So you believe God put all animals on earth at the same time, and according to the story you believe, God only put two humans on earth. The same book that tells you that story also tells you that those two humans have two children, both of them boys. Two boys? So the only way to keep reproducing is through incest. Mothers having sexual intercourse with their children, what a nice bedtime story."

    Great story for anytime, actually!

    The Bible tells us the names of three sons of Adam and Eve, and that they had "other sons and daughters." There is other ancient literature (not Biblical) suggesting a total of around fifty or so children.

    We generally believe that they did marry sisters and/or cousins. The commandment not to marry siblings was not given until a few thousand years later.

    Concerning dinos and humans living together, were you there? But there is lots of ancient and even fairly recent literature concerning dragons and even some artwork by humans showing dinos. There was a drawing of a dino-like creature in the mid 1800s in an
    Australian newspaper. Not science, but equal to your non observing of dinos. There's material from the last thousand years or so from Wales, China, India, Greece, Amerind, Italian, etc.

    "Can anybody be this ignorant? Do you even know that humans were not around when dinosaurs ruled the earth? So you believe God put all animals on earth at the same time, and according to the story you believe, God only put two humans on earth. The same book that tells you that story also tells you that those two humans have two children, both of them boys. Two boys? So the only way to keep reproducing is through incest. Mothers having sexual intercourse with their children, what a nice bedtime story."

    Great story for anytime, actually!

    The Bible tells us the names of three sons of Adam and Eve, and that they had "other sons and daughters." There is other ancient literature (not Biblical) suggesting a total of more than fifty children.

    We generally believe that they did marry brothers & sisters and/or other close relatives. The commandment not to marry siblings was not given until a few thousand years later.

    Concerning dinos and humans living together, were you there?

    But there is lots of ancient and even fairly recent literature concerning dragons and even some artwork by humans showing dinos. There was a drawing of a dino-like creature in the mid 1800s in an
    Australian newspaper. Not science, but then no one claims observation of dinos at all, only interpreting fossils.

    There's material from the last thousand years or so from Wales, China, India, Greece, Amerind, Italian, and many more cultures.

    science is heavily fortified fact, and religion is speculation. christopher hitchens "religion ends and philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends and chemistry begins and astronomy ends and astrology begins." so lets just end it already, it's time to uncreate god.

    Walt
    "Science is heavily fortified fact" Well, maybe so. Then what does that make evolution? Something other than science, for sure!
    He's gonna let the devil uncreate you in hell :)

    give me a break! No one is this stupid.

    It's funny how this post makes fun of the Creation museum and cites its opinion that they are smoking "green herb" (entirely without any stated logical reasoning or facts to back such a position), but yet cannot properly spell "sights". This illustrates an education system that is a vehicle for indoctrination rather than being a tool for teaching students to think critically and to learn such basics as spelling. The source of the scientific disagreement facing our society today is rooted in epistemology and is a result of people not wanting to be morally responsible to God.

    Fact: Thee bible is a mixed assortment of vague and often conflicting recollections and interpretations of a bunch of people.

    The New Testament did not exist in any coherent form until hundreds of years AD.

    Bascially, anyone who feels this is a sound basis for literal interpretation in 2007 is either:

    A) Stupid
    B) Misguided
    C) Indoctrinated

    Personally, I'd just question their intelligence.

    Picking holes in grammatical errors is invariably the last resort of someone who has lost an argument.

    I see this 'museum' as a sad reflection of the desperation of the stupid. It's actually a museum in which the exhibits are about lack
    of intelligence. Coconuts. Yeah. Right.

    --

    Oh, and man wasn't made by God. Get over it already.

    Fact: Thee bible is a mixed assortment of vague and often conflicting recollections and interpretations of a bunch of people.

    Funny how you evolutionists can't help but mix in opinion ("vague") with putative fact.

    Show me the bible is factual

    Show me it's not.

    Done... how about man being created approximately 6,000 years ago? Or the Earth being created only a few days prior to that?

    Granted, if you're a religious person who isn't stupid enough to misunderstand the true meaning of the Genesis story, this isn't a huge problem. There are plenty of other dumb stories which are obviously not true (Jonah, the destruction of the walls of Jericho by marching, guys who are super-strong until their hair is cut off) but obviously without a time machine this can't be proven.

    The real question is that why, after the events of the Old Testament, God has decided to stop with these kinds of supernatural, unexplainable activities.

    You need to differentiate between "unexplainable" and "obviously not true." I would put dinosaurs living with humans in the latter category. However, just because something doesn't make sense from our frame of reference doesn't make it untrue. (Einstein famously rejected quantum physics because "God doesn't play dice with the universe." It was still true.)

    However, in response to an earlier comment in this thread, the New Testament was not "put into it's current form hundreds of years later." Yes, the exact selection of books wasn't sorted out for some time, but the evidence for the time of the writing of the included books puts all of them within 30 to 60 years of Christ's death, with the possible exception of John and the Book of the Revelation. The letters of Paul, Peter, and John appear to be genuine, as well as Luke's writings in the book of Acts, which means we have sources from eyewitnesses.

    You can argue that the writers lied or made up their stories, and that's fine. But at least as far as the New Testament goes, if you start arguing that they were written centuries after the fact, you've started making things up. Just like T Rex's eating coconuts.

    how can a fictional creation play dice is another interpretation, therefore in quantum mechanics the is actually order

    Ed, the parent post of your comment is not 'picking holes in grammar' for the sake of discrediting but rather as a lead in to the point of indoctrination vs. a solid education in language and its usage and, I might add, history... which you and the other "giants" that have negatively posted to this page are SORELY laking in.

    Take, for a moment, Sir Isaac Newton: a genius by most accounts and certainly not stupid by any account. However, here is a scientist of great Christian faith. Please see the following and see how his quotes apply to you and what you believe:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views

    Sir Isaac Newton is a real giant of science, but it seems you and your ilk do not stand on the same foundation as does he: you no longer stand on this giants shoulders.

    Oh, how short you are.

    >Ed, the parent post of your comment is not 'picking holes in grammar' for the sake of discrediting but rather as a lead in to the point of indoctrination vs. a solid education in language and its usage and, I might add, history... which you and the other "giants" that have negatively posted to this page are SORELY laking in.

    >Sir Isaac Newton is a real giant of science, but it seems you and your ilk do not stand on the same foundation as does he: you no longer stand on this giants shoulders.

    I don't mean to pick holes in your grammar, Bill, but I believe you mean "on this giant's shoulders," with an apostrophe. I guess by your own logic you must be arguing from a position of indoctrination. How about that.

    That mistake, that you "don't mean to pick" at, neither confirms nor denies the education system's intentions of indoctrination. Infact, if it were a matter of ignorance that I made that mistake it would further bolster the arguement of U.S. school indocrination. As well, the mistake makes no claim to what I do or do not believe.

    Instead you offer an arguement of short-sightedness and of no substance.

    Keep it up shorty.

    Infact? I'd say that confirms you've been exposed to some kind of indoctrination yourself--one that emphasizes paranoid conspiracy theories.

    I guess I wasn't clear enough because you've missed my point entirely. I was trying to be facetious. I had no intentions of inferring what you do or do not believe.

    The point is that it's rediculous to hold up a typographical error as anything but just that. It doesn't discredit the author's argument and it's ridiculous as a lead in to a debate about institutional indoctrination.

    Typographical errors simply show you're uneducated. That doesn't add points to your argument, it simply shows you have neither the discipline nor intelligence to participate in an intellectual debate. If you'd like me to consider your statement, you must first show you have enough thought to check for simple grammatical and typographical errors.

    Your final grade: D+

    You might want to try being a bit more humble. Could you tell me than how you think the human being came about then? It's easy to criticise other theories but much harder to stand for what you yourself believes. And after that, maybe you could express your views on the origins of the information that is encoded within the complex molecule of DNA, which we all carry around with us. Information does not just happen without a logical reason causing it. And for the first protein to have assembled without this reason is more baffling than any other story that is included within the Bible. What is our purpose for being here? And where are you going? these questions are left vexingly unanswered by agnostic and atheist cosmologists and scientists. And this is very disconcerting to an intellect like myself.

    This argument kills me. Life on earth could not have just happened, but a super being that can create the earth in a week just happened?! If we are too complex to have just happened, then what created your god? Follow that logical path and the god you pray to must be an inferior second stringer created by a greater god. And that god by one better then it. See what happened here? You are running in a circle.

    For me it is easier to believe that life on earth just happened, then to believe that a god just happened.

    Please. This is a GOD we're talking about. Assuming he does exist, there's no need for him to follow the laws of physics and science. There's no reason for him to even have an origin. Shouldn't a God always have existed?

    > Could you tell me than how you think the human being came about then?

    Evolution. Evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of it:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    > It's easy to criticise other theories but much harder to stand for what you yourself believes. And after that, maybe you could express your views on the origins of the information that is encoded within the complex molecule of DNA, which we all carry around with us. Information does not just happen without a logical reason causing it.

    The definition of information provided by exponents of the pseudo-scientific intelligent design movement is imprecise and flawed. If you look at any of the reproducible scientific experiments undertaken in the link above you will see that greater sophistication has been added to the genome of many species due to natural selection induced by external forces. If you disagree, you can recreate the experiments for yourself.

    > And for the first protein to have assembled without this reason is more baffling than any other story that is included within the Bible. What is our purpose for being here? And where are you going? these questions are left vexingly unanswered by agnostic and atheist cosmologists and scientists. And this is very disconcerting to an intellect like myself.

    Here are the answers:

    > What is our purpose for being here?

    There is no intended purpose for us being here, since as far as we can tell, we were not created by some magical man. We are free to seek meaning in our own lives and our own search for truth rather than being misguided by ancient myths that were created by early man to understand things that were out of his reach and have since been exploited to control other men.

    > Where are [we] going?

    Wherever we want to. We have the power to create a world as wonderful as we have conceived of in our ancient myths. But we will not accomplish that until we forget all of our old mistakes, and actually THINK about the world with facts as our guide instead of the fabrications of some shaman trying to manipulate us to his whims.

    I hope you can open your intellect to what must seem a radically different mode of thought, free of the oppression induced by fairy tales.

    I thought humility was supposed to be a part of Christianity, but Christians can be shockingly arrogant. Creation must be true because science doesn't have a strong alternative? Right--because you're a human, God's special little creature, and therefore you must know every answer to all of the universe's questions. Can't you spare enough humility to just say, "I just don't know"? And irreducible complexity? Same thing! "Oh, look at me, I'm so special, I've got DNA! I've got eyeballs! Clearly I'm the special little project of some omnipotent creator. What's that you say? I came about through perfectly natural means? Unthinkable! Why, how could I consider myself special if I'm natural?"

    For a religion about humility and worship of God, Christianity can sure look like a big cult of ego sometimes.

    It's something quite typical of early man. We placed ourselves above everything else, believing we were the centre of the universe, the solar system and that we were magically created by some being that *looked like us* to rule over everything else which merely existed for our own entertainment.

    Walt
    I think you are projecting your own arrogance when you write, "Creation must be true because science doesn't have a strong alternative," as though some Christian said this. I believe most Biblical creationists would say instead something like, "Evolution is not a strong alternative, and certainly not a compelling alternative to my Biblical creation faith so I don't choose to change my faith. I wonder why that bothers so many evolutionists." Don't forget that Answers in Genesis is not advocating teaching creation science in government schools or any sort of compulsory exposure to it. AiG raised money, built a museum and otherwise proclaims their faith. They are offering their faith to others, not forcing it on 'em.
    I have been reading these comments, I am agnostic but respect other opinions, and am willing to listen to others, but bitter experience has taught me that hard core Christians for the most part, are not willing to listen, with an open heart and mind. You have to ultimately be content with yourself and what feels right. I want to be left alone and teach my kids what I believe and not cram it down my neighbors throat, door to door salespeople for their faith is insulting. Why are most religions trying to take over and spread the word. The natives of lands that were taken over by Christians and their "spread the word of God" led to the destruction of their cultures and in many cases their lives. Leave us alone, we leave you alone. KISS- Keep it simple stupid.

    Walt
    Anonymous, who is cramming something down your throat? Not Answers in Genesis, surely. Have you evidence of this? I think what bothers you is that your beliefs are not winning over the Biblical creationists. They continue to invite you to faith, and point out your false claims and you won't understand that yours is a faith of a sort also. Did Answers in Genesis kidnap you? They are leaving you alone!
    Walt
    Anonymous, who is cramming something down your throat? Not Answers in Genesis, surely. Have you evidence of this? I think what bothers you is that your beliefs are not winning over the Biblical creationists. They continue to invite you to faith, and point out your false claims and you won't understand that yours is a faith of a sort also. Did Answers in Genesis kidnap you? They are leaving you alone!
    AMEN :)

    yes, I do agree with this. we must all think for ourselves and follow the evidence where it leads in order to come to a resolution as to what might be the real truth.

    Hank
    Hans, Sometimes spelling errors slip through. Fixing it now would invalidate a number of comments about it so it's unlikely to change. But do you really think one misspelled word is an indictment of the Ph.D. program at the University of Bristol? Hank
    hmm... I believe "sites" was spelled properly- it doesn't refer to "sights" within the museum, it refers to the "sites" portrayed in the museum: the "site" of humans and dinosaurs, the "site" of Adam and Eve in a river, the "site" of Noah and his ark.
    Rather than insulting the author of this article, perhaps 1st you should get an education. Personally, I think the author is being rather generous in his assumption the museum creators are high on green herb, it sounds like crackhead genius to me.

    @ Nikon:

    >Wow, the world's best scientists and smartest readers, yet someone >doesn't know the difference between "sites" and "sights".

    I suspect that they are using the former to point out the different *locales* in the museum. But you could be correct and they may have made an error. This of course would invalidate everything they have stated in the post, because we all know that those who are grammatically-challenged cannot possibly say anything worthwhile...

    Sigh...

    The two people defending this are pretty sad individuals. God was created by man, if you want to believe in a divine power, that's all fine and dandy, but when the explanations become this stupid, you make a fool of yourselves and your religion. Tyrannosaurus Rex eating coconuts? Retarded. People say "think for yourself" instead of listening to science when all they are really listening to is the church and not themselves.

    As for what we evolved from, start listening in science class instead of telling the teacher he or she is wrong about everything every five minutes. We evolved from microorganisms read the below article and learn a thing or two before you say science is "wrong" before you even know what our answers are.

    http://www.space.com/searchforlife/life_origins_001205.html

    I read the article that you posted and found something quite interesting that is really the crux of this debate:

    "A critical early triumph was the development of RNA and DNA molecules, which directed biological processes and preserved life's "operating instructions" for future generations."

    Who do you think "developed" RNA and DNA. Do you really believe something that wonderfully complex was "developed" by random chance? I think to believe that is a much greater leap of faith then believing that a creator created such things.

    When you think along these lines, you would have to be a fool to not believe in a created universe.

    Erm. trillions of molecules x millions of years = a helluva lot less of a leap of faith than believing that some devine entity put it there.

    Have you studied DNA?

    So you are telling me that something that complex and intricate could be created by random chance over millions of years. I am sure that you also believe that a monkey with a typewriter would also write Moby Dick given enough time.

    So who is the one that doesn't use his brain here? Laughable.

    Your position is invalid. You make the assumption that Science says that DNA was formed from random chance where in fact it says no such thing. DNA was formed in the same manner that all life was, darwinian natural selection.

    Not only that, but scientists have been trying to prove that DNA can evolve from a "Primordial ooze" of various proteins to no avail so far. (most) Scientists only observe what they're able to see through laborous observation. The problem idiot creationists have is that they think science and religion are mutually exclusive. These are the same idiots whose ancestors burned people for saying the Earth orbited the Sun... it's mind boggling that these battles are still being fought.

    I think this is where you are mistaken. Darwin's natural selection is not a creative force at all, it only deals with variations based on survival value, and does not explain completely new species, etc. This could only happen by random chance genetic mutations, or by intelligent design. I believe that the latter is much more plausible based on simple reason (back to the monkey and the typewriter example)

    Great, let's solve the problem of the improbability of evolution with something many times more improbable: God.

    have YOU studied dna it didn't just take millions of years for life to develop it took close to 600 MILLION for single cellular life to arise, and 2 BILLION for complex cells to arise. so it didn't just take a few million for life to assemble, it took BILLIONS which meant it was a calculated arduous journey from the first proteins to assemble in the "primordial soup" to us, all the components were there and it had enough time to stew. if you can't comprehend or reconcile this fact maybe you're better off believing in the big magical man in the sky, by the way there's no one in the sky, it's our atmosphere, if you look farther you can find more nothing.

    Yeah, just keep adding years and that will make things all better. You guys are complete idiots if you keep thinking that things are more probable of happening if you just keep adding extra years.

    Explain how the moon doesn't have more dust after having been out there for billions of years when we have been able to measure how much it has collected over the last 50 years and can formulate that the earth could be no older than 12,000 years old.

    Also, I love all these "scientist" who "believe" in a science that states the order of things will follow the laws of entropy, that order will lead to disorder, not the other way around. Why do we have more and more diseases appearing? Well, in part it may be due to the fact that we are getting better with diagnostic medicine, but you also have to consider the fact that new diseases continue to creep up due to the degenerative nature of things. I hold that IF we were to look a billion years ahead of now, there would be nothing as the sun would have shrunk to the point that earth was uninhabitable, or we would be sucked into a black hole, or we would have all died from disease that we can't treat, or our ecosystem would reach a point that it could not sustain us any longer. Things don't get better, they get worse, and if the earth were around a billion years ago, things would not be what they are today.

    I was holding my tongue, but this message caught my eye because it says something so counter-intuitive that it's impossible to accept silently.

    The question is asked "Why do we have new diseases appearing?" and is subsequently used as an argument for the migration from order to chaos. However, if new organisms are popping up and, therefore, new diseases, then, arguably, either the Creation story never ended or evolution really DOES continue to our day. The suggestion that the appearance of new organisms and therefore new diseases is proof of a one-off act of creation is ludicrous.

    I also find the suggestion that things can only degenerate to be a sad commentary on the world view of many Christians around the world. That sort of fatalism does no-one any good.

    Honestly, I can't fully accept either THEORY... both are equally as improbable, and the whole question is entirely irrelevant to the truly important tenets of Scripture:

    Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.

    Who gives a crap if you know the secrets of the universe and can't enjoy the world as it sits today because you're too busy fighting with "those idiots" on the other side of the argument?

    The new diseases are corruptions of current organisms. No creationist denies that existing genetic information can get corrupted and new organisms form. That has been proven to happen and we accept that. However, new genetic information has never been shown to form via evolution.

    Why is it so improbable? How do you explain the origin of the universe? Science has shown that the universe is ever expanding, which tells you that it is not eternal, and had a beginning (ie. big bang).

    How do you scientifically explain something being created from nothing?? Please give me examples of that happening.

    Who says something is bein created from nothing. I think you are making the assumption that there was nothing before the big bang, but instead there are scientists saying that this expanding that the universe is doing right now, will reverse and result in another big ball of very dense matter and another big bang. Before the big bang, there was a universe, or atleast all matter was allready there.

    So nothing is created from nothing.

    Sounds interesting....kind of like a cosmic yo yo?

    So, what would start this whole process of expanding and contracting in the first place? Doesn't every action require an equal and opposite reaction? Doesn't this violate Newton's Third Law? Or was he just another ignorant fairy tale believing fool (ironically a strong theologian and supporter of biblical creation)?

    Actually I think that may be possible. Given enough time anything is possible.

    I am not an expert, but I have studied DNA at the university undergraduate level.

    Firstly, it is clear that you do not even understand what evolution is. As anyone who understands evolution would tell you, EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT RANDOM CHANCE. Random changes are necessary but not sufficient. One also requires that the changes result in variations of fitness that can be propagated.

    Secondly, evidence for evolution is literally written in the DNA of all the organisms on earth today. If you spend any time studying DNA, you will find relationships between sequences, both inter-species and intra-species, that are well explained through evolution. A very simple example of this is paralogous and homologous genes. A more complex example is regulatory sequences and DNA-binding proteins.

    Both these examples, found after the theory of evolution, match the theory. It is important that it was found AFTER the theory because it means that evolution wasn't just made to fit the evidence.

    Alternatively, how would creationism account for these evolutionary "signatures" being left in our DNA? Did the intelligent design decide that it was not sufficient to create the entire ecosystem, but necessary to also leave evidence of evolution throughout the "blueprints" of every known genome on earth?

    And of course, one should realize that the entire field of biology is currently (and has been for many decades) based on evolution. This means that the predictive value of the theory of evolution is indirectly tested in a large portion of biological studies.

    I can see God was forward thinking - Having T-Rex's and giraffes etc in a confined space results in a very fat T-Rex, so by giving them all "Green Herb", they would be too stoned to eat one another etc. Imagine if it had said "...and god gave all the herbivores speed" - all the carnivores would have died out from being knackered trying to chase the herbivores.

