The Sword in the Sand

[MaxCathedral]

Battle lines have been drawn....

 

1968, Eppeson vs Arkansas..made it illegal for a teacher in a state funded school to teach evolution.

 

1987. Edwards vs. Aguillard, Supreme Court rules against laws requring equal time for Creationism.

 

Why has the Evolutionary Community failed to win over the Creationist Community. They have the facts, yet war still rages.

 

 

For instance Evolutionist claim transitional fossils exist. Creationist laugh at these claims, calling them open to interperation and that no transitional fossils exist, at all.

 

 

Someone is lying.

 

Can someone present just five proofs that evolution is fact.

Can someone present just five proofs that creationism is a fact.

 

I would love to read them as I am sure others here would.

[Skye]

Battle lines have been drawn....

 

1968' date=' Eppeson vs Arkansas..made it illegal for a teacher in a state funded school to teach evolution.

 

1987. Edwards vs. Aguillard, Supreme Court rules against laws requring equal time for Creationism.[/quote']

Remember that judges make decisions that are according to legislation, rather than freely on what they feel is right or wrong.

Why has the Evolutionary Community failed to win over the Creationist Community. They have the facts, yet war still rages.

Some nuts are hard to crack.

For instance Evolutionist claim transitional fossils exist. Creationist laugh at these claims, calling them open to interperation and that no transitional fossils exist, at all.

 

Someone is lying.

Nobody is lying, just different people interpret the same things differently.

Can someone present just five proofs that evolution is fact.

Can someone present just five proofs that creationism is a fact.

Proofs are for mathematics, you're stuck with interpreting data in science.

[Bluenoise]

There is no proof for either.

 

Though there are far more facts supporting the theory of evolution.

And you could find these by doing a quick search on these forums.

 

And absolutely nothing creditable supporting creationism might I add.

[Hellbender]

Can someone present just five proofs that evolution is fact.

Biological evolution not only fact, but a theory as well that explains the fact that organisms change and adapt over time. Evidences for evolution (I want to make it short) include:

 

Observed adaptation: Species of plants and fruitflies have been observed changing and adapting to various pressures.

Homologies: Species deemed related have similarites based on virtue of common descent.

Palentological progression: The deeper the sediment the fossil is found in in, the "simpler" it is.

Jury Rigging: Similar to homology, many organisms have anatomical features that show poor or careless "design", such as teeth in juvenile baleen whales which are later reabsorbed.

Paleontological evidence: Paleontologists have discovered fossils that apparently indicate that organisms branch from common ancestors to exploit different modes of life. For instance there is a robust fossil record from early Lhasa Apso-sized Hyracotherium to modern Equus.

 

There are many, many more very interesting examples. I suggest Talk.Origins for more.

Can someone present just five proofs that creationism is a fact.

*crickets chirping*

[MaxCathedral]

Biological evolution not only fact' date=' but a theory as well that explains the fact that organisms change and adapt over time. Evidences for evolution (I want to make it short) include:

 

[u']Observed adaptation[/u]: Species of plants and fruitflies have been observed changing and adapting to various pressures.

Homologies: Species deemed related have similarites based on virtue of common descent.

Palentological progression: The deeper the sediment the fossil is found in in, the "simpler" it is.

Jury Rigging: Similar to homology, many organisms have anatomical features that show poor or careless "design", such as teeth in juvenile baleen whales which are later reabsorbed.

Paleontological evidence: Paleontologists have discovered fossils that apparently indicate that organisms branch from common ancestors to exploit different modes of life. For instance there is a robust fossil record from early Lhasa Apso-sized Hyracotherium to modern Equus.

 

There are many, many more very interesting examples. I suggest Talk.Origins for more.

