World's oldest tree points to global warming impact

Considering how old science dates the earth, the tree is still a baby. Interesting though, the correlation between the age of the tree and the creation event in Genesis. If only the tree could talk!

A very interseting topic to write and share about.
Wish I could see the tree sometime!
I am surprised that the tree hasen't turned into paper or anything else.

I am hoping that the tree can be used to help recalibrate Carbon 14 dates.

Stephen: they can't "recalibrate Carbon 14 dates" using the tree. They used radiocarbon dating to determine its age in the first place.

Also, it is important to note that the tree in the image isn't actually 9550 years old. Since it reproduces using a mechanism similar to cloning the copse in which it grows has been genetically continuous for ~10k years but the tree shown in the image can't be more than several hundred years old at most.

The original article by the Leif Kullman, Professor of Physical Geography at Umeå University, says nothing about the Global Warming. In fact the original article says”The average increase in temperature during the summers over the past hundred years has risen one degree in the mountain areas”. Elizabeth Landau is twisting the scientific truth to push the Global Warming agenda. I wish the CNN associate producers would present the facts in the science section and leave the lying for the elections coverage.

It's funny that some people actually believe this science mumbo jumbo! How could a tree be 10,000 years old when the earth was created 3,000 years ago. Some people, especially in the science community, are just ignorant.

From the Editor:

Bob,

There's no more serious charge to a journalist than the one you've made toward the reporter in this piece. Liz Landau interviewed Dr. Kullman by email, and he is quoted directly and accurately in the piece. He is similarly quoted in other news stories. There's no "lying" , "twisting the truth," or "global warming agenda" here, just good, accurate reporting.

I will send Dr. Kullman's original email and contact info to your email so you can contact him for yourself. After you do so, feel free to post an apology here.

Peter Dykstra

The earth 3000 years old. Good one. Thanks I needed a laugh today Steve, and if I need more then a laugh can you give me your supplier because I need some of that stuff so I can avoid reality and live in a fantasy world.

While this Swedish tree is certainly old, how do we really know it is the oldest? Aren't there hundreds of billions of trees in the world? As for global warming, yes it is happening, but people need to be convinced that it indeed is happening, and showing changes in the environment will help illustrate what is going on.

Steve, very funny.

What they are saying is that the root structure of that tree has been alive for 10,000 years. I have trouble believing that it is the oldest root structure on earth because we have a 2,000 year old redwood at the edge of our driveway. Yes, the tree itself has been estimated to be 2,000 years old by forest arborists, and since redwoods are suckering trees, regrowing clones from the roots, like spruce, I believe there are likely older root structures to be found in old growth forests in California.

I find the aspect of the trees growing further into the tundra facinating!
I've read where many studies have shown the increase in Co2 in the atmosphere have had very good effects on the growth of plants world wide... not all things are bad I guess.

Da Captain, just because something has a few "good" side effects doesn't mean it's good overall. Thalidomide anyone?

It will be hard to celebrate trees growing in the tundra if all the coastal regions have flooded, disease becomes rampant, and we experience severe species die off.

I thought the tree would be bigger by now

lets chop it down and count the rings to verify its age...the tree portion started growing in the 1940s, most of it is a bush...shouldn't it be the worlds oldest "bush"...

I wonder if John McCain remembers when he planted it?

Maybe I missed something, but specifying "earlier generations" implies that they no longer survive. The tree in the picture clearly is not 9550 years old. And claiming genetic equivalence is hardly valid; there's a program to propagate famous trees through cuttings. You too can have one of George Washington's Mount Vernon trees. Or is it the same tree? Is your identical Mt Vernon tree older than mine?

You might make the claim that you have the world's oldest root system, but carbon dating the debris around it is a weak claim.

By the way, quaking aspen propagates in the same manner, and one colony is claimed to be 80,000 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen

SPOT...
Several studies show the increased C02 has had many good effects along the line of plant growth... and considering this may be a natural cycle (warming) that man can't control I feel it's important to find the positives.

There have been several instances over history where climate change has been evident... long before man and I would guess long after.

As far as the trees in the tundra... it might be a nice place to move should all the coastal regions flood (as you said)... although I should remind you there will still be coastal regions... just in new places. As far a species go... if warming is a natural state... then it's a natural death... which man couldn't control anyway.

OH... I agree with the statement about the negative side effects of Thalidomide.... however... Viagra had a good side effect didn't it? (Smile)

Any one looking for some ocean front in Ohio? I got some for sale. Someone once said, there is a sucker born every minute.

It seems, some people have a great belief in some ideas......

Of course according to my religion Godde created the world 89 years ago. If only all of you could save your eternal souls from that damnation. I shal praye for youwe.

Didn't Dr. Charlie Brown discover this tree 30 or so years ago???
Just kidding...great work Leif...seriously.
How plant and animal species respond to weather changes due to climate change is an important piece of the puzzle.
Cheers
Mike

There's so much evidence against his religious position that it's pointless to even give Steve's ironic inanity any consideration.

Same goes for Johnny Appleseed's hyperbole. While oceanfront property in Ohio may not manifest in our lifetime, spearfishing around Houston foundations looks probable.

Anyway, cool article about this tree. I'd like to see more like this– are there any others we know of that are older than, say, 3000 years?

To Peter Dykstra:

"Bob" was pointing out that the link in the article to the story from Umeå University (where Leif Kullman serves as a professor) makes no mention whatsoever of climate change implications.

Clearly, the main scientific point of this story is the discovery of "the world's oldest tree" and more importantly how it got there and how spruce trees adapt to changing climatic conditions.

This story has next to nothing to do with global warming, and yet it's in the headline. It is VERY clear that this author is using this story to push an unrelated global warming activist agenda.

Nobody is claiming libel here, but the headline is clearly intentionally misleading.

Barbara is right, the Redwoods reproduce when they fall over even, not only do they have successional clonal generations but they can spread geographically. We need serious DNA profiling of redwood stands, the oldest redwoods may be genetically identical individuals some distance apart. This distance is an indication of trees that have fallen and regenerated.

And global warming is a fact. The polar ice caps have been melting for 19,000 years. This is why we no longer have a Bering land bridge.

I agree with Steve.

The world is 3,000 years old (proof: religious doctrine). Why are thse so-called "scientists" trying to pull a fast one on us. Heretics.

As I recall, for many recent years, the oldest tree was considered to be in a remote area of California. They refused to disclose the actual location assuming the part of our culture that needs to "have things" would either take it or cut so much off it would die. I really hope this does not happen to this one. Is it the oldest? Maybe it should have be worded as the oldest yet found.

3000 year old creation? sorry, find another website to bother.

Global warming....we are using a very small sample of years over the age of the earth (ignore the 3000 one) and really do have little accurate data. Yes, tests in Antartica, the Artic, and Greenland can provide information but the world changes with continental drift. Who can say for sure that we are causing this? Sure we are not helping but over the millions of years, things change. Is this just a cycle? Afraid we will not be around to know for sure.

The oldest living trees are found in the desert of Arizona, Mexico, and Texas. They are called the Shegoi plant named by the American Indians and are the oldest living plants on the face of the earth. They range in age from 11,000 years to 18,000 years. Tell the Swedes to get their facts straight.

        
Ancient forest discovered in Hungary; (8 million years old)
'They neither turned into coal nor were petrified'

In addition to isotope proxies, stomata on leaves are a CO2 proxy:
http://www.mineralogie.uni-wuerzburg.de/palbot/climate/density.html

Da Captain;
Water and CO2, but also need mean temperature of 6°C
Roots are inactive if colder.
We could change the incoming rediation by reflectors in space,
Or change the albedo; absorb short waves and keep the long waves.
Doubling CO2 will only give us 0.25 °C

Warm is better, alarmism is barking up the incorrect Milne solution.

So – Global warming has increased the amount of arable land by moving the alpine zone up 850 meters – In Canada & Russia thousands of acres of new farmland are being released into agriculture because the frost line is moving North. The Northern Boreal Forests of Northern Hemisphere countries are increasing in size as the the growing season becomes extended. The Norther Ice shields are still less than they were in the 1800's when the British Navy patrolled the Northwest passage in wooden ships and the 1941 – 1944 era when the R.C.M.P. crossed the passage from West to East, then back again in a converted wooden fish boat called the St. Roche. Beats living under an ice sheet a continent wide and half a continent long and a mile deep as it was in the past I'd say. Oh yes, the co2 reading at that time was 10 times higher than today's readings if you believe the Ice cores. Fricken Dinosaurs and their SUV's – no wonder they are all extinct.

