WebSwim wrote: It has been a pleasure & you've given me an excuse to do a bit more reading so I can better refute your arguments the next time this comes around ;-)

That statement sums up what I think this whole thing should be....stimulating discussions that make one think during, as well as after. Most of us can learn a lot about ourselves, as well as others, by this kind of interaction.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

I've never understood why every discussion has to be labelled an argument? Is this how people go through their daily lives? Arguing with everyone? Viewing every discussion an a win/lose argument as if we were all lawyers? Discussion reveals new information and ideas, which encourages further research leading to an increase in knowledge.

If you don't want in on it, don't post. Simple as that. Go "argue" about something else. Let those interested discuss it as adults.

If you see this thread turning into a name-calling, flaming type thread ... then jump in and stop it. But, an adult conversation doesn't need a referee.

[Edit: I responded to the last post in the thread. y'carbo it was not directed to you]

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

TT, as the person who mentioned "argument" I'd like to clarify my comments. The word "argument" carries a number of different meanings. I was using the word argument as "a discussion in which disagreement is expressed". That's accurate, as I disagreed with you (and others) and vice versa. I also intended the word to refer to the actual position being debated, ie: a course of reasoning.

I did not regard this as a "quarrel, or dispute" and I apologise if I gave that impression. Ulitmately, argument as "quarrel" or "dispute" is destructive, but argument as "discussion" is constructive. I was referring to the latter.

I've been slowed down by some IT Band issues altely, so I've been reading quite a bit on the subject covered earlier in this thread. I thought I'd post some interesting debates/articles over similar topics that were mentioned previously.

I am increasingly disappointed by the "science" in origin science. Compared to the empirical sciences (chem, physics, physiology, etc), origin science is not really science at all (you know what I mean). Both sides of the issue (creationists and evolutionists) have very strongly-held paradigms which the evidence must fit into, or at least the idea/evidence is re-arranged (sometimes drastically) so that it does fit. What really bothers me is the small (or lack of) burden of proof for evidence. Any interpretation is basically presented as valid. Doesn't seem like evidence has to be reviewed by anyone other than the author of the article (same for both sides). It bothers me. anytime origin "science" is written, science should be in "quotes" to make it distinct from the empirical sciences which are held to much more distinct and rigorous standards.

The same evidence is basically used to "prove" both, opposite sides.

Anyway ...

Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report!http://www.answersingenesis.org/...n_s1997.asp?vPrint=1

Have Red Blood Cells Really Been Found in T.rex fossils? http://www.answersingenesis.org/...325RBCs.asp?vPrint=1

---------------------------------

Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (critique) http://www.talkorigins.org/...dmorappe-review.html

Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (refutation) http://www.rae.org/pagesix.htm

--------------------------------

Problems With a Global Flood http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Problems With a Global Flood (rebuttal) http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

-------------------------------

5 Major Misconceptions About Evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/...-misconceptions.html

5 Major Evolutionist Misconceptions About Evolution http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

------------------------------------

Comments about NG's articles mentioned in this thread. As a lifelong NG reader, i found this interesting. Seems artistic liberty is a growing trend in NG. Bothersome.


Smithsonian Decries National Geographic's Editorial Propagandizing of Dinosaur-to-Bird Evolution http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp

A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

The illustrations comparing NG vs. Nature journal are noteworthy.

The Overseling of Whale Evolution http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp

---------------------------------------------

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?[/url] http://www.rae.org/crepub.html

Interesting article above. Interesting comments from editors of peer-reviewed journals.

High Priest of Evolution Reveals His Religion http://www.trueorigin.org/gould01.asp

article looks at the Kansas state Board dcision. maybe it wasn't as simple and ridiculous as late-night comedians made it seem.

------------------------------------

Interesting reading. Next on the list "Old vs. Young Earth. Getting ready for a steady diet of "Woodmorappe vs. Morton"

It's interesting that despite all the reading/debating/writing that gets done, it still comes down to where you believe "organic molecules and hereditary gneetic information" came from ...

