Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools if creationism isn't allowed

Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools if creationism isn't allowed

Ken Schalfley, Midland Daily News
06/04/2006

There have been several recent letters to the editor concerning the teaching of evolution and creationism in the public school curriculum. Proponents of evolution say it is based upon scientific evidence and creationism is not, therefore, creationism should not be taught. I would ask those who favor only evolution to consider the following questions derived from the Discovery Institute in Seattle concerning recognized icons of evolution.

Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?

Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?

Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?

Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?

I have always been under the impression that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Darwin himself, in his work, Origin of Species, said, "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in the volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."

Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Darwin stated, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." I find it interesting that Darwin compares his work as a religion to those who reveled his work. Based upon what he said, if other concepts such as creationism should not be allowed in the public schools, neither should the theory of evolution.

Is Darwin's theory of evolution worthy of discussion and investigation? Of course. Should it be given scientific law status? More conclusive evidence needs to come forth before that can ever happen, which appears unlikely, since some of the critical "evidence" for evolution has had to be altered. For more indepth information, get a copy of "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?," authored by Jonathan Wells.

Since education is to be a quest for learning, it is proper to investigate any queries to creation. Our Forefathers would approve, why can't we?

http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.... 472539&rfi=6

Are you actually diehard Christian, or just being a dumb internet-character?

The Galapagos Islands: Approximately 600 miles away from any other land, meaning they are completely surrounded by water for around 600 miles.

Diving Iguanas that dive and can stay underwater for around 45 minutes are the only type of iguanas that can swim, found ONLY in the Galapagos islands. There is no other type of iguanas anywhere in the world that can do this.

So why don't the iguanas found in African jungles swim, huh? Explain THAT, Jesus boy. Animals evolve according to their habitat. Thats why animals around the world that live in their habitat can survive in them. You don't see penguins living in the desert.

Either you ARE a diehard Christian, or the alternative as put forwrad by Grav. So how would you feel if your government was Hindu, and in the schools they forced everyone to learn the Hindu beliefs about creationism?

Evolution is based on scientific fact, and is currently the accepted 'version of events' for life on earth. Creationism is an idea.

Science is the medium between everyone - Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Jedi's, whatever religion. Their beliefs on how everything came about are different, but Science stays the same.

As it is, I believe your government to be made up of the world's greatest idiots. Not only do they try to use religion as an answer to things like the war in Iraq ("God came to me in a vision and told me, George, you have to invade Iraq"), but they then try and force it on EVERYONE in your country.

If someone wants to learn creationism, then they should go to a Christian school that will have nothing to do with anythig that the Bible says is wrong. Normal schools cater for a lot of faiths, and so cannot teach everyone ONE religions views and expect them to take that as the truth. Sure, maybe if they taught all the views of the major religions, but not just Christianity.

If that was happening here in England, there'd be murder. Especially up here.

---

Btw, we've already got a Resident Jesus... Black Jesus, in fact.

The Galapagos Islands: Approximately 600 miles away from any other land, meaning they are completely surrounded by water for around 600 miles. Diving Iguanas that dive and can stay underwater for around 45 minutes are the only type of iguanas that can swim, found ONLY in the Galapagos islands. There is no other type of iguanas anywhere in the world that can do this. So why don't the iguanas found in African jungles swim, huh? Explain THAT, Jesus boy. Animals evolve according to their habitat. Thats why animals around the world that live in their habitat can survive in them. You don't see penguins living in the desert.

Thats not evolution...they are still iguanas. All kinds of animals are designed to adapt, not change into other kinds. A dog is a beagle is a wolf...its still a kind of animal..it will never change into an iguana., no matter who many make believe millions of years you throw on it, or what environment it lives in.

Either you ARE a diehard Christian, or the alternative as put forwrad by Grav. So how would you feel if your government was Hindu, and in the schools they forced everyone to learn the Hindu beliefs about creationism? Evolution is based on scientific fact, and is currently the accepted 'version of events' for life on earth. Creationism is an idea. Science is the medium between everyone - Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Jedi's, whatever religion. Their beliefs on how everything came about are different, but Science stays the same. As it is, I believe your government to be made up of the world's greatest idiots. Not only do they try to use religion as an answer to things like the war in Iraq ("God came to me in a vision and told me, George, you have to invade Iraq"), but they then try and force it on EVERYONE in your country. If someone wants to learn creationism, then they should go to a Christian school that will have nothing to do with anythig that the Bible says is wrong. Normal schools cater for a lot of faiths, and so cannot teach everyone ONE religions views and expect them to take that as the truth. Sure, maybe if they taught all the views of the major religions, but not just Christianity. If that was happening here in England, there'd be murder. Especially up here. --- Btw, we've already got a Resident Jesus... Black Jesus, in fact.