    God is a tag given to something man doesnt understand - like when little six year old girls die of an uncureable illness, when meglomaniac dictators kill 3 million odd humans before they die "God moves in misterious way", or 2000 yoears ago when man was a lot more simpler and thought, when building his house "i built this house from the materials here; but WHO put these materials here in the first place"

    Scientists admit they dont know and are open to explanations from VARIOUS sources, in order to give a valid opinion, the person HAS to have seen all the possible evidence, you cannot say someone is this or that on one piece of evidence. The bible and all its followers think that one piece of evidence says it all. In a court of law, having just one piece of evidence against a killer would be chucked out by the judge.

    Why is teaching evolution "stupidity"?

    What's more stupid, blindly believing a book written thousands of years ago is correct, or thinking there just might be something in this evolution theory, contributed to by hundreds of scientists, all adding a little bit to the whole?
    Evolution as a theory is still a theory, but so many pieces of information points to its validity that it's hard to think it's completely wrong. Creationism fabricates evidence when needed.

    And vegetarian carnivores? Give me a break. A lion on a vegan diet would die of malnutrition. Either carnivores like T-rex were always carnivores, or evolution happened. You can't have it both ways.

    In the animal kingdom, you rarely see evolutionary failures, they die or get killed, unlike in the human world where we understand better and try to keep alive - that is why you dont see a clear prograssion from "T-Rex - chicken"

    A lot of the animals ate one another on the Ark. That's why there aren't any dinosaurs now. In fact, there are far fewer species now than there were when Noah launched.

    This was discussed in the first draft of the Bible, but we threw it out when we finally went to print. I also talked about it on my blog last week.

    With Boundless Love,
    Jesus Christ

    Oh, cool. Thanks for clearing that one up. Were is your blog, by the way? I tried searching variations of your name on LiveJournal, but nothing came up.

    I'd really like to ask you a few questions about St. Peter, actually. He seems bonkers! Is he really, or is that just the way it come over in the Bible?

    "the person HAS to have seen all the possible evidence"

    There's only one person who has seen all the evidence.

    "The bible and all its followers think that one piece of evidence says it all."

    Demonstrably untrue. The Bible says in Psalm 19, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky displays what his hands have made." All of Creation is a testimony to its origins. Just as a painting is absolute proof of a painter, so the intricacy of the natural world is proof of an intelligent designer.

    Furthermore, evolutionary theories of origins contradict one of the most basic scientific laws of nature: The Law of Causality (known among non-scientists as the Law of Cause and Effect). Causes cannot have infinite regress. There must be an uncaused cause and according to scientific law that uncaused cause is supernatural.

    According to scientific law, that "uncaused" cause is unknown as of know. But maybe you're right. When the black death came, and people didn't know the cause, it must have been a curse. When volcanos erupted during the Roman empire, the gods must have been angry.

    When we can't figure something out, that just means that it's left to be discovered, not that it's necessarily supernatural

    > ... There's only one person who has seen all the evidence.

    The phrase "all the possible evidence" is used colloquially to mean "enough evidence to be extremely sure". Furthermore, your baseless insinuations of an all-powerful magical man whose existence has never been established are counter productive.

    I don't claim that some all powerful magical unicorn tells me all the right answers and then hide when someone asks me to demonstrate his existence.

    > ... Demonstrably untrue. The Bible says in Psalm 19, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky displays what his hands have made." All of Creation is a testimony to its origins. Just as a painting is absolute proof of a painter, so the intricacy of the natural world is proof of an intelligent designer.

    You have done nothing but demonstrate his point. A fairy tale collected from writings between 1,500 and 3,000 years ago seems to be the only thing you consider valid to reason with. Yet the many, many other such works are all wrong according to you. Why?

    The beauty of the world does as much to demonstrate that the Christian God made it as it does a magical pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster.

    > Furthermore, evolutionary theories of origins contradict one of the most basic scientific laws of nature: The Law of Causality (known among non-scientists as the Law of Cause and Effect).

    By the same argument, the notion that a magical man created the universe also violates causality. Since he also requires a cause. By such ridiculous reasoning there are no acceptable answers.

    Furthermore, evolution is one of the most fundamental laws of nature.

    > Causes cannot have infinite regress.

    Wrong. Counterexample: If the universe were cyclical then we would have a complete explanation via infinite regress.

    > There must be an uncaused cause and according to scientific law that uncaused cause is supernatural.

    Wrong. Faulty logic: Because we don't presently understand something, it does not mean that we must deduce that something magical happened.

    I love your reply, it says it all.

    > > There must be an uncaused cause and according to scientific law that uncaused cause is supernatural.

    > Wrong. Faulty logic: Because we don't presently understand something, it does not mean that we must deduce that something magical happened.

    And because we don't understand something (God in this case), it does not mean that we must deduce that it IS magical.

    Evolutions tend to use the claim that "Many scientists believe it, so it must be true." However, science can only deal with material things. That's why it's difficult, for example, to determine the nature of light. That's why things such as ESP are unproven (and likely unprovable). You will never learn about supernatural things through natural science. Can you prove that a person is thinking, or can you simply prove there there is activity in the brain? A lot of immaterial things are very real, and God may be one of them.

    We both have opinions of origins; both are logical from our viewpoints and fallacious from the other's. How did a love for beauty come about? Does it really help humans survive better? Did humans without it die out? Did it come from a creator who made us in his image? How about the Grand Canyon? Was it caused by a global flood, or by a river over the course of millions of years? See, each side has an argument for their case, but those arguments require a belief in the case before they seem valid. Sure, animals may have evolved to their present state...assuming you believe evolution is fact. Sure, animals may have been created this way...assuming you believe creation is fact. It all depends on the point of view.

    > And because we don't understand something (God in this case), it does not mean that we must deduce that it IS magical.

    I'm glad you agree with me.

    > Evolution[ist]s tend to use the claim that "Many scientists believe it, so it must be true." However, science can only deal with material things. That's why it's difficult, for example, to determine the nature of light.

    You are confusing two claims.
    1.) "Many people believe it so it must be true"
    2.) It is a theory that is falsifiable, makes predictions and those predictions are confirmed in nature thus constituting evidence for the theory.

    Argument (1.) is just illogical and contrary to the way science works. Often scientists are the ones who must convince everyone that their childish notions of, say, the world being flat, the Sun orbiting the Earth or that we were magically created by some super-man to rule over the Earth are in indeed false.

    Argument (2.) is what is used by evolutionists. Evolution can be proven wrong, it predicts the existence of transitional species amongst a wealth of other things, and when we look at nature that's what we find.

    > That's why things such as ESP are unproven (and likely unprovable). You will never learn about supernatural things through natural science. Can you prove that a person is thinking, or can you simply prove there there is activity in the brain? A lot of immaterial things are very real, and God may be one of them.

    You make a very condescending argument, as if there were some sort of "supernatural science" that scientists do not grasp that could prove the existence of ESP.

    The notion of thinking is not well defined. Whilst God may one of these immaterial things that are real, so could magical invisible pink unicorns, leprechauns and pokemon. We can't prove conclusively that they don't exist, but we have fair grounds to suspect that they do not.

    > We both have opinions of origins; both are logical from our viewpoints and fallacious from the other's.

    True. The question is then, what starting point should a person take if they are truly concerned with determining the truth.

    As far as I can tell, Christians assume the existence of God and the correctness of their own interpretation of the bible, whilst in my opinion, the best starting point is to assume nothing but elementary logical reasoning.

    > How did a love for beauty come about? Does it really help humans survive better? Did humans without it die out?

    To put in bluntly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; it is simply the things that we each individually appreciate and thus of no evolutionary consequence other that the possibility that those who are adept in seeing beauty may indeed have been more successful in procreation.

    > Did it come from a creator who made us in his image? How about the Grand Canyon? Was it caused by a global flood, or by a river over the course of millions of years? See, each side has an argument for their case, but those arguments require a belief in the case before they seem valid.

    No, for one the religious arguments to be correct, you must assume the existence of God*. The other arguments assume nothing and simply try to determine the truth via logical argument. You are trying to overgeneralise in order for it to seem valid to make one extra, huge assumption.

    * If you think I am mistaken here (I could be), please give an example of such reasoning that does not assume the existence of a God, or that the Bible (or rather your personal interpretation) is infallible.

    > Sure, animals may have evolved to their present state...assuming you believe evolution is fact.

    No, assuming you actually look at the evidence, you have few other options.

    > Sure, animals may have been created this way...assuming you believe creation is fact. It all depends on the point of view.

    ... see above.

    ... Demonstrably untrue. The Bible says in Psalm 19, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky displays what his hands have made." All of Creation is a testimony to its origins. Just as a painting is absolute proof of a painter, so the intricacy of the natural world is proof of an intelligent designer.

    You have done nothing but demonstrate his point. A fairy tale collected from writings between 1,500 and 3,000 years ago seems to be the only thing you consider valid to reason with. Yet the many, many other such works are all wrong according to you. Why?

    I was refuting the assertion that we believe only one thing, the Bible, is valid evidence. For indeed, the Bible itself says that it is not the only way that God has revealed Himself to us.

    The beauty of the world does as much to demonstrate that the Christian God made it as it does a magical pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster.

    Of course. But once the realization of the supernatural is come to, if one looks at history, one sees that the Christian God--the trinity of Elohim, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit--is the God who created the world. It doesn't help to talk about "which god" if you don't believe in anything supernatural. ;-)

    Furthermore, evolutionary theories of origins contradict one of the most basic scientific laws of nature: The Law of Causality (known among non-scientists as the Law of Cause and Effect).

    By the same argument, the notion that a magical man created the universe also violates causality. Since he also requires a cause. By such ridiculous reasoning there are no acceptable answers.

    Please think. Do you really think that a God who made time, space, and matter would be bound by physical laws?

    Furthermore, evolution is one of the most fundamental laws of nature.

    That is complete malarkey. Laws of nature must be repeatable, testable, and experimentable--in other words, you must follow the scientific method to verify its existence. You can do none of that with evolution. No experiment has ever created--sans intelligence--a living organism from the elements, much less from nothing.

    Wrong. Counterexample: If the universe were cyclical then we would have a complete explanation via infinite regress.

    And what, pray-tell, was the cause of your fictional, cyclical universe?

    > I was refuting the assertion that we believe only one thing, the Bible, is valid evidence. For indeed, the Bible itself says that it is not the only way that God has revealed Himself to us.

    Pardon?! How is the Bible any more valid than any other thousand year old book as such?

    > Of course. But once the realization of the supernatural is come to, if one looks at history, one sees that the Christian God--the trinity of Elohim, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit--is the God who created the world. It doesn't help to talk about "which god" if you don't believe in anything supernatural. ;-)

    One sees these to be true? No, many others who assume the existence of their own gods disagree, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists.

    > Please think. Do you really think that a God who made time, space, and matter would be bound by physical laws?

    I guess if you have an imaginary God, you can imagine him to be able to do just about anything he you like. It has no real relevance to the discussion though.

    You also seem to have a misconception of what a law of nature is. Nature often behaves very differently from its so called laws given different circumstances. You might think that Newton's Laws are set in stone, however they are simply very good approximations, that are improved upon by the "laws" of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

    Evolution is as much a law as gravity is.

    > That is complete malarkey. Laws of nature must be repeatable, testable, and experimentable--in other words, you must follow the scientific method to verify its existence. You can do none of that with evolution. No experiment has ever created--sans intelligence--a living organism from the elements, much less from nothing.

    You do not understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. If you have any arguments against abiogenesis, please consult
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0
    first before posting them here as they are most likely resolved. For evolution, the evidence is overwhelming: I once again refer you to
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
    If you would just look at some of the evidence instead of pretending it doesn't exist, we could have a more civilised discussion.

    > And what, pray-tell, was the cause of your fictional, cyclical universe?

    What part of cyclical do you not understand?

    Furthermore, your claim to be certain that the universe is not cyclical is completely unfounded. Please present evidence to the contrary if you are so sure.

    And what, pray-tell, was the cause of your fictional, cyclical universe?

    What part of cyclical do you not understand?

    Give me an example of something cyclical that does not have a beginning. I've seen cyclical budgets, cyclical computer processors, and lots of cyclical things, but they all had a beginning.

    Furthermore, your claim to be certain that the universe is not cyclical is completely unfounded. Please present evidence to the contrary if you are so sure.

    The first and second laws of thermodynamics, more commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Energy and the Law of Cause and Effect.

    So the coconuts killed the dinosaurs?

    Creationists make me cry.

    Blind faith in a story book makes the baby jesus cry.

    How many cocnuts would ithave taken to kill one dinosaur?

    One thing worries me about the coconut bit, I dont think they existed then, if these people ever come to your door, tell them "We evolved from apes didnt we" you wont see them for dust

    In the animal kingdom, you rarely see evolutionary failures, they die or get killed, unlike in the human world where we understand better and try to keep alive - that is why you dont see a clear prograssion from "T-Rex - chicken"

    It's funny then, how these "evolutionary failures" lasted long enough to mate or indeed acquire these genetic traits in the first place, in light of the fact that natural selection--survival of the fittest--is said to be the engine which drives evolutionary change. It's also funny how such an enormous string of "evolutionary failures" survived for long enough to change into an evolutionary success in light of the postulation that evolutionary change takes millions of years. Natural selection pretty much kills that idea.

    What it really comes down to is what good ol' Charles Darwin articulated so well:

    “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything. And to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”
    -Charles Darwin

    Evolution is contradictory to so many laws of nature and to so much common sense that there is only one explanation: it has morphed into a false religion in which its adherents are blindly dogmatic, rejecting all evidence that contradicts their faith position. I am glad to be in the minority belief, because it has caused me to think thoroughly through the facts and my positions for myself and not to rely lazily on group-think and prevailing fads.

    You see the T-rex and the chicken and imagine an immediate change. Evolution (generally) occurs as a slow pace, with a population with a great amount of variance slowly changing/splitting up because certain individuals are getting weeded out due to attributes that aren't as suited to their environment as others.

    I wonder, what are these "so many laws of nature" that evolution supposedly contradicts? Personally, I doubt you could conjure up more than I could count on my left hand, of which I'm missing three fingers

    Evolutionists make me laugh.

    My first thought was "so why did Triceratops need armour plates and horns?". Then the answer came to me in a blinding flash - to protect it from falling coconuts of course!

    My theory is that T-Rex and Triceratops worked together. T-Rex would shake the coconut trees with its little arms, while Triceratops would run around underneath catching the coconuts on its horns. Then the T-Rex could pull the coconuts off the horns and crack them open with its big teeth, and they would both enjoy the feast.

    It all makes perfect sense. Do you think I could win the Nobel Prize for palaeontology with my revolutionary theory?

    You can't prove God doesn't exist.
    You have to search everywhere for every possibility, and if you can do that, you're superhuman ...
    You have faith in evolution as we have faith in a divine power.

    "You have faith in evolution as we have faith in a divine power."

    I have faith in a divine power AND I believe that some creatures evolved into other creatures. Is there something wrong with me?

    Just because you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, doesn't validate that he does exist. Can you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Why not pray to him instead?

    There is at no point in evolutionary theory any postulation as the origins of life on earth. Evolutionary theory explains the progression of life from simple organisms to more complex life.

    @Hans Mast

    What "scientific law" says that there is supernatural creator? You are the one contradicting yourself. If you support causality then you must explain to everyone how you can maintain your position of a creator whom has no creator.

    Also, what laws of nature is evolution in contradiction to? You apparently have no idea how science works. If there were a contradiction of some other scientific law with evolution it would not have gone unchecked. Unlike religion science has, does and WILL change theories in light of new evidence if they are contradictory, as of this point I see no contradictions, so if you could get along and let me know what laws contradict evolution that would be nice.

    There is no faith in evolution, it is backed up by mountains of evidence and has successfully predicted multiple occurrences of evolutionary changes in the fossil record.

    Cite one.

    Here are over 29 distinct items providing evidence for macro-evolution.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    They include transitional forms between
    * Reptile-birds
    * Reptile-mammals
    * Ape-humans
    * Legged whales
    * Legged seacows

    But then again, I suppose if you do believe in a magical man who cannot be detected by any machinery known to man but whom you postulate to have created the universe and all of the species, at least he had something of a sense of humour:

    It seems that he first made apes and then made humans by merely fusing together two ape chromosomes. Not just that but it seems that he has planted retroviruses in human and ape DNA to try to trick us into thinking that we had a common ancestor! From the fossil record, which it seems you haven't actually looked at (see the link above), he seems to have spent quite some time figuring out how to make humans and made intermediates before finally making humans as they are today. I guess those transitional forms are just to trick us!

    Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, Bathybius, Eozoon, Proconsul, etc, etc, etc... Do I need to go on?

    Here's one example:

    When the first Proconsul fossils were found in 1931 they were thought to be from a creature very like a chimp (one of the apes). As more fossils have been found it is now thought to be very like a monkey. This is just another example of creatures that have joined the list of rejected ‘missing links’.
    Science News, December 15, 1990 (p. 380).

    For tons more fossil fakes and misclassifications, see this.

    You can't prove God exists either, for that matter you can't prove that zeus doesn't exist, or shiva, or any thousand other gods. Hell, unicorns, goblins, they all can't be proved false.

    Burden of proof lies on those tring to prove something exists, not the other way 'round. So, what'cha got outside of "God did it, the bible says so!"?

    Ah creationists, your willingness to accept anything that might even refute anything that stands against your beliefs no matter how improbable is truly touching, it seems blindness zealotry is still alive and well these days.

    >Hans Mast

    “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything. And to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”
    -Charles Darwin

    This quote, heh. Is not a quote from Darwin, it's an utterly unconfirmed quote in an article written by a British evangelist *years* after Darwin died, conveniently unable to refute it. Even less rabid creationists know it's false, you've effectively just proved you know shit, about shit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope

    "Lady Elizabeth Reid Hope (née Cotton1; December 9, 1842–8 March 1922) was a British evangelist who is generally believed to be the Lady Hope who claimed in 1915 that she had visited the British naturalist Charles Darwin shortly before his death in 1882. Hope claimed that Darwin had recanted his theory of evolution on his deathbed and accepted Jesus Christ as his saviour.

    Charles Darwin's family denied the story, and insisted that Lady Hope "was not present during his last illness, or any illness." [b]The Lady Hope Story is generally recognised, even by many Creationists, to be false — or at least unverifiable — and if true, probably exaggerated. The story remains a popular urban legend, even though it stands in sharp contrast to Darwin's published and known views about Christianity."[/b]

    Also, your other claim...

    "Evolution is contradictory to so many laws of nature and to so much common sense that there is only one explanation: it has morphed into a false religion in which its adherents are blindly dogmatic, rejecting all evidence that contradicts their faith position."

    How is this correct in any sense? Evolution adheres to every law of nature we know, unlike creationism. (Entropy anyone?) And in regards to being 'blindly dogmatic rejecting all evidence that contradicts their faith position.' How can you claim this when the *THEROY* (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory) of evolution is constantly being revised? Searching for the truth, not blindly claiming we have it.

    Please stop acting like people who support the theory of evolution act like they have all the answers, that's your spiel, not ours.

    heard of thermodynamics?

    Thermodynamics has nothing to say about evolution.

    Sadly Christian diploma mills are still being permitted to award people degrees without any understanding of elementary physics so that some Christians even with PhDs still claim that the two are at odds.

    Please consult
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

    for further details.

    Walt
    Talk Origins in this page, as in so many others, simply says, "Does not!" rather than explaining their points. Study the "ifs" in such an argument. What Christian diploma mills do you mean? The doctoral degrees of the Creation scientists I follow are more along the lines of Harvard, Pennsylvania State University, University of Sydney, UCLA, Oregon State University, Case Western Reserve University, Berkeley, LSU, and the like. which of these do you say are "Christian diploma mills"? Why not find out before commenting?
    Ever noticed how unevolved creationists look?

    Walt
    Yes, and evolutionists, too! All of 'em look created to me. Just an observation.
    What "scientific law" says that there is supernatural creator? You are the one contradicting yourself. If you support causality then you must explain to everyone how you can maintain your position of a creator whom has no creator.

    The law of causality is a law of nature. The law of causality shows that it is impossible to explain the absolute origin of the universe naturally: We can say what caused a supernova, but what caused the thing that caused the supernova? That is a question that we can scientifically answer through laws of nature for a long time into the distant past. However, there cannot be infinite regress. There must be an original uncaused cause. This uncaused cause is by definition outside of nature and its laws--supernatural.

    Walt
    The observations and measurements which show that this universe had a beginning are the ones used to argue there is a "cause." This same science is used to support the "big bang" family of hypotheses. And since everything that has a beginning has a cause (a basis of the scientific method), there is a "cause" outside of the universe. Defining this "cause" as God is a faith step. After all it's silly to believe that first there was nothing and then it exploded, wouldn't you say?
    Believe it or not we are all Gods and we create our own worlds.