Franko and G Greene

I agree!

The alarmist attitude to global warming will cause more harm than good... over a process that's likely natural and man will have zero control over!

        
Look at the choke points to ocean circulation
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html

How could we enhance circulation and warm up the North ?
(and cool down the tropics)

Why did you leave out information!!!?? You just twisting the story to fit your agenda. ITS PROOF THERE IS A CYCLE OF WARMING AND COOLING, you have completely ignored that fact. I wonder why

And now current.com used the story and watered it down even more...

        
For the Public, fear of catastrophe, and fear of change.
For the Scientist, fear of loosing grants and being dismissed.

What motivation for the Journalist ?

==========================

Some complain it is too hot, others complain it too cold.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html

If the ocean currents were allowed to flow through the Isthmus of Panama, we could eliminate ice ages. Strait of Gibraltar, Suez Canal, Bering Straight are also choke points.

Yes, we can say the Shegoi plant is older but the issue was a tree.

As I said in my previous entry, continental drift affects a lot of things. The Isthmus of Panama has not been there for that long. As all the world drifts around, things change. There are probably many downloadable programs that will show how currents and winds have changed. Still don't think we have enough historical data to make them perfect but the scientists that write them do a great job of trying.

But what do we do? An old saying is some things you can change, some you cannot, and wisdom is knowing the difference.

        
Nuke the Isthmus of Panama (bigger version of the Panatomic Canal)
Eliminate the coming Ice Age
http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home95/nov95/iceage.html

Not only even out temperatures, but also raise the average.

Even without nuclear, humans are already moving more than natural processes.

WHAT is the University of Umea point in studing the tree soil that data back 375, 5,660 9,000 and 9550 years if the extreme numeral and zero link to data that has trace to daily regular climate and season changes, are ignored.
Beneath the years are zero levels with mass virgin data link to zero levels of 375 5,660 9,000 and 9,550.Yet go un-studied.

Before we get back to trees, the Toronto zoo just killed two reindeer babies because they were male. Public outcry prevented a third.

So, would they have perished in the north? Who knows but they would have had their natural fighting chance if born there.

Back to the tree. Jerry seems to me fixated on his extreme numeral and zero link to data. Would really like to know the data he is talking about. A link would be nice. Been in the computer business 30 years and makes little sense to me. However, always nice to learn something.

Who cares how old the tree is? It's still alive, it's growing, and it hasn't become a victim of the land developers yet.

The Earth goes through climate change all the time. It's billions of years old, and whether or not we impact it, the Earth will do as she wishes with her climate, whether it be an Ice Age or another collision of our Continents to form another Pangea... we can't alter it any more than we are masters of climate.

The best thing you can do now is brace for the impact, because I don't see how all of us suddenly driving Hybrid Cars will put back glaciers the size of Rhode Island back onto Antarctica.

How narrow of you to believe that this would mean I think we should pollute. Don't use the bathroom where you eat and live, I always say. Keeping our environment clean is common sense, but "saving the Earth?" Bah! The Earth is just fine, believe me. Long after you and I are gone, the Earth will be just fine. Just ask the Dinosaurs. I think the "Environmentalists" mean "Save Mankind," if only they weren't so narrow-minded to starve millions of people by offsetting the supply of grain for Ethanol rather than food for Third World People.

At least that will solve the "over-population" problem, huh? Kill two birds with one stone? Ugh... even I cringed at that last remark, but it almost sounds like a "Final Solution" to me.

I've been wondering about the relationship between continental drift, rising sea levels and the increase in obesity of certain world populations. I am postulating that there are too many obese people living in coastal regions. All that extra weight is causing the tectonic plates to tilt, thereby causing various plates to tilt and kind of surf through the magma (earths core), thereby causing a shift in continental drifting. Also, all those obese folks are causing their respective plates to sink a little, thereby creating the illusion that sea levels are rising, thus fueling the idea that global warming is indeed happening.

Just a thought to get you smirking a little.

I really could use some paper from a 9,550 year old tree. Write my mom a nice mother's day note or something. Somebody get on that.

You folks can argue all you want about the age of the Earth but it actually came into existence on November 28, 1953. Before that date, all was void and then at about 11:07 pm, it all started.

Interesting how these conversations go. We started about a tree. Now, the future of the world. And can anyone change it. One gunshot started WW 1 and one man created WW2. Starting something is much easier than stopping something.

It has always amazed me that some countries produce babies as fast as 1 year olds die. But men in those countries are rated by their families on how "productive" they are and not having more means they are not "men". After the babies are born they are the wife's responsibility.

Are there solutions? Probably, but not in our lifetimes. People have to stop worrying about their country borders and spending billions on defense. Interesting that the old show StarTrek never mentioned countries, they were just from the planet Earth. (Kirk was from Iowa).

Wonder if we will ever evolve to that level?

" I think the “Environmentalists” mean “Save Mankind,” "
"At least that will solve the “over-population” problem, huh?"

Environmentalists want you dead. Mankind is a sin of Mother Earth.
Watch on google video; Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion

=====================

"Kirk was from Iowa"
Born in Montreal Canada, where they beat on each other with real hockey sticks, not just hockey stick charts. Star treck Kirk was in numerous fights. Humanity is domesticating itself, in the likeness of a contended cow, newer to evolve to the violence of Star Treck !

The earth is 6000 years old, not 3000. At least it was 6000 years old 1000 years ago which makes it, uuuuuhhhhhhhh? I was never too good at math. That tree was created by Satan to fool you all! People need to spend more money on indestructable bibles that are attached to the body somehow. You can donate to my ongoing research of such a thing. E-mail me.

while studying volcanos that cause quakes that cause storms.,,.ull notice the wierd weather storms r over the area of the quakes of the usa ,..,i beleave quakes cause storms of great wind speeds .,need to look at quakes n storms n now the volcanos r causing the quakes
am i the only one that thinks this .,we shall see

Yes, Shatner is from Montreal, "Kirk" was from Iowa.

Yes, it was a violent show. Many deaths, ships blown up, planets destroyed. The point I was trying to make was that the planet earth was considered one big country. In only a very few episodes were country names mentioned, and then only in a historical tense. Even here today, we have 10s of thousands on the verge of death in Burma because the military leaders won't let in all the aid that is being offered.

Can someone please explain how an earthquake causes a storm in the atmosphere?

I recently had a teacher in geology who had both a degree in Geology and Climatology. And one of his main hot topics was global warming and whether or not the human race was causing it. There is no doubt that we are making some of the impact by putting pollutants into the air. But to say that we are actually heating the earth i think is a little absurd. He said as a person with a degree in Climatology that the earth is indeed going through a change but as a geologist said that it has happened before, that we are coming out of a mini ice age. We are just going through a natural change in the global climate just as it has been doing for millions of years.

who needs such an old tree we can grow new ones

when there is a earthquake .,.,it puts into the air negitive charged particles.,,.n this changes the atmosphere below the quake n causes storm something like seeding via quake ,.,.if u go back to big quakes ull see the stroms right after it cause mudslides

underwater volcanos in the artics r what is melting the ice ,.,.its history ,.every million yrs or so the poles change ego its that time again but it will take a million yrs to happen

Global warming CO2 alarmists are gabbing the tax dollars.
I will be paying a gasoline Carbon tax in July. (Vancouver Canada)

A tree so old would not survive in Afghanistan
One of the dead could have used it for firewood, instead of freezing.

Those of u tryign to say the 3000 dont have it right, be it bibllically or scentific.

Realithy: We have actual proof in egypt that the phyiscal earth with man is 10000+ years old, and that the socalled flood could not have happend after that whether regional or worldwide.

We have additional facts that prove no worldwide flood outside of middle east even further back.

Carbon dating is definately a lot more valid and acccurate than any sort of biblical dating.

