The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[buffalo]

Science only attempts to pursue a part of the truth, it does not attempt to pursue all of the truth. By limiting itself to the material arena it has been very successful and made great progress. I agree that it does exclude the miraculous, or rather it replaces it with “We don’t know” or possibly, “We don’t know yet, but we are working on it.”

Abiogenesis research is currently in the “We know some of it but we don’t know all of it and we are working to fill the gaps” stage. None of the parts we know require any miracles, they are just chemistry. There are no indications that any of the parts we don’t yet know will present an insurmountable obstacle.

There are other forms of truth that are not part of science, for instance art criticism or history. Science gains much of its power from being a specialist in a narrow area.

You have a very strange definition of ‘religion’.

I assume you are referring to your post #1195. He appears to underestimate the potential for self organising chemical systems and also, once life has started, the potential for evolution to extract information from the environment and incorporate it into the genomes of organisms living in that environment.

From what we can see, life on Earth appears to have (re)started within a few hundred million years of the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment. That would indicate that life can arise relatively easily. When we have a more complete picture of the mechanisms of abiogenesis then we will be able to make more accurate calculations of the probability of it happening. At the moment we do not have enough information to make any accurate calculations so any such calculations are more a matter of personal opinion than of science. All we can be sure of is that life on Earth did originate because we are here now.

rossum

If life can arise easily it should have here. We should see various forms of life - we do not. We see all life is related at the core.

You are dreaming to know all you do about science to make that comment - “life can arise relatively easily.” I have to ask what are you smoking?

 

[itinerant1]

It takes a huge jump in faith to believe as you do. I therefore congratulate you and your friends in your newly established religion, one of some 30,000 plus since Martin Luther.
Incredibly specific, Bang

:yawn:

 

[edwest2]

That is not exactly the situation. Science traces one specificity to another, and another, etc.

Science does not deal with the ultimate cause of the order in the universe, an order which is presumed and which makes science itself possible.

Order and design in the universe do not justify postulating special interventions by God. In an manner analogous to the relation of creation and conservation, the primordial design laid out be God as he creates, is implemented without any new particular “designs” applied by Him.

Matter contains everything it needs to carry out the designs of the Creator. This is the Intelligent Project.

By not allowing matter, which is very specific, the ability to carry out the Divine Plan of creation, which may include abiognesis, ID theory deviates from the Catholic understanding of Creation, and it deviates from any sound philosophical analysis of nature, not to mention it is a science killer.

“science killer”? What nonsense. What absolute nonsense.

“Other scientists have noted how materialistic evolutionary theories have impeded scientific progress in the study of the genome. In 2002, Richard von Sterberg reported extensive evidence for functional junk-DNA, noting that ‘neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes’ and concluding that ‘the selfish DNA narrative and allied frameworks must join the other “icons” of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory that, despite their variance with empirical evidence, nevertheless persist in the literature’ (‘On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements’).”

• Excerpt from Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer.

The dogma was that junk DNA was the residue of countless twists and turns in the supposed evolution of the human genome over millions of years. It had to be.

God bless,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

“science killer”? What nonsense. What absolute nonsense.

“Other scientists have noted how materialistic evolutionary theories have impeded scientific progress in the study of the genome. In 2002, Richard von Sterberg reported extensive evidence for functional junk-DNA, noting that ‘neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes’ and concluding that ‘the selfish DNA narrative and allied frameworks must join the other “icons” of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory that, despite their variance with empirical evidence, nevertheless persist in the literature’ (‘On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements’).”

• Excerpt from Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer.

The dogma was that junk DNA was the residue of countless twists and turns in the supposed evolution of the human genome over millions of years. It had to be.

God bless,
Ed

What rank logic you exhibit. A criticism of materialist evolution, valid or not, is not an argument in favor of ID theory or “reationism”. Regardless of this egregious error in logic, almost all creationists argue that way. It is a groupthink phenomenon.

What scientific discoveries have been made by ID theory?
How has ID theory advanced our scientific understanding of the world?
Did ID research, supposing there is such a thing, show that junk DNA may not be junk after all?

An ideology that is motivated to prove the existence of God by exploiting gaps in scientific knowledge is not science and it surely bad theology.

 

[itinerant1]

What rank logic you exhibit. A criticism of materialist evolution, valid or not, is not an argument in favor of ID theory or “creationism”. Regardless of this egregious error in logic, almost all creationists argue that way. It is a groupthink phenomenon.

What scientific discoveries have been made by ID theory?
How has ID theory advanced our scientific understanding of the world?
Did ID research, supposing there is such a thing, show that junk DNA may not be junk after all?

An ideology that is motivated to prove the existence of God by exploiting gaps in scientific knowledge is not science and it surely bad theology.

 

[itinerant1]

The term was from a scientist’s report. Once you give the theological definition of miracle, I would be interested in comparing it to the particular term extraordinary phenomenon used at that time.

I do not know the theological definition of “miracle”. Thank you.

It seems that you should at least be curious enough about what a miracle is to be researching the subject asap.

I tend to think that good Italian cooking is miraculous, though perhaps, more precisely considered, it is an extraordinary phenomenon.

 

[edwest2]

As the modern synthesis fades, the EES is self assembly. The question is what will come next after that fails? It seems the options are getting narrower.

Did you catch the Paul Davies quotes I posted tonight?

Thank you for posting that. Once again, I need to point out that obsessive mantra constantly posted here that we “must accept” as carved in stone somehing that obviously, people don’t fully understand.

It is a fake ideological ploy to convince people around the world that “evolution” is the underpinning of everything… Which is bunk.

I know people in the computer field. I know what electrical engineers do. None of these people will be hampered in their eternal quest to blow up the enemy or make the internet faster because they don’t believe the earth is billions of years old or that life “evolved” in some twisted Stephen Jay Gould kind of way.

But their commitment here is obvious.

God bless,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

It has been commonplace for cultural anthropologists to thoughtlessly categorize Genesis 1 as a creation myth, one comparable to the creation myths of many other ancient cultures. Yet those so inclined, fail to note that Genesis 1 has none of the characteristics typical of a creation myth. This raises a critical question regarding the proper identification of its genus litterarium.

*Genesis *1 is closer to a didactic structure, much like a scholastic treatise, than it is to myth. Also, that first chapter of Genesis is not primarily about creation itself. It is, rather a parable or metaphor of the Sabbath in which the systematic listing of the things that God created, and their chosen order, plays but a secondary role.

What the writer of Genesis 1 is actually teaching, that is, what his message is, pertains to the Divine sanction of the Sabbath. The author is not teaching a “natural history” of cosmic Creation.

The Book of Nehemiah gives a clue to the identity of the author of Genesis 1, as well as insight into his intention for the composition as a parable of the Sabbath. The author was either the prophet Nehemiah himself, or a scribe from Nehemiah’s inner circle.

A correct reading of text requires first of all, a correct recognition of its genus litterarium. If one takes the first false step of taking any statement in Genesis 1as an actual scientific fact being taught by the author, then consistency would require to treat the entire chapter accordingly. This approach leads to a plethora of insoluble problems and ends by making utter nonsense of the chapter.

The literalist fallacy, one which fails to read the text according to its proper genus litterarium, must then must engage in extreme mental gymnastics in an attempt to explain the impossible:

1. how darkness is not the mere absence of light, but is an actual substance (“and God divided light from darkness”);
2. how the sky can be a vault with waters above and waters below, (‘Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.’);
3. how light can exist without luminous bodies;
4. how plants can thrive without sun, moon or stars;
5. how the sun, moon and stars can be set in the vault of heaven (or firmament, a hardened bowl, rakia);
6. how God, who creates effortlessly by His mere word ("God said…), needs to rest from all his efforts (“He rested on the seventh day after all the work he had been doing.”),
7. and why it took an infinitely powerful God an entire six days to create the world edifice.

That world edifice as conceived by the primitive Hebrews was a tent with a solid vault or firmament as its cover, and a flat earth as its floor, all supported by floating on a body of unfathomable waters. The Hebrews did not even care to wonder what might be supporting the waters below. There was not even so much speculation as posit the support of a giant cosmic turtle, under which were infinitely more turtles all the way.

A creationist reading turns the parable of the Sabbath into utter nonsense. And what heaps more ridicule on the Bible than claiming the Grand Canyon was recently carved out by a literal Noachian Deluge?