    Reasoning and faith are both valid as without one the other loses its terms of reference. Why not teach the best of both worlds so students can make of them what they want.

    Take care and enjoy, with love and understanding.

    Walt
    Hey, great! Why not make a world without sin or effects of sin. That's what I look forward to. Thanks for the "why not teach the best of both worlds." We agree here. Blessings.
    The existence of laws implies order. Therefore order had to exist before laws could exist. So the laws of causality cannot be the result of any cause. These are laws which cannot be caused even by god.

    oh christ, is there someone who still believes in the bible as a veichle for scientific truth?!? Nathan, thank you, you're the funnies person i've ever et on the internet, how can you be so stupid to believe that bilble is more reliable than darwin? i don't know if i should laugh or cry with those comments, seriously. porco dio se siete coglioni nei vostri paesi

    Also, what laws of nature is evolution in contradiction to? You apparently have no idea how science works. If there were a contradiction of some other scientific law with evolution it would not have gone unchecked. Unlike religion science has, does and WILL change theories in light of new evidence if they are contradictory, as of this point I see no contradictions, so if you could get along and let me know what laws contradict evolution that would be nice.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Wikipedia: "In a simple manner, the Second Law states that energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy (heat transformation content) rather than decrease it." "Entropy change has often been defined as a change to a more disordered state at a molecular level." "Entropy, historically, has often been associated with the amount of order, disorder, and or chaos in a thermodynamic system."

    When you intelligently organize things in a drawer, they tend toward disorder over time. When Toyota intelligently makes a vehicle, it tends to wear out and wear down. Order is the useful arrangement of differing objects. Order in DNA involves a useful arrangement of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. Unfortunately, the laws that govern our universe (specifically the second law of thermodynamics) don't create order out of disorder, as evolution would erroneously have us believe. Instead, our universe tends to disorder, entropy, and equilibrium. Equilibrium is useless.

    This applies to systems with no net input of energy. Living things generate quite a bit of energy so they are not necessarily moving to a more unordered state at the molecular level.

    I am speaking of the universe as a whole, which is a closed system.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "Living things generate quite a bit of energy". Living things do not literally "generate" energy; they merely convert it from one form to another, in the process hastening entropy and equilibrium. Since we use "generate energy" in the vernacular but which doesn't literally happen in scientific terms (except it could possibly be used if you are talking an E = MC2 energy conversion), I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say.

    Argument from the Universe

    ASSERTION: This argument contends that, since any object we encounter is assumed to have some explanation for its existence, for the sake of consistency we must assume that the universe also has an explanation. This explanation is god.

    REFUTATION: There is a necessary condition grounding the assumption of explanation: other objects must exist besides the thing in need of an explanation so that there will be a collection of possibilities through which we can search to find the correct explanation. A boulder laying in the middle of the road, for example, can be explained by referencing other known phenomena. It obviously broke off the adjacent rock face and rolled down an embankment coming to rest in the middle of the road. To explain an object in the universe, such as the boulder, we have the thing to be explained plus everything else that exists wherein the correct explanation may be found. But if we are searching for an explanation of the universe, we do not know of the existence of anything other than the thing to be explained.

    At this point the theist is caught on the horns of a two-pronged dilemma. If by declaring that god created the universe, he is implying that god exists outside the universe, the universe then becomes just another object in an even bigger universe. It then becomes another case of explaining one mystery with an even greater mystery. If the theist maintains that god is part of the universe, then whoever created the universe also created god. God is thereby reduced to something less than all powerful.

    The Entropy4 Argument

    ASSERTION: Since the latter part of the nineteenth century, some theologians have used the entropy concept coupled with the Second Law of Thermodynamics5 as a kind of modern cosmological argument for the existence of god. The idea is that in any closed system there is a direct relationship between the movement of molecules, the smallest physical unit of a compound, and heat. The greater the heat; the greater the movement. Entropy increases as heat decreases. Without the infusion of new energy, impossible in a truly closed system, entropy increases until the system reaches a state of equilibrium in molecular movement and, thus, in temperature. Since, according to this view, the universe is a closed system in which entropy is steadily increasing, it is running down like a giant clock. If the universe is indeed running down, sometime in the past it had to have been "wound up." This proves the existence of god because who else could have originally wound up the universe?

    REFUTATION: If the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies without exception, as the supporters of the entropy argument say, how can they then turn around and claim god as an exception? At best, the entropy argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of some primitive energy source. To declare this source to be god is pure speculation backed up by no empirical evidence. Also, the earth is not a closed system thereby eliminating one of the prime prerequisites for the application of this law. To posit god as the creator of the universe is simply to try to solve one mystery with an even greater mystery. As new data are accumulated and analyzed gaps in knowledge are filled thereby eliminating the need for a god to supply the answer.

    Although cloaked in scientific jargon, the entropy argument fails simply because it is an invalid argument.

    At this point the theist is caught on the horns of a two-pronged dilemma. If by declaring that god created the universe, he is implying that god exists outside the universe, the universe then becomes just another object in an even bigger universe. It then becomes another case of explaining one mystery with an even greater mystery. If the theist maintains that god is part of the universe, then whoever created the universe also created god. God is thereby reduced to something less than all powerful.

    I hate to burst your bubble, but that's not a dilemma at all. God, by definition, is not bound by natural law. The whole conclusion of looking at the law of causality is that God is not bound by the laws of nature. The laws of nature were created by God.

    Brillant idea! Instead of God, let's just say Superman did it! I'll believe it more.

    The difference between creationism and evolution though is that evolution makes far more sense.

    Why do apes have the same basic type of frame, but some bulkier and some not? Why are there multiple types of bears? Cats? Why do some cats spend time in groups (lions) and others by themselves? (Cheetahs).

    The most likely answer is that they evolved in different paths, to see what works, and if it doesn't then they die off. They adapted to their environment to better survive.

    If you put, say, a bear that's used to warmer temperatures in the arctic circle, he'd prolly die from lack of heat, right? That's why polar bears are up there, they adapted themselves to that environment.

    Look, evolution is not perfect, but if there was some divine being that made every creature on earth, why did he make some animals so similar? Why didn't he create different animals perfectly adapted to an environment which would most likely look much different rather than take an existing frame and make it more adapted to that area? I personally think evolution is a far more probable answer to these questions than a god doing it.

    I think it may be that god is just lazy. I mean why did he have to take a day off during creation? He is all powerful, right? What could tire out the great and mighty god? Given his obvious propensity for laziness, I'd guess that he outsourced the animal design to someone else. So, this outsource graphic designer came up with a few templates, bear, primate, etc... which god then implemented. But there is more room on Earth than the number of templates created, so he changed up a few of them... darker fur, different hunting habits, just to shake things up a little, keep things interesting, give folks something to blog about.

    Walt
    What sense evolution makes depends on your prior assumptions. A few answers to your quesitons ... 1. "Why do apes have the same basic type of frame, but some bulkier and some not? Why are there multiple types of bears? Cats? Why do some cats spend time in groups (lions) and others by themselves? (Cheetahs)." This is not evidence of evolution it is evidence consistent with both evolution and creation. We don't ask this question about Ford vs Chevy automobiles because we know that different builders designed and made them. But if you came upon them would you think one changed into the other? Many models use the same headlights, turn signal bulbs, basic steering system design, the same fuel, the same lubricants, etc. (Not exactly the same transmission oil, I know!). Similarity of design is not on its own "evidence" of evolution. 2. "Why didn't he create different animals perfectly adapted to an environment which would most likely look much different rather than take an existing frame and make it more adapted to that area?" You've forgotten the happy beginning in which conditions were quite different. I suspect God made the various creatures adaptable because he knew that our sin would change the universe and make that necessary. This adaptability sometimes confuses those who don't know of the happy beginning (or the choice of endings) into thinking the adaptability is unlimited. 3. "I personally think evolution is a far more probable answer to these questions than a god doing it." You are entitled to your opinion. Please understand that this is an *opinion* not something I must agree on simply because you take it. I mean, you seem like a nice person and all, Eidi, but my opinion is that Biblical creation makes better sense our observations than any of the varieties of evolution.
    You are right, it is our opinion. I do not care to hear about god having created everything and how wonderful you think he is. I feel that evolution is the right path. If i am wrong i can always ask god when i am dead, should he prove to be real, what was the right answer, all your followers got too wrapped up in themselves and in you to behave rationally.

    Just because science believes it can refute the story of Genesis does not mean that the teachings of the bible are wrong.

    To mock those that believe in something else demonstrates how ignorant ones own beliefs are.

    I long for the day when scientific reasoning has a sound moral base, maybe then we can truly live in a garden of Eden.

    God delights in diversity.

    Sorry, but beliefs based on no observable evidence and which are upheld with nothing more then "faith" do not deserve the slightest hint of respect.

    You don't respect the belief of the madman who thinks he is napoleon do you? Or what about the serial killer who thinks that he is acting out of defense against the mind probing alien nazi's? The only difference is that religion has more then a handful of people who believe in it.

    Sorry, but beliefs based on no observable evidence and which are upheld with nothing more then "faith" do not deserve the slightest hint of respect.

    If you truly believe the above, you should try using your latent powers of observation--on this page and in the world around you.

    I'm amazed that the creationists among us managed to post any replies to this article - a task which requires the addition of two numbers, which I would have thought beyond the intellectual capability of someone who believes that dinosaurs and man coexisted.

    After all, I'm pretty sure that 5 + 7 = 12, but then all the evidence points to this being true. I've tried to believe this not to be the case, but time and again I just keep ending up with the number 12.

    Believe what you want - just realise that believing something doesn't make it true.

    There's nothing quite like a comment that starts out with an admission of being the proud owner of a false idea, insults his/her opponent, offers no evidence to support his/her views, and then ends with a statement that sums up what his/her opponent has been trying to say all along: "Believe what you want - just realise that believing something doesn't make it true."

    I am getting sick and tired of this debate, because I have been presenting scientific facts and logical reasoning and all I have been getting is unfounded insults. This is what I find nearly everywhere I go. No one will argue for evolution using the facts or logic. I have never found a movement that is so absolutely averse to using what it claims to revere the highest.

    It seems that you have ignored every single one of my replies where I provide absurd amounts of evidence to the contrary of your claims, but once again I will do so. Sigh.

    > There's nothing quite like a comment that starts out with an admission of being the proud owner of a false idea, insults his/her opponent, offers no evidence to support his/her views, and then ends with a statement that sums up what his/her opponent has been trying to say all along: "Believe what you want - just realise that believing something doesn't make it true."

    Earlier on you said
    "Evolutionists make me laugh"
    that was your entire post. Stop with this hypocrisy already.

    > I am getting sick and tired of this debate, because I have been presenting scientific facts and logical reasoning and all I have been getting is unfounded insults.

    Your reasoning has been logically flawed. Please review my last responses to your comments and address the issues I raise. Furthermore, you have huge amounts of evidence that I have linked to repeatedly to disregard. I do so again below.

    > This is what I find nearly everywhere I go. No one will argue for evolution using the facts or logic. I have never found a movement that is so absolutely averse to using what it claims to revere the highest.

    I have used nothing but facts and logic in my arguments, quoting sources EVERY single time I use them.

    Here is a complete list that includes every single argument that you have provided so far and a scientific answer along with links to peer reviewed papers demonstrating the fallacies involved:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    Now here are over 29 separate items that point towards the scientific fact of macro-evolution:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    As it stands here is your argument:
    "I won't look at your evidence but I think that a magical man made the universe because I read it in one of many contradictory thousand year old myths! I don't know why the others, including the Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, the books of Mithraism and Zoroastrianism, the Eddas, the Aeneid/Iliad/Odyssey, the Mahayana Sutras and hundreds of other mythological texts are all wrong, but for no good reason I'm sure they are!"

    Have you EVER read any of the scientific articles regarding evolution? If you would like to update your argument, please do so.

    If your refering to Evolution, as it stands there is empirical evidence to support it and as of yet you haven't actually refutted any argument offered, simply moved on to some other crypticly impossible to refute I pulled it out of my ass theistic garbage.

    If your refering to Evolution, as it stands there is empirical evidence to support it and as of yet you haven't actually refutted any argument offered, simply moved on to some other crypticly impossible to refute I pulled it out of my ass theistic garbage.

    "Just because science believes it can refute the story of Genesis does not mean that the teachings of the bible are wrong."

    True, you can just quote pieces from the bible to show how wrong it's teachings are.

    "To mock those that believe in something else demonstrates how ignorant ones own beliefs are."

    To believe something blindly is to close your mind. I accept the possibility of God though I think it small, I accept the possibility of the Christian god or the Islamic god, but I think it infinitely smaller than the possibility of God / a creator itself.

    "I long for the day when scientific reasoning has a sound moral base, maybe then we can truly live in a garden of Eden."

    I sure as hell hope it won't be guided by religious morals, they haven't done us any good in the past. I would rather it be guided by pragmatism than morality.

    And this kind of faith is the truth - according to the president of the most powerful country in the world. Thank you *god* that he only can stay in power for a limited time!

    Yes, because he's shown such admirable respect for the constitution thus far.... we're all doomed, I say.

    Where would Darwin be without belief? Before he finalised his reasoned argument he believed evolution was a viable theory. Based on that belief he continued to explore his theory.

    Without belief there is no future or leaps of the imagination or progress.

    If your trying to use that as some way of legitimizing belief in supernatural creators your really not doing a very good job.

    Had Darwin simply said evolution is true because he wills it to be then it wouldn't have gotten very far, luckily he did some research into the topic, made some predictions based on gathered evidence and constructed a viable working theory of natural selection.

    Nonsense. Darwin came up with a hypothesis, which he then tested through careful observation, adapting his hypothesis to reflect his observations. All scientific theory is achieved in this way. The difference is that scientists believe something to be true based on the evidence before them, but are willing to change their beliefs when presented with more compelling evidence that they are wrong. How many Christians have changed their beliefs based on evidence which contradicts the teachings of the bible? That's the difference between science and faith - only one of these is prepared to admit they are wrong.

    Nonsense. Darwin came up with a hypothesis, which he then tested through careful observation, adapting his hypothesis to reflect his observations.

    You deftly exposed the fact that evolution is not science. You cannot "test through careful observation". Evolution is not substantiated via the scientific method. One of the steps of the scientific method is to "Perform experiment and collect data". That cannot be done with evolution. Evolution is not a repeatable phenomenon and thus not testable. It is false to call it science because it does not use the scientific method. It uses the historical method and is a stab at using science to make conjectures about the past. Yes, there is a lot of science involved in trying to prove evolution, but evolution is not in itself a proper scientific theory that can be tested by the scientific method.

    Yeah, can't see evolution anywhere. Well, except for those darn germie thinges.

    "The Creation Museum, which cost $25 million to build, is home to many unusual sites:"
    SIGHTS, NOT SITES!

    no one cares

    surely a hypothesis is a belief until it is proven or refuted. It takes faith in a hypothesis to prove it.

    Take the 11th dimension for example, a ridiculous theory 10 years ago, but some kept faith with it.

    A Hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena.

    There is no need to enter belief in there anywhere. Its an assumption based on available evidence. And as its already been pointed out, the difference between a hypothesis and a religious belief is contradiction. Once a hypothesis has been contradicted, its thrown out and rewritten to conform to new available evidence, unlike religious conviction, which is founded on "FAITH:belief that is not based on proof"

    I've got to believe this is a true story, if for no other reason than this being proof Darwin was wrong.

    lol i will skull fuck god and anyone who believes in his lies. religion is something that needs to go.
    I wonder what their bible says about spitting out lies. cause they need to follow that advice and shut their bible holes.

    what is an assumption if not a belief?

    my point is that it is immoral to ridicule someone's beliefs because of poor grammar as it is immoral to ridicule someone's beliefs because you think they smoke too much herb.

    There's a big difference. An assumption is a temporary state which is employed up until the point where it can be either proven or disproved. In other words, a decision has not been made as to whether this assumption is indeed true.
    Belief, on the other hand, is when you have decided something is true based on the evidence available to you.
    Faith is something you believe to be true without any evidence to support it.
    Therefore it is possible to have belief in something without having "faith". For instance, I believe in evolution because all the evidence I have seen indicates that it is true. I don't "have faith" in evolution, because it is supported by evidence, whereas I don't believe in god, because his existence is not.

    from the OED

    assume

    • verb 1 accept as true without proof. 2 take (responsibility or control). 3 begin to have (a quality, appearance, or extent). 4 pretend to have; adopt falsely.

    believe

    • verb 1 accept that (something) is true or (someone) is telling the truth. 2 (believe in) have faith in the truth or existence of. 3 have religious faith. 4 think or suppose

    I suppose that semantics is not a valid reason to dispute an argument.

    Ok, then I guess we should use "hypothesise" and "hypothesis" rather than "assume" and "assumption". I stand corrected.

    You see? I'm prepared to change my opinion based on more compelling evidence.

    me too, empirical evidence is the only truth

    but i also believe that scientific reasoning has no moral foundation for many reasons. take the lethal dose 50 experiments required by law when testing cosmetics. science recommended this law.

    in case you were not aware, LD50 is a test to find out the quantity of a substance it takes to kill 50% of lab rats, or rabbits, or dogs, or monkeys, or men to which it is administered to.

    Why?

    In the end, we need to think our way thru life as best we can. As we do so we develop beliefs about the nature of things and these beliefs color the way we see the world. A believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible will be unlikely to "see" any evidence that contradicts their well established belief about the nature of reality.A person with an "open mind" can consider evidence to the contrary. Religion really relies upon a closed mind in order to maintain itself.

    Arguing that because a word is misspelled we can dismiss the authors point is an example of the kind of logic one pulls off of the shelf to defend their beliefs. I kan spelevry wrd rong and steal be 100% krect. Rigorous thinking about things is what is needed. Sound logic and careful observation are good starting points.

    If you want a comical and cynical viewpoint of the bullshit that is religion, listen to the words and expressions of Mr. George Carlin

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uBAPbOWLxc :)

    Evolution is geared towards the logically minded, which is the future of our civilization, while Creationism is a sorry excuse for those not able to comprehend logic and turn to a fairy tale like book for comfort in truth. Wake up!!! Religion will be over-run and over-lapped by science in the future. The truth is in science and observations not the imagination of illogical humans from 5000 BC. Those who really believe that God created the Earth are living in one large box of bullshit. Which is fine because it keeps them away from my door step.

    Worship the sun! It exists and it creates life and you can see it! And it also has been around for quite a long time. Stop looking up in the sky to find a heaven, it doesn't exist and it never will; only in the movies.

    Walt
    Doug, Doug, Doug! Next you'll say that hydrogen gas is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas, which, if given enough time, turns into people! Your words, "Worship the sun! It exists and it creates life and you can see it! And it also has been around for quite a long time. Stop looking up in the sky to find a heaven, it doesn't exist and it never will; only in the movies." The sun has certainly been observed for more than four thousand years! Hollywood heaven exists in the movies, but the new heaven and the new earth ... not yet! But when they are made the inhabitants will say that death, suffering, crying and pain are things of the past! Sometimes it does feel like a box of BS around here, but we get to eat those wonderful vegetables!
    For my sake, stop arguing over this! Can't you all see that I have a sense of humor? I made all the dinosaurs eat coconuts because I thought it would be funny to see the T-rex reach for them with their stubby little arms. BTW, they were purple too, like Barney.

    I just didn't feel like leaving any evidence of this so I can watch all these people come up with their crazy theories about natural order this, natural order that. lol. Crazy humans, Trix are for kids.

    I think for my next act, I'll change the Pope back into the rabbit. That crazy guy thinks he was talking in my name.

    you are a nutter who doesn't even know your name. tatto HEWHAY to your forehead to remind yourself who you are when you shave in the morning

    "yahwey" isn't a name, it's a title, meaning "father"

    "Sound logic and careful observation are good starting points"

    I agree, but still this is not enough, the consequences of ones actions must also be considered.

    I prefer moral purpose before the blind pursuit of knowledge and on that basis the bible wins, it is more right than wrong

    It is more than unfortunate that the books of god makes some people righteous and inconsiderate.

    Yes, the consequences of one's actions are very important to me as well. Moral purpose is an interesting concept...I would interpret it simply as "Do the right thing." My question to you is based on Exodus: Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV): "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property"

    I cannot accept that ever was okay to own another human. Exodus says "...he is your property." I must reject the efficacy of at least parts of the Bible or contradict my own morality (taught to me by nuns, priests and very Catholic parents. If some of the Bible is not true, then it is not "God's word" by definition.

    Morality does not depend on dogma, although dogma is a very effective tool for imposing moral beliefs.

