Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 406,922 views
Smoke_U_24/7
Go find some yourself.
You made the claim that all 4 gospels were written during Jesus' life. You tell me where you got that information. Do your own research.

After a bit of Googling I've found out that some Biblical scholars place the authorship of Matthew (generally reckoned to be the earliest of the Gospels) to as early as 45AD. And that's from Conservative Christians who would be the type to argue for earlier dates for the Gospels. And that's still 12 years after Jesus' death.


KM.
 
Smoke_U_24/7 - Religion isn't a problem. What you believe in, or what anybody else believes in, isn't up to me to try to dissuade you from - because I'm not a fundamentalist. If you find God/Allah/Thor/Ra/Quetzalcoatl helps you lead a good and worthwhile life (which it clearly doesn't, as you believe that rich bands deserve having music stolen from them), then that's all well and good.

The problem is when religion masquerades as science in an attempt to prove itself. This cannot be done - or at least to this point in time no part of any religion has ever shown itself to be true through fair and unbiased testing of principles. Or "science", as it's known. The biggest question of all - "Does God exist?" - can only be disproven scientifically, never proven.

I'll run you through a couple of logical disproofs of God. The first from Douglas Adams:

"The argument goes like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God. "For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
"Ah," says Man. "But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't."
"Oh," says God. "I hadn't thought of that." and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
"Oh that was easy!" says Man."

Comedy aside, this does contain some truth. Faith is only held where there is no proof - think of the term "A leap of faith". Where proof exists, faith does not since it isn't required to believe in that which is proven. Q.E.D.*

Another version goes like this. The Judeo/Christian/Islamic God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent - all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere. In order to prove that God exists, proof must be shown that God exists. This fundamentally erodes at one - if not all three - of these basic tenets of God-dom, thus God cannot be proven to exist and therefore he doesn't. That isn't to say that our strings aren't being pulled by more powerful beings than ourselves, but that God, as described, cannot possibly exist as proof cannot possibly be shown.


Anyway, enough of that. Point is, believe in whatever you want to believe - as long as it doesn't involve hurting anyone else. But don't make up crap "proving" what you believe in scientifically, as the rest of the science community can spot it a mile off. And we're all peer-reviewed to make sure we don't make crap up.


*Little Latin joke for you there, ladies and gents.
 
So I'll confess that I lost the argument and I am more convinced that god is not real. I shouldn't have joined in this debate in the first place.

Now hang on a second. You picked the fight on scientific terms and lost. Then you picked the fight on religious/historical terms and lost. And now you're just going to leave the discussion and forget you ever had it?

Your inability to support your own position should lead you to question your premises. It isn't your fault if you can't support your position, it's your fault if you don't take that knowledge and do something with it.

Go back to whoever it is that you get your religious knowledge and seek answers to the questions you have. Re-read the bible and try to figure out a good reason why we're wrong. Be inquisitive and find out the facts to support your position so that the next time your run into a bunch of heathens you can set them straight and maybe save their souls.

Be skeptical about your beliefs. The more holes you try to poke in them the stronger your beliefs will be. Part of that means bouncing them off of other people (as you did here). Your next step is to get some more research and bounce again until either you've decided for yourself that your religion is wrong or you've satisfied every question you've heard thrown at it.
 
Speaking only for myself , the problem I have is that no organized religion that I am familiar with, holds to scientific scrutiny. They all seem to be myths used to keep segments of the population motivated by others to do what the leaders seem to think is proper at the worst , and pleasant storys and a belief system that helps some people cope at best. And yet having typed this I admit I am am still on the fence about my belief in God. I guess I'm jusy hedging my bets ? my head says its all rubbish but my heart says there is a God.
 
so you would be considered agnostic then ...skeptical about the existence of God but you don't profess true athiesm.

I was raised a Catholic but now I'm pretty much an athiest. There's always a small part of me that would like to believe in God but it just doesn't fit with everything I have learned so far...which is sad because believing in God gives purpose to life and when you don't, that could be somewhat depressing.

The best I can do is to take some of the advice found in the Bible such as treat your neighbours as you want to be treated.
 
Why do you need God to have "purpose" in life though? My purpose is to enjoy the life I was fortunate enough to have and do something constructive. I can do that without God, thank you very much. ;)
 
This particular topic has been discussed at great lengths elsewhere, but it has been awhile. I can simply say that I believe that evolution is the scientific evidence of creation. Should it be taught in schools? I believe it should be introduced and let the students decide what they want to believe. Neon Duke, and others, have expressed that it should be taught, but in a mythology class......, not as a possible pretence to our existence.

I have been fortunate enough growing up to have had good teachers in both private (younger years) and public school systems that have taught me to decide for myself. That is what needs to be taught. Offer creation as a possibility, right along side the big bang theory....let the students choose what they want to believe, none of it is scientific FACT so lets not teach it as such.
 
Offer creation as a possibility, right along side the big bang theory

Creation is not based on scientific evidence and is not science.

The big bang theory is probably wrong, but it is based on scientific evidence and is in fact science.


That's why the big bang belongs in science class and creation theories do not.
 
Really.....it seams that if catigorizing needs to take place, we should put such matters of self awareness and realization of our conception in a catigory of it's own, or perhaps group it with social sciences.
 
Really.....it seams that if catigorizing needs to take place, we should put such matters of self awareness and realization of our conception in a catigory of it's own, or perhaps group it with social sciences.

Agreed that religion and other non-science based theories of our existance and reality should be there. But the Big Bang still belongs in science class, since it is based on scientific evidence and makes use of the scientific method.
 
I can see both sides to it. Regardless of wheither or not the scientific method is practiced, what matters (I think) is the motive behind it don't you think?
 
Regardless of wheither or not the scientific method is practiced, what matters (I think) is the motive behind it don't you think?

Not really no. I think motive is fairly independent. Everyone's motive may be for personal profit, or perhaps to aquire knowledge... but how they go about doing it is what determines whether it qualifies as science.

Religion may seek the same thing as science, to understand the universe. But if some religions do this by meditating or reading the planetary alignments or holding crystals then I think it doesn't belong in science class.
 
[scattered thoughts]
Is it possible that God created the earth/universe/everything and science is discovering the evidence of God's creation? I could, through the scientific method, theorize that girls have larger breasts at a younger age now because of the steroids that are being injected into cattle that produce the milk that we drink. Should that be taught in science class?

If we teach theories aside from fact, what are we accomplishing? If we are teaching our kids to be independent thinkers then we should give them the tools to do just that.

We are still limited by our means of testing, limited by our technology, and limited by our own comprehension of what 'could be'. Probability tells us that we are not the only planet in the universe with living and intelligent life. Probability also tells us that without some other force of guidance, a random cataclysmic event such as the big bang, the odds are too far against life just happening on accident.

So, we can teach how the big bang lead us to where we are today in science, and in math class we learn that it's near impossible, and highly unlikely.

I guess it really doesn't matter to me as I can teach my own children other ideology. In looking back, school would have been more interesting if we would have looked at ALL the possibilities of the origin of mankind instead of just the theory of evolution.


*Random fact* I read somewhere that Darwin didn't even believe his own theory.

[/scattered thoughts]
 
Pako
[scattered thoughts]
Is it possible that God created the earth/universe/everything and science is discovering the evidence of God's creation? I could, through the scientific method, theorize that girls have larger breasts at a younger age now because of the steroids that are being injected into cattle that produce the milk that we drink. Should that be taught in science class?

That's step one.

Hypothesis (and Null Hypothesis), Method, Results, Analysis, Conclusion.

If at the end of this you could show data that proved, with statistical significance, girls had larger breasts at a younger age because of steroids being injected into cattle, then yes, this could be taught in a science class.

Science isn't just making up a theory - the theory must be tested and shown to be correct or incorrect. And be careful how you construct your experiment too - all published work is peer-reviewed. If it is found wanting in any aspect it'll be rejected - often by a panel of experts before it comes even close to being published.


Pako
*Random fact* I read somewhere that Darwin didn't even believe his own theory.

Creationist claptrap. Darwin at no point regretted publishing "On the Origin of Species" nor renounced the theory.
 
Hi!! Stick with me for a few paragraphs and I want to jump into the debate here; but first I wanted to introduce myself and talk about how I got here. I am one of the original members of the Racing/Line site who has luckily escaped what remains of it and became a member of House of GT where the original R/L database is now available to all to submit times for the Gran Turismo series of games.

Whereas "Racing/Losers" has a mangled version of the database with tons of bogus times and many long since deleted times by the original staff working under Andy, the database at HGT is free of all the junk and all racers have to do there is to update their times from the date of the saved version of the original database to get it current again and then it would be just like Racing/Losers never existed. The HGT database also has all the rally games and other racing games (including GT1 and GT2) that "Shifty" has deleted from Racing/Losers and only needs to get some members in place to moderate them before they are open to the public to again post times on them.

From looking at the forums at HGT, I found a reference to some videos of the upcoming GT4 that are on GTP and I quickly came here to see them. I became a member which is something I should have done long ago, but for many years was happy at Racing/Line under Andy and didn't join any of the other top sites like GTP and HGT. The funny part is I still haven't looked at any of the videos yet because I started to look around this site and spotted this thread and spent a few hours going thru the whole thing to find that things haven't changed much since I was involved in a heated debate in the Ventura, California newspaper Star-Free Press from Oct. 83 thru Sep. 85 in their Letters To The Editor section.

I got into it then when a former Baptist minister had written in to explain why he left the church. He had realized that he didn't believe in the hocus-pocus God stuff anymore and called the Bible "a collection of myths about a mythological god". You can imagine how the feathers flew when the tunnel-vision Creationists saw that and there was a flurry of very angry and insulting letters that called him every name in the book.

Of course, the 'truth" of the Creation myth was talked about and Evolution was dismissed as lies from atheist scientists. Having had at least one telescope since I was about 8 years old and always a science buff, I couldn't just let these closed-minded idiots just spout off without throwing some facts into the fray. In the first of many letters, I made fun of their ignorance and put some facts out there for them to look into, but of course all I got in return was the same mumbo-jumbo nonsense I have seen here in this thread. I was called all kinds of names and instantly became the new target of their hilarious ramblings. It apparently was okay for them to belittle the former minister, but I couldn't say anything derogatory about their myths and the battle was on.

For over 2 years, we went back and forth with the biggest drawback being that you could only have one letter published a month which left me waiting for that whole month to be able to reply to the same erroneous info that these creationists have been trying to feed the public to justify their fantasyland nonsense for decades. I just kept laughing at them and fed them more facts about scientific knowledge and it got to the point where one poor woman called me a "severely retarded child" and spouted off a few verse references from Genesis to "prove" her point. What got her going was when I mentioned that according to Genesis 1:11-12, on the 3rd day of creation, "The earth brought forth grass and herb...and the tree yielding fruit..." while it isn't until the 5th day of creation in Genesis 1:20-22 that "The waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life...". When I sarcastically pointed out that life in the "waters" absolutely came way before life on the land, it apparently was more than she could take and name-calling, as usual, was all she had left. The Bible is so full of such nonsense and I made sure to remind them of it constantly. The Editor finally sent back my last letter and stated that they had decided to stop printing the Evolution vs. Creation letters because there was little interest from their readers in a "poll" they had taken. This was not true as they had mentioned in an editorial a few months earlier how the "never-ending debate over Evolution vs. Creation was one of the most popular topics in the Letters section". I always assumed they had succumbed to extreme pressure from the religious fanatics to stop me and censuring me was the easiest way. I noticed that they had allowed another flurry of letters in 1989 after a retired professor of anthropology, archeology and paleontology wrote in to comment about the pressure of creationists to either include the fantasy of creation as a science or take out all references about evolution from classrooms.

The letters that followed just regurgitated the same old crap that they had unleased on me years before. Some more letters with factual information about evolution appeared and suddenly they closed off the letters on the subject again before I could get back into it. Big Brother or what?

As to allowing "Creation Science" (a definite oxymoron) to be taught along with Evolution in the classrooms, I would be all for it as it would expose the creation nonsense for what it is and soon be booted back to the churches where it belongs. As to the demand for equal representation, how far do you think a demand to include a large chapter on Evolution and science in general as a part of the Bible would get?

It's obvious that a lot of people are very happy living within the warm, safe and comfortable myths of religion rather than the cold, harsh reality of that terrible scientific investigation into how the universe really works. The frantic need to keep their little fantasyland going by not listening to anything that is now know as absolute fact just keeps them in the Dark Ages as opposed to actually seeking out the real truth and marveling at how my imaginary supreme being, "Mother Nature" really does things. Creationists will continue to avoid facts and not investigate anything they don't want to hear and it will, as always, be left to scientific endevours to actually keep looking for the answers and let us know what is really going on. There is really no dispute about the fact of evolution throughout the universe while there are many ideas proposed in many theories on how evolution actually works. The fact that scientists sometimes disagree about evolution doesn't mean that they don't accept it as reality. Scientists will always keep seeking out the answers and the creationist view of just sticking your head in the sand and hoping evolution will go away is just a weak, sad attempt to stay uneducated in the blind faith and hope that their "Six Day Quickie" is the truth. Sorry, it ain't gonna happen!!! As William Penn said: "Inquiry is human; blind obedience brutal. Truth never loses by the one, but often suffers by the other."

As to the Bible's "truths", I wondered that if God is omniscient, omnipresent and eternal, why did he forbid Adam and his favorite rib, Eve, to eat the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge" and then tempt them with the serpent or Devil? God must have known exactly what would happen, so why didn't he just create them to be more pleasing to Him in the first place? He also would have known that the Devil was a "bad apple" and not create him at all.

Also, in Genesis, who was Cain afraid of in the land of Nod and where did his wife come from? According to the Bible, only Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel existed at this point. Who are these other people and how did they suddenly appear?

The battle will continue on and those of us with open minds will continue to seek the truth and not turn our backs on what the sciences discover. I worry about the children of these creationists who will never be given the chance to seek out the truth because the parents already know it all. I have always asserted that belief in imaginary supreme beings is the largest unrecognized form of mental illness running rampant on the earth today. The truth is out there; you just have to look for it.

Thanks to Famine (who I know of from Racing/Line) and all the other people who have not let the creationists slide by with the "It says so in the Bible" nonsense. Very impressive knowledge is out there for all to learn if they would just take that chance.

Wayne
 
Pako
[scattered thoughts]

If we teach theories aside from fact, what are we accomplishing? If we are teaching our kids to be independent thinkers then we should give them the tools to do just that.

To be an independent thinker, you still first have to have a firm grasp of the basic principles, before you go off and create your own theory. An independent thinker is not someone who just makes stuff up that has no bearing on reality. I could create a theory that we are all riding on the back of a giant "Space Dog" and one day he will scratch us off like fleas...but that makes me a fantasist or maybe a delusionist not a thinker.

Probability also tells us that without some other force of guidance, a random cataclysmic event such as the big bang, the odds are too far against life just happening on accident.
Yes but it did happen, so it can't have been that unlikely...besides if it takes a billion years for that chance to come around..so be it..the universe has time on its side ;)


So, we can teach how the big bang lead us to where we are today in science, and in math class we learn that it's near impossible, and highly unlikely.

I guess it really doesn't matter to me as I can teach my own children other ideology. In looking back, school would have been more interesting if we would have looked at ALL the possibilities of the origin of mankind instead of just the theory of evolution.

Ok teaching science and religion is totally different. A lot of Christians seem to think that there is only one religion :dunce: So why should we teach Christian theories in class and ignore all the others. Some devout Muslims, might find a creationism lesson quite offensive. When it comes to science, it does not matter what you believe. If I apply heat to water it will heat up a rate dependent on its specific heat capacity. Nothing that I believe or don't believe will effect that...If I refuse to believe in gravity, it still holds me to the ground...

*Random fact* I read somewhere that Darwin didn't even believe his own theory.

[/scattered thoughts]

Hmmm...his peers did not believe him, and he was severeley ridiculed, but his strong conviction for his theory led him to publish the book "The Origin of Species" despite the attempts to stop him through academic ridicule. I'm not convinced at all that he didn't believe in it himself, and suspect your source ;)

*Random Quote* ;)

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in the cosmic religion for the future: It trancends a personal God, avoids dogma and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."
—Albert Einstein
 
If we teach theories aside from fact, what are we accomplishing?

It's a good question. I wonder about the way the US public school system has handled the big bang theory. Most people regard it as some sort of scientific fact and it is far from that. In fact, recently some evidence has popped up to suggest that the big bang is big bologna.

Personally I don't subscribe to the big bang theory.

I'd say that the school system needs to be careful how it addresses areas like existance where science doesn't really have answers. They should at the minimum present competing scientific theories to ground in people's heads that this is something that is fairly unknown. That being said, the big bang theory is the most credible theory science has in an area that is very important - existance.

So I'd say it's ok to teach theories that the scientific community largely subbscribes to (carefully) in areas where science doesn't have answers. But those theories have to have been peer-reviewed and have lots of evidence before we start presenting them to kids.
 
Famine
*snip*


Creationist claptrap. Darwin at no point regretted publishing "On the Origin of Species" nor renounced the theory.

Found this article: to summerize, it appears that Darwin did NOT dispute his theory.

Did Darwin Recant Evolutionism on His Deathbed?

Charles Darwin died on April 19, 1882, at the age of 73. To some it was deplorable that he should have departed an unbeliever, and in the years that followed several stories surfaced that Darwin had undergone a death-bed conversion and renounced evolution. These stories began to be included in sermons as early as May 1882.

However, the best known is that attributed to a Lady Hope, who claimed she had visited a bedridden Charles at Down House in the autumn of 1881. She alleged that when she arrived he was reading the Book of Hebrews, that he became distressed when she mentioned the Genesis account of creation, and that he asked her to come again the next day to speak on the subject of Jesus Christ to a gathering of servants, tenants and neighbours in the garden summer house which, he said, held about 30 people. This story first appeared in print as a 521-word article in the American Baptist journal, the Watchman Examiner, and since then has been reprinted in many books, magazines and tracts.

The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin's family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on February 8, 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was "false and without any kind of foundation," and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had "no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view." Charles's daughter (Henrietta Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, dated February 23, 1922,

"I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … The whole story has no foundation whatever." [The Darwin Legend]

Lady Hope was real. Here is her grave stone.
Darwin's biographer, Dr James Moore, lecturer in the history of science and technology at The Open University in the UK, has spent 20 years researching the data over three continents. He produced a 218-page book examining what he calls the 'Darwin legend'. [The Darwin Legend] He says there was a Lady Hope. Born Elizabeth Reid Cotton in 1842, she married a widower, retired Admiral Sir James Hope, in 1877. She engaged in tent evangelism and in visiting the elderly and sick in Kent in the 1880s, and died of cancer in Sydney, Australia, in 1922, where her tomb may be seen to this day.[The Darwin Legend]

Moore concludes that Lady Hope probably did visit Charles between Wednesday, September 28 and Sunday, October 2, 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present. He describes Lady Hope as "a skilled raconteur, able to summon up poignant scenes and conversations, and embroider them with sentimental spirituality." [The Darwin Legend]

He points out that her published story contained some authentic details as to time and place, but also factual inaccuracies — Charles was not bedridden six months before he died, and the summer house was far too small to accommodate 30 people. The most important aspect of the story, however, is that it does not say that Charles either renounced evolution or embraced Christianity. He merely is said to have expressed concern over the fate of his youthful speculations and to have spoken in favour of a few people's attending a religious meeting.

The alleged recantation/conversion is embellishment that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings "holy fabrication!"

It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did.

It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.

Interesting....
 
danoff
It's a good question. I wonder about the way the US public school system has handled the big bang theory. Most people regard it as some sort of scientific fact and it is far from that. In fact, recently some evidence has popped up to suggest that the big bang is big bologna.

Personally I don't subscribe to the big bang theory.

I'd say that the school system needs to be careful how it addresses areas like existance where science doesn't really have answers. They should at the minimum present competing scientific theories to ground in people's heads that this is something that is fairly unknown. That being said, the big bang theory is the most credible theory science has in an area that is very important - existance.

So I'd say it's ok to teach theories that the scientific community largely subbscribes to (carefully) in areas where science doesn't have answers. But those theories have to have been peer-reviewed and have lots of evidence before we start presenting them to kids.

I agree.
 
Wayne Gratiot
Hi!! Stick with me for a few paragraphs and I want to jump into the debate here [snip]

A warm welcome to GTP! Hope your stay is long and rewarding.

:)
 
Pako
It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.

Interesting....

There may be some truth in that story, but I suspect (translation:guessing ;)) it may have been family members that pretended he had recounted the theory in order for him to be buried at St Mary's churchyard. The Dean may have refused permission, or worse his grave might have been desecrated.

So that story may have been put about to appease the other church goers, and to reassure the Dean that he is not burying a complete unbeliever in his graveyard....
 
Thanks Pako!! I forgot to mention in my first post above that I was born in Missoula, Montana and just went there last summer to show my wife the sights. WE flew from Santa Barbara to Salt Lake City and drove from there thru Jackson, Grand Tetons and Yellowstone on the way to Missoula. I still love the state's scenic beauty and plan to return in the next year or so again.

Wayne

PS to all: One of the best books I have ever read about evolutionary processes is "Beginnings: The Story of Origins-of Mankind, Life, the Earth, the Universe" by Isaac Asimov in 1987. It is very easy reading and as entertaining as his many famous science-fiction books. Also good reading are the November and December 2004 issues of National Geographic. The Nov. 2004 issue features the cover article: "Was Darwin Wrong?" and the Dec. 2004 issue features the cover article: "Searching the Stars for New Earths".
 
I read the "Was Darwin Wrong?" article in National Geographic. It seemed to me that they just chose that title to pull people in, as it didn't have much real evidence against the theory. But I'll have to read it again, as it was awhile ago.