1. created by God

or

2. formed from nonliving material

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I took a 'Religions of the World' class in college. I can't say that it was a great class but I remember the professor saying: The only difference between a religion and a cult is political influence. I believed him then and I believe him now.

I agree completely. I read some of the answeringenesis.org stuff after one of your earlier posts. I can't say I was too impressed. If you're going to argue that an event in the Bible actually happened (I was reading about the flood) you can't use other passages from the Bible as "evidence"!

Although I can see why it would be appealing to reconcile faith with science, I think eventually you need to pick one or the other.

---

_______________________________________________

Not sure where your pulling that from. The prophets from other religions lived and died, but I am sure they would not claim that their gods ever even walked this earth. That is one of the reasons that Muslims do not agree with Christianity, Muhammed was a prophet not a God, they see worshiping Christ as polytheism.

---

Tri hard or go home.

My god is Dan. Through his steep angles I will transind into a highler level of Tri-worship and reach the kingdom of Slowtwitch.

In the name of Bunnyman

A-tubular

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

AiG has some articles that really don't offer a whole lot of scientific evidence, and then they have some others that are very much supported by science ... some are more-supported (IMO) than the currently accepted science theory.

They ask questions and ask for evidence for some very important questions that science does answer ... but desperately needs to ... such as a feasible mechanism for increasing the amount of genetic material that is required for "microbe-to-man" evolution.

If you read around the site a bit more, you'll find some interesting things that rely more on sicence than they do the bible. Sites like that, trueorigin.org, talkorigin.org, etc help keep each other on their toes and keep ideas based on science vs. storytelling and speculation based on erroneous assumptions (both sides).

I like to read the debates from both sides and note the occurancies where one side dances around a question/issue. That speaks volumes.

---------------------------------------

Christians, myself included on occassion, can try to put God into a "man-sized" box in order to appeal to unbelievers, especially those in the science community. It's a dangerous practice that can become prevalent if not watched.

---------------------------------------

Christians have the "if that's what God wanted to do" as their catch-all failsafe. Evolutionists have "imagine over a hundreds of millions of years" and "if that's what nature selects for" as their catch-all failsafes. Both can be used to explain/adopt any occurance, no matter how strange it may be. One could imagine almost any scenario when considering a billion years of time, just as one can imagine almost any scenario if "that's what God wants".

----------------------------------------

trueorigin.org vs. talkorigin.org presents some very good (although very wordy and sometimes technical) debates.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

   

The big difference is that evolutionists can make testable, refutable predictions, whereas theists cannot. For example, evolutionists believe that current one-toed horses evolved from five-toed ancestors. A prediction based on that is "there are no one-toed fossils older than the oldest two-toed fossils; there are no two-toed fossils older than the oldest three-toed fossils;..."; such a prediction can be and has been tested and has not been refuted (all horse fossils found to date adhere to this prediction).

Make a testable prediction based on a belief in God. Many of the "predictions" I saw on AiG that were testable have been refuted or are nonsense on the face of it (like smarter animals survived the flood longer, thus they are found later in the fossil record).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Ken, that's just it. You say evolutionists's refute creationist's ideas, and then creationists say they've refuted evolutionist's ides, and repeat, etc. The truth is both sides are looking at the same evidence and making it fit pre-existing beliefs. Creationists readily admit this, evolutionists act as if they are an objective branch of science (couldn't be further form the truth, and I'm still wondering how origin science is classified as "science").

How did scientists in a lab prove that 1-toed horses evolved into 3-toed horses? Did they take a one-toed horse in the lab, breed it over generations, and watch it become a 2-toed horse, then a 3-toed horse? I'm not poking fun, I'm only pointing out that the process is not as it is in empirical sciences. It is definately not a "lab science", it is "interpretive science".

How does the horse evolution example not fit into the "kinds" of animals in creation becoming more specific? Like most everything else used as evidence for evolution, it can also fit the creation/flood model.