    That was the Old Testament which was fulfilled and annulled by Jesus. The only reason any of that stuff was allowed in the Old Testament was because believers didn't have the Holy Spirit; as Jesus said, "because of the hardness of your hearts".

    exodus was written a long before the son of god walked on water, miracles apart he did have a lot of very interesting things to say and they were right for their time.

    the bible was defined by constantine (miracles included) to help him unify an empire that was falling apart and for that reason it is dogmatic. it has proved to be a very effective tool for controlling society. that said is it wrong to provide a moral purpose for a decadent society?

    Well, HANS MAST, once you have taken a bite of this poisoned fruit and admitted that even one thing in the Bible is not literally God's word, you open the door for questioning the truth of everything in the Bible, including the New Testament. So, Creationists, why hold out for a 6,000 year old earth, Noah's Ark, T. rex eating coconuts and all of the other silly paradigms that spring from a literal Bible. Don't you think the Bible (OT & NT) may contain both myths and metaphors because it was written by men, not by God?

    Come on. This religion/evolution debate has been going on entirely to long, especially when each group 'knows' their view is right. It seems by now we should see that it is no longer about right vs wrong or evidence vs no evidence. It is about probability vs belief. Those who need evidence find it highly improbable that god exists and those who believe in god have faith that god exists. These are clearly two qualitatively different approaches to posssibly the same problem. Why do we continue down this road? Mainstream schools will never teach creationism, so why does this matter? If you believe in god and creationism, send your kids to schools that teach what you believe, and skip the proselytizing. If you are an probability/evidence person, send your kid to a regular school and don't associate with or allow you kids to associate with creationists, if you so desire, but skip the proselytizing. Why do we all feel compelled to show everyone why our way is right? Hell, I feel that while writing this! Help!

    Because I am convinced with all my heart that it is the objective truth. That is why I am dedicating my entire life to proselytization. I am not a clueless idiot, as evolutionists like to stereotype creationists. I graduated from High School with honors at age 16 with a 97.73% grade average. I read on a regular basis: The Economist, TIME, Scientific American, Newsweek, Popular Science, Forbes, Popular Mechanics, the Washington Post (not since I'm in Thailand), the Bangkok Post, PC World, Digg, and Slashdot.

    Like I said, I live what I believe. I believe in hell and I don't want anyone to go there, so I am working hard to rescue as many people as possible.

    I am bowing out of this discussion because no one is providing any logical refutation to what I have put forward and because no positive evidence for evolution is being presented. God was wise when He wrote in Scripture:

    Timothy, guard the Good News which has been entrusted to you. Turn away from pointless discussions and the claims of false knowledge that people use to oppose the Christian faith.
    1 Timothy 6:20 (GW)

    Nice of you to bow out after several people have asked you to refute points that a creationist argument can't deal with.

    Learn to read timestamps and then show me which comment I left unresponded.

    I beg to differ. This isn't about schooling it's about a privately funded museum, to which one would go if one chose to do so.

    And it's about ridicule on the basis of false infomation and ignorance rather than about what the museum actually teaches.

    I characterize this as irrational fear on the part of the evolutionists here since no one has had the chance to see the exhibits, listen to the presentations and read the signs in the museum -- it's not even open!

    None of this is really about teaching "creationism" in government run schools. It's about evolutionists ridiculing and objecting to something they haven't observed so far.

    surely debating the options is civilised and often leads to new learning

    coconut trees only date back 15 million years ago... there were hardly any flowering plants in the day-of-dinos...

    I keep reading these arguments from complexity (e.g. DNA is too logical,eyeball lenses, etc.) to claim that humans must have been created and they seem to evade the next question that follows: Who created God?

    This creator God sounds like a very complex creature, and if is ridiculous to believe man just appeared through evolution why is it OK to believe God just appeared?

    (I can almost hear the answers already along the vein that God is outside creation.)

    fighting over opinions on God, religion, personal believes is entirely fruitless. if a man in a distant tribe in south america chooses to worship a plane because he can't explain it and through generations their children follow through whether or not they ever see a plane again in the skies, then let it be. we all grow up being told to learn specific things and later in life we decide to believe it or leave it. nobody on earth can prove to me God exists, i firmly believe he doesn't. i don't expect anyone to tell me otherwise and i don't go preaching to others that God doesn't exist, either. i can care less. why can we not co-exist? if i were buddhist, could i co-exist and marry a woman who firmly believes in God? i think so if we accept our humanity and stop this constant bickering. most of you all sicken me.

    Walt
    Tim, I'm intrigued by your question here, "Nobody on earth can prove to me God exists, i firmly believe he doesn't. I don't expect anyone to tell me otherwise and I don't go preaching to others that God doesn't exist, either. I can care less. why can we not co-exist?" Nobody can prove evolution happened either. Can we coexist? After all, the Answers in Genesis Museum didn't "Shanghai" you to make you go to it -- at least not yet, it's not even open for a few more weeks! How about it?
    Creationists enjoy saying that the odds of everything on this earth happening by chance are so remote that it borders on the impossible. Well, let's say the chances are 10 billion to 1. How many planets are in the universe? Thanks to science, we can estimate that there are a billion billion planets in the universe--perhaps more. So, the odds that life would spontaneously gestate on one of those planets become 10 to 1, or 10% and last time I checked, 10% is not out of the realm of possibility. That's all I need to ignore the whole "Everything on this Earth is so special it had to have been put here by someone" argument.

    The Unmoved Mover: we can't have an infinite regression so the thing that just existed first without being created by anything else is God. Okay, but why does that thing have to be an all knowing, all loving being? Couldn't it have been the superdense mass that exploded, 'The Big Bang'? The fact that scientists say 'we're not sure' opens the door for creationists to say 'It was God! GOD!' No, God is a theory, an unprovable theory, just like the big bang. Except the difference is people have killed in the name of God, wars have been started in the name of God, no one has killed in the name of 'the big bang'.

    Finally, I don't have to respect any belief that lacks any evidence yet proclaims some sort of right to dictate morality, especially my morality. Scientific beliefs don't close down video stores with NC-17 movies, prevent alcohol from being sold on Sunday, or fight to keep brain dead people alive against the wishes of the family.

    I'm a moral person, the only things I do that are 'wrong' seem to be that I don't believe in God and don't go to church. Basically, I keep 7 of the 10 commandments. Except I don't do it to 'make God happy' or to avoid hell. Morality does not come from Religion. I think we've evolved our concept of morality because it's better for the species as a whole. Ironically, holding on to the antiquated idea of religion creates far more immoral acts because people can appeal to a 'higher authority'. If you think God is on your side there's nothing stopping you from, say, knocking two buildings down with planes or blowing up an abortion clinic.

    As to the Creationist Museum...T-Rex eating coconuts? These people are making this stuff up as they go.

    I said I'd bow out of this debate, but I can't let that blatant falsehood go unchallenged.

    Evolutionists have acknowledged that the development of the simplest cell has a chance of 1 in 1057800. In comparison, there are estimated to be 1080 atoms in the universe.

    An interesting example:

    Further tests exist to measure how efficient chance is at producing design. The following is fascinating. The question is: What is the expected probability for chance to spell the phrase—‘the theory of evolution’? This phrase by chance would involve the random selection and sequencing of letters and spaces in the correct order. Each letter from the alphabet plus one space (totaling 27 possible selections) has one chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase—‘the theory of evolution’. Therefore ‘chance’ will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in (27)23 outcomes!!

    This computes to only one success in a mind boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3x1032) (gasp!). Suppose ‘chance’ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this random method. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then ‘chance’ could take five times this time to spell out its own success, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation. And this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form, and children of average intelligence could perform this same spelling task within a minute or so.

    Here's another attempt to explain the smallness of the probability:

    Now using Coppedge's figures, let's take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take l0147 years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean? Let's look at Coppedge's example; assume we have an amoeba—and let's assume that this little creature is given the task of carrying matter, one atom at a time from one edge of the universe to the other (though to be about thirty billion light years in diameter). Let's further assume that this amoeba moves at the incredible slow pace of one Angstrom (about the diameter of a hydrogen atom) every fifteen billion years (this is the assumed age of the universe assigned by many evolutionists). How much matter could this amoeba carry in this time calculated to arrange just one usable gene by chance? The answer is that he would be able to carry 2 x 1021 complete universes!

    Argh! The superscript tag didn't work. Whenever you see 10xxxx, it means 10^xxxx.

    This site has serious issues. All sorts of weird stuff is going on. Sometimes I get the front page when the URL points somewhere else and the comment posting doesn't always work and a bunch of formatting that had been displaying properly just got removed from some of my previous comments, etc, etc.

    and the concept of God is just as believable? if anything, we're all on the losing boat of insanity.

    What you have presented as evidence is something that is now known as "Hoyle's Fallacy". Here's why what you've linked is incorrect in layman's terms: For the odds that Hoyle calculated, it assumes that evolution is not in effect yet, truly that evolution did not start until complex organisms began evolving ways of dealing with their environment. But, what if evolution, like gravity, is a natural law, present from the very beginnings, forcing proteins, and the molecules that make up proteins to behave a certain way, like the chances of people lining up shortest to tallest--the article says that happening by random is one in 20 billion--but what if it's in our basic nature to line up that way? That takes the improbable chance out of the equation. Also, my argument wasn't for the complexity of life at our core, but rather, the odds that life would exist in an inhospitable universe. Here we are, on a rock, hurtling around a cosmic fireball 90 million miles away. Why are we here? Is it because a being of infinite power decided to create us and stick us on said rock to worship him because he was bored or whatever OR is it because life managed to take hold here and eventually evolved into us, beings capable of questioning the great mystery of the universe. And, since the vastness of the universe is pretty scary, we invented a magical sky daddy to take care of us. I think the latter is more likely. For those interested in more scientifically minded evidence towards why the above article is fallacious, read The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

    That is a complete fabrication. There is absolutely no evidence for a law of nature that creates life randomly.

    And where would such a "law of nature" come from? Who created it? It's so absurd the lengths people will go to manufacture intelligence and stick it into a "law of nature". That's why intelligent design is such a formidable scientific argument. Scientists are beginning to realize that you must have intelligence to get this universe's ball rolling and they are obviously getting desperate to create an uncreated "natural" intelligence. Wow...

    It's not all random!!!

    There are laws that come into play here - simple laws even you should understand - like gravity - and molecular polarization

    Evolution is not a theory - it's a fact - it is not constrained to living systems - it is simply the ongoing process of the behavior of ALL matter over time.

    You talk about how it's statistically impossible for a cell to evolve by random chance - and you are probably correct - but the process WASN"T completely random!

    Our understanding of cellular evolution is still pretty primitive - because the process that led to the first cells occurred so long ago and depended on millions perhaps billions of variables – and we understand perhaps only a fraction of these.

    Some like the influence of “dark” matter / energy or galactic “bow shock” have only just begun to be investigated

    It just might be that the evolution of the cell was inevitable – in the amount of time we are talking about.

    DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid
    A single strand of DNA is essentially a long sequence made up of the chemical bases adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). Every living thing carries a unique genetic code in its cells written out in these "letters."
    RNA and DNA are chain-like polymers with side groups known as nucleotides, or bases, that selectively adhere only to specific bases on a second chain. Matching, or complementary base sequences enable the chains to pair up and form the widely recognized double helix structure. Genetic information is encoded in sequences of thousands to millions of bases along the chains, which can be microns to millimeters in length.
    Small molecules with the ability to pair up the right way can seek each other out and collect together into drops that are internally self-organized to facilitate the growth of larger pairable molecules. In essence, the liquid crystal phase condensation selects the appropriate molecular components, and with the right chemistry would evolve larger molecules tuned to stabilize the liquid crystal phase. If this is correct, the linear polymer shape of DNA itself is a vestige of formation by liquid crystal order. http://www.sciencecodex.com/liquid_crystal_phases_of_tiny_dna_molecules_point_up_new_scenario_for_first_life_on_earth

    though I personally believe in a collection of both creationism and evolution, I like to throw this thought out there. For those not believing in evolution as a whole, creationists would be doomed to ignorance and ridicule. For those denying the existence of God and through some progression of thought, denying Jesus Christ as Savior, evolutionists are damned to hell. If the existence of heaven and hell is unsubstantiated for the sake of discussion, the small probability of eternal bliss seems like a better "win" situation for the creationists vs. the fury of hell for the evolutionists. hehe.

    What you have described is called Pascal's Wager. Though I think he made it more as a joke than a serious philosophical justification for the existence of God. Simply put: It's better to believe in God than to not because if you believe and you're right you go to heaven, believe and you're wrong, then nothing. Disbelieve and you're right, then nothing, disbelieve and you're wrong, burn in hell forever. But what if disbelievers are right? Then believers are wasting their time with church, with empty praise, with prayer, with anti-intellectualism. If there is no God, it makes the time we get to spend on this Earth infinitely more precious. Don't waste it praying to something that isn't there, go to the park, marvel at the wonder of a sunset, have a whole lot of sex, whatever, but don't rain on my parade with a lot of religious nonsense.

    for whoever is still arguing that life could not have just started abruptly you are wrong. It was proven over 50 years ago by a man named Stanley Miller. 1n 1953, while researching at the University of Chicago, Miller sent electric current through a chamber containing a combination of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, which is generally accepted as the major elements in the primitive atmosphere. The experiment yielded organic compounds including amino acids, the building blocks of life, and catapulted a field of study known as exobiology. So there you have it, life from nothing.

    AiG:

    Did you know that most public-school biology textbooks continue to use content that has long since been disproven? One such case is the famous 1953 Stanley Miller laboratory experiment, which was originally thought successful in creating the building blocks of life from lifeless chemicals. Why do such examples continue to be included in textbooks? Simple—they help further the evolutionary viewpoint that says life arose from nonlife in a pool of chemicals billions of years ago.

    Although secular textbooks continue to state that Miller was successful in creating amino acids necessary for life, the textbooks and media fail to mention that what Miller actually produced was a mixture of left and right-handed amino acids, which is detrimental to life. Since then, similar experiments have also failed to prove this idea.

    LOL - Oh the controversy!

    $25,000,000.00 for a museum that basicly re-creates the Flintstones??????
    Damn!
    I didn't know there was such good money in creationism, perhaps I am all wrong on the subject...

    As for the argument as to whether science is a creation of man - or god...
    WRONG! - On BOTH counts!

    Science is a a label we give to the process of discovery

    Every infant is using science when he learns to sit up or to walk - it's a natural process of learning.
    Some things will work - some will not - we all discover gravity by the time we are a month or so old.

    Geez - Keppler must be rolling over in his grave

    Indeed, Kepler would be rolling over in his grave. Here are some of his quotes:

    The cause of the six-sided shape of a snowflake is none other than that of the ordered shapes of plants and of numerical constants; and since in them nothing occurs without supreme reason -- not, to be sure, such as discursive reasoning discovers, but such as existed from the first in the Creator's design and is presented from the origin to the day in the wonderful nature of animal faculties, I do not believe that even in a snowflake this ordered pattern exists at random.
    The Six-Cornered Snowflake, (Prague, 1611), edited and translated by Colin Hardie (1966), 33.

    I wanted to be a theologian; for a long time I was unhappy. Now, behold, God is praised by my work even in astronomy.
    Letter to Michael Maestlin, 3 October 1595. KGW 13, 40.

    Geometry, which before the origin of things was coeternal with the divine mind and is God himself (for what could there be in God which would not be God himself?), supplied God with patterns for the creation of the world, and passed over to Man along with the image of God.
    The Harmony of the World (Linz,1619), Book IV, Ch. 1. Trans. E. J. Aiton, A. M. Duncan, and J. V. Field (1997), 304.

    Now, eighteen months after the first light, three months after the true day, but a very few days after the pure Sun of that most wonderful study began to shine, nothing restrains me; it is my pleasure to yield to the inspired frenzy, it is my pleasure to taunt mortal men with the candid acknowledgement that I am stealing the golden vessels of the Egyptians to build a tabernacle to my God from them, far, far away from the boundaries of Egypt. If you forgive me, I shall rejoice; if you are enraged with me, I shall bear it. See, I cast the die, and I write the book. Whether it is to be read by the people of the present or of the future makes no difference: let it await its reader for a hundred years, if God Himself has stood ready for six thousand years for one to study Him.
    The Harmony of the World (1619), Book V, Introduction. Trans. E. J. Aiton, A. M. Duncan, and J. V. Field (1997), 391.

    Walt
    bobbb, you write that "science is a label we give to the process of discovery." If you really believe this and also believe evolution, trace for me the hypotheses which have been demonstrated by observation which moved evolution from "bright idea" to scientific theory. What is the discovery process that shows or showed that all living things have a common ancestor? Hasn't this "march to theory" been accomplished by propaganda rather than by observations and hypotheses? Evolution is about history. No humans observed how we got to this point, except for the last few thousand years and no others wrote things down (unless you believe that God did, a Genesis shows us). You say "some things will work - some will not." Did evolution work? How do you know?
    My one beef with GOD is that people always try to humanize it. Well stop it! If GOD is an omnipotent being, then why do we as humans imply that GOD has emotions or humanistic reasoning or even better is always referred to as "he"?

    Because He tells us that he created us in His image.

    "He" didn't tell "us" anything. "He" told someone who told someone who told someone who translated it twelve times arriving at the how many versions of the bible that currently exist. Can we PLEASE stop taking the bible so literally?

    Can we please stop assuming that the human body is the 'image' of God? We may as-yet not be self-aware of what qualities of 'us' are reflective of God. When you look at all that is you, what parts are the nature of God?

    Just a quick reply. Imago Dei does not mean our bodies are like God. In His likeness is not our physical because God is a Spirit. We have attributes like 'character', 'emotions', spirit, etc...

    Just a quick note. And BTW - the cannon of scripture is pretty much the most reliable historical record known to man based on an evidential basis. Would love to field any questions on this.

    Also, the bible was not written TO us, but to other people. But we can say that the bible can be FOR us because we can glean so much from its pages. Taking the text literally in every context is like getting a letter from your mother giving you some information to act on, then saying that everyone on the planet must follow the instruction.

    A poor analogy, but it works.

    James

    "Godstones,
    Meet the Godstones,
    They're a Creation Science familllyyy!!!
    In the,
    Town of Eden,
    They're best friends with neighbors Adam and Eve!"

    Think about this: God "created" man by setting the conditions in the Big Bang so that evolution would result in man.

    Think about this: if you were to start evolution all over again, we wouldn't be here. There is no destiny in evolution.

    That's ludicrous. An all-knowing God would certainly be able to "bang" in such a way as to plan out EVERY being. There is no conflict between evolution and God creating the Universe. "Creationists" don't just humanize God, they limit him... A "day" can mean any span of time God wants it to be.

    Isn’t it odd that the “smart” scientists who see and understand the complexity in all nature and physics and have knowledge of the gapping holes in the theory of evolution are the same people who believe in it?

    As for carbon dating – the world was created old. Man was created with the ability to choose to follow God or not, if science was able to confirm the world events exactly as stated in the bible would you have a choice but to believe in God and the Bible?

    Walt
    The universe looks young to me (in moyboy terms). Maybe 6,000 years or so.
    6000 earth years?

    The universe was created 5 minutes ago.

    ...and it is just as odd that the "smart" people who see and understand the complexity of the bible, and have knowledge of the gaping holes in it, simply disavow them.

    Would we have a choice? Yes. We -always- have a choice, even if that choice flies in the face of all reason. Those seem like the popular ones to make these days, too.

    God created men,womyn, and children with the ability to comprehend and reflect on its surroundings and environment. Subsequently, God in the Qur'an (the Last Testament) informs us that God is NOT ONLY the creator & sustainer of all the worlds but also, that God is the Evolver (al-Bari).

    So is that an African or European T-Rex?

    yes, it is kind of odd that the T-Rex would be eating a coconut, considering its in a temperate zone and the coconut is a tropical fruit.

    Are you suggesting that T-Rexs migrate?!

    It could grip it by the husk

    I don't know that......AAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Quote: Your position is invalid. You make the assumption that Science says that DNA was formed from random chance where in fact it says no such thing. DNA was formed in the same manner that all life was, darwinian natural selection.

    Natural Selection does not create anything. It only weeds out the less fit.

    When man can create a machine as efficient as the human body; complete with abilities to reason, emotions, and self-healing, then I will consider your position.

    "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
    -Darwin 1872

    > Natural Selection does not create anything. It only weeds out the less fit.

    Yes it does, you do not understand the theory of evolution. Let me explain: because of the occurrences of many different kinds of mutations (detailed in the link below) there are often beneficial mutations, which are then encouraged by natural selection.

    This link describes the myriad different kinds of genetic mutations and also provides examples of beneficial mutations that are now ubiquitous due to natural selection:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations

    > When man can create a machine as efficient as the human body; complete with abilities to reason, emotions, and self-healing, then I will consider your position.

    Well, given that there are many examples of beneficial mutations that become commonplace due to natural selection why don't you accept it as fact now? Just because they tend to occur in species with far shorter life spans and consequentially "faster" evolution doesn't mean that it does not happen in higher species.

