Kangaroo!

oh, no. I don't believe in evolution. No conversion here. I believe that we all won't believe in the same thing. That I believe. Sorry to burst your moment of joy.

Job 40:15 ¶Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Looks like the religious do believe in dinosaurs, they just didn't call them dinosaurs.

Job 40:15 ¶Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Looks like the religious do believe in dinosaurs, they just didn't call them dinosaurs.

If that is so...then what makes religious people (some) think the earth is only 2000 years old?? cuz that doesnt make sense either...these fossils are millions and million of years old

but we've already settled that carbon dating is inconsistent, constantly. If you can find a new born dead seal to be a thousand years and then say that the carbon was of the earth, then how much trust can we really place in the dating of the dinosaurs(behemoths?)

In that case, if dinosaurs were extinct millions of years ago, then how come Job is describing it in his book?

Doesn't that mean that dinosaurs weren't extinct?

What gets me is that some believers go on about some of the far fetched stories in the bible being metaphorical (Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden for example) but when it comes to stuff like the behemoth it is suddenly 100% accurate.

Blue it is correct to assume you don't think outside the book then.......Isn't that scary?

Blue it is correct to assume you don't think outside the book then.......Isn't that scary?

The universe is made of matter and anti-matter and its always evolving millions of years ago theories that a rock or comet hit the Earth so h2o and bacteria multiplied to create living organisms.The other theory is that God created the Universe and everything in it creationism works for me Alpha & Omega

Answers in Genesis

No, sheri, it isn't scary. There is nothing wrong with me. Believing in the Bible doesn't make me any less intelligent or a lesser person for that matter. I'm quite comfortable believing that Job wrote about a dinosaur during his time. You wanted to know why I don't believe in evolution, and I told you.

No, sheri, it isn't scary. There is nothing wrong with me. Believing in the Bible doesn't make me any less intelligent or a lesser person for that matter. I'm quite comfortable believing that Job wrote about a dinosaur during his time. You wanted to know why I don't believe in evolution, and I told you.

Well, Blue, I really didn't experience a moment of joy. So you didn't have anything to burst. Sorry for bursting your gloating over bursting my moment of joy.

When did dinosaurs and humans live together? And, if this animal had a belly button I wonder if it was pierced. I wonder about weird stuff like that.

No, sheri, it isn't scary. There is nothing wrong with me. Believing in the Bible doesn't make me any less intelligent or a lesser person for that matter. I'm quite comfortable believing that Job wrote about a dinosaur during his time. You wanted to know why I don't believe in evolution, and I told you.

Why what is the purpose of denying and ignoring what is so obvious i truly don't get that ?Im with THE MAN (manapa) how does one disount everythig regardless?? Not seeing evidence of evolution is an anomaly IMO......

Do you mean blue?

But that's the point, where were you during science class?

I mean if there was someone who had a problem with math and kept saying 2+2=3 then yeah some would say hey you're not very bright...

I just don't get how with all that we know about science and history can someone say the world is only 2000 years old?

And how do you explain ancient Greeks?

4-5 thousands years ago, we have very good dating on them and the events that took place that long ago, but yet we're only a few thousand years old????
What about the fact that there is no record of you religion beyond 3 thousand years?
But yet others such as Hindu, and the ancient Greek and roman religions were around before your god was even a figment of someone's imagination...?

How can you explain all the FACTS that we know about the history of the world,

I just absolutely do not get it

on one hand there is hard cold evidence that something is some way on the other there is a 1500 year old book that says no, with no evidence what so ever....

I will never never never understand that...

I'll take my chances on the theory that God created the Universe. I'm not one to leave things up to coincedance (chance.)

ha ha ha ha ahha everything came from adam and eve even the animals lol ha h ah ahahah ha .... Geri Carlin does it again lol very cute....

Ya know i find it very funny that in this forum people believe Jesus was mentally unstable yet dont believe in him in the first place, then try to prove evolution.....with evolution, then try to say the bible is wrong but cant prove it.....