For those arguing the age of the Earth, look at Einstein's general theory of relativity. There's no contradiction between modern cosmology and the biblical record of a '6000' year old earth if the first 6 days of creation are taken from the perspective of creation (the Big Bang). Here, 6 days equates to 15.85 billion years from the perspective of modern Earth. Add 6000 years of sentient human life (good luck finding a scientific definition of sentience) and you have the modern cosmological estimate of a 15-16 billion year old universe from our perspective, ~6000 + 6 days from God's.

As for the tree, I'll bet money there are older root structures alive today, but I doubt we've officially categorized them. This is just the oldest we've officially identified.

As for global warming, it's happening, it's been happening since the bottom of the Little Ice Ace (1400s I think) and it's remained fairly consistent (within acceptable statistical variation) since it began.

C. Smith, how do you reconcile the passages in Exodus that specifically state that a day to god is exactly like a day to man? Biblical apologists are the worst type of dogmatic believers... They try to rationalize fairy tales...

Larian, perhaps the way you could also interpret that is to say that that a day to god is like a day to man (which could possibly mean mankinds existance) Since our creation (dawn) to our extinction from life (stroke of midnight)

So who is the arbiter for interpreting things? Is it one way, or is it the other way? Oh wait, that's where all the fights over who has the best imaginary friend starts to break out...

Throw out the bronze age fairy tales, and try looking at things with logic and with a bit of intellectual curiosity. Dogma will be the death of the US more than politicians, terrorists, or global warming...

BTW, the passages in Exodus are VERY CLEAR on god's days in relation to the calendar. Did you know that a lot of you go to church on the wrong day? Saturday is the holy day, NOT Sunday. That was a change instituted about 1600 years ago if I recall my history correctly. Funny how most xtians aren't even aware of the history surrounding their little club, nor the book they profess to live their lives by.

LOL....

Funny how people seem so much more content and happy once they've dropped the dogma? Just nice people over all....

this link is proof of age n memeorys past 20,000 yrs ,..,http://www.crystalinks.com/africacreation.html ,..,During that eight-million-year gap, African mammals grew, mutated, diversified, and died completely under the radar of scientific investigation. To put the gap in perspective, eight million years is longer than it took for fully modern humans to evolve from primates.

n this link is the rest of the story .,.,http://www.crystalinks.com/dogon.html Around 1490 AD, fleeing invaders and/or drought, they migrated to the Bandiagara cliffs of central Mali. Carbon-14 dating techniques used on excavated remains found in the cliffs indicate that there were inhabitants in the region before the arrival of the Dogon. They were the Toloy culture of the 3rd to 2nd centuries BC, and the Tellem culture of the 11th to 15th centuries AD.
hope this help yal ,.,.the truth is out there n nothings impossible if u can c it in ur mind u can do it txtj

[...] World’s oldest tree points to global warming impact Posted: 09:40 AM [...]

Yes the Earth is warming...

Is it our fault? No.

The Earth has been this warm MANY times in it's fairly recent history when mankind did NOT exist.

Man accounts for about 2 tenths of 1 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted on the planet.

The oceans are a CO2 sponge/scrubber.

Don't be fooled by all of this... it has NOTHING to do with the environment and everything to do with the economy.

You have scientists who see $$$ signs in the form of grant money for the rest of their lifetimes and all they have to do is sit back and say "maybe".

It's a farce, the planet is on a cycle and that's about all there is to it.

Should we all try to be more environmentally friendly? Of course we should but not at the expense of enjoying ones life and the global economy.

Bull, propaganda, hoax, don't believe this crap people.

.        
"Yes the Earth is warming…"
No, it is not warming. Look at satellite altimeter data for past 2 years.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/index.html
Also, temperature record was 1934, then 1998.
10 years later; all the extra coal plants in China are of small significance.

"You have scientists who see $$$ signs"
That is only a small problem conpared how government policies will strangle the world economy. Instead of 3.5% we will get 2.5% long term growth. See part 6 for the quadrillion loss !
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/more-ways-to-vi.html

For those arguing the age of the Earth, look at Einstein’s general theory of relativity. There’s no contradiction between modern cosmology and the biblical record of a ‘6000′ year old earth if the first 6 days of creation are taken from the perspective of creation (the Big Bang). Here, 6 days equates to 15.85 billion years from the perspective of modern Earth. Add 6000 years of sentient human life (good luck finding a scientific definition of sentience) and you have the modern cosmological estimate of a 15-16 billion year old universe from our perspective, ~6000 + 6 days from God’s.

As for global warming, it’s happening, it’s been happening since the bottom of the Little Ice Ace (1400s I think) and it’s remained fairly consistent (within acceptable statistical variation) since it began.

I love it when the religious try to rationalize their fairy tales by shoehorning evidence to fit their religious texts.

Sentient human life has been around for far longer than 6000 years. We don't need to consult radioactive isotope dating, fossils, or geological strata to smash any possibility of either the universe, the earth, or mankind being only 6000 years old– there are civilizations on this earth whose WRITTEN HISTORY predates this timeframe (in the form of pictographs and hieroglyphs). And if we use at least a little bit of logic, we can conclude that these civilizations existed for some time before the written word was invented.

China, India, and Egypt all have written histories that extend as far back as 14,000 years, and various samples of carvings, paintings, and pictographs can be dated as far back as 17,000 years ago.

One has to wonder how belief systems like Young Earth Creationism still exist today with the knowlege we now have, but traditions die hard, and absurdities have been present in every civilization since the beginning of time.

It’s funny that some people actually believe this science mumbo jumbo!

Translation: I am completely ignorant of the science behind this study, and proud of it.

How could a tree be 10,000 years old when the earth was created 3,000 years ago.

I'd say, Steve, that if your religious beliefs don't match what is observable in reality, the problem is your religion, not reality.

Some people, especially in the science community, are just ignorant.

I won't even bother to point out the irony here....some people are simply content to live their life with their heads in the sand.

Einstein stated the Bible as "Childish" and it's believer's showing a sign of human "weakness". Stop using a single book as a basis to discredit science. This tree is a great find for the science community. Read the article and learn.

He said, "the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Religious beliefs were "childish superstitions".

You can read more about it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

Einstein also said:

-Before God we are all equally wise – and equally foolish.
-God always takes the simplest way.
-God does not play dice.
-God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
-I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
-I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.
-That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html

Obvioulsy he wasn't a creationalist... however I think it's fair to say (or maybe just guess) he believed the complexity of the universe was possibly bigger than an accident... or maybe not... but food for thought.

Einstein Quotes:

Here are two that I agree with.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."[12],

"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who–in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'– cannot hear the music of the spheres."

We have got a long way from the tree in just a few days. However, yes, there are probably things living longer than than.

Just think about that. Something that has been around that many years.

Somebody will probably write a fiction book about its life and what it has seen. Maybe I should.

Einstein also hale donto a dogmatic thought that the universe was relatively static. It prevented him from really making more strides in his field. So while he was really, really smart, dogma defeated him. And in reading his quotes (and knowing the death threats evangelicals sent him when he made a non-god supporting quote), I'd suspect that he'd be more along the lines of thought that Carl Sagan embraced. Nothing supernatural or sentient about his god, but rather an awe for the immensity and complexity of the universe. But worshiping the force of gravity is rather unsatisfying as Sagan said.

It's all well and good that you can definitively point at those letters and say, "There, I told you so. He was an atheist." But what does it mater? Choosing to embrace free thought and dump dogma is something that you should do because you are smart, logical, and not superstitious. Not because someone else held that belief. I know that dogmatic thinkers really like to hold up examples of what others may have thought as a reason for you to think that way (hence why they love to hold up anyone in history that agreed with them), but in the end it really seems to defeat the whole idea of applying a bit of intellectual honesty and curiosity.

I hope this settles that, and instead we can chose a discourse of actually applying logic, critical thinking, intellectual honesty, etc. Heck, those hurdles are probably harder to tackle than parading well known figures.. oh wait, I see the lazy appeal in that I suppose...

LL

I'm unsure if your last post was aimed toward my statements... so I’m responding provisionally...

I was responding to cow pies statement... not because I agree or disagree... just that I'm from the school of catching more flies with honey. I neither see nor understand any good that comes from being condescending to anyone.

I believe with the vastness and complexity of things like the universe, gravity and anatomy... it makes you wonder "HOW"? Which of course is the great question...? (Some say WHY)... I try to be intellectually honest in that endeavor... although I'm not as educated as I'd like to neither be... nor wise for that matter.

Happy Friday...

Happy Friday to you as well! Nope, wasn't directed at anyone in particular Da Captain. My second paragraph was really the focus of my message, and it was a general statement about putting [i]too much[/i] value in what other people have said.

Agree LL...
A point well taken... considering how often "what other people have said" later turns out to be incorrect...

Franko, you asked us to "look at satellite altimeter data for past 2 years. http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/index.html." So I did. The data shows a very steady, indeed linear, rise in the ocean levels. Kinda like what would happen if a whole lot of ice were melting.

What do you see?

re: "I am hoping that the tree can be used to help recalibrate Carbon 14 dates."

Tim Noble, I think Stephen Kaufman is just poking fun at the Bible-as-scientific-fact stance. It's kinda like how I would need to recalibrate my wall calendar every time my wife lies about her age.

I've watched this thread turn into a religious discussion. I assume that someone here believes that somehow the religious right is responsible for the "sin" of global warming?

Albert Einstein once forgot his pants in public. Would I have loved to get some assistance with math from him? Yes. Would I have asked him for an opinion on my wardrobe? No. Quoting a Physicist on religion is like quoting the pope on physics. Both equally ridicuolous propositions.

I personally like the following quote from Einstein and find it to be very relevant to the new "computer modeling" approach to science.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." –Albert Einstein

And interestingly enough the facts have changed, though not as some
might have hoped.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2007/20070822130511.aspx

ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Emanuel_etal_2008.pdf

Well, thank goodness it's just climate change now so the "anti-contrarians" can be spared the difficulty of being wrong no matter what happens.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jan/climate.htm

Any more I love to say "it's the global warming" when anyone I know
points out anything out of the ordinary that happens. No matter which
camp they're from...they laugh. Depending on which camp you're in, I suppose you might find that a sad thing, or a revealing commentary.

As to the article, I didn't hear anyone say anything about the tree having possibly gone "both ways" so to speak. Isn't it likely the
tree's both advance and retreat from tundra as changes occur? Isn't it
possible that some of these points where data was collected represented outbound travel? Was there a "one way street" sign
facing north?

It also appears the the good professors opinion that temperature
is the main driver in tree growth limitation is not shared by all his colleagues.
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/6/862

I grant you I would be considered "contrarian" by the "real climate" people (as though demonizing all unlike minds was part of the scientific process) although I prefer the term "Climate Change Sceptic" as I generally wake up every morning and lambast the heavens if given anything meteorologically but precisely the preceeding day, but I must say that I find one other quote
from Einstein to be quite applicable...

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

p.s. Brian from Chicago, no wife lies about her age, she simply reserves the right to celebrate the anniversary of her 29th birthday
ad infinitum.

Those of you that have been educated in secular/naturalistic/humanistic science and demand that a Bible Believing person unleash a Pandora's Box in a single paragraph to refute what you have been previously taught is rediculous and unrealistic. Regardless if you believe in evolution or creation you are pulled into your own paradigm and are not going to change that paradigm on a message board.

You expect too much and declare yourself as narrow-minded and condescending by refusing to believe that EQUAL faith is required to believe in evolution. There is a reason evolution is a THEORY. It is unproven and requires FAITH to believe.

Ponder this...

In Genesis a total of 70 Hebrews moved to Egypt. 430 years later the population of Jews grew to be 2 million. That would require every hosehold having 5-6 children, on average, during that period. This number is consistent with studies in Humanities and Archaology of that time. If 70 people could grow to 2 million within 430 years how long would it take for a world population of 7 billion (modern day)? I'll give you a hint. If it started with 8 people (Noah, his wife, his 3 sons and their wives) they could father a population of 7,000,000,000 in about 4,500 years (approximately the time of the Flood in accordance with a litteral translation of the Bible.) This isn't complex math. If the world is as old as evolution claims there would be a WHOLE LOT more time to populate... where are all the people? Has anyone been to North Dakota? I think five or six people actually live there. Why isn't it packed? On the contrary, the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION (<7 billion) could fit shoulder to shoulder inside of Jacksonville, FL (22 billion sq. ft.) Even taking disease, death and war into account there just isn't enough people for evolution (i.e. begin with goo; evolve to you; through evolution via the zoo.) to be realistic.

Speaking of the flood... a global flood is included in the ancient world history on EVERYcontinent of the world. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Greeks, Hindus, Chinese, Mexicans, Algonquians and Hawaiians, to name a few all have GLOBAL flood stories that are remarkably similar to Genesis! 3,500 years ago every continent remembered the flood as an undeniable occurence in the recent past. Why is that? Did the Chinese, Mexicans, Hindus and Greeks all have a luau in Maui and agree on a global LIE that they could spread to future generations? Doubtful. If EVERY continent remembers it then it probably happened. For us to call them liars is rediculous.

It would be like our "far-future" decendents living in the year 4008 going back in time to "present day" and telling us our history was wrong. What would you say to someone if they told you that "future science has proven that the Crusades didn't begin in the year 1095. In fact... they NEVER happened. It wasjust a myth." You would call them retarted, right? If a future civilization still exists in 2,000 years it would be understandable for them to not understand or even doubt something that is ancient history. But today we are only 900+ years removed from the Crusades. NO ONE in todays world doubts that the they actually happened. We are still suffering from some of the effects and predjudices that these wars caused!!! This is similar to the Flood. 3,500 years ago NO ONE doubted that it had happened. Who are we to argue?

I know that by posting on here I am really talking to people who have mostly already decided what they believe. Those of you that are open minded or are affraid to share your faith on this board (because the common consensus above seems to be: Christian = stupid) I want you to know that this is NOT true. "In the beginning...God" still requires faith. I can not deny that. But it does NOT require any more faith than: "In the beginning... soup."

Everyone learns the secular side of the story in school. All I ask is to look at the other side of the argument. I did. I was a staunch proponent and defender of evolution when I was given the same challenge. What started with disdain turned into skepticism, then to anticipation and finally belief.

If you are curious or have been led to believe that you must either choose "science" or God I want to invite you to read "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" By Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. "Letters from a skeptic" by Greg Boyd and his father is another awesome and easy read. Anything from Ken Ham. Go see Ben Stein's new movie "Expelled". (Actually it's more of a documentary.)

The movie/documentary is awesome. Go to the web-site and watch the trailers. Watch the movie and listen to some of the worlds most prominent evolutionists admit that their theories don't make any sense, Unfortunately for them they were caught on tape.

If I've done nothing else I hope I have given you a reason to pause and ponder the possibilities. Is it possible that everything was created by a Loving Creator? Yes. Is it possible that He created you in love and adoration. Yes. Scripture says that He knew you even when you were still in your mother's womb. Is it possible that He has untold rewards and happiness and eternal favor prepared for you? Yes, yes, yes. He understands that sometimes faith is a tough pill to swallow. He says, "Test me in this."

If you give Him that chance with an open and willing heart I truly feel that you will find His peace. 2 Peter chapter 3 tells us that He doesn't want any of us to perish but instead desires an eternal personal relationship with each one of us. God does not force Himself on us, but He stands at the door to our heart waiting for us to open it.

I hope you do.

The bible is true because it says it's true... Yeah that works.

Calling Expelled a documentary is like saying Peter Pan is a discourse on aeronautics.

You lost all credibility by making those sort of assertions.

Science v Religion: Dogma & Dogmatism are the Real Enemies

There are many conversations over the conflicts between science and religion, but if we examine them closely we should find that the real conflicts are between more fundamental concepts: dogma and reason. One opposes the other, and insofar as religion remains dogmatic, it will always come into conflict with science.

In the October/November 2005 issue of Free Inquiry, Joshua Fost explains that we should focus on the conflict between dogmatism and reason rather than between science and religion. First, dogmatism can be found in more places than religion, and second, it might be a less confrontational way to frame the issue:

It is sometimes argued by those who seek harmony between the two camps that faith and reason — religion and science, dogma and skepticism — are simply two different ways of knowing. I disagree. Faith reserves the right to suspend logic, and from there, no progress or understanding is possible. If P and ~P are both true, we know nothing. Our goal, therefore, should be to show not that any particular religion is wrong, but that all dogma-based approaches to life are nonsensical and harmful.