 

*crickets chirping*

 

Max: good points all..and still busting up over "crickets chirping"...clever

[Deathby]

Well I've heard enough creationist crap to throw out a few examples (rather than the generic Bible=good, scientists=Satan in his evil guise)

 

1. Whilst it has been proven that natural selection does occur, there is no proof this leads to speciation in the long run. (aka natural selection is a short term tweaking thing, rather than a slow upgrading process)

 

2. Convergent evolution is just an excuse and a cover-up. They know we're right (rofl). Satan guides their voices.

 

3. Scientists still have yet to find how life began. (I'm not entirely sure how that disproves evolution). Yes I know about the Urey-Miller experiments, but we still don't know how those carbon compounds began replicating.

 

4. Non-reducible complexity. In other words, structures which cannot be made simpler. The classic example (though disproved vehemently and frequently) is the human eye. How can something so complex have evolved in a series of little jumps. [i believe someone made a computer program modelling evolution that started from an eyespot in microorganisms to become a reasonable facimile of a human eye.]

 

5. There is a lot of dodgy evolutionist evidence. I did some research on hycotherium a while back and there is so much creationist crap about it, claiming that the line of descent which hellbender referred to is spread all over the world and is actually in the wrong chronological order.

 

That's some of the best evidence for creationism IMO. There's a lot of other stuff, such as dinosaur and human footprints, trees sticking through several layers of strata (trying to disprove the basic tenets of geology), disproving carbon dating (no proof that C decays at the same exponential rate) etc. Most of that is wrong though and easily disproven.

[MaxCathedral]

Deathby,

 

 

No, no..you do yourself a diservice..there is some great stuff in there.

 

Some Famous Creationist moments.

 

1. the "speed arc" of natural selection.

 

2. The dubious nature of convergent evolution.

 

3. The how did it all begin anyhow.

 

4. Darwins' Black Box and Behe's argument for Irreducible complexity.

 

5. And the Puzzles Pieces don't fit analogy.

 

To be sure each has their followers in the Creationists camp, and until evolutionists can produce...a clear, easy to under missing link fossil. It aint gonna happen.

[Ophiolite]

*crickets chirping*

Outstanding sound effects. Wholly convincing. Should receive a 'Refutation of the Year' award.

[Cornelius]

Support for Creationism

- Biblical artifacts & architecture have been found ex) tunnels, scriptures, Noah's Ark

- Scientists even agree that there was a man named Jesus who claimed he was the messiah, that walked the Earth

 

However, one thing the bible does not explain is dinosaurs...the word is not even mentioned in the books, and we seem to know dinosaurs are in fact a reality.

[MaxCathedral]

Support for Creationism

- Biblical artifacts & architecture have been found ex) tunnels' date=' scriptures, Noah's Ark

- Scientists even agree that there was a man named Jesus who claimed he was the messiah, that walked the Earth

 

However, one thing the bible does not explain is dinosaurs...the word is not even mentioned in the books, and we seem to know dinosaurs are in fact a reality.[/quote']

 

Max: That would be an argument from silence...and therfore not proof.

[Hellbender]

Support for Creationism

- Biblical artifacts & architecture have been found ex) tunnels' date=' scriptures, Noah's Ark[/quote']

This seems to be only support the fact that the authors of the bible knew about these tunnels and whatnot and included it in what they wrote. Its hardly evidence As far as I know for biblical creationism. The Noah's Ark: found! B.S. is the stuff of cheap supermarket tabloids like Weekly World News.

Scientists even agree that there was a man named Jesus who claimed he was the messiah, that walked the Earth

You mean historians agree. Its not impossible that a man that pretty much started a Jewish sect that turned into a major religion was once alive. I believe it and I am not a Christian.

However, one thing the bible does not explain is dinosaurs...the word is not even mentioned in the books, and we seem to know dinosaurs are in fact a reality.

Because the authors of the bible never heard of dinosaurs because paeontology didn't yet exist.

[Cornelius]

I made a mistake, I did not mean to include Noah's Ark in there because there has been no proof for it, amid many explorations.

 

If you want "proof of God," look around you, He created it. If you cannot believe that, then go with evolution, as simple as that. Since science seems to be a reliable source, more people are drawn towards the logical evolutionary theories.

 

---

 

Correction on my part: Although the literal term "dinosaurs" aren't used in the Bible, mainly because the word "dinosaur" was coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to the tanniyn, behemoth (aka brachiosaurus), and Leviathan (sea creature). Throughout the Bible there are many accounts on these dinosaurs.

 

---

 

Some people believe that the Bible is not a scientifically accurate book, and that it is only a “spiritual book,” that forgot about dinosaurs or described them incorrectly. This is not the case. Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information. Keep this in mind.

[Sayonara]

Well I've heard enough creationist crap to throw out a few examples (rather than the generic Bible=good' date=' scientists=Satan in his evil guise)

 

1. Whilst it has been proven that natural selection does occur, there is no proof this leads to speciation in the long run. (aka natural selection is a short term tweaking thing, rather than a slow upgrading process)[/quote']

Not evidence for creationism.

 

2. Convergent evolution is just an excuse and a cover-up. They know we're right (rofl). Satan guides their voices.

Not evidence for creationism.

 

3. Scientists still have yet to find how life began. (I'm not entirely sure how that disproves evolution). Yes I know about the Urey-Miller experiments, but we still don't know how those carbon compounds began replicating.

Not evidence for creationism.

 

4. Non-reducible complexity. In other words, structures which cannot be made simpler. The classic example (though disproved vehemently and frequently) is the human eye. How can something so complex have evolved in a series of little jumps. [i believe someone made a computer program modelling evolution that started from an eyespot in microorganisms to become a reasonable facimile of a human eye.]

Not evidence for creationism.

 

5. There is a lot of dodgy evolutionist evidence. I did some research on hycotherium a while back and there is so much creationist crap about it, claiming that the line of descent which hellbender referred to is spread all over the world and is actually in the wrong chronological order.

Not evidence for creationism.

 

That's some of the best evidence for creationism IMO. There's a lot of other stuff, such as dinosaur and human footprints, trees sticking through several layers of strata (trying to disprove the basic tenets of geology), disproving carbon dating (no proof that C decays at the same exponential rate) etc. Most of that is wrong though and easily disproven.

...and for the most part, not evidence for creationism.

 

 

Evidence against "A" (whether it is good evidence or not) is not evidence for "B". Try again.

[john5746]

Some people believe that the Bible is not a scientifically accurate book' date=' and that it is only a “spiritual book,” that forgot about dinosaurs or described them incorrectly. This is not the case. Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information. Keep this in mind.[/quote']

 

If you are objective, you will find many inaccuracies in the Bible. For the most part, it isn't a "spiritual book".

[Hellbender]

If you want "proof of God," look around you, He created it. If you cannot believe that, then go with evolution, as simple as that. Since science seems to be a reliable source, more people are drawn towards the logical evolutionary theories.

Actually, 48% of Americans believe in biblical creation, so in the general pUblic, creationism is much more popular. Luckily, the validity of theories aren't judged on how many people like them.

Correction on my part: Although the literal term "dinosaurs" aren't used in the Bible, mainly because the word "dinosaur" was coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to the tanniyn, behemoth (aka brachiosaurus)

I don't own a bible nor do I have one on hand, I will ask you if it specifically describes a sauropod, or if it describes another made-up dragon-like beast or something.

and Leviathan (sea creature). Throughout the Bible there are many accounts on these dinosaurs.

While I could nitpick and say there was never any marine dinosaurs, but I know what you meant. Again, does the bible specifically describe something like a Kronosarus, or something more like a whale or large shark?

Some people believe that the Bible is not a scientifically accurate book, and that it is only a “spiritual book,”

And it has it merits in the latter for many people, so i don't see why people try so hard to find scientific accuracy in it.

...that forgot about dinosaurs or described them incorrectly. This is not the case. Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information. Keep this in mind.

Please show me that it explicitly and correctly describes dinosaurs. I am interested. Actually astronomers, astrophysicists, geologists and biologists have proven that the bible has some incorrect information in it (if you happen to take it all literally). For instance, the earth is not flat, stars aren't nearby lights that occasionally fall to earth, a global flood is impossible and all life wasn't created in its current form in six days.

[Mokele]

Though there are far more facts supporting the theory of evolution.

 

Actually, evolution is both fact and theory.

 

The fact of evolution is that the genetic composition (and resultant phenotype proportions) of populations change with time. This is indisputable.

 

The theory of evolution is that natural selection (and sexual selection) are responsible for this observed data.

 

Think of it like gravity. The fact/law of gravity is that if I drop an object, it falls in a certain way. The theory/theories of gravity explain why in terms of space-curvature, gravitrons, superstrings, whatever.

 

1. Whilst it has been proven that natural selection does occur, there is no proof this leads to speciation in the long run. (aka natural selection is a short term tweaking thing, rather than a slow upgrading process)

 

Proven and observed happening.

 

2. Convergent evolution is just an excuse and a cover-up. They know we're right (rofl). Satan guides their voices.

 

You have to tape record evolution lectures, then play them backwards to hear the real satanic messages. ::nods knowingly::

 

3. Scientists still have yet to find how life began. (I'm not entirely sure how that disproves evolution).

 

It doesn't in the slightest. Plus, just because we don't know how doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We don't know how gravity *really* works (gravitrons?), but it still happens.

 

4. Non-reducible complexity. In other words, structures which cannot be made simpler. The classic example (though disproved vehemently and frequently) is the human eye. How can something so complex have evolved in a series of little jumps. [i believe someone made a computer program modelling evolution that started from an eyespot in microorganisms to become a reasonable facimile of a human eye.]

 

Alternatively, we also have polychaete worms, who show numerous "stages" of eyes, highlighting the probably evolutionary path. I have a nice picture for this here, though I don't know the reference and would love if anyone could tell me.

 

5. There is a lot of dodgy evolutionist evidence. I did some research on hycotherium a while back and there is so much creationist crap about it, claiming that the line of descent which hellbender referred to is spread all over the world and is actually in the wrong chronological order.

 

That individual peoplke are wrong, or that phylogenies and fossil histories are difficult to reconstruct, doesn't prove a theory wrong.

 

That's some of the best evidence for creationism IMO. There's a lot of other stuff, such as dinosaur and human footprints, trees sticking through several layers of strata (trying to disprove the basic tenets of geology), disproving carbon dating (no proof that C decays at the same exponential rate) etc. Most of that is wrong though and easily disproven.

 

You gave it a good shot, though.

 

Sad, isn't it? Someone *deliberately* trying to find the best arguements they can still can't find anything. Says a lot about creationism.

 

To be sure each has their followers in the Creationists camp, and until evolutionists can produce...a clear, easy to under missing link fossil. It aint gonna happen.

 

Oh, we've got plenty. Google "triadobatrachus". It's a fossil "frog" that's an almost perfect intermediatry between salamanders and frogs.

 

Support for Creationism

- Biblical artifacts & architecture have been found ex) tunnels, scriptures, Noah's Ark

- Scientists even agree that there was a man named Jesus who claimed he was the messiah, that walked the Earth

 

Neither of which supports anything. Just because one part of the bible is right doesn't mean it all is. If I write on a napkin "I had a lean pocket for lunch. 2+2=5", that doesn't mean I just refuted all of math.

 

Jesus's reality (which is actually dubious) also says jack shit about the subject.

 

Correction on my part: Although the literal term "dinosaurs" aren't used in the Bible, mainly because the word "dinosaur" was coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to the tanniyn, behemoth (aka brachiosaurus), and Leviathan (sea creature). Throughout the Bible there are many accounts on these dinosaurs.

 

Actually, even a cursory reading shows Leviathan to be a crocodile. The characteristics work perfect, and the jews were certainly familiar with them from Egypt. The most likely candidate for behemoth is a hippo (vicious bastards, worse than crocs, really).

 

Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information. Keep this in mind.

 

We've proven Genesis wrong for a start.

 

Mokele

[Cornelius]

If you are objective, you will find many inaccuracies in the Bible. For the most part, it isn't a "spiritual book".

 

Can you give me an example of an inaccuracy you found in the bible that does not interfer with their limited knowledge of technology? The Bible is actually a spiritual book, I'm assuming you haven't read it? I'm not really understanding your post, you fail to show me evidence and it seems like you're being a little biased towards evolution. Please give me a fair trial, I don't care if you prove me wrong, as long a peaceful conclusion is met at the end based on facts and agreement of both sides.

 

I don't own a bible nor do I have one on hand, I will ask you if it specifically describes a sauropod, or if it describes another made-up dragon-like beast or something.

 

My pleasure. Here are some references from the Bible, most of which refer to dinosaurs. The word "Dinosaur" was not invented until 1841 so we won't find it in the Bible. "Dragons", "dragon" and "Behemoth" all refer to dinosaurs. From the descriptions found in Job, scientists have attempted to identify these animals. They believe "Behemoth" is a hippo and "Leviathan" is a crocodile. But these scientists limited their choices to non-extinct species and did not consider the possibility of dinosaurs because man and dinosaur never coexisted. Even in the Bible a footnote suggests these two animals were a hippo and a crocodile. But there are some reasons why this conclusion is false.

 

"Behemoth" cannot be a Hippo because of Job 40:17 "His tails sways like a cedar". A hippo has a short tail like a pig. Behemoth, had a large tail shaped like a cedar tree (large and tapered). I believe a better choice is that Behemoth is a Brachiosaurus type of large land dwelling dinosaur. It fits the description perfectly.

 

While I could nitpick and say there was never any marine dinosaurs, but I know what you meant. Again, does the bible specifically describe something like a Kronosarus, or something more like a whale or large shark?

 

"Leviathan" cannot be a crocodile but is probably a Elasmosaurus type of large water-dwelling dinosaur, or a Kronosaurus or a Liopleurodon. Here is what Job 41 says with my comments in brackets, [Verse 9] "Any hope of subduring him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering" (this was a large animal). [Verse 25] "When he rises up, the might are terrified; they retreat before his trashing" (crocodiles don't rise up, they are always on the ground). [Verse 26] "The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin" (crocodiles are quite easy to kill with a spear). [Verse 34] "He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud" (crocodiles can't look down on humans, this was a tall animal with a long neck)

 

What is significant about this is that if "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are dinosaurs, then is it crystal clear that Job had either seen them personally, or there was a recent memory of them. This of course flies in the face of current evolutionary theory. However, there is an explanation to this.

 

The Paluxy River in Texas is the home of Dinosaur National Park with hundreds of fossil dinosaur tracks. Right beside the dinosaur tracks are three sets of human fossil footprints and a large cat track. The most famous track is the Taylor Trail which consists of a series of 14 footprints in a left-right pattern. The stride and foot length is consistent throughout. The evidence is so convincing that several university students recently presented with all the data accepted that the human footprints were real, but doubted the dinosaur footprints were real. All the fossil footprints in the Park are genuine. No informed person would ever suggest that the human footprints were carved, as was irresponsibly rumored 50 years ago. It is clear that man and dinosaur lived together and co-existed at the same time. With this both science and the Bible agree.

 

And it has it merits in the latter for many people, so i don't see why people try so hard to find scientific accuracy in it.

 

Science seems to be the only way to convince people. It would be better for me to say "God is real because..." rather than "Face the fact, God is real."

 

Actually astronomers, astrophysicists, geologists and biologists have proven that the bible has some incorrect information in it (if you happen to take it all literally). For instance, the earth is not flat, stars aren't nearby lights that occasionally fall to earth,

 

Whether some passages in the Bible should be taken literally or not, that is the reader's final decision, but the false statements related to science are due to their lack of knowledge. They assumed the earth was not flat, and they assumed wrong. The "falling stars" would most likely be shooting stars.

 

a global flood is impossible

 

Actually it is possible. You're going to have to research the facts and possibilities about Noak's Ark on your own because there is just too much scientific proof backing it up. Iit would be pointless to post all the information here, considering I've probably reached the maximum character count.

 

and all life wasn't created in its current form in six days.

 

That's a pretty bold statement there, care to explain why you think so?

 

just because we don't know how doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We don't know how gravity *really* works (gravitrons?), but it still happens.

 

According to your statement, Creation is logically possible.

 

Neither of which supports anything. Just because one part of the bible is right doesn't mean it all is.

 

Actually if "one" part of the Bible is right, there is a high possibility that the rest of the Bible will follow this trend, so give it a chance.

 

If I write on a napkin "I had a lean pocket for lunch. 2+2=5", that doesn't mean I just refuted all of math.

 

I really don't know what you're getting at here, but it seems to me we share one common interest despite our disagreements. Yes, hot pockets are good

 

Jesus's reality (which is actually dubious) also says jack shit about the subject.

 

Actually whether Jesus was real or not plays a significant role in the validity of the Bible. I'm assuming you haven't read the Bible, making this kind of a statement..?

 

We've proven Genesis wrong for a start.

 

What you talkin' bout Wilson?

 

*In no way is my post and the arguments it contains meant to offend anyone. If it does, it is not intentional and for that I apologize. This is meant to be a healthy conversation and I am loving the feedback I'm getting, making this an awesome debate. A big "thank you" to anyone who has contributed

[Skye]

The Paluxy tracks aren't human, even half decent creationists think they're bollocks.

[john5746]

Can you give me an example of an inaccuracy you found in the bible that does not interfer with their limited knowledge of technology?

 

There are many websites and posts within this site that can provide many examples. Apostles give differing accounts, etc. And, if they were "inspired" their writings wouldn't be limited by thier knowledge would it? If so, we have learned quite a bit since then, time for a new edition.

 

example

 

This is a decent example, more importantly, details why many christians have no problem accepting that the bible has errors.

 

The Bible is actually a spiritual book' date=' I'm assuming you haven't read it? [/quote']

 

Not much really, but most of what I read seemed more concerned about quasi-historical happenings and our life here on earth, rather than the afterlife or spiritual matters.

 

I'm not really understanding your post' date=' you fail to show me evidence and it seems like you're being a little biased towards evolution. Please give me a fair trial, I don't care if you prove me wrong, as long a peaceful conclusion is met at the end based on facts and agreement of both sides.[/quote']

 

I am also biased toward thinking that OJ Simpson murdered his wife. There is much, much more evidence for evolution. Sure, the LA police could have been out to get him, or maybe God made it look like he did it.

 

Whether some passages in the Bible should be taken literally or not' date=' that is the reader's final decision, but the false statements related to science are due to their lack of knowledge. [/quote']

 

So now you are trying to explain away errors? How about when apostles accounts differ? Were they drunk?

 

They assumed the earth was not flat' date=' and they assumed wrong. The "falling stars" would most likely be shooting stars.[/quote']

 

They also assumed there was a God in the sky. A great being that could control everything they couldn't, even death. They assumed wrong.

[Cornelius]

Taken from the site:

 

Arguments about conflict between the Bible and science are pointless. The Bible is not a science text; the scientific method was unknown in biblical times. Theology may use rigorous logic in a similar manner to science, but the subject matter, God, is not amenable to empirical testing. Science cannot give guidance on moral and spiritual questions, but the methods of science can be used to help determine the provenance and authenticity of the Bible. The purposes of religion and science are completely different. Science seeks to describe, explain, and predict. The Bible tries to tell the purpose of creation, and to point the way to morality, righteousness, and salvation. It should not be surprising that their methods are different and even incompatible.

 

I'll read the rest of the site soon, seems interesting.

 

Not much really, but most of what I read seemed more concerned about quasi-historical happenings and our life here on earth, rather than the afterlife or spiritual matters.

 

Can you tell me which books you have read?

 

There is much, much more evidence for evolution.

 

More evidence only makes evolution more believable...not the absolute truth.

 

So now you are trying to explain away errors? How about when apostles accounts differ? Were they drunk?

 

I'll get back to you on this after I read the rest of the site you linked me too.

 

They also assumed there was a God in the sky. A great being that could control everything they couldn't, even death. They assumed wrong.

 

Every thesis needs support. You have a thesis, but no support.

[john5746]

Can you tell me which books you have read?

 

I was referring to what I had read in the Bible.

 

 

More evidence only makes evolution more believable...not the absolute truth.

 

When you catch the bird-flu virus' date=' that will confirm evolution. Doesn't mean everything is correct, but evolution does happen.

 

Every thesis needs support. You have a thesis, but no support.

 

I was playing tongue-in-cheek with your words, so back at you.

[Deathby]

Your "dinosaur" it seems to me could just as likely have been a mammoth. I seem to recall that Siberian dwarf mammoths survived into historical times and there were pictures of some in some ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. Unfortunately I don't recall where I read this so I can't verify its authority.

 

Not really being familiar with the Bible, but I think the ancient Greek myths have yet to be disproven. Just because Jove himself hasn't personally come down to seduce our women doesn't mean he didn't once do it. It is of course possible that Mt Olympus does have Gods living there sipping ambrosia and nectar, but they just hide their massive temple from mortal eyes. If humans were there from the beginning, surely the Ancient Egyptians or Greeks would have known more about Creation than us.

 

But what about the Dead Sea scrolls? They contain extra stuff, like Lilith. Adam's first wife etc. Doesn't that count as evidence that Genesis may not be entirely correct?

[Cornelius]

That was a lot of information I just absorbed into my brain...I think it's going to explode...!

[Cornelius]

I was referring to what I had read in the Bible.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear on this. "Genesis" and "Psalms" are considered books of the Bible. I was just curious as to which ones you have read.

 

When you catch the bird-flu virus, that will confirm evolution. Doesn't mean everything is correct, but evolution does happen.

 

I don't deny evolution, it's a fact. There are even some evolutionary-Christians, Christians who believe in the Creation and then evolution occurring afterwards. However, I seriously doubt the Big Bang like you doubt the Creation.

 

I was playing tongue-in-cheek with your words, so back at you.

 

Oh well, it's a draw here. None of us can prove our cases 100%

[Sayonara]

This thread is full of crap.

 

If dinosaurs existed up to 3,000 years ago, where are their remains? Where are the Egyptian, Sumerian, and Mesopotamian records of such creatures? What total drivel. And I notice everyone making the argument for Behemoth being a dinosaur conveniently failed to mention that the Bible describes it as having a navel (16), and also describes the strength of its bones (18) - which nobody observing could have known. It even goes on to say what behemoth does at the weekend, when it's not ramapaging and eating goats (21-23). It's just a ****ing set piece, get over it.

 

Leviathan isn't even a description of a specific beast - it's just a metaphor for man's impotence in the face of nature. It amazes me that some people can say "oh you just don't understand the bible" one minute, yet abandon their ability to interpret it properly the second it becomes convenient.

 

We already played this game here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1581

 

 

Where the hell is all the water for a global flood supposed to come from? Seriously - calculate the vacant space volume of the average layer required to cover everything, and then calculate the volume of water tied up as ice and cloud.

 

As for the Paluxy tracks - don't make me laugh. They've been debunked here to a highly satisfying degree, and over and over again elsewhere by much more thorough parties.

 

...

 

I know that was an angry sounding post, but for god's sake - it's the same old rubbish over and over and oh my god the agony of the trite over.