Where does it say in the bible that the earth is only 6000 years old?

Michele-- it doesn't-- the early Hebrews had no idea that dinosaurs even existed, since the scientific study of paleontology had not been developed. There is some theorizing that mythological stories of giants and monsters were created to explain the presence of fossil bones (a pachyderm skull, for instance, could be mistaken for the skull of a one-eyed human analog, or the skeleton of a protoceratops as the griffon, a lion/ eagle hybrid). The "walked with dinosaurs" meme is an attempt to reconcile the literalist, young earth interpretation with the scientific evidence.

As to the age of the Earth, it is also a literalist interpretation-- if you add up all the "begats" and the "from event x to event y was seven generations" phrases, then you get an age somewhere around 6500 years.

The bottom line: it all a theory. However, there are many scientific discoveries that lay credibility to the theory that the earth is about 8,000 years old and there are/were dinosaurs living during the same time as humans. If you look in the book of Job, chapters 40 and 41, God is addressing Job and providing him with an short expose' of his power. Terms like behemoth, verse 15, which may refer to a Hippo as some explained, others believe that it refer to a much larger herbivore, such as a Sauropodomorph or Barchiosaur. In the following verses it says it "feed on the grass" and "What strength it has" and in verse 17 is states "Its tail sways like a cedar". A hippo doesn't have a tail like a cedar! A cedar is a very large, tall tree that people make temple/church beams because of the dense wood and strong structual charateristics. In chapter 41 is states "Can you pull in a leviathan with a fishhook?" Again, a referance to a large animal. Read it for yourself.

One of the most famous discovery was the Taylor trail in Texas near Big Bend, where they discovered human foot prints next to, and over top of, dinosaur prints. The discovery upset the evolutionist during that time of discovery so much so that they tried to destroy the evidence. This is what typically happens when a discovery is made that lends credibility to creationism or "Intelligent Design", the non-believers either dismiss the evidence or try to destroy it.

People have the free will to believe what they want. How can anyone believe that this earth, the people, animals and rules of physics, etc....just happened?! The bible explains a lot. Even Darwin was a Christian believer. Someone threw down a challenge to him, "If there was no God, how would you explain how thing came to be?" Since people didn't want to be held to God's standards, many chose to believe Evolution than the God inspired word in the Bible. Your choice.

rik-- keep in mind that a "theory" in science is not a "guess"-- it is a plausible principle or body of principles that explains the natural world, a testable model of the natural world capable of predicting future occurrences or observations and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

there are many scientific discoveries that lay credibility to the theory that the earth is about 8,000 years old

Your first paragraph is not a paragraph outlining scientific discoveries-- it is an interpretation of sentences in a literary work. We cannot prove or disprove any of it-- we were not there when it was written down, we cannot say whether the creature referenced was a hippo, or a whale, or an unlikely instance of a survivor population of sauropods (fun to imagine, but not likely)...

As to the Taylor Tracks, many studies have challenged the interpretation, noting as well that some of the tracks were intentionally carved to support the creationist view. The evidence is equivocal, but the weight of evidence comes down on the side of this being a hoax by local farmers to support tourism during the Depression.

People have the free will to believe what they want. How can anyone believe that this earth, the people, animals and rules of physics, etc....just happened?!

Yes, we do have the free will to believe what we like-- and in my opinion, the scientific version is just as compelling as any religious one, more so when you factor in the observable, reproducible evidence. It is very amazing to me that life arose, changed and developed into the great variety we see today-- it doesn't require a supernatural being to make that, or myself as part of that, special.

rik-919908

The science makes it very clear that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and that life evolved over much of that time. It is inconceivable that any new scientific evidence will disprove that broad outline. Yes, you can believe whatever you want, but if you deny what is in front of your face, don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

How can you say that ? Are you so sure that the universe is 4.6 billion years old ? It must be growing old fast because when I was a teen it was only 1 billion or so years old. The theory of the age of the universe is always being changed it seems.

How arrogant for any one to suggest that the world is in fact 4.6 billion years old. How cne even begin to test hypothesis of any kind using models from an era that is mind boggling so long ago that they " Know" EXACTLY what was going on back then and be able to compare it to whats going on today.

You know whether or not people believe in god, or if your old age or young age universe believers I wish sometimes both sides would just concede and say we dont know Exactly how it happened. Believers in god can easily say god did it in short time or long time, but I hate to hear science trying to cram it in our youths faces that its fact or presumed to be 4.6 billions years old.

Here is my view, we start with presumptions. We all have a bias , there is no neutrality. You base your data and your conclusions off of the data you gather. This data is greatly influenced by your personal opinions. Which is why we can look and see scientists with PHD's from both sides of the spectrum take the same evidence, and interpret it differently.

You always need to start at the beginning, the base, and work from there . The main stream science say molecules to man, simple to complex. But I want to pin them down and get deeper into the mix. the simple cells to complex had to come from somewhere, until the day they can explain how it all began, then I will listen. Until then all their conclusions are based off of personal bias.

