What The Bible Really Teaches About Hell

[Tiberius]

Sorry. I was goofing a bit there for a while because it seems to me such a silly concept. The history of creation! The sequel to prehistory. Am I the only one that sees that as odd?

Lets put it this way. The Bible is the only 'history' on the subject. How you going to argue with that? To say modern science doesn't agree? It is just really too odd for me.

The Bible isn't the only history on the subject. The fossils left behind are also pretty conclusive history of what used to dwell on the planet. I'm also going to argue with the Bible because it was written by men who thought they were writing God's word. It is a faith based account and nothing more. Science doesn't work like that any more; we gather evidence and interpret it the best way we can.

The Bible and science just don't agree. I think the problem is that in evolution the scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings and that is a baseless assertion. The fossils of what science calls birde, the Archaeopteryx and Archaeornis showed teeth and a long vertebrated tail but also they were completely feathered, had fully developed wings and feet equipped for perching.

The fact is that there were no intermediate specimens exhibiting scales that developed into feathers of front legs into wings which would support the evolutionary theory.

I agree with you: the Bible and science don't agree. However, to say that the evolution of feathers from scale is a "baseless assertion" is ridiculous. Scientific theories make predictions; it is one of the criteria for proving them. This is a prediction for how feathers might have evolved, and it is based on the fossil record, showing early emergence of feathers on reptiles: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

It might not be the answer, I agree, and that is why there are several other predictions about the feathers, such as dinosaurs developing them for insulation, and then having them later adapt for flight.

For the feather, with its rows of barbs each with barbules and each of thise with hundreds of barbicels and hooklets all coming from the reptilian scales, would also be an amazing task. A cold blooded reptile with scales to a warm blooded bird with remarkable feathers as an insulator? Science fiction.

If you look at it like that then you are going to call it science fiction. It would be like saying "A single cell to a chimp? Impossible!". Of course, nobody is saying that a single cell turned into a chimp, or that a reptile turned into a bird. We are saying that it was a very very long process (taking hundreds of millions of years) through countless billions of transitional forms.

Once not so long ago evolutionists thought Archaeopteryx was a link between reptile and bird but now there are many who don't. Fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow and its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. Not only that but fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period.

Indeed, and this is an excellent example of science at work. It made a prediction about a certain feature, and it found out it was wrong, and then corrected it. When was the last time you saw dogma being corrected because it was proved wrong? Never. Science evolves, Dogma "adapts".