When did dinosaurs and humans live together? And, if this animal had a belly button I wonder if it was pierced. I wonder about weird stuff like that. :DThat got me to thinking....Didn't dinosaurs hatch from eggs.....ERGO no "navel".

Zandore! The Biblesaurus Rex can have a belly button. I thought everyone knew that.

Actually, I vaguely remember that the word "navel" isn't really supposed to translate as belly button. I might have to look up this one.

My perspective is from what I read and learned, from the Bible. If this isn't good enough for you, then I'm sorry. You won't hear much different from me. I believe God created the earth in six days and on the seventh he rested. I believe also that God created man on the sixth, in one day, and not over a period of many years. This is what I believe, and evolution doesn't fit into my belief.

P.S. Most of what we know or believe comes from what others taught us: Mathematics, Science, History, Religion, Politics, Physics, Economics, Reading, Writing, Spelling, ect. Its not logical to ask for someone explain what they believe, yet leave out what they were taught. Just my two cents

Okay, if creation is right and the universe is only thousands of years old, please explain to me how Andromeda is 2 million light-years away. And, quasars are 5 billion light-years away.

Just so you know, it takes light 1 year to travel one light year.

I dunno. Why does it matter? With God all things are possible, so what does that matter to me? If you notice, the Creation story isn't concerned with the rest of the universe or the other lifeforms, its concerned with two things: God and mankind. God created the earth, the heavens, and the seas and all that is in them. When the universe was created has nothing to do with these things. What happened before Creation is really none of my concern.

I only use creationism to explain how life formed on earth, not the earth itself. It's pure fact that it was formed about 4.5 billion years ago. I do not believe in evolution because:

-"Photosynthesis may be how plants process sunlight, but we're talking about a time before even the first cell; after all, plants have genetic information that programs certain cells in them in how to process this incoming light. Our first primordial cell would have no such mechanism built in yet to process ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, evolution cannot have occurred."

Plastids are also membrane-bound organelles that only occur in plants and photosynthetic eukaryotes.

Chloroplasts are the sites of photosynthesis in eukaryotes. They contain chlorophyll, the green pigment necessary for photosynthesis to occur, and associated accessory pigments (carotenes and xanthophylls) in photosystems embedded in membranous sacs, thylakoids (collectively a stack of thylakoids are a granum [plural = grana]) floating in a fluid termed the stroma. Chloroplasts contain many different types of accessory pigments, depending on the taxonomic group of the organism being observed.

-"Mendels’ law of genetics prove that variation can occur within a species, but cannot create a new species across phylum boundaries. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, such as the large muscles of a weightlifter to his son. Natural selection cannot create new genes, it can only select from existing gene information nation. Dogs remain dogs, and cats remain cats."

Mutations | Back to Top
Hugo de Vries, one of three turn-of-the-century scientists who rediscovered the work of Mendel, recognized that occasional abrupt, sudden changes occurred in the patterns of inheritance in the primrose plant. These sudden changes he termed mutations. De Vries proposed that new alleles arose by mutations. Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, was unable to describe how heritable changes were passed on to subsequent generations, or how new adaptations arose. Mutations provided answers to problems of the appearance of novel adaptations. The patterns of Mendelian inheritance explained the perseverance of rare traits in organisms, all of which increased variation, as you recall that was a major facet of Darwin's theory.

Mendel's work was published in 1866 but not recognized until the early 1900s when three scientists independently verified his principles, more than twenty years after his death. Ignored by the scientific community during his lifetime, Mendel's work is now a topic enjoyed by generations of biology students

There is no actual proof that gases can form simple life (amino acid theory)

The proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. (See also Primitive cells arising by chance.)

Response:
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis.)

Response:
Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.
Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
Something that no one has thought of yet.

Miller-Urey type experiments produce toxic chemicals, such as cyanide and formaldehyde, but not amino acids.
Source:
Discovery Institute. 2003. A preliminary analysis of the treatment of evolution in biology textbooks currently being considered for adoption by the Texas State Board of Education. http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/TexasPrelim.pdf, p. 5.
Response:
Cyanide and formaldehyde are necessary building blocks for important biochemical compounds, including amino acids (Abelson 1996). They are not toxins in this context.