Microbe-to-man evolution is still based on the unobserved idea that with each step, the amount of genetic information is increased (rather than decreased or reshuffled). How do evolutionists describe this actually taking place physiologically. what would it take to actually refute that? Not much.

--------------------------------------------

One of the main differences between creationists and evolutionists is the age of the Earth. Evolutionists base the idea on radioactive dating. This process is based on 3 assumptions (assumptions, not facts).

1. Scientists know the original amount of parent (or daughter) material originally in the rock. [Scientists have no way of knowing this]

2. That decay rates were constant throughout all of time (millions of years -- is ANYTHING constant over millions of years? How would we know? We wouldn't/couldn't)

3. That the material is in a closed system. (e know that water can remove parent & daughter material, and it can also leak into the air. How is this a closed system?)

We also know that plants select againt uptaking C-14. We know that volcanoes and other events will greatly increase the amount of carbon (CO2) in the air, etc ... all will cause fossils to date older than expected.

Again, the dating game is based on 3 assumptions that we can never know. How is this fixed? On the form used for a material to submitted for dating it asks How old is the material suppossed to be? Dates that support that are accepted as "good" dates. Dates that don't are dismissed as contaminated, etc.

when the "suppossed date" is left off, you get such a wide range of dates from radioactive dating that a single date cannot be assigned. Shouldn't the dates agree among the methods in order to illustarte an accurate process?

I feel safe in saying that no method of similar assumption or lack of objectivity would be accepted in ANY branch of empirical sciences (bio, phy, chem, physio, etc).

-------------------------------------------

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I find it weird that people refuse to believe that Noah's flood is possible, but believe that life originated form non-life in bubbles risen up form the ocean, traveling through the air, and then the moecules rained back down into the ocean to become living organisms. They also believe that 65 million years ago, a meteorite crashed into Earth, kicked up enough dust to block out the sun and killed the dinosaurs, etc. what lab experiments were these hypotheses based on?

So evolutionists argue tooth and nail on something. Then admit it is impossible. Now, argue tooth and nail about a "new explanantion". I have to say, that has got to suck.

So, evolutionists really believe that non-living things produced living things through the Bubble Model? has this been reproduced in a lab, as it would need to be in other sicences? This idea is suppossed to be "quicker" than the Oparin/Miller idea, so it shouldn't be as difficult to prove in a lab. Let's see if they're able to do it.

I find it weird that in the same chapter that says Redi/Pastuer disproved abiogenesis, goes onto to decribe an idea (Bubble Model) that says how living things came to be abiogenetically. Talk about a contradiction. we can do Redi/pasteur's experiments and verify them. what about the others?

-------------------------------------------

I am not trying to change anyone's view on evolution or creationism. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe, and we co-exist. I am only trying to get people to see that "origin science" is nowhere near the rigorous search for truth and legit proof, that empirical sciences are.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

<all sorts of stuff clipped>

First, go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/...postmonth/feb02.html and read the whole thing. Read especially the last paragraph. Perhaps you'll then understand my exasperation. ("YEC" is "Young Earth Creationist", by the way).

You have this demon. You declare that you are "researching" various subjects on which there is a theistic explanation, but you absolutely refuse to allow any data that calls into question your world view to carry any weight. You won't address those questions and challenges that conflict with your beliefs, either ignoring them or evading them. You aren't alone on this forum in this regard; I continue to see the same thing on other OT threads.

I'll try this one more time. Your creation/flood model "predicts" (I use the term loosely) that all kinds of horses co-existed. The evolutionary model predicts that horses with certain characteristics (like more toes) predate those with other characteristics (like fewer toes). Your model would then "predict" that horses of all kinds will be co-mingled in the fossil record. The evolutionary model predicts that no fossils of later species will predate all fossils of earlier species. The fossil record shows *no* co-mingling, and confirms the prediction of the evolutionary model.

