Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

There is absolutely no other way to put this: Cambell is fascinating & its no use arguing with him. Ditto for That Sword of God. In fact, they truly are brothers in monothiesm.

Why do I say that? it is based on slew of data provided in these columns which is totally ignored by these two. If I go through past threads:

- both bible and evolution need to be subjected to the same rigorous investigation.

- The Theory of Evolution keeps changing becase we keep discovering new stuff. That is what life is all about: discovering new stuff. Tomorrow it can be proven wrong and we should accept it because our loyalty is towards the search for truth not to a theory or to a scripture. BOTH THE SCRIPTURE AND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CAN BE WRONG BUT THE PROCESS OF OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION CANNOT BE WRONG.

- There is justification for Creation in the argument that the DNA is a language and language can only come from intelligence. But more investigation and thinking is required.

- There is justification for Evolution because we see it happening in from of our eyes as organisms mutate to survive. But more investigation is required.

- There is justification for the theory that a flood occured 10000 years ago at the ending of the ice age.

- There is no justificaiton that a Noah ever existed. I have heard similar flood myths from all over the world including India.

- There is no justification for the belief that man and dinasaurs co-existed. This belief came forth only after dinasaurs existence was irrefutable. Before that the Bibleguys claimed that dinasaur fossils were put by god to test our faith.

- In Campbells latest list against evolution, yes the Piltdown Man was a fake and we've known that since I was in school. AND THAT FAKE WAS DISCOVERED AS A RESULT OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION. THE BIBLE, THE TURIN SHROUD, ETC NEEDS TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME SCOENTIFIC INVESTIGATION. (However, Neanderthals dod not exist? Lucy is a fake? This man is incredible).

- There is no justification for any of the items in the bible that were removed from there by Jefferson in his Jeffersonian Bible. Each of them fails in proof including the latest assertion by Mr.Campbell on a three day darkness when his god died. There was similar darkness when gods died all over the world in various religions. For gods sake, at least be original.

So my conclusion is, the mans cannot be argued with. Like Sword of god and it is a useless endevour to argue with them. However, they are a fascinating study. I therefore sit here these days, largely to study their mindsets.

Neanderthals are fakes in that they are not human ancestors.

BBC NEWS March 29, 2000
Modern humans do not have Neanderthal ancestors in their family tree, a new DNA study concludes.
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Neanderthals not human ancestors

Lucy is also a fake in that they are now telling us Lucy was not a transitional. Lucy is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee or bonobo.

And if there was similar darkness when other Gods died, can you show us that in any historical records like I showed you in the Roman records?

scientists do not claim that neandethals are ancestors to man!

furthermore what exactly do you think a "Transitional" is? I am under the impression that you think that there are 'complete' species and transitionals in between to connect them, this belief however is wrong!

all species are transitioanls since all species have evolved to new species, with the exception of current species since they are the most recent product of evolution, but in time they too will yield more species....do you understand?

OH PLEASE, scientist have been claiming for years that Neanderthals are ancestors, in fact they were telling me this crap in my biology class back in 1967.

I agree Adam. Mr. Campbell is facinating. I bet it hasn't been long since he found out the Earth was round. The Flat Earth Society last until a few years ago. Trying to prove something to Mr. Campbell is like pouring water on a duck's back. As soon as you point out something to him he goes on to something else, not related. Adam, this is the way fundamentalist are. They are taught never to give up and never to let another person have the last word. They are slowly loosing the battle, but it is a long war. I bet Campbell won't allow his children to read our posts.

As soon as you people point out something to him(Campbell34) he goes on to something else? Give me a break, your the one's who suddely get silent, and in your case Thomas, you do a disappearing act.

Also two new conformations of the Bible.

1. Book of Job stated that dinosaurs had scales for skin. Just to day in the news was a report of a new dinosaur discovery. Dinosaur was mummified. The skin of the dinosaur was made up of scales, which confirms the Job account.

2. For years non believers in the Bible said the Ark of the Covanant which the Bible speaks about was just a myth, the Ark was said to of disappeared about 3,000 years ago. Two days ago, the nation of Ethiopia has announced that they have the real Ark of the Covanant.

1. Book of Job stated that dinosaurs had scales for skin. Just to day in the news was a report of a new dinosaur discovery. Dinosaur was mummified. The skin of the dinosaur was made up of scales, which confirms the Job account.

"Although it is described as "mummified," the 65 million-year-old duckbilled dinosaur that scientists have named Dakota bears no similarity to the leather-skinned human mummies retrieved from ancient tombs in Egypt. Time long ago transformed Dakota's soft tissue into mineralized rock, preserving it for the ages."

From: washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Secondly, the Bible mentions the "Leviathan" and "Behemoth". I will assume for this argument that you speak of the Behemoth. The whole cedar tail swaying line, etc. Okay, he describes something that sounds like a dinosaur. Wouldn't there be SEVERAL of these critters roaming about... making them commonplace? Why only the mention of ONE "Behemoth"?

He could also be speaking of a dragon. Remember, we have carvings, art and figurines of dragons. I'm guessing that dragons are real now. Too bad I can't get one today

The Bible is not a Book about dinosaurs, and when God was speaking to Job he was just asking him to consider one of his works. The scales were mention in Job 41 verses 14 to 17. And this was the Leviathan.
Who can open the doors of his face his teeth (are) terrible round about. His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal, one is so near another that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.

I believe the dragons described were actually dinosaurs, and even in the Book of Job it describes the Leviathan as a beast that could breath fire.
Job 41:20- 21 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke as (out) of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals. And a flame goeth out of his mouth.
It is my understanding that they have discovered in some dinosaurs two chambers in the skull that science has not been able to understand their purpose as of yet. I believe the chambers were mixing chambers that created a chemical reaction. This would explain how the fire was created in such a beast. The Bombardier Beetle today has such a chamber built into its body, yet on a much smaller scale.

The Bible is not a Book about dinosaurs, and when God was speaking to Job he was just asking him to consider one of his works. The scales were mention in Job 41 verses 14 to 17. And this was the Leviathan.
Who can open the doors of his face his teeth (are) terrible round about. His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal, one is so near another that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.

I believe the dragons described were actually dinosaurs, and even in the Book of Job it describes the Leviathan as a beast that could breath fire.
Job 41:20- 21 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke as (out) of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals. And a flame goeth out of his mouth.
It is my understanding that they have discovered in some dinosaurs two chambers in the skull that science has not been able to understand their purpose as of yet. I believe the chambers were mixing chambers that created a chemical reaction. This would explain how the fire was created in such a beast. The Bombardier Beetle today has such a chamber built into its body, yet on a much smaller scale.

I believe this, I belive that. Man you do some believing based on little to no evidence. I guesss that is faith to a Tee,.

How on earth do you arrive at such speculative conclussions with such open disrgard for anything resembling a form of investigation? You have read a book believe everything in it, then try to fit everything into it that doesn't quite fit, but you do this by conecting some pretty way out there dots leaving yourself open for ridicule.

If one of these guys in here came a knocking stating they belived this about evolution and they believed that, you would be the first to jump down their throats with the imortal phrases of 'Prove it' and 'Where's your evidence?'

To believe there really were fire breathing dragons is a stretch of even the most deluded among us' imagination, though I guess if an invisible man in the sky is your best mate you could believe anything, except of course evolution.

Ay last Mr. Campbell, you are stating all of this wild stuff about fire breathing dinosaurs as what you believe, not as fact. I also thought that the burning mountain you tried to turn into an asterold was another one of your acts of desperation.

Tell me Thomas, when do you think Jerusalems East Gate will be opened?

Creationism is a Hypothesis and evolution is a scientific theory backed by hard evidence, that is more than just convincing. The basic concept has been proven. The question is not if evolution took place. What science is working on is how it happened. There is no evidence of any kind that creation took place in 6 days, a few thousand years ago. Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author

Present the "Hard Evidence" or empirical evidence that supports "abiogenesis".....the position that "LIFE" came into existence by some random happenstance of chance due to atoms colliding and producing "biological life" from the inert organic material found in the universe. The truth is that only "mircoevolution" is supported by "empirical evidence" and thus a valid theory....whereas "the theory of marcoevolution" is simply an idea supported by speculation and hypothesis. "Mircoevolution" is not "the theory of evolution" in fact it is the polar opposite, as "Marcoevolution" supports the "idea" that life "evolved" from non-biological organic material and has the ability to morph into a completely "different" life...I.E., man came from monkey's or apes....birds evolved from reptiles etc. While microevolution simply proves that biological life does "evolve" but only within the same species, such as that it is the DNA structure that imprints, the size, color, mass etc of any biological life form, it does not confirm either abiogenesis or marcevolution. The theory of evolution is not a study of "mircoevolution" as it is the study of DNA and "mircobiology". Macroevolution and abiogenesis is in no way proved by mircoevolution, as it does in no way confirm MARCOEVOLUTION NOR ABIOGENESIS. Simply because it is not reproducable nor observed in nature, as is mircoevolution, thus "the theory of evolution" by use of the "scientific method" is only a "hypothesis" and not a "valid theory'. In fact from 1859, when Mr. Darwin presented his "idea" of evolution, there has been no empirical evidence offered at all to support either macroevolution or abiogensis. Simply because some "imagined" artists renderings have remained in textbooks and have been updated via modern Computer Generated Graphics does not mean that this is "empirical observed, reproducable" evidence. It only means that in 150years no one has been able to present new evidence to support "macroevolution".

And it is indeed "Science" that makes its stance on what it can prove though "empirical evidence", religion does not claim to have empirical evidence(away from the actual scriptures) only faith based evidence. So, if anyone "claims" that religion is false, they must prove it with empirical evidence or simply admit that it is beyond the grasp of science to disprove. I challenge anyone to "disprove" the writings of the Holy Bible with "empirical evidence", and theory is not "empirical". As I said, one opinion does not trump another opinion, no matter how many PHd's or MDs are in front of or behind your name when presenting it. RD