Thursday, November 29, 2007

Evolution: A Scientists Religion

I'd like to step back and take a look at a few things here about Evolution.

To start with, I don't believe that Evolution is any more of a "scientific" theory, than the Bible is. "What's that she's saying? Evolution isn't science? How can this be? She's crazy..." maybe not though. I'd like to take a look at what exactly the study of evolution is, as well as the definition of a few things "faith" related. I won't be comparing the beliefs of evolution and creationism in this particular blog, though if you would like to see an article relating to the the controversy between these two belief systems, you can look at my blog here.

Ok, on to some definitions.

Evolution - Biology. Change in the gene pool of a population from generation
to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift (

Mutation - 1.Biology.

a.A sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable
characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
b.An individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure (

Natural Selection - n. The process in nature by which, according to
Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their
environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics
in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted
tend to be eliminated (

Genetic Drift - Random changes in the frequency of alleles in a
gene pool, usually of small populations (

Basically, for a species to evolve (a dog for instance) the dog would need to mutate genetically over several generations, passing those genetic mutations on to future generations, until it is no longer considered a dog. Perhaps the dog mutated because its environment changed, and it needed to adapt to survive... for example, if there was a sudden ice age, the dog may begin to grow thicker fur, longer teeth, and become more aggressive just a little at a time to survive. According to my Anthropology Professor, evolution does not occur over night and needs many, many generations to occur. Also according to my anthropology professor, for evolution to have occurred, speciation (see definition below) needs to have taken place. Basically for evolution to have taken place within a species or a small population of a certain species, the animal needs to have genetically mutated so much that it no longer interbreeds with others of the species it came from, but only breeds with others genetically like it (ex. a dog mutates so much that it no longer breeds with other dogs... it is now no longer considered a dog, but a new species... one thing changes into another). Because evolution is the claim that one species can change or mutate into another, evolution says that because of random chance, primordial ooze mutated into an amoeba, which changed into a fish, which changed into reptiles, which evolved into birds, which changed into four legged creatures, which mutated into apes, which mutated into humans.

Speciation - 1) The formation of new species as a result of geographic,
physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously
interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

2) n. The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually
by the division of a single species into two or more genetically
distinct ones (

Now that we've taken a look at the definition of evolution, lets look at the definitions of science, theory, faith, and religion.

Science -
1.A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (

Theory -
1.A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact (

Faith - Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact (

Religion - 1) Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter
of ethics or conscience.
2) A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon
by a number of persons or sects (

When we take a look at plain, basic definitions straight from the dictionary, this all seems fairly easy to understand, doesn't it? Lets continue then to the point of this blog.

Looking at the definition of science above, we see that to be considered science it needs to be based on a set of facts gained by observation or experimentation. That all seems well and good to me. If somebody sits me down and shows me pr
oof of something that they have gained legitimately I have no reason to doubt what they are saying is true. Very quickly lets take a look at just a few things the study of evolution claims as their "scientific" proof, gained through observation and experimentation.

Evolution's "proof":
  • Carbon Dating: Carbon dating (a scientific method of discovering how old something that was once living is) proves that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.
  • Fossils: Bones found throughout the world, of animals, apes, and humans prove that humans and apes share the same ancestors (humans and apes were once one in the same).
  • Vestigial Organs - Organs such as the appendix, tail bone, and tonsils (organs that we supposedly no longer have use for as humans) are really leftovers from when we were once apes.
  • God is not proven: Surprisingly one of the "scientific" proofs given by evolutionists for why Evolution must be the way things happened is that Christians can't prove the existence of God. Therefore, if there is no God, and God didn't create us, then evolution must be the only reason that we are here as the humans we are right now.
  • If there is a God, then why aren't we perfect right now?: Another thing many people use to explain evolution is the fact that we aren't perfect right now. (We have organs with seemingly no function (appendix), we have a blind spot in our eyes, and we experience pain and eventually death.
These are just a few claims of Evolutionists today. Now I would like to examine a few of these claims. There should be no problem with taking a look at these claims, right? They're proof... they were found scientifically as a way to prove the theory of evolution, right? Take a look:

  • Carbon Dating: Carbon dating is one of the most popular radioactive dating methods used today. Ironically, despite its popularity, it is also one of the most misunderstood methods of dating. Many people mistakenly believe carbon dating can be used to date objects that are millions or even billions of years old. The fact is, carbon dating can only be used to date things up to approximately 50,000 years old. In fact, if an object contains (radioactive) carbon, this should be a clue that the object may not be any older than 50,000 years, ( Considering that the theory of evolution claims that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, they should not be using carbon dating to date things. Another factor that carbon dating doesn't take into account is the fact that time is not the same today as it was thousands of years ago because the universe is expanding. This is why things that have been carbon dated fifty years ago were said to be a certain age, and when they are dated today, they are attributed a different age. This makes carbon dating an unreliable method of dating fossils. Read more about how carbon dating works at
  • Fossils: The following is taken from an article entitled: Evolution: Fact or Fiction, by James Melton.

    In 1922, a bunch of bones were found in Nebraska by a man named Harold Cook. After studying the upper and lower jaws and the teeth of some thirty animals, a complete ape known as Ramapithecus was constructed on the basis of ONE TOOTH! Years later, the entire skeleton from which the tooth came was found. It turned out to be an extinct species of pig.

    Dr. Eugene Dubois discovered the famous Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus) in 1891. This "great discovery" consisted of a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh bone, and three molar teeth. But, instead of being found all together, these remains were found in an area of about seventy feet, and they were found over about a year's time. They were also found in an old river bed with other assorted extinct animal bones. This, of course, presents a number of problems for Java Man. How can the "experts" be so sure that these remains all came from the same being? Better yet, how do such bones survive for 750,000 years without decaying? Where's the EVIDENCE to PROVE these theories? We know what the scientists want to believe about these findings, but WHERE'S THE PROOF?

    Piltdown man was discovered by Charles Dawson in 1912. Dawson claimed to have found some bones, some teeth, and even some primitive implements in a gravel pit in Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to a British museum where anthropologists claimed that they were 500,000 years old. Textbooks throughout the world then proclaimed Piltdown Man as the greatest find to date. Then in October of 1956, Reader's Digest EXPOSED this finding as "The Great Piltdown Hoax." The bones where found to be fraudulent. The jaw bone was proven to have belonged to an ape which had died only FIFTY YEARS before (not 500,000). The teeth had been filed down, and both, teeth and bones, had been discovered with bichromate of potash to cover up their true identity! So much for Piltdown Man.

    The so-called Neanderthal Man was discovered around 1900 in a cave in the Neanderthal Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. Naturally, he was hailed as another great "missing link." Since that time, it has been proven that Neanderthal wasn't an ape-man at all. He turned out to be a fully erect human being with a cranial capacity of over 13% more than that of normal man. Today, he is classified as "Homo Sapiens" (completely human). The "missing link" is still missing.

    Finally, we come to Lucy, a 40% skeleton found in Ethiopia by D.C. Johanson in the 70's. Johanson claimed that "Lucy" had walked on two legs, because of the "angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at it's knee joint" (National Geographic, December, 1976). However, the knee joint was badly crushed; so Johanson's conclusion is mere speculation. Anatomist Charles Oxnard said the "Lucy" did NOT walk upright, at least not in the same manner as humans. The chimpanzee DOES spend some time walking upright, so this was probably just another ape. (Evolution: Fact or Fiction). To effectively use a fossil record as evidence that humans are the descendants of apes and other creatures, there needs to be a fossil linking creature A to creature C... do you see what I'm saying? If creature A is an ape, and creature C is a modern day human (you or me) there needs to be a fossil linking the two together. Today, with all of the fossils that have been found, there is no fossil B (the missing link effectively) to show that A evolved into C. If someday the right fossil is found, the fossil record will read A B C... right now it has wide gaps in it and reads something like: A C E G H I M O P...

  • Vestigial Organs: Many medical doctors agree that all of these organs have important functions in the human body, and aren't "vestigial organs" in any sense. The appendix contains a rich blood supply which serves as some defense against cancer. The tail bone isn't where your monkey tail used to be, as Darwinians believe, but it instead provides support for the muscles which control elimination. The pineal gland contains important hormones which the body needs. The plica semilunaris helps to keep foreign particles out of the eye, and the tonsils help to keep foreign particles out of your child's throat. The tonsils also help to keep infection from spreading. Yes, even the ear lobe has a purpose, for it helps to keep our ears warm during cold weather (Evolution: Fact or Fiction).

  • God is not proven: Now, going back to the definition of science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation, it isn't really fair to use this as evidence for the theory of evolution. Scientists can neither prove, or disprove the existence of God.

  • If there is a God, then why aren't we perfect right now? Again, going back to the definition of Science, we know that this isn't something that can be used as evidence for the theory of evolution... it cannot be proven or disproven that God didn't make us perfect to begin with. According to the Bible God made us in His image, and originally we were perfect until we allowed sin to come into the world... originally we were made to live forever, originally women were made to give children without pain, originally we were essentially perfect according to the Bible. Seeing as how science can neither prove or disprove the validity of the Bible, this is not evidence of evolution. We've already covered that the appendix does have a function in our bodies today (and if we were created perfect in the first place then the appendix most certainly had a function when man was first created). As far as having a blind spot in our eyes where the nerves connect to the back of our eyes... that's why God gave us two eyes. Because we have two eyes, and also because our eyes are constantly making small adjustments that we don't even notice, we do not see a blind spot as we look around a room or look at an object. If we only had one eye, that would definitely be a problem... hm... do think God was smart enough then to give us two eyes? Of course he was.

So now that we've taken a look at why the study of evolution isn't exactly science according to the definition of science, let's take a look at faith and religion. While there is still no specific evidence showing that evolution exists, many scientists and other people today still avidly pursue the belief that it does exist, and still try to prove that it does today. They believe that one day they will find the evidence they need to prove their theory about why and how we are the way we are. Faith being a: Belief that is not based on proof, and religion being, Something one believes in and follows devotedly, just looking at the definitions Evolution is beginning to seem more and more like religion, is it not? Evolutionists have faith that what they believe in is true, and are so devoted to their beliefs that they are willing to follow what cannot even be considered as scientific evidence. Even my anthropology professor said one day, "Nature knowingly created us this way." For somebody who constantly tells us that there is no God and no intelligent design, it sure sounds to me as if he believes nature is "smart" enough to know to create us the way we are. In itself does that statement not show that he believes in evolution as a religion?

In conclusion I'd like to say that the theory of evolution is being taught in public schools today with no other theories being taught beside it. The definition of theory being:
A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena, does the Bible not fit this definition, then also becoming at the very least a theory just like evolution? Evolution is a faith based theory, just as is the Bible. Evolution offers us an explanation for why things are the way they are, and yet cannot be proved scientifically. The Bible also
offers us an explanation for why things are the way they are, and yet cannot be proved scientifically. Both evolution and the Bible are based on faith. Should both not be taught side by side in both public and private schools so that people can choose what to believe for themselves? Are evolutionists, scientists, and teachers so afraid that people will choose what makes the most sense to them that people will stop believing in evolution completely?



  1. no, it shouldn't. because it is a science class and not a religion class. Based on your idea, the whole semester would be spent going over every single religion's creation myth/story. Do you want your children being taught, say, the Hindu ideas of creation in their science class? or would you rather teach your own children the religion you think best for them at home?

  2. Thanks for proving my point... it's a science class, not a religion class. If they teach evolution (which I have just stated is a RELIGION) then they should also teach Christianity. It is unfair for children to only hear one side of the story. Now if there was one shred of evidence for Evolution, it would become a scientific theory instead of being a religion, but until then they should either take evolution out of our science classes, or add Christianity in as Christianity is as much science as Evolution is.

    As it is, no I wouldn't appreciate anybody trying to teach my child about any religion I don't want them to learn, meaning, I don't want her to be taught the religion of EVOLUTION.

    Thanks so much.


  3. I like how you failed to mention cave dwelling and deep sea fish and other invertebrates with eye sockets and no eyes.

    Religion is something polar opposite from theory. Theorys are made by carefully study and observation, they are not always right, in fact they are usually wrong in the begining, but as more data is collected theorys change. That is something that religion does not and can not do.

    Scientists do not claim to know everything. Only creationist do.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Stephan: I never said we had to have eyes, only that one eye cannot evolve at a time... all parts of the eye must work in unison and be formed simultaneously to another eye, which can't happen with evolution.

    I'm well aware what a theory consists of, which is why Evolution can't even be a theory: nobody has actually ever observed evolution... if they had then we could all observe it going on right now.

    Creationists claim to know how everything came into existence because we have faith and see evidence around us as well. And I never said scientists claim to know everything, I only said they have faith in Evolution, seeing as how they have not one single shred of evidence to support it, thus making it more like a religion than science.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Sorry for the double posts sometimes my computer is slow.

    As far as these cave dwelling and other species you are missing the big picture. Eye sockets are evidence that they once had eyes. And if they did how did they lose them?

    Lastly, please explain to me how we are able to view stars millions of light years away when the universe is only 10,000 years(or less) old.

  9. Stephan: Perhaps God made the creatures to have no eyes but have eye sockets. Why did He do it? I haven't the faintest idea, you'll have to ask him. Or possibly He took their eyes away after they were created. Again, why? Don't know, just another question to ask Him when I get there.

    As far as the stars go, you assume that the universe started with the Big Bang, which is not even possible according to the laws of physics. The Bible says God created the universe, and that he placed all the stars where they are and knows them each by name. Is the universe expanding? Yes. Did God make it to do that? Yes. However he didn't make it start at a single point in space like the Big Bang theory says. Therefore if God created the universe large to begin with and it expanded from there, it is very possible that we can see stars millions of light years away.

  10. You make too many assumptions and your logic is flawed. You should really read up on ID and find out what the "expert creationists" theorize.

    Notice I have no problem classifying one explanation as a theory. Religion encompasses many areas not just the origin of the universe as we know it.

    Talking about the physics of the universe is just laughable considering you have done no visible research.

    Astrologists have spent hundreds of years theorizing about the content and structure of the universe, accepting all possibilitys until a presumably better explanation arises. The only opponent being the church demonizing research that is now common knowledge.

    The universe did not expand into oblivion in 10,000 years, and the universe is no longer expanding. This is proven by measuring our distance from other galaxies like Andromeda. When the universe was expanding it must have started from nothing, then beginning to expand at an inconceivable rate, faster even than light; not allowing the light to catch up until the expansion slowed down.

    The light that we see from stars and other galaxies are a snapshot from however many light years away from earth they were when the light caught up, some already billions of light years away.

    I never said anything about the "big bang" theory. It is easier for tiny minded people to lump everything into categories of black and white. After all that is the basis of christianity.

    A. God did it.
    B. The devil did it.

    It seems you also believe anyone that considers evolution to be an atheist. In fact its just the opposite. Real scientist are not trying to disprove the existence of god, that would be impossible, just as it is impossible to disprove the existence of any other god or gods. Atheism IS more like a religion, since they have absolute faith there is no god in any way shape or form. That is not scientific.

    So for your sake ill explain. ID (intelligent design) proponents do not agree on everything, just like the many factions of christianity that disagree over trivial issues. ID however uses some logic and science instead of blind faith. They agree that in fact many animals devolved after the flood diluting the gene pool. This would make the ark story more credible since there would not need to be millions of species on the ark for almost a year with enough food for a variety of dietary needs, as most of them did not exist yet but devolved from other ancient creatures.

    Cave fish are a good example of devolution. Their eyes have withered, and light receptors in their brains are very small relative to local fish of the same genus. Once again if you had done even the smallest bit of research you would have realized that i was wrong about these fish having no eyes, i was mistaken.

    Now according to creationists, these fish simply lost the ability to see thus devolving. The only problem is the many other adaptations these fish developed, such as much larger sent, vibration sensing organs, and control centers in the brain. They also have elongated fins to help minimize vibrations caused by swimming through the water. To me is seems these fish are perfectly adapted for prospering in total darkness, not inferior to surface relatives.

  11. The age of the universe is explained by an all mighty ageless being creating the universe already highly ordered (high entropy). This corresponds with the creation of adult plants and animals. You should look up entropy and find out the reason we see snapshots of developing (low entropy) galaxies from a billion years ago.

    Genesis depicts the creation of the universe in only 6 days, this however is a mistranslation of the Hebrew bible by King James's scholars. The original texts refer to ages of creation not days. To god mellinea must seem like minutes or seconds. So is it too hard to believe the universe is much older than humans? Or that god created the universe from nothing in low entropy? Similar to a "Big Bang" or expanding universe theory?

    I know zealots like you will never back down or even consider another interpretation of the bible or an alternate explanation for the same events, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

    I should know, I used to be one; becoming defensive about what i presumed to be true. I would go to church sometime 2 to 3 nights a week memorizing important verses, and taking notes on sermons since I was born until about 19 or 20. When i realized that christianity has become drowned in hate by zealous preachers and angry congregations more caught up in politics than love and understanding.

    To that end it is highly unlikely that your particular sect of christianity or even the religion as a whole has it right. Just like evolution doesn't have all the answers. There have been countless theorys for the origin of species ranging from total lunacy to at least very interesting theorys.

    If you read this far congrats! It took some time reading different articles from doctors, journalist, and theologians alike to present the best explanations from both sides.

  12. Stephen: Unfortunately I don't care what the "experts" theorize. I only care what is in the Bible.

    I'm well aware that "religion encompasses areas other than the origins of the universe" but for the sake of discussing evolution, this is what were talking about, so what need is there to "inform" me of this?

    And just how is it laughable? You assume that I have done no research just because I've got a struggling baby in my lap and I didn't want to struggle with her and take the time to type it all out for you. I don't expect you to believe anything I say in any case and figured you would look it up for yourself. For your information the Big Bang Theory cannot be possible because it states that once there was nothing and nothing exploded and created time and everything around us we see today. The laws of physics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed (therefore nothing cannot explode and become something). ( ). The only true opponent to the astrologists is what is actually possible. (By the way, the Bible has always been found to be scientifically correct even when man was still saying things that weren't. I can provide examples if you want. And also, don't lump all Christians in as simply "the church". Catholics were the ones "demonizing science" as well as actual Christians who believed differently than they did... (After all, it is easier for tiny minded people to lump everything into categories of black and white). - your demeaning quote not mine, which you also fit into this category by the way.

    And what makes you believe that the universe "must have started from nothing" (aka the Big Bang, which is why I brought it up). Show me actual scientific evidence of this. Again I say it is possible that God did it all. And as for another answer to your question about seeing stars so far away, did you know that light is actually slowing down as the universe gets older? Thus making telling time by light unreliable. See this article and do some more research on it for yourself. ( ) You are very flawed in your assumptions towards me that I am a tiny minded person with blind faith who has no knowledge of science whatsoever. I have strong faith yes, but not blind faith. I believe every single word in the Bible because I have also done research and have found the Words found therein true. I see evidence daily of God's existence and find evidence daily in research as to the validity of the things in the Bible, including how scientifically accurate it is.

    I'm not saying all Evolutionists are athiest, only that they have their own religion. Evolutionists certainly aren't Christians. As a Christian you can't pick and choose what you believe about the Bible... you either take it in whole or not at all or else you are making up your own religion apart from God's Word.

    For your sake I'll explain: I'm aware that Christians don't agree on everything, and are in fact petty and drive non-believers and potential believers away because of this. I'll also have you know that the ark is already a credible story. 1'st, the Bible never said Noah had to take full grown animals, and second it never said he had to take every breed of every species (such as he didn't have to take every kind of dog). The ark was pretty huge and ANYTHING is possible with God.

  13. And until you can prove Evolution, then there is literally no such thing as "deevolution". One cannot exist without the other and I stand firm in pointing out again and again that there is not actually one single shred of evidence that Evolution exists. There is evidence of adaptation, but this is not actually to be considered evolution, or even micro evolution since evolution is one species changing into a complete different species so that they cannot and will not propagate (reproduce) together.

    And once again, I have done much research on the topic. Just because I took your word for it thinking that you just might be knowledgeable about one thing (since you brought the cave fish up in the first place) I did not research them... why? I have a job, a baby, school, and a husband to take care of. (I hardly have time to check my e-mail and as it is now there is a screaming baby in my lap as I type this to you).

  14. Once again, God created things the way they are, even in the outer reaches of the universe.

    Are you a learned scholar in the Hebrew language, or are you just taking somebody elses word for it? God can do anything, is it so hard to believe that he created an old universe? He created Adam a full grown man, not a baby. Is it too hard for you then to understand that it might have pleased Him to create an aged universe?

    First off I'm not a zealot, I'm a Bible believing Christian, (raised an Atheist growing up believing in Evolution). It's not that I ignore information presented to me, it's just that the information you present is flawed, and I could say the same thing about you that you will never, ever consider that you may be wrong because you don't want to believe in the Bible or in an almighty God.

    I'm sorry that you are no longer into being a Christian. I understand what you're saying about being into politics more and for that part most Christians are wrong and many even carry around a "holier than thou" attitude which turns non-believers and even believers away.

    And just for the record, I don't even go to church and am no "particular sect" of Christianity. I read the Bible, I believe it, and I do research and time and again see the Bible proven.

  15. My god are you that dense or do you just selectively read? You claim god created the universe from nothing. Do you forget what you write immediately after writing it? I never claimed to believe in the "big bang". History shows us that the secrets of the universe are so incredible its hard to even imagine it.

    “ And as for another answer to your question about seeing stars so far away, did you know that light is actually slowing down as the universe gets older? Thus making telling time by light unreliable. See this article and do some more research on it for yourself.”

    That is one of the highly bias articles I read and the author is one of the "experts" I mentioned. That site also claims greenhouse gasses have no effect, fire breathing dragons once existed, and were herbivores. He also supports the genetic devolution of the human race (and logically other creatures). It is absurd to believe that that minister McMurtry, with a doctorate in bible science, or some other theistic bible college degree, has a better grasp of math and physics, (especially concerning light speed) than Einstein and the like.

    Until you show me something that isn’t from a Christian web site or taken directly off of Wikipedia you have no credibility. Wikipedia is highly edited and changes almost daily by people with differing opinions. So insulting me for having faulty facts is asinine.

    I thought all you had to do to be a Christian was accept you’re a sinner and Jesus died for your sins. Not believe every single word and story in the bible is literally what happened. You should be ashamed.

    The ark was about half the size of an aircraft carrier and nowhere near as tall. And you’re actually claiming that he stuffed every animal on there with enough food to last for at least a year, if he took juveniles some of the animals would not be of breeding age. Then when the animals left the ark the predatory animals didn’t attack prey animals?

    Once again I DO NOT DENIE ANYTHING INCLUDING GOD, I am not that single minded.

    Here are a few references on the different definitions of day and age or yom, including one from your favorite website. The whole of the bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek, into Latin and German, and finally into English. However there were many versions based on who translated them, and the King James Bible was constructed from at least six different versions.

    I proposed that god would have had to create the universe with age, but you cant know how old how old it is.

    I am not attack you for your beliefs or your domestic situation, it is incomprehensible to me why you would discredit your own explanation for a awe inspiring event like the creation of the universe, by removing it from mainstream science. That is why Intelligent Design is trying to close the gap and why people in westernized countries are giving up religion for a secular society, even though most people believe there is a god or accept the possibility.

  16. Stephan: I wrote AKA THE BIG BANG for a reason, because I was referring to the big bang because what you say sounds an awful lot like you are referring to the theory. If I said that it couldn't have started from nothing (as in God made it from nothing) I would have put that. I'll look up some other "non Christian" articles for you.

    You should be ashamed for putting words into my mouth. I never said you HAD to believe every word in the Bible to be a Christian. In fact there are Christians who have never even seen a Bible or opened up one if they had one. I only said that you had to take the Bible in whole, not in part, or else you are making up your own religion.

    As for the ark, I claim nothing except what the Bible claims. God provided food for the Israelites daily when they left Egypt with Moses... do you think he couldn't replenish the food on the Ark? Is he not powerful enough to do this? And a cubit was A LOT bigger then than it was now, making the ark A LOT bigger than people assume it to have been. And since God wanted Noah to pack all those animals on board in order to save them, don't you think he would make it so the animals had time to spread out and reproduce instead of just letting them kill each other off right there? God isn't stupid as you make him out to be sometimes.

    The King James Bible was not constructed from six different versions. I've done a lot of research on this. Read "Final Authority" by William Grady, who has done extensive research on the topic of the translation of the various Bibles including the King James.

    We can know how old "old" is. The Bible tells us it's around 6,000-7,000 years.

    Again, you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you were attacking my beliefs or my domestic situation. As far as I'm concerned we are having a conversation on the topic.

    I have not discredited my explanation, and have in no way removed it from "mainstream science."

  17. I can tell how much research you have done, because you haven't read those articles. I guess I'm going to have to remind you.

    "Evolutionists certainly aren't Christians."

    The ark is approximately 515 feet long.

    There are many other sites with the same information.

    You brought up your personal life not me.

    "I have not discredited my explanation, and have in no way removed it from "mainstream science.""

    So is it a religion or theory?

    If its religion like you previously stated. Then how is apart of mainstream science?

  18. How can you possibly say how long the ark is? You can't know for certain how long a cubit was back in Noah's day. Most people give the dimensions of the ark by making a cubit equal to 18 inches. However, the cubit is based on the length between the tip of the middle finger and the elbow. Ancient cubits were different sizes but most were from 20 to 22 inches long. Only the smallest cubit was about 18 inches. Consider this. What if the standard cubit in Noah’s day was determined by the arms of the giants who lived in the earth? At least, the cubit was very likely longer than 18 inches. Measured with 18-inch cubits, the ark is still a very large ship. The three stories of the ark would have over 100,000 square feet of approximately 2 1/3 acres. If some of the rooms (Genesis 6:14) were built as cages on top of one another (the stories averaged 15 or more feet high), then much more space would have been available.

    Also, some animals are able to go into hibernation when called upon to do so, and thus require both less space and less food, and seeing as how anything is possible with God, it is possible that they were put into hibernation since God took so much care to bring them to Noah in the first place so that they could be preserved.

    And yes, I did bring up my personal life, but I never claimed you were attacking it or my beliefs, and I wish you would not put words in my mouth claiming that I claimed that.

    I fail to see how I "discredit my explanation." Scriptures are pretty specific and by using scriptures I in no way discredit my faith. The Bible can be religion and science both. The Bible is consistently scientifically accurate, and has not been found to be inaccurate. No scientist can prove the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate.

  19. Prove me wrong, so far you havent shown anything but bias articles.

    You have made outlandish claims with nothing to back it up except that its in the bible, and you know that the earth is 6000 years old, that dinosaurs lived alongside man, that Noah built an Ark big enough for millions of species of animals(considering you dont buy the devolution theory) and his whole family of giants(the animals would be much larger too did you forget ratios?).

    Do you believe in firebreathing dragons too? Like the kook in the article you posted previously. You said you would find some real proof for your claims.

    The bible says a lot thing, it talks about going to church, and what foods you should eat. It also talks about beating and killing slaves, adulterers, and homosexuals.

    How was the King James bible, constructed? Did they roll a die to figure out which books to leave in and which ones to take out?

    What do you have to say about all of these christians that disagree with you? Are they not christians?

  20. Read this articles about the Ark:
    This article exlpains how big the ark was and how it was possible to fit all the neccessary species on board:

    About dinosaurs: Scientists tell us that dinosaurs weren't known to man until a few hundred years ago... and yet there are cave drawings and artwork, and pottery that date back thousands of years ago that depict dinosaurs... not only that but dinosaurs and man interacting together.

    Read these articles about Dinosaurs living alongside man:

    Don't forget to click on the cave drawing pic on this one:

    Lots of pics:

    Dino and human prints in the same layer of strata:

    What exactly do you believe a dragon is? ... could it be... a dinosaur? The description of dragons sounds like a dinosaur to me... a giant lizard... just another example that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted.

    Show me where the Bible says to beat and kill slaves, homosexuals, and adulturers. Give me scriptures or else your claims are false.

    Read my article on the King James, and then find the link on my page to where you can read the book "Final Authority" By William Grady... I don't have time to explain to you how the King James was made. The books that were left out were done so because they were obviously not inspired by God and mismatched the rest of the books... for example the book of Enoch which was very unscientific... not only was it obvious that none of it was true because it wasn't scientifically true, but it also contradicted the rest of the scriptures in such a way that it was ridiculous. All books of the Bible are scientifically accurate and cannot be proven otherwise.

    The definition of a Christian (from 1: of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith. 2: exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
    8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

  21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  22. Stephan, if you want a response to your previous comment, you will need to rewrite it without cuss words (which is why I deleted it). This is a child friendly site and any comments with cursing get deleted promptly.

  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Hello, and thank you for leaving a comment.

Comments are moderated. We will not publish comments with:
Spam, profanity, off topic comments, hate mail, links to your website that were not asked for.

Thank you very much and blessings!


Welcome to Christian Bible Study Blog. Feel free to browse our Bible studies, articles, study tools, support store, and more. We want to provide you with valuable resources.

Check back often for new articles and studies!