I look at the universe and see information. That had to come from somewhere. Rc Spoul, a great Philospher explained that there can only be 4 possiblities then can show out of the 4 only 1 can make logical sense. , 1 this is all a big illusion, some figment of imaginiation., 2. Something had to self create itself, 3 self existant, 4 somethign was created by self existence .. 1 and 2 are out of the picture right away. I have a hard time explaining this, its just better to listen to him talk about it.

In the end, it gives a great logical argument for god, and if you do believe in god then you probably should be believing what the bible says, and if you believe in the bible then if your a true beliver, your going to believe what the bible says that the bible is the inerrant word of god, incapable of lying. So we must assume that every thing in the bible is true..

Go here and listen to his video section about law of contradiction, law of causality, self existence, necessary being,

http://www.ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=1&id=160

My question is if evolution was the way it all happened then why does it not happen any more? If it was the way we all came to be you think we would have more ape to man conversions. Maybe I should ask it this way, is there a recent evolved ape out there that could answer my question? I do have a similarity with apes.....I like bananas.

YAOK - Evolution is continuing today just as fast at it always has. That is to say, very slowly. We have even observed it and measure it in some species.

There never WERE any ape to man conversions, so I'm not sure what you are talking about there. Apes and humans descended from a common ancestor. But that has taken about 20 million years, so far. It's not likely to happen again some weekend just so we can watch.

Damon

All scientists look at the universe and see information. Then they see questions. Then they find answers.

We know the age of the Earth based on the half-lives of several radioisotopes. You would have to suspend the laws of physics to get a different answer.

Strange as it may seem to some people, most scientists actually DO know what they are doing.

Archbishop James Usher made the mistake of listing all the names in the Bible and figurring out that the earth was only 4,000 years old. The problem is Hebrew geneologies tended to not list the black sheep, or bad people, unless they were kings.

I don't have every answer, but this die hard, cling to the sinking barge lest we all drown attitude of science trying to convince themselves and everyone else that it happened just like Darwin and their imaginations say, and couldn't possibly have anything to do with a Creator...gets boring and makes them look and sound foolish. I mean, how on earth can we claim to arrive at truth by postulating a theory, then doing whatever it takes to prove the theory? How about just flat searching for the truth? For example, what about the moccasined human footprints in the limestone in Texas, one of which has in it a bug that was stepped on and squished, namely a Trilobite, that was supposed to be extint some millions of years before man?

Evolutionists are unwilling to submit that "the jury's still out", and faith is pretty much subjective, along with the four vertebrae that were instantaneously created in my mother's back when we prayed for her....doctors confirmed it....but I guess you have to have faith in a Creator and believe He is before you'll know He's real...kind of like the difference between looking in a window and opening the door and walking in.

Nobody claims that evolution happened "just like Darwin said." He was just a scientist, with a good idea and a lot of solid evidence, but we have learned a fair amount in the 150 years since then! Darwin didn't even know how genetics worked; nobody did back then.

WmRAllen: I would reccommend you read four literary pieces of "history" and not "his/her--story. They are: [1] Egypt Ancient Light Of The World byGeald Massey, [2] How the Hebrews Became Jews,by Jose Malcioln. [3] The Secret Teachings Of All Age, by Manly P. Hall, who happens to be my favorite philosopher and historian. [4] The African Origin Of Civilization by Cheikh Anta Diop [who finally laid to rest the unadulterated falsehood that Egyptians/Africans were Europeans]. In this work you will find [on page 56] "The human race must have been considered there, in Africa, as as spontaneous, having been born in the upper areas of Ethiopia where the two sources of life, heat and humidity are ever present. It is also in this region that the first glimmerings of history [like this foot print] reveal the origin of societies and the primitive home of civilization. This foot print will do the same thing that a papyrus with the formula for pi, written more than two thousand years before the birth of a Greek mathematician who has falsely [AND TO THIS VERY DAY, CONTINUALLY] been given credit for creating. One of my favorite quotes/metaphors is: MAN CANNOT HIDE WHAT GOD WILL REVEAL. THE REAL QUESTION IS WHEN WILL MAN ACCEPT THE TRUTH.

Levi77-if you have so much against science, why are you using the internet? In case you forgot, it was invented by scientists..

hello, science/ anthropology etc are constantly searching for answers..GODS puzzle is highly debated and has many theoretical views.. which I think is very fascinating..we all have the right to give our comments and views..that's what makes this fun for everyone.. 1st of all, I believe, no mind, no computer can achieve the greatness of the master of the universe..as for the dinosaur period, you think GOD did not have anything to do with it ?? this to is debatable..as for the foot print, I believe it's strange, take a real good look.. mans foot is rectangular long, with a heel..I'm not convinced, although , I too realize evolution is constantly changing.. natural selection is intriguing..ancient people believed in dragons due to their misunderstood finds..GOD IS GREAT...he has everyone guessing still till today, including myself..have a good day, good luck and keep guessing..heheee

Why are they saying a man's size 9- why not a women's size 11? Surely, women had feet then also. No one knows what size any of them were!

There is no proof for evolution, we can how ever prove that it takes some thing to make some thing. Don't be afraid to accept Jesus he loves all of you no matter who you are or what you have done. Also we have been confusing Science with history for way to long, in history we start teaching at the Mesopotamia era and then move on, from a historians point of view I for one would rather accept a first person account than some thing made up by a person in the middle 1800's, First person accounts are usually right seeing on how they come from the source. Holy Bible. If you believe in evolution you are stating that for some reason we developed intelligence and started writing so if that's the case why didn't our evolution get documented in history, we just all of a sudden decided to make a wheel and start writing and talking and it took millions of years, give me a break. They teach evolution because they don't want to accept religion not because its true. By the way our History classes start teaching after the flood not before. You would say how would Noah fit every animal on one boat answer the animals where different and some where driven extinct because they where a threat to the human race, others God created after the flood.

Michele-659633 answer

Ignorance is not bliss it's a pain in the but to you and others, to many people in this world comment and write about stuff they no nothing about but yet they like to pretend that they do that includes stubborn modern scientist that think they know every thing if they are that way they have self esteem issues and usually know nothing.

(Douay-Rheims American)

Genesis 6:4

Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Numbers 13:34

There we saw certain monsters of the sons of Enac, of the giant kind: in comparison of whom, we seemed like locusts.

Deuteronomy 2:11

They were esteemed as giants, and were like the sons of the Enacims. But the Moabites call them Emims.

Deuteronomy 2:20

It was accounted a land of giants: and giants formerly dwelt in it, whom the Ammonites call Zomzommims,

Deuteronomy 3:11

For only Og king of Basan remained of the race of the giants. His bed of iron is shewn, which is in Rabbath of the children of Ammon, being nine cubits long, and four broad after the measure of the cubit of a man's hand.

Proverbs 9:18

And he did not know that giants are there, and that her guests are in the depths of hell. The Parables of Solomon

Wisdom 14:6

And from the beginning also when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world fleeing to a vessel, which was governed by thy hand, left to the world seed of generation.

Sirach 16:8

The ancient giants did not obtain pardon for their sine, who were destroyed trusting to their own strength:

Isaiah 14:9

Hell below was in an uproar to meet thee at thy coming, it stirred up the giants for thee. All the princes of the earth are risen up from their thrones, all the princes of nations.

Isaiah 26:14

Let not the dead live, let not the giants rise again: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and best destroyed all their memory.

Baruch 3:26

There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war.

We have fossils of large animals so why argue we call them Dinosaurs. According to Enoch which is a questionable book way word angels had relations with women resulting in half breads and Giants that before the flood enslaved the people, ate people, and taught the people to worship false things and to practice wicked arts.

Which is why God caused the Great Deluge or Flood.

Good, Mat, you can copy and paste. Now be a good boy and run out and play. Mom and Dad have important things to discuss.

Some of you apparently don't know your Bible as much as you think. Go to Job 40, verse 15. "Look at the behemoth which I made along with you . . ." He is talking to Job, and saying "look", . .which means it was something Job could see with his eyes, and the following verses going down through Chapter 41 describe behemoth and Leviathan. Behemoth is described as a beast with a tail that swings like a cedar tree. . now that would have to be a big beast. Good reading. Evolutionist want the earth and the universe to be 'old', so that their supposed theory of evolution could work. Things would 'evolve over millions of years. . .but no evidence. they say earth is 4.6 billion years old through radioisotope dating of igneous rocks, however when a series of test were run a few years ago on ten volcanic rock samples of known ages, . ranging from 27 years old to 900 years old, . .the average percentage of error was 184,000%. . .yea, that number was right. . 184,000%. That's not acceptable to anybody. Point is, . .if you can't get accurate readings on rocks of 'known' ages, then how can you trust it on rocks of unknown ages. By the way, . .put that average error rate to the 4.6 billion year old date, and it tells us the earth is no more than 25,000 years old. Interest eh?

Dennis

Radiosotope dating is much more accurate than that. You can't extrapolate from one poorly done study and ignore the numerous times that the 40 different dating methods have been tested against each other and other known samples. If you really want to know how good radiometric dating is, STUDY IT. Don't just pick up the first anomaly you find on a creationist web site and think you have it all figured out.

Eh, no, Dennis. The universe is actually about 14 billion years old. Interest?

job 40: 15thru24 dinosaurs were not laying on top of the ground for all to see if they are millions of years old. dirt would cover them and then fossilizing would take place. if bones laid out in the open the rain and wind would destroy them into dust. how could some one make up something so big if it did not already exist.

Annonymous-682171

How can you look at the charts that science presents and see all the question marks and speculations and believe in evolution?

Just google evolution charts and take a look. Oh yeah, and read the fine print about all the speculation.

Look closely at the charts and then take away the theory and you will see dogs have always been dogs, birds have always been birds, weasels have always been weasels and humans have always been humans.

Come on, you actually believe that a wolf went from the land to the sea and became a whale? And yet you continuously insult anyone who doesn't agree with your belief that the earth is millions of years old.

Don't get me wrong science is great, without it we would not have the space shuttle, internet, cell phones etc... However, when science is inconclusive, speculative and filled with assumptions it leads many people astray. We all have the same fossil facts, we just have different starting points. Creationist's start with the bible and connect all the dots. Evolutionist's start with the present and try to work backwards and fill in the blanks with their own dots / question marks. Even if I wasn't a Christian I still could not believe in evolution. It's just to far fetched.

Creationist- Well said. It seems to me that everyone debating this issue needs a good dose of humility. I also am a believer, and very, very appreciative of science and scientific discovery, and all of the blessings of technology. The universe is a very harsh, and diffucult place, and without the advances made through science, would be a much more difficult place to live and prosper. But the world is a most amazing, intricate, delicate and extraordinarily complex thing......, and surely should humble us as we consider it. But above all, there is "something inside me" that strongly suggests something besides a naturalistic world. One thing is for sure, death will reveal who is right, and who is wrong. Have a great day. :)

And we still haven't got it right.

Michelle

This has nothing to do with carbon dating, which only goes back about 40,000 years. You can't date rocks with that method anyway. There are at least 40 different radiometric dating methods, appropriate for different scales of time, and many of these have confirmed each other.

You can't attack evolution through the dating methods. The science is extremely strong there. Physics is physics. The Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Deal with it.

Electron spin resonance is more accurate than carbon dating.

I never understood this notion the creationists have that somehow evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's hard to answer something when I don't even know what falacy the question is based on. Either you don't know what evolution is, or you don't know what the 2nd law is, because they work together just fine.

Hey Michele, it is 2009 now, and carbon dating is still a valid tool. Except that it isn't used alone-you use it along with other methods of dating and accept the results if they match. But the fact that some still think the world is less than 10000 years old is mind numbing.

the vatican accepts anything, it is false religion and not about salvation

Hey Michele, where did you get all this nonsense? The newsletter of your church?

You know, there is a third side to this debate: that the Earth and everything we know were created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can google it. You can google it. In the interest of teaching the controversy, I think this idea should be brought up and discussed, not ignored.

Rudeness is what I have for science deniers, holocaust denialists and flat earthers.

The universe is about 14.5 billion years old. That is how long it has taken the light of most distant stars to reach us. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

You can take a course in geology, or watch the history channel if that is too much work. But one piece of advice: don't use anti-science blogs or your church's newsletter.

Oh, and it's not like anyone here can confirm your name is really Michele?

Hi Amy, thanks for the compliments. I'm not the one visiting Ray Comfort's blog, but whoever does that has my blessing. Given that Mr Comfort was the one who started trolling PZ Myers' blog-he shouldn't be bothered if the favor is returned.

Hi Michele, it is so amusing chatting with you. Actually I am laughing out loud, I must say you have a vivid imagination.

No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I was simply saying that having a "Michele" screen name as opposed to "anonymous" has nothing to do with the truth of claims someone makes.

See, accusing your opponend of being a "meanie" is not new, for people who are on the wrong side of the evidence. Holocaust deniers use it all the time; it is them who are having an open mind, whereas those rude Holocaust historians insist everyone must agree they are right.

As for evolution, if any credible evidence ever emerged undercutting it as a fact, it wouldn't be on a gumwrapper-let's say, if someone found one vertebrate eye without a blind spot(out of millions of fish, birds, reptiles or mammals) or one octapus or squid with a blind spot, journals like Science and Nature would be in competetion for the publishing rights. The reason you find evolution denying propagands only in less than credible sources is that evolution has without every single scientific discovery in 150 years. We all know what that would be called in a different setting.

This "footprint" discovery presents a huge problem for those evolutionists who believe that they are the offspring of Grandpa Primate. Get a load of this excerpt from the article: "Early humans had feet like ours and left lasting impressions in the form of 1.5 million-year-old footprints, some of which were made by feet that could wear a size 9 men's shoe." Yes, they could wear "size 9 men's shoes," and they could also wear men's suits, shirts and ties bought with discount prices at Penney's Department Store.

And have you ever noticed how easily these evolutionists toss around such precise time-span figures to make their case? For instance, "1.5 million-year old footprints." Not 1.4 million, mind you. Not 1.6 million. But, get this straight! They said 1.5 million years old and that settles it, doesn't it?

I will never understand how any rational person could believe that his nearest relative is a hairy, stinky, slobbering, grunting, feces-flinging, knuckle-dragging, cootie-picking primate. But if that's what you insist, who am I to second-guess your so-called scientific self-image?

Hmmmm I don't remember such stories. I do remember creationist inventing claims and fooling people. Perhaps you can find a link to a reputable source for this claim?

Dating methods are very accurate and getting better constantly. That is because the scientist who use them are incredibly curious and strive to test and improve them.

I've never heard of such a story either. If possible please post a link.

I don't remember that either.