Besides, it is probably easier rhetorically, pedagogically, and socially, not to mention less confrontational, to get a dogmatist to see that emotions are ineffective in solving physics problems than it is to convince a theist that the Bible has nothing useful to say about molecular biology. And yet, the first lesson ultimately leads to the second.

Fost is certainly right that faith, religion, and dogma are not “ways” of acquiring knowledge about the world around us. He is also right that once a system openly and explicitly declares a willingness to ignore or abandon logic, then it forfeits any claim for authority over empirical studies of nature and the universe. This is how dogmatic systems work, though, and not just religious ones — we can find the same thing occurring in a wide variety of ideologies.

Because such ideologies have such an emotional hold over people, though, it can be difficult to get them to understand this. It’s not easy to let go of prejudices and assumptions in the face of cold facts, but there are ways to explain it that might get people started down the right path.

You make my point precicely. "Fost is certainly right that faith, religion, and dogma are not “ways” of acquiring knowledge about the world around us. He is also right that once a system openly and explicitly declares a willingness to ignore or abandon logic, then it forfeits any claim for authority over empirical studies of nature and the universe. This is how dogmatic systems work, though, and not just religious ones — we can find the same thing occurring in a wide variety of ideologies.

Because such ideologies have such an emotional hold over people, though, it can be difficult to get them to understand this. It’s not easy to let go of prejudices and assumptions in the face of cold facts, but there are ways to explain it that might get people started down the right path."

Unfortunately, evolutionaries that scream the horrors of the faith and close mindedness of creationists are nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. As I said previously, evolution is a THEORY believed ONLY THROUGH FAITH.

The difference is that MY tax dollars are spent teaching your faith to my children.

You open your reply with "The bible is true because it says it’s true… Yeah that works." But the rest of your post concludes that because because I have faith I am wrong. Unfortunately you have missed the boat. You also have faith but your gods are father time and mother nature. Evolution is not fact. Evolution is not provable. Evolution is a theory. Evolution is a faith. Evolution is a state funded religion.

With this said I would once again like to refer you to the last 2 paragraphs of your post. This time recite them as you look into a mirror.

To make my point I would like to include some very embarrassing quotes from some of the worlds top leaders in support of Evolution. Notice a few of these are from Harvards very own Steve Gould. Brilliant men. Blind men.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

--------------------------–

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

--------------------------–

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

--------------------------–

"Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to."

Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3

--------------------------–

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

--------------------------–

"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'.

"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'"

Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199

--------------------------–

"We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution."

Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88

--------------------------–

"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28

--------------------------–

"And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe."

Dr. Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of Medicine; internationally known author), "In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can't even break even.". Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10

--------------------------–

"Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.

"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."

Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125)

--------------------------–

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."

J. E. O'Rourks, "Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy". American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47

--------------------------–

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

Look, your credibility with me has been squandered by wild statements you made. Such as using the present number of humans to discredit the possibility of evolution happening. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the workings of the theory.

Furthermore, you bandy the word "theory" around as if it means guess. Again, a complete misunderstanding of the term.

Your criticisms are not worthy of replies because they are red herrings and straw-man arguments. Even your litany of quotes are taken out of context and poorly sourced as impartial observations.

Please keep your religion out of my schools, and I'll keep intelligence and science out of your church, okay? And why not stop teaching the theory off Gravity? You can start by stepping off a cliff. Let me know how that works out for you! (And yes, gravity is still a theory in the same way evolution is a theory, but I doubt that you would understand the nuances of the words.)

Larian,

I'm sorry. I really do not mean to come across as antagonistic and I have no doubt that you are a truly intelligent person. I would like to point out something else out that you said, though, and hope you don't take this poorly.

When you said, "Calling 'Expelled' a documentary is like saying Peter Pan is a discourse on aeronautics." you kind of pointed out the whole point of the movie, didn't you? Stein has made a strong case and accusation that has become a serious problem in todays school system and society.

When you read or hear men like Stephen Jay Gould or Hoyle (highly esteemed scientists from Harvard and Cambrige) say that there is a complete absense of proof for the missing links or that evolution appears to be impossible it makes you cringe but you can still accept them as long as they follow up their statements somewhere down the road with "BUT IT MUST BE TRUE ANYWAY."

But if I say there is no proof for evolution and that it is an absurd notion that IS impossible and never happened... oops. I'm a "fanatic". I believe in "Peter Pan fairy tales", as you referenced. That, my friend, is a double standard.

A close friend and protoge' of Darwin, Sir Arthur Keith said in his 1946 work, Essays on Human Evolution, " To ask me to believe that the evolution of man has been determined by a series of chance events is to invite me to give credit to what is biologically unbelievable." Yet despite this stance, he had FAITH that his buddy Darwin was onto something and believed anyway.

In 1959 an essay of Sir Keith's would be post-humously added as the forward to the 100th anniversary of Darwin's "Origin of Species". In that essay Arthur Keith says a similar quote to the one I gave above.

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only
because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable."

Sir Arthur Keith had FAITH not proof. It was a theory then. It is a theory now.

Stein and his docu-drama 'Expelled' points out this sham. If I believe, "In the beginning... soup, accidents & grandpa ape-man..." then I can be annointed as a High Priest in the Evolutionary Priesthood.

If I believe, "In the beginning...God" Then I am a heretic, that believes in fairies and Peter Pan.

But again I question... If the Earth is as old as evolution claims...

Where are all the people? There isn't the population for any hominid to exist unless it all began VERY recently. Why does every continent remember a world wide flood in ancient history?

Why is the oldest tree a handfull of thousands of years old? Why is the biggest dessert only thousands of years old? Why is the oldest water fall only thousands of years old?

They put "snow shoes" on the lunar lander because their calculations told them the moon would have 100's of feet of dust on its surface. Either those sneaky Christians snuck up there and cleaned the place OR there really was only a FEW THOUSAND years worth of dust on the moon when they landed.

When scientists claimed that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to carve why didn't they revisit that assumption when Spirit Lake flooded after the Mt. Saint Helen eruption? The flood at Spirit Lake duplicated a 1/40th scale "Little Grand Canyon" in a matter of hours! Obviously it didn't take millions and millions of years. It just took a flood.

Index fossils are fossils of animals that only lived in a certain age or era. By finding an index fossil you can determine the hypothetical age that it supposedly lived in. The Coelacanth was a fish once used as an index fossil for geologic layers believed to be between 70-400 million years old. Of course, when one was caught in 1938 in the Indian Ocean it threw a wrench in that idea too.

At this point I think it's common sense to say, "Hmmmm... maybe the coelacanth ISN'T millions and millions and millions of years old."

Instead they said, "Hmmmm. Isn't it strange that the coelacanth hasn't changed in over 70,000,000 years!"

2 Thessalonians predicts of a time when men will deny his existance and whose paradigms will be so ingrained in their thinking that nothing will be able to assuage them.

I've studied this stuff for many years. Obviously I can't put all of this on a board. I find it difficult to be as brief as I have. But besides all the science, archaology and humanitarian studies that I've read the greatest truth is in my personal testimony and salvation. Looking at Science from a biblical view point may lead you to eventually believe that "Some intelligent god" must exist. The true revelation is when you come to understand that "THE God" does infact exist and He loves you beyond our humanly comprehension.

The Psalms say that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made." This "fear" that God feels in this passage is more like the aprehension an artist feels with every brush stroke as he works on a masterpiece. With the most precise care He made each one of us. Despite everything we have done or will do, He loves us.

There is nothing we can do to make Him love us less.

Okay, I'll stay off the board. Typical that your only replies are that I'm stupid and you are intelligent and "my daddy is bigger than your daddy."

I will let those who read these replies judge intelligence for what it is.

Steve1128, It actually started 4 days earlier. I know I was there.

He loves me so much that the crime of not believing him condemns me to eternal damnation? That's love alright....

Absence of proof is not a proof of absence. Just because we don't have a complete understanding of something, doesn't mean we have zero understanding. It's actually okay to proclaim, "I don't know!" What's not okay is to make something up and accept that as the final answer and never continue to delve into it deeper.

Science accepts the outlandish notion that sometimes we're wrong (IMAGINE THAT!). We don't have a complete understanding of the situation, so we may need to revisit things when we find out more information.

Your moon lander design theory is based off antiquated assumptions and dogmatic parroting of an idle musing. Again, it has no basis in reality. If you had intellectual integrity, you could find that for the red herring that it is.

Also, your coelacanth information is also incorrect. The species is not identical to the prehistoric examples, so again you are parroting someone else's dogmatic words that have no basis in real facts.

The structure of the Grand Canyon is totally and wholly different from Spirit Lake. The level of intellectual dishonestly you are displaying in throwing up these arguments is simply astounding! To actually go through life holding on to that sort of dogma is just as frightening as a suicide bomber!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/anatomy.html

This is from nova about the coelacanth. No one has ever "accused" PBS of being pro-intelligent design. I would think this is a neutral source.

Go to yahoo or google images and look at pictures of "little grand canyon." Read about it at http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04. This was written by Doctor Steven Austin. He recieved his B.S. from the University of Washington, an M.S. from San Jose State University, and a Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, all in geology. However, you obviously understand Spirit Lake better than him. Yes, he teaches in a Christian University now but contrary to your beliefs that should not disqualify his good science. I again reference Stein's "Expelled".

You can accuse me all day long and I can defend myself all day long. We can agree to disagree, but don't insult my intellectual integrity (which is the only reason I'm replying once again.)

My problem isn't with science. There is a TON of awesome science taught in school. I definitely understand that "absence of proof is not a proof of absense." I know you would never use this "bad word" but that is the definition of faith. Woops! There I go using the "f" word again. Sorry.

You are also correct that "It's okay to proclaim, 'I don't know!'" and it's okay to "accept the outlandish notion that sometimes we're wrong". What is wrong is to UNDERSTAND THAT and to teach it as FACT anyway.

As far as taking quotes out of context... Are you serious? Read those quotes again. Look up the articles. I've already said that they go on to say that they believe their theories despite their findings (and the major bodies of their articles reflect that) but MY point and THEIR context is still correct. Each scientist has admitted to mistakes (dolphin bone not a human bone! LOL!) or said that what he has proven seems to make evolution impossible.

And my last point refers to the first thing you mentioned.

God would never condemn ANYONE to eternal damnation. THAT is a ball that Lucifer started rolling long ago and mankind's natural tendancy is to follow along and condemns HIMSELF. Who condemns a person? The judge or the criminal? The criminal condemns himself through his actions, or inaction. God does NOT want that. He's jumping up and down waving his arms and shouting "look this way, look this way!!!"

I say this not just to you, Larian, but to anyone else who perceives the Christian God as someone who is an evil, trigger happy dictator who only wishes to serve Judgement. God is patient with us. And loves us despite our deficiencies.

2 Peter 3:9b says "The Lord does not want any person to be punished forever. He wants all people to be sorry for their sins and turn from them." (New LifeTranslation)

Screaming, "Dogma; red herring; no intellecutal integrity; and incorrect" at everything I type simply because it conflicts with your stand sometimes isn't the best defense of your faith. I have tried to defend myself and my God with sensible arguements. If you don't agree or wish to accept the "outlandish notion" that perhaps what I say deserves some thought that is fine.

We can agree to disagree. I have done my best to type my posts with a high standard of integrity. I've not called you deceitful or unintelligent even when you were alluding these things of me. Your view of science is widely accepted and contains a lot of great science.

There is a portion of science that I believe is analyzed through the glasses of preconcieved notions. Without these presumptions I believe different conclusions would be reached. I'm sure you believe that the same could be said of me. This is our paradox. This is where we disagree. Larian, I ask you this...

Let us agree to disagree. And let us do it with integrity. If I seem to be preaching to you I apologize. I do not mean to be antagonistic and I hope you realize that I typed nothing on this board that was meant to be malicious toward you or anyone else.

This article about a very old tree has turned into a debate between us and I think we are just talking in circles now. I just wanted to put it out that there is another viewpoint that deserves some thought. Like evolution, it is also widely accepted by many intelligent people.

I hope we can agree on atleast this much.

Dang...

When hit with tough questions... one side turns to platitudes and condescending remarks. This is a major reason why you don't see this publicly debated anymore.

From a debate standpoint... I'd have to give round one to Jadat...

Why do creation and evolution have to be mutually exclusive? Is it possible that there is some kind of magnificent brilliance behind the workings of the universe exactly as it is and that determining when it began proves nothing either way? Perhaps science and religion both offer things that enrich our lives? Science is maybe a means of satisfying our curiosity in understanding how it works, while religion reminds us to love each other no matter what we find.

As for global warming ... it seems for now we can't prove it either way, but is it so bad to want to honor this beautiful land we inhabit? The 10,000 year old tree seems like a wise old ancestor .... by intuition we know that a polluted river that cannot support life is not desirable, that this tree is somehow sacred, etc.

Religion is lake a paper bag. In the bag are the words of good. Unfortunatly a lot of people wear the paper the bag over their head.

Constance,
You are absolutely correct. I l-o-v-e science. Chemistry, geology, biology, micro-biology, etc... There is some awesome stuff out there and like you say, I believe it points to a "magnificent brilliance behind the workings of the universe." Science is amazing!

The catch is what is defined as "science". The word "science" comes from the latin word 'scientia', meaning "knowledge". I believe 100% in the scientific method. What passes this age-long test is what should be considered "true science." I have never come across any proven science that disproves my beliefs and I believe there is a reason for that. In fact, the complexity of what has been proven seems to point toward a digital universe and an created design. A design, by definition, requires a designer.

Now there are obvious realities that my friend has pointed out that still remain "unproven". I believe he is correct in assuming that it would be unpleasent for me to step off a bridge. I would discover the "theory of gravity." (honestly this is much closer to a LAW of science than a theory. Look up "gravity" in wikipedia.com. It gives a fairly simple explaination of the discrepancies and anomolies that keep Gravity under the title "Theory". The discrepancies have to do with astro-physics. I.e. the stars on the outskirts of the galaxy are moving faster than they should be in relation to the amount of gravity they produce and energy they release This is also not a problem for me. Things moving too fast after 200 billions years is a problem. If the universe is younger than that... problem solved. The same can be said about the hot core of planets (including ours) which should be much cooler after 2.3 billion years.

If you walk into a room and see a steaming glass of coffee and I scream, "Don't touch that! It's hot!" and you reply, "Well, who's is it?" What would you think if I shrugged my shoulders and said, "I don't know, it's been there for millions of years."

Anyway, back to gravity. Let's pretend that the theory of gravity is on equal footing with evolution, in relation to being proven...

If you climb to the top of ladder with a chicken's egg and drop it. It will: 1) fall down. 2) break. 3) ooze chicken yolk.

The result would be a very convincing proof that gravity is real.

If you climb to the top of a ladder and drop the same egg and
1- it falls. 2- it breaks. 3- out jumps a frog.

The result would be a very convincing proof of evolution.

Now before you start blowing the whistle I will go sit in the penalty box. That is a gross exageration of evolution but it makes the same point. Gravity is observed every day. Evolution has never been observed. In nearly 150 years of searching for a "missing link" or proof of evolution there has not been ONE transitional form found in the fossil record.

Short men, tall men, pronounced brow men, big boned men, fat, skinny... you name it. These are all variations within the same species. In the late 1800's and early 1900's the Australian aboriginese were killed and their skulls boiled so they could be sold to museums. Big brows does not equal ape-man.

Salt water alligators and fresh water alligators DID have a common ancestor. It was an alligator.

Zebra's and Horses had a common ancestor. It was an Equine. (a horse/scientific family of Equidae.) There's a reason that they can be bread together today to make a zorse. They are just variations within the same "kind". (as the bible calls them.)

Anyway, my point is that science is important to understanding life. The study of the "simple cell" reveals that it's not simple at all!!!

RNA builds DNA and proteins. However, RNA can not build ANYTHING without existing DNA there to give it instructions. (What came first, the chicken or the egg?)

Oh, boy... I can go on forever and I really need to get back to my homework which was why I jumped back onto the internet tonight. Mid-30's and still in college. Argh!!!!!

Take care, ya'll!

The problem I have with your arguments is that you are laying out such ridiculous parroted dogma, they really have no reason to be validated with a response. If you trow out the most ridiculous statements imaginable, and I reply to it, it just validates you. It still has no basis in fact.

Take your velocity problem. That has NOTHING (ZILCH, NADA, SQUAT) to do with time! It's all about the mass of things. Yet you make some sort of authoritative statement as if it could support your argument when it has nothing to do with it.

Your silly egg analogy is such tripe it's a wonder you still even have enough credibility to believe yourself!

Evolution has been "forced" in the laboratory. Breeding preferences can be forced within 7 generations, with complete genetic speciation within 35 generations.

I will agree with you on the statement that we shall agree to disagree. While I concede that you have a good understanding of a great deal of science, I also see fatal dogmatic underpinnings to your understanding of said science. I will freely admit that I also have some very strongly held opinions on the matter, and my undeserved namecalling stems from a frustration at seeing the frailty of the human mind being taken advantage of in so many ways.

All I ask is that you break free of dogma.

Oh, and NEVER quote Wikipedia as a source! Please! While it CAN be highly accurate, go to the source documentation instead. It's a good starting point, but that is all.

dog·ma

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Larian,

Looking at these definitions I would agree that 2 and 3 are without a doubt dangerous. Believing something because someone tells you that you should or just because that's your "team" is wrong. By saying that I parrot others I know this is what you assume I am doing. I understand why you would feel that way and don't hold it against you. I can honestly tell you that the material and information that I learn comes from maticulous study. I'm still in college because I enjoy learning. I am a veteran. The military will pay for my college so I might as well use it right?

Back to dogma... If we are talking about 1 and 4... guilty. I believe everyone has a system of principles and established opinions, beliefs or principles. That is our paradigm. There is Religious Dogma, Political Dogma, and I believe Evolutionary Dogma is just as easily represented.

My friend,
We are both strong willed and intelligent people. We may not agree with each others "system of principles" on which we "establish our opinions" but have no fear that I am being taken advantage of.

I take nothing for granted and verify what I learn. I am sure there are men, such as Gould or Crick, that you admire yet still disagree with on some avenues. (Well, hopefully you disagree with Crick on a few things. i.e. panspermia. yikes!) I am the same when it comes to Ham, Turek, etc... Don't drink the kool-aid unless you know what's inside. Verify, verify, verify.

Our "dogma"s are polar opposites. While I'm sure either of us would have enjoyed "enlightening" the other I am not suprised that this didn't occur.

As far as forced evolution. Well, I agree with micro-evolution. Minor variations within a species. Yes. Macro-evolution? Not in a laboratory.

The egg thing. Lol. As I said, I did grossly over-exagerate. In fairness, I admitted that right away. I should have toned it down out of consideration but my point was that there is a big difference between gravity and evolution. No one

doubts gravity. The devil is in the details on making that one official.

Anyway, I agree with wikipedia. I cringed even putting that on there but I wanted something basic that wouldn't be too technical yet still honest for the person that may not have a strong science background. I reviewed it and didn't see anything in that particular posting that stood out that you or I would disagree with.

Alright. This discussion seems to be wrapping up. I'm glad to see we are finishing with the gloves still on.

I don't know why this post split. Sorry about that.

See ya around!

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution aren't really terminology that you want to apply to a single stage of any animal's set of changes. One leads to the other really. Keep in mind, every time scientists find a fossil remain that fills a gap, creationists now complain that there are two gaps where there was one... Also, they seem to have no understanding how fossils are formed and expect that even on species that got down to as few as 5000 individuals will leave ample evidence, which is just not the case. Heck, we haven't categorized every species that is currently alive on earth today, and you expect science to identify the millions of species that existed before? You demand no such rigor out of your bible, yet you demand it out of science?

How is it even possible to build an ark? The size specified would cause the wood to tear itself apart. How is it possible to carry all the animals in one boat? How did they get distributed about the earth without having a kangaroo in Africa?

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Which first–beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
How many stalls and horsemen?

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
The bat is not a bird

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.
Insects do NOT have four feet

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Snails do not melt

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
Fowl from waters or ground?

GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 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.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Odd genetic engineering

GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Earth supported?

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Heaven supported too

JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
The hydrological cycle

ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Storehouses are not part of the cycle
Order of creation

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

How orderly were things created?
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days."
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)
Moses' personality

Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."
Righteous live?

Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."
Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."
Jesus' last words

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Years of famine

II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
Moved David to anger?

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.
The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.
God be seen?

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)
CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)
Tempts?

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)
Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)
Ascend to heaven

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)
What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?

Before the cock crow – Matthew 26:34

Before the cock crow twice – Mark 14:30
How many times did the cock crow?

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
Who killed Saul

SA1 31:4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
SA1 31:5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
SA1 31:6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.
SA2 1:15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount

MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
Does every man sin?

KI1 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

CH2 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Who bought potter's field

ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Who prophesied the potter's field?

Matthew 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13
Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?

SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
Marriage?

Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)
Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

(various trapsing)
How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?

1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)

MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Judging

1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)

1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."
Good deeds

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)
For or against?

MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)
Whom did they see at the tomb?

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
God change?

malachi 3:6
james 1:17
1 samuel 15:29
jonah 3:10
genesis 6:6
Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)

MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

zechariah 11:11-13
(nothing in Jeremiah remotely like)
Who's sepulchers

acts 7:16
genesis 23:17,18
Strong drink?

proverbs 31:6,7
john 2:11-11
When second coming?

MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

1 thessalonians 4:15-18
Solomon's overseers

550 in I Kings 9:23
250 in II Chron 8:10
The mother of Abijah:

Maachah the daughter of Absalom 2 Chron 9:20

Michaiah the daughter of Uriel 2 Chron 13:2
When did Baasha die?

26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8

36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

22 in 2 Kings 8:26

42 in 2 Chron 22:2
Who was Josiah's successor?

Jehoahaz – 2 Chron 36:1

Shallum – Jeremiah 22:11
The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.
What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

scarlet – Matthew 27:28

purple John 19:2
What did they give him to drink?

vinegar – Matthew 27:34

wine with myrrh – Mark 15:23
How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again." As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days," but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day."

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution aren't really terminology that you want to apply to a single stage of any animal's set of changes. One leads to the other really. Keep in mind, every time scientists find a fossil remain that fills a gap, creationists now complain that there are two gaps where there was one... Also, they seem to have no understanding how fossils are formed and expect that even on species that got down to as few as 5000 individuals will leave ample evidence, which is just not the case. Heck, we haven't categorized every species that is currently alive on earth today, and you expect science to identify the millions of species that existed before? You demand no such rigor out of your bible, yet you demand it out of science?

How is it even possible to build an ark? The size specified would cause the wood to tear itself apart. How is it possible to carry all the animals in one boat? How did they get distributed about the earth without having a kangaroo in Africa?

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Which first–beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
How many stalls and horsemen?

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Care to answer these questions as well?

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Which first–beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

A few more (yeah, it's making me split posts too, we must be too long winded):

The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
How many stalls and horsemen?

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
The bat is not a bird

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.
Insects do NOT have four feet

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Snails do not melt

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
Fowl from waters or ground?

GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 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.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Odd genetic engineering

GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

I am being forced to split my posts too. And take a lot of time between them. I'll try to finish after I hit the gym.

The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
How many stalls and horsemen?

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
The bat is not a bird

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Well, it's making me split posts too. I'll continue the list when I get back from the gym. It's at least a few more posts worth.

Well, I have quite a bit of catching up to do at work today since I spent so much time on here. Most of the scripture you mention are common misunderstandings between the ancient semetic literary style and modern English. All your references are easily explainable and verifiable. I am NOT brushing you off and I promise that I will reply to these today. Every one.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not even close to the same beast. Micro-evolution is the capabiliy of genetic variations within the same species. As you say, in a laboratory you can change a litter of white rabbits into a litter of black rabbits within a given amount of generations. They are still rabbits.

Even in this case there was no information ADDED to DNA. The white rabbit already had the genetic capability to produce black rabbits but over the course several generations the dominant trait became recesive and vice versa.

Mutations that would require something EVOLVING into something all together different would require ADDING information to the DNA strand. Even mutations that have been observed consists of loosing information. Take sickle cell disease. This is caused by a mutation in the DNA that makes the blood cells sickle shaped. There is information lost in the DNA that keeps the RNA from constructing red blood cells correctly. The benefit of this is that African Americans with this disease are nearly immune to milaria. Because of the mutated blood cells the parasites have a difficult attacking and attaching to the blood. While there is this benefit this is still NOT a positive mutation NOR is it ADDING to the genetic code. Like I said, information was lost.

These people STILL have anemia. Lets pretend that there is a world wide epidemic of malaria. Those with sickle cell would survive and a MUCH HIGHER rate than those without. However, when the epidimic is over, those with malaria would still be at a genetic disability. As anyone with the disease and see if they are glad they have it.

Resistant strains of bacteria are the same way. They loose information that makes last years vacinations stop recognizing them. That's simplistic but like I said, I'm short on time today.

Micro-evolution is far different. Most of my family has chocolate brown hair or dirty blonde. My great grandfather had carrot orange hair. I still may have the capability to have orange headed kids but the probability is VERY remote. If that information is not used eventually my descendants will loose the genetic capibility to have red-headed children (unless the information is re-introduced through a spouse.) Now if I could reproduce like a rabbit, maybe 100 kids later my wife might pop a red-head out. Someone with similar genetic capabilities also has 100 kids and one is also a red head. In a laboratory situation we seperate these children, raise them and they have kids. If we continue in this way we could "force" MICRO-evolution into changing a population of brunettes into red-heads. They are still human.

Dogs, for instance... There are American Eskimos, miniature american eskimos and toy american eskimos. This was forced genetic breeding. They are still dogs. And they still had a common ancestor who was also a dog.

You mention fossil remains that "fill" a gap. Again these require looking at the information through your own paradigm (or dogma, if you prefer that word). I.e. Looking at the picture that starts with a chimp and gradualy gets taller, turns into ape-man, then eventually modern human. First this is degrading and the source of untold atrocity and bigotry. The entire title of Darwins book is "The Origin of Species through natuaral selection or the preservation of FAVORED RACES in the struggle for life" Both this mentality of a gradually evolving man and Darwins book assume that the "unfavored" races that appear more "ape-like" are less human than those that are more Aryan in appearence. If you've read the book you won't deny that.

But secondly, on this evolutionary chart there is two "kinds". The ape "kind" and the Human. Everything on there can be explained through genetic variation of pre-existing information in the DNA strand. Those that are human on that chart were drawn with assumptions that they were less intelligent. (By the way, the neanderthal had a LARGER brain compacity than we do). They took there paradigm and painted what they interpretted to be true. Large brow-ridge does not equal, hairy, dumb and primal. The aboriginese share these skeletal traits and are equally intelligent as you or I.

My point is that there is nothing in the fossil record that can not be attributed to variations with-in a kind or species. We have tiny people (Guiness record for full grown adult is 2 feet.) We have huge people. (There's a guy in Ukrain TODAY that is 8' 6") They are both humans. If someone tried to fit them in a chart millennia from now with one on one end and one on the other they would be WRONG.

The fossil record shows variation within a species. It does not show ANY transitional forms.

Oh, boy.... DANG IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So much for being brief. The Ark is a masterpiece and incredibly and perfectly designed for the task at hand. In fact it points to a master plan and engineering far beyond the period in which it was built. I LOVE THESE QUESTIONS!!!! It might take me a while, but this was actually what began my long road to salvation so I enjoy debating these things.

Unless you want me to begin with the explaination of scripture I will pick up next time with the Ark. Let me know if you want it the other way around.

I have an indepth essay due tomorrow night in class that I need to work on. I will try to type something tonight but it may be tomorrow. PLEASE don't think I'm brushing you off. I need to make a paycheck to feed the family.

The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
How many stalls and horsemen?

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
The bat is not a bird

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.
Insects do NOT have four feet

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Snails do not melt

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

The earth is 3000 yrs old? WOW!! Since when?
I am all about faith....I am all about historical texts....but come on...

given that rationale...the previous ice age never happened, Mount St. Helens has only erupted once, The Old Testament is a lie (since the generational information spells out several thousadn years of "begats and whatnot)

and Ah'm gonna have to say that the world is'a still'a flat'a

get REal. Lose the fear of living in the real world. God will still love you.

This is a really interesting blog guys... want to thank you both for it.

I'm in no certain camp as I have questions on everything... however I felt the need to say that a "Forced Experiment" in a lab would be creating somehing out of design... like a toy dog... it doesn't happen naturally... but is by design... be it man not a higher being in this case... but makes a bad argument in my opinion for evolution...

Just saying... and I am really enjoying this... there are some pretty sharp people on this blog... which is nice to see. If you cruise the political blogs... it's hard to believe there are any intelligent people left... ha ha...

3,000 years is definitely too young. Like you said. Even adding up the years in the geneologies comes up with quite a bit more than 3,000.

It was that statement that pulled me into this discussion.

Oops! Didn't see you added more, Larian. I'm not ignoring you, I promise. Thanks, Da Captain. I'm enjoying this too!

Larian, I don't see any problems so far that I can't explain. Some are easy, others can be taken different ways, a few are explainable but still require "faith".

It's hard to expect to find answers to every historical and scientific question that we may have. In the end, the Bible is not an exhaustive work of science and history. It is a road map on Godly living. In between that purpose, God does gives us enough answers to science and history where we can find faith in Him if we so choose. He does not tell us everything. (i.e. God tells us that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters after Cain and Abel, but only tells us the name of Seth. The other kids are unimportant when it comes to having a personal relationship with God so he doesn't fill in the details there.)

That's not a cop-out. There ARE explainations for all your points. I'm just pointing out something that we both already know. Believing either of our viewpoints requires a certain amount of faith.

I'm going to stop here. I'm sure you figured out that once I get going I have a hard time shutting up! LOL.

Uh-oh, We're off the main page and I REALLY had a hard time finding this article again.

If you're still out there let me know and I will reply to your questions! (well, tonight or tomorrow.)

Otherwise, I guess there's no point if I'll just be talking to myself...

Good grief, Larian! Did you copy and past the entire contents of a website or what! There's a lot of duplicaiton there.

Every Scripture has a reason, an explanation, and a context. But for every Scripture you've pasted it would take me a paragraph or so to explain.

Like I said everything is explainable. If you truly want me to explain something I need a workable list. What you have given me would take a while to complete. I am more than willing to answer whatever you wish but would I would like the opportunity to answer everything in my own words and would rather not copy and paste. (I have a full time job, am a full time student, am a full time husband, and father of four, and have a few responsibilities at church that require my time, off-and-on, throughout the week.) Unfortunately I don't have the time to right my own book. (Actually I am working on one. LOL. I'll probably be old and grey before it's done.)

If you truly want an exhaustive work of everything that could be taken out of context, mis-understood, and/or thought of as a contradiction let me suggest a few books.

1. Difficulties And Alleged Errors And Contradictions In The Bible by R.A. Torrey (this book is 100 years old now ( 1st pub 1907) but it is very good at describing and understanding ancient mesopotamian/semetic literature and also some of the most common accusations and misunderstandings against scripture.)

2. Are There Contradictions in the Bible? by Ralph Muncaster
He actually has a few books that are pretty good and thorough.

3. Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. This has quite a few of the alleged contradictions but also explains some of the more difficult passages that aren't really contradictory but are hard to understand. This is a HUGE book and very thorough.

I guarantee that all the scriptures you pasted will be dealt with in these books.

In the mean time if you have some that you want me, personnaly, to answer then feel free to give me a workable list.

Holy smokes! You did copy and paste a whole website! LOL.

Cheater cheater pumpkin eater.

What was the definition of Dogma again?

I'm sorry. I really don't care and I'm not offended. I'm sure you share the same opinions as Mr. Meritt so it really doesn't matter. If you're still around which of his statements would you like me to comment on?

Elizabeth, suggest you check with Elizabeth Landau, paleoclimatologist at the American Geophysical Union in Washington, D.C., regarding papers she has co-authored on evidence of global warming.

Should be interesting keeping that story clear.

ITS OVER 9000!!!!!

[...] SciTechBlog: Blog Archive – World’s oldest tree points to global warming... Koteas May 6th, 2008 4:17 pm ET I thought the tree would be bigger by now greg and the dog May 6th, 2008 4:33 pm ET lets chop it down and count the rings to verify its age the tree portion started growing in the 1940s, most of it is a bush shouldn t it be the worlds oldest bush John May 6th, 2008 4:52 pm ET I wonder if John Mc Cain remembers when he planted it. Yes, the tree itself has been estimated... [...]