I'm a layperson when it comes to the hard sciences related to radioactive dating. For all I know, you may be an expert. I doubt it, because I've learned enough about radioactive dating to know that it is internally consistent, uses independent mechanisms for dating (for example, do you know what dendrochronology is?), and simply explains evidence found in nature (for example, if decay rates were changing through time, stars would have distinctly different structures than are observed).

Finally, anyone who can read what answersingenesis uses for explanation of the flood without laughing has an impaired ability to think critically. If that site is willing to post such utter nonsense on that subject, their credibility is shot on all other subjects.

Good luck in your research. I'm sure you'll find exactly what you are looking for.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Tom: This is a very good question. First of all let me tell you that I am a Christian and I belive completely in the Bible. So if what the Bible says is true (which I believe), then I need to follow what it says. Some of the last words that Jesus said while on earth was for us to go and make disciples.... That means sharing my faith. Now dont get me wrong, I don't think I have a right to cram it down anybody's throat. Heck, Jesus didn't and He is my example. I have shared my faith many times with many people. Most often it has been with friends who have observed my life and how I live. Occasionally it has been with strangers. I did not grow up in a Christian home. In college I met some folks who were very different than what I had known growing up. They were not pushy, but I was intrigued by their lives. I saw in them a deep sense of peace and hope. I then proceeded to check it out. So I guess I was "evagalized" by them. After a time I decided that I should really check things out so I read the Bible from cover to cover. And somewhere in the middle of that reading I realized that this was what I had been looking for all of my life.

I do believe that the Jesus of the Bible is the answer to all of life's deep questions. He gives me meaning, purpose and hope. I feel Him smile as I do triathlons and as I hug my kids.

Have a great day and thanks for such a good and honest question.

---

Jon Bergmann
http://jonbergmann.com

You declare that you are "researching" various subjects on which there is a theistic explanation, but you absolutely refuse to allow any data that calls into question your world view to carry any weight.

I have studied evolution 20 times more than I have studied creationism, mostly in college while earning a professional biology degree. [I read a ton of stuff from talk.origin -- also I am a recent [last 2-3 years] believer in creation] My study in evolution and the incrediblly improbable idea that non-living molecules arranged themselves into living, replicating cells on their own was too much to take (still is an incredible problem for evolutionists to solve). The more we learn about living things and the complexity of the molecular level and in coded information, the more improbable microbe-to-man evolution becomes. I just couldn't force myself to believe it. Really. Then there's the "fossil record" (or lack thereof ...

"Two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- [1] geologically sudden origin of new species and [2] failure to change thereafter." That is written by one of the most prominent evolutionists in modern science today , stephen J. Gould. I do not use creationists' quotes to refute evolution b/c it carries no weight with non-creationists. Evolutionists themselves do more harm to Darwinism than any creationists could ever do. Gould has studied the evidence of the fossil record and noticed that species suddenly appear (no transitional fossils) and then don't change for a long time. He calls his idea Punctuated Equilibrium, which is built on Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster theory" (1940s), which is built on Schindewolf's idea (1930s). An greatly incomplete fossil record is nothing new.

Darwinists oppose this view because it is "perfectly consistent with what special creationists have been syaing", insinuating that Gould is trying to support special creation (We know form Gould's writings that he definately is not doing that). At least both sides can agree about what is or isn't there in the fossil record. They still disagree on origins, but not if it is there or not. (Age is another big deal)

I'm coming at this from the perspective of a science teacher. We are teaching Darwinism as "fact", when it's so far from "fact" that other evolutionists come up with the most damaging evidence against Darwinism. Gould and Eldredge (the most prominent punctuated equilibriumists) have issued the same challenge as creationists have ... "they could disprove punctuated equilibrium theory if they could find so much as a single series of intermediate forms in the fossil record". No one has. Punctuated equilibrium is rapidlly replacing Darwinsim in the scientific community and also is moving in rapidly in textbooks. While I don't believe in evolution, PE much more fits the data we have.

Gould has done more damage to Darwinism in 30 years then creationists have done in 200. Even Gould acknowledges the incredible task of finding an Observed instance of the mechanism required to produce such "genetic freaks".