Consider the present volcanic eruption in Iceland. If one were to explain the eruption by means of a vulcanism derived from fundamentalist biblical literalism, then God set off the volcanic eruption by touching its top with His finger. For this is how the Psalmist imagined that volcanic eruptions occurred. While the Psalmist’s image is a cherishable way to picture God as being in charge of His creation, we cannot use the image as a substitute for scientific data on chemical thermodynamics.

However, if creationists and biblical literalists are to be consistent in their “eisegesis”, they must explain volcanic eruptions as did the Psalmist.

 

[Philipp]

If life can arise easily it should have here. We should see various forms of life - we do not. We see all life is related at the core.

You are dreaming to know all you do about science to make that comment - “life can arise relatively easily.” I have to ask what are you smoking?

(1) May I humbly suggest that before the Abiogenesis reserachers spend any more of that good money from foundations and government grants on chasing a ghost, that they spend some of those funds immediately on C-14 dating the fossils that have not been completly mineralized. All the dating of fossils so far reported in the literature contain significant amounts of C-14 content with dinosaur, megafauna, Neanderthal bones and fossil wood in the same mid-range (5-6 half-lives) of the C-14 method from strata allegedly 65 to 240 million yers old.

(2) After main stream science and Academia have reassured themselves by their own research that dinosaur bones and other fossils are indeed 2000 times younger than what evolution theory requires then they should test the less available human-like and ape-like bones from Africa etc. for C-14 content.

(3) As they C-14 date bone fragments and surface scrapings from the Human and dinosaur bones world-wide they should begin an investigation as to whether even the C-14
dating methods give too old ages. Why? Very simple Watson; there are excellent depictions world-wide of dinosaurs interacting with man and other animals within the past 3000 years suggesting that C-14 ages in the 20,000 to 30,000 C-14 year range and up may indeed give wrong ages as do the radiometric dating methods for fossils.

These dinosaur depictions are as good as the ones depicted by modern artists and paleontologists; or, by our ancestors in French caves for bison, horses, deer and wild cows that they must have often observed. These cave dwellers and other early cultures were too busy just surviving in caves etc then to have time to study dinosaur bones and make drawings like Dr. Mayor has implied. View those depictions on www.dinosaurandman.org. They are not fakes and forgeries as some evolutionists must claim to protect their “sacred Cow.”

(4) Of course as I’ve suggested before, test for C-14 of fossil wood etc. in the same environment where volcanic materials have been tested that give million year old ages. For example K/Ar dating of ash or other material in Mexico gave an age of 800,000 years and Ar/Ar gave an age of 1.3 Million years. C-14 dating of materials in this same strata where possible human footprints were discovered in the ash ranged from 27,000 to 40,000 C-14 years. Visit mexicanfootprints.co.uk/research/preserved.htm and many other references.

As you look at the alleged footprints Mexican footprints keep in mind the ones I posted much earlier under tons of cretaceous rocks are far superior to the Mexican or the Laetoli human-like footprints. When the “pristine” ones were first discovered in 1982 both press and TV were invited to view them. They came in from Dallas even by helicoptor Evolutionists were also invited but chose not to come. When one finally did come in later years he refused to participate in an on-going excavation. So much for objective science.

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

 

[itinerant1]

If life can arise easily it should have here. We should see various forms of life - we do not. We see all life is related at the core.

You are dreaming to know all you do about science to make that comment - “life can arise relatively easily.” I have to ask what are you smoking?

And just what are you smoking this fine day?

All kidding aside, as far as I can see, it is quite possible, hypothetically, that life started many times on this planet, but there were many false starts; they did not succeed. Aside from man’s soul, so far, there is no scientific or theological reason not to believe that matter contains everything needed to generate life by means of the natural processes of the universe.

I would not say that the appearance of life is or was a common thing, but here is bonus idea. Within the materialist paradigm of absolute randomness, the possibility of life arising is actually nil, their views to the contrary notwithstanding. Furthermore, what you should be noting is that “absolute randomness” is a contradiction. Too bad ID theorists are philosophical illiterates, otherwise they could make a killing by attacking the notion of absolute randomness.

Now, because matter is very specific, as any chemistry text will show, and things are such-and-such rather than being some other way, points to the ultimate contingency of the universe. That is, the universe does not have to be the way it is. This very contingency points to a Creator with a choice in the kind of creation He brings into existence and sustains.

In sum, because matter is very specific, the possibility of life originating naturally on* this earth-moon system* in its early geological stages, is infinitely greater than in a materialist universe conceived as totally random.

 

[itinerant1]

(1) May I humbly suggest that before the Abiogenesis reserachers spend any more of that good money from foundations and government grants on chasing a ghost, that they spend some of those funds immediately on C-14 dating the fossils that have not been completly mineralized. All the dating of fossils so far reported in the literature contain significant amounts of C-14 content with dinosaur, megafauna, Neanderthal bones and fossil wood in the same mid-range (5-6 half-lives) of the C-14 method from strata allegedly 65 to 240 million yers old.

(2) After main stream science and Academia have reassured themselves by their own research that dinosaur bones and other fossils are indeed 2000 times younger than what evolution theory requires then they should test the less available human-like and ape-like bones from Africa etc. for C-14 content.

(3) As they C-14 date bone fragments and surface scrapings from the Human and dinosaur bones world-wide they should begin an investigation as to whether even the C-14
dating methods give too old ages. Why? Very simple Watson; there are excellent depictions world-wide of dinosaurs interacting with man and other animals within the past 3000 years suggesting that C-14 ages in the 20,000 to 30,000 C-14 year range and up may indeed give wrong ages as do the radiometric dating methods for fossils.

These dinosaur depictions are as good as the ones depicted by modern artists and paleontologists; or, by our ancestors in French caves for bison, horses, deer and wild cows that they must have often observed. These cave dwellers and other early cultures were too busy just surviving in caves etc then to have time to study dinosaur bones and make drawings like Dr. Mayor has implied. View those depictions on www.dinosaurandman.org. They are not fakes and forgeries as some evolutionists must claim to protect their “sacred Cow.”

(4) Of course as I’ve suggested before, test for C-14 of fossil wood etc. in the same environment where volcanic materials have been tested that give million year old ages. For example K/Ar dating of ash or other material in Mexico gave an age of 800,000 years and Ar/Ar gave an age of 1.3 Million years. C-14 dating of materials in this same strata where possible human footprints were discovered in the ash ranged from 27,000 to 40,000 C-14 years. Visit mexicanfootprints.co.uk/research/preserved.htm and many other references.

As you look at the alleged footprints Mexican footprints keep in mind the ones I posted much earlier under tons of cretaceous rocks are far superior to the Mexican or the Laetoli human-like footprints. When the “pristine” ones were first discovered in 1982 both press and TV were invited to view them. They came in from Dallas even by helicoptor Evolutionists were also invited but chose not to come. When one finally did come in later years he refused to participate in an on-going excavation. So much for objective science.

It still just sounds like so much science fiction to me.

 

[itinerant1]

The fact that the leading proponents of Intelligent Design theory acknowledge biological evolution as a process that started billions of years ago should be sufficient reason in itself for YECs to at least pause and reconsider whether their own worldview has been intelligently constructed.

 

[rossum]

rossum, this would have been no surprise to the authors of Genesis, who put in the mouth of God the words “Let the land produce vegetation” and “Let the land produce living creatures.”

Better to quote “Let the waters bring forth…” since life very probably originated in water.

I wonder about your take on what a friend of mine said who is studying abiogenesis (he is a Christian). I had asked him about whether life may have started multiple times and may even today be spontaneously starting around deep sea thermal vents.

Multiple starts to life are certainly possible. Any very early starts would have been killed by the Late Heavy Bombardment which would have effectively sterilised the planet. The fact that everything uses effectively the same genetic code tends to indicate that there was only one origin for life and that any other origins have either died out or been absorbed into the mainstream at a very early stage before the current 3-base-pair code developed. There are some faint indications of possible earlier 2-base-pair and 1-base-pair codes lying behind the current version

He regards it as a possibility but notes that it would be difficult to identify such novel life against the “background noise” of the rest of living creatures that have been around for billions of years. New spontaneously generated life would have relatively little resistance to being gobbled up by more resilient organisms that utilize long-developed strategies for predation and competition.

Both good points. A newborn baby is unlikely to win a fight with a hungry adult tiger. A bacterium with billions of generations of evolution behind it can be a very effective predator.

rossum

 

[rossum]

(4) Of course as I’ve suggested before, test for C-14 of fossil wood etc. in the same environment where volcanic materials have been tested that give million year old ages. For example K/Ar dating of ash or other material in Mexico gave an age of 800,000 years and Ar/Ar gave an age of 1.3 Million years. C-14 dating of materials in this same strata where possible human footprints were discovered in the ash ranged from 27,000 to 40,000 C-14 years. Visit mexicanfootprints.co.uk/research/preserved.htm and many other references.

Philipp, do you bother to read these sites you link to? If you go to the Mexican Footprints page there is a sidebar at the left with an item “New Dating Results”. Reading that page we see:Attempts were made to date the Xalnene ash using Argon-Argon dating but the amount of potassium present in the ash was too low for a reliable age determination.
The scientists did not use Argon-Argon dates because of insufficient potassium. Your quote of dates from “other material in Mexico” is useless – Mexico is a very big place and we would expect to find rocks of different ages in such a large area. Do you really have so little respect for your audience that you think we cannot see through such a flimsy argument?

If this is the best you can do then you must have very little real support for your hypothesis.

rossum

 

[Hooding_Trees]

If life can arise easily it should have here. We should see various forms of life - we do not. We see all life is related at the core.

You are dreaming to know all you do about science to make that comment - “life can arise relatively easily.” I have to ask what are you smoking?

You keep talking about this “core” though that fact you admit their is “core” totally destroys creationism, when we look at all the evidence.

What we have with creationists is the equivalent of someone walking to the top of a mountain of granite, finding a piece of chalk then ignoring the mountain of evidence below them and claiming “see this mountain is not made of granite”.

So you admit there is a “core”, what you are really talking about here is taxonomy which is one of the, if not the, strongest piece of evidence for evolution.

We know animals share genetic information (this is a FACT), we know animals share characteristics (this is a fact). However when we look into it in more detail we find that not only to they share information and characteristics but that these things overlap and fit PERFECTLY into nested hierarchies. In fact of the 10 million species not ONE, yep not ONE, of them violates the nested sets. This could only be true if we evolved, or god tricked us by making it look like we evolved. This could not be true if there was an creationist version of adam and eve. Creationism has no answer for this.

See the problem with most creationists is they want to talk about a subject without even learning the basics of the subject. If one does not even understand the basics of a subject they their opinion of the more complex aspects of the subject is meaningless.

So my question to creationists would be this…

Please provide me with one, just ONE, species that violated the nested sets of hierarchies.

 

[grannymh]

The fact that everything uses effectively the same genetic code tends to indicate that there was only one origin for life and that any other origins have either died out or been absorbed into the mainstream at a very early stage before the current 3-base-pair code developed. There are some faint indications of possible earlier 2-base-pair and 1-base-pair codes lying behind the current version.

rossum

Only “one origin for life” is actually a numerical assumption.

The same fact regarding genetic code similarities also indicates the unity in creation. This is more realistic since living organisms developed distinctness all over a very large territory. Now, if one origin means something other than one for example a similar origin oneness developing all over the earth then it is back to the unity of creation.

The unity of creation does not deny development, rather it allows for unique development.

 

[Disciple4Christ]

I understand.

Thing is, I don’t share that view. Yours, and the thousands of other superstitious belief systems, are on the same par with Santa Claus as far as I’m concerned. Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s the way I feel about it. I’m being honest, not disrespectful.

You think you understand, but you are blinded by your lack of faith. It is not what you don’t know that blinds you it is what you don’t know, you don’t know. If you knew that you could just learn it.
But I trust the Spirit that led you here so open your heart to the possibility of truth as we know it (Be not afraid.)
Love you Brother

 

[buffalo]

You keep talking about this “core” though that fact you admit their is “core” totally destroys creationism, when we look at all the evidence.

What we have with creationists is the equivalent of someone walking to the top of a mountain of granite, finding a piece of chalk then ignoring the mountain of evidence below them and claiming “see this mountain is not made of granite”.

So you admit there is a “core”, what you are really talking about here is taxonomy which is one of the, if not the, strongest piece of evidence for evolution.

We know animals share genetic information (this is a FACT), we know animals share characteristics (this is a fact). However when we look into it in more detail we find that not only to they share information and characteristics but that these things overlap and fit PERFECTLY into nested hierarchies. In fact of the 10 million species not ONE, yep not ONE, of them violates the nested sets. This could only be true if we evolved, or god tricked us by making it look like we evolved. This could not be true if there was an creationist version of adam and eve. Creationism has no answer for this.

See the problem with most creationists is they want to talk about a subject without even learning the basics of the subject. If one does not even understand the basics of a subject they their opinion of the more complex aspects of the subject is meaningless.

So my question to creationists would be this…

Please provide me with one, just ONE, species that violated the nested sets of hierarchies.

No - actually the core I speak of fully supports it.

Here is what we know:

The “core” is the 500 or so genes that all forms of life share. In this core is the capability to produce all creatures. The cell is the basis of inheritance. That is why humans persist as humans and dogs persist as dogs. Mutations act on genes to produce variations within.

The tree of life has fallen, replaced with the bush.

Now we know that complex multi-celled organisms are present right at the get go.

What we see is common design. Evo absolutely requires nested hierarchies. Common design does not.

“In precisely the same way, diverse vertebrates exhibiting the pentadactyl pattern in their forelimbs and hind limbs may possess that pattern not because they inherited it from a common ancestor- that is, not because of material continuity- but because there exists some functional requirement that the pattern satisfies”.- J. Wells and P. Nelson, “Homology in Biology”, Design, Darwinism and Public Education, 319-20, 2003

 

[Philipp]

Philipp, do you bother to read these sites you link to? If you go to the Mexican Footprints page there is a sidebar at the left with an item “New Dating Results”. Reading that page we see:Attempts were made to date the Xalnene ash using Argon-Argon dating but the amount of potassium present in the ash was too low for a reliable age determination.
The scientists did not use Argon-Argon dates because of insufficient potassium. Your quote of dates from “other material in Mexico” is useless – Mexico is a very big place and we would expect to find rocks of different ages in such a large area. Do you really have so little respect for your audience that you think we cannot see through such a flimsy argument?

If this is the best you can do then you must have very little real support for your hypothesis.

rossum

Dear Rossum:

I suggested that you go to the other many links but you did not take my suggestion. I did indeed read that Renne et al. had Ar/Ar dated and came up with the figure of 1.3 million years vs. 27,000 to 40,000 C-14 years all within the mid range of C-14 dating.

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/uoc–a4h112805.php

I quote from the above.

***Renne determined the new date using the argon/argon dating technique, which reliably dates rock as young as 2,000 years or as old as 4 billion years. The British-led researchers, however, relied mainly on carbon-14 dates of overlying sediments. Carbon-14 cannot reliably date materials older than about 50,000 years. ***

I never like to get between evolutionists and their disagreements because they are working from false premises and therefore confuse themselves and everyone else trying to separate fact from fiction. But I thought this was a rather unique disagreement as it pitted a group of British scientists claiming fossil human footprints and the Americans claiming they might not be human footprints and of course way too old by Ar/Ar dating.

I do have respect for everyone in this thread but not As a research chemist I also am trailned to use references but like I said before when you deal so far in the past as we do on this thread one must try and correlate historical documents with scientific studies where possible.

I thereby stand by and repeat what I’ve said many times:

Big Jack Horner sat in a corner
scraping a dinosaur bone.
Some soft tissue appeared
And he said, “Just what I feared!
Evolution’s long ages are gone!”


The above poem is supported by: (1) Dinosaur bones in the fossil records being 2000 times younger than claimed by evolutionists based on C-14 dating of their bone collagen. etc. (2) Pristine fossil human and dinosaur footprints together [same C-14 range for wood in the Cretaceous clay as nearby dinosaur bones and as far away as Montana and Alaska] (3) many quality dinosaur depictions of dinosaurs {dragons) as noted in www.dinosaursandman.com (4) Mention of dragons in Scripture and by a church father, St. John Damacene creationism.org/crimea/engl/al1.htm and others in history.

Ok, now go find a phrase or a word you disagree with and attack my rebut. But keep in mind that maybe even the National Science Foundation are now so confused over the ramblings of evolutionists that they are going back to just promoting science. Would that Catholic Universities and secondary schools would do the same. (again thanks Buffalo for that bit of good news).