I will say that it's one thing to find some old bones and mistake it's age but how could someone mistake the approximate age of a footprint in rock? Footprints in rock are pretty hard to fake seeing that it takes probably at least thousands if not millions of years for mud to turn into rock.

The current theory of evolution has many questions to answer but it is based on evidence found in the earth. The creation story is based on what - stories passed down from generation to generation that were told by people who once believed the earth was flat?

I have two reports from scientist, one from the University of Arizona and one from Oak Ridge National Lab. which shows Carbon dating is faulty beyond a few hundred years. In one they dated the same bone several times with a degreeof difference over 10,000 years. One as much as 150 million years. Post your email and I will snapshot these reports and send to you. There is as much evidence out there for other dating methods being faullty as you can find for it being accurate.

It can be very difficult to know the age of bones found lying around. Either the bones themselves have to be dated back in the lab, because the surroundingd may be suspect. But with fossilized bones (or footprints) encased in hard rock layers, dating the surrounding rock is sufficient, because the artifacts ahd to have been buried at the same time the rock layer was formed. And scientists have gotten very good at dating rocks.

This finding will have to be confirmed, of course, but jackpot finds like this are usual studied very intensely, so we would know if anybody found any problems.

Source please Monty? No, I am not going to post my email to receive spam from you. And I am amazed by people who think they know better than scientists but have never done any themselves.

Well Monty; don't you see the answer in your argument?

It's a simple thing to read what is written, and then the hard part comes. Actually use your own thoughts to reason through ALL that is writen, not stopping when you have found what you want.

If you paid attention to the WHOLE story you would realise that someone found some old bones in Australia, tested them and found they were really really old. Then (heres the part you missed) It was realised that they made a mistake, and they admitted it.

I would like to see someone that is like the little child with their eyes shut tight and their fingers in their ears shouting LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA I CAN'T HERE YOU.That believes EVERYTHING that is in the Bible is absolutley undeniably correct and true, stand up and say ; maybe this part is not right.

Sorry, all current evidence points towards heat death of the universe and not cyclical time. Also, the evidence indicates time travel is not possible.

You left your empty Diet Coke can behind, too. Didn't your mother tell you to clean up after yourself?

MotleyHar, How those shrooms treating you dude.

Michele - But science is never based on artist adaptations. That is something they do just for fun, and to try to interest the general public in science. Scientific conclusions are drawn from real evidence, or else the scientist is rightfully ridiculed. And most scientists are eager to point out the flaws in others' work. Usually that's a good thing, unless it gets personal.

Michele-I guess you know from experience.

Okay, the universe was created along time ago, no one knows for certain as of yet as to how it began or exactly when it began. Life began on this planet millions of years ago, no one knows exactly when, and no one knows exactly how.

Now, the scientific process offers the most rational, reproducible results to the theories that have been hypothesized thus far. Science tends to be fairly cold though as it leads us toward the conclusion that we are all alone in the universe, there is no greater being looking out for us with a greater plan and that we are all insignificant in comparison to the rest of the universe.

Because of this rather unfeeling view of the universe (and because many of us can not seem to handle such a thought), many turn to religion to fill that void. Establishment of deities provides many psychological benefits to humans, such as the ability to explain unexplainable events, comfort in the belief that there is life after death, a sense of community, and the absolution of accountability for ones actions. It also permits a level of control over a population by figures of authority. Religion tends to be much simpler in its explanation of creation, stating that it was willed into existence by the divine creator and no attempt is made to explain His powers or methodology for creation.

Now the strange part is the more science delves into quantum physics and the mysteries of the universe, the more plausible the view point of religion gets. There are several interpretations of quantum physics focused on wave-function collapse, this is essentially the reduction of probable outcomes for any given events occuring within the universe.

One theory states that there is only one universe and causality (cause and effect) will be preserved through out the entirety of that universe and that we would eventually be able to back calculate everything. Another theory states there are infinite possible universes, one for each possible outcome of any given event. That means every-time someone makes a choice, new universes are created. If in-fact the multiple worlds theory is correct, then it is entirely possible that God created the universe.

To put that in laymans terms, no one is right because they don't know. What you should do is figure out what works best for you given the circumstances of your life and your personality. Sorry if that's not much help, but you should investigate all options before making a decision.

(I hope I got all the quantum physics terminology correct)

Snake-- all the explanations are perfectly good. All the explanations are also geared towards a particular place, time and ideology.

All creation stories are political-- that is, they all serve to explain and define not only the world, but a society's place in that world as well. The Judeo-Christian and Muslim stories (essentially the same) explain the creation of man and the direct descent of the Jewish people from that original man, thus placing the Jews (and by extension the Christians and Muslims, as extensions of the Jewish people) in a place of primacy in the world-- the Chinese creation story of the goddess Nuwa, who sculpted the first humans from clay, but eventually tired of the painstaking work and formed the greater part of the population by dipping a rope into the mud and flicking blobs about which each became a person, explains the class differences in society and sets up a reified difference between those classes (the upper classes were hand sculpted, the lower classes were blobs).

The scientific evolution story served a political function as well, and in some ways the religious folks have the right idea-- as part of the rise of Enlightenment and humanist thought, science was geared toward explaining the world in a way that would reduce society's reliance on myth and legend. It also provided a more relevant approach towards explaining the world to the more urban, industrialized, middle-class and materialist society of the later nineteenth century than did the earlier religious explanations, which were seen as geared toward the more pastoral, agrarian, aristocratically-based feudal period.

The one sticking point, in my opinion, is the way that science works. It pulls its data from the observable world, allows for revision and falsification when the data do not fit into the systematic structures of a theory, and allows for both reproducibility and flexibility in thought. The religious creation stories do not allow for checking: in that system of thought, "God did it" remains a trump card, and one that cannot be verified or falisified by observation of the natural world (by definition, it is a super-natural explanation).

Ehm-snake-I thought the article was about rocks. Do you raise questions about the origin of life on threads about the budget?

Snake, just so you know Man created God in his own image, starting with the pharoahs in Egypt. You know, if Moses hadn't mutinied and left Egypt with the 13 tribes following him, because Ramses wanted to return to polytheism and Moses grew up with monotheism, this would all be a moot point and no one would be quibbling about it.

Anyway, the theory of the origins of our universe change on a regular basis. The most recent theory is that two 'branes bumped together 13.5 billion years ago and the resulting energy release created the teacup-sized object that exploded a split second later in the cosmic reaction commonly known as the Big Bang. I say 13.5 billion years, because so far, that's the distance in light years of the most distant galaxies photographed to date, and they appear to be proto-galaxies, sort of like blobs instead of organized like the Andromeda Galaxy. Get a copy of Sky & Telescope magazine for reference.

And finally, all religions have an "origin of the universe" mythology and they're all pretty much the same. Buddhists believe that the universe springs into existence when the sleeping Buddha breathes out, and then ends when Buddha breathes in. There is a great deal of fun in finding things out by going to lots of research and references, and not using just one source.

Russell in Maryland said he is not intimidated by good looking conservative women. Sure about that Russ.

ahhhhhhhh....one none thinker following another. oh my...i don't know if i can stand it. that by far is the most silly, uneducated comment so far. i can only hope that you have no offspring, to pass on these ideas.

You are right that it would be the most logical assumption, until you found evidence to the contrary. Asking and answering such questions is called science. Most scientists know how to do it. And they don't get published in Science, the most prestigious science journal in the country, unless there evidence is pretty solid.

They date the rocks; they compare the anatomy to known fossils and modern forms. They do lots of, like, science stuff.

The rocks are 10 times as old as the oldest human fossils. And there were other human like beings at about that time whose fossils we have already seen, and whose feet would match the foot print, including homo ergaster and homo erectus.

I fear you are correct. It's up to the rest of us to discover how the designer (God) did and continues to creat life.

Only one designer? As far as I can tell there should be many, every species had a designer of its own. That's why some eat others.

Then you need to bone up on chaos theory and understand that while chaos generates random order, like when you use quickpicks for lottery tickets, chaos prefers order over nonorder. This is a universe that is ruled by both statistics and chaos. Statistically, the odds of other planets within and outside our solar system supporting life in any form are pretty high. Chaos theory suggests that finding another life form exactly like we are is very unlikely.

"Man in all his diligence has never found any intermediate fossils."

This is a completely ignorant and embarrasing lie. We have found many exquisite examples of progressive lineages in the fossil record. Anyone who has taken even a basic college-level science class has seen some of the best evidence for evolution, including many examples of transitional fossils.

Scientists, in all of their "diligence," have been confirming evolution for 150 years. The fact that you are completely unaware if it does not make it go away. There is really no excuse for such stunning ignorance.

Go ahead, Jock, state your facts. How old is the oldest fossil? And describe the qualities of Australopithicenes afarensis which would have made Lucy a "precursor" to modern humans.

John-there are no "precursors". Afarensis was an ape-it had the limbs and brain of an ape-but it walked on its back legs. And it appears in the fossil record at the time we know, based on molecular clocks and dating of other fossils, it should. That makes it a "transitional form", not a precursor.

And oh Carolyn, ever heard of pigeon fanciers? That can, over the course of a few decades of selective breeding, make new pigeons with certain features that can no longer breed with the wild type.

As for intermediate forms-we have apes walking on their back legs, dinosaurs with feathers, and fish with fingers, to name a few. Which one do you like better?

1)How were the "other fossils" dated?

2)What were the distances traveled on its back legs?

3)Pigeons are still pigeons.

4)How many "dinosaurs with feathers" and "fish with fingers" have been found? Please provide references.

Well, this is one Carolyn who believes in evolution. Take that to the bank!

John, the oldest fossils on Earth are stromatolites, cyanobacteria. They exist in 3.5 billion year old fossil beds in Australia, and they continue to exist on the coastline of Australia. They are living fossils. The next oldest living fossil is the coelacanth, a fish species that lives deep in the Indian Ocean and was thought to have died out 65 million years ago with the Chixculub meteorite impact. Any other questions?