    Note that this remark is pure speculation: I imagine in a few hundred years such machines will exist, but it saddens me that you will never see them.

    Finally, Your quote from Darwin is completely misleading. He *continues* to say that reason and experiment suggest that the eye has indeed evolved.

    Furthermore, there are observable right now in nature a progression of "eyes" from the very simplest patches of photosensitive cells to the sophisticated human eyes we have today.

    The following encyclopedia article details it well:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

    Here is the FULL quote from Darwin:

    "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

    Yes it does, you do not understand the theory of evolution. Let me explain: because of the occurrences of many different kinds of mutations (detailed in the link below) there are often beneficial mutations, which are then encouraged by natural selection.

    Mutations and natural selection can only occur in a living organism. Even if you accept the absurd probabilities involved, mutations and natural selection cannot account for the first organism.

    Even if you accept the absurd probabilities involved, mutations and natural selection cannot account for the first organism.

    Nor is it supposed to. Darwin called his book 'The Origin of Species' for a reason!

    Mutations and natural selection are names for natural parts of the universe, they are mathematical computations. In this I mean mutations and natural selection affect all patterns of matter and energy, not just 'life' or 'living organisms'. Life does not have to be composed of the matter we see, touch, feel, or know; it comes as a shock when you realize life at its most simplest forms are mere self replicating patterns of information. Even matter and energy evolve, mutate, at which, the 'strongest' patterns survive. There is no dividing line between what evolves or mutates.

    headache... must... do... math.

    Quote: I have faith in a divine power AND I believe that some creatures evolved into other creatures. Is there something wrong with me?

    You have faith?!? - we must ban you and your theories from the public schools then!

    It says in genesis man was created after the other animals it also says in genesis man was created before the other animals please can any creationists tell me which one is correct. If you accept one is correct you must accept the other is incorrect this means some things in the bible are wrong.

    where does it say that man was created both before and after all the animals?

    It's in Genesis, right around the time God is creating Light (somehow without bothering to make the stars or the Sun first), and separating it from darkness, which is silly in and of itself if you understand what light is (electromagnetic radiation from an energy source like say... the stars or the Sun). And how is it that the plants were growing without Sunlight during this time? Before the fall did plants not feed on chlorophyll? Perhaps it was coconuts as well.

    The point is, Genesis, of all the books of the Bible, should not be taken literally. These events did not take place in the order they're written. Nature wouldn't allow it to. It's a creation myth; several in fact, all rolled into one big story.

    Personally I don't see how that affects anything at all and why the mass population won't accept it, even when Biblical scholars will (and many have for years). It certainly doesn't take away anything from the point of the story, nor the meaning of the religion. But people will continue to believe whatever it is they believe for no reason other than they believe it. This is true of all people, on a myriad of topics. Religion just happens to be incendiary.

    I loved reading these comments. You guys are very passionate about what you all believe. Everyone has perfect arguements for everything.
    Its nice to see that when we developed sentience/free will that humanity became very creative, free thinkers, choosing to believe whatever the hell they wanted. Now if we can only cut down the population... someone throw me a coconut.

    Just a quick question.

    If dinosaurs survived the flood what did wipe them out? (Presuming they were wiped out, and haven't survive in a JP:The Lost World way)

    Also, has anyone done the calculation of the volume of two babies (or eggs) of every single species of dinosaur, and whether they would actually fit onto an ark of the dimentions specified in the bible? Just a thought.

    (I'm not trying to be inflammatory, i just though these were valid questions)

    Thanks for you attitude, Chris.

    I don't know exactly what wiped them out. Many creationists speculate that the drastically reduced vegetation and the unstable climate made them extinct, but I'm not sure.

    Yes. There's an article here and a book, Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study.

    They are indeed valid questions.

    If that feasibility study is the one done by "Woodmorappe"*, it's flawed. For starters, the man cannot differentiate the mean and the median. He says that the median size of the animals on the Ark was that of a rat, and then proposes fitting some tens of thousands of animals on.

    Except that using his own values, the *mean* size of these animals is a couple of hundred pounds. Rats weighing 200 pounds?

    See, what he did was take this sequence:

    1,1,1,1,1,1,5,5,10,100 and say "since the median value is one, it could be done" - but the mean is quite clearly a MUCH greater figure - 12.6. The median is simply used to describe the shape of the data, not the data itself.

    * Woodmorappe is a psuedonym for (I believe the spelling is) Jan Pezckis. Woodmorappe refers to the work of Pezckis *within* his feasibility study. In scientific literature, this is bad form; you don't pretend your own work is someone else's, when trying to support your own work. And when Pezckis was called out on being "Woodmorappe", he claimed he would sue over it; when urged to do so by the scientific community, he dropped the issue. Does this sound like something he would do if he was in the clear?

    I venture a guess that dinos became extinct in the same way other creatures have, they didn't compete well with the other creatures in the environment. After all, St. George killed one!

    Why are passenger pigeons extinct (if they truly are)? Same situation. Ever since things started dying there has been the possibility of extinction ... and sometimes it happens.

    Why would God kill these coconut-loving creatures? :'(

    Well, the same reason that there is death at all! Death is a consequence of human sin.

    I agree with authors opinion. This is all bullshit.

    I lean more towards agnostic(w/e you want to label it), but i believe God cannot be proved or disproved.

    I do believe in the possibility he(she,it w/e) could exist, and that it could be the Christian God or other god(s), or nothing.

    There hasn't been any or enough credible information to convince me other wise, yet.

    It feels like we're living in an uninformed, arrogant[slap on w/e adverbs here] society that is horrible at communicating with one another.
    (both speaking & receiving information)

    Here in the US, something like 70%ish+ (read it somewhere) of our population is Christian. I don't really care either, i just wish Christianity & the other conflicting religions here would stop and let people find where they belong.

    But, life would inevitably be too dull and boring without grudges & hate formed from their impenetrable counterparts, right?

    Look, let's just have a naitonally televised debate. Ken Ham of the Creation museum will choose for the creationists. The evolutionists will pick their best. Let's stick solely with the scientific evidence and what is really there. Then let the viewers decide for themselves. Of course this debate will not come off. It cannot. Why? Frightened evolutionists in the media, the educational system, the "scientific" estalishment, is why. But if I can be proven wrong, fine. Let it happen. Then watch what happens. (Romans 1:20-22)

    Walt
    Steve, for a number of years there were a great many debates. It became obvious to evolutionists that they did not fare well in them. They say it was because audiences are not well enough educated to understand the arguments, and such comments. At this time, very few debates are taking place because creationists cannot find debaters to go against 'em. Anwers in Genesis has a DVD available of one such debate which I think was held on Australian television (or maybe it was simply recorded). It's called, "The Genesis Dabate." The organization most involved in the debates from the creationist side was the Institute for Creation Research, website icr.org ICR published a book called, "Fish to Gish" (1983) which gave summaries of more than a hundred debates over a ten year period between Dr. Duane Gish and/or Dr. Henry M. Morris against various evolutionists. I think it's probably out of print now. Dr. Gish is retired and Dr. Morris is deceased, but the next generation of creation scientists are very willing to debate. The title is from a debate between Dr. Gish and an evolution scientist named Bob (sorry I don't know his last name) but he used the phrase, "Fish to Gish and Blob to Bob." The debate was characterized as carried off with good humor and fun on both sides. Ken Ham had a debate recently, I believe, with Dr. Eugenie Scott on the Alan Colmes Show. I did not hear this debate, and I doubt it lasted very long. Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, as one example, refused to debate with creationists. He is now deceased. If you could find an evolutionist or two willing to debate, I am sure that it's easy to find creationists for the other side. How about it?
    scientists don't debate creationists for a number of reasons. first of all, as scientists, they are responsible for science. creationism is not science. it would be absurd to expect them to debate creationism. secondly, the topic does not need to be debated. literally everyone in the scientific community that is taken seriously believes in evolution. we see evolution happen every day; humans have 99% of the same genes as chimpanzees; carbon dating proves it; it is based on facts, not a fictional book; the obviousness of evolution goes on. even crushing creationists in a debate would give them a smidgen of validity. just as it isn't necessary to debate holocaust deniers and alien ufo believers, we don't need to debate creationists.

    scientists don't debate creationists for a number of reasons. first of all, as scientists, they are responsible for science. creationism is not science. it would be absurd to expect them to debate creationism. secondly, the topic does not need to be debated. literally everyone in the scientific community that is taken seriously believes in evolution. we see evolution happen every day; humans have 99% of the same genes as chimpanzees; carbon dating proves it; it is based on facts, not a fictional book; the obviousness of evolution goes on. even crushing creationists in a debate would give them a smidgen of validity. just as it isn't necessary to debate holocaust deniers and alien ufo believers, we don't need to debate creationists.

    I'm so tired of being careful and delicate with the apparently EXTREMELY fragile beliefs of deluded religious nuts who believe in literal interpretation of ancient creation myths. We're supposed to be gentle and kind to them as though they were children who still believe in Santa Claus so that we don't scuff their delicate belief bubble and make them upset. But they are never delicate with those who don't share their beliefs. It seems to be part of their ritual to NOT accept us. Many of us value tolerance. We're told to accept them and their unseen magical father in the sky and smile when they tell us that we're going to be painfully punished for eternity by their "personal savior" and we must play nice when they twist our hard-won scientific knowledge and call it wrong or evil. Personally I've just about given up trying to play nice with these people. They are invading our schools and our books and trying to inflict their heartless myths about vengeance and unquestioning faith in fairy tales on MY children. I don't want my kids to hear about a giant angry "god" who is so childish and petty that "he" supports violence, exclusion, intolerance, self-righteous judgment and continues to lie to us (by apparently misguiding us by doing things like speeding up the light from very distant cosmological objects to confuse us into thinking that they're millions of light years away - or purposefully misleading us with overwhelming geological evidence of the age of the earth and by deliberately designing humans and other animals to present obvious evidence of having evolved, etc...). To me it's a horrible idea to respect such a horrible despot. If their god were real, why would such a being be so purposefully misleading? If we accept the creationists and their weird ideas about the necessity of a "creator" for something complex like human life, then I have to ask them who created the apparently even MORE complex creator, etc... etc... etc... It's their criteria, they should live by it too. Must we assume that the creation of their god was just an "accident" as they mistakenly refer to the scientific nature of reality? Santa Claus gives material goodies to those who do good and behave, and so, they claim, does the magical giant man in the sky. Many of us educate ourselves beyond a need both of those mythical characters, but some of us keep one around for comfort - or because of the promise of goodies. To many of us it is abundantly clear how geology and biology have evolved so beautifully and with so much diversity and stunning detail - the idea that some vengeful monster just snapped its fingers and made everything fully formed in just a few days is by comparison alarmingly unsatisfying and rather dull and uninspiring - not to mention impossible for a rational person to believe in the first place. For explaining the things that we see around us, science is infinitely more amazing and beautiful than ancient creation myths.

    Walt
    You haven't conversed with any creationists, have you? "We're supposed to be gentle and kind to them as though they were children who still believe in Santa Claus so that we don't scuff their delicate belief bubble and make them upset. But they are never delicate with those who don't share their beliefs. It seems to be part of their ritual to NOT accept us. Many of us value tolerance." Do your worst! My "bubble" has no problem. I just go back to understanding what science is and what history is. Without eyewitness accounts it's all interpetation of observations made in the present (of the scientist). I suggest you find out about Biblical creationism and then give us your response to it. In fact I'm quite interested in your response. Part is faith, as is evolution, but the faith-framework accepts all the observations made by scientists. How about it? Is it tolerance to criticize, ridicule and lie about a museum that isn't even open, that is funded by private funds on private property, and put together by an organization that does not want to force its views on anyone? It isn't creationists who are intolerant.
    http://answersingenesis.org/museum/faq.asp
    look at question number 4...thats there target OPENING date!!!ITS NOT EVEN OPEN!!!SO HOW CAN SOMEBODY TELL A PERSON THERE SOMETHING WHEN ITS NOT OPEN!!!And look you people seriously need to leave Creationists alone.If you dont believe in better logic,its youre decision.

    It doesn't have to be open... You've made your logic clear, you have none. Logic is based on facts. To believe in a theory, you must put your "faith" on the study and interpretation of facts. A theory is something that has not be proven wrong, based on facts. If some proof that evolution was false came out, every single person who believed in evolution would dismiss it. That's called science. A search for the truth. On the other hand, the proof against creationism, the size of the the universe and other observations, fossil records, carbon-dating, etc... does not stop the firm believe in creationism. That is because it is all faith based. No fact. Mostly what is wrong with this world is when people make decisions on blind faith. Think about it.

    the part that gets me is how do people who believ ein god differe from early man and antive americans that believe there was a rain god and if they did some dance the rain would come or the sun would come up or they could prevent lightning or volcanos.

    Question: How was the earth and mankind created?
    Theist: God did it.
    Atheist/Scientist: i do not know but i will look at evidence to back up any ideas i may have.

    seems to me that the theists answer is just a shortcut to actually doing research and thinking.

    That is a valid point. For some people, theism is a shortcut to thinking. However, if you believe the atheist position that a theist position is false, theists have to do more thinking to justify their position because it's more intellectually difficult to defend a false position. ;-)

    I enjoy intellectual exercise and intellectual laziness isn't my reason for being a theist. In fact, I simply don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist. I can't accept their absurd machinations which go against all the evidence. This is evidence both in the natural world and in my own personal life--the miracles I have seen, the forgiveness and peace of mind I have received from Christ, and the clear evidence of a relationship with Him in my life.

    Ohh... I can't believe this crap. Most "born-again", etc. christians are so happy about their personal relation with Christ Our Saviour, that they are convinced to have fallen in His Grace. But answer me, please, how come God is good enough to cure Aunt Irma of her disease, or bless you with a wonderful life, but then he doesn't give a hoot about natural disasters, wars, etc. going on in Africa, Iraq, or even the USA for that matter?

    I can't really understand how people will cling to the simple "evidence" of something they consider a miracle while willingly ignoring the sheer amount of _real_ evidence on the contrary. Or is it that Aunt Irma is much more worthy than millions of Africans?

    I call bullshit, and so should you.

    Walt
    John, John, John ... Don't you see that some of the evidence you must look at is the account from the eyewitness to creation? *Your* shortcut is to avoid learning about the Biblical creation model, to make up a Biblical model using your own lack of knowledge and then to attack this model. This is known as a "straw man" argument, and is normally dismissed when people talk things over respectfully and intelligently.
    haha im a christian, dont know about the dino's eating coconuts......haha I'll have to look it up :P

    Yea, I'm not one to pass judgment, so as a woman was once believed to have said:

    Let them eat coconuts.

    I love being an athiest - that feeling of having an opinion that you 100% believe and then you read something that blows it out of the water and you say "wow i never thought to look at it in that light". IT makes you a better man, and "knowledge is power" they say

    Suppose that was the reason why back in medieval times there was a fight to stop the bible being translated in English - (cuz the layman would then see how many contradictions there where propably)

    IF god is so great why does he allow rapist and paedophiles to exist, why cant he give them a heart attack when they think of such vile thoughts or try to act them out, i mean doest god get everywhere

    Why did september the 11 happen if god is so great, look at this this way, is god a chancer who likes to gamble. One day he is with the "terrorist" and instructs them to fly planes into the twin towers, killing 3000 odd "innocent" people, and then he is telling George Bush to invade Iraq, i mean come on god, sort it out, which side are you on

    Or are you saying these "Innocent" people deserve to die, because we are all sinners!!!!

    I have sent all my servants the prophets to you again and again. They said, "Turn from your evil ways, do what is right, and don't follow other gods in order to serve them. Then you will live in the land that I gave you and your ancestors." However, you refused to listen to me or obey me.
    Jeremiah 35:15 (GW)

    But I did tell them this, 'Obey me, and I will be your God, and you will be my people. Live the way I told you to live so that things will go well for you.' But they didn't obey me or pay attention to me. They followed their own plans and their stubborn, evil ways. They went backward and not forward.
    Jeremiah 7:23-24 (GW)

    I solemnly warned your ancestors when I brought them out of Egypt, and the warning still applies to you today. I solemnly warned them to obey me. But they didn't obey me or pay attention to me. They followed their own stubborn, evil ways. So I punished them, because they did not keep all the terms of the promise, the terms that I commanded them to keep."
    Jeremiah 11:7-8 (GW)

    See also: Judges 2:6-14

    Because all people have sinned, they have fallen short of God's glory.
    Romans 3:23 (GW)

    The payment for sin is death, but the gift that God freely gives is everlasting life found in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    Romans 6:23 (GW)

    He certainly has taken upon himself our suffering and carried our sorrows, but we thought that God had wounded him, beat him, and punished him. He was wounded for our rebellious acts. He was crushed for our sins. He was punished so that we could have peace, and we received healing from his wounds.
    Isaiah 53:4-5 (GW)

    "Come to me, all who are tired from carrying heavy loads, and I will give you rest. Place my yoke over your shoulders, and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble. Then you will find rest for yourselves because my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
    Matthew 11:28-30 (GW)

    (And don't jump on me for quoting the Bible. He asked a theological question, so I gave him a theological answer. This is more, however, than a theoretical theological answer. I can attest in my own life to the truth of these Scriptures: that God helps bear my burdens in life, that He is just to me when I sin, but that His desire is to restore me to a relationship with Him.)

    John0877
    so this "God" commands complete obedience? wow he has some ego. he also must be worshipped weekly at the same place, again what an ego on this guy. what happened to free will or god is with you wherever you are? if that is true then he knew people would sin and he wouldnt need to be worshipped in the same place weekly, people could worship him in their own homes and itd be fine. also heard that the reason there is such turmoil in this world is cause of adam and even being exiled from the garden of eden. if thats so and he is making all of mankind forever pay for it then he isnt not the merciful god everyone says him to be. he is very vindictive and holds a huge grudge and cant let things go. sorry i will not worship someone who is constantly punishing me for something i didnt do.
    I hate to break it to you, but God doesn't really care what you think He should do. He is God. He created you. He is your absolute sovereign and one day you will bow before Him and acknowledge He is God.

    From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse. They knew God but did not praise and thank him for being God. Instead, their thoughts were pointless, and their misguided minds were plunged into darkness. While claiming to be wise, they became fools. They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for statues that looked like mortal humans, birds, animals, and snakes. For this reason God allowed their lusts to control them. As a result, they dishonor their bodies by sexual perversion with each other. These people have exchanged God's truth for a lie. So they have become ungodly and serve what is created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen!
    Romans 1:20-25 (GW)

    John0877
    if he did in fact create everything why cant he sit back and just know that he created everything. why does he need to be worshipped and dictate how we live our lives daily. again i refer back to my comment "some ego this guy has on him". im sorry but i dont care what he has done or will do i will never worship anyone that full of themselves. people that are that egotisitical need to be knocked down a few pegs. if he created me who created him? also cant christians come up with a better name for God than God? a god is WHAT he is not his name. even muslims have Muhammed and all. so what is God's name? why so anonymous? does he want to hide from something? the other thing that bugs me is the capitalizing every word that refers to him. pronouns arent capitalized unless theyre the first word of a sentence. thats simple grammar rules people shoulda learned in elementary school.
    Muhammad is not the name for the Muslim god. Muhammad was the Muslim prophet. Allah is the name for the Muslim god. Allah is just the Arabic equivalent of god/God.

    if he did in fact create everything why cant he sit back and just know that he created everything. why does he need to be worshipped and dictate how we live our lives daily. again i refer back to my comment "some ego this guy has on him". im sorry but i dont care what he has done or will do i will never worship anyone that full of themselves. people that are that egotisitical need to be knocked down a few pegs.

    If indeed God is the all-powerful creator of the universe and of you, your attitude seems somewhat illogical. In fact, your attitude reminds me of someone else in history who thought similarly:

    How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
    (Isaiah 14:12-15 KJV)

    You come from your father, the devil, and you desire to do what your father wants you to do. The devil was a murderer from the beginning. He has never been truthful. He doesn't know what the truth is. Whenever he tells a lie, he's doing what comes naturally to him. He's a liar and the father of lies. So you don't believe me because I tell the truth.
    (John 8:44-45 GW)

    Then a war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels had to fight a war with the serpent. The serpent and its angels fought. But it was not strong enough, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. The huge serpent was thrown down. That ancient snake, named Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world, was thrown down to earth. Its angels were thrown down with it.
    (Revelation 12:7-9 GW)

    This is what the Almighty LORD says: "You think you are wise like God. That is why I am going to bring foreigners against you, the most ruthless foreigners among the nations. They will draw their swords against your fine wisdom and dishonor your greatness. They will throw you into a pit, and you will die a violent death in the sea. You will no longer say that you are a god when you face those who kill you. You will be a human, not a god, in the hands of those who kill you. You will die at the hands of foreigners like a godless person. I have spoken," declares the LORD.
    (Ezekiel 28:6-10 GW)

    John0877
    oops got the whole Muhammed/Allah thing mixed up. you still hadnt answered what God's name is. also why not try to respond in your own words instead of quoting meaningless text from a fictional fairy tale.
    God is almighty and supreme. He will not tolerate arrogant people like you pretending to know better than God and presuming to tell Him what he should and shouldn't do. What frame of reference do you have to imagine that you can impose your opinion, of what God should and shouldn't do, on Him? That's the same attitude Satan had and it condemned him to an eternity in Hell. Satan is who you got your attitude from. You will condemn yourself to Hell for all eternity unless you repent of your arrogance and rebellion against God.