Complex organic molecules, such as the bases in RNA, are very fragile and unstable, except at low temperatures. They would not hold together long enough to serve as the first self-replicating proto-life.

Response:
The source Bergman cites for the fragility of RNA bases (Levy and Miller 1998) disputes abiogenesis only at high temperatures, around 100 degrees Celsius. They also conclude, "At 0 degrees C, A, U, G, and T appear to be sufficiently stable (t1/2 greater than or equal to 106 yr) to be involved in a low-temperature origin of life." They also say that cytosine is unstable enough at 0 degrees Celsius (half life of 17,000 years) that it may not have been involved in the first genetic material. The discovery of a ribozyme without C-G bases shows that genetic material without cytosine is plausible (Reader and Joyce 2002).
If synthesis of nucleo-bases is catalyzed and hydrolysis is not, we expect the nucleo-bases to accumulate. Formamide, which can form under prebiotic conditions, has been found to catalyze the formation of nucleo-bases (Saladino et al. 2001; Saladino et al. 2003).
RNA degrades quickly today because there are enzymes (RNAses) to chew it up. Those enzymes would not have evolved if RNA degraded quickly on its own. If complex organic molecules were so fragile, life itself would be impossible. In fact, life exists even in boiling temperatures or at very high acidity.
Life need not have begun with highly stable molecules. Eigen and Schuster developed a notion of chemical hypercycles, in which many chemical components coexist; each component of the reaction leads to other components, which eventually reform the original one (Eigen and Schuster 1977). Chemicals involved in such a cycle need not persist longer than the duration of the hypercycle itself.
Organic molecules may have grown in association with stabilizing templates, such as clay templates (Ertem and Ferris 1996), or parts of the hypercycles mentioned above.

Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence. Since it has not been observed in the laboratory, it is not science.

Response:
There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:
research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);
synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: "UV would have destroyed early molecules".);
research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997).
See also the references and suggested readings with Primitive cells are too complex, Abiogenesis experiments assume a reducing atmosphere, DNA needs proteins to form, proteins need DNA, Amino acids are left-handed,

the Creation story isn't concerned with the rest of the universe or the other life forms, its concerned with two things: God and mankind

Why what is the purpose of denying and ignoring what is so obvious i truly don't get that ?Im with THE MAN (manapa) how does one disount everythig regardless?? Not seeing evidence of evolution is an anomaly IMO......

where the introverts stare at thier shoes and the extroverts stare at your shoes........lol
this just shows how closed minds missunderstand scientific observation and experimentation to reach a logical answer to real life questions that don't deal with myth and legend, the simple fact is that there is more evidence in the existance of sasquatch than in the creation myth.

just my two cents....

I dunno. Why does it matter? With God all things are possible, so what does that matter to me?

Science doesn't provide the answers in life that truly matter.

I dunno. Why does it matter? With God all things are possible, so what does that matter to me? If you notice, the Creation story isn't concerned with the rest of the universe or the other lifeforms, its concerned with two things: God and mankind. God created the earth, the heavens, and the seas and all that is in them.

When the universe was created has nothing to do with these things. What happened before Creation is really none of my concern.

There is no actual proof that gases can form simple life (amino acid theory)

That's the funny thing. Years back, people could have sworn that the belief that the earth was NOT the center of the universe was a complete myth and everyone that believed it was close minded. Then we find the truth. Now that we as a majority population know so much, those who think differently all a sudden believe in myths and are close minded.

Ok to lighten the mood here a lil....here is my impressions of Bue's reply LOL and this is just a mood lightener no harm intended..so lighten up folks...

Actually, I vaguely remember that the word "navel" isn't really supposed to translate as belly button. I might have to look up this one.

okay so let me get this strait... you think that the world is 4.5 billion years old but you still believe the creation story as the reason we're here?
that's a new one for me but okay...
explain then why it says god created light, planets and life?
was it already here and he just used it???
but i am glad that someone finally posted acctual problems they have with their understanding of the theory, thank you, and i have information that may help you better understand.