John, when you cannot cross the new pigeons with the ones in the wild, you have a new species. The rest is semantics.

Fossils are radio-dated. Take a course in physics or in geology.

And if you are interested, google "Tiktaalik" for fish with fingers and "archaeopteryx" for dinos with feathers.

i cannot believe that any supposedly half intelligent person could say that that is no evidience for evolution and science. i feel like there are two kinds of people talking on this forum...one is so brain dead that they cannot see anything but their own small world view.

the other is trying to talk to sense to them and it's like "talking to a wall"

no one in this day and age can be so out of touch with reality.

But you just did, RonDu....

das,

Have you ever studied dendrochonology?

John,

What about it?

How old is the oldest tree?

I think the oldest Bristlecone pines are around 4-5000 years old. What does that have to do with anything?

I'm not sure, were you going to make a certain poit? I'm listening.

Jock has it right. Das or Jock, Has C12/C14 reached equilibrium?

john and company, you can't talk to a person that has closed their minds to anything but their own small world view. they are the ones that have taken this country over. the stats that he just put out are not true unless you read the ENTIRE text of the survey....if you live in a small room with no windows you will never see the wonder of the world.

hopfully now we will have someone with some common sense to see that you can't take a religious view on economics ...what worked 2,000 years ago DOES NOT WORK TODAY.

What ridiculous nonsense indeed. That anyone can state matter-of-factly that molecules-to-man evolution exists? Go ahead, Clarke, state your facts.

John,

Have you ever taken or passed a college-level biology class? Basicially what I'm asking is: Do you know @!$%# about biology or chemistry?

John-395352

Take a biology course. The comment board is an awkward place to try to give a college education. The scientific case for evolution is overwhelming, but you can't get an appreciation of it in a single paragraph. If you have a specific question, maybe I can help.

Sure, Brian. That's were I earned my degree. And you? Another gullible oaf?

I asked if you know anything about biology or chemistry, not if you have a degree. So?

Sure, Brian. By inference, you should understand that if my degree was in biology, that I have an understanding of biological processes. Perhaps I should have spelled it out for you.

I highly doubt that you have a degree in biology. That is almost as laughable as the term "creation scientist".

And if you do have a degree in biology, then you didn't go to a very good school or didn't learn the material.

You said "That's were I earned my degree" which doesn't mean anything. Learn how to spell, idiot.

Oh, good one. A typo "attack". Tell me, Brian, what's your degree in? Phys ed?

I could imagine someone getting a basic degree in biology without understanding evolution. Perhaps not in any of the larger accredited universities, but there are many parochial colleges in the country, and even some of the larger colleges will let students by who can barely write.

One of the largest accredited Universities in the country, Jock, but just for my edification, what was/is your degree in?

My first degree was a BS in Construction Management and my second was a BS in Chemistry. I’m currently working full time until I enter medical school in the fall.

I've got more important stuff to do. Enjoy the discussion everyone...

A chemist trying to talk about bones.

Well then, perhaps you'll be one of my students. What part of the country are you in again? Seriously.

John - I have 2 Master's degrees in evolutionary biology. I have been studying evolution for 30 years. You have no idea how ignorant you sound to anyone who really knows the subject.

What's your full name, Jock? I'd like to research your credentials.

I know what my credentials are. Why should I care whether YOU do?

What were your specific master's degrees in? Did you present a dissertation? What was it on?

What possible difference could THAT make? I could not even exist, and the scientific case for evolution would still be exactly the same.

Ah. The crux of the matter. Jock, if you want to make a "case" for evolution, that's fine with me. I wholeheartedely accept that critical thinking. Just don't tout it as being factual when factual evidence is lacking.

John, since you obviously are not aware of most of the factual evidence for evolution, how can you be so sure it is insufficient? Because you have already decided it MUST be? Or because somebody else said so?

John-evolution has been the backbone of geology and biology for 150 years. I don't believe you are interested in learning anything-this wouldn't be the place-but talking about "evolution from molecules to man" as if it was predetermined, or man was the intended final product, only tells me you have no clue what you are talking about.

Okay, anon. Exactly what "final product" do you see "emerging"?

"Exactly what "final product" do you see "emerging"?"

There IS no final product. That's the whole point. Organisms continuously evolve, and that won't stop until the Earth blows up. Or whatever ends it. In other words, evolution will not stop until LIFE stops.

Oh, there is no "final product". See, I did say you don't know anything about evolutionary biology. That's the point. Evolution will continue as long as there are new species that can get by in the environment better than others.

guys your talking to someone that will never accept "evidence" he's got his "degree" at the holy school on the hill and his mind is has closed has is one and only book on his shelf. your better off talking to the dog, at least he will wag his tail...i am so sick of these holier then thou bible thumpers i can't hold it in any more.

John

Use your head man. It happens everytime a human being is concieved. Same economic pattern over a shorter period of time.

Exactly.