    John0877
    then i say God, bring it. if i am wrong and there is a god then i guess i will have to accept that fate. but, what if you are wrong and there is no god, no creator, no supreme being that you have devoted your whole life to and modeled your life after and all that? or do you just choose it cause you see it as a safe bet or win-win situation. if there is then you get to heaven and if not then nothing happens. btw how different from early man do you sound believing the rain is caused by god or the thunder and lightning etc. they didnt want to piss off the gods so they offered sacrifices. look how many innocent people died cause of this sort of belief in some god. yes i used inncocent too cause i dont think we, today should be held responsible for the fictitious adam and eve eating the "fruit".
    I don't do it as a just-in-case "fire insurance". Instead, I do it because I believe it firmly due to the many ways God has worked in my life and the lives of those around me.

    John0877
    and these ways "God" has mysteriously worked couldnt be explained ANY other way ? some how i doubt that. just cause people dont know how something works or why something happens doesnt mean "God did it". it just means we dont know what led to that happening or why/how something works yet. key word being yet.
    John0877, what evidence do you have that "early man" believed "the rain is caused by god or the thunder and lightning etc. they didnt want to piss off the gods so they offered sacrifices." And what evidence do you have about the "innocent people" who "died cause of this sort of belief in some god."

    All the evidence I know of is about folks long after "early man" supposedly lived.

    [quote]God is almighty and supreme. He will not tolerate arrogant people like you pretending to know better than God and presuming to tell Him what he should and shouldn't do. What frame of reference do you have to imagine that you can impose your opinion, of what God should and shouldn't do, on Him? That's the same attitude Satan had and it condemned him to an eternity in Hell. Satan is who you got your attitude from. You will condemn yourself to Hell for all eternity unless you repent of your arrogance and rebellion against God.[/quote]

    And by what arrogance do you claim to know the words and will of God? A book? There are lots of holy books, what makes you think yours is the right one? Because your parents and church told you it was the right one? And how did they know? Because their parents and their church told them it was the right one, and so on. Doesn't actually make it right though.

    And attributing an argument/attitude you disagree with to Satan is irresponsible. We are all responsible for our own actions, don't try to cop out and blame it on something else. People like you who blame Satan for murderers and pedophiles etc disgust me, you make the problem that much worse by not aknowledging the causes.

    [quote]God is almighty and supreme. He will not tolerate arrogant people like you pretending to know better than God and presuming to tell Him what he should and shouldn't do. What frame of reference do you have to imagine that you can impose your opinion, of what God should and shouldn't do, on Him? That's the same attitude Satan had and it condemned him to an eternity in Hell. Satan is who you got your attitude from. You will condemn yourself to Hell for all eternity unless you repent of your arrogance and rebellion against God.[/quote]

    And by what arrogance do you claim to know the words and will of God? A book? There are lots of holy books, what makes you think yours is the right one? Because your parents and church told you it was the right one? And how did they know? Because their parents and church told THEM it was the right one, and so on. In other words, nobody knows.

    I would imagine God will be more pissed with people who have been putting words in his mouth and doing vile hatefull things in his name than those who simply denied his existence. But then to think you know the mind and will of the supposed creator of the universe is idiocy.

    And attributing an argument/attitude you disagree with to Satan is irresponsible. We are all responsible for our own actions, don't try to cop out and blame it on something else. People like you who blame Satan for murderers and pedophiles etc disgust me, you make the problem that much worse by not aknowledging the causes.

    Oh my! God won't tolerate "arrogant" people like me. Ooooooooo, strike me dead with a bolt of lightning, God. I mean like right now! If this doesn't happen, I'll be reporting back to you on this site later. if you hear no more from me, then everyone can conclude that God really does exist and start worshipping and tithing. Wish me luck as I depart on this grand experient.

    -FENWICK-

    WELL, FOLKS, HERE I AM TWO MONTHS LATER, STILL ALIVE AND BREATHING. I gave God a chance to demonstrate his existence, but he failed the test. I didn't even experience a spark of static electricity, let alone a bolt of lightning. Based on this experiment, I conclude that either God accepts "arrogant" people like me, or more likely god is purely imaginary. I'll just get out my BULLSHIT stamp and imprint my Bible. Hans Mast, for a couple of examples of your "Lovimg God" see Joshua 10:11 or Deuteronomy 21:18-21. These are just two out of hundreds of such examples in the OT. Worship this serial-killer-god? Call it arrogance, but no thanks!

    FENWICK

    Gerhard Adam
    "That's the same attitude Satan had and it condemned him to an eternity in Hell. Satan is who you got your attitude from. You will condemn yourself to Hell for all eternity unless you repent of your arrogance and rebellion against God."

    Interestingly no one seems to appreciate the irony of this statement.  This statement indicates that heaven is not the idyllic place that everyone keeps talking about, since clearly if there can be discontent and ultimately rebellion, it's no different (politically at least) from every other place I've ever lived.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hey, Anonymous, thanks for asking these questions (a portion quoted here):

    "IF god is so great why does he allow rapist and paedophiles to exist, why cant he give them a heart attack when they think of such vile thoughts or try to act them out, i mean does god get everywhere ..."

    The good news is that this world isn't all there ever was, and it's not all there ever will be.

    This world was created without any effects of sin, summarized in the Bible as death, suffering, crying and pain. We humans began to sin and have continued to the present day. Consequences of sin continue to build up and affect every person, even newborns who cannot be tied directly to any sin of their own.

    But into this fallen world God sent his Son (Jesus). To teach us coping skills, to demonstrate God's power over sin and its effects, to lay down his life for us, and to offer all of us eternal life in a new universe he plans to make which like the newly minted creation will have no sin or effects of sin.

    God could solve all the death, suffering, crying and pain right now but that would be the "last day" after which no one may receive eternal life. So God has extended the time of the fallen world until all humans have the opportunity to choose this happy ending.

    God is now actually restraining *some* of the effects of sin but must leave some effects so that we can know we need a Savior.

    Just as God sent his son into the world, he sends those who believe in him, to bring help with the struggles (for who better understands what is going on) and to offer eternal life through faith that Jesus' death pays the penalty for each person's sin for those who accept this and ask for this help.

    Wouldn't you like to live in a world without death, suffering, crying or pain? Your comment reveals that you would.

    Hope that helps you understand.

    Blessings!

    Am I the only one finding it exceedingly hilarious that the agents of 'intelligent design' and the whole 'science is just a religion too, man!' rhetoric are spinning their little tapestry of lies and half-truths via the the wonderous Interweb?

    You've already bedded with with the Satanic evils of science and technology, my creationist friends. You're alive thanks to the vaccines discovered in that very same field of reasonable inquiry. Why fight it so late in the game?

    Your souls are already ours.

    Haha.

    Hahahaha.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Who is fighting science? I've not noticed it here in these comments.

    It's false claims I'm against. Biblical creation is as good a model as evolution if not better at making a framework for all the observations scientists make.

    Science cannot address history directly because it only happened once. Assumptions/faith must be made or adopted. Whether this involves God or not-God it's still a faith.

    Claiming otherwise is false.

    The laugh is on you, for you have no evidence showing common ancestry for me and an ant despite your "big lie" rhetoric.

    John0877
    problem is creationists story changes all the time once new things are discovered. scientists start with a theory then try to prove it wrong they dont just chnage their initial theory or interpret the evidence differently.
    Wow. We just can't win for losing.

    Some of y'all were saying that we weren't being objective and were using the Bible as our only evidence, refusing to change our mind when contrary evidence was presented.

    Now you are telling us that we change our theories based on new evidence and you are acting as if that is a bad thing.

    My ideal is to take a scientific approach. I believe the Bible is the absolute authority. I formulate models that harmonize both the physical evidence and the word of God. If the physical evidence changes or is thrown in a new light, my models may change. That's a very scientific approach.

    Oh Hans Mast, for goodness sake. You believe you can take the Bible mold and cram any empirical evidence that arises into it? Remember how the church had such great difficulty accepting that the universe is NOT geocentric? Since you believe that the Bible is the absolute and final authority on everything, how will you cram heretical square pegs into that round hole? At some point, you, like the church, must admit that new empirical evidence sometimes is correct and the Bible is wrong.

    FENWICK

    It's not a problem to adjust one's theory according to new information. That's what scientists do.

    Thanks for identifying creationists with scientists!

    Evolutionists do this, too. Check it out!

    Are you freaking kidding me? And these people are passing it off as science? The fact is, you can't mix science (or reason) with the Bible. It doesn't work. Men who live to be two thousand years old, virgins conceiving children without IVF, talking donkeys and snakes, animals who are clearly designed to be predators but who only eat green herb. I think if you look through Acts with a fine-tooth comb, you might find the tooth fairy, too.

    Wow, what a rant: "Are you freaking kidding me? And these people are passing it off as science? The fact is, you can't mix science (or reason) with the Bible. It doesn't work. Men who live to be two thousand years old, virgins conceiving children without IVF, talking donkeys and snakes, animals who are clearly designed to be predators but who only eat green herb. I think if you look through Acts with a fine-tooth comb, you might find the tooth fairy, too."

    Aside from your factual errors (e.g., the Bible speaks of humans living to ages in the nine hundreds, not two thousand).

    Let me throw a humerous statement at you, not intended to express facts but to illustrate thinking patterns.

    If a frog turns into a prince instantly its a fairy tale but if it takes millions of years it's science.

    Blessings (assuming)!

    Science is about understanding, while religion is about believing. They are both appart and cannot be mixed. Science is about proving, questioning, testing and confirming. Religion is about faith, and questioning, the basis of science, is seen as something wrong, and we call is blasphemy. Science has taken us in the last three centuries where we are now. We live longer, more confortable and healthier lifes thanks to science, and all our modern world is developed arround science.

    Evolution is a science theory. Creationism is a belief. Trying to mix them is not possible.

    All this about the Genesis is a simplistic, childish, quite stupid discussion. Every time I read about a prove that evolution is worng, I can locate a rational explanation about it, that goes from simply lying, as in the case of finding dinosaur blood, to lack of knowledge, which neither does prove evolution is worng, just that evolution does not solve everything. The Genesis is the most fanstatic story of the Bible. It just can be seen as an allegory, as we do many in Europe, or a legend, but it cannot level up with the evolution teory, and every time it tries to do so, we see stupidities as big as that of Tyranosaurus eating coconuts...

    There is a place for God, anyway. There are many things we don't understand, many things that are too big for us, many things that seem not to have an explanation, and, although I don't believe in any god, I respect the people that do so. And, of course, there is our spiritual life. But it is stupid to try to make religion more believable denying science. It's true it is more dificult to be a believer in these days, as science explains many things some decades ago were part of the mistery of the world, but you cannot blame science. As science explains the world, we need to accomodate our beliefs to the new situation. Eastern religions don't have to fight into this, as their religious feelings are completely spiritual and don't look for an explanation of the world in their beliefs. In other words, buddism is about our soul, our feelings, not about facts, or history. And that is also why buddism has never begun a war. We should try to learn from them. Christianism, specially on the new Testament, has the same potential. Why do we stick on Genesis, instead of reading Jesus words?

    I very much disagree that questioning is seen by "religion" as something wrong. In the Bible Job is honored with answers and a face-to-face (sort of) with God for asking faithful questions.

    The people of Berea are considered praiseworthy for questioning what St. Paul told them and checking the scriptures to see whether what he was saying was right.

    I as a pastor definitely welcome questions.

    The scientific method (of a sort) is also recommended in the Bible. For example, "taste and see that the Lord is good." is one verse. The story of Daniel and his compatriots is cast as a scientific experiment concerning their kosher diet. Romans 1:20 tells us that the power and character of God is clearly seen in the creation.

    I don't claim that evolution (common ancestry of all living things) is "wrong" I claim that there is no evidence for it. Actually you can't say that a "faith" like evolution is wrong, just that it isn't Biblical or doesn't meet certain criteria, etc.

    I don't deny science, I deny false claims.

    What is it that makes you believe evolution to be "right" if you do?

    Haemoglobin-like cells were reported by news articles which preceeded the publication. ... that's not far from saying "blood like" is it? Lighten up! Collagen was also reported. The paleontologists used the term "spongy tissue." Any one of these is a shock to folks who think the material is 68 myo.

    Obfuscation is a technique to move attention from contradictory evidence!

    John0877
    "Obfuscation is a technique to move attention from contradictory evidence!" so is constantly changing your story when new scientific data is discovered. you have to plug new discoveries into your story and change it to still validate your story to yourself else you would risk the story falling apart and being exposed as what it is, a story.
    No, John0877, obfuscation is not in your words, "constantly changing your story when new scientific data is discovered." That is actually more like scientific modeling. And that is part of the process of designing new hypotheses to be tested according to the scientific method.

    However, when did I change my story according to new data? New data, in my experience, help me understand more clearly the Biblical model I believe, and help me expand it into new areas I hadn't considered before. But I've not really had to change my basic Biblical creation model to accomodate any scientific data newly published during my lifetime.

    Do you know any such data that you don't think I've considered?

    Hey, Pastor Walt, go back and read the story of Job again. God inflicted the miserable pain and circumstances on Job in response to a challenge from Satan. And God won the contest after Job suffered horribly. Compared to the torture inflicted on prisoners at Guantanamo, humans are pikers compared to God. And you expect me to "believe" in such a cruel God? Well, at least he didn't kill Job as he did about 30 million other humans with the great mythical flood, the plagues in Egypt, and His other bloodthirsty events. No thanks, I'd just as soon worship a serial killer. Of course Satan is responsible for my attitude (or maybe the evil tooth fairy).

    -FENWICK-

    Here is the reference to the dino haemoglobin article. Perhaps you'll learn something:

    M. Schweitzer and I. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp. 55–57, June 1997.

    Lies?

    Amazing...you're descriptions of the various aspects of the Creation Museum were wildly inaccurate. I'm supposed to trust your interpretation of scientific data? Thanks, but no thanks...

    Answers in Genesis response:
    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/05/08/what-are-we-...

    Some websites of interest:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org
    http://www.creationmoments.com
    http://www.sermonaudio.com

    Comment:

    The above article is an unfair repersentation of Answers in Genesis museum.

    Please read the Bible (or anything for that matter) and know it extremely well before you try and comment on it please. If this is the way one conducts experiments under the banner of science I feel the true meaning of science has been greatly let down, infact I would declare this realm of 'science' to be physdo-science basing its results on assumttions and pure facts.

    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

    Could Walt, Jon, Steve Sorensen, christianman, Gamer_2k4, and Bill drop me an email at hansmast at hansmast dot com?

    Can i ask this question to the religous persons here, do they believe that water is created from 2 hyrogen atoms with 1 oxygen atom and if so - why???

    Walt
    Yes, I do believe that the smallest unit of water is the H2O molecule. This is based on observations, calculations, etc., made in the present and repeatable. I'm curious as to why you ask, and especially why you used the word "created." Speaking of water and of creation, you may enjoy this Bible quotation, "they want to forget that long ago the heavens and the earth were made at God's command. The earth came out of water and was made from water." (part of 2 Peter 3:5) Blessings
    for truth about evolution go to http://www.evolution-facts.org

    for truth about evolution go to http://www.evolution-facts.org

    I did ask because isnt it scientists that have estabilished that water was "created" from these 2 elements, even though we cant see them, but the evidence is there and CAN be proven, whereas "creation theory and its addons" cannot be.

    I used the word created, as in the word created, no other reason,

    Walt
    I wondered about the word "create" because I thought it was a word for an evolutionist wouldn't use. Scientists have discovered water's composition but not its creation. Does this line of inquiry on your part have something to do with Biblical creation or the Answers in Genesis museum? If so I'd like to know what the connection is.
    True "Science" is able to be duplicated.
    Evolution has never been duplicated. Neither has creation.
    Neither Evolution nor creation is science.

    It is up to the individual to decide whether it's more plausible to them for a Supreme Being beyond the limits of time and space, known as (a) God to create the world and everything in it, or for everything to have "always been here" and through purely accidental and random means, arrange into the world and everything in it.

    Both concepts are accepted by faith.
    If your choice is Evolution, you'll eventually die and turn into dust. You have no reason for being here. The actual fact that you are here is purely accidental. You have nobody but yourself to respect, fear, and love. The highest power that exists is the fallible human mind... a product of chance.

    If your choice is Bible-based creation, you have a reason for being here. You are responsible for every action that you take and every choice that you make. You'll eventually die and go to one of two places, all as a result of the choices you have made. You have a God to fear, respect, and love. He is your highest power. He is above your little problems. He is infallible... not a product of any human mind.

    In the end, the choice is yours.

    Walt
    Michael, I agree. I'm campaigning here for truth in science! No one has seen compelling evidence of common ancestry of all living things. No one should be allowed to say they have without being challenged. Faith I can respect, even if I disagree. And we can discuss our faiths on a level playing field.
    Can you give a citation or URL which proves your claim?

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/

    I took the entire web "tour" and could find NO exhibits or text which make the claim you cite. Neither could I find a graphic matching the one that leads this article.

    The facility itself wasn't going to open until June 6th, 2007, but according to a sidebar that date has been postponed indefinitely because of construction problems. So, you didn't walk through the actual building and you didn't see this on the web site, unless you now claim that they made changes since your blog posting on May 3rd.

    Did you make this story up?

    Science is based on experiments and evidence,

    Evolution is something that happens longer than our life times and so we cant be there to prove how we evolved from apes or its ancestors etc, but one could say it has been proved by experiments already - just look at all the different species of dogs, i mean if there is no evidence of one particular breed of dog being bread from another by man, are you creationists saying god must have created it??

    Walt
    You are so right, Matt! Science is based on experiments and evidence. And the dogs do not show anything more about evolution (common ancestry of all living things) than they show about Biblical creation. They are all dogs and can interbreed. In fact dogs, coyotes, foxes, wolves and dingoes can all interbreed. By faith I know that these are all part of the same created kind with adaptability built in. By faith you claim that a dog and a cat have a common ancestor. But there's not scientific observation that shows that, let alone that a dog and a human and an ant have a common ancestor whose descentants developed into all three.
    Holy damn it is annoying when people argue when they only believe things to be true.
    Life is belief, you think you exist. You could be anywhere, even a piece of gods mind. Nobody knows, if you want to find out, find out, stop arguing about it if you haven't seen it for yourself. I've never seen a dinosaur, fossils don't speak.
    I believe what I have seen. A great philosopher said "I only know that I don't know"

    Walt
    So, BladeSling, you don't take a position on evolution and creation, or on the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum. I'm curious about why you posted in this discussion, then. Maybe you need to participate in a discussion of science rather than history, or about something in your neighborhood. Blessings! (Assuming)
    Walt,
    We don't know anything about dinosaurs, for all we know, they could have been really intelligent and created nuclear bombs and blew themselves up. Or, some aliens dropped them off in what they thought could support them for a number of years. Or we could even take on the theory of evolution.
    And god, it could have easily played a role in all this. That is, if there is a god. But we don't really know that either. Things must be absolute to know them, and arguing about something you believe in is terribly wrong unless someone is attacking what you believe in. Then you just straight up throw dirt in there face. This does not call for an argument though, especially not persuasive arguments on such idiotic topics.
    You cannot prove anything by arguing these two topics, I promise. You may get someone to believe that dinosaurs exist, but it doesn't make it true.

    BladeSling,

    you wrote: "A great philosopher said "I only know that I don't know"".

    Wrong. The correct translation is "I know WHAT I don't know".

    O.K. You don't believe in what you don't see. So you don't believe in radio waves, you don't believe in electric power, you don't believe in UV and X-rays. A.s.o.
    If you were blind, you wouldn't believe in anything??
    Of course you can just close your eyes and say to yourself "I'm not there".
    Or you can think that the world turns around you. Psychologists call that schizoid.

    To all those who don't "believe" in evolution:
    I've seen evolution happen in nature. You can see evolving plants in your own garden. You just have to WATCH.

    You can open your eyes and see or close your eyes and believe. It's your choice. But please don't force others to close their eyes, too.

    Just learn to respect other beings, no matter if they are humans, or animals, or plants. And when you've learned that, you will understand that they're all related. If you don't want to believe that you and an ant or a tree have common ancestors, it's because you don't RESPECT them enough.

    Walt
    BladeSling, you sound like you wrote some comments to make without regard to what I've said and asked. We actually agree at some level. I have essentialy said that evolution is a faith and that Biblical creation is a faith and that each is chosen by faith to use as a framework for understanding observations of the universe made in the present (of the scientist). The arguments I've made have been with evolutionists who say that Biblical creation is a faith yet evolution is empirically observed science. Why is it relevant to what I've said here that little is known about dinosaurs from observational science? I'd agree with that. And I still don't see why you are posting here if you have no opinion about the Answers in Genesis museum or about evolution or creation. Any comments on these issues?
    Jesus Loves You!

    I just hate them damned homersexters! They are all gonna rot in hayll! ya'll fags r frum satun! but I'm protected frum that kind of think'n cuz I got Jaysis deep inside me! maybe even a little too deep ;)

    Would you people please stop equating belief in science and evoluation with atheism? Also, just because you don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible doesn't mean you can't believe in God? I wish the frickin frackin fundies would stop highjacking Christianity.

    No. Their problem is that they aren't smoking any "green herb".

    Well, I have never pushed my faith upon anyone, until now. My savior once told me the complete truth. And I quote "Evolution is FACT, not a theory".
    So you non-believers can go on arguing with your self important diatribes on what ever little facts pop into your heads and sling them at one another in a sad attempt to persuade the other you are the most correct.
    My Lord God Carl Sagan put forth Cosmos as his full and spiritually guided message. He then died and was resurrected on the Discovery channel Thursdays 8:00pm EST to live again.
    Thanks be to Carl.

    Wow... paganism at it's finest... next we will be worshipping Mr. Spock, since Jim and Bones thought he was LOGICAL. Oh that’s right those who smoke the herb already do.

    All I want to ask is, if the process of decay based on half lives of various radioactive material along with other datable matter create a 70 million year old t.o.d. for large dino's... "how in the world do they find soft tissue which most pathologist and paleontologists believe became dust or was neutralized by mineralization after 10,000 or even 100,000 years?" (T-Rex blood cells found in not one but several 65-70 million year old dino's)

    Could it be that there is a problem with the dating method or when the last of these behemoths died out?

    Your turn Dr. Spock. I humble myself to your Logical

    PS. The Bible was hijacked by fundies as far back as Origen 250 ad, Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D)Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.) Shall I go on, ahh but your probably to high to read.

    It's pretty sickening reading this thread of comments. Apparently the vast majority of people posting here have the same capacity for deductive reasoning as toothpaste.

    Particularly the guy below who compared the universe to a cake, in possibly the worst analogy ever. "If you see a cake, there must be a baker. Therefore, since the universe exists, there must be a god."

    No. This is stupid. sorry.

    Let me see if I can explain this in terms that will affect a majority of you. Religion is a tool. Created by men. For the purpose of... what?

    A) Spreading knowledge.
    B) Saving people's souls so they can go to heaven.
    B) Indoctrinating masses to behave in a way that goes against their natural instincts, for the gain of those who run the organization.

    You're being manipulated, fools. If the meek shall inherit the earth, tell me why the pope needs a solid gold cross around his neck.

    "The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state of the whole globe. The pope, as the visible ruler of this immense amassment of wealth, is consequently the richest individual of the twentieth century. No one can realistically assess how much he is worth in terms of billions of dollars."

    This quote is from the wall street journal. Where do you think those vast riches came from?

    You, my friends. You. Keep buying into the big lie.
    When all is said and done, no one gives a damn what you believe, so enjoy your ignorance.

    ATTENTION, OLD TESTAMENT YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISTS:

    why do you hate Jesus?

    Dinosaurs didn't exist. Neither did god. Paleontologists and philosophers get bored too you know.

    "Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.".........

    Hmmm ... so God really wanted us all to be vegetarians?! Whoo-hoo!

    Honestly... I think the problem is more likely a lack of green herb smoking...

    I think someone's been eating a bit too much "pork sword"

    Unfortunately, there is no proof of any god. All bibles are just books and nothing more. Just because the book exists doesn't prove that anything in the book is facts.

    You're all wrong, Creationalists and those who just apply mere sensible logical reasoning

    -

    God created us 1 second ago with all our memories from birth to this debate on evolution!

    Guys, give up the debate with the religious nuts. It's the swing voters that count - "Well, with all those actual facts, the idea that the earth was wished into being by an invisible megalomaniac who thrives on adoration and vengeance does sound *slightly* odd..."

    When I come to the USA some day I'm so going to this museum. I think they'll find to their dismay that it's going to be filled with guffawing tourists thinking they've arrived in the official shrine of the idiots.

    Sorry guys - I know it's hard to see that you're being stupid (remember when you were a teenager and you thought you knew best and you look back and, well, you were just being stupid). But for people who look at the evidence, it's like someone expecting you to respect their view that aeroplanes are gods - because they've never seen one up close.

    It's sad, really. Some day, fundamentalist will come to realize that they're stance on this issue was the leading cause and source for atheism. They are setting up a large group of people to believe that - If the earth is not 6000 years old, Christianity is completely wrong about everything.

    Congratulations, your persistence will create more atheists than your idea of Satan ever could.

    oops, said "they're" and meant to type "their"

    I hesitate to get involved in such an emotional debate, but this is getting ridiculous; as a follower of Jesus AND an engineer who trusts the scientific method I'd like to suggest that we all put our insecurities aside & use our (God given) minds.

    Jesus said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, MIND & strength", and "I am the way, the TRUTH and the light" (my emphasis); God is not threatened by our increased understanding of His work.

    Can I recommend learning to read the Bible text as what it was written to be, I'd recommend getting hold of a book called "How to read the Bible for all it's worth" by Gordon Fee.

    For the record, I believe that God created and sustains our world; I also believe with scientific study we can find out a lot about how He did so, and with biblical study we can find out why, and what to do about both.

    Cue rants, attacks, insults etc.

    JonS

    What's the gist of the recommended book?

    Not sure it's the "gist" of the book, but the reason I suggested it was that it encourages understanding that the Bible contains many different types of writing, such as History, Law, Parable, Poetry, Prophecy, etc, and that we need to read each as what it is intended to be, not just treat them all the same. It also suggests researching the background of the text, and trying to understand what the author intended it to be used for.

    JonS

    (pleasantly surprised by a sensible question)

    I think it is just FINE until people believe - for themselves - whatever they want. It only gets problematic, if for the sake of gaining influence, they start promoting nonsense as scientific fact.

    You think 5x3 is 12, ok by me. Just don't try to convince me or my kids of the same crazy, bleeding nonsense by spending 25 million dollars on disney-style installations.

    I think GOD exists in your minds. And if this gives you comfort for the time - sure to come - when you too wither, die and turn into worm food, then be my guest and fool yourself. Only not others.

    Please.

    I think it is just FINE until people believe - for themselves - whatever they want. It only gets problematic, if for the sake of gaining influence, they start promoting nonsense as scientific fact.

    You think 5x3 is 12, ok by me. Just don't try to convince me or my kids of the same crazy, bleeding nonsense by spending 25 million dollars on disney-style installations.

    I think GOD exists in your minds. And if this gives you comfort for the time - sure to come - when you too wither, die and turn into wormfood, then be my guest and fool yourself. Only not others.

    Please.

    Oh, and dinosaurs had large serrated teeth, so they could pray better!

    I whole heartedly agree with the goal of the book, and I've spent considerable effort trying to do just that. For example, I believe that Genesis was written much later than traditional dates for Moses, and was a collection of several writers who borrowed from several cultures around them (eg, Gilgamesh epic & Hammurabi). I believe that the reason it was written was to provide a an emerging nation of Israel a national identity (I think early redactions of the Pentateuch began 700 to 600 BCE).

    I think the Gospels were written to prop up an emerging religion. I believe that the obvious evolution of the idea of Jesus between Paul and the Gospels shows that there is an clear element of untruth in the founding of Christianity (eg. the virgin birth stories).

    Dude looks like a lady (Aerosmith 19:87)

    If the Christian God made Adam and Eve. And we are all their grand grand grand... grand children. Then...
    Where did the black/asian/whatever people come from?

    I always heard that it happened at the Tower of Babel, when the earth was all one language and God was scared that they would build a tower all the way to heaven - so, God changed their languages and races. It doesn't say he changed their race, but that's the way I heard it went down.

    Take a minute to process this. According to YE time lines, the Tower of Babel story occurred in 2242 BCE. However, Ancient Egyptians develop proto-hieroglyphics long before this around 3400 BCE, and ancient Chinese people known as Yangshao existed along the central Yellow River in China around 4000 BCE with their own language and race.

    All sides take a step back. http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=203...

    Check this link out and think about the true nature of "god", is there a god... Or are there more important things to think about?

    A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.
    This is an excellent text linking all the sciences together and creating a big picture of how our theories have been reached. Religion does not apply... You can never know, you may only learn.

    That took me to a video on genocide in Darfur.

    Also, am I the only one having difficulty with the image verification code?

    The falsity of ID is proved by the existence of those who "believe in" it.

    eye-of-horus

    Hello, I;m from Australia. LOL u guys are really gay christians. Dinosaur eating a cocnut???!!!! Dicks, u guys are more retarded than tom cruise. I can't believe how weak minded u are. Please don't tell me the US is all like this....

    There has never been any scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. True science is based on observation and experiments dealing with cause and effect. No living organism has never been observed coming from anything but another living organism, nor has anything with the appearance of design ever been observed resulting from chaos and disorder without the intervention of a designer. Intelligent design is the only rational explanation for the universe, with a complexity ranging from the infinitely small to the infinitely large. Belief in evolution requires too much faith.

    "Intelligent design is the only rational explanation for the universe, with a complexity ranging from the infinitely small to the infinitely large. Belief in evolution requires too much faith."

    Could you please tell me then.. who created the creator? If the universe requires design, doesn't something capable of creating the complexity that is the universe require design too?

    I only have a few things to say. Although i am a semi-atheist (i do not believe in a true god, but i believe there is some form of spiritual energy out there, and i believe in reincarnation)i do recall there being a phrase that you Christians used to use. whether it was in the bible or not, im not sure. it was "judge not, lest ye be judged yourself." that is what is so irritating about modern religion. people will pick and choose when their religion is convenient for them. ive seen and heard of some horrible things done, supposedly in the name of god, from any religion. i know that the underlying meaning of ANY religion is to provide a guide to being a good person, and to live a happy life. is being hateful of others who are not like you a way of leading a happy life? religion has been tarnished by mans arrogance (hell, look at the crusades, or the Spanish inquisition, or even the founding of the greater portion of America itself!) the way i define a fundamentalist is those who interpret their religious texts literally, rather than searching for the true, implied meaning.

    If everyone would honestly look at the FACTS (science) you will notice that they heavily favor creation rather than evolution. The problem the scientific world is facing now is how much propaganda is being inserted in the teaching, horribly distorting the real science (pure fact).

    Paging Dr. Cox... Paging Dr. Cox...

    You're WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG, WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...
    You're WRONG, You're WRONG, You're WRONG.

    All you have to do is open a recent science book.

    not_bob
    Please present the "FACTS" - show anything that is measurable, testable and truly represents evidence of intelligent design - you cant so feel free to flame me with all your bible quatations now.
    "Paging Dr. Cox... Paging Dr. Cox...

    You're WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG, WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...
    You're WRONG, You're WRONG, You're WRONG.

    All you have to do is open a recent science book."

    My point exactly. Recent "science" books are mostly propaganda with a few facts mixed in to make them look authentic to the unobservant readers. They are deliberately designed and written to undermine the Bible. True fact finders are constantly exposing the lies of modern "science" and verifying the stories of creationists.

    not_bob
    Creationist fools.... If science is a lie and you feel that human kind is being lead astray by the evils of science then please feel free to be the Luddites that you are. Move to the Pennsalvania Dutch countryside and live the Quaker lifestyle, forego all forms of technology because ALL TECHNOLOGY IS BASED ON SCIENCE, give up your cell phone, your xbox, your telivions, your computer and oh yeah dont foget - give up those horrible anti-biotics that save so many life every day. So how many of you creationist fools could actually stand to live your life without the benefits of science ?
    Walt
    My points here have consistently been very much like what you say (minus the vituperations, of course), except that **you have not applied the scientific method to evolution.** Yes, techology IS based on science (by which I mean repeatable observations made in the present). But evolution and creation are actually history, not science. My point is that evolution is not demonstrated by such data. All the scientific data are held in common by evolutionists, Biblical creationists and others. Evolution, creation, intelligent design, etc., are interpretations, constructs, models, etc. This is quite different from technology! Your "Luddite" comparison, at least for the vast majority of creationists, and particularly those who use computers, is a straw man argument, that is, made up for rhetoric and not truly applicable as you have used it. Antibiotics, to take just one of those you mention, were and are developed through repeatable observations made in the present. This may be woven into an evolutionary model of history or a creationist model of history equally well.
    Sure, you have no proof to show that they are wrong, so like the leftist you are, you decide they must be smoking herb. What do you smoke that makes you so intollerant of others beliefs? You sure sound prejudiced to me.

    Heaven is merely a theory as parallel universes are merely scientific theory. Bigfoot told me that his god told him to tell me to tell you that you are his favorite and that he has a spot saved for you next to him and his only begotten crucified, messianic son, El Chewbacca kabra Yeti Christ the third. -is that believable? have we used the superior parts of our brains (as well as the reptilian part) to invent Bigfoot and its god, the same way as early "civilized" humans invented thousands of personal deities, asserted their own ideas about what their god approves, posited claims about the existence of these deities without evidence, and have given attributes to these supposed inconceivable gods as well as the planes of existence in which they dwell? heaven and hell exist as much as middle earth, the hogwart academy, never never land, carebear castle, and Gotham city. Is it true that dino's lived along side men only a few thousand years ago? The Flintstones cartoon series must be a documentary, right?

    Darwin himself said that future scientists would find fossils of “transitional forms.” Here’s what he meant: If fish really evolved into animals, you would find fossils of creatures that were half-fish, half-animal. This would show that one species was making a transition into another.
    So far, no transitional forms have ever been discovered! And of course, no transitional creature exists today. Let’s be honest: Have you ever gone to the zoo and seen a cross between a fish and an animal? Or a half-man, half-monkey? All the creatures living on this planet are perfectly formed. There is no record of any animal, fish, beast or creature EVER turning into a different species.
    In fact, the real fossil record shows almost no change. That means many of the creatures on this Earth have not changed since the beginning of time.
    Here’s something else you won’t read in the newspaper: Hundreds of scientists and university professors are coming out against evolution. This should be front-page news. But you’ll never hear about it in the media.
    Check out what some of them are saying about these missing fossils:
    • Professor Steven J. Gould, Harvard University: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”
    Translation: Dr. Gould is a little too kind. The number of transitional forms is ZERO.
    • Dr. Colin Patterson, British Museum of Natural History: “I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
    Translation: There’s simply no hard evidence for evolution.
    • Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History: “It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another.”
    Translation: Darwin’s theory doesn’t have a leg to stand on…

    At some point in our history, thousands of new creatures suddenly appeared. And the scientists actually agree on this. This one fact is enough to put the “theory” of evolution to rest forever.
    Think about it… Evolution says that new forms of life never appear suddenly. They tell us new species evolve slowly over “millions of years.” They claim that small mutations occur to a single species and that over time, a new creature is born. If that’s true, then how can thousands of new creatures come to life all at once – like they did during this one period of history?
    Sounds crazy, doesn’t it?
    Their own scientific discoveries do a nice job of disproving evolution. Yet these very same scientists go on TV and tell us that evolution is “tested and proven.”

    Rafael (06/17/08)
    My old agnostic heart did rejoice when I finally scrolled down to the end of your rant. Wow! You were sure filled with the spirit (or spirits?) when you put this together. I didn't count the keystrokes, but surely you could have expressed yourself more concisely. I suggest that you buy a copy of "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White. Put it on the shelf beside your Bible. Study it and apply the principles set forth in it. William Strunk, Jr., said that "Vigorous writing is concise." Amen!

    -FENWICK-

    Interesting how if you post proof of the impossibility of evolution and quote prominent scientists that expose the vast gaping holes in the evolution theory proving it absolutely false how your posts are removed and you get blocked from posting any more...

    But I believe in purple dinosaurs and a god based upon my grandmother. . . . She didn't have time for all this nonsense!!!!

    This artical reminds me of this one time at industral waste camp!

    GET OVER IT GOD DOESN'T EXIST (or atleast a failed hypothosist)And religion is Childish. oh yeah!stop trying to convert me becuase its not going to happen, you guys are just wasting your time.

    oh yeah btw never date a mormon! *shakes head* that was a mistake.....

    Remember, Jesus loves you so much that if you don't love him back he will torture you for eternity. If that doesn't convince you atheists of God's magnificent beneficence then nothing will.

    Oh, and to the anonymous poster who claimed that there are no transitional fossils, I suggest he research, for example:
    Tristychius & similar hybodonts; Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids; Paleospinax; Spathobatis; Protospinax etc in the evolution of sharks and rays.

    There are literally hundreds of transitional fossils (indeed, there are very clearly transitional forms alive today - who needs fossils?).

    Also, the idea that gaps in the fossil record indicate terminal weakness in evolutionary theory is odd, to say the least. There are millions of years in the fossil records that have no fossils, transtional, intermediate or cladistically monophyletic.

    The paleontologist who disproved evolutionary theory would not be mocked by the scientific community - they would be praised and rewarded, with a Nobel prize as the least they could expect. Einstein disproved Newtonian mechanics (fundamental to the philosophical basis of science for centuries), and was hardly pilloried by the establishment, though many found his results unpalatable and disruptive.

    So if the fossil record is so damning of evolution, why hasn't any brave paleaontologist made themselves a rich and famous Nobel laureate revealing that fact to the satisfaction of any of their colleagues? (Strangely, even the odd, and I mean odd, creationist paleontologist like Ross hasn't made that claim in their professional work.)

    As a Pastafarian, I find the running arguments about the existence or nonexistence of god a foolish waste of time. Of course there is a god, he/she/it is The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The FSMcreated the earth and the whole of the universe that you see. Mountains, trees, a midget, and pirates were created on the same day. Blessed be his/her/it's noodly appendages. RAmen.

    Want to become a Pastafarian? See our website: "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." Learn about the ample rewards offered in Pastafarian heaven. Learn why age-dating fossils and geological samples yields meaningless data. Learn the actual cause of Global Warming (no, it's not greenhouse gases). Pastafarian commandments, unlike the anally tight commandments delivered to the Jewish people by Charlton Heston, are just sensible suggestions. Our numbers are growing; become a convert now while openings exist.

    May you be touched by his/her/its noodly appendages.
    RAmen

    That's FENWICK not FEMWICK, and yes, I do know the difference between the possesive ITS and the contraction IT'S. May the FSM forgive me for typographical errors and allow me to dwell in his saucy grace forever. RAmen

    people choose religion because they can't cope with the fact that they can die at any second. hense liked minded people come together and prase a God or Gods. Remember kid FEAR is a key artical of Faith! Fear of being sinful and having ur soul taken down to hell where the Fly Spegitti Monster has doggy sex with you without lube for the rest of time!

    I have nothing to fear. If i die i die. game over! i will leave my family members my Debt. lol

    Why do people have to look out for something that offers protection? Why even be afriad? Silly HUUmans i will never understand you people.

    Oh, ChrisTopher, you illiterate fool, the "Fly Spegitti Monster" would not dirty his Noodley Appendages on your sorry ass in hell or elsewhere. There is no Pastafarian Hell, we have only a paradise with a beer volcano and a stripper factory. Please, no more insults about our Noodly Deity.

    By the way, what galaxy are you from? You refer to us as "Silly HUUmans" that you will never understand.

    I will pray for you.

    RAmen

    what galax am i from? i don't know. ;( I'm Not human because i evovled during my lifetime. I never had to seek comfort in a power that i i never met. i knew from the start that im going to die, so i decided to just live and not give too much thought about it. You and your silly religious people forcing your Faith on everyone. The followers of Christ for the most part dont even follow what Christ taught. The funny thing is that i know more about his teaching then most christians, not to mention i follow them better then most Christians.

    just remember as Brother Cavil said in Battlestar galatica
    "Fear is a key artical for FAITH."

    and yes i know i am bad at english writing. but who cares i am a Artist.

    Beer volcano and Stripper factory? I'm in! By noodle, I'm ready to proclaim my faith! Oodles of faith! Big, heavy, lasagna faith! Extra cheese with that faith, please, surely the Flying Spaghetti Monster provides a paradise with a cheese river spanned by a pepperoni bridge... the strippers have 2 arms, one to bring you a pizza and the other to bring you a beer (unless you desire a three-arm stripper to bring a shot of whiskey also). Ahhh... PARADISE!!!!!!!!!!

    Please, Christopher, "me and my silly religious people" are not trying to force Pastafarianism on you. You must be confusing us with Christians or one of the other 3,000 or so religions on this planet. We just don't give a damn whether you are religious or not. That's a matter of your personal choice.

    Just don't be bitching when you find out how much we are enjoying Pastafarian Paradise while you are painting, sculpting, or assembling your art in some dingy corner of the universe for all eternity. We have pirates, strippers, and a beer volcano to look forward to. That beats any secular canvas or lump of clay you will ever work with.

    Based on your first communication, I was pretty sure you were a "space cadet." Battle Star Galactica has been an inspiration to many mentally handicapped people. I'm glad it serves as your guiding light.

    I will continue to pray for you...RAmen.
    FENWICK

    We don't have a Pastafarian church here locally, fortunately, the faith is compatable with our local Budweiserian Church of the Trinity (beer, wine, and the holy liquor), which has announced a welcome to all Pastafarians. Father MacPimp will absolve you of the sin of not getting drunk last Sunday, you need only say 7 "Hail Bloody Mary's".
    May we bask in the buzz of the Beer Volcano! May we relish the delight of the fake-breasted products of the Stripper Factory! In faith of the clear platformed high-heel shoes...
    RAmen

    @AIROVERWATER

    Dear Airoverwater,

    Isn't it interesting how we wags can turn a serious string of philosophical discussion about whether God does or doesn't exist and whether T. rex ate coconuts or not into a fun-filled discussion of the blessings and grace of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    Thank you for the open invitation to attend your local Budweiserian Church. I will do so when I am in your area. I assume your communion involves beer (Bud of course)and pretzels. I will willingly partake of that, although I prefer the Pastafarian communion involving garlic bread and cheap red wine.

    Is your church the First Church of Budweiser or the Reformed Church of Bud? You didn't state your location, but I presumed it to be in Milwaukie.

    Yes, our Pastafarian Paradise has much to offer the redeemed and purified. As you so aptly noted, the Stripper Factory takes custom orders and can produce models with three arms (and miscellaneous crevices)to suit your individual needs and wishes.

    I must go now and say seven Bloody Marys.

    May His Noodlyness continue to bless and keep you in peace and joy.

    RAmen,
    FENWICK

    ashley
    wow.. haha awesome article! Very humorous without necessarily trying to be. Making science fun, I like it.
    Jim Myres

    Back to the fact that the Creation Museum is open for business. It is just south of Cincinnati, Ohio.

    I have never been there but my partner at work went there last summer to see what it was all about. He was amazed that:
    1 - There were so many people there - he estimated about four thousand that Saturday
    2 - They were presenting lectures by people who had scientific credentials and supported their point of view.
    3 - That the exhibits were professionally done, the grounds were beautiful.
    4 - People actually believed what they were seeing

    We just didn't expect this level of presentation.

    Not only is the Creation Museum (I hate to use that term - it seems to give it validity) open for business, they are influencing other institutions. Two examples, I have a friend that works for the Museum Center in Cincinnati. He has told me that people now show up at our museum and want to argue about the time lines. In fact he has told me that the Creation Museum will provide guides for church groups that want to visit other museums to give their them the Creationist view of the exhibits. Secondly we have heard that other institutions such as Mammoth Cave is sending representatives to the Creation Museum to see what it is about because visitors are showing up at Mammoth Cave and disputing their time lines.

    Finally, my fundamentalist in-laws are feeling empowered by the Creation Museum. They take this very serious. This is a threat to science.

    JIM MYRES,
    That's the sad part of the Creation Museum, it gives pseudo-legitimacy to the outrageous claim of an earth that is just 6,000 years old and the co-existence of man and dinosaurs. It's too bad that fundamentalists are so eager to have this hogwash be true.

    The legend of Noah's Ark is now central to fundamentalist dogma which asserts that every word in the Bible is true.
    No amount of logic can shatter such a well-accepted myth. The Creationist/Intelligent Design movement threatens to undermine all of the scientific progress of the last 150 years. Science is based on observation and logical thought: Christian Fundamentalim is based on faith. No amount of discussion will ever broach this chasm.

    We can't close the Creation Museum, but we must fight hard to keep their paradigm out of our classrooms. See the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for a "creative " approach to squelching the introduction of this crap into science classes in schools.

    FENWICK

    I was expecting to read an interesting article that was scientific, but instead it is just scoffing at the thought that T. Rex was created by an intelligent being, and ate coconuts. No other theory is given about T. Rex and if T. Rex ate meat. You can't tell by the teeth if some animal is a meat eater or ate plants or coconuts. I think it's more outrageous to claim that we evolved from complex molecules, and not provide any evidence for it, than to claim that the Bible is true. Don't listen to scoffers. Scoffing only means that they feel threatened by what they call nonsense. Creationism does threaten evolution, very easily. So come up with another theory that is based on science, not speculation and imagination.

    @ ANONYMOUS (previous post)
    I don't feel threatened by Creationist nonsense. You folks are on a different wavelength. Your paradigm is based on your belief that the Bible is literally, word-for-word God's revealed truth. That's fine with me; build Creation Museums, preach it in your churches, home-school your children as you wish, but please keep your beliefs out of public school science classrooms.

    First, there is a constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state; Creationism is based on religion. Second, there is nothing to support the myths of Creationism. In fact, there is ample evidence that Creationism is wrong; T.rex and people co-existing? Oh please, the fossil records lack any evidence of that phenomenon. In fact, we can be sure that dinosaurs and humans are separated by nearly 60 million years on the time scale. But that's impossible you say, because the earth is only about 6,000 years old. Here again, there is ample evidence for a much older planet, but understanding the proof would require diligence and effort on your part. It's simpler for you to accept dogma put forth by fundamentalist leaders.

    No, Creationism does not threaten the theory of evolution. It only threatens to undermine scientific thought and methodology in the minds of those who embrace this nonsense. This confusion is especially tragic for young people who may be led to believe that superstition and magic are more important than progress in medicine and technology.

    Evolution is a theory, but it's supported by massive evidence. What evidence do you Creationists offer other than "The Bible, which is God's word, says it, I believe it, and that ends it." I think Creationists suffer from the "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts" syndrome.

    -FENWICK-

    mossnisse
    I am much more concerned about how to fit al parasitoid wasp’s and beetles in the Ark than the few dinosaur species we now of. Actually for the beetles it’s maybe possible to store the eggs in some micro containers but how with the parasitoid’s wasp’s where the eggs is in other insects? Only the superfamily Ichneumonoidea is estimated to contain well over 80,000 different species and I think that is a very moderate estimation. The answer can be that the ark utilized some sort of hyperspace where the inside could be larger than the outside so that even a appropriate large sample of al the species population could fit so that there would be no inbreeding depression and to low genetic variation in the rescued populations. Another possible way to tackle the inbreeding depression would be to genetic manipulate the individuals so that there is no deterious recessive alleles in the sampled individuals.
    @ Nils Erickson

    Nils, I would rather discuss "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" than how to squeeze 80,000 species of parasitoid wasps into the Ark. Obviously, you understand DNA, genetics, and wasps. Your commments are clearly "tongue-in-cheek, " but the danger is that some "fundies" will take them seriously and use them to support the mythology of Noah's Ark. Better to use the old rubber stamp BULLSHIT any time we see the word Ark.

    -FENWICK-

    "Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and
    children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt,
    tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one
    inch towards uniformity." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia,
    1782.
    "The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they
    [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity
    and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all
    others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion
    of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801

    "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to
    liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his
    abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to
    Horatio G. Spafford, 1814.

    "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
    maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade
    of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will
    always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson
    to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.

    "The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as
    President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And
    they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God,
    eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of
    man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too,
    in their opinion." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.

    "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law, and
    ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very
    formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."
    --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

    This is the foundation of our country. Thomas Jefferson was not an atheist, but a deist. So don't use that argument in rebuttal. Believe what you want in your religion, that is your right. But, you do not have the right to push your religion on me and my children under the guise of "fairness". If you wish to have ID or Creationism taught, form your own school and teach your own children. You have no right to force your religious beliefs upon me, masking it under the guise of science. It is not science, it is religious belief taken on faith, not emperical evidence. In other words, my believer friends, you can believe what you will, but you may not take money from my pocket to promote it.

    Sorry, I forgot this eloquent statement. It should be taken to heart...

    "May [our Declaration of Independence] be to the world, what I
    believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but
    finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains
    under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them
    to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of
    self-government... All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights
    of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman, 1826.

    Thank you, Anonymous, for the selected quotations of Thomas Jefferson and your own observations. Geoffrey Chaucer concluded in the 14th Century that the clergy were largely parasitic rapscallions who used fear and tradition to control their flocks. Here we are at the start of the 21st Century, and much of mankind is still enslaved by the same primitive superstition. For example, Rick Warren influences millions to finance his church and buy his wondrous book. Warren is a megalomaniac who loves power and he may even believe some of his BS. Ted Haggard, on the other hand, before he was dragged out of his closet, was a hypocrite who held power over millions of evangelicals. But you are correct, Anonymous, religion is based on faith and that wall is difficult to broach. Like you, I just ask that the Creationists, Intelligent Design believers, and "young earth" believers keep their paradigms where they belong: in their churches and homes, not in our schools.

    Two things I learned in this thread (that I didn't know before):

    1. This text box will accept a LOT of text. I am impressed. Contrast to YouTube's 500-word limit.
    (btw, rafael, when you copy-paste other authors' works verbatim, it's polite to cite them properly, to avoid the impression of plagiarism)

    2. El Chewbacca kabra Yeti Christ the First came back TWICE!! Now I understand why he invested so heavily in magma and orbital rights ...

    Thank you for your Chewbacca weird shit. Takes all kinds of nuts to make a universe, so we need you.

    In the area of Intelligent Design, consider the male prostate gland or the appendix. If we were created in the image of God, he is a fucked up dude. Pity Him.

    Finally they give at least a quasi-plausible explanation for dinosaurs rather than just ignoring them completely as many fundamentalist Christians do.

    This probably won't be read at the bottom of gazillions of nutter posts, but Genesis doesn't say what the sea creatures ate, before or after the Fall. People who want us to believe the Bible literally are very rarely literal (or literate) in their own readings...

    @ ADAM

    Coconut palms are very salt tolerant. They thrive right next to sandy beaches. Before the Fall, those ocean critters subsisted on coconuts that washed out to sea. Of course they did!

    FENWICK

    qraal
    So true Fenwick... it's an never-ending cycle of idiocy spawning ignorance spawning idiocy...
    OMG!! Bible thumpers will try to justify anything scientific with some lame idea. They just can't accept the idea that the Earth is hundreds of millions if not billions of years old.

    In the bible, which they say is the absolute truth and written by the hand of God, it says that heaven is where God lives. It also says that God created the world in 6 days. It also says that in heaven there is no such thing as time. So if God, whom lives in heaven, where there's no such thing as time, created the world in 6 days, how long is one of God's days?

    FunnyBoneApparel.com

    Wow.....All this literal religious stuff......just remember this famous quote

    Shepard Book: People like a man of god.
    Mal Reynolds: No, they don't. Men of god make people feel guilty and judged.


    And boy does this all this bible quoting sound exactly the same...............

    For those who believe in the goodness and mercy of the Old Testament God, take a look at some passages that are generally avoided in Sunday School:
    Deuteronomy 22:13-21
    Deuteronomy 21:18-21
    Leviticus 20: 27
    Numbers 15: 32-56
    1 Samuel 15: 2-3
    Jeremiah 16: 3-7
    Ezekiel 9: 5-6
    Joshua 10: 11
    Joshua 10:40
    These are just a few of the many references that cause doubt about God's "loving" treatment of the human race that he created. Of course "fundies" explain that these passages demonstrate the result of Original Sin. An estimate of the number of people killed directly by God, or on his orders, is 30 million, including the great mythical flood, the killing of first born in Egypt , the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and many lesser killing sprees. Anyone that believes that man was created in God's image, must conclude that the design was not very intelligent. Comparable abuse of animals by humans is a criminal offense.
    FENWICK

    Fenwick, don't bring us all down.

    @ADAM
    I'm not sure what you mean by "BRINGING US ALL DOWN." Please explain.
    FENWICK

    You're too earnest, man!

    @ ADAM
    Yes, Adam, I am earnest. This thread contains varied thoughts on the veracity of the Bible, especially the Old Testament versions of Creation, the Fall from Grace, and the Great Flood. Some contributors support the literal interpretation of every word in the OT and NT. So, we have the Creation Museum (which is why this thread was started), we have fundamentalists who would insert the teaching of Creationism or (at least) Intelligent Design into science classes, and we have a general fundamentalist outcry about placing the Ten Commandments on public property.

    What people do privately is their business: build more Creation Museums, teach Creationism in private religious schools, home school their children, observe religion in any way they choose in their churches and homes, and practice all of the wonderful freedom guaranteed by our constitution. What they try to enforce publicly is NOT their business.

    Since much of the issue involves the literal interpretation of the OT, I cited the above Bible passages as an invitation to fundamentalists to question whether these are just as true as the Sunday School stories presented to children. You may not be familiar with the passages I cited, Adam, so here is a passage to consider:

    1 SAMUEL 15:2-3 (An order from God); "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

    That's pretty bloodthirsty for a God of "love."

    The OT contains over 600 commandments, not just ten. Some of these concern stoning people to death for minor offenses (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) or for being witches or wizards (Leviticus 20:27). Was such writing inspired by God, or is it the record of bronze-age, superstitious scribes who saw the world through the lenses of their age?

    If much of the OT is mythology, the basis for teaching it as science is silly and damaging to society. So yes, Adam, I'm earnest about not allowing Creationism or Intelligent Design to be rammed down the throats of young people in public schools. You should be too.

    FENWICK

    Did you know that not all games are safe for children. In several books from http://www.ebook-search-queen.com/ it is written about negative influence of games on children's health.

    Fenwick

    I understand the whole culture-war thing you Americans have going on, but sometimes humour is a sharper sword than impassioned denunciation.

    ADAM
    -
    You're correct. That's why I use both humor (see my 05/20/09 post, for example) and logical questions here and there in this thread.
    -
    You are lucky to live in a country that is not involved in this turmoil. Sometimes I wish the ACLU and the "Fundies" would destroy each other and allow the rest of us to live in peace.

    FENWICK

    oh christ, is there someone who still believes in the bible as a veichle for scientific truth?!? Nathan, thank you, you're the funnies person i've ever et on the internet, how can you be so stupid to believe that bilble is more reliable than darwin? i don't know if i should laugh or cry with those comments, seriously. porco dio se siete coglioni nei vostri paesi

    WOW...this is a LONG thread. And most of it is all BS. This was orginially started by discussing this Creation Museum.

    @Fenwick - I tip my hat off to you sir. I am glad there is at least one person on this thread that has a cool, educated head on their shoulders. I agree with everything you say.

    I am a single father raising a precocious three year old daughter...and I can say I am VERY AFRAID for her. Afraid for her state of mind, her well-being, her education, her happiness, her virtues, her morals and ethics, everything...

    I am afraid because of this RUBBISH here. I am all for freedom of religion and voicing opinions. But seriously...T-Rex a PLANT-EATER (even eating COCONUTS!) Humans living with Dinosaurs? WOW! The Earth is only 6,000 or so years old? JEEZ! There were dinosaurs on Noahs Ark. OK! (Interesting because I've seen many cartoons dipictions of Noahs Ark....christian bible stories etc...and NEVER ONCE did I see a picture of a "dinosaur happily clambering up the ramp into Noah's Ark." Interesting at how "Christians" to prove their point can ALTER their OWN "facts" to fit their point.

    ** I teach my daughter that there is a "God" but there is also science. Science is the very foundation which has allowed us to advance from the caveman dwellings and civilization. God is the pillar of good, of values, of morals, of rightousness, of virtues...a better way to live life. Loving all things, forgiving, peace, faithfullness, in love. YET, God is not the answer to science...or mathematics...or astronomy. **

    I hope they keep this filth out of schools. Because if my daughtger comes home telling me, "T-Rex ate coconuts!" I will hold the CHURCH accountable.

    Dear Jason,

    Your daughter is fortunate to have a kind and caring father like you. She will not grow up to be a superstitious person whose mental processes are out of tune with reality.

    Carl Sagan wrote (paraphrased) that the wonders of the natural world can instill a feeling of awe and spitituality that surpasses the narrow boundaries of conservative religion. There may be a god, but not the petty, tyrannical, jealous, small god of the Old Testament.

    Science is not all-knowing. But to discredit it and attempt to replace it with religious dogma derived from a book written by men of the bronze age is wrong. Teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design in public schools must not be allowed.

    I often ponder the scope of human belief. It's amazing what has been and is believed without a shred of evidence. Most belief systems are designed to control believers; often the objective is to defraud the believers. For blatant fraud, see Evangelist Peter Popoff (various sites including YouTube). This charlatan pushes "Miracle Spring Water," which is said to heal and bring money to those that use it. Of course "Miracle Spring Water" is not free. But is this really different than the indulgences sold historically by the Catholic Church?

    We are fortunate to live in a nation where we may be religious if we wish or not religious at all. This is as it should be, and we must always strive to keep church and state separated.

    FENWICK

    Religious people are crazy! Period! How many wars and deaths have been because people didn't believe in evolution? The answer is zero.

    I live in a small town and recently had a self pro claimed pastor who lives in Tennessee but is originally from the town come back to preach for a week. this preaching was held at the townhall and was advertised in the local paper. One of the topics listed in the paper that he would preach on would be "Did man live with the dinosaurs?" This made me laugh when I saw it but some of my coworkers weren't laughing. They are born and raised in this small town while I'm originally from a large metropolitan area. The craziest part of this is that people actually came out in droves to hear this nutcase and believe what he was saying! This guy even has two young children! The facts are in front of people but some will still choose to be sheep. The sheep metaphor is a common one in Christianity. Coincidence? There is a reason why this craziness is taught to children and people who are down on their luck. They are easily susceptible to this kind of brainwashing. Crazy, crazy, crazy!

    Anonymous, your story about the townhall preaching demonstrates the mindset of many today. Only closed minds can accept such BS as truth.

    While we should be tolerant of the belief systems of others, no matter how crazy they seem to us, we MUST NOT allow them to shove their religious dogma into the school system. "Intelligent Design" is just a disguise for "Creationism." These topics could be taught in philosophy or comparative religion classes, but they have no place in science curriculum. The "Scopes Monkey Trial" should have put an end to this nonsense nearly 100 years ago, but the Fundamentalists are supporting a renewed campaign to control religion in the U.S.

    E-mail forwards are loaded with Fundamentalist's warnings to return our nation to Christianity, the religion of our "Founding Fathers." The Supreme Court, the ACLU, and Education are said to be enemies of the Christian beliefs that our "Founding Fathers" used as the basis for our constitution and their plan for our nation. This is BS. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Franklin were not Christians. Their intent was to secure a separation of church and state so that the "holy" many could not enforce their religion on others. Most of these men were Deists. Deism allows that there may be a God, but not the petty, cruel God of the Old Testament. If you doubt that the "Founding Fathers" were not Christians, see what they actually wrote on the following website:

    http://www.infidels.org/library/farrell_till/myth.html

    As my brother, a mathematician, says: "Ignorance is an unbounded function."

    Shut up. All of you. This isn't a debate, it's ping pong.

    You think you've accomplished something by issuing a cease & desist order upon a thread dormant for close to the last three months? Until you came along it was soundly asleep.

    Your gonna say christians are crazy when your burning in hell. If evolution occurs then why don't we have any evidence of a "cat-dog" or a "bird-man". We don't. Because we didn't evolve. You know whats gonna "evolve" Your weight gain, from sitting on the computer all day bashing people about their relgion. Maybe if you actually opended up the bible, some of you would realize that everything in there makes sense. & has been proven.

    I have "opended" up the Bible and I do not realize that "everything in there makes sense & has been proven." Very little in your holy book makes sense and even less has been proven. Your naive statement about evolution is characteristic of a mind that will be thrilled by the nonsense displayed in the Creation Museum.
    Try opening up a book that presents scientific evidence of reality. Dare to have your eyes opened to facts that don't agree with the phoney dogma you accept as truth.

    FENWICK

    I have "opended" up the Bible and I do not realize that "everything in there makes sense & has been proven." Very little in your holy book makes sense and even less has been proven. Your naive statement about evolution is characteristic of a mind that will be thrilled by the nonsense displayed in the Creation Museum.
    Try opening up a book that presents scientific evidence of reality. Dare to have your eyes opened to facts that don't agree with the phoney dogma you accept as truth.

    FENWICK

    Gerhard Adam
    ...why don't we have any evidence of a "cat-dog" or a "bird-man"
    Well, perhaps not to that degree, but that post would certainly qualify as a "bird-brain" comment.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I agree with authors opinion. This is all bullshit.

    Alley Oop also ate coconuts, coincidence?, I think not!