The Missing Piece

me too!

I firmly believe that man did evolve from lower primates, and I believe that all living organisms as they exist today evolved over billions and billions of years from the most primitive of single cell organisms. I believe that all things are the result of random processes which I will have to admit would mean that I do not believe in the existence of an intelligent force "designing" any of it. There still is this missing part of why, where, and how all space and time exists, and I can not rule out the possibility of something greater than space and time existing. I have plans to read more to understand my own thoughts on subjects that like life itself, has organization to it such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry. However, I believe that enough evidence does exist to rule out the premise that a higher power instantiated life on our planet. To me everything appears to have been chance. I know that I have come full circle on my argument, and that now I am saying something slightly different. I too reached this thought regarding randomness that you challenged me on and I completely agree with it, because it follows good sound logic and I witness it daily. In the end everyone is free to believe whatever they want, I feel however that evolution will win acceptance in the world due to it being true, and if one of the consequences of its victory is the end of some people's closely held beliefs about God and creation then so be it.

Keep in mind that the federal judge in the Dover case was appointed by President George W. Bush himself and before the trial he was an admitted supporter of intelligent design. Somehow along the way the scientists and lawyers for evolution convinced him that intelligent design was not science and that it has no place in public schools.

I have already mentioned several of the observable elements of evolution, including genetic mutation, inheritance, genetic drift, and natural selection. In the over 150 years since Darwin proposed his theory, not one experiment has been able to prove it wrong. Can you show a single observable process of intelligent design other than the obvious fact that animals and plants exist? Can you explain why dinosaurs existed on Earth hundreds of millions of years before man? I am going to guess that you do not believe in carbon dating or dating that relies on radioactive isotopes found naturally in all rocks on our planet, and that will be the foundation of your argument because that is what most creationists love to argue over when time is mentioned. I have nothing more to argue with you about on this subject, because your common sense takes a back seat to your faith in God. Those of us that know the truth need not worry, and you can be assured that you will always find a fight if you try to push your absurd perspective on the rest of us that choose to think for ourselves.

So you will concede that Behe and the video you have provided on Irreducible Complexity have been proven wrong, because the evidence I have seen shows that it has?

Look, just because I believe that there is a higher power greater than all space and time itself, does not mean that I believe that Genesis is the answer. I am merely saying that if it exists in this higher power's domain, then it is of him at the very least indirectly. One thing I am not going to do is sit down and write a book filling in the parts that I cannot explain with stories of how I think it happened. In all actuality the only reason people put so much stock in Genesis to begin with is because of its age. If someone published that story today, who would believe it? Sorry, I will not subscribe for a membership to the "because that's how its always been done" club. I have more important things on my list to ponder.

I looked at your video and I am already fully aware of Behe and his irreducibly complex argument. I invite you to watch the one hour episode of Nova about the Dover School Board case found here that includes testimony from Behe: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program....

If you would like to get right to the Behe points you can find that here, but I suggest you watch the entire show as it is very enlightening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHzRwbjJd...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id7PyZQMU...

Ultimately Behe and Intelligent Design lost the Dover case.

I will say this Midnight Rider, I am not doubting that there is not a creator involved in all this, because know one can ever prove or disprove it, and I am of the opinion that for it to exist it was created by a force larger than itself. But I must also conclude that evolution exists because it makes good logical sense and it is a glorious and powerful paint brush that the creator of all space and time (God) uses to paint some of his most beautiful pictures with. When coupled with the principles of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc, and the amazing biology that exists on Earth and perhaps in other places in the universe, it is hard to not accept that it was organized by a supreme power that we simply cannot begin to understand. God strikes us all differently, but in the end my God is no different than your God, we just come to him on different paths. I do not fault your path, but for some reason you choose to fault mine, but I care not.

I will agree with you on one thing, we both have to base our beliefs on faith. I just happen to believe there is more evidence to support my faith than there is to support your faith.

- Posted by Midnight Rider on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, at 2:36 AM

Let me make one thing abundantly clear, I do not believe the bible because I find evidence to support its truths, I start with the premise the bible is true and that those truths are confirmed by the discoveries we make through intellect and science.

Also, I did not say that the resistant bacteria developed from the other bacteria. I stated that the resistant bacteria was always present, but because the antibacterial soaps have been used, they have killed off less harmful bacteria, making the environment more favorable for the resistant bacteria because there is more food present. It is common sense and you don't need a doctorate to figure this out.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, at 1:46 PM

Ok, you originally did not state it this way, but lets work with your latest statement. That is not evolution (at least Darwinian evolution). Your are talking about two different species. You have no observation of the the evolutionary process. And, you are still operating under the assumption that the weaker species is being killed off by the antibacterial soap, when at best the research only says that this "might" be a cause. That is why I asked you to post some research supporting your argument, that burden really belongs to you, not me.

The basic principles of evolution are known facts and can be and "have been" observed. Trying to apply these basic, known principles to make the leap that man "evolved" from monkeys is where the theory comes into play, because this can not be observed.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, at 11:20 PM

It is not possible to observe something that has taken billions and billions of years to accomplish and will never be fact

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, at 1:25 PM

One statement says that evolution can be and has been observed, the other states that you can't observe something that has taken place of billions of years and never will be fact. So which is it going to be? Can you or can you not observe evolution. More succinctly, at what point in time do you say you can begin recording your observations?

Reading your response to my answer, it occurs to me that you really have no idea how evolution works and I think that might be part of your problem.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, at 1:59 PM

Actually, I understand quite well how the theory of evolution is said to work. Most people who state a belief in evolution begin with Darwin's theory. Which, is quite clear that he believes life could have evolved from one common ancestor: " In his Origin of Species, Darwin proposed natural selection as the mechanism by which all life could have descended from a common ancestor (Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification")

http://www.allaboutscience.org/charles-d...

That's why I asked you to state what you described as basic principles that are known facts that can be and have been observed.

I will agree with you on one thing, we both have to base our beliefs on faith. I just happen to believe there is more evidence to support my faith than there is to support your faith.

Here is a link that has a short video of one molecular biologist that has had a change of heart:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-t...

Feel free to correct me if I have read the results of this study incorrectly, but it appears that study says the antibacterial products "might" contribute to the development of resistant bacteria, but more study needs to be done. I know, you may respond with flu virus's growing resistance to antibiotics, but show me the scientific research that proves them to be "new' strains, and not strains that were already present, but had been previously kept in check by other bacteria we have kept in check.

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, at 10:56 AM

Also, I did not say that the resistant bacteria developed from the other bacteria. I stated that the resistant bacteria was always present, but because the antibacterial soaps have been used, they have killed off less harmful bacteria, making the environment more favorable for the resistant bacteria because there is more food present. It is common sense and you don't need a doctorate to figure this out.

Of course things are still evolving. Evolution is not a very hard concept to understand and it occurs around us everyday. For example, on the news you have probably heard about bacteria that is antibiotic resistant spreading because antibacterial soaps are overused. These antibacterial soaps have changed the bacteria's environment and because of survival of the fittest, the bacteria that can resist the antibacterial soaps have less competition for food and can in turn spread more rapidly than before. Eventually, the resistant bacteria will push all other bacteria that feeds on the same food sources to extinction because they lack this antibiotic resistant feature that its cousin has.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, at 11:20 PM

Sorry, unless you have some more current research, there is not conclusive evidence that these antibacterial products are producing super resistant bacteria. Although, they have been found to be no more effective than regular soaps, there has not been a conclusive link to establish as fact that they are creating super resistant bacteria.

Granted, two of the articles I will post links to (I Googled this subject looking for studies to support your position) say that they "might" make some bacteria resistant to anti-biotic drugs, they do not support the evolutionary principle of 'natural selection". Levy, in the 2000 Bio Medicine article calls this "unnatural selection", and the article suggests that these resistant strains are already present, but have been kept in check by the bacteria we are we are supposedly eliminating through the use of antibacterial agents

http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-ne...

Hubert, in the 2007 Iowa Times article says, "There is no conclusive evidence that says that using antibacterial soaps are creating resistant strains of bacteria." http://www.iowastatedaily.com/articles/2...

Now, he is called a teaching lab coordinator, so, I don't know what kind of credentials he has, but he seems to be echoing the results found in study found on the CDC website: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no10/...

Feel free to correct me if I have read the results of this study incorrectly, but it appears that study says the antibacterial products "might" contribute to the development of resistant bacteria, but more study needs to be done. I know, you may respond with flu virus's growing resistance to antibiotics, but show me the scientific research that proves them to be "new' strains, and not strains that were already present, but had been previously kept in check by other bacteria we have kept in check.

The basic principles of evolution are known facts and can be and have been observed. Trying to apply these basic, known principles to make the leap that man "evolved" from monkeys is where the theory comes into play, because this can not be observed. Like others have said though, why can't evolution be part of God's plan? Why would you assume that evolution and genetics are not tools in God's toolbox? Discovering that there truly is method to the madness that is the universe confirms God's existence for me more than any chapter of Genesis does.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, at 11:20 PM

No, the bigger problem I have is applying these "basic, known principles" in saying that all life began from a single organism from some sort of primordial soup. Also, what do you consider the basic principles of evolution. When I studied biology at Motlow (2002) we were told that evolution occurs over long period of times. However, when questioned about the fossil record, the professor responded with another theory that was being put forth at the time. Basically, that particular theory said that most evolution did occur over long periods, but there were periods of rapid evolution-leaving the fossil record incomplete. I didn't buy that then and I am not buying that now.

I do believe genetics are from God. They have codes that trigger certain reactions to respond to the environment around them.

Why couldn't God have evolution in His toolbox? Because in Genesis 1:20-25, He clearly tells us that He made each living creature after their kind. There is a method to this madness called the universe and God has explained much of it in the bible. We, will never fully understand all of God's ways until we are in His presence. Just as scientist will never discover all their is to know about this universe. Most people that reject the truth found in Genesis (and I am not saying this applies to you Nathan)do so because accepting this as truth would me that they would have to accept the rest of His word as truth-revealing that they are dependent on God for salvation because apart from Jesus Christ no goodness can be found in them. There is the problem, most people want to believe that all people are basically good, and circumstances and other factors turn them into bad people. Just the opposite of what the bible says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

In Jeremiah 17:9 we read "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" That makes us dependent upon God's mercy to escape the wrath our sin deserves. Thankfully, He provided that escape in His Son Jesus. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16 To obtain this free gift, the bible says, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, your will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. Romans 10:9-10. "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:13

Although, Darwin thought he was discovering factual science, he had many doubts about his work, and from reading about his life, I believe he was driven by a desire to validate his rejection of God. I believe evolution is a lie sent straight from hell. I know that is not a popular opinion, but this is what I firmly believe to be truth, based on God's holy Word.

Why are things not evolving now?

-- Posted by michaelbell on Thu, Feb 12, 2009, at 6:55 PM

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=...

Looks like things "are" still evolving, or it could be their is just still "New Species" undiscovered. Possibly even your "Missing Piece".

Oh, like the Greeks and Romans who wrote the Bible. Haha.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 10:44 PM

nascarfanatic,

Why does the Bible with its' Blessed Hope bother you?

It seems to cut at you like a sword producing yips from you.

All hope worth anything is there for you in the Bible.

Work with it instead of against it.

michaelbell,

The old Jewish myth that King OG made a deal with Noah and rode atop the ark is nothing more than a myth.

Here's why:

Noah was a righteous man (Genesis 7:1) and a preacher (2 Peter 2:5) and walked with God (Genesis 6:9) and was able to hear and speak to God (Genesis 6:13).

God had intention of destroying all flesh (Genesis 6:13;17) on the earth with the earth AND succeeded.

Genesis 7:23

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Noah was a righteous man so he would never have agreed to any deal with a fallen angel. God knows all, so God would have told Noah of this idea and punished Noah if he thought of helping King OG.

This was God's show not Noah's.

Secondly, if Noah did let King OG ride on the top of the Ark, God would have seen him on top and killed him with Lightning, slung him off the ark or just sent an angel down to eliminate King OG in a heart beat.

As far as the skeletons of the Giants go, we have to ask what would God do?

Many people are possessed with demons. These fallen angels had to be the worse demons of all, because God chained them up in darkness in hell after He destroyed them.

I would have to say these bones would have been demon possessed and would have caused many uncalled for traumas for the Jewish people.

These bones would also be something that would defile anyone touching them.

This would be saying that the bodies would have been taken as spoil of the wars. What we would call trophies today.

That would have been a lot of extra weight to carry along with them to the next place of battle. (These were the wars by Moses and Joshua before they even conquered the land of Jerusalem)

We aren't talking about a little giant nor are we talking about only one or two really big giants.

I really doubt any of that story Josephus told if it was what you just claimed he said.

However, the Giants, years later in King David's time, would be a different story. That was after the city of Jerusalem was built and the Giants were there and didn't have to be transported miles and miles for years.

But that still leaves us with Where did these other Giants come from?

hey parkerbrothers shouldn't you be down at the race track?

-- Posted by in the garden on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, at 6:44 PM

in the garden,

No, you will not catch me around that place again.

I count it a blessing I escaped alive.

I also more importantly count it a blessing that many, many more did not get hurt or killed. It was a miracle in my book and others that witnessed it sober.

I care nothing about having seconds from a mob of drunks who have been given free reign and rule over a territory for an extended period of time.

greasemonkey,

I have never heard of the naked archeologist but it sounds like it might be an interesting show. I enjoy trying to prove or disprove what I watch in my mind as I watch.

Cro-magnon skeletal remains found in an Aurignacian cave in southern France indicate that the Cro-Magnon had long heads, broad faces, and sunken eyes, and reached a height of approximately 5 ft. 9 in..

Actually the fallen angels were much taller than that according to the scriptures.

Amos 2:9 (King James Version)

9 Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath.

The Jews in the 12 tribes were like grasshoppers to these descendants of the fallen angels.

Numbers 13:29-33 (New International Version)

29 The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan."

30 Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, "We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it."

31 But the men who had gone up with him said, "We can't attack those people; they are stronger than we are."

32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size.

33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

The children of these fallen angels were giants also.

Genesis 6:4 (King James Version)

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Even some of the descendants of Lot were giants.

Deuteronomy 2:18-21 (King James Version)

18 Thou art to pass over through Ar, the coast of Moab, this day:

19 And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.

20 (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;

21 A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead:

Deuteronomy 3:11 (New International Version)

11 (Only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaites. His bed was made of iron and was more than thirteen feet long and six feet wide. It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites.)

Other angels were not giants like that, although they could have looked anyway they wanted to. Many came and took on the appearance of humans of normal size who were invited to stay and eat and drink with the person they were visiting, like Lot and Abraham.

Michael Bell gave me a website that showed a comparison chart of skeletons of different heights, etc.. Check with him if your interested. My computer's hard drive locked me out a few months ago and I lost all my data including that website Url.

I have a problem understanding all this information about the giants because they were all killed during the Flood. God chained them up in darkness in hell when God destroyed them. SO HOW did these descendants appear years later during Moses' time? I can only suspect that more fallen angels came to earth after the Flood.

I always watch the N.A. and always find his shows interesting.

On that one you mentioned I wonder since a angelic being is way different from a human if maybe the crossbreeding of the two would create a strange sort of race.

We discover the bones, and call it cro-magnon?

Just one question? they use carbon dating to determine everything that proves the bible false, if the asteroid or meteor or whatever hit the earth and killed out all the animals at that time, would not the earth have been on fire and emitting carbon therefore changing the readings, just wondering?

The Shroud of Turin was carbon dated and to science proved to be a fake.

Yet they tested a piece that had replaced a burnt piece, where the church caught on fire, would that not have changed the results also?

in the garden,

Im trolling? LOL, after the way you have talked about me and other people, your one to talk. I just address you in the same manner you have addressed me and others. When you can debate an issue like an adult without belittling someone, then maybe I will address you like an adult. Actually I think I will ignore any of your future posts because your right,it is unbecoming and I shouldnt let myself be dragged down to your level.

in the garden,

So if a person doesnt believe in evolution it makes them rascist? ROFL, you really dont have a clue about anything do you. I hope you continue to keep posting because it is very amusing.

parkerbrothers,

Good thing I never sacrificed them to the Lord then. His angels would have struck me dead if the necrosis don't get me first!

Unique-Lies,

So you did eat my goats you ole codger.

Thats' okay. The vet said they were all sick with Necrotizing fasciitis and about to pass anyway.

parkerbrothers,

Of course not! That was a stupid question to even ask.

They would have to gut me to get any DNA of your goats.

-- Posted by The More You Know* on Fri, Feb 13, 2009, at 11:14 PM

I apologize for taking your "tone" as sarcasm and not as lightening the mood. It is hard to convey emotion across these keys.

Instead of debating each point I will give you a few reasons of why I believe the way I do and then I think you will see where I am coming from.

-The reason I believe in young earth creation is first, and foremost it cannot be reliably disproven. Secondly, the Bible tells me this is how it happened, and I have no reason to doubt the validity of the Bible because it cannot be reliably disproven on any level either. Geological and archaeological evidence points to the earth being less than 10,000yrs old with a catastrophic flood happening several thousand years ago. Also when you look at population levels you will see that at least man hasnt been here that long, because if you look at how often the population doubles and do the math you will see there would have been little to no population about 4000-5000yrs ago. If man had been here a 100,000 years ago the Earth couldnt hold all the people.

-I too had a problem with dinosaurs and man living together, but when I thought about it I really cant understand why it would be a problem. Someone mentioned earlier about some evidence that points to that, and also how this idea can be found in the Bible.

-I do rely heavily upon my faith for all facets of my life. I have yet to have to choose whether to believe in something observed and scripture. I havent had a moment where I doubted the content of the Bible whenever compared to science. I do not see a problem with science and scripture, I see them complementing each other.

- I think the reason the Earth is supposed to be millions and billions of years old is to fit with evolution. Whenever people can put their faith in evolution then there is a disconnect between them and the creator. There is more leeway with morality, if you choose to come from monkeys. I choose to believe that I was created in Gods image and so where my ancestors as far back as they go.

-I do honestly believe these debates are just mainly a waste of time. This subject like politics, and other semi-religous discussions are embedded in people and most will not be swayed either way. Although it is nice to have a discussion with someone who can defend their position in a mature and passionate way.

That is easy for you to say but unique has my goats, not yours and I would like for him to bring them back.

I still suspect he was sacraficing them on the mountain top. The guy that lives at the bottom of the hill said the remaining goats ran past him like they had seen someone with an ax after them.

lazarus,

I am still created in the image of God.

in the garden,

I do not have to hear Jack van Impe tell me I did not evolve from a monkey to know I am not akin to a monkey.

I have no problem however if you choose to believe you may be a "monkey's niece".

I believe I was created in the image of God.

You may believe you have evolved from Godzilla? (smile, it was your choice)

Why not just accept you shall believe as you wish much like I should be able.

Oops! Crippled kittens were not being bred on the history channel or A&E. I saw a show about these things on the History channel or A&E.

general comments on this discussion.

you are placing science & religion into a conflict that does not exist. real science makes no attempt to define or explain god. theology is not in the realm of science which is exclusively study of physical reality.

while real theology does not attempt to explain the physical world, religion is the realm of fallible humans. throughout history, in a desire to project religion as having not only all the theological answers, but also a complete and full understanding of the physical world, fallible humans have tried to define absolute physical realities which are in conflict with the evidence.

it was human religion which suppressed (for hundreds of years) the reality of a spherical planet which revolved around the sun, as opposed to a flat planet at the center of the universe. colombus (by popular myth) daringly proved the world round with his voyage to the new world. in reality, educated people had known the world was round for centuries, while a majority of his uneducated sailors probably thought they were sailing to their doom.

it was the church that was certain the popular acceptance of a spherical planet revolving around the sun would overthrow their entire belief system. in reality science was no more threat to religion then than it is now.

as far as doubting the knowledge acquired by science; science has produced the computer i am using, and the internet by which i will post this. it is responsible for the automobile, electricity, plastics, air travel, television & radio, and essentially everything else that you or i will use during our daily lives. from religion, we have a grand total of zero inventions that have an application in my physical daily life. not because religion is inferior, but because that is not what religion is.

science, by the same token, has not made a single contribution to my spiritual life. if offers nothing in the way of moral thought, no meaning, no purpose, nothing. not because science is inferior, but because that is not what science is.

choosing between science and religion is like choosing between a boat and a glass of water. each of them are very important for their specific purpose. neither has any use, for the purpose of the other.

memo,

not offended in the least. just wasnt certain what point you were trying to make.

Well, after reading all the above comments, I must say that I still believe I am created in the image of God and that God did not create any monkeys in His image.

I also still have no problem with anyone who wants to be kin to a monkey. Actually I think I may have met a few that might just be so.

Did I say man existed before Adam, No!

The earth was originally intended for the Sons of God before the fall. They failed him. God made man[Adam] and he failed him. God spared Noah and his family, but alas! they failed him to , and we continue to fail him. God wanted a family, so he came as Jesus Christ , for he could not fail, and only through Jesus Christ will you become part of that family.

Science calls them "cavemen" we think of the ones on the Geico commercials,People in the days of Noah lived in caves.

I never claimed the bible was a book of science, it is a book of God's intervention into his creation through one family and one nation to provide salvation for all who accept it.

The discussion of dinosaurs in the Bible is part of a larger ongoing debate within the Christian community over the age of the earth, the proper interpretation of Genesis, and how to interpret the physical evidences we find all around us. Those who believe in an older age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does not mention dinosaurs, because according to their paradigm, dinosaurs died out millions of years before the first man ever walked the earth. The men who wrote the Bible down couldn't have seen dinosaurs alive. But they could have seen the bones.

Those who believe in a younger age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does mention dinosaurs though it never actually uses the word "dinosaur." Instead, it uses the Hebrew word tanniyn (pronounced tan-neen; Strong's #08577). Tanniyn is translated a few different ways in our English Bibles; sometimes it's "sea monster," sometimes it's "serpent." It is most commonly translated "dragon." The tanniyn appear to have been some sort of giant reptile. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water.

In addition to mentioning these giant reptiles in general nearly thirty times throughout the Old Testament, the Bible describes a couple of creatures in such a way that some scholars believe the writers may have been describing dinosaurs. Behemoth is said to be the mightiest of all God's creatures, a giant whose tail is likened to a cedar tree (Job 40:15ff). Some scholars have tried to identify Behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus. Others point out that elephants and hippopotamuses have very thin tails, nothing comparable to a cedar tree. Dinosaurs like the Brachiosaurus and the Diplodocus on the hand other had huge tails which one could easily compare to a cedar tree.

Nearly every ancient civilization has some sort of art depicting giant reptilian creatures. Petroglyphs, artifacts and even little clay figurines found in North America resemble modern depictions of dinosaurs. Rock carvings in South America depict men riding Diplodocus-like creatures and, amazingly, bear the familiar images of Triceratops-, Pterodactyl- and Tyrannosaurus Rex-like creatures. Roman mosaics, Mayan pottery and Babylonian city walls all testify to man's trans-cultural, geographically-unbounded fascination with these creatures. Sober accounts like those of Marco Polo's Il Milione mingle with fantastic tales of treasure-hoarding beasts. Modern day reports of sightings persist though they are usually treated with overwhelming skepticism.

In addition to the substantial amount of anthropic and historical evidences for the coexistence of dinosaur and man, there are other physical evidences, like the fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs found together at places in North America and West-Central Asia.

So, are there dinosaurs in the Bible? The matter is far from settled. It depends on how you interpret the available evidences and how you view the world around you. A lot of the pictures of the dinosaurs I see in the fossils, their head is always bent back with their neck as if some great weight was on them as they died, dare we say the flood?

A key factor in the debate is that the majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world, and everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. Again, though, these represent an insignificant percentage of scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without ANY intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.

For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation--other than a Creator--for how the universe and life came into existence. Although beliefs in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, Darwin was the first to develop a plausible model for how evolution could have occurred--natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian, but later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life. So evolution was invented by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.

The Bible tells us, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."

Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a "science," they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested, it must be "naturalistic." Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered a science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that doesn't seem to be an issue with the evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regard to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe and life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regards to origins, does not fit the definition of "science" any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered "scientific." This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of "science."

If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the "creation theory" for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, "scientific" explanations of fools.

The above is a clip of a study on creation versus evolution by different writers.

If all the bible had was the story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and his mission to die for me, it would still be the greatest book in the world.

michaelbell,

I know your mind isn't open to scientific theories, but the pre-Adamic theory that you and Unique-lies believe in isn't even backed by the bible.

There is nothing in the bible about God destroying the world, and remodeling it with Adam and Eve. You're adding things to the bible story to try to make a compromise between your religion and science. You're adding millions of years of history in between two bible verses in which the authors conveniently forgot to mention anything about. It doesn't work.

Not only are there many scientific problems with this theory, but theological implications as well. If you are willing to concede that men existed before Adam, then it means there was also sin and death before Adam. No original sin = no reason for Jesus = no salvation for you. Too bad:(

Go look in the graves of deceased people. the word dust, means

H6083

עפר

‛âphâr

aw-fawr'

From H6080; dust (as powdered or gray); hence clay, earth, mud: - ashes, dust, earth, ground, morter, powder, rubbish.

Gen 3:19 In the sweatH2188 of thy faceH639 shalt thou eatH398 bread,H3899 tillH5704 thou returnH7725 untoH413 the ground;H127 forH3588 out ofH4480 it wast thou taken:H3947 forH3588 dustH6083 thouH859 art, and untoH413 dustH6083 shalt thou return.H772

The references are from the Strong's concordance in case you want to look further.

I will grant you , man's translation may be in err, but God's word is infallible!

Not my evil monkey. Tell me it is not so.

Are you trying to say evil monkeys do not return to the dust upon expiration of the flesh?

lazarus, Of course there are differences of opinion within a general framework of consensus. Individual perceptions make that a given. Issues tend to also become bound up with priority, and more generally ego.

Your Clovis headlines are telling to me. I have not kept up with recent studies, but I would have to ask, exactly who is judging the "evidence that supports a meteorite strike" and who and how "destroys the main argument". I doubt many interested and previously uncommitted people could find any such certainties presented. As a matter of fact, the entire argument takes place within the confines of an environmental model that would have been unheard of even 100 years ago and is, even today, riddled with uncertainty.

I do not doubt their existence, but if we were to whittle down what we actually "know" about them, and then further whittle down what we "know based only on other theories that we believe", we would be left with very little to study. A few rocks to look at I guess? I am not saying that we are always wrong, I am just saying that we are a long way away from the ideal of always being right and that in the same way that "good" ideas provide a good foundation, "bad" ideas provide faulty foundations that topple entire intellectual castles. The problem is, even the bad ideas can look good for centuries because we are so bound to our limited understanding and more importantly, previous understandings.

Again, I feel like I have to point out that I am not attacking you, or your beliefs. This appears to be going quickly in the direction of me arguing with one of the many theists on these blogs and what I would be attempting to get across is that it is okay for them to believe in creationism "because the Bible says so", but I do not. Likewise, it is okay for you to have complete faith in the scientific method and the men practicing it. I do not, and I hope I have explained clearly why that is. I even went back and re-read my 2 comments. I can not find anything that I wrote that I think should be considered offensive, and to be honest, I am having a hard time understanding how my comment elicited such a defensive response...?

EM, Yes, he defiantly produced a shift. I would not wish for even a small percentage of his burden. I wonder what we would have as a reality today if it were not for his persistence and determination. Not every person with solutions will endure the stresses of convincing others of these solutions especially those who do not want to accept them in the first place. I wonder how many Einsteins have given up, or never even tried?

"We do go back to dirt when we die, not monkeys.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Mon, Feb 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM"

Hey I resent that! hehe

We do go back to dirt when we die, not monkeys.

mememe,

i am not sure what you mean by examples of it working a different way? but here is an example of what happens to new hypotheses. all the while evidence is being collected to support it, studies are under way to disprove it:

January 2, 2009. More evidence that supports a meteorite strike that wiped out the Clovis culture. The paper is in Science...

February 7, 2009. A paper in press at PNAS destroys the main argument for extra-terrestrial impact that killed off mammoths and maybe Clovis in North America.

that took almost a minute to find.

here are some other comments from some of these "lockstep" scientists about each other's work. i am not printing entire threads, since if they interested you, you would be reading them already. but this should give an idea of the tenor of discussion among scientists. they may "share the very same dispositions and heuristics" but they are no more inclined to all agree than the people who post on here:

.Nonsense! For starters, Forgan assumes that Earth is an average planet. There go his credibility and his credentials! No wonder he gets the bizarre numbers he reports.

.So you have to *estimate* the length and weight by doing something you've been trained not to do: by extrapolating off the end of the curve. And then you should stop. But the authors do not stop. The use the *estimated* mass of the snake to *estimate* tropical temperatures of the world, assuming the snake was "poikilothermic"...Therefore, the "snake palaeothermometry" publishd here is bogus.

.This is a news item but there is no reference to a paper. So beware. Wait for the publication.

.However, I wonder whether they'd breed freely if re-joined: in other words, whether these units are really subspecies.

.It would probably be unethical, not to say stupid, to do the experiments on the island white-eyes.

.First, it is NOT a shark braincase. But what this newly examined old fossil does is throw our schemes of early jawed fish evolution into chaos.

.Readers of this news site, and readers of my book History of Life, will know that I've been saying that for a very long time. But hey, science journalists have to make a living by headline.

.Sounds very unlikely, especially the timing. Wait for the discussion that is sure to follow.

.we need more soundly based dates, and more sites.

and if you really want to see some sparks flying, locate some of the exchanges between proponents of rival theories on the palau hominids.

memyselfi,

Einstein was considered crazy as hell back in the 1920s, Now? He is the father of all theoretical physics. Some things still perplex people, yet he could see it clearly. Sheer genius really. I wish I had 25% of that guys thought patterns.

lazarus, I am not so sure that I completely agree with you there. I do understand what you are saying, and undoubtedly through the progression of time, contradictions do change paradigms...sometimes, and then only under protest and overwhelming proofs.

The peer review is indeed thorough and scrutinizing, but it is in fact a peer review. It is, for the most part, given by others who share the very same dispositions and heuristics as the person presenting the work. Woe to not only the fool that submits faulty work, but those works that happen to challenge the world views of the majority as well.

Instead of me presenting historic examples of shunned abstract ideas followed by more and more complete proofs of those ideas, eventually compelling the majority to accept them, usually kicking and screaming, why dont you provide me a couple of examples of it working in a different way?

That may not be how science is supposed to work, but to my way of thinking, it is exactly how scientists (and other people) do work. You do not have to look back into history to see it happen either. It is working right now. We are in the middle (or late stages) of a small paradigm shift concerning climate change. I also believe we are on the brink of one with strong AI.

I guess what I am trying to say is that "people who know what they are talking about" do not always (as history clearly demonstrates), and they certainly bring their cognitive biases and expectancies to the table with them. As I tried to point out earlier, I am not attacking the method or the scientists, I just want to make clear my understanding that the ways in which we understand anything at all are basically flawed, but they do represent the best we have available.

Momof3&3step&1gran,

If you seriously question both evolution, and religion because it comes from a mans stand point of view, then read your bible and pray for the Holy Spirit to help you understand His Word. The Truth is in the scriptures and it comes from God and the understanding through the Holy Spirit, not from man.

Galations 1:12

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

John 8:31-32

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

"Scientific knowledge tends to build upon single ideas, eventually creating an organized and accepted theoretical framework; proofs are found to support these ideas while any contradictory facts tend to be explained away."

which is nothing like how science works. what we teach in school may be stale and sterile (and about half already disproven), but the living world of science is volatile and contentious. anything published in a peer reviewed journal is subject to the most intense scrutiny. and this is by people who know what they are talking about. woe be the daring fool who produces half-baked ideas without a solid base of data and logic to back them up... assuming something half-baked ever got printed in the first place. and, even if it can survive the gauntlet of educated criticism, no theory is too established, or too entrenched, to be immune to future challenges, as soon as data can be produced to challenge it. there is no way to kick contradictions under the rug.

Maybe it would be better to just let everyone that wants to believe they came from a monkey be just that.

I choose rather to believe we were created in the image of God and God did not create a monkey in His image?

Wow, that's a lot of new ground to cover. I'm on my way out the door so Ill have to post more later, but there's one thing here that again points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept:

"Go up to the Arctic and see if you grow all that hair back.

Go live in Duck river and see if you grow gills."

"No retreat just repositioning. Are you evolving?"

Again, a single life form cannot evolve. That's not how it works. Adaptation doesn't change something after it's already been born. My genes can't rearrange themselves to fit a new environment. This only happens through reproduction. If something is born with a genetic mutation that better suits the environment those genes have a better chance of being passed down to greater amounts of offspring.

Back later! :)

Isn't it odd that we have no clue how we got here or where we go. Something tells me that there are 8 planets for a reason, and we really don't even know as much as we think we do about the one we inhabit.

God knows no barriers and no time he knows the past, the present and the future.

As far as the camel and the tent and the warm spot goes, with the way this country is going , that might be a good ideal.

They at least have some morality when it comes to abortion , and sexual lifestyle.

Though I don't agree with a lot of their thinking!

Well wouldn't that take some true studying? If he can't flip to a verse that reconciles his falsified belief then he has no argument. If Jesus is your answer to everything when you really have no answer, then you aren't doing him any justice.

A tiny fraction of knowledge about the implied topic is, at most, necessary.. but to go on a tirade with a guy (Darwin) who, for his time was absolutely prophetic and scientific in nature. How in the world is it so easy to believe Abraham, Issace, or any of the Biblical references were indeed profits, when a man, with documented proof, predicted much of what we now know to concrete truth. The problem I have is that en route to proving nothing you accomplish no other feat but creating more disbelief. You may seem like the hero standing up to all those, uneducated folks who outnumber you 4 to 1 on this blog, but really you're just naive. You are striving to be a pastor, which has a concentration in theology. Stick to that, as theology is based on no facts but interpretation of what someone said... and science is based on testing, again and again a hypothesis until you can prove yourself wrong. The biggest difference between you a scientist is that they seek to disprove their own theories until all conclusive evidence says that what is being tested is actually true...and you seek to prove your theory based on nothing but hand-me-down fables.

It really is ok to believe in God and evolution. If you really don't believe in science or anything it has to offers then perhaps you are in the wrong religion.. I bet there is a warm spot in the desert where a camel and a tent awaits you.

sorry, michaelbell, i am only trying to be helpful. since you have set yourself up as the final arbiter of all knowledge, it just seems that your credibility would be enhanced if understood the issues on which you expound. i wouldnt be guilty of this, but some might ask themselves why god would choose a spokesman, and fail to imbue him with any knowledge on the topics that he was chosen to elucidate.

which brings me to one other tiny issue; the use of the terms "theory" and "fact". facts, in science, are the minutiae. a "fact" is not, in science, irrefutable nor absolute, but is a tiny fragment of accepted "provable" knowledge. a theory, on the other hand, is a system of knowledge explaining natural phenomenon, which is testable, and has withstood the scrutiny of testing. theories are based on countless "facts". stating that something is "only a theory and not a fact" is akin to my stating that i do not believe that is your picture at the upper right hand of this page; because it is "only a picture, and not a pixel". you may be partially confusing theory with hypothesis, as a hypothesis is the basis for a theory which has been insufficiently tested to attain acceptance as a theory. you apparently do not understand the definition of fact at all.

as for theories in our world, there are many theories in which i am relatively certain you place your belief. you must have belief in them, because the computer and internet on which you make your pronouncements are based only on scientific theory. there are also the theories of gravitation, electricity, and magnetism, which seem to be widely accepted by christians, i assume including you, despite being conspicuously absent of biblical reference. i can understand if you choose not to believe in those, since they lack the sort of overwhelming collection of empirical evidence in their support that exists for evolution.

what you are advocating is called the "willful suspension of disbelief". choosing to believe something despite all scientific evidence pointing to a different conclusion. this is a valid and perfectly acceptable philosophy to embrace, as we are talking about religion and not science. as i stated earlier, i know a number of highly intelligent and informed people who have chosen this philosophy. i do not disrespect it at all. however, mis-stating science serves only to discredit your belief. again, if god has chosen you to speak, dont you think he would also like for you to make enough effort to be informed about the subjects on which you speak?

just trying to be helpful.

No retreat just repositioning. Are you evolving?

Whoever said that this was up for a debate, I stated my belief, never intended for someone to debate that which is untouchable.

The bible talks of a day as a thousand years and a year a thousand days.

According to the Jewish calendar it is 5769, our calendar it is 2009.

I believe in adaption of species to their surroundings not the changing of one life form to another.

It believe in different earth ages one before Adam and Eve, the between Adam and Eve and Noah , and from Noah to the present.

Maybe all the fossils that were found was from a pre-adamic era and that is where the stories of ancient mythology came from.

The creation offers the only "blessed hope !"

Go up to the Arctic and see if you grow all that hair back.

Go live in Duck river and see if you grow gills.

Question 1- our way are not God's and his ways are not ours.

Question 2 God said in "his image"

In times to come we will see who has the faith needed to survive the Great Tribulation to come, those that pretend will follow the New World Order and will commit the unpardonable sin, those who have accepted Christ will be saved.

The ones that live certain "lifestyles" don't need to talk about denying God, read Romans 1:20-32 or do you just deny that part to make you seem right?

We can debate all day but the end result will be the same, you believe in your"evolution" I will believe in "Creation"

In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth! I do believe in the big bang theory, God said "BANG! AND IT WAS"!

It seems as this discussion could go on forever as it has for decades. My faith will not be rattled,

nor will the science of most individuals who believe in evolution.

All mysteries will be revealed to me and countless others when we set at the feet of the King at his throne for eternity.

Kinda like when I was a child and all the grandkids would set around grandpa's rocker and he would tell us stories of days gone bye.

What a way to spend eternity!

When you evolve into something else, you let me know, for I evolved from a "damned sinner" to a "damned sinner saved by grace".

Well said Unique, all the bones they found or fossils, could have been from before the earth became void.

That's the biggest defense mechanism in christianity - faith.

-- Posted by Richard on Sat, Feb 14, 2009, at 5:47 AM

Actually faith is Christianity's biggest offensive mechanism. Faith puts into perspective all the arguments between science and and the supernatural, between reason and belief. Christians should have a confidence that there is no conflict between science and faith. If God is the originator of everything then the laws of science and the ways of nature are his. The conflict between believers and non-believing scientists comes because believers accept that these "rules" were created for a physical universe but the dimension where God exists and operates is not subject to these "rules". Therefore the belief in the supernatural - divine intervention if you will - is perfectly natural. I can be guided by reason and experience in my faith in God to an extent but ultimately I have to humble myself and understand I am not capable of understanding His ways.

Humor

"One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

Faithful Reasoning

"It seems that man is animated by an unquenchable desire to enlarge his vision and to know the ultimate meaning of things. Man is a metaphysical animal ever longing for answers to the last questions. This in some way accounts for mans continual search for the object of religious faith known as God. The search has often been a difficult and devious one, yet amid all of its difficulties many have continued to search for the unfailing source of eternal value. In this great religious odyssey many have fallen out on the way, some disillusioned and some content.

Those who are content may be divided into two groups, one ostensibly religious and the other irreligious. The irreligious group has resolved the problem by eliminating all mystery from the universe. For them the natural cause is an adequate explanation of anything they may perceive.

The religious group on the other hand will admit that there is mystery in the universe, but they claim to know too much about this eternal mystery. They will speak as if they have just had a chat with the divine on the cosmic Boulevard. Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr has said that many people in this group will speak as if they know the geography of heaven and hell and the furniture of the one and the temperature of the other. At least the agnostics and fundamentalists have one thing in common: they have given up the search for the eternal mystery of the universe.

But any genuine Christian faith will not be content with such dogmatic assertions. It sees that there is an element of mystery both in the natural world and the unseen world, and that the search for God is a process not an achievement. We never find all of God." From the Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. http://stanford.edu/group/King/publicati...

To make the argument that evolution, and christianity can co-exist would require there to be a compromise within the word, which would open a door to discount the bible entirely. We, as christians, are fortunate that the bible can withstand the scrutiny of real science (not junk science based on half truths and guesses) and therefore do not have to "rationalize" or create a "defense mechanism" in regards to our beliefs.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Feb 13, 2009, at 4:30 PM

I agree that to believe in evolution would open the door to discount the bible entirely, which is exactly why most christians wouldn't even dare to begin to open that door, regardless of the evidence. A christian would be questioning his faith by even considering such an idea, and we all know faith is an important requirement to be a Christian.

That's the biggest defense mechanism in christianity - faith. Christianity teaches that faith is a virtue. Why? How is believing in anything without evidence a positive thing? Have you ever thought that maybe that idea was put in place by men who had something to hide? It doesn't really allow a person to use critical thinking.

I don't understand how you or michaelbell can dismiss a theory based on lack of evidence or "missing links", yet believe wholeheartedly in something in which there is no evidence. That is truly amazing. Why don't you apply the same amount of skepticism to the bible?

"I would like to say that I appreciate your comments and the fact that you have addressed everything in an adult manner. That is something that doesn't always happen and that I am guilty of myself. Although I can't help but feel after reading it that there was a hint of sarcasm and I had the feeling I had been "talked down to"."

Any sarcasm was meant to lighten the mood a bit since this kind of stuff can sometimes get a little too serious. Sorry if you felt like I was talking down to you or anyone else.

"One thing we do agree on, sort of, is natural selection. Natural selection,speciation, and adaption ARE real and observable things. Although a lot of people confuse these things with proof of evolution"

Well if you extrapolate natural selection over time isn't evolution the result? If beings adapt over time shouldn't they eventually become so divergent from other populations as to become entirely new species? In my mind, one leads to the other. That's not to say that all life on Earth came from a single source (more evidence is needed for anything beyond conjecture), but I don't see any reason why one species wouldn't eventually adapt into something else entirely. What would hold it back?

"but it does not prove that man was derived from a mudpuddle making love to tadpole poop, or a turkey came from a trex."

Regarding the former, yes the origin of all life as we know it is entirely up in the air. Evolution can't come close to explaining it at this point and doesn't really intend to. Regarding the latter, the evidence supporting the evolution of birds from dinosaurs seems fairly sound. I mean, we have evidence of dinosaurs, evidence of dinosaurs with feathers, even evidence of winged dinosaurs with feathers, and finally the arrival of birds. It's not an airtight proposition, but it uses logic and reason derived from observation. At the very least it's a reasonable starting point for further investigation.

"What I think Michael was talking about was transitional fossils, which there is no REAL evidence of. If evolution was correct there shoud be remains and fossils of millions of transitional species."

Fossils can be few and far between so it does take some time to fill in the gaps, just as Darwin predicted. That being said, scientists have found fossils that certainly have the potential to be transitional. The aforementioned dinos with feathers, for instance. Lucy being another. Cro-Magnon man is clearly a close relative of modern Homo sapiens. Neanderthals seem to be a divergent population, likely from a common source. Certainly, evolution has a long way to go before all the holes are filled in (likely an impossible task), but the fact that it has only been strengthened over time with subsequent discoveries is certainly encouraging.

"Kinda on the same subject is the idea that the gaps in the fossil record are closing. This is being sold as true but it is true only with lots of artistic interpretation."

Well, I buy it as true, so you're going to have to sell me to the contrary :)

"When you look at geological evidence with the preconcieved notion that the earth is millions of years old and you ignored a lot of evidence that contradicts that notion then I guess you could determine that "young earth" theory was wrong."

That's just the thing. The preconceived notion was actually that the Earth was actually much younger than we discovered. Scientists had to throw away their preconceptions to accommodate new evidence. What evidence specifically points to a young Earth?

"Although, when you observe geology with the fact that there WAS a global flood and the earth is not millions of years old then a lot of things start making sense."

I don't think any scientist would be surprised to learn that there really was a global flood. Many cultures have passed down legends of it and clearly the story in the Bible, even if it's fictional, could have been based on a real event. How does proof of a flood lend credence to the young Earth idea?

"I am sorry, but I do not have to bend any facts or theories to fit any preconcieved notions. It all fits seamlessly together."

How would you account for dinosaurs then? And carbon dating?

"I do agree that "most" christians do not take the bible literally and it saddens me. There is no reason that the bible shouldn't be taken literally it is scientifically,historically,and archaeologically sound."

But the question shouldn't be "why don't you take the Bible as literal fact?", but rather "why would you take the Bible as literal fact?". We know very little about how, when, and by whom the books of the Bible were written. We do know that there have been multiple version, however. We do know that a council had to decide what to include in a definitive version. We know that some books were kept, while others were discarded. If it is the literal word of God, how is it that so many men were involved in deciding what exactly would go into it? What makes the King James version somehow become the "real" one? So you see, I don't think of the "why not" question as fair. The burden is on those who would have others believe that this collection of disparate texts, written, compiled, and edited by man, is also the literal word of God.

"I know I did not reply to a lot that you asked me to and I apologize it is just late and I am doing this on a blackberry. If you really want me to get in depth and provide more and exacting detail, I will. You will just have to wait till monday."

No problem. Respond to as much or as little as like. I just find the discussion interesting.

And to clarify, when I say "preconception" I include religious faith in that category, because, after all, what is faith if not a conclusion without a premise? That's not meant as an attack on the notion of faith, but rather a reminder that it is something that operates independently of evidentiary support. This is why these types of debates often prove futile. The two sides aren't playing by the same rules.

For many people, their faith trumps all other belief or evidence, observed or not. These types of preconceptions are why we now have museums that teach children that early man hunted dinosaurs. It's also what gives us pseudoscience like Intelligent Design, which rejects the scientific method from the outset.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you actually educate yourself before you cast aspersions at scientific theories. I've heard enough "If men came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" type questions to last me a lifetime.

This blog entry and many of the responses to it go a long way in confirming something I've observed time and time again: The vast majority of people who reject the theory of evolution simply don't understand it. One it's explained, most people are surprised at how much sense it makes. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but it was taught extensively throughout my (yes, public) schooling, from junior high all the way up through college. This is going to be long so you might want to make some popcorn...

By the way, I don't usually care for the aggressive turns these conversations take so I'll do my best to keep this friendly and informative. You catch more flies with honey and all that jazz...

"notice I said theory"

If evolution fell under the colloquial definition of the word theory you may have a point, however it's scientific usage is quite different. As gottago mentioned, in science, when a concept is labelled as a theory it means that it has been under tremendous scrutiny and has evidentiary support. It's not as watertight as a Law (very few thing are, after all), but it has far greater validity than a hypothesis, which is what I think you are confusing it with. When you emphasize the theory in "Theory of Evolution" you're actually underlining its validity.

"You see this theory is still taught in text books and on T.V. as it if it was rock solid truth, but it isn't."

Like I said, it isn't a law, but it's about as close as you can get.

"They have never been able to find Darwin's so called missing link which is the missing piece to his theory."

Huh? There is no missing piece to Darwin's theory. Only gaps in the evolutionary process. There's not one extinct animal that, if unearthed, with conveniently provide a bridge between diverging species. Where exactly did you hear about this "missing link" that science can't find? Surely you can expect Darwin to have mapped out the evolution of every single species on the planet. Yes, he put forth the idea, but it's been up to the rest of the scientific community to compare it to their own findings, and as it happens, it holds up really, really well.

"Nothing can be found in mid transformation into something else."

Fossils that fill in gaps between species are indeed being found. Again, there is no airtight web of progression, but the very notion that there would be is ridiculous to begin with. I'm wondering if you have a misconception regarding you use of the term "mid transformation." You make it sound as if a single creature will actually transform into another. Evolution, however, takes place over hundreds of thousands of years, with species almost always adapting one gene at a time. There's no certainty that there will be a dramatic "transformation" for scientists to stumble upon. That would have to be a result of intense environmental change, or some unusual biological process. Instead they observe a gradual divergence. Again, I'm curious as to where you're getting your information from? Like I said above, 99% of this kind of stuff comes from misunderstanding or misinformation.

"Why are things not evolving now?"

They are. All the time. All around us. We just don't get much opportunity to witness it first-hand since it takes many, many generations to observe significant change and very few living things reproduce that fast. This is why we must rely on the fossil record.

We can, however, see it in microorganisms. When an antibiotic is introduced into an environment with bacteria most of the bacteria will be wiped out. However, in some instances, thanks to random genetic mutation, a bacterium that is resistant to the antibiotic will emerge. Now of these two types of bacteria, which do you reckon is more likely to survive and reproduce? The answer is pure common sense. Any mutation that leads to an advantage when it comes to reproduction is clearly going to give the organism that exhibits it a better shot at keeping its toes in the deep end of the gene pool. This is known as natural selection. It is the building block of evolution. We see it all the time. It's happening all around us. Definitely check out the peppered moth experiment. It makes the concept infinitely easier to understand (more so than what I can probably do).

Here's a link to the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_mo...

It's what they use in school to help kids better grasp the concept. I remember learning about it way back in the eighth grade. As a matter of fact, I recall going into the lesson with much the same attitude as you, Michael. I knew very little of evolution and actually had a pretty strong bias against it. Even at the age of 14, though, I couldn't deny the simple logic of it. It made perfect sense to me. Suddenly I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about.

Another place you'll see genetic divergence at work is in animal breeding. Look at how many incredibly diverse breeds of dog there are in the world. How did they get this way? Simple. Humans were able to pick and choose from varying traits of different dogs and breed them to accentuate the desired traits. The difference here is that the selection isn't natural, but man-made. You can bet, though, that anything man can do in this field, environmental forces can do just the same. Instead of a person deciding that he wants a dog with a long snout and breeding accordingly, environmental forces may be such that a long snouted dog will be better at gathering food and thus more likely to survive and reproduce. So my somewhat rhetorical question would have to be, if humans can affect this kind of change in animal species what would stop environmental forces from doing the same? It's only natural, right?

"very good question , Michael!! I too wonder that point ...........also if Man came from monkey as some think , then why aren't there any monkeys being born to humans? after all , it's inherited,same as any other trait that's passed thru the generations . Isn't that enough in itself to show that evolution isn't factual ?"

Again, this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. One species can't simply give birth to another. Biology doesn't work that way. A woman can't have an ape baby and vice versa.

"Evolution continues to hold true by closing gaps in the fossil record"

Yes! The theory of evolution has only gotten stronger over time. It's seldom that a drastically original notion like evolution is actually strengthened by the scrutiny that ensues, but practically every new discovery in the area either helps to confirm Darwin's theory or deepens our understanding of it.

"new discoveries that reinforce the model of puntuated equilibria"

I've only recently been reading about this and it's pretty interesting. I'd always fallen in line with the more gradual approach espoused by people like Richard Dawkins and Darwin himself, but I think P.E. is a fascinating idea. It's ideas like this that disprove the misconceptions of stubbornness amidst science that several here seem to believe in. If scientists are so utterly attached to their viewpoint why would ideas like P.E. emerge at all?

"There is nothing about evolution that should really disturb people of faith. As a matter of fact, I have recently read an article where many mainstream Christian leaders are attempting to send that very message."

Absolutely. As a matter of fact, my Evolutionary Biology professor in college was a Protestant Minister! He once went on a lecture-long rant about the ridiculousness of Intelligent Design, which was a fad at the time. Even Pope John Paul II came out and declared that evolutionary theory is valid and not inconsistent with Roman Catholic teaching.

"It simple, God exist, that is all there is to it!"

Nobody is questioning your belief in God. This is another common knee-jerk reaction that people have had toward scientific discovery for centuries. Somehow people get it into their heads that finding an inconsistency with scientific thought and a literal interpretation of the Bible can somehow shake the foundations of their religion to it's core. The good news is that people get over it. The bad news is that it can take a few generations before some are able to let go of the preconceptions of their parents and grandparents. The same thing happened when we discovered that the world is round. It happened again when we found that the Earth rotates around the Sun.

Also, there is no scientific agenda to discredit religion, if for no other reason than because it is absolutely impossible to disprove the existence of God. Scientists aren't out to get religion. They aren't even on the same playing field.

"Even Darwin questioned his own theory."

Of course he did. If he didn't he wouldn't be a scientist. Science is all about coming up with an idea and then trying your darnedest to disprove it. If he thought he had all the answers he wouldn't have been a scientist, he would have been a theologian (ZING!...anybody?...)

Also, if you're looking for objective analysis evolutionnews.org isn't the place to go. They do have an agenda.

"I think the debate on evolution is pointless . . . I could care less if I came from a monkey or an amoeba because it doesn't change who I am now. I wasn't around when God created man nor anyone else and so we will never know the full process in how he created man nor does it matter to believing in God."

If you want to understand the present a good place to start is with an understanding of the past. Man, I need to start a fortune cookie business or something.

"What I have found is that the theory of evolution and the science that follows it, just doesnt work out."

You're really going to have to elaborate on that. What doesn't work? Be specific.

"It only works when the truth is bent to fit the theory."

Honestly? You're treading on dangerous ground there, being as that's exactly how religious fundamentalist form their beliefs. They have a predetermined conclusion that they must bend over backwards to accommodate to the facts, usually with disastrous results (man living alongside dinosaurs, for instance).

"I have also began leaning towards the "young earth" mindset."

Hold the phone... You reject evolutionary theory on the basis of poor science... and then you assert your belief in an idea that directly contradicts every shred of physical evidence on the planet...

"I understand that as a product of public schooling you, like most people, will believe anything in a text book as the solid and unwavering truth."

And what is Christian Fundamentalism but belief in the solid and unwavering truth of a book? Again, it's like you're trying to somehow use the arguments against your position to strengthen it. How does that work? If you want to win people over to your point of view, reminding people of its criticisms may not be the best course.

And if scientists believed everything they read there would be no science. There would be no advancement whatsoever. And for the record, most public school kids don't even crack open their text books :D

"Even when it is clear that there is misinformation in said books and other scientific theories and observations are fully founded on these mistruths, they are still taught to our children as advancement of knowledge. Yet, if someone brings up any idea that can challenge these mistruths and junk science they are considered close minded bible thumpers, and you say we Christians can rationalize anything."

What misinformation are you talking about? Again, science welcomes challenges. It's what the entire system of thought is based on. You come up with an idea and then you present it with challenges. The reaction you refer to comes not from legitimate scientific criticism, but from uninformed people who refute evolutionary theory with nothing but religious conviction. How does religious belief have any bearing on conclusions drawn from objective observation? By it's very definition religious belief renders the observations non-objective.

You call it junk science, but why? Simply because it challenges your preconception. You can't handle questioning your own beliefs so you attack whatever stands in their way. Same thing that happened with the round Earth. Same thing that happened with heliocentrism. Those that ignore the past are condemned to repeat it.

"There are many, many non-christian scientists that will not subscribe to the theory of evolution because scientifically it does not hold water."

Define "many." 12? 38? Apparently it's actually about 700. The vast majority of scientists, regardless of religious denomination, believe in evolution. As much as 99.85% according to: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA...

"The theory of evolution is more of a faith based religion than science."

Incorrect. Evolution is based on observation. Religion is based on faith.

"The reason that evolution and christianity can not co-exist, is that the bible clearly teaches that everything was created by God, not started by God until it turned into something else, but created each according to its "kind". This especially relates to mankind, because we were created in his image."

Hypothetically, if God is omniscient (as I trust you believe), wouldn't he know what was going to happen once he set things in motion? Therefore, the Earth wouldn't have "turned into something else" it would have taken a path he could completely foresee. I don't think it's inconsistent with the majority of Christian teachings.

"To make the argument that evolution, and christianity can co-exist would require there to be a compromise within the word, which would open a door to discount the bible entirely."

That's only if you believe in the Bible as the literal word of God, which most Christians do not. According to the last few NES surveys, the majority of Christians in the U.S. believe that the Bible is the word of God as interpreted by man.

Well that was one heck of a long response. Thanks to anybody who actually read it all the way through. Misconceptions like this just get my goat. And like I said waaaaay at the top, I find that pretty much everyone who actually learns what evolution means will discover that they have no problem with it. This is why I don't fear for the future of scientific inquiry, at least in this area. Eventually, those that reject evolution will be as rare as those who still believe that the Earth is flat (and yes, they are out there...). Unless, of course, something new comes along to displace it. Doesn't seem likely at this point, but hey, you never know...

I leave you all with a little valentine that seems utterly appropriate to the discussion: http://www.scienceblogs.de/ein-bisschen-...

Have a good one, everybody.

Richard,

I think I know you, don't want to give it away. But does your wife work in an office environment at a certain company? Because I think my wife works with her.

I agree that this debate is pointless. If scientists had a complete fossil record for the entire history of the world, most christians such as Michael would not be convinced. Christianity is so full of defense mechanisms, believers can rationalize anything.

michaelbell,

your knowledge of science is the equal of your knowledge of history.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/zog...

Even Darwin questioned his own theory.

Sorry guys,

My post contains horrible punctuation errors. Horrible headache tonight, but i hope the post was readable.

Evolving and Adapting, couldn't they be the same thing? It is hard to see something evolve, but adapting holds more easily. If you have to keep adapting to the same environment, wouldn't you start to get used to it? Why is that?

very good question , Michael!! I too wonder that point ...........also if Man came from monkey as some think , then why aren't there any monkeys being born to humans? after all , it's inherited,same as any other trait that's passed thru the generations . Isn't that enough in itself to show that evolution isn't factual ?