What I'm sick of is fools like you pretending to know something about evolutionary theory. Perhaps if you took some time to learn about it, you'd know that it doesn't say that man evolved from monkeys nor does it attempt to explain the beginnings of the universe.

If you want a made up story about how the universe began then pick up a bible or koran or any other religious text and start reading.

Nobody ever said man came from monkeys. They both evolved from a common ancestor.

And calling every biologist on the planet a liar may not be the best way to initiate a discussion.

Okay Brian. Show me some indisputable facts which reveal molecules-to-man evolution. How old is the oldest fossil by direct dating?

John - The oldest fossils are over 3 billion years old. The oldest multicellular animals about one billion. Since then we have a remarkable diversity of fossils, all arranged by date just as if one had evolved into another.

Why would God give us a brain and a world to explore with it, if all he wanted us to do was close our eyes and memorize a book?

Show me some indisputable facts that god created the universe.

jock,

There really isn't a reason to argue with john. His mind is closed. And he has a biology degree, lol.

Jock, you are being intellectual dishonesty. You know damned well that there are no "billion" or "million" year old fossils. Not by any direct dating techniques. We're carbon-based.

No, Brian. It's not closed-mindedness on my end. I'm just tired of pinheads with hooks in their mouths accepting anything they read without investigating the facts. That's all.

Does the Fossil Record Document Macroevolutionary Changes?

A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States says: “A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”

The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”

This confident statement is quite surprising. Why? In 2004, National Geographic described the fossil record as being like “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.” Do the remaining one-in-a-thousand “frames” really document the process of macroevolution? What does the fossil record actually show? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, admits that the record shows that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”

No one can be so sure can they?

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”

Das, which came first? Marsupials or Monotremes?

What does the fossil record say?

You like to ask questions, but what is your view on all this?  I'm just curious if you care to share it.

That's why I'm asking you, Das. Which came first?

RM--Your post is the best and most logical explanation for the Genesis version of events posted in this thread. Ancient proto-Jewish child to ancient proto-Jewish parents: "How did we get here? Where did goats come from? What makes a fig different from a grape? Why do animals' horns grow in so many different shapes? How did so many fish get into the sea?" Parents to child, eager to answer the child's questions--but relatively quickly so they can get some sleep, or engage in some begatting behavior: "God made them all, that way, to live in those places."

Or as you put it, "They simply can't explain it so they make up stories." Now for a real puzzler, explain the difference between what you know and what you know you believe.

I'm not sure, here is what Wikipedia says-

"Monotremes were very poorly understood for many years, and to this day some of the 19th century myths that grew up around them endure. It is still sometimes thought, for example, that the monotremes are "inferior" or quasi-reptilian, and that they are a distant ancestor of the "superior" placental mammals. It now seems clear that modern monotremes are the survivors of an early branching of the mammal tree; a later branching is thought to have led to the groups."

Das, the evidence shows that (if you're going to claim an evolutionary tree based on fossils) that placental mammals would have emerged some 100 million years before monotremes. Are you saying that this would make ANY evolutionary sense?

Not at all, there are many flaws with the theory of evolution. That is why my most recent post says that it takes a great deal of faith to believe. Personally I don't have absolute faith in science, though I do think it is usefull.

John - actually, the fossil evidence shows no such thing, but thanks for playing.

Okay, Jock. Where's your data, and from what did monotremes "evolve"?

There are very few monotreme fossils, and it can be very difficult to tell if a fossil even IS a monotreme. I don't think that question can be answered yet.

John, plelase read up on the subject a little-and don't grace us with the "molecule to man" strawman.

Okay. So where have you seen a geologic table of monotremes arising prior to placental mammals? Especially when you've admitted that there is difficulty even in the identification aspect.

Annonymous. Call anything a strawman, and you win the argument? That's not exactly how the process of debate really works.

John: "So where have you seen a geologic table of monotremes arising prior to placental mammals."

I just said that we probably DON'T have that. But we also can't show that placentals arose first either.

Well when you make up something that is not a claim of evolutionary biology-that is attacking something entirely unrelated to the subject, and it is called a straw man.

Now, boys, if you can't play nicely with each other, you'll have to take your balls and go home.

Did the platypus appear on Earth before the marsupial opossum? First known monotreme fossil appears in Cretaceous rocks. Monotremes, which exist only in Australia and New Guinea and include the platyplus and two species of spiny anteater (echidna), evolved separately from mammals and marsupials. First known marsupial fossil appears in Cretaceous rocks. First know placental mammal fossils appear in Cretaceous rocks. First known mammal fossils appear in Triassic rocks. The time frame is Triassic/Jurassic/Cretaceous. Source: Paleontology portal. Any more questions, or are you just going to go on sniping at each other?

and i am personally so sick and tired of your closed minded nonsense that you hand out....i just can't take it anymore. and when one religious leader says that they have no problem with science and evolution...YOU call them down and call them a NON-Church...i am speaking of the pope and the catholics. at the very least they, the catholics, keep an open mind, which is why they don't put their head in the sand and cry.