Evolution is not based on scientific fact.

It was a THEORY proposed by a wife beating racist failed preacher 150 years ago and used by the controling elite to shape your young fragile mind ever since.

Science does not stay the same. Gods word does. Science can not prove evolution. Actually, it proves DESIGN and creation. Do your homework and try to use what God gave you in your head. Either everything is random and chaotic, and all you see just so happend to be perfect as we speak through random unguided mutations!...or EXTREMELY precisly designed...everything in the world obviously points to the later. Do some research on who Charlie Darwin was and what he really said. He says in "Orgins" that a whale evolved from a bear that jumped into the water to get fish over millions of years!

Schools are controlled now by a small group who want the human race in bondage. If you are taught that the world is an accident, then you think YOU are an accident..hence Columbine High School.

Does the world around you look chaotic?

If you know REAL PROVABLE science, then you know about design and creation.

here are some films to watch, if you really want to learn the truth...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...miracle+planet
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...racle+ planet
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...igent+ design

In fact, it IS evolution.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development. 2. a) The process of developing. 2. b) Gradual development. Biology. 3. a) Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. 3. b) The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

In scientific terms, evolution is when a species changes - not into a completely different species, but within itself -- adaptation is a big part of evolution. It IS evolution.

The first organisms adapted to their environments - and evolved. Some lived in water, other lived on land, some went mad and decided to fly. Eventually, that one original single-celled organism evolved into every living creature we see today.

In fact, it IS evolution. In scientific terms, evolution is when a species changes - not into a completely different species, but within itself -- adaptation is a big part of evolution. It IS evolution. The first organisms adapted to their environments - and evolved. Some lived in water, other lived on land, some went mad and decided to fly. Eventually, that one original single-celled organism evolved into every living creature we see today.

No it isnt. You cant have best of both worlds. Even though you HAVe to...

Lets take Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term “organic evolution.” Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution

Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macroevolution requires thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as “horizontal (or even downward)” change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an “upward,” beneficial change in complexity. Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution. [micro + time ≠ macro]

Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution occurs. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities, increasing complexity, that results from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy.

Because science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible, what is observed? We see variations in lizards, four of which are shown at the bottom. We also see birds, represented at the top. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes.

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with hundreds of thousands of intermediates! None are found!

Organic Evolution Has Never Been Observed.

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.a

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis.b However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life only comes from life.

Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are LIMITS to such variation. Breeding experimentsb and common observationsc also confirm these boundaries.

Natural Selection

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. THIS IS THE HOAX! Actually, natural selection PREVENTS major evolutionary changes!

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost ALL observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal! No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors!!!

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.a Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence.

Codes, Programs, and Information

In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease.a It seems most reasonable that the genetic code, the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence.

Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.

Life contains matter, energy, and informationd. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly.e Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

* Macroevolution cannot occur.
* Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.
* Life could not result from a “big bang.”

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...ciences18.html

Quick question; Do you even have a valid thought of your own, or is everything you say C&P from someone else?

As for the topic, it is my personal belief that there should be an optional class for those who do believe in creationism.

There are plenty of philosophy/religion classes. However, individual classes for said religion would have to be made for EVERY religion and hence the reason why it's dumb to make individual classes. Even some person that worships a blade of glass could demand a class be taught in his/her religion's honor.

Of course there's been macroevolution!!

So from a single-celled organism that can do sweet F.A then split itself down the middle, to billions upon billions upon billions of different species, classifications of animals, everything, is all microevolution?

You can't observe evolution unless you do an experiment over hundreds of years. It isn't possible. You'll see gene mutations, for sure, but not proper evolution. It occurs over a long time span. If you could observe it happening, then why don't we see certain species changing and adapting to their continuously changing environments? Sure, it wouldn't be Macroevolution, but it would certaintly be Microevolution.

-----

Just building on Jessifer's point - there is no point pasting pages and pages of pure science from a blatantly creationist site to prove a point. You take the facts and add to them your own words - make them your own argument. Don't try and argue someone elses.

Sure, I'm not the greatest at that, but at least I don't copy and paste directly from sites.

Lenny is intelligent. ~JESUS~ is a pawn.

Of course there's been macroevolution!! So from a single-celled organism that can do sweet F.A then split itself down the middle, to billions upon billions upon billions of different species, classifications of animals, everything, is all microevolution?

No...its MACro

and it cant happen. They were made as there own kind in the beggining, which is why there are NO intermediate transitional forms and why "lower" complexity kinds are found mixed in with higher complexity kinds in the different layers of the earth.

The "geological column" does not exist anywhere but in your textbooks and imagination.

You can't observe evolution unless you do an experiment over hundreds of years. It isn't possible.

I agree...which is why its not SCIENCE. In fact it breaks the entire scientific method. You know, OBSERVABLE AND PROVABLE facts based on theories.

It is a religion based on ignorance and faith with ever changing definitions based on convenience that worships time.

You'll see gene mutations, for sure, but not proper evolution. It occurs over a long time span.

Again, this is not changing one kind to a completely different based on WHATEVER factor you want to throw at it. It is micro, or a reshuffling of information in gene structure for survival.

A new species changing from one to another has never been observed. Jeez, what a great time to be alive, everything we observe just so happens to have fully functional non-transitional members! Why stop now!

If you could observe it happening, then why don't we see certain species changing and adapting to their continuously changing environments? Sure, it wouldn't be Macroevolution, but it would certaintly be Microevolution.

First of all, what environment is continuously changing? Secondly, if it did (for debate sake), it would never over a trillion years turn into a completely different kind! The information in the DNA would not allow it! Information runs the show! Darwin said that future would prove his theory correct when new discoveries of transitional forms were found. THEY HAVENT BEEN FOUND!

Open your eyes people. Do some research.

Science is facts that can be proven and observed. If you dont have an answer, then dont teach it as fact! Thats all I am saying.

If you want to teach biology then teach biology, but dont go into orgins when you don't know for a fact what the orgin is and then call it "science"! ..and if you are going to pick theories to teach, well then pick them all, not just one that is actually proven wrong.

Lets look at what the people have to say....

Tuesday, Jun. 6, 2006 Posted: 9:26:33AM EST

WASHINGTON — Almost half of Americans believe that human beings did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so, results from a new Gallup Poll revealed.

In a May 8-11 survey of American beliefs on evolution, 46 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

In comparison, only 13 percent chose the answer: “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

Welcome to Zonalon 2.0.

I think lenny has many good points and so dose ~jesus~. I also think that some of the stuff that they both say as well are worng and dont match up or work, but as I said that they do bring across good points. Thats what I think, and I dont fell like typeing alot like every one else right now to get what I think across.

You know what I do fell like typeing more so here I go. Evolution offers no real purpose for life, it results in an absence of meaning, and therefore an absence of moral absolutes. This is clearly in conflict with the Bible. Evolution results in a philosophy of nihilism (the denial of any basis for truth), which ultimately ends in despair. The Bible claims to have the Truth, which gives ultimate hope. (John 14:6, Colossians 1:27) The Bible not only fits the evidence of scientific investigation, it provides an answer for why the world was created. Evolution does neither.

It doesn't matter if what is observable by humans does not match up with fiction writen by humans.

Now that I have some time to type. You say

It is a religion based on ignorance and faith with ever changing definitions based on convenience that worships time.

OMG YOU JUST DEFINED EVERY RELIGION IN EXISTANCE! EXCEPT FOR THE SCIENTIFIC EVOLUTIONARY THEROY! Good job on contridicting yourself.
Christianity is based souly off of a book. A single book and it's believers. Keyword believers. You see this religion like most has no facts, no tangible evidence, no form or shape, it has multiple definitions depending on what church you go to or whom you talk to. It lives on because you BELIEVE in it. Just like the toddlers that my girlfriend teaches at her work BELIEVE in a Santa Claus my friend. You see how utterly absured that sounds? A god!? A GOD!? A SUPREME OMNICIENT BEING! Your kidding yourself. It's stupid. It's following. Your not any smarter than all of Charlie Mansons followers. Hey guess what, they BELIEVED he was a Jesus incarnate. Hear that, so that must mean its http://supportthetruth.com right? Charlie Manson = Jesus = Santa Claus = Lochness Monster.
Go fuck yourself.
Tuesday, Jun. 6, 2006 Posted: 9:26:33AM EST

WASHINGTON — Almost half of Americans believe that human beings did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so, results from a new Gallup Poll revealed.

In a May 8-11 survey of American beliefs on evolution, 46 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

In comparison, only 13 percent chose the answer: “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

Yea and over half of Americans read fucking People magazine and actually care what the fuck Angelina Jolies baby looks like. Americans for the most part. Hell HUMANS for the most part are run by a herd instinct you fool. You tell them "Hey, if you don't eat carbs, you'll look sexy and people will like you." So for a half a year they ALL stop eating carbs.

There is NO reasoning with you people. You simply close off your minds to everything other than your dimwitted FAITH! Dear god, your complaining that evolution has no FACTS! Which it does. YOU HAVE NOOO FACTS! NONE! Look at fucking scientology. It has just as much substancial evidence as your christianity does!

Oh and Derek.

Evolution offers no real purpose for life, it results in an absence of meaning, and therefore an absence of moral absolutes.

Sorry buddy, but this is simply out of line. We are animals, we have no purpose other than survival and procreation. Do dogs have a purpose other than survival? Do they have morals? Do chickens have morals? No, therefore they are meaningless?

It doesn't matter if what is observable by humans does not match up with fiction writen by humans.

Right.... and the bible has stood the test of time. Do some research, they found Noahs ark exactly where they said it would be. They found the remains of Sodom and Gommorah and the Tower of Bable and thousands of sites, remains of ancient cities and tombs just where the bible stated they would be. They even found the egyption chariots at the bottom of the red sea! Every person place and thing is varified to be accurate so far...the Bible says his word would survive the test of time.

Check out the book of Job. It is the Oldest book in the bible. God ask Job over 50 questions, many that explain things science has just verified in the last 50 years! things about the wind, sun, electricity, and nature of animals.

Back in those days, prophets of God were few and far between. If one thing you said was found false the penalty was death.

The Bible is the inspired word of God. 66 books written over 3,500 years by 44 authors. 100% accurate. no other book makes such claimes. Except the Koran which is a cruel hoax coppied from the biblw (poorley I might add, and not accurate) allmost 2,000 years after the first books of the bible were written and 600 years after Christ, by a pedephile that has continuiously changed. In fact, there are nearly 30,000 verified original manuscripts which we get our bible from. No other great ancient works that exist today from the past can even come close to making that claim. Homer, socretes..or any others. our entire society is based on the laws and rules of the bible for a reason!

Lets say hypothetically, there IS a creator and he made us in his image like the bible says, and we are observably complex and advanced in ways of knowledge compared to other life forms we see and observe. Lets just say he wants to get a message to his children. How would he do it so it would be the most benifical to that objective? Lets just say that, as the case may be, this message is VERY COMPLEX and is a needed set of guidlines for his children to live and function. The message would need to be sent over a period of time, piece by piece to overcome hostile jamming.

If this is for debates sake true, well then how amazingly fortunate are we to have this available in this day and age!

Do some research

Stop fucking saying that! You don't yourself. The majority of your posts have been copied and pasted from some Christian site.

Except the Koran which is a cruel hoax coppied from the biblw (poorley I might add, and not accurate) allmost 2,000 years after the first books of the bible were written and 600 years after Christ, by a pedephile that has continuiously changed.

Smoothly put.

If you want to go on about the age of religions, then I'm sorry to say that Christianity has absolutely nothing on Hinduism.

One is 2,000 years old, the other can be traced back around 1.7million years.

http://www.gitamrta.org/religion.htm
http://www.gitamrta.org/bridge.htm

Oh look, I can prove that legends are true. I must be a Holy Book!

-----

found Noahs ark exactly where they said it would be.

Sure, "Do some research".

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a001.html

-----

Ooooh! You got something right. Sodom and Gomorrah HAVE been discovered. But was it The Lord who burnt them?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a007.html

Nah.

I have also proved that I can link to Christian sites. Do I get a medal?

-----

The Bible doesn't only contradict itself in various cases, but half the supposed acts that happen cannot possibly happen.

Let's take Noah's ark, for example.

First things first - the guy was 600 y/o! Maybe the air was that little bit less polluted back then, but the human body cannot live for 600 years.

So, he took a pair, or seven, of every species on the planet onto a giant ark when it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and flooded 'the entire world'.

Second point - there is not enough water on the world flood it, nor for it to rain contiuously for 40 days and 40 nights.

Third - EVERY species? Superman wasn't involved here, was he?

That'd have to be a massive construction, just for the animals, but then we come on to the other points:

1. The animals must eat
2. What about all the waste

Where did all the food for the animals come from? Or did they not eat for weeks?

And then there's the animal waste problem. Billions of animals, on one tiny ark, all crapping. Noah would need an army to deal with that waste, he, his 3 sons and their wives could not deal with it alone. So with all that waste, there'd be a lot of disease, which would lead to a lot of death.

So, let's say be some heavenly miracle, he did manage to make it to Mount Ararat. And the waters subside, all this magical water disappearing back to where it came from, and the animals all come off the ark. In the middle of Turkey. On a bloody great mountain.

- How do they get off the mountain?
- How do they make it back to their home countries - float on debris?
- And if they do make the exodus home, why is there not a line of offspring following them?
- Surely after this flood, ALL animals would originate in Turkey, so the records must show a lot of animal speices in Turkey at this day, or at least a lot of bones from animals who did live there.

The stories are flawed. Sure, there's a few good morals, and some things are a great laugh, but they are NOT Historical.

The Bible is a metaphor. One is supposed to read it and learn the lessons, not believe every word.