EDIT: I have the other issue too, I'll have to look at it as well.
 
Wayne,
Small world, eh? It's always good to hear from fellow (past or present) residents of Montana. That's a great drive. How long did you live in Missoula? I'm up in Kalispell, just minutes from Glacier National Park, and to get back on topic, in the middle of God's country. ;)

Tacet_Blue,
It does appear that he in fact did NOT recant his theory on evolution. The article had a tone that he was much happier before he turned his back on God. Only Darwin would know that.
 
Hi 240Z. Yes, I agree. The title on the cover "Was Darwin Wrong?" looks as if if was intentional by National Geographic to lure people inside to see if that was true. Of Course, when you see the same title on page 2-3 at the start of the article and then turn the page to where the article actually starts, a huge 'NO' in 2" high letters followed by "The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming." lets you know it is, in fact, a real true science article and not an attack on Darwin at all. Very clever and I'm sure it got the rise out of the creationists that the magazine intended besides making people in general want to see what it was about too.

Wayne
 
Hi Pako! I was probably reading 240Z's message or writing and sending the above reply when your message got posted and I missed it.

My Dad's family was from Missoula where his Mom and Dad and their 3 sons and 1 daughter lived. After my grandfather Marvin retired, they built "Marvin's Tavern" in 1937 right at the "Y" on the SW corner of the junction of Hwy 90 and Hwy 93 heading North toward Flathead Lake. It is still there and operating as Marvin's to this day. The current owner is the son of the man who bought it from my grandparents back in 1947 and they have continued to keep it almost exactly the same ever since. Our family and my Dad's brother's families have visited "Marvin's" many times thru the years and enjoy talking about the good ol' days. He always has some old photos to show us to try and verify who the people were in the pictures and he has all sorts of memorabilia stuck up everywhere.

When my Dad got out of the Navy after WW II and went back home to Missoula with his wife, they lived in a little trailer that sat next to the Tavern and that was my first home. He worked at Johnson Flying Service as a spotter on the old Ford Trimotors that the smokejumpers used for fighting the forest fires and got his private pilot's license while working there. He and my Mom were flying a Piper Cub over the Missoula Valley when she went into labor with me and they always joked that I was almost born in the air.

We only lived there for just over a year before moving in 1947 after his parents sold the tavern as mentioned above. My parents went to Tampa, Florida where his parents had decided to re-retire and lived there with them for a few years before moving to Chicago where my Mom was raised. In 1955, the family moved out to Southern California and have never left. Talk about hitting the four corners of the USA. Maybe that's why I love to travel to this day.

Sorry about the brief hijack of this thread, folks. We "native" Montanans like to talk about the place. When my wife and I retire, Montana is one of the places we will look at along with the Bishop, Calif. area in the Eastern Sierras. Like you said before Pako, "God's" country.

Wayne
 
Wayne Gratiot
What got her going was when I mentioned that according to Genesis 1:11-12, on the 3rd day of creation, "The earth brought forth grass and herb...and the tree yielding fruit..." while it isn't until the 5th day of creation in Genesis 1:20-22 that "The waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life...".

That is a very interesting point. You say there was more stuff like this in the Bible?
 
There's something in the Bible about how the Nile River turned to blood....

My professor in animal diverstiy told us about schistosomes which are parasitic flatworms found in various freshwaters of the world including the Nile River valley in Egypt. To infect humans, the worms must first infect and mature in freshwater snails, which are their "intermediate hosts." Infected humans pass blood in their urine and feces.

People get schistosomiasis by skin contact with contaminated fresh water in which certain types of snails that carry schistosomes are living.

Infected people pass Schistosoma eggs in their urine and stool. The eggs get into fresh water sources when infected people urinate or defecate in the water. The eggs hatch in the water and seek out the snails they need to survive. Once in the snails, the parasites grow, reproduce, and are released into the water, where they can live for about 48 hours.

The parasites can penetrate the skin of persons who are using the water for washing or bathing, swimming, or work activities such as fishing, rice cultivation, or irrigation. Within several weeks, worms grow inside the blood vessels of the body and produce eggs. Some of these eggs travel to the bladder or intestines and are passed into the urine or stool.

Only about half of the eggs are passed in the urine or stool. The rest stay in the body where they can scar and damage vital organs. The symptoms of the disease are caused by the body's reaction to the worms' eggs, not by the worms themselves.

The disease is treatable, usually with the drug praziquantel taken for 1-2 days. Those darn, evil scientists, up to no good as usual.
 
Back