or many years claims were made by strict creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate (metatarsal) dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter on loose blocks of rock). This Web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links on dinosaur tracks in general.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm

The King James Bible? Written by William Shakespeare?

I'm sorry. You need to do more homework on that subject. At least Wikipedia it so you have an idea of the background of the King James Bible. An error that glaring dents the credibility of your argument just a little bit.

People seem to take the KJB for gold when it comes to Bible translations. People have the idea that if something is old enough and is popular enough, then it must be right. The truth is that the KJB was good for its time, but is quite old and outdated for two reasons:

1) The English Language has changed dramatically in the past 400 years
2) We have discovered many more biblical texts and codecs in the past 400 years (i.e. the dead sea scrolls). That combined with more knowledge of the Koinic Greek Language, Bible scholars can more accurately translate the Bible from its original texts.

Translated(kinda the same thing), "possibly," it IS still being debated the King James bible was first published in 1611 and William Shakespeare was one of the most influential writers of the day. It has not been proven or disproven, just about like everything else discussed in this type of debate. To blatantly call me wrong seems presumptious since it has been speculated by some scholars and never disproven.

However since I can't find any sources at the moment I took it out. But I'll keep looking. My main point though, is that is is still just a book, written by none other than a man.

I still don't accept that research. I'll cut and paste it for you from the wiki:

The King James Version was translated by 47 scholars (although 54 were originally contracted) working in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster. They worked on certain parts separately; then the drafts produced by each committee were compared and revised for harmony with each other. The scholars were not paid for their translation work, but were required to support themselves as best they could. Many were supported by the various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge.

Its well documented and there's no "possibility" of it at all being "written by Shakespeare."

I am not being presumptious; i'm questioning where you get your information. Isn't that something we should all do? Questioning what we know? If you get something simple like the King James Version wrong, how am I supposed to trust everything else?

Even your statement; "written by a man" is erroneous. Even if you didn't believe in the Bible's inspiration of God, you would know that the Bible itself isn't a single book, but rather a collection of 66 little books, written by over 40 men over a period of 1600 years.

I am familiar with the concept of evolution. I only ask that you are familiar with the Bible before you bash it.

I know it was many men over many years, which could easily lead to even more personalization of the works. Not to mention the vast number of translations leading to errors.... Like I SAID, I've taken it out until I can find the source.

I don't have any urge to familiarise myself to the Bible any more than I've already been subjected to. Gross impossibilities like the Ark, at least literally, have stopped any reasonable explanations coming from that particular source. Even the story of Jesus parallels older similar tales, or do you think he was the 1st son of a god that rose from the dead.... I can't copy and paste with my PS3, but I'll give some sources when I get back to work. Or just look for folk lore and legend "heroes" and you'll see a few that easily outdate Jesus.

That's the thing about the Bible. How it can maintain continuity over so many years, while written by so many men with different backgrounds. And then the fact that it is translated and still accurate today is nothing short of a miracle. That's more evidence of divine authorship.

Not having an urge to familiarize yourself with the Bible? Then you can't really critique it then. Like I've said before, people have many misconceptions about the Bible, even though many beliefs are not from the Bible itself.

I can pull the same argument with you: I don't have any urge to familiarize myself to evolution more thant I've already subjected myself to. Gross impossibilities like water + electricity turning into proteins and then those proteins turning into self-replicating cells. If it were such a fact, then we would have been able to reproduce the results! Wouldn't that be proper science?

If you're not going to look at the evidence or backcheck your statements, then I don't want to use up any more time reasoning with you. Thanks for you time, but I consider this discussion over.

"That's why it's still called a theory. "
Hey Timmah...

Scientific theories have to be proven and testable. To test the big bang, you asume the hypothesys is correct and make assumptions.

ie 1. If there was a big bang, all of the universe will be expanding outward from a center spot. Observed and confirmed
2. If there was a big bang, all of the most distant galaxies will resemble the early composition of the universe. Observed and confirmed
3. If there was a big bang, there would have to be a large amount of matter or energy that we are not seeing. Sure enough we discover Bocround Microwave radiation. Observed and confirmed
4. If there were a big bang that produced X energy, then we should be able to deduce the distribution of elements specifically He-4, 3 and deuterium. Observed and confirmed

Don't confuse Scientific method with common speech. You may have a theory on something, but when a scientist has a theory is must be testable and widely accepted. A Law, which is used to hypothesize and later confirm, is set in stone and is universal. Many of the above examples rely on laws to fill in the unknowns, and the rest is basic algebra. (OK basic to Einstein)

"That's the thing about the Bible. How it can maintain continuity over so many years, while written by so many men with different backgrounds. And then the fact that it is translated and still accurate today is nothing short of a miracle. That's more evidence of divine authorship."  