I guess my delima comes from looking at this stuff and seeing "Science Fiction" (made-up stories that involve some science), rather than science. I thikn origin "science" should be its own theological class. I don't think it should be taught side by side with physiology, ecology, etc. That's my issue.

---------------------------------------------------

FWIW, AiG is a website for Christians to get their answers from the book of Genesis. I have repeatedly said that I read the more technical articles from both sides (as well as general articles). trueorigin vs. talkorigin is always interesting. I view that site (AiG) as a general information site for non-scientifically trained Christians that want simple answers to questions. Their technical articles are everything a science geek could ask for.

------------------------------------------------------

Eventually, the research leads one to the point where they need to be a actively researching doctorate professional in their field in order to handle the technical papers (the astronomy ones for me especially). I am far from that. So, you're back to square one. You get to the point to where you sit down and say "Did I come from God or non-living particles?"

------------------------------------------------------

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Ken, I read the article about Morton's Demon, which basically characterisesl YEC's as believing what they do because they don't read anything contradictory (then what about college?). I would argue just the other way around. YEC's either [1] have never been subjected to science in school or [2] have done a ton of research to find evidence for a young Earth (because it sure isn't presented anywhere in formal education)If a person never read anything on their own regarding the "history of life", they would have still been subjected to 3 years of secular public schooling which presents evolutionists ideas without presenting the missing information or the gaping problems (as textbooks do with other aspects of science ... such as problems in genetic technology).

That would be like every creationists saying that "evolutionists just don't have a good understanding of the Bible, which is why they don't believe creation". That comment is also true in many cases. I read mark Isaak's stuff and the guy gets refuted too easily because he types what he thinks the Bible says or what he's heard the Bible says, rather than what it actually says. He gets himself into trouble by simply not checking what the text he's debating against says.

------------------------------------

What we have is a theological debate guised as science. Darwisnism/evolution is as much a religion as is creationism. Darwinist hang onto ideas and evidences that are refuted by other prominet, well-educated evolutionists. It takes Faith to believe in either idea since we have not and likely will not ever be able to prove what happened when life first started. It is not an idea based on scinece. It is science fiction stories vs. religious revelation. It's time both sides admitted such, and moves 'Origin Science" into its own textbook and left "objective science" alone. Put it into an "Origin Theory" class and explore the similarities/differences, evidence/problems, for each sid and let folks make up their mind without having crucial info left out or over-looked.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Here is a quote that sums my thinking perfectly. If I had found this earlier, it would have saved me a lot of words.

"macroevolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men."

Macroevolution and creationism are not observable, repeatable, testable, nor refutable (the 4 components of empirical sceintific study). Neither should be presented in a science course, but rather in an "Origin belief" course (Another quote: "If one were to propose an explanation for an event in such a way that no one could conceive of any way to test or refute it, it wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a belief. Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily wrong, they just aren't well suited to study by empirical science."). The ideas behind the two are not facts, nor theories, nor laws. They are not science, but a theological debate. We should study the observable aspects of microevolution (speciation, adaptive radiation, etc) which are observable.

--------------------------------------------

I believe that most peple are Christians/Believers-in-God before they are creationists, and most are athiests before they are evolutionists. One can poll Christians and find that most will not likely say "I believe in God because the case for creation is so strong.". Likewise, one could poll athiests and see that the main reason for not believing in God would not likely be "Because the case for macroevolution is so strong" (we can see that in this very thread). People have many other reasons for their beliefs, which are outside of scientific evidence. Both require belief and faith. It is way past time that both sides admit this. In other words, a person's view on creation/evolution has little to do with science, and a whole lot to do with theology.

-----------------------------------------------

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

[This post is likely overkill. I am now just posting out of interest and for lurkers/posters that have verbalized interest]

Interesting quotes from famous scientists ... (parentheses are my words)

1. Cyril Ponnamperuma (evolutionist) -- "It is, perhaps, ironic that we tell beginning students in biology about Pasteur's experiments as the triumph of reason over mysticism yet we are coming back to spontaneous generation, albeit in a more refined and scientific sense, namely to chemical evolution." (This was a major point I made earlier)

2. Francis Crick (yeah, the Father of DNA dude) -- "What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (We have learned hundreds of times more about coded information in the last 50 years than Frick knew then, which just compounds the frustration). Frick thought that life originated by aliens "seeding" the Earth with life.

3. Sir Fred Hoyle (The Big Bang Dude) -- "Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. ... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect... higher intelligences... even to the limit of God... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident." (Oops ... Fred said the G-word)

------------------------------------------------

Again, I am not arguing for one idea being taught over the other. I believe that the decision on the origin of life is a highly individual matter. As an educator, it is my only opinion, that students should be provided the whole picture, and not just the positives of one side (while ignoring the major possible flaws or unobserved assumptions which led to extrapolations). It doesn't matter what the one side is. I do not believe that science classes have a place for "beliefs". Science is for the study of observations, theories (based on observations), facts (i.e., gravity, etc), and scientific/mathematical laws. There are too many other observable, repeatable, testable, and refutable topics (ecology, cell biology,genetics, zoology, human biology) to study without dedicating time on "non-science" (but rather theological) topics. Personally, my edication is in anatomy & physiology & my interest is in zoology, I prefer to study how things work, not some persons belief on where things came from.

Put the other stuff in a "Beliefs of Origins" class where they can be studied thoroughly, address the major points/flaws of each, and let folks make an informed choice.

--------------------------------------

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Um, Ryan, I think your kids are getting lonely ;)

---

_______________________________________________

LOL. They're visiting grandma, so I thought I'd run up here to school to get a little "work" done. This counts as "work" doesn't it?

I had to try and re-claim some of my former post frequency and length glory. =)

Later ... promised I'd hit the grocery store on the way home.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

This remains an interesting thread, espeically if you go back to the very first page and start of it...

It is the thread that never goes away, and has spun off, like, three other threads!

Slowtwitchers do a lot of thinking.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Ken,

I have been doing some more thinking about Morton's demon, since I have read more and more stuff by Glenn Morton (smart guy). Morton describes this demon in regards to YEC's who do not actively seek out material that is incongruent with their beliefs. But, what I have seen from Morton through conversations with him, reading his articles, noticing his unique ways of interpreting the Bible, is that Morton (and others) is trading one demon for a more dangerous demon.

Morton's New & Improved Demon is one where if science is used to arbitrarily select what to believe from the Bible. For example, Morton (a geophysicist) does not believe in a Young Earth, the Adam/Eve creation, or a Worldwide Flood ... because his branch of science (Geology) does not support it. Yet, he believes that Jesus turned water into wine, healed with touch, and rose from the dead after 3 days ... all things that chemistry and physiology says are not scientifically impossible and are not supported by complementary evidence.

This new demon is one where science trumps the Word of God. Morton is pointing the fingers at YEC's, but not recognizing his own 3 fingers pointing back at him. I'd be interested to see if Morton believes that Moses parted the Red Sea, if Elijah rose to heaven without dying, if Moses turned a staff into a snake, caused plagues on Egypt, Jonah, S, M, and A (I ain't spelling em) in the fiery furnace, etc. There are many things in the Bible not supported by scientific evidence or shown to be possible (let alone probable). It is interesting how science can be used to ignore some events, but not others. Talk about a Demon.

God will not be shown probable or improbable by "man's science". Not now, not ever. Arrogance is an attribute that permits man to think he will understand (and possibly replicate) God and God's acts.

I feel for those being chased by Morton's New and Improved Demon ... they will change their beliefs every generation whenever significant information is gained. I have been in those shoes, and it's an uneasy place to be.

Faith. Sometimes pride gets in the way.

-----------------------------------------------



Note: In no way should this post be viewed as an encouragement to suppress the quest for knowledge.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --