Some Christians have taken a stance that Evolution is just a theory. Well, I wonder if such a theory can be supported with Scriptures. But, Genesis doesn't exactly inform us on how God created the universe and its inhabitants. When I read Genesis, I get the feeling that all things came to be as a result of Order. Can we make an argument for Evolution as being of God?

Related News Story.

Creationism vs. Evolution (Part 2)

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004

Answers

I don't think it has anything to do with monkeys becoming humans.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

Scripture actually does tell us how God created. He spoke--and so it was....

All of God's creatures were created instantly--fully formed and as is. That is exactly what our fossil records reveal.

Both Creation and Evolution are theories about life and it's origins, though Evolituionists no longer purport to explain our origins--but just how life carries on.

Any honest person knows that the theory of evolution in the Darwinian sense--does seem to claim to know that life evolved from a puddle of sludge or something to that effect.

Creation science denies that our fossil record supports such a theory and believes it can better explain the evidence left to us in our world.

For example--the fossil record reveals a flood of global proportion- yet evolutionists deny that the entire earth was ever flooded.

-- Think Tank (think@tank.com), November 08, 2004.

1: evolution is just a theory......so is creationism...

2: One can beelive either and be Christain, since one can maintian evolution as the way God created, or take a more literal stance...its nto a vital issue...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 08, 2004.

Genesis doesn't give an explanation of the mechanics of our creation. Science tries to make an attempt to explain it. But, was it Adam who named all of the animals? Hmm....all of them? If Adam did, then obviously Genesis is a metaphoric account of the universal existence. Darwinism had its heyday during the Atheistic thought of this world's beliefs. So, I guess we can understand why Evolution is not accepted by Christians. I don't exactly count it out. If Evolution is real, it is of God.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

"For example--the fossil record reveals a flood of global proportion- yet evolutionists deny that the entire earth was ever flooded. "

Some Christians also make the claim that the Great Flood involved a localized region, not the entire world.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

I heard that the Great Flood Story pre-existed Moses' account. See, Gilgemesh.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

The story of creation has been handed down since the begining. Moses rerecorded it into a book.

Nothing predates the original creation story. Many versions have been recorded by preceeding generations of peoples and that is why the stories all have similar common denominators.

A world-wide flood is what the fossil record reveals.

A world-wide flood is what the Bible reveals...

2+2=4

-- Think Tank (think@tank.com), November 08, 2004.

I am with you on all three, Rod.

Genesis doesn't explain why we have 2 eyes,2 ears, one mouth, 4 extremities (legs and arms...)...like rabbits, like cows, like sheep,...like whales,...Science does.

Genesis doesn't explain how the serpent was able to talk. Neither can science.

Genesis gives 2 different accounts of male-femal creation. If w make the assumption that Eve came from Adam's rib, then why males and females have the same amount? Science and Creationism can't expain both clearly.

If the flood was universal, how was it able to cover the whole earth? How can it rain for 140 days and nothing survive? Since the ship (Ark) of Noah was only able to hold a few animals and we know there are millions everywhere? Neither science or Genesis has a good explanation.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

The problem may lay in the actual meaning of "world-wide ". We must also take into account the meaning of "Garden" when compared to those beings that existed outside of that "Garden". Really, we have only a hint of Creation, but we do not have any details by which to confirm the Creationism explanation nor the Evolution Theory.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

I do believe that Thought has the power to create. God merely thought it and it came to be. I also believe that He took clay and made Man. That "clay" can be called "sludge", "goo", or whatever. It is still God doing the creating.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

Every living creature that we see today, where did it come from unless it survived the Great Flood?

Are we merely looking at mutations?

I figure that only the marine life would have had a chance. Did the marine life eventually leave the ocean and become an evolved creature?

I'm still wondering about Adam having to name the animals. Did Adam have a smaller number to count? If so, why do we have so many animals, today?

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

There is no conflict between creation and evolution. They are entirely separate concepts. Creation concerns how things originally appeared where nothing had existed before. Evolution deals with how already existing things change over time. Evolution therefore demands creation. Things that don't exist don't evolve. The Bible tells us that God is responsible for initial creation. So does common sense. There is no viable scientific explanation for how matter and energy could have spontaneously appeared where absolutely nothing had existed previously. However, the Bible doesn't tell us how solar systems or mountain ranges or continents or new plant and animal species developed within the already created universe. Science does. Science is based on cause and effect. Change over time is an inescapable reality; therefore it is within the realm of science to investigate the natural causes of such observed change. On the other hand, Creation does not fall within the realm of science, since it deals with a situation within which "nothing" existed - no matter, no energy, no time, which therefore means that no natural cause could exist, which therefore means that the appearance of matter and energy could not be a natural effect, since every natural effect demands a natural cause. Therefore, logically the only possible source of Creation must have been extranatural, or as we prefer to call it, supernatural.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 08, 2004.

But God says He created man and woman.., he does not say that man and woman slowly evolved out of a puddle of sludge and went from a fishy like thing to a knuckle dragging ape to modern man over a long period of time.

There is also a difference between macro and micro evolution.

The Bible describes a *variation within a kind* (microevolution). For example--God may have only created one or two types of dog--yet today, there exists a variety of dogs through microevolution. That is biblical.

However--there is no biblical or scientific support for macroevolution--where one kind of animal turns into an entirely different kind. Example--bird to dinosaur or whale to elephant.

-- Think Tank (think@tank.com), November 08, 2004.

Darwin’s real message: have you missed it?

Harvard’s renowned Professor Stephen Jay Gould1 is a vigorous anticreationist (and Marxist), and perhaps the most knowledgeable student of the history of evolutionary thought and all things Darwinian.

I’m glad he and I are on the same side about one thing at least — the real meaning of ‘Darwin’s revolution’. And we both agree that it’s a meaning that the vast majority of people in the world today, nearly a century and a half after Darwin, don’t really want to face up to. Gould argues that Darwin’s theory is inherently anti-plan, anti- purpose, anti-meaning (in other words, is pure philosophical materialism). Also, that Darwin himself knew this very well and meant it to be so.

By ‘materialism’ he does not mean the drive to possess more and more material things, but the philosophical belief that matter is the only reality. In this belief system, matter, left to itself, produced all things, including the human brain. This brain then invented the idea of the supernatural, of God, of eternal life, and so forth.

It seems obvious why Christians who wish to compromise with evolution, and especially those who encourage others to do this, would not want to face this as the true meaning of Darwinism. Such ‘theistic evolutionists’ believe they can accept the ‘baby’ of evolution (thus saving face with the world) while throwing out the ‘bathwater’ of materialism. I will not here go into the many reasons why the evolution/long geological ages idea is so corrosive to the biblical Gospel (even if evolution could be seen as the plan and purpose of some ‘god’).

My purpose is (like Gould’s, but with a different motive) to make people aware of this very common philosophical blind spot, this refusal to wake up to what Darwin was really on about. Why is it true, as Gould also points out, that even among non-Christians who believe in evolution the vast majority don’t wish to face the utter planlessness of Darwin’s theory? Because they would then no longer be able to console themselves with the feeling that there is some sort of plan or purpose to our existence.

The usual thing vaguely believed in by this majority of people (at the same time as they accept evolution) is some sort of fuzzy, ethereal, oozing god-essence — more like the Star Wars ‘force be with you’ than the personal God of Scripture. They usually obtain some comfort from a vague belief in at least the possibility of some sort of afterlife, which helps explain the success of recent movies like Flatliners and Ghost.

Gould appears to deplore these popular notions as unfortunate, illogical and unnecessary cultural hangups. He, of course, starts from the proposition that evolution is true. He knows the real message of Darwin to be that ‘there’s nothing else going on out there — just organisms struggling to pass their genes on to the next generation. That’s it.’ In which case it is time for people to abandon comforting fairytales and wake up to this materialistic implication of evolution.

I also regard such notions (of cosmic purpose in a Darwinian world, of life-after-death without belief in the existence of the holy God of the Bible) as tragic fables, for different reasons. They lead people away from the vital revealed truths of Scripture, the propositional facts communicated by the Creator of the universe. It is also tragic that professing Christians can be deluded into embracing a philosophy (evolution) which is so inherently opposed to the very core of Christianity, and has done so much damage to the church and society.

Climbing the ladder As evidence for this widespread desire to see purpose and plan in the planlessness of evolution, Professor Gould points to the overwhelming tendency among evolution-believers of all levels of education to see the message of Darwin as progress. Evolution is usually illustrated (even on the cover of some foreign translations of Stephen Gould’s books, much to his chagrin) as a 'ladder of progress' or similar.

Why is this?

Think of this. If the evolutionary scenario is true, then man’s arrival on the scene has come only at the end of an unspeakably long chain of events. For example, it would have taken 99.999% of the history of the universe to get to man. After life appears, two-thirds of its history on earth doesn’t get past bacteria, and for half of the remainder it stays at the one-celled stage! In order to escape the obvious (which is that in such an evolutionary universe, man has no possible significance, and just happened to come along), our culture, he argues, has had to view these vast ages as some sort of preparation period for the eventual appearance of man. This works if the idea of progress is clung to. The universe, then organisms, just got ‘better and better’, till finally we came along.

However, there is no hint of this popular mythology of ‘evolution-as- progress’ in Darwin’s ‘grand idea’. Variations happen by chance. Those organisms which happen, by chance, to suit their local environment more effectively and thus have a better chance to pass their genes on to the next generation, are favoured by natural selection. That’s all. In the theory, the giraffe that develops a longer neck is not a better giraffe — just one with a longer neck. Given a certain change in the environment, that long neck can just as easily be a disadvantage.

There is therefore nothing 'inevitable' about the appearance of man, or intelligent self-aware beings, for that matter. I would add to Gould’s comments my opinion that it is this belief in evolution as having been an 'onwards and upwards' force leading to us, and then to greater intelligence as a historical inevitability, which makes many dedicated evolutionists so sure that there must be intelligent aliens out there somewhere.

But isn’t Gould going a bit far to suggest that Darwin knew how radically anti-God his philosophy was? After all, wasn’t he a kindly, doddery naturalist who just happened to be in the right place at the right time, who was persuaded by what he saw in the Galápagos?

Wrong on all counts. If what follows sounds too revisionist, remember that Gould (an undisputed intellectual giant who has made a very careful study) is not alone in his conclusions, and has had access to unpublished notebooks of Darwin from when Darwin was a young man. It appears that:

1.The myth of the ‘kindly slow-witted naturalist stumbling across evolution’ was fostered by an autobiography Darwin wrote as a deliberately self-effacing moral homily for his children, not intending it to be published. It was a common Victorian thing to do. His notebooks tell a different story, of an ambitious young man who knew he had one of the most radical ideas in the history of thought.

2.Darwin did not get his idea from Galápagos finches — Gould even says ‘he clearly did not know that they were finches’. About the Galápagos tortoises, he says Darwin ‘missed that story also and only reconstructed it later.’ Did he get it from observing the results of animal breeding? Peter Bowler, writing in Nature (vol. 353, October 24, 1991, p. 713) says that ‘many now accept that Darwin’s analogy between artificial and natural selection was a product of hindsight’. So where did the ideas come from?

Just prior to his famous ‘insight’, Darwin spent months studying the economic theories of Adam Smith. In Smith’s extreme free-market view, the struggle of individuals competing for personal gain in an unfettered marketplace (by eliminating inefficient participants, for instance) is supposed to give an ordered, efficient economy. Although nothing is guiding it, it is as if there is an 'invisible guiding hand'. The ‘benefits come as an incidental side-effect of this selfish struggle.’

Of course, it is not hard to see where Darwin applied this idea to nature. The apparent design and order in nature is an incidental side- effect of the selfish struggle to leave more offspring.

3. Why did Darwin wait 20 years before publishing? It was not because of his modesty (another common myth which Gould debunks), so it is clear that he was afraid to reveal something.

Was it his belief in evolution itself? No. Evolution was quite a common concept in Darwin’s day. It was because of the bombshell he knew lay behind his theory, namely its rank, radical materialism. He knew as a young man that he had ‘the key to one of the great reforming ideas of history and systematically [went] out to reformulate every discipline from psychology to history.’ To explain apparent design without a designer — that was the key to Darwin’s theory, not the idea of 'evolution' (common descent) itself.

4. It is likely that this assault on design had a lot to do with a reaction against Captain Fitzroy on the Beagle. The captain’s views on almost all political subjects were diametrically opposite to Darwin’s. For instance, Darwin was an ardent abolitionist, whereas Fitzroy believed that slavery was benevolent. Apparently, the good captain would wax long and eloquent on Paley’s argument from design, which was used to justify many of his ideas. Nothing could possibly have taken deadlier aim at Paley’s argument than Darwin’s persuasive concept that design is an incidental side-effect of otherwise random change.

5. Darwin knew that his notion, being utter planlessness, could not possibly involve any sort of purposive progress, which is the romanticized notion of evolution held by so many of its believers today (especially theists). In fact, it is likely that this is why he did not, himself, use the word ‘evolution’ until his last book in 1881, when he gave in to the by then popular term applied to his concept. The common meaning of ‘evolution’ at that time implied progress. In a letter to the paleontologist Hyatt, Darwin wrote:

‘… I cannot avoid the conclusion that no inherent tendency to progressive development exists.’

6. Darwin’s casual aside about a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species seems to have been a ploy to soften the implications of his materialistic theory. Ernst Mayr’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:

‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’

In 1837, when Darwin was only 28 years old, he wrote in a private notebook, responding to Plato’s belief that the ideas of our imagination arise from preexistence of the soul, ‘read monkeys for preexistence’. He seems to have violently opposed Alfred Wallace’s suggestion of a ‘divine will’ behind the evolution of man, at least.

In summary, then, Darwin was fully aware that his idea was a frontal assault on the very notion of an intelligent Designer behind the world. In fact, he might very well have formulated it precisely for that purpose. The idea of a spiritual realm apart from matter seems to have been anathema to him as a young man already. The primary inspiration for his theory of natural selection did not come from observation of nature. Perhaps not incidentally, his writings also reveal glimpses of specific antipathy to the God of the Bible, especially concerning His right to judge unbelievers in eternity.

Darwin knew, and virtually all the world’s foremost students of his idea know, that belief in his concept quite simply spells materialism with a capital ‘M’. The idea of no designer, no purpose, no guiding intelligence, no progressive plan — these are not afterthoughts to Darwin’s evolution, but form the very core of it. Accept Darwin’s ‘baby’, and this ‘bathwater’ has a nasty habit of coming along, as the drastic decline in belief among evolution-compromising churches attests.

One can only pray that more and more of the evolution-compromisers in the church begin to see the poisonous core of the fruit they not only swallow, but encourage others to accept. And that many of those outside of Christ will realize that there is no purpose in an evolutionary world. In any case, there is so much evidence stacked against evolution nowadays. True meaning to life can be found only through Jesus Christ, the non-evolutionary, miracle-working Genesis Creator, whose eternal Word is ‘true from the beginning’.

AIG

-- (think@tank.com), November 08, 2004.

"But God says He created man and woman.., he does not say that man and woman slowly evolved out of a puddle of sludge and went from a fishy like thing to a knuckle dragging ape to modern man over a long period of time."

A: In fact, the Word of God says He created the biological nature of man - his body - "from the dust of the earth". Not so different from "a puddle of sludge", is it? Either expression means "from inorganic, non-living matter". However, the Bible says nothing about HOW God created the human body, or how long a process it was. It says only that He did so, and of course He did for He is the Creator of all that exists. It was only after the process of forming the human body, however God chose to do it and however long it took, was completed that He breathed into that biological creation a living spirit, an immortal soul, at which time it became man - human.

"There is also a difference between macro and micro evolution."

A: Yes, there is a big difference. Just as there is a big difference between throwing one brick into a truck, vs. filling a truck with bricks. But guess what. If you throw one brick into a truck enough times, the truck will eventually be filled. It's called cumulative change. Once you admit that living things change at all over time, it is a given that over a long enough time the cumulative change will be great enough that it no longer makes sense to call the thing by its original name. The great variety of dogs is not actually the result of a natural process, but rather selective breeding by men. Still, such artificially accelerated change over a short period of time does demonstrate in compressed form what happens in nature over a much longer period of time.

"However--there is no biblical or scientific support for macroevolution--where one kind of animal turns into an entirely different kind. Example--bird to dinosaur or whale to elephant."

A: There is no Biblical evidence of macroevolution, just as there is no biblical evidence of the structure of DNA. Why would there be? The Bible is not a book of science, and even if it were the "scientists" of that time were ignorant of both biological evolution and DNA. However, there are colossal mountains of scientific evidence which establish beyond any reasonable doubt that biological evolution is the normal process by which new species replace pre-existing species on this planet. Anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind cannot conclude otherwise. Which sadly is why people whose religion tells them they cannot accept plain scientific evidence simply don't look.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 08, 2004.

Ok, today I am very happy! I can say that Paul M. and I pretty much shared the same view.

Here is what I'm talking about:

I do believe that Thought has the power to create. God merely thought it and it came to be. I also believe that He took clay and made Man. That "clay" can be called "sludge", "goo", or whatever. It is still God doing the creating.--rod.

I'm not that "thick" afterall.....whew!

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

Have to agree, that was a terrific explanation Paul.

In my circles I don't run into the "creationist only" theory very often. So when it come up with great passion I'm often taken back. I don't know how to handle it tactfully. I'm going to read your explanation several times over so I can put it out as succinctly.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), November 08, 2004.

Paul,

Science means *knowledge* not speculative philosophy or naturalism.The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation and repeatability. The great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, stresses that "falsifiability" is the necessary criterion of genuine science. That is, a hypothesis must--at least in principle-- be testable and capable of being refuted, if it is truly scientific.

Clearly neither the theory of evolution or of creation is scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of man., and all such events took place in the past and cannot now be studied in the laboratory. They are each, evolution and creation theories, entirely beyond the reach of the scientific method in the proper sense.

This does not mean, however, that their results (the earth, for example) cannot be observed and tested. That is--we can define two *models* of origins, and then make comparative predictions as to what our observations should find if (macro)evolution is true, and conversely, what we should find if creation is true.

Creation science is just as valid a field of study as is evolution, neither one being a true science--and each being as much a philosophy- -and as much a religion as the other.

Not only does the creation theory model predict clearcut gaps between basic types in the living world; it also predicts the same in the fossil world. Evolutionists should expect to see transitional forms in the fossil record, which supposedly records the history of life during the geological ages of the past. In fact, if (macro)evolution is true and was really taking place during all those ages, it would seem that all forms ought to be transitional forms.

But it is true that there are no such transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. And that is in line with the creation theory that says things were created instantly and were fully developed at the moment they were created. All of the great Phyla of the animal kingdom--for example, seem to have existed unchanged since the earliest of the supposed geological ages, including even the vertebrates.

-- Think Tank (think@tank.com), November 08, 2004.

Good to see you back, Faith! :)

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

You have been born again and renamed Think Tank from now on, faith.

-- Assistant Moderator (egonval@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

I'm still here, Think Tank. Let's remember the Alamo! I was always on the side of the Mexicans....oh, well.

New beginnings are always nice. It is good to see you again.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

> "Science means *knowledge* not speculative philosophy or naturalism."

A: That is correct. Science means knowledge of the natural world derived from the best available evidence.

> "The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation and repeatability."

A: That's correct. But "measurement, observation and repeatability" are not carried out only at the laboratory bench as you would like to suggest. Many areas of valid science depend largely on measurement, observation and repeatability of lingering evidence of past events. Astronomy and astrophysics particularly fall into this category. So does much of geophysics, paleontology, anthropology and archaeology.

> "Clearly neither the theory of evolution or of creation is scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of man., and all such events took place in the past and cannot now be studied in the laboratory. They are each, evolution and creation theories, entirely beyond the reach of the scientific method in the proper sense."

A: Again, not if you limit such "testing" to laboratory benchwork. But past events can be measured and tested against preserved evidence of those past events. Saying we can't know the truth about past events because we can't relive history is like saying we can't solve a crime because we were not there when it was committed. But in fact we can solve crimes, even crimes that occurred a long time ago, because even though we cannot directly observe a past event, we can study the evidence which was left behind, and use it to reconstruct the details of the original event. This is exactly the method used in the sciences I listed above. How do we know that a supernova exploded 300 light years ago? By the trace evidence it left behind. How do we know that continents move about on the face of the earth? Not by direct observation, since this motion is too slow to observe,and much of this movement took place hundreds of thousands of years ago - but by the evidence left behind. How do we know that species of plants and animals have been replaced by new species for millions of years? By the abundance of evidence left behind which cannot be explained rationally any other way. All of this investigation is scientific method "in the proper sense".

"This does not mean, however, that their results (the earth, for example) cannot be observed and tested. That is--we can define two *models* of origins, and then make comparative predictions as to what our observations should find if (macro)evolution is true, and conversely, what we should find if creation is true."

A: Yes - or if they are both true which, as I said earlier, is necessarily the case here, according to all available evidence.

> "Creation science is just as valid a field of study as is evolution, neither one being a true science--and each being as much a philosophy- -and as much a religion as the other."

A: Utter nonsense! So-called "Creation science" is not a science in any sense of the word, because its starting point is an absolute belief, and its only purpose is to uncover apparent "evidence" which will appear, at least to the unknowledgeable, to support that immutable position. True science doesn't define a truth and then seek support for a definition already carved in stone. True science seeks the truth, begins with an open mind, investigates all available sources of information, draws conclusions solely from the observable evidence, and is always ready to alter or abandon any belief or theory formerly held, in light of new evidence.

> "Not only does the creation theory model predict clearcut gaps between basic types in the living world; it also predicts the same in the fossil world. Evolutionists should expect to see transitional forms in the fossil record, which supposedly records the history of life during the geological ages of the past. In fact, if (macro)evolution is true and was really taking place during all those ages, it would seem that all forms ought to be transitional forms".

A: In fact, all forms, both extant and extinct, ARE transitional forms, except those which represent evolutionary lines that were or are at the brink of extinction.

> "But it is true that there are no such transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. And that is in line with the creation theory that says things were created instantly and were fully developed at the moment they were created."

A: With all due respect, that silly mantra (which I realize is just something you read in some fundamentalist magazine) reflects sheer ignorance of the subject. The fossil record is replete with identified transitional forms - between annelids and arthropods; between annelids and mollusks; between invertebrates and vertebrates; between fish and amphibians; between amphibians and reptiles; between reptiles and birds; between reptiles and birds, to mention just a few major ones. And that doesn't even include the many transtional forms which are not yet identified as such. The Bible tells us that God FINISHED His Creation in "seven days". Of course that doesn't mean seven 24-hours days, but I won't digress into that matter now. It sayd God created - He finished creating - and then He rested. It is an irrefutable fact that species have been disappearing and being replaced by new species for millions of years. Now, the way I see it, either (1) the old species are gradually evolving into the new species; OR (2) God didn't complete His creation as the Bible says He did, but continues to suddenly create new species from nothing in every age.

> "All of the great Phyla of the animal kingdom--for example, seem to have existed unchanged since the earliest of the supposed geological ages, including even the vertebrates."

A: In fact, NO phylum has remained "unchanged" since its origins, except in the sense of the actual names of the phyla. While primitive ancestral forms representing most major phyla can be found in the oldest know fossiliferous deposits (Pre-Cambrian - over a billion years), the organisms which comprise every phylum have changed dramatically since their initial appearance on earth, including the gradual appearance of whole classes of new animals within the various phyla, and in some cases their subsequent extinction. Sure, there are theoretical primitive ancestors of vertebrates in rocks a billion years old. So tell me this - were the 7 days of Creation over at that point, since animals obviously had been created? I'm wondering, because the oldest known fish didn't appear until several hundred million years later. Was God finished creating then? Because the oldest known reptile lived almost 200 million years after that. And it's another 75 million years or so before we see the slightest evidence of mammals. Is God still creating at this point? If so, what happened to the days of rest that occurred AFTER Creation was finished? Did God go back to work after He rested? Well, I believe it is perfectly obvious that God is bringing new species into existence long after the 7 days of initial Creation are over, through a wondrously complex natural system which He Himself designed and put into motion, and which is an ongoing tribute to His infinite intelligence and glorious majesty. This the only explanation which fits both the scientific evidence and the Biblical account.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 08, 2004.

May I submit Geocentrics and Heliocentrics. I go for The Geo, even though it is contrary to the scientific opinions.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 08, 2004.

People! God cannot be neatly put inside a box and neither can His creations.

Ok.....maybe in an Ark.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

T.C.

I prefer Egocentrics over Geo or Helio. But, in all reality, Elicentrics would be best. (Eli--meaning God.)

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

I don't think it really matters to a person that the earth orbits the sun. It is irrelavent. To the person, the sun and the entire universe revolves around the person. That is how a person perceives his existence. The sun "rises" and "sets", even if that really isn't the case. But, what really becomes the impact of existence is when the person eventually figures out that the center of all existence is not in the material world at all. The center of all that is is God The Creator. The material center of anything is an illusion. There is no center of the universe. There is no center of time. Matter doesn't matter in the final outcome of existence. "Grand Ordered Design", that's God to you and me.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

But, what really becomes the impact of existence is when the person eventually figures out that the center of all existence is not in the material world at all. The center of all that is is God The Creator.

That's also the only way to really be happy. Wise words, Rod.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 09, 2004.

Great answer Rod.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 09, 2004.

What about the impact that evolution has on that concept?

I am not talking about theistic evolution which is where man tries to harmonize the theory of evolution with God--but what about the evolution that is taught in school? The one that denies any need for God?

Doesn't anyone see the harm done to children? We're making atheists out of our kids--and then we wonder why the drug abuse and suicide rate is so high among children today?%$%$?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 09, 2004.

Let's face it, public schools are not in the business of promoting God. Public Schools are atheistic in nature. I cannot lead or introduce a prayer in my classroom or school activity. It is unlawful to do such a thing. But, there are other ways of bringing God into the minds of my students.

Public Schools are anti-God, but the students, teachers, and staff are believers in God. It is rather paradoxical.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

Well, some students, teachers, and staff are believers(in some degree) in God.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

If Evolution is taught as a "truth", then we must also look at Science in general. Science does not teach about God, either. It may give our students the false impression that everything in the universe just happened to exist and that it just happens to behave a specific way. There isn't a Source. There isn't such thing as a Creator because it cannot be observed or measured. That's the trouble with teaching the sciences without a solid foundation in the belief of a Supreme Creator--God.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

Perhaps "Theist-Evolution" would read better as "Deist-Sciences"?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

I would not expect a teacher to bring God into a unit on evolution, any more than I would expect a teacher to bring God into a unit on chemistry. The subject matter is science, not theology, and if my child were doing a unit on biology or chemistry in a public school, I would expect the teacher to stick to the subject matter, and to keep his personal religious beliefs out of the curriculum, not to insert them as a surreptitious form of proselytizing. Of course it was a Catholic school, that would be a different story. Then I would hope that all subject matter might be taught with God as a unifying thread.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 09, 2004.

Well, that is exactly how public school curricula works. But, students do ask questions. My response has always been to refer to their Church catecism or other.

I figure that if a supervisor can exhibit their religious attire on public grounds(Hindu), without prohibitions, any teacher may wear religious articles ( medals, rosaries, pins, etc.). I think that such attire opens the possibility of further quests for God in the students. If not Hinduism, Christianity must also have a fair shot. But, I do understand the problem with "teaching" theology in a public school. The battle would begin as to which theology, which doctrine, or which denomination would reign supreme in such a setting. My hope is that Christians must live by example in any setting they happen to engage in.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

Creation Science can be taught independently of the Bible or of one's religion or faith.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 09, 2004.

Paul,

You said:

That is correct. Science means knowledge of the natural world derived from the best available evidence.

My question would be, "Where is science described as naturalism though?"

That's correct. But "measurement, observation and repeatability" are not carried out only at the laboratory bench as you would like to suggest. Many areas of valid science depend largely on measurement, observation and repeatability of lingering evidence of past events.

That's not true science. True science must be observable and repeatable. Evolution cannot be examined in this way do to its supposed emmense span of time required.

"Clearly neither the theory of evolution or of creation is scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history."

Again, not if you limit such "testing" to laboratory benchwork. But past events can be measured and tested against preserved evidence of those past events.

And this is exactly what a Creation Scientist does, Paul. Creationists study the very same world that the evolutionist does.

"This does not mean, however, that their results (the earth, for example) cannot be observed and tested. That is--we can define two *models* of origins, and then make comparative predictions as to what our observations should find if (macro)evolution is true, and conversely, what we should find if creation is true."

Yes - or if they are both true which, as I said earlier, is necessarily the case here, according to all available evidence.

Creation Scientists can show that instant creation is true

Utter nonsense! So-called "Creation science" is not a science in any sense of the word, because its starting point is an absolute belief, and its only purpose is to uncover apparent "evidence" which will appear, at least to the unknowledgeable, to support that immutable position. True science doesn't define a truth and then seek support for a definition already carved in stone. True science seeks the truth, begins with an open mind, investigates all available sources of information, draws conclusions solely from the observable evidence, and is always ready to alter or abandon any belief or theory formerly held, in light of new evidence.

And you think that this is what evolutionists do? You don't recognize that the evolutionist starts with a belief also--and then tries to force the evidence to fit their theory?

In fact, all forms, both extant and extinct, ARE transitional forms, except those which represent evolutionary lines that were or are at the brink of extinction.

I am aware that the evolutionist makes these claims--but they are false. Evolution in the Darwinian sense cannot be shown to have occurred--even with all those hopeful monsters and fraudulant man- made fakes!

"It is true that there are no such transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. And that is in line with the creation theory that says things were created instantly and were fully developed at the moment they were created."

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 09, 2004.

> "My question would be, "Where is science described as naturalism though?"

A: Science is innately naturalistic. Only the natural world falls within its purview, and its explanations for what it observes there can be expressed only in natural terms. That doesn't mean that every scientist is a naturalist. Many scientists are personally devout believers in and worshippers of God - but only as men, not as scientists. A scientist who is also an atheist - like Darwin - will obviously view his findings through that mindset. But that doesn't make his field of study "atheistic". And a scientist who is a believer will view his findings through a theistic mindset. Which doesn't make his field of study "theistic". Both scientists are equally qualified to make scientific observations and to interpret scientific data from a purely scientific perspective. And neither of them should allow their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, to influence their scientific interpretations.

> "That's not true science. True science must be observable and repeatable. Evolution cannot be examined in this way do to its supposed emmense span of time required."

A: As I already explained above, we cannot observe the actual event directly, but we can observe the residual evidence of the event, and we have done so repeatedly, millions of times, with consistent results. How do we solve crimes that took place months or years ago, and cannot be directly observed? By observation of the residual evidence. Are you suggesting that forensic criminology is not "true science"?

> "Clearly neither the theory of evolution or of creation is scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history."

A: True. But we can reconstruct history. In addition to criminology, archaeology depends totally on such evidence. Is archaeology "true science"? If it is, then there is certainly no way to deny that paleontology is likewise.

> "And this is exactly what a Creation Scientist does, Paul. Creationists study the very same world that the evolutionist does."

A: Yes, same world, but vastly different frame of reference! What you refer to as "creationists" (I don't care for the term, since I myself am an absolute believer in Creation as well as evolution) start with an immutable conclusion, then systematically seek anything that can be interpreted to build their preaffirmed position, while rejecting all evidence to the contrary. Since this is the precise opposite of scientific investigation, these people have nothing whatsoever to do with science. True scientists begin with a question, not an answer, gather ALL possible data, pro and con, and THEN form the conclusion best supported by ALL the available evidence; and even then, every conclusion remains open to alteration or rejection in light of new evidence.

"Creation Scientists can show that instant creation is true"

A: They cannot "show" anything at all, because their only source of "information" is their personal interpretations of Biblical texts, and nothing so purely subjective can be offered as evidence of anything.

> "And you think that this is what evolutionists do? You don't recognize that the evolutionist starts with a belief also--and then tries to force the evidence to fit their theory?"

A: No branch of science "started" with a belief. They started with questions and observations. No-one "started" with the absolute, unshakable belief that the earth orbits the sun; or that species evolve; or that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. These were all originally open questions, and were approached as such. The resulting investigations, observations and conclusions gradually led to the above "beliefs", so that today, after many years of intense study and consistent findings, we know that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, that the earth orbits the sun, and that living species are gradually replaced by new and different species. So today, yes, scientists do indeed have some firmly held beliefs, and if you are going to come forward and say that water is NOT composed of hydrogen and oxygen, or that species do NO evolve over time, you better have some pretty powerful SCIENTIFIC evidence to back you up. Since no such contradictory evidence has surfaced, such beliefs remain part of current scientific knowledge. If anyone puts forward any genuine evidence to refute such current beliefs, every real scientist in the world will be extremely interested and tremendously excited. That's what science is about.

> "Evolution in the Darwinian sense cannot be shown to have occurred"

A: Every anti-science Fundamentalist just loves this phrase "in the Darwinian sense". I wonder if they really know what it means. In fact, they are absolutely right! Every science, in the earliest days of its existence, provided only the most elementary and provisional concepts, upon which subsequent scientists could gradually build, and in many cases, which subsequent scientists eventually refuted. Evolutionary biologists today universally recognize that the simplistic natural selection of Darwin cannot possibly account for all the variations in speciation which have occurred and are occurring the world. So you are right. Evolution "in the Darwinian sense", just like medicine "in the Hippocratesian sense" or physics "in the Archimedian sense" was primitive, and many of the original conclusions of these early pioneers have necessarily been disgarded. But the valid areas of scientific investigation for which they laid the groundwork continue to be investigated and to provide an ever-increasing fund of natural truth.

> "It is true that there are no such transitional forms to be found in the fossil record."

A: No, it is not true. I provided some of the best known examples above. There are many others. Repeating this mantra over and over while hiding from the evidence will not move you in the direction of truth. But perhaps you are more interested in clinging to your beliefs than in knowing the truth. Which is why you are not and never could be a scientist.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 09, 2004.

Hmmm, you've made an interesting comment, Paul:

"The subject matter is science, not theology..."

Am I to suspect that the difference between science and theology is in the idea that one is purely a study of events and behaviors, while the other is man's understanding of God?

Well, I can't help but to fuse the two into one study. Regardless of what a scientist may think of his/her work, it is all God's work they are trying to understand. So, science only reveals God in abstract and tangible forms. I cannot seperate the two--science/theology.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

One is the study of all things natural. The other is the study of the supernatural.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 09, 2004.

Hi Paul M.

Well, here is where everything gets blurry. The mere fact that anything exists at all is miraculous. So, as existence has become "natural", I still see it in a sense of awe. Water is miraculous. A pebble skipping across the surface of a pond is miraculous. Tears that fall in joy are miraculous. As I mentioned earlier, the material world is an illusion. We begin to view it as only being "natural". Was it St. Francis of Assisi who had a pantheistic view? God exists in all things. Of course, He exists only in those good things.

Supernatural? I sense that the fact that we exist at all is supernatural. Non-existence would have been the "natural" thing. I'm reminded of Newton's little laws: an object at rest tends to stay at rest. (Of course, that's a very simple law.) So, God made everything and got it going; therefore, we are experiencing His work. That has to be a miracle.

But, It's only my novice scientific view of things I don't understand and will never grasp in a million and one years. Counting the stars would probably have a greater value.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 10, 2004.

Paul,

I can see by your responses that you clearly do not understand just What is Creation Sciece?

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that it is a study of the Creator? Or a study of religion?

A popular cliche of neo-orthodox and liberals is to the effect that God has revealed in Scripture the fact of creation but has left the method of creation to be worked out by scientists. But this is just a circuitous way of saying that the fact of evolution should be accepted (in the hope that the scientists will allow the belief that God is the one controling the process). The problem is that any sound approach to Bible exegesis precludes biblical evolution.

Creation of distinct kinds precludes transmutations between kinds.

The Scriptures are very clear in their teaching that God created all things as He wanted them to be, each with its own particular structure, according to His own sovereign purposes. The account of creation in Genesis 1, for example, indidcates that at least ten major categories of organic life were specially created "after his kind." These categories are, in the plant kingdom: 1) grass; 2)herbs; 3) fruit trees. In the animal kingdom the specific categories mentioned are: 1)sea monsters; 2) other marine animals; 3) birds; 4) beasts of the earth; 5) cattle; 6) crawling animals. Finally man (kind) was created asanother completely separate category. The phrase "after its kind" occurs ten times in this first chapter of Genesis.

-- Don't compromis God's Word/theistic evolutione (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 10, 2004.

Also Paul,

There is nothing about "true science" that says created things cannot be studied.

Science involves observation of what we see and know! No one in all recorded history has ever seen an instance of evolution, from one type into a more complex type. What we do see is changes within types and unabridged gaps between types--exactly what the creation model predicts.

-- (What is Creation Science@thinktank.com), November 10, 2004.

> "I can see by your responses that you clearly do not understand just What is Creation Sciece? You seem to be under the misunderstanding that it is a study of the Creator? Or a study of religion?"

A: Oh but I do understand what so-called "creation science" is. I read several books published by these folks, precisely to better understand where they are coming from. After about four or five of them I gave up however, since every one of them simply restates the same silly "arguments", based on exactly the same Scriptural misinterpretations (in a book of "science"??) and exactly the same depth of ignorance concerning the most elementary concepts of biology. There is nothing more burdensome to read than a "compare and contrast" article by someone who is utterly unknowledgeable in BOTH the areas being contrasted.

> "A popular cliche of neo-orthodox and liberals is to the effect that God has revealed in Scripture the fact of creation but has left the method of creation to be worked out by scientists".

A: Sorry, but this is "cliche" is an inescapable conclusion by anyone who actually knows Scripture, regardless of where they stand on biological evolution. The Bible says God created all things. I believe it. But it doesn't give any indication of the natural processes through which He did so. Did God create the Rocky Mountains? He sure did! However, not at the time He created the earth, but many millions of years later. And the natural geothermal and geophysical forces which resulted in the Rocky Mountains rising up from the surrounding landscape are well understood by scientists. Does this make the Rocky Mountains any less a work of God? Not as far as I'm concerned. Of course a scientist who happens to be an atheist would see that aspect differently, but he wouldn't see the underlying science any differently.

Did God create the great reptiles which roamed the earth millions of years before birds and mammals existed? Well, of course He did. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. And did He create the birds which inhabited the earth after dinosaurs were gone? You bet! No-one else could have designed and made them! And did God create the partially scaled, partially feathered creatures with birdlike bills, reptilian teeth, birdlike feet and reptilian tails which lived precisely in the time period between the age of reptiles and the appearance of birds? Absolutely! And scientists investigate the natural system designed and created by God, through which He brought all of these wondrous creatures into existence. And out of existence.

> "Creation of distinct kinds precludes transmutations between kinds".

A: Not unless the "kinds" which are created are biologically static and immutable. But in fact we know that every "kind" of living thing does in fact change over time. And once you recognize that, it is apparent that over a long enough period of time cumulative change will be so great that it will no longer make any sense to continue calling the thing by the same name. If a population only changes morphologically in one small way in a thousand years, that means it will change in a thousand ways in a million years. A million years is the blink of an eye in terms of geologic time. Draw a picture of an animal - a fish, bird, insect, whatever you prefer. Xerox it. Then make 1,000 different changes to one of the drawings. Then place them side by side, and try to convince any rational person that both pictures represent exactly the same animal species.

> "The Scriptures are very clear in their teaching that God created all things as He wanted them to be, each with its own particular structure, according to His own sovereign purposes."

A: No argument. Why would God create things other than precisely as He wanted them to be at that time? What the Scriptures don't explain however, and which we know to be true, is that once created, all living things (and non-living things too for that matter, but that's a different subject) undergo continuous change over time, not only in the lives of individuals, but in the characteristics which define populations and species. Why deny it? It happens. And it makes no sense at all to say, "well yes it happens, but only up to the point where it starts to be really different". If it happens, it happens, and if it happens over an extremely long period of time, the result is bound to be vastly different from the starting point.

> "The account of creation in Genesis 1, for example, indidcates that at least ten major categories of organic life were specially created "after his kind." These categories are, in the plant kingdom: 1) grass; 2)herbs; 3) fruit trees. In the animal kingdom the specific categories mentioned are: 1)sea monsters; 2) other marine animals; 3) birds; 4) beasts of the earth; 5) cattle; 6) crawling animals. Finally man (kind) was created asanother completely separate category."

A: Again, no argument. Each group of organisms came into existence reproducing its own kind (though fruit trees came many millions of years after grasses, and cattle many millions of years after marine animals). And at any given period of history, each kind of organism reproduces only its own kind. But always with variation. Variation which necessarily accumulates over time. "Evolution" literally means "change over time" or "gradual development". It happens. It can't be denied. At least not by anyone who has bothered to look at the evidence. We know it happens by the hand of God, just like every natural process. Sadly, some don't think God has anything to do with the process. But these folks don't think God has anything to do with sunshine or rain or the miracle of birth either. Their loss.

> "There is nothing about "true science" that says created things cannot be studied."

A: What? That's exactly what I have been saying from the start. Scientists, including evolutionary biologists, can ONLY study already created created things. Which is why Creation and biological evolution are not opposed. Evolution simply examines what happens to things in the natural world once they have been created. Why is this a problem?

> "No one in all recorded history has ever seen an instance of evolution, from one type into a more complex type. What we do see is changes within types and unabridged gaps between types--exactly what the creation model predicts."

A: How does the "creation model" predict changes within types? If God created each "type" exactly as He wanted it to be, why doesn't it stay that way? Why does it immediately start changing? Is this change out of God's control? I don't think so. I believe it is part of His plan. But then I believe that all natural processes are part of His plan, since He designed and created them. There are no "unbridged gaps between types". There are of course as yet undiscovered bridges between types. That's what makes science interesting. But the many gaps that have been filled clearly indicate the presence of such transtional forms, and more of them are discovered virtually every year. Obviously no one person has seen one species evolve into another, because this process takes far longer than one human lifetime. No person has ever seen a mountain range form either - or a mountain range erode away. But we know that both events have occurred many times in the history of the earth, by the evidence they have left behind.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 10, 2004.

Evolution in the macro sense is the argument I am concerned with. We know micro evolution is true--because it is God's design. He made things to vary *within* it's kind. No creation scientist has a problem with that.

It becomes a problem when the the evolutionist claims that cold blooded reptiles--like a dinosaur--has evolved into a warm blooded bird! No new genetic information is present and therefore things can only be whast God created them to be initially.

An ape is an ape. A monkey is a monkey. Man is man.

The Bible tells us that all land animals, including men--were created at the same time. There have been many hoaxes and wishful monsters created by man to prove their theory, such as Piltdown Man who was paraded as the *missing link.* But everyone now knows that this colorful creature never even existed.

Creation Science is the study of the same evidence that an evolutionist studies. It is as valid an interpretation as evolution-- with more convincing conclusions.

For example, there are also scores of evidence that tells us the earth is young--not billions of years old. The decay of the earth's magnetic field, the build-up of atmospheric radiocarbon, the efflux of helium into the atmosphere, the influx of uranium, nickel, and other chemical elements and ions into the ocean, the breakup of comets, the influx of cosmic dust, and many others--allindicate that the earth is far younger than the evolutionist's claim.

Another implication of recent creation is that the great Geological Column, the assemblage of fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks around the world, was not formed over many long ages of earth history--as once *believed*, but was formed at essentially one epoch, during a world- wide hydraulic cataclysm and its geophysical aftereffects.

Even fossil assemblages from the various *ages* are frequently found out of order--in fact, they are found in any order--in the column, and many examples are known of fossils from different *ages* found in the same formation. Furthermore--there are no world- wide "unconformities" in the column (that is, time breaks, or periods of time erosion rather than deposition), so that the entire column from bottom to top reflects unbroken continuity of the depositional process.

Now when this fact is combined with the fact that every unit of the column was formed rapidly, we naturally conclude that the earth's sedimentary rocks were all formed recently, essentially at the time of the flood described in the records of most ancient nations of the world.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

It becomes a problem when the the evolutionist claims that cold blooded reptiles--like a dinosaur--has evolved into a warm blooded bird! No new genetic information is present and therefore things can only be whast God created them to be initially.

Just curious... how do you knwo dinosaurs where "Cold blooded reptiles"?

I mean, Histeology of therapods has revealed harvesan (Sp?) Canals that are ifentical to warm blooded animals, and many, many, many seem capable of rapid speed and Seemed desigend for prolonged activity. Simpley asusmign Dinosaiurs where cold blooded reptiels that evovled into warm blooded birds is a fallacy, sicne they may ahve been warm blooded in the firts palce, and much evidence for at leats some warm blooded Dinosaurs has coem to light.

They even find FEATHER IMPRINTS on soem therapods. Where these feathered Dinosars Cold Blooded reptiles in no way rleated to Bords? Or where they just a type of land-dwellign birds?

The idea thst Dinosairs where cold blooded reptiles itsself is speculative, and loosign ground with each new discovery.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

Zarove,

Are you actually buying into that theory?

It is accompanied by its own fair share of hoaxes!

The only reason there has ever been a debate in scientific circles as to whether dinosaurs are warm or cold blooded--centers entirely around the dinosaur to bird theory. Because birds are warm-blooded, evolutionists who *believe* that dinosaurs evolved into birds would like to see dinosaurs as warm-blooded to support their theory.

In spite of the fact that recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones is characteristic of cold-blooded animals- -the secular media, which has become so blantant in its anti- Christian stand and evolutionary propaganda that it not only ignores these findings but dares to make such incredible statements as "Parrots and hummingbirds are also dinosaurs", and people *believe* it.

There is no evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

TThere is a report that shows that the frayed edges that some *thought* were feathers on dinosaur fossils from Chine--turned out to be collagen fibers similar to the kind found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes, thereby offering another possible explanation.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

Zarove, Are you actually buying into that theory?

{wHICH THEORY?}-Zarove

It is accompanied by its own fair share of hoaxes!

{Uhm...why woidl anyone WANT to hoax histeological examinations?}- Zarove

The only reason there has ever been a debate in scientific circles as to whether dinosaurs are warm or cold blooded--centers entirely around the dinosaur to bird theory.

{Not so. The ida that they where warm blooded is old. Theprevailign veiw of Dinosaurs-as-reptiles took over in the late 1800's and 1900's, but was base don sheer guesswork.

Heck, even without evolution, why COULDNT Dinosaurs be just ground Birds? why si this a threat to creaitonism at all\\?}-Zar

Because birds are warm-blooded, evolutionists who *believe* that dinosaurs evolved into birds would like to see dinosaurs as warm- blooded to support their theory.

{ OK, but what proof do you have that they where cold blooded in the firs olace? I mean, rellay, what EVIDENCE do yo have to support the THEORY that they where cold blooded reptiles?}-Zarove

In spite of the fact that recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones is characteristic of cold-blooded animals-

{Or warm blooded animals...depends ont he type. Again, you are not beign fair.

What Dinosaurs are you speakign of? The term "Dinosaur" is a blanket term covering many, many tyes of Animals. Histeological examinations of Therapods reveal warm-blooded types. Sauropods reveal cold- bloodedness. Others, such as Hafdrosaurs, oook kind of in between and coind have been either, or soemthign in between.

Therapods are build for speed and duration, and if you look at the skeleton of any given speciman, such as deinonychus, Velociraptor, Utahraptir, ect, you find so many similarities ot Birds it is undeniable. At the very leas tthey where built for speed, agility, and actiity.

The notion that therapods where cold-blooded reptiles is, in and of itsself, indefensable base don sheer body dsign alone, and hte fact that they share so many thigns in common with Modern land Birds, such as Ostriches and emu's, lends credence ot the notion that they wherent reptiles, but Birds.

Again, why is it that this threatens creaitonism? we know that soem forms of Birds are land dwelling. We know of other creatures that look loek Birds and ar ebuilt similarly... even minus evolution why coidlnt Therapods be Birds?

I mean, come on, Phoresrheicids that where Undisputedly Birds had HANDS!

Its nto realy a leap pf faith to make this sort of stamement.

As for the notion that all Dinosaurs where cold blooded, can you prove this?}-Zarove

-the secular media, which has become so blantant in its anti- Christian stand and evolutionary propaganda that it not only ignores these findings but dares to make such incredible statements as "Parrots and hummingbirds are also dinosaurs", and people *believe* it.

{Uhm... not that many peopel are away of the Dinosaur-to-Bird theory... I shokc peopel when I call Bords XDinosaurs even today...

Likewise, evolution needent occure for dinosaurs ot be Birds. yoiu seem to think that either oen accpets Dinosaurs , in total, as cold blooded reptiles, or else they think of them as warm blooded and thus acepts evolution.

You also seem to assume that the only reason we htink of dinosaurs as warm blooded is the dinosaur-Bird link theory.

Neither is true.

even if Dinosaurs wherent relate ot Birds, they can still be wamr blooded, afte all, mammals are.

Likewise, Just linkign them to Birds instead of reptiels donst exaclty pove evolutionm it rather simpley proves a greter diversity of Birds in the earths past.

Again, on what real evidence do you have that ALL Dinosaurs where cld blooded? }-Zarove

There is no evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

{ But their is evidencr that Therapods and Birds look an awful lot alike, and that therapods had feathers, and air sacks, and hwhere buold for long-duration travel, all of which seems to move them out of the reptile range and into the Bird range...}-Zarove

TThere is a report that shows that the frayed edges that some *thought* were feathers on dinosaur fossils from Chine--turned out to be collagen fibers similar to the kind found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes, thereby offering another possible explanation.

{For one speciman... icnece doesnt work on inrle-speciman finds...

Again, why do tou think Dinosaurs whwre cold blooded, what evidnece is their of that?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

Zarove,

Of the many reports on the subject, one concerned the embryonic origins of the fingers of birds and dinosaurs showing that they could not be evolved from dinosaurs. Another report on athe study of the so- called feathered dinosaurs from China reveaed that these dinosaurs had a distinctive reptilian lung and diaphragm--whic is very different from the avian lung.

We all know that reptiles are cold-blooded.

It cracks me up to think of birds as dinosaurs--but then that's just my personal take on it!

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

Enters the Plattypus. If such a creature can exist, why not any other?

Term of the day, personal incredulity.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

"collagen fibers "??

Are feathers made of "collagen fibers "?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

[You may need to email the questions instead.]

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

Hmmm.......ThinkTank do you believe in dragons?

Be careful how you answer this question, ThinkTank.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Zarove, Of the many reports on the subject, one concerned the embryonic origins of the fingers of birds and dinosaurs showing that they could not be evolved from dinosaurs.

{Uhm, why not? Firts off, again, I ask toy to realise "Dinosaur' as a term covers many.,, many types of animals. The Fingers of THERAPODS whom are liked to Modern Avids are VERY similar.

If you post links or give soruces, so will I.}-Zarove

Another report on athe study of the so- called feathered dinosaurs from China reveaed that these dinosaurs had a distinctive reptilian lung and diaphragm--whic is very different from the avian lung.

{Show, don tell. I will too!}-Zarove

We all know that reptiles are cold-blooded.

{ Bu where all Dinosaurs cold blooded? Where they reptiles? We rarely get inernal organs Fossilised, and to my knwoeldge, only a few specimans of Dinosaurs form the period have fossil remains of their inernal organs. But not the Chinese specimans...}-Zarove

It cracks me up to think of birds as dinosaurs--but then that's just my personal take on it!

{Why? I mean, relaly we shoudl revers eit, think of Dinosaurs as Brids. You habetn shown any real reaosn why Thjerapods could not have been Birds... Only made a few assertions.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

If a Plattypus is some kind of mutated animal, then such an animal may have changed drastically over time. If this is the case, then why can't a cold-blooded animal also become a warm-blooded animal over time? It seems as it could. That's what Plattypus has to do with this thread.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

rod,

What does your question about Plattypus have to do with the discussion?

What does your question about collagen fibers: "collagen fibers "?? Are feathers made of "collagen fibers"?...have to do with anything in light of this comment?:

There is a report that shows that the frayed edges that some *thought* were feathers on dinosaur fossils from Chine--turned out to be collagen fibers similar to the kind found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes.

Also--Dragons are mythological, lengendary animals that resemble dinosaurs so much--one has to at least admit it to be an extreme coincidence if in fact man never even saw a dinosaur until its bones were unearthed in the mid-eighteen hundreds? Right? How far back can we find embellished dragons and their mythological stories? Did you ever wonder how it could be that man could dream up such an animal and then discover that animals very similar did indeed once live? Coincidence? Or is it possible that Dragon lengends stem from the fact that man did indeed see dinosaurs once upon a time?

(Moderator overstepping bounds--noted)

-- (What is Creation Science@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

Hm...

Dragons are mythological, lengendary animals that resemble dinosaurs so much--one has to at least admit it to be an extreme coincidence if in fact man never even saw a dinosaur until its bones were unearthed in the mid-eighteen hundreds? Right? How far back can we find embellished dragons and their mythological stories?

Well, then, why do we find dragons mentioned in Scriptures? Why would Scriptures perpetuate a myth?

You may wish to start a new thread.

And please, don't use Ad Hom's in your questions directed at me. Just ask and it will be answered to the best of my abilities.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Dragons in Scripture? Possibly a man's misinterpretation? The Scriptures describe dinosaurs...though that word wasn't coined until their fossils were dug up in the mid-eighteen hundreds. Translators didn't know the word dinosaur--so maybe they used the word dragon to describe these awesome creatures they were reading about?

My Bible does not say dragon anywhere. Can you cite a verse?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

The poster "Faith" once provided excerpts from Revelations that mentioned a dragon. I could dig that up, but time is a little precious right now.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Dragons in Revelation? Really? In reference to dinosaurs? Since when did Revelation ever reference dinosaurs?

How about if you just cite the verses that mention Dragons from your Bible? You are the one making this comparrison.

And yes--dig up those verses from Revelation that Faith supposedly posted.

It would be very interesting if you could show that God described or ever talked about dragons in the way we understand dragons.

-- ("What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

If you subscribe to the KJV and believe in His inspired word, then surely you have read the following:

Revelation 12

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Also, I have made no references or inferences about dinosaurs as being equated with dragons. I believe that you have made that connection. I only asked a few questions. You have expanded on what you have and have also made the attempt to explain "dragons".

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

I would like to have this forum's members review this thread for the textual proof that I equated dinosaurs with dragons. I simply asked a few questions. If you review your query, Thinktank, you will find that you have made the connections, not me. At least, I think so.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

I do not believe Scriptures perpetuate myths. I've had this discussion regarding "Lilith", too. So, what are we to make of the mention of "dragon" in Scriptures in relation to Evolution or Creationism?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

That has nothing to do with dinosaurs, rod. That is describing a beast of another kind.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

Interesting.

So, you have read "dragon" before in Scriptures?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

The real question is, "Why did you bring up the Bible's use of the word dragon in the first place, if you weren't trying to make a connection?"

We were discussing dinosaurs.

The Bible does indeed describe dinosaurs--refering to them as * fiery flying serpents* (Isaiah 30:6), *Bohemoth* (Job 40:15-24), or the Leviathon (Job 41:1-34), for example.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

Is "dragon" a real beast or a make-believe beast that is mentioned in Scriptures?

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Well, in light of the Biblical dinosaurs, do you think that such a firey beast is warm or cold blooded?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Dragons are lengendary creatures that most likely derived from man's real-life experience having seen dinosuars before.

They were called dragons by earlier peoples. We re-named them dinosaurs and assumed that dragons were not a reference to any real creature. But only time and lengendary folktale made dinosaurs finally come to look unrealistic. Dragons are dinosaurs.

The verse about a red dragon in Revelation describes something else entirely.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

The main thing that interests me in this thread is the understanding of Creationism and Evolution. Surely, Scriptures may provide some light on this subject, as well as Science.

Do you claim earlier that dinosaurs were cold-blooded animals?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

What does your question about Plattypus have to do with the discussion?

{nO IDEA SICN THE pALTAPUS ONLY SUPERFICIALLY RESEMBLES A bIRD IN SOEM WAYS...}-Zarove

What does your question about collagen fibers: "collagen fibers "?? Are feathers made of "collagen fibers"?...

{Yes, they are...thats the irony...So are finger nails...}-Zarove

have to do with anything in light of this comment?:

There is a report that shows that the frayed edges that some *thought* were feathers on dinosaur fossils from Chine--turned out to be collagen fibers similar to the kind found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes.

{ Above you said it was an alternate explanaiton, now you say its a cofnrimed fact, what you don do is hsow toyr sources...

Feathers are mad eof collegen, and again I ask, even without evolutioin why coudln dinosaurs hav been a diffeent kind of Bird? Like Rurkeys and Emus and falcons are all diffeent?}-Zarove

Also--Dragons are mythological, lengendary animals that resemble dinosaurs so much--one has to at least admit it to be an extreme coincidence if in fact man never even saw a dinosaur until its bones were unearthed in the mid-eighteen hundreds? Right?

{Not relaly. dragons are descirbed as SERPENTS. Dinosaurs have never been thought of as serpentine...}-Zarove

How far back can we find embellished dragons and their mythological stories? Did you ever wonder how it could be that man could dream up such an animal and then discover that animals very similar did indeed once live? Coincidence?

{Dinosaurs arent relly similar to dragons though. I mean, relaly what IS the similarity?}-Zarove

Or is it possible that Dragon lengends stem from the fact that man did indeed see dinosaurs once upon a time?

{No, since Dinosaurs don resemble mans stories of dragons...But thy didn see soem dinosaurs, and still do... Modern Birds.}-Zarove

(Moderator overstepping bounds--noted) Dragons in Scripture? Possibly a man's misinterpretation? The Scriptures describe dinosaurs...

{Do they? Can you prove this?}-Zarove

though that word wasn't coined until their fossils were dug up in the mid-eighteen hundreds. Translators didn't know the word dinosaur--so maybe they used the word dragon to describe these awesome creatures they were reading about?

{Or maybe those auwseome creatures arent relaly Dinosaurs...}-Zarove

My Bible does not say dragon anywhere. Can you cite a verse?

{Yes.

Deuteronomy 32:33

Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Nehamia 2:13

And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.

Job 30:29

I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.

Psalms 44:19

Though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death.

Psalm 74:13

Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

Psalm 91:13

Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

Psalm 148:7

Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:

Isiaih 13:22

And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

Isiaiah 27:1

In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Isiaiah 34:14

And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.

Need I go on?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

"Dragons are lengendary creatures that most likely derived from man's real-life experience having seen dinosuars before. "--Thinktank.

Well, I suppose that you are placing live humans in the presence of live dinosaurs. What gives you such a faith that such a thing really happened? I'm not sure Scriptures nor Science could give us proof.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

The whole point I am trying to make is that Creation Science is not a study of the Creator or of religion--but a study of the world in which we live.

Creation Science can be studied apart from the Bible or religion. All we can do is create two models--one for evolution and one for creation--and then determine which "model" the earth best supports.

This can be done in school and is a valid way to study *philosophically" what is our possible origins.

But no one can prove any of it, either way. Evolution is no more a scientific study than is creation science. They both study the same earth--with different starting hypothesis. And neither is a true science in the sense of the word.

I think the evidence shows that dinosaurs were cold-blooded. All reptiles are.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

Hmmmm. Thinktank?

Why else would I ask about feathers? Feathers and collagen and those thingy-s found on dinosaurs, that's why.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

You think this...

the problem is that you cant even prove Dinosaurs where reptiles.

In fact, ow do you explain the differences in anatomy between Dinosaurs and reptules? Such as the fact that their legs are positions DIRECOTEY beneith the body, and not out to the side like a Lizards or Crocodiles?

Why the deep chest cavity?

And, whuch Dinosaurs are you referensing? The Sauraschian or Ornithasians?

Again, the term "Dinosaur" doesnt specify one tyoe of animal.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

Well, my angle is that we shouldn't seperate the two. We believe in God and should view His creation with that belief. Science has been critized by the Christian view that it is atheistic. I sense that it is because Science and Theology is viewed as two seperate things to study.

I guess I'm all alone in this belief. Ok...I also park my truck crooked at work.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Zarove?

Do you think God was describing lengendary mythical animals in Isaiah or any of your verses cited?

It's merely a matter of interpretation.

None of those verses means "dragon" in the sense that we understand dragon today.

My Bible does not translate those verses with the word dragon.

For example: Psalm 148:7 says:

Praise the Lord from the earth, you great sea creatures and all ocean depths,

Deuteronomy 32:33

Their wine is the venom of serpents, the deadly poison of cobras.

Need I go on?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

The KJV used the word Dragon when the word was unknown, and yor modern Bibel uses the "Best scholarly Guess"...

Interestgnly, yours says "serpent"... which rpeclused dinosaur...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

All that we are accomplishing here is to show that the word dragon didn't always mean what it does today.

Dragons in the Bible were most likely dinosaurs.

This puts a real question to the notion that dinosaurs died out long before man was ever created, don't you think?

Scripture declares that all animals were created at the same time, and that there was no death before sin. How does that jive with the theory of evolution and the supposed death long before Adam and Eve ever entered the picture?

And what does the earth and fossils actually reveal?

This is what creation science vs evolution is all about.

How can we believe that a dinosaur fossil could still contain fresh hemoglobin in the bone after billions of years? Yet this is exactly what was discovered. This discovery actually fueled the idea for the movie Jurrasic Park.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

All that we are accomplishing here is to show that the word dragon didn't always mean what it does today. Dragons in the Bible were most likely dinosaurs.

{No, they wherent. And if you had a shred of evidnece this woudl be more prodictive. Do more than assert that "Dragons in the Bible where most likel Dinosaurs", state WHY!}-Zarove

This puts a real question to the notion that dinosaurs died out long before man was ever created, don't you think?

{No, since you havent relaly illustrated that these dragons where Dinosaurs, merley asserted it to nbe... and since I hold that Birds are Dinosaurs I don think dinosaurs are extinct today and ared seen dialy where I live!}-Zarove

Scripture declares that all animals were created at the same time, and that there was no death before sin.

{Uhm... no, they dont. No where does scripture say anyhtign was immortal befre sin. indeed, scripture indicates the reverse. Adam and eve where driven form paradise after eatign the tree of the knwoeldg eof good and evil's fruit, before they coudl take of the tree of life and become immortal...Liekwise, even a hyperliteralist woidl note, Burds ( which may include dinosaurs, at leats for thr sake of Argumet) where created on the 4th day, Beatss ( mammals) on the 5th... man on the 6th...}-Zarove

How does that jive with the theory of evolution and the supposed death long before Adam and Eve ever entered the picture?

{See abovee, nothign even says they where immortal before sin...}- Zarove

And what does the earth and fossils actually reveal?

{ Plenty, but we have to approach is with an open mind...}-Zarove

This is what creation science vs evolution is all about.

{But you said it can be seperated from religion...}-Zarove

How can we believe that a dinosaur fossil could still contain fresh hemoglobin in the bone after billions of years?

{"Fresh hemaglobin"? are you refeensing the tracees of Red Blood Cedlls int he T Rex Bone? If o it was hardly fresh hemagloben...}- Zarove

Yet this is exactly what was discovered. This discovery actually fueled the idea for the movie Jurrasic Park.

{No, the discovery of th red blood vessels happened after the book, and later motion picutre, was already in the can... why nto simpely get DNA form Bones , why amber?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

Hmmmm.......you meant to say that the Bible keeps changing words to mean what it really means? Well, what does it really mean from generation to generation? "Dragon", "Dinosaur", "Serpent", oh my!

Why would the Bible use a mythologically oriented word in the first place? Either it is mythological in nature or it is factual, surely not both, eh?

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

"And yes--dig up those verses from Revelation that Faith supposedly posted."--Thinktank.

I have provided a new thread for this request, Thinktank.

My assertion is that "Faith" used Scriptures with the word "dragon". I did not make any connections. Again, I only asked questions.

Here is that answer you requested, Thinktank.

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

rod, the word has currenly faled into disuse and is not known...hte KJV used Dragn, other translatiosn fill the gap in other ways...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

Hi Zarove

Well then, the Bible also mutates, modulates, and evolves. Let's place a Geneva Bible and a 2090 Edition side by side. I wonder if they would read the same?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Thinktank

I am still not clear on your view about man and dinosaur sharing the same place and time on earth.

But, consider this:

If man did not live at the same time as the dinosaur and Scriptures has references to "dragons" and you have made the suggestion that "dragon" was used to mean "dinosaur", then how did man know about dinosaurs or dragons that they never saw prior to the discoveries of fossilized remains of the "big beasts"?

Are you comfortable with the coincidental factor?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

As I already said rod,

It is hard to believe that this could be a coincidence, Hm?

And since we know that God made all living creatures at the same time- -well, within a few days of each other, animals and man on the very same day, I think we can conclude that man and dinosaur did indeed live together back then.

I already stated my belief in this at the begining. You have confused the initial points by now, but all you have to do is go back and reread for clarity.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

I'm glad you had some time to re-think your view, Thinktank.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

rod,

Please don't be so annoying.

I never changed my view and you know it.

The very funny thing in this is that you would ask this question:

Thinktank I am still not clear on your view about man and dinosaur sharing the same place and time on earth.

But, consider this:

If man did not live at the same time as the dinosaur and Scriptures has references to "dragons" and you have made the suggestion that "dragon" was used to mean "dinosaur", then how did man know about dinosaurs or dragons that they never saw prior to the discoveries of fossilized remains of the "big beasts"?

Are you comfortable with the coincidental factor?

You asked that even when I posted this earlier:

Also--Dragons are mythological, lengendary animals that resemble dinosaurs so much--one has to at least admit it to be an extreme coincidence if in fact man never even saw a dinosaur until its bones were unearthed in the mid-eighteen hundreds? Right? How far back can we find embellished dragons and their mythological stories? Did you ever wonder how it could be that man could dream up such an animal and then discover that animals very similar did indeed once live? Coincidence? Or is it possible that Dragon lengends stem from the fact that man did indeed see dinosaurs once upon a time? ************************

Maybe rod, you should be more careful?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

You have also suggested that the word "dragon" may mean "dinosaur". You place man and dinosaur together based on your understanding of Scriptures. This would give a little light as to the use of the word "dragon" in Scriptures, probably. Considering that man actually saw a living dinosaur, but didn't know to call it that, "dragon" means dinosaur? Or, does it strictly have an inference to "Satan"?

We still are not talking about dragons of mythology, that will come later.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Your previous post was a string of questions. Was I suppose to answer them with my answers?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Thinktank? I am annoying? Sorry. Could you please not be so evasive with my questions? But, if you wish not to answer, that's ok. That will give you the freedom from being annoyed. I usually feel a sense of agony with my questions, well, it's the answers that become agonizing.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Yikes! Zarove beat me to it. Have a look at what I imagine to be a dragon.

Look at Zarove's post about Job.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

rod,

I think you are confused.

Dragon did not always mean what we take it to mean today.

It is interesting that the Hebrew word "tannim", often translated *dragon* appears in the Old Testament 21 times. If one replaces that word with dinosaur--it fits nicely into the biblical text.

Dragons have long been thought of as creatures of mere legend. Actually, however, the word dragon was originally intended to describe real creatures. The Bible talks about these *dragons* as real creatures.

Due to the confusion, Newer translations use better words in translation.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

Actually, I think that storytellers took images from Scriptures in order to create their "dragons" of legend and mythology. I don't think coincidence is a factor at all.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

The question isn't where do the myths stem from? The question is where did the authors of the Scriptures get their dragons? Was it a coincidence that these authors described animals that we would later dig up?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 11, 2004.

They dont. The problem is you asusme that the Animals in queatsion are Dinosaurs and asusme we are diggign them upo.

But can you PROVE that the Bibel desciebed dinosaurs at all?without rleyign on circular logic?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 11, 2004.

"The question is where did the authors of the Scriptures get their dragons? "--Thinktank.

You have already answered your question. You said that all animals were created at the same time by God.

You are also claiming that the fossil remains of "dinosaurs" are evidence of the "dragons" mentioned in Scriptures. You have equated the word "dragon" with "dinosaur".

Is that your view?

If it is, then have you established that the following is true?,

1. God made the large animals.
2. The large animals are mentioned in Scriptures.
3. Man lived among the presence of those large animals.
4. "Dragon" and "Dinosaur" can mean the same thing.
5. "Dragon" also means "Satan".
6. Man included "Dragon" in Scriptures because they had prior knowledge or had seen such a creature.
7. Other Bible verses contain accounts of "dinosaurs".
8. Legendary dragons are coincidental to biblical dragons.
9. Birds are not decendents of dinosaurs.
10. Collagen and feathers have no relationship, but dinosaurs do show evidence of having some sort of collagen protrusions.
11. Dragons are not what we think of today: flying, fire breathing.
12. In Job, that creature that is described is not a dragon.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

rod--as for your list:

1. God made the large animals. (Yes) 2. The large animals are mentioned in Scriptures. (yes) 3. Man lived among the presence of those large animals. (yes) 4. "Dragon" and "Dinosaur" can (do) mean the same thing. (yes) 5. "Dragon" also means "Satan". (In a symbolic way because Satan is refered to as a beast, so dragon is used there). 6. Man included "Dragon" in Scriptures because they had prior knowledge or had seen such a creature. (No) 7. Other Bible verses contain accounts of "dinosaurs". (All verses speaking of dragons are refering to real life creatures-most likely dinosaurs. I base that on the descriptions within the Scriptures) 8. Legendary dragons are coincidental to biblical dragons. (No--they stem from them) 9. Birds are not decendents of dinosaurs. (right) 10. Collagen and feathers have no relationship, but dinosaurs do show evidence of having some sort of collagen protrusions. (Yes-that were mistaken to be feathers) 11. Dragons are not what we think of today: flying, fire breathing. (dragons were not always thought of as being mythical creatures, but the Bible does describe dinosaur like creatures that did breathe fire) 12. In Job, that creature that is described is not a dragon. (that creature is not a mythical dragon, but a real life creature that Job indeed lived amomg.)

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 12, 2004.

I do not necessarily believe exact what you do. That's just for clarification.

Now...

6. Man included "Dragon" in Scriptures because they had prior knowledge or had seen such a creature. (No)

This puzzles me because earlier you stated that man and dinosaur roamed the land at the same time. I would say that man did have prior knowledge and would probably give an account of it in Scriptures.

Would you elaborate on your answer?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

All animals were not created at the same time. We know this for a fact. Therefore any biblical interpretation which makes such a claim is a false interpretation. When dinosaurs existed there were no mammals, and later when there were large mammals there were no dinosaurs. And there was a previous time when there were no dinosaurs OR mammals, but many other kinds of animals.

Some large animals are mentioned in Scripture, like the crocodile and hippopotamus. But no human ever saw a dragon (since they never existed) or a dinosaur (since they were extinct 20 million years before humans existed). Dinosaur bones had been seen in a few places long before Christ was born. The cultures which found them identified them either as bones of a race of giants, or in Asian culture as bones of a mythological beast which symbolized evil - a dragon. This is the symbolic context in which "dragon" is used in the Bible. It has nothing to do with a real animal.

It is impossible to know directly what substance constituted a structure which left an impression in rock millions of years ago. However, collagen doesn't exist on the outer surface of any animal. It is a soft material which contributes to internal structure only. On the outer surface of the body it would simply dry up and crumble away. Since the feathers of reptilian birds have the same physical structure as the feathers of modern birds, and are arranged on their wings in the same way, it is only reasonsble to infer that they are made of the same material - keratin, not collagen.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 12, 2004.

In order to get to the nitty-gritty of things, I must ask those annoying questions. Sorry for my tenacity. I have learned something.

So, feathers have nothing to do with collagen? Ok. That is beginning to make some sense.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

I had thought that feathers and fingernails were made of collagen. Well, I suppose it was karetin that slipped my mind. It makes sense. Those people who received collagen treatments didn't exactly grow feathers:)

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

1. God made the large animals.Yes
2. The large animals are mentioned in Scriptures.Yes
3. Man lived among the presence of those large animals.Yes
4. "Dragon" and "Dinosaur" can mean the same thing.No
5. "Dragon" also means "Satan".Yes
6. Man included "Dragon" in Scriptures because they had prior knowledge or had seen such a creature.I still don't know how or why they would use the word "Dragon".
7. Other Bible verses contain accounts of "dinosaurs".I haven't made that distinction yet.
8. Legendary dragons are coincidental to biblical dragons.I'm not sure, but I have a hunch that the Bible gave food for imagination.
9. Birds are not decendents of dinosaurs.No. I sense that they are evolved from dinosaurs.
10. Collagen and feathers have no relationship, but dinosaurs do show evidence of having some sort of collagen protrusions..No. Replace "collagen" with "keratin", we have lift-off.
11. Dragons are not what we think of today: flying, fire breathing..No. I think dragons can fly and burn things up. I read it in a fairy tale.
12. In Job, that creature that is described is not a dragon..Yes, it is not a dragon, but it sure does seem like one.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

rod?

Now you are answering your own questions?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 12, 2004.

I'm forced to do so. You won't answer some of mine.:)

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

All animals were not created at the same time. We know this for a fact. Therefore any biblical interpretation which makes such a claim is a false interpretation. When dinosaurs existed there were no mammals, and later when there were large mammals there were no dinosaurs.

{Sorry Paul, this sin right...

The firts known Dinosaur, eoRaptor, appeare din th Triasic Period, as did th earliest Known mammals, and mammals existed withn the Jurasic and creatteous period as well.

So, Dinosaurs DID co-exist with mammals throughout most if not all of their existance, and the only tiem they coudl have exitd before Mammals woudl be the period emideatley before eoraptoir.

A common misonception is that as soon as Mammals appeared they dominated the scene because they where mroe advanced, btu this is a fallacy, and Mammals simple coudl not compete with the Dinosaurs for 210 million years, until soemthign changed.

Liekwise, Dinosaurs and Large Mammals still exist. All Birds are dinosaurs.}-Zarove

And there was a previous time when there were no dinosaurs OR mammals, but many other kinds of animals. Some large animals are mentioned in Scripture, like the crocodile and hippopotamus. But no human ever saw a dragon (since they never existed) or a dinosaur (since they were extinct 20 million years before humans existed).

{Again, Birds are dinosaurs. And its 65 Million Years since the KT event, not 20 million...}-Zarove

Dinosaur bones had been seen in a few places long before Christ was born. The cultures which found them identified them either as bones of a race of giants, or in Asian culture as bones of a mythological beast which symbolized evil - a dragon.

{Dragons didnt symbolise evil in asian culture, only in Middle eastern and European culture. In fact, Dragons where a symbol of good and of power, not of evil. This parrallels the Brittanic veiw ...the symbol to this day for Wales is the red Dragon, and the red Dragon of brittain is also a cultic symbol fo the British people.}-Zarove

This is the symbolic context in which "dragon" is used in the Bible. It has nothing to do with a real animal.

{ Actally that applies only where the passage is smbolic. In other palces where osme transations render it " Dragon" its acutlaly an unknwon animal...}-Zarove

It is impossible to know directly what substance constituted a structure which left an impression in rock millions of years ago. However, collagen doesn't exist on the outer surface of any animal. It is a soft material which contributes to internal structure only. On the outer surface of the body it would simply dry up and crumble away. Since the feathers of reptilian birds have the same physical structure as the feathers of modern birds, and are arranged on their wings in the same way, it is only reasonsble to infer that they are made of the same material - keratin, not collagen.

{Sorry for the error, I will note in future. Noentheless, Collegen coidl not have been the substnce ont he outer portion of the Dnosaur.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 12, 2004.

Rod asks: 6. Man included "Dragon" in Scriptures because they had prior knowledge or had seen such a creature. (No)

This puzzles me because earlier you stated that man and dinosaur roamed the land at the same time. I would say that man did have prior knowledge and would probably give an account of it in Scriptures.

Would you elaborate on your answer?

Your question was confusing.

Yes man did include descriptions ofdinosaurs in the Scriptures because they did see them. Theologians translated the Hebrew word tannim used to describe these beasts, with the word dragon.

Dragon meant something else in those earlier days. Over time--man has come to see a dragon as more of a mythical creature--and so the stories begin.

The Bible is not a mythological piece of work. It does not read like a legend or fairytale. It is quite straight forward and it reads more like a document without fanciful embellishment.

The authors of the these Scriptures describe these animals (called dragons in some translations) and talk about them along with other real animals that we still see today:

Psalm 91:13:

Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

Isaiah 43:20 also speaks of dragons as real animals:

The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.

In both of these Scriptures the use of the word dragon is coupled with other *real* animals in a way that illustrates that the author knew of these creatures as very real.

The translators who determine that these creatures are elephants or crocidiles or whales--did so because they were at a loss for anything else since they never considered the dinosaur, either because they never heard about the dinosaur--before the mid eighteen hundreds--or because evolutionary thought has left us without that option today.

Even the Hebrew word translated to *whales* is actually a word for dragon in Genesis 1:21:

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

In the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, God is describing His creation of the great dragons (sea-dwelling dinosaur- like animals). But we miss this picture because we have preconceived ideas about the world. We assume that the dragon is a mythical creature and we assume that dinosaurs died out billions of years ago. Therefore we limit ourselves and our ability to be able to rightly interpret God's Word.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 12, 2004.

Ok, now, "dinosaur" includes other big animals? So, am I to understand that "dinosaur" is a generic name for huge animals?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

I did read about dragons in fairy tales. I do not consider the Holy Bible as a mythological account. It did contain mythological characters at one time--Lilith. But, I think we ironed that one out of the picture.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Cave dwellers painted their walls with animal images. The Wooly Mammoth, I understand, is found in that artwork. If man lived alongside the dinosaurs, why don't we find dinosaur images alongside the Wooly's in those cave walls?

You'd figure that it would make for some great home motiffs and stuff.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Some cave art for you rod

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 12, 2004.

Are you serious?? LOL Thanks for the photo, which as far as I can see just shows a couple of natural irregularities on the rock surface. The DRAWINGS made from the imagination of some individual with a personal agenda do - sort of - suggest a dinosaur. But so what? This reminds me of when my kids used to look at the clouds and tell me all the things they saw - a kangaroo, an ocean liner, an army tank, a dinosaur! Imagination is a wonderful thing. You see what you want to see. But if dinosaurs and mammoths aREALLY existed together, outside of the human imagination, I need an explanation for why deposits containing the fossils of dinosaurs NEVER contain fossils of mammoths, or any other large mammals! And why NO dinosaur fossils are EVER found with the remains of mammoths or any other large mammals. And why the dinosaur-containing deposits ALWAYS date millions of years older than mammal-containing deposits. I have simple and perfectly reasonable explanation which explains all these observable and well documented facts. Do you have another to offer?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 12, 2004.

Huh?! a chicken leg and an ocarina? That's it?

I thought I was gonna see a prehistoric painting of a Tyranasaurus Rex or something.

Man not even shadow puppets!

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Well Paul.,

If it's good enough to see the Wooly Mammoth--then it's good enough to see a dinosaur.

I am sure that being in the cave, with a close-up view is probably more credible. I agree that the carvings could be rejected., but then all carvings should be.

rod was asking why we don't have carvings/paintings of dinosaurs when we do have them of Wooly Mammoths??

I was just showing him that there are some in existence.

It reminds me of rock art.

You take a rock and then paint it into an animal that the rock is shaped like. My kids have made plenty of rock pets in thier lives.

It is entirely possible that a person from that day looked at the rock formation and saw something familiar to him and then painted it to bring it out. There is no doubt that the aged paint is present. Many people look at it and see a Wooly Mammoth butting heads with a dinosaur creature.

Whose to say??

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 12, 2004.

Well, since you asked, and since it's a purely scientific question, it appears that scientists are the ones to say. And scientists, based on mountains of consistent evidence, tell us that dinosaurs were extinct for millions of years before any large mammals - and for an even longer time before any primates - existed. So there it is. Trying to disprove science from non-scientific sources is like trying to disprove history from non-historic sources. It just doesn't work. Especially when your only means of determining the actual meaning of your sources is your own personal guesses.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 12, 2004.

Well Paul., If it's good enough to see the Wooly Mammoth--then it's good enough to see a dinosaur.

{Its not good enoygh to see a Mammoth...it looks like a rock thats eroded, and I showed it to a few popel wthou the captions... everyone thinks its just a rock...}-Zarove

I am sure that being in the cave, with a close-up view is probably more credible. I agree that the carvings could be rejected., but then all carvings should be.

{what carvings? The rock doesnt look carved, but weathered, with random flds thay dotn even look like anyhting unless we decide they do...like ink blots...}-Zarove

rod was asking why we don't have carvings/paintings of dinosaurs when we do have them of Wooly Mammoths??

I was just showing him that there are some in existence.

{No, you showed a rock wih a creative inerpretaiton... nothign even indicated human activity on the rock face, and its not relaly a carving...}-Zarove

It reminds me of rock art.

{But its not rock art, tis just a weathered rock.}-Zarove

You take a rock and then paint it into an animal that the rock is shaped like. My kids have made plenty of rock pets in thier lives.

{But thats the thing... its nto painted either... nor carved...}- Zarove

It is entirely possible that a person from that day looked at the rock formation and saw something familiar to him and then painted it to bring it out.

{What paint?}-Zarove

There is no doubt that the aged paint is present. Many people look at it and see a Wooly Mammoth butting heads with a dinosaur creature.

{I see a rock...}-Zarove

Whose to say??

{well of ts not good enough for you why bign it up?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 12, 2004.

I still see a chicken leg and an ocarina. The cave dwellers absolutely lived among the chicken legs and the prehistoric musical instrument that is known today as the ocarina. BTW, I never mentioned "carved" anything, only painted artwork on cave walls. :)

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

The art work in the cave that I linked you all to--is painted. I assume you didn't read any of the article?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 13, 2004.

I figured the article was "painted", too.

Uh, tainted, tinted,uh.

It just doesn't have any veracity for providing evidence of man and dinosaur existing together. If I look hard enough at that picture, I can see E.T. or marshmellows , too.

The real cave paintings are very deliberate and distinct. There is not a doubt that the cave dwellers experienced what was dipicted in their artwork. They hunted wildlife, which did not include dinosaurs. Perhaps they didn't have an apetite for or technique for taking dinosaurs, if they co-existed. But, for them to see such a gigantic animal and not make record of it would seem very strange. Heck! they could have even included such an animal in their mythology or religion.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 13, 2004.

Whoa! Wait just a second here.

Thinktank?

You have provided a website that shows some kind of cave anomaly. In some way, we are to contort our eyes so that we can see a dinosaur in the distortions of a rock formation. The image is not distinct at all and may even require the viewer to spend some time working on a B.A. degree in Abstract Art or something. But, let's consider what we are being asked to imagine.

We are supposed to look at the side of a cave wall. We are supposed to decipher the formation into the resemblence of a dinosaur. But, when people provide other images on the sides of objects that have clear and distinct lines and shapes, we are supposed to dismiss those images. Hmmmm?

I'm speaking of those Lady images. (You may start another thread if you wish.)

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 13, 2004.

Thinktank

If I see an image of a dinosaur on the side of a cave, as you do, then it will show support for your theological understanding. The dino on the side of the rock will make for evidence of the Creationism belief. But, I just don't see a dino there.

If you see an image of a Lady on the side of a building, which you have, your understanding will not be swayed while many others will have support for their theological views.

I am not fearful of discoveries that place dinos and hummans together. I am not fearful of discoveries that show animals changing drastically over time. For me, it will show evidence of my theological views. God is the source in either or both cases.

I want to see a dino, but it just isn't there. I want to see the Virgin, but I only need to believe that it isn't just an anomaly.

Ah! the problem with skepticism and faith.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 13, 2004.

Ah! "hummans" were prehistorical musicians that roamed the countryside humming melodies. They had not acquired the art of lyricism because copyright laws had not been invented yet. Gradually, these "hummans" learned the art of piracy, which enabled them to steal lyrics from other animals. Of course, today we see evidence of those lyrics that were handed down from century to century, generation to generation. The Monkeys were the epidemy of that great artform of lyricism. Buddy Holly still used much of the ancient lyrics maintaining his "hiccups" and "yelps" that made Rock-n-Roll what it is today. Yes, the "hummans" were the start of the highest forms of lyricism we have today!

Uh, sorry, that should have been "human" instead of "humman" in the previous post about "dinos and hummans" and the Virgin.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 13, 2004.

Creationism vs. Evolution (Part 2)

We may wish to continue this discussion on a seperate thread.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 13, 2004.