  I was a very surprised at how different the accounts of the bible were having only been written so soon after the events took place.  Not only that but many different religions that use the same judeo-christian bible, interpret it very different.  So instead of solidarity in one belief, we see a constant splintering of religions into smaller sects.  So by asking how it can maintain continuity, if your refering to the book, its written down, it is documented.  If your refering to the idea of the book it sems like it hasn't maintained continuity.

"Not having an urge to familiarize yourself with the Bible? Then you can't really critique it then. Like I've said before, people have many misconceptions about the Bible, even though many beliefs are not from the Bible itself."

I went to a Jesuit high scool.  I spend an hour a day, five days a week reading the bible.  All of my current belifes are based on my experiences with my own personal experiences with the religion.  Trust me society wants people to belive in God.  People who belive in Hell fear going.  So I have fully examined many religions before coming up with my own belifes.  So don't assume that I'm as ignorant of the bible as you are of the Miller-Urey experiment.  Thats the experiment that we can replicate in any lab where the early atmosphere is replicated in a glass ball, electricity added, and amino acids created.

Perhaps you are the one who should do some backchecking.   Hell, I read the whole bible before I felt comfortable debating it.

@ThatGuy -  You stated:

"That's the thing about the Bible. How it can maintain continuity over so many years, while written by so many men with different backgrounds. And then the fact that it is translated and still accurate today is nothing short of a miracle. That's more evidence of divine authorship.

Not having an urge to familiarize yourself with the Bible? Then you can't really critique it then. Like I've said before, people have many misconceptions about the Bible, even though many beliefs are not from the Bible itself."

First let me say I agree with your statement to familiarize yourself with the bible. It seems many dont have time to do it these days, which is a real shame. But I find that a very serious study of the bible actually leads you away from christianity. At least it did for me. May I ask you a few questions? 

By what standard are you saying that the bible "mantained continuity"? The old testiment is was thrown together by old Jewish redactors and is rittled many mistakes and contradictions. The very first page of the bible contradicts itself. The book is simply a thrown together work by many men working on the sholders of others, and consciously writing up incidents to make sure they "fulfill prophacy". The new testament is the same way.  When did Jesus die? In what order was the world created? Where was Jesus born? These are all questions with multiple answers that all come from the bible. Yes, it really does give two different answers to each of these questions. And that is just scratching the surface. Historical accuracy is also shady in many parts, (for example the Roman census) and I find that hard to believe that this was all miracle work.

Not to mention the very message of each of the works and the aim of each of the writers in both the old and new testament have different aims and ambitions. It comes out clearly in any close reading. What is the "continuity" that impresses you?

You're right, in order to become a theory it has to be proven and testable, however, many things in science are proven and testable, and many things in science are theories, but even though they are proven and testable that doesn't mean that they are true.

1. Scientists can look at other objects in space (planets, stars, and asteroids) and they can determine whether it is moving away from the earth or towads the earth (into the center of the universe or to the outer universe). The fact is most of the objects (about 95%) are moving away from the universe due to the force of inertia which they believe is the result of the Big Bang. However, some of the objects in space are moving towards the center of the universe (about 5%) and scientists don't know why. Check you're example number 1.

2. You're second example doesn't really prove the Big Bang i think, because it would be common sense for galaxies OF the Universe resemble the Universe.

3. There are large amounts of energy we are not seeing in space correct, but then again there are many things that we do not see. In each and every single atom there are large amounts of energy. Basically whether or not the Big Bang occured, it would be common knowledge for there to be large amounts of energy to support the massive being that is the Universe.

4. I'm not going to say anything because i don't understand. I'm not that much of a scientist.

A theory is something that is not a Law because it cannot be stated whether it is 100% true or not. The Big Bang theory has many things going for it that can prove that it is true, but we won't be able to prove whether it is true or not unless we were to go back in time and see it for ourselves, or live out an indefinate amout of time to see occur again for ourselves. A Law is a repetitive pattern of God's works that occur in the Universe he made. It is a Law because it is set in stone and does not change. A Miracle is when God does something else that goes against the Law of the Universe, meaning that he uses his power for something else. That's what i believe anyway.

Now about DuncanMcNeil's earlier post: