Dinosaurs Never Existed!

[80sU2isBest]

This is true for the most of us i guess,....

Your point being what exactly?

 

[maycocksean]

I think the Cain question is an interesting one.

I've always believed that the Bible was inspired by God but written by men. As such they wrote in their own words and with their own understanding of the time. The message of the Bible is timeless, I believe, but the events of the Bible are rooted in the perceptions and culture of the people who wrote it.

A lot of extremism develops when people are unable to see that. I remember when I was kid and I'd read about how the people of Israel set up a stone monument to God's deliverance as they passed through the Jordan and the scripture read "and it [the monument] is still there today" and I think. . .wow, it's STILL there! Amazing! Of course now I realize that the monument might still have been there when the text was written but that certainly doesn't mean that it's still there now! At any rate I think this can apply to many Biblical statements, comments about "the whole world" (which would really reflect the whole world that the writer new of), "the sun standing still", and so on. The Bible is not meant to be a science or history textbook (though there are certainly elements of history and perhaps even science to a degree found in it ). It is a document of faith.

For this reason, I suppose it's possible that the Flood described in Genesis might not have been truly worldwide. It's possible that the Creation may have actually taken place differently than Moses perceived it. That these things may have happened differently than was understood by the writer does not bother me.

For me, I believe in the six day creation. One of the key reasons is that like 80's, I believe the concept of sin relies heavily on the concept of literal creation, since death could not have existed before sin entered the world. I realize that scientifically the weight of the evidence may lie elsewhere, but then scientifically the weight of the evidence doesn't much support the existence of God either. If I'm going to believe in God, then I'm already being "unscientific." I believe in a Being that has the power to operate outside the laws of known science, so why would I suddenly trip over a "special creation" that operates outside the findings of known science? And again this is NOT to say that God did not in fact, use some other method, some type evolution for example as part of Creation. If that turns out to be the case, then fine. It's not the end of the world (It's the beginning. . . )

 

[maycocksean]

The argument that these physicists make is that universe itself is condusive to the stability of matter and energy at this point in time and that if any physical constant was a little different then this wouldn't be possible; you will find that the arguments they are making are not pleas to God rather ones to the anthropic principle - if the universe wasn't the way it is then it wouldn't be the way it is and we wouldn't be around to see it.

You're really going to tell me that the quotes Aeon mentioned wherein the phycists specifically mention God are not actually pleas to God or a Creator? Come on now. . .

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I don't take it half-heartedly, I don't accept it at all.

And if one doesn't accept that tale then the concept of original sin goes out the window and the rest of the theology unwinds - who needs a saviour when they don't need to be saved?

I have read a good deal of evidence on the subject, I have had the opportunity to get hands on with the evidence -the objectivity of science means we must try and disregard assumptions; Dinosaur fossils make perfect sense in the context of vertebrate evolution over the last 250 million years - the finds coming out of China of feathered therapods and transitional forms are the evidence of dinosaurs evolving into birds that has been expected for some time now.

Unfortunately, Darwinists spent the 20th century extensively researching for evidence to back up the theory of random mutations that evolve into an entirely different species. They found no species in the entire 20th century that mutated into a different physical being. Granted, I'm sure we all accept that there are changes in the gene pool. Science supports it, as does the book of Genesis. That's not the argument. Genetic mutations from ape to man is the argument. But because no evidence was found, the Darwinists insisted that an entire century was not enough time for them to gather this evidence. Could it be another reason for the Darwinists to insist that the earth is possibly billions of years old?

Would the book of Genesis survive the test of time if it claimed that dinosaurs existed before we discovered them?

There is merit in the findings of "dinosaur-like" fossils that have been found in places like India and China, not far from the findings of human remains. I wouldn't discredit the view that mankind once lived amongst the dinosaurs so easily, given the findings in our lifetime.

Are Dinosaurs Really Extinct?
Taken from the writings of Ken Ham
(While you may not agree with him on all things scientific, he's a good Australian, nonetheless. )

One cannot prove an organism is extinct without having knowledge of every part of the Earth’s surface simultaneously. Experts have been embarrassed when, after having declared animals extinct, they were discovered alive and well. For example, explorers recently found elephants in Nepal that have many features of mammoths.

Scientists in Australia found some living trees that they thought had become extinct with the dinosaurs. One scientist said, ‘… it was like finding a “live dinosaur.” ’

When scientists find animals or plants they thought were extinct long ago, they call them ‘living fossils.’ There are hundreds of ‘living fossils,’ a big embarrassment for those who believe in millions of years of Earth history.

Explorers and natives in Africa have reported sighting dinosaur-like creatures, even recently.

These have usually been confined to out-of-the-way places such as lakes deep in the Congo jungles. Descriptions certainly fit those of dinosaurs.

Cave paintings by native Americans seem to depict a dinosaur—scientists accept the mammoth drawings in the cave, so why not the dinosaur drawings? Evolutionary indoctrination that man did not live at the same time as dinosaurs stops most scientists from even considering that the drawings are of dino saurs.It certainly would be no embarrassment to a creationist if some one discovered a dinosaur living in a jungle. However, this should embarrass evolutionists.

And no, we could not clone a dinosaur, as in the movie Jurassic Park, even if we had dinosaur DNA. We would also need a living female dinosaur. Scientists have found that to clone an animal they need an egg of a living female, as there is ‘machinery’ in the cyto plasm of the egg that is necessary for the new creature to develop.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think the Cain question is an interesting one.
I realize that scientifically the weight of the evidence may lie elsewhere, but then scientifically the weight of the evidence doesn't much support the existence of God either. If I'm going to believe in God, then I'm already being "unscientific." I believe in a Being that has the power to operate outside the laws of known science, so why would I suddenly trip over a "special creation" that operates outside the findings of known science?

These are my beliefs, also, though I've never worded it as well as you have done here.

Good job!

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Jonathan Wells is another great skeptic if you haven't heard of him. He has two phDs - one in biological science and one in theology.

This article is a must if you love good satire, especially if you haven't heard any on why Darwinism should not have a monopoly in science class.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/whatever_happened_to_evolution.html

Just as students learn that scientists used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and maggots are spontaneously generated in rotting meat, so students also learn that scientists used to believe that human beings evolved through random mutations and natural selection.

 

[Devlin]

It's kind of like the whole Men have one less rib than women thoery that's passed around in Christianity.
Absolutely not true (as proven by any number of autopsies done on many a cadaver for manya reason) and yet, you'll get a lot of Christians who will refer to the creation of eve by using one of Adam's ribs. Logically, it doesn't make sense, but.. I've come to find that not much of it is logical.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

It's kind of like the whole Men have one less rib than women thoery that's passed around in Christianity.
Absolutely not true (as proven by any number of autopsies done on many a cadaver for manya reason) and yet, you'll get a lot of Christians who will refer to the creation of eve by using one of Adam's ribs. Logically, it doesn't make sense, but.. I've come to find that not much of it is logical.

I don't find the Piltdown Man to be logical, yet it's somehow logical to presume a monopoly of Darwinism in the classroom. "Science" has had a fraudulent past.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't find the Piltdown Man to be logical, yet it's somehow logical to presume a monopoly of Darwinism in the classroom. "Science" has had a fraudulent past.

And science exposed that hoax, there is more to palaeoanthropology than a single debunked specimen.

 

[cujo]

Hey hey! Let's play telephone for the extent of recorded history. I'll wager we can spontaneously generate a few dozen purple monkey dishwashers. Oops, I mean purple monkey wash basins.

I don't want to offend those of us who are pro-handwashers (myself included).

 

[melon]

Unfortunately, Darwinists spent the 20th century extensively researching for evidence to back up the theory of random mutations that evolve into an entirely different species. They found no species in the entire 20th century that mutated into a different physical being. Granted, I'm sure we all accept that there are changes in the gene pool. Science supports it, as does the book of Genesis. That's not the argument. Genetic mutations from ape to man is the argument. But because no evidence was found, the Darwinists insisted that an entire century was not enough time for them to gather this evidence. Could it be another reason for the Darwinists to insist that the earth is possibly billions of years old?

Would the book of Genesis survive the test of time if it claimed that dinosaurs existed before we discovered them?

There is merit in the findings of "dinosaur-like" fossils that have been found in places like India and China, not far from the findings of human remains. I wouldn't discredit the view that mankind once lived amongst the dinosaurs so easily, given the findings in our lifetime.

Ugh. "Darwinists"? Try scientists.

Secondly, evolution takes place over thousands and millions of years, not a century; that's why "no species in the entire 20th century...mutated into a different physical being." Evidence of mutations that lead to evolution have been more than discovered, and we have genetic and fossil evidence, amongst other substantial scientific evidence, to show the progression of evolution. At this point, the only people who don't believe in evolution are the willfully blind, because it is about as safe as the theory of gravity--that is, the details of what causes gravity are apt to change, but the notion of gravity itself is never going to go away.

Third, Genesis is complete bunk. If "Darwinism" is ever substantially modified in our scientific future, it will be modified with science. Creationism, according to Genesis, was disproven decades ago, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that fact. It also doesn't help that "Adam and Eve" seem to be a completely bastardized retelling of the Sumerian creation myth, as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

If people want to believe that God created the world, either as a literal retelling of Genesis or through some form of "intelligent design," then so be it. However, as the notion of God can never be observed scientifically, it has absolutely no place in science. It is wholly in the realm of religion, and I'll leave the debate between young earth creationism, intelligent design, and theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) to church.

And dinosaurs never lived with humans. Ever.

Melon

 

[DreamOutLoud13]

For this reason, I suppose it's possible that the Flood described in Genesis might not have been truly worldwide. It's possible that the Creation may have actually taken place differently than Moses perceived it. That these things may have happened differently than was understood by the writer does not bother me.

The great thing about the deluge is that stories of it exist in many vastly different ancient civilizations. Maybe it's mostly just a sort of "urban legend" in ancient history.

But if you consider that the flood only covered a small area, Noah's flood does have some basis in Scientific fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_(mythology)#Local_Flood_Theory

A theory that found support with archaeologists Max Mallowan and Leonard Woolley is the local flood theory that links the Ancient Near East flood myths to one specific river flood of the Euphrates River that has been radio-carbon dated to about 2900 BC at the end of the Jemdet Nasr Period. The Epic of Atrahasis tablet III,iv, lines 6-9 clearly identifies the flood as a local river flood: "Like dragonflies they [dead bodies] have filled the river. Like a raft they have moved in to the edge [of the boat]. Like a raft they have moved in to the riverbank." The WB-444 Sumerian king list places the flood after the reign of Ziusudra, the flood hero in the Epic of Ziusudra that has numerous parallels to the other flood stories. According to archaeologist Max Mallowan [6] the Genesis flood "was based on a real event which may have occurred in about 2900 BC... at the beginning of the Early Dynastic period."

 

[melon]

This article is a must if you love good satire, especially if you haven't heard any on why Darwinism should not have a monopoly in science class.

Science should have a monopoly in science class. Factual studies like math and science are not open to mob rule.

"Intelligent design" is not science. It cannot be declared a "scientific theory," just because a bunch of Christians came together one day and decided it to be so. ID proponents, as such, show an utter lack of understanding of the scientific process. No matter what you want to call it, ID is a theology with psueudoscientific elements, designed to infiltrate science with religion. Nothing more.

If ID proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to work through the scientific process; but it doesn't help that the core of it is not verifiable. Why "God"? Why not the Sumerian goddess, Ninhursag? Why not a leprechaun at the end of the rainbow? Because all three are equally unverifiable.

Contrary to all the FUD, science makes no statement on God, one way or another. It makes no opinion on God's existence or non-existence, because that's a question that science doesn't care to answer, since God does not exist in the concrete realm. Science deals solely with concrete evidence and observation, coupled with scientific theory that is backed up with concrete mathematics. If people wish to fill the blanks with God, they can do it on their own time.

Melon

 

[BVS]

I actually feel sorry for those who deny or ignore science...

 

[martha]

I actually feel sorry for those who deny or ignore science...

Especially when it comes to medical care.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Unfortunately, Darwinists spent the 20th century extensively researching for evidence to back up the theory of random mutations that evolve into an entirely different species. They found no species in the entire 20th century that mutated into a different physical being.

Thats right, I am not going to mutate into a different human being - but my offspring will be different than I am and will experience selection on their reproductive success just as I do. Sex is great at producing variation - much quicker than just waiting for an advantageous mutation..

Granted, I'm sure we all accept that there are changes in the gene pool. Science supports it, as does the book of Genesis. That's not the argument.

Yes it is, it is the mutations and upset development pathways that enable speciation; if you accept genetic drift (i.e. neutral mutations at random times) then it is a natural concequence that beneficial mutations will be selected for and speciation will occur - you need a mechanism for that not to happen to maintain static life on Earth.[/quote]Genetic mutations from ape to man is the argument.[/quote]Yes, and the great thing about comparative DNA studies is that we can see how much we have in common with other apes and where the differences lie on a genetic level. Turns out we are more closely related to Chimps than we are to Monkeys - just as we would expect.

But because no evidence was found, the Darwinists insisted that an entire century was not enough time for them to gather this evidence.

Neanderthal man, Cro Magnon man, Homo Errectus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis etc. The fossil and molecular evidence from these finds all lend credence to Evolution.

Could it be another reason for the Darwinists to insist that the earth is possibly billions of years old?

The Earths Age is constrained on the basis of radioisotopes inside minerals, the oldest Zircons we have go back well over 4 billion years. But heres the rub, life may have started early (~3.9Ga) but we didn't see any real animals until the Ediacaran and we only started seeing significant hard bodied organisms in the Cambrian (543 Million Years Ago) and it took until around 360 Mya for the first tetrapods to crawl onto land. Human evolution is constrained to only a few million years before present from a common ancestor of other apes, the fossil evidence supports this as does the genetic evidence (the degree of relatedness). The age of the Earth was not invented to allow evolution to occur it is a fact derived through the application of physics and chemistry independently that just happens to support the timescales required for evolution to occur (remember that Darwin had problems with the speed of evolution because in the 19th Century the age of the Earth was a mystery).

Would the book of Genesis survive the test of time if it claimed that dinosaurs existed before we discovered them?

No because we would still have evidence for the formation of the world, but you would have discovered proof of time travel. which would be great.

There is merit in the findings of "dinosaur-like" fossils that have been found in places like India and China, not far from the findings of human remains. I wouldn't discredit the view that mankind once lived amongst the dinosaurs so easily, given the findings in our lifetime.

Define dinosaur like? Bird bones are dinosaur bones and we get them to this day, they are however distinctive due to the fusing of the hand and foot bones.

The other important fact to consider is that you may be dealing with an unconformity in the rock so you have erroded away the surface to a level containing dinosaur bones and then later on you bury human remains in a new deposit - obviously this unconformity is detectable on the basis of what microfossils and pollen are present in each bed and the cutting off of sedimentary structures. All the evidence we have accumulated points to humans appearing over 60 million years after Dinosaurs went extinct.

 

[trevster2k]

Especially when it comes to medical care.

Anyone remember the stance taken towards test tube babies back in the early days? It was before the internet and I was too young to give a crap or pay attention. I have wondered what the positions of the political parties and churches were back then especially since fertility treatments have now become almost routine and there are tons of people running around thanks to that scientific endeavour.

 

[yolland]

I'm arriving a little late for that particular phase of the discussion but I wanted to toss in my two cents on a couple of the questions 80s raised. While it's impossible to know how the illiterate majority perceived the creation narrative(s) in Jesus' day, in rabbinic discourse at least, it would not have been considered strange or heretical to cite an allegorical interpretation of some particular scriptural passage as support for a legal opinion. Interpreting narrative passages of scripture allegorically or symbolically, or using embellishments drawn from midrashic lore, was quite acceptable, and various Talmudic commentators advanced various exegetical and hermeneutical rules and procedures for doing this. To cite one example pertinent to Genesis, in one Talmudic passage on the topic of whether it's permissible to graft together different types of grass, one rabbi rules that Yes, it's the "nature" of grasses to mix together, then justifies this by appealing to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 as depicting God "creating" each thing in accord with the form it "chose" to take. Quoting Gen. 2:1 he concludes, " ' The heavens and the earth were finished, and all צְבָאָם ' -- for צְבָאָם may also be read 'in their chosen forms' " (i.e., tzivanam, "in the forms they chose" as opposed to the usual reading of צְבָאָם as tziva'am,"in their array"). Two other rabbis concur; a third objects that since God nonetheless "agreed to" each type of grass individually, therefore surely it's wrong for man to fuse them himself.

( I can't believe a passage about grafting grass was the one that came most clearly to mind for me out of all the ones I could've picked!)

Anyhow, obviously this doesn't resolve one way or the other how literally either Jesus or the particular Pharisees he's addressing understood the creation narrative(s), but the point is that even if he had indicated he didn't (for example) take the creation of Eve from Adam's "rib" literally, that by itself wouldn't have caused the Pharisees to attack his "ruling"--what they really wanted was to get him to take sides in their own disputes over divorce, and he parries back in true rabbinic fashion, countering their attempt to force his focus on Deuteronomy 24 by firing back his own unique take on Genesis 1-2. From my POV, this passage--or more correctly, the version of it in Matthew 19, where Jesus qualifies his position (for his disciples' ears only) as "whoever divorces his wife, except for ' porneia ', and marries another commits adultery"--is of interest because it indicates that Jesus in fact sided with the Shammaite Pharisees, who dominated the Sanhedrin in the years of his ministry, rather than with the Hillellite Pharisees who dominated it in his youth (Hillel died around 20 AD), on the specific issue of divorce. (I've left porneia untranslated because I realize that Catholics and *most* Protestants disagree with each other intensely on its meaning here, but that's beside the point--point being, he clearly rejected the Hillelite case for interpreting Deuteronomy 24 broadly in favor of the Shammaite case for interpreting it as "ONE exception only.") Which leads me, at least, to wonder if these Pharisees who approached him might've been suspicious Shammaites (or, alternatively, hopeful Hillelites) to whom he didn't want to give the satisfaction of his assent--Jesus being an "independent" with, IMHO, nonetheless noticeably Hillelite leanings overall, in a time when ferocious partisanship characterized relations between the two camps.

 

[Devlin]

I don't find the Piltdown Man to be logical, yet it's somehow logical to presume a monopoly of Darwinism in the classroom. "Science" has had a fraudulent past.

..and that still doesn't disprove the fact (yes, FACT: try opening the chest cavity of a man and a woman and counting their ribs) that men do NOT have one less rib than women. That's just all too easy to prove; it doens't require much.

 

[80sU2isBest]

..and that still doesn't disprove the fact (yes, FACT: try opening the chest cavity of a man and a woman and counting their ribs) that men do NOT have one less rib than women. That's just all too easy to prove; it doens't require much.

Did you ever open Adam's chest to see how many ribs he had?

 

[Muggsy]

well... that rib story is just a way to justificate the inferiority of women in the society. besides, (maybe the people who knows best about this can help me ) as long as i've heard, human embryos are female if they don't receive the hormones who will turn then in to male beings. so... in some way women came first?

besides... i didn't paid 3 bucks for seeing a giant farm chicken

* if you really think I wasted my money.... I can accept checks * LOL

 

[AEON]

well... that rib story is just a way to justificate the inferiority of women in the society.

Do you really believe that? Or were you just kidding?

I simply think it is the author's way of saying we are of the same physical and spiritual essence.

 

[AEON]

I'm arriving a little late for that particular phase of the discussion but I wanted to toss in my two cents on a couple of the questions 80s raised. While it's impossible to know how the illiterate majority perceived the creation narrative(s) in Jesus' day, in rabbinic discourse at least, it would not have been considered strange or heretical to cite an allegorical interpretation of some particular scriptural passage as support for a legal opinion. Interpreting narrative passages of scripture allegorically or symbolically, or using embellishments drawn from midrashic lore, was quite acceptable, and various Talmudic commentators advanced various exegetical and hermeneutical rules and procedures for doing this. To cite one example pertinent to Genesis, in one Talmudic passage on the topic of whether it's permissible to graft together different types of grass, one rabbi rules that Yes, it's the "nature" of grasses to mix together, then justifies this by appealing to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 as depicting God "creating" each thing in accord with the form it "chose" to take. Quoting Gen. 2:1 he concludes, " ' The heavens and the earth were finished, and all צְבָאָם ' -- for צְבָאָם may also be read 'in their chosen forms' " (i.e., tzivanam, "in the forms they chose" as opposed to the usual reading of צְבָאָם as tziva'am,"in their array"). Two other rabbis concur; a third objects that since God nonetheless "agreed to" each type of grass individually, therefore surely it's wrong for man to fuse them himself.

( I can't believe a passage about grafting grass was the one that came most clearly to mind for me out of all the ones I could've picked!)

Anyhow, obviously this doesn't resolve one way or the other how literally either Jesus or the particular Pharisees he's addressing understood the creation narrative(s), but the point is that even if he had indicated he didn't (for example) take the creation of Eve from Adam's "rib" literally, that by itself wouldn't have caused the Pharisees to attack his "ruling"--what they really wanted was to get him to take sides in their own disputes over divorce, and he parries back in true rabbinic fashion, countering their attempt to force his focus on Deuteronomy 24 by firing back his own unique take on Genesis 1-2. From my POV, this passage--or more correctly, the version of it in Matthew 19, where Jesus qualifies his position (for his disciples' ears only) as "whoever divorces his wife, except for ' porneia ', and marries another commits adultery"--is of interest because it indicates that Jesus in fact sided with the Shammaite Pharisees, who dominated the Sanhedrin in the years of his ministry, rather than with the Hillellite Pharisees who dominated it in his youth (Hillel died around 20 AD), on the specific issue of divorce. (I've left porneia untranslated because I realize that Catholics and *most* Protestants disagree with each other intensely on its meaning here, but that's beside the point--point being, he clearly rejected the Hillelite case for interpreting Deuteronomy 24 broadly in favor of the Shammaite case for interpreting it as "ONE exception only.") Which leads me, at least, to wonder if these Pharisees who approached him might've been suspicious Shammaites (or, alternatively, hopeful Hillelites) to whom he didn't want to give the satisfaction of his assent--Jesus being an "independent" with, IMHO, nonetheless noticeably Hillelite leanings overall, in a time when ferocious partisanship characterized relations between the two camps.

Thanks for another wonderful insight Yolland! There is some material here I can use in my next Bible Study

 

[melon]

as long as i've heard, human embryos are female if they don't receive the hormones who will turn then in to male beings.

You're correct. Fetuses are, by default, female in function and appearance, even if a Y chromosome is present. Now the presence of the Y is supposed to trigger an intricate sequence of hormone releases in both the mother and the fetus. However, genetic mutations in the mother or the fetus can render that process ineffective, thus leading to the presence of the "XY female." This person is wholly female in appearance, including the lack of a penis and a shallow vagina, while being genetically male.

This does throw in quite a wrench into that Adam and Eve creation myth.

Melon

 

[AEON]

You're correct. Fetuses are, by default, female in function and appearance, even if a Y chromosome is present. Now the presence of the Y is supposed to trigger an intricate sequence of hormone releases in both the mother and the fetus. However, genetic mutations in the mother or the fetus can render that process ineffective, thus leading to the presence of the "XY female." This person is wholly female in appearance, including the lack of a penis and a shallow vagina, while being genetically male.

This does throw in quite a wrench into that Adam and Eve creation myth.

Melon

How so? Let's assume the story of Adam and Eve is true. Wouldn't the Fall explain any genetic mutations?

 

[melon]

How so? Let's assume the story of Adam and Eve is true. Wouldn't the Fall explain any genetic mutations?

It doesn't change the fact that, in short, "men come from women," not the other way around. That's not a genetic mutation.

Melon

 

[AEON]

It doesn't change the fact that, in short, "men come from women," not the other way around. That's not a genetic mutation.

Melon

But the story in Genesis doesn't contradict that men come from women (Adam and Eve were created - not born.) Cain and Able are sons that were born from Eve.

The Creation event in Genesis was a one time event. Childbirth is an ongoing event as a result of the Fall.

I don't see how childbirth alone "debunks" the story of Adam and Eve. I'm not saying you have to believe it - I'm just saying that your logic seems a bit flawed here.

 

[Muggsy]

Do you really believe that? Or were you just kidding?

I simply think it is the author's way of saying we are of the same physical and spiritual essence.

if it were so... why the author didn't write that God created man and woman at the same time? He's God, it wouldn't be that hard

Lore.

 

[Justin24]

* if you really think I wasted my money.... I can accept checks * LOL

What about Paypal.

God could have been some kid who said I like reptiles and made the huge creatures to walk around and then got bored of them and then Boom. Dinosaurs existed before humans and I don't think that the later people would have known.

I mean if you think about it we have people say how did the egyptians build the pyramids, or this and that. It's like we have our minds erased on all previous knowladge.

 

[BVS]

I don't see how childbirth alone "debunks" the story of Adam and Eve. I'm not saying you have to believe it - I'm just saying that your logic seems a bit flawed here.

You missed his point, it wasn't about childbirth.