On dragons: the book The Flight of Dragons by Peter Dickinson examines how dragons could exist if they did exist (biology in particular). A well-written and fun read. It was merged with a fantasy novel called The dragon and the george (I forget the author's name) to form a plot for the animated film The flight of dragons. It was voiced by Harry Morgan as the good wizard and John Ritter as Peter Dickinson, who like Eustace is transformed into a dragon. Dickinson frees himself from the spell by

On the fuss over "Happy Holidays" ... the church basement reminds us to watch out for the lament of the "persecuted hegemony." That is, Christians are still the majority and we need to remind ourselves not to act like spoiled children who only received 99 gifts instead of 100.

Put it another way:

[satire on]

"This is your government speaking. Thank you for your interest in establishing an official state religion. Unfortunately, we cannot keep all the denominations straight, as Catholics aren't the only ones who sometimes refer to other denominations as "other religions." (Example: "our new neighbors go to church but I don't know what religion they are.")

"As the tolerance of all Christian denominations would still result in a pluralistic society, we feel it is necessary to pick one. We hereby declare the Greek Orthodox Church to be the official religion by reason of precedent. If Greek was good enough for the New Testament, it's good enough for you.

"In the spirit of the new official religion, we hereby declare that Christmas shall be celebrated on January 6. All government offices will be closed on that day to honor the one true holiday. If you wish to take December 25 as a personal or unpaid day off, feel free to clear this with your employer. You may not sue for discrimination if he has a business to run and therefore refuses to let you have "The Day Frodo Left Rivendell" as a paid holiday.

"We will also observe Lent. Stores and restaurants are encouraged to adjust their products for sale accordingly. Easter will be observed according to the Greek calendar.

"It is encouraged that worship services should be in Greek. If you don't know the language, there's no better time to learn.

"It is encouraged that people actually know the name of the guy they report to. It's Archbishop Demetrios. Please make a note of it. Please note also that the Greek Orthodox church is autocephalos under Demetrios. Kindly do not screw that up for us with the other Patriarchates.

"Icons shall be installed in all government and public school buildings, and the public shall be instructed in how to do reverence to them.

"Non-Greek baptismal certificates will no longer be accepted as a form of legal identification. In the past, most states allowed a person who is applying for a driver's license or passport to submit a Christian baptismal certificate as one of the acceptable forms of identification to obtain more identification. As Hindus, atheists and other nonbelievers never had baptismal certificates to present when attempting to obtain state-approved identification, they will not be more inconvenienced than they already are. However those of you unorthodox "Christians" who have already been baptized in a non-Greek church will have to talk to an officially certified priest (certified by us) to see if you are just out of luck.

"Couples who marry outside of the Greek Orthodox Church shall be treated as common-law marriages, unless you remarry in the real church as is right and proper. The Orthodox service includes a crowning ceremony, without which the service is incomplete. The state has some interest in addressing couples living in sin, but as we have a lot of other laws to pass, we will at present leave such enforcement to your large, angry in-laws. However if you wish to file as Married on your federal and state tax returns, you will have to complete the real ceremony by December 31 or the end of the fiscal year, whichever is closer. Otherwise you will have to file as Single and pay a lot more income tax. (Oops, forget we said that.)

"Religious schools should be Greek Orthodox religious schools. Non-Greek-Orthodox churches will have to explain why they wish to continue being tax-exempt. That tax-exemption-is-for-everyone-stuff is for pluralists.

"Any person who has been baptized or married in an Eastern Orthodox church that is not Greek Orthodox, specifically, shall have his or her case reviewed on an individual basis. Please bring the officiant with you to any government office in case we need to conduct an interview.

"Finally --

(just because there are so many Calvinists and predestinationists on this forum)

" -- we hereby declare Free Will to be the one, right, and true soteriology. The mandatory school prayers, prayers before football games, prayers in the end zone, and prayers before the firefighters' pancake breakfast shall all reflect this. Any person who compromises such speech with talk of predestination, total depravity, limited atonement and so forth shall be guilty of a religious hate crime, misdemeanor level. Children may be suspended from school until they offer a written apology. Repeat offenders may be referred to counseling. Adults who indulge in this non-protected speech may not sue their employers for dismissal, and repeat offenders may spend a night in jail. Those who persist in their noncompliant ways remain at liberty (for now) to take up careers in rap music, where hate speech still enjoys some limited protection as 'artistic expression.'

"These are just the rules today. We reserve the right to change the rules to something stricter at the Archbishop's and/or the Patriarch's suggestion.
"Have a safe and happy New Year, to be followed by a Merry Orthodox Christmas."

[/satire off]

Yeah, it's a bit grumpy. I guess it's just that we've seen how religious wars shattered Europe and yet people don't realize how little they have to complain about. But also, I don't mind "Happy Holidays" because it includes Thanksgiving. When people on this forum started talking about the "war on Christmas" before it was even Thanksgiving, it didn't make people look very thankful.

EDIT: Congratulations, Draugrin and family!

Yes, indeed Grendel was most often described as a Troll in various translations. Trolls are often largish, vaguely man shaped creatures though apparently "deformed", they were said to lurk under bridges near the water ready to pounce upon unwary travelers.

If there is any basis for their reality, perhaps it is in one of the other branches of hominids such as Neanderthals who shared existence with modern humans (Cro-Magnon) in places such as Europe as recently as 25,000 - 30,000 years ago. At which point they became extinct either due to being unable to compete with the Cro- Magnon or possible interbreeding (they were a relatively small population compared to the new arrivals). Most scientists today point to recent genome analyses of samples of Neanderthal Mitochondrial DNA as evidence that Neanderthals did not interbreed, though there are still a few scientists who think it was possible. But unless someone comes up with better physical evidence, this seems fairly conclusive as the genetic divergence is far greater from Cro-Magnon than any modern genetic variance between people.

There is little doubt that Neanderthals would have looked very different from the new arrivals in Europe. Their rib cage flared out, so they would have had no waists, which would have exaggerated their thick-set appearance.

Heavy jaws, a double arch over the eyebrow resulting in a beetle brow and strong muscles added to the overall thuggish look. But despite the reputation for being thick, Neanderthals were intelligent – they used quite sophisticated stone tools, controlled fire, wore animal skins and buried their dead. The presence of a hyoid bone in their throats also suggested they could speak, although few experts believe that they were capable of the sophisticated language being developed at the time by early modern humans. There are indications though that they had symbolism and rituals, indicating the presence of some kind of spiritual beliefs.

So it's relatively easy to see how our human ancestors could have passed down memories of these Troll-like peoples just another 15,000 to 20,000 years. No doubt Neolithic Villagers would have unfairly equated nomadic groups with these collective memories, just as people today look down upon "gypsys' .

There is a Dragon in Beowulf, but he is likely based upon Fafnir, an earlier Dragon in The Ring Cycle.

Though I love to entertain notions that Dragons really existed, without any corroborating physical evidence, the most likely explanation is that ancient peoples discovering dinosaur skeletons created Myths to explain them. Though I am also fond of the idea that maybe they incinerate and turn to ash upon their deaths leaving no physical trace of their existence.

GB

EDIT: WOW! Just saw your post TOM . Great Tirade

Very funny, TOM.
I never thought I'd find this article when I started looking for references to Christmas in June, celebrated in Australia of late.

Christmas is a lovely time of the year for a holiday, I agree, even though it comes only a week before New Year's Day, which is also the anniversary of the proclamation of Federation of what is now the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. With Christmas also followed by Boxing Day, and with compensatory days off should either day fall on a weekend, why would we be all that worried about a change to January 5th, when it is Epiphany anyway? It isn't until the following week that we finally start getting back to work

So in the middle of Summer we have fake snow decorating houses, people dressing up in hot Santa suits, and all the wintry Northern Hemisphere stuff that you have, including the carols. Plus people who wonder why we are having a holiday all about winter in the middle of summer. Don't worry about Hannukah, let alone other sorts of religious holidays like Eid or Diwali, which might also coincide with Christmas, since both Diwali and Eid are determined by the phases of the moon, and at some time or other will coincide with Christmas as well, which is what happened around 2000.

Now you are saying that Christmas is only a conversion from a Winter Saturnalia anyway. Down here, the Winter Solstice is June 22nd or thereabouts. The trouble is, if we were to change the date, not only would we be out of synch with Christmas practice elsewhere in the world, but we already have a long weekend the second Monday in June for the Queen's Birthday Public Holiday, celebrated even by hard-working Republicans who are grateful for the excuse to have the day off work.

Now that is a weird public holiday, since it isn't really the Queen's birthday, which falls in April, and the Queen's birthday doesn't get celebrated at any time in UK, the country she is actually Queen of, besides us. But if we were to combine this holiday with Christmas in June, we might actually have a holiday in that part of the year which actually means something, that warrants a greeting that is better than the non-specific Happy Holidays!

But would the Churches agree?

Well there you go Wagga . That evidence would seem to match up with actual Biblical indications of the time of Jesus' birth. If shepherds were tending their flocks outside "in fields where they lay", it was unlikely to have been a "Cold Winter's night" , which actually is very cold in the winter in Israel. In Winter shepherds stayed in shelters. This indicates that when the Angel proclaimed Jesus' birth it must have been Spring or Summer .

GB

Well no, not quite, Gandalf's Beard. Bethlehem is situated at 31˚ 43΄N 35˚ 12΄E, no more than 5˚ further away from the tropics than is warm, sunny Brisbane, where they filmed the Dawn Treader. Although Bethlehem is also in a mountainous area, and it can get nippy, it would have a comparable climate to much of Northern NSW. Therefore it may not be anywhere near so cold that it would necessarily warrant locking up the sheep and cows. It did snow in Jerusalem in 2006. But that is as rare an event as snow in northern NSW.

Of course climate has varied a lot over 2000 years. But even if it really was the middle of winter when Christ was born, without an abnormally cold snap mentioned in the Bible, the wintry Christmas scenes are still unwarranted.

What we celebrate in NSW is Yulefest from June to August inclusive. There isn't any one date or occasion to pinpoint, just a chance to really enjoy roast dinners.

But the Leviathan thing I have to at least tempt to tackle. Leviathan, if read in context, appears to be some sort of rather large sea serpent or similar critter, and Leviathan is not only mentioned in the book of Job, but also Pslams and Isaiah, and all accounts refer to Leviathan as a serpent of some type living in the depths of the ocean. It is entirely possible that Leviathan's mention in Scripture is symbolic of something, but I have a hard time with this idea as the Job account, in particular, God addresses the creature and describes it with far more depth than would warrant a "make believe" animal of some type. The vast majority of the ocean remains unexplored. Scientists can sound places like the Challenger Deep to get depth readings and may even be able to send down remote submersibles to gather samples of the ocean floor, but who really knows what's lurking down there? That's why I tend to view Leviathan as a real creature that's actually in the ocean somewhere, even as we speak.

Aha! Aha! The Loch Ness Monster is explained. Biblically perhaps.

According to any number of weather sites temperatures can sometimes drop fairly sharply at night in that region (particularly in the mountainous areas), and in winter to Freezing levels. And that's during our current warming trend.

And according to some sites regarding sheep-herding in the Middle East (I love google ), shepherds seek shelter in the winter months. Conversely, while shepherds may summer in the hills and mountains, they often bring their flocks to the valleys in the winter.

GB

Aha! Aha! The Loch Ness Monster is explained. Biblically perhaps.

Hey, I'm open to the idea. There are places on our planet we've not yet explored (and the oceans form the vast majority of this) and I'm sure lots of surprises in store for the group that rediscovers creatures they thought were long extinct. I've heard that "Nessie" fits the description of a plesiosaur, an aquatic dinosaur, and frankly it wouldn't surprise me too much if it did exist, but my problem with it is that as much as Loch Ness is watched (nay, scoured) by people trying to find it no trace of this creature has ever been found. Just lots of purported pictures (including quite a few hoax images) and stories. I mean, something as big as a plesiosaur can't just hide in plain sight like that...it's gotta come up for air at some point.

Still, I can't discount the possibility. If these things were swimming the oceans when the Flood hit, once the water receded they'd be basically stuck wherever the water left them. If this happens to be in the middle of a land-locked Scottish lake, so be it. I've also heard stories of creatures resembling apatosauruses supposedly living in the deepest parts of central Africa, and that may be true too for all I know. If local tribes draw pictures of huge creatures with small heads and long necks they've seen during their forays into the deep jungle who's to say such a thing couldn't be possible? It's not unreasonable to assume that many creatures reside in little pockets isolated from man that may not be rediscovered for many years.

I'm rather liking this topic!

I mean, something as big as a plesiosaur can't just hide in plain sight like that...it's gotta come up for air at some point.
Actually, all that has to come up above water level is the head. I can't really blame the poor thing for being camera shy.
It's not unreasonable to assume that many creatures reside in little pockets isolated from man that may not be rediscovered for many years.
Very true. Unfortunatly as man steadily encroaches on their habitat we can expect the possibility of eliminating them all together. Combine this with the scientific establishment's refusal to even admit to the possibility of their existance, protecting such creatures is almost nil.
I'm rather liking this topic!

Honestly, what grown up kid would not?

Here's an interesting tidbit on Loch Ness. There have been as many at 11,000 sightings. Obviously some are fake, but can all 11,000 be fake? Some of the sightings include seeing it on land at night. And I wouldn't judge the media in terms of reporting it. The media is biased towards evolution, and reporting Loch Ness sightings, especially if it truly is a Plesiasaur as it is thought to be, would debunk the entire theory. If evolution is true, Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, so there for if Loch Ness is there, it couldn't be a plesiasaur, because it went extinct.

The same came be said about a massive swamp in the Congolese Jungle that is 80% explored. The local tribes describe a creature with a long neck and thick, long tail that scares off the alligators and crocodiles. When shown a picture of a brontosaurus, the tribes told explorers that was it. But the tribes were told it could be because the explorers 'knew' dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. But seeing one live would most certainly be swept under the rug be media and sought to be debunked.

It's sad, but any time a teacher or scientist shows or discovers something that could prove evolution to be false, they are fired and having thier funding cut off. This happened to Dr. Charles Jackson, who simply approached the topic on an even scale and though he had four Masters of Science Degrees, he was fired. This has happened all around with scientists too that discover something that would debunk evolution. Thier funding is immediately cut off. When you boil down evolution to its core, it as much a religion as Christianity or Islam, or Hinduism. The diety of evolution is man, knowledge, and 'science'. But here is a really interesting tibit. Well known evolutionist and anti-creationist Richard Dawkins keeps publishing books about God and creation and evolution. He's attempting to use science to disprove God. But if he is right all along, why try to disprove God? If there is no God, he is just as mystical as a flying banana ship. No one goes to try to disprove a flying banana ship. When someone makes a claim about one, they are passed off as crazy. But if God does exist, trying to disprove him is not only futile, it shows the true heart of the matter: 'sinful rebellion'. I believe in a literal 6-day creation that took place within the last 10,000 years, because not only is that what the Bible teaches, but it is also what true science supports. It doesn't and cannot prove it, when science is done from a true objective, scientific standpoint, it will align almost flawlessly with a literal 6-day creation taking place less than 10,000 years ago. I'd say more but I gotta run.

Here's something you guys might want to look at:

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Here's an interesting tidbit on Loch Ness. There have been as many at 11,000 sightings. Obviously some are fake, but can all 11,000 be fake? Some of the sightings include seeing it on land at night. And I wouldn't judge the media in terms of reporting it. The media is biased towards evolution, and reporting Loch Ness sightings, especially if it truly is a Plesiasaur as it is thought to be, would debunk the entire theory. If evolution is true, Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, so there for if Loch Ness is there, it couldn't be a plesiasaur, because it went extinct.

I've had a sort of obsession with Nessie since I was little. I'm going to England this summer, and I fully intend to spend a weekend at Loch Ness with some binoculars! But even if I did see something really really irrefutable, I don't think I would report it. The first reaction to proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster would be "Kill it!" or "Trap it and study it!", and that's just not cool. Some other lake monsters, though, have legal bans on disturbing them if they are ever found.

One of the arguments against Nessie's existence is that something as large as a pleisiasaur (or a family of them) would seriously upset the dynamic of prey fish in the lake...but since people have been seeing Nessie since before scientists started measuring things like prey fish dynamics, couldn't their be no disruption at all? A large disruption usually occurs when a new predator is introduced, not one that has been living there for thousands of years.

The same came be said about a massive swamp in the Congolese Jungle that is 80% explored. The local tribes describe a creature with a long neck and thick, long tail that scares off the alligators and crocodiles. When shown a picture of a brontosaurus, the tribes told explorers that was it. But the tribes were told it could be because the explorers 'knew' dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. But seeing one live would most certainly be swept under the rug be media and sought to be debunked.

There's also a tendency among the scientists who study this to say that the tribespeople are "confused" and "don't know what they're seeing", which is incredibly rude and demeaning. Honestly, I think it's possible that some dinosaurs could have survived whatever happened to wipe most of them out. It's not like someone flipped a switch in their brains and they all dropped dead instantly! Some could have adapted to the new parameters, it's just not very likely, and they are probably much smaller than their original counterparts. Sharks and alligators did it, why couldn't some dinosaurs? I tend to think there could be something brontosaurus like in the Congo, and some even weirder things in the deep ocean. Anyone remember Celeocanths? Scientists said those had to be extinct, too, until one was hauled up in a fishing net.

It's sad, but any time a teacher or scientist shows or discovers something that could prove evolution to be false, they are fired and having thier funding cut off. This happened to Dr. Charles Jackson, who simply approached the topic on an even scale and though he had four Masters of Science Degrees, he was fired. This has happened all around with scientists too that discover something that would debunk evolution. Thier funding is immediately cut off. When you boil down evolution to its core, it as much a religion as Christianity or Islam, or Hinduism. The diety of evolution is man, knowledge, and 'science'. But here is a really interesting tibit. Well known evolutionist and anti-creationist Richard Dawkins keeps publishing books about God and creation and evolution. He's attempting to use science to disprove God. But if he is right all along, why try to disprove God? If there is no God, he is just as mystical as a flying banana ship. No one goes to try to disprove a flying banana ship.

I think Darwin would be terrified by the extent of debate his theory generates in modern times, and how widely accepted as truth it is. To me, science doesn't disprove God, it just keeps proving It. The more we delve into the tiniest parts of the world, the more God is present. I've heard people say the Big Bang Theory is direct "disproof" of God. The Big Bang Theory states that all matter was compressed and then exploded. But where did that matter come from? How did it become compressed? Science can't explain that, and that is where science meshes inextricably with God.

When someone makes a claim about one, they are passed off as crazy. But if God does exist, trying to disprove him is not only futile, it shows the true heart of the matter: 'sinful rebellion'. I believe in a literal 6-day creation that took place within the last 10,000 years, because not only is that what the Bible teaches, but it is also what true science supports. It doesn't and cannot prove it, when science is done from a true objective, scientific standpoint, it will align almost flawlessly with a literal 6-day creation taking place less than 10,000 years ago. I'd say more but I gotta run.

What objective science supports a 10,000 year old Earth? The only "science" I've seen that tries to prove that is creationist museums. What is "true" science anyway? Who gets to decide which science is "true" and which is not?

The reason for Loch Ness being able to harbour anything at all, is that it is the second largest and easily the deepest freshwater lake (loch) in UK. Loch Ness is part of a system of lochs and firths which reach from Fort William, on the Firth of Lorne to Inverness on the Firth of Moray, along the Great Glen Fault. This ancient faultline, now interrupted by the Mid Atlantic Ridge, stretches from Scotland to Donegal, in Ireland and thence all the way to the Gulf of St Lawrence in North America, and it marks the meeting point of the Laurasia and Baltica tectonic plates. What you may not know is that Loch Ness is linked with Loch Linnhe and other lochs all the way to the sea by the Caledonian Canal, built in the early 1800's, so that if it could slip past the 29 locks, any large creature would be free to escape to the sea.

But even if I did see something really really irrefutable, I don't think I would report it. The first reaction to proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster would be "Kill it!" or "Trap it and study it!", and that's just not cool. Some other lake monsters, though, have legal bans on disturbing them if they are ever found.

Oh I fully agree, Draugrin. . By the way, whilst the Bible might back up the fossil record, and possible existence of the likes of Nessie, Nessie's continued existence or non-existence is not proof or nor is it disproof of Evolution. It is possible that some dinosaurs could still survive, like the mentioned Coelocanth, but as you say, those who did survive would need to be able to adapt to life in different environments. Don't forget that, despite recurrent bushfires which have repeatedly devastated the entire area ever since 1788, it was still possible to find in 1994 the so called Wollemi pine, which is, like the Great Glen faultline, itself, another 200 million year old survivor from the Cretaceous era despite the proximity of Australia's largest urban development.

Perhaps other ancient species survived in ways nobody could ever dreamed, which seems to be claimed by the author of Your inner fish

I agree with you also, most emphatically, that Evolution cannot be used to disprove the existence of God, and that such was never Charles Darwin's original intention in publishing his findings and observations when he travelled in the Beagle. The introductory pages of the Pelican edition of Origin of Species points out the untruth of some accusations made against him by those outraged by his findings and conclusions. For example, there is an implication that humans might be related to apes, to be sure, but no direct assertion, which should save the honour of insulted apes at any rate.

I wonder if anyone saw recent SMH news item. What would finding that we are all descended from the one Y-chromosomal Adam prove or disprove? And what would you all make of it?

As far as I'm concerned, the Big Bang Theory sounds an awful lot like "Let There Be Light" . I don't really see any conflict there.

And Fencer, just because some critters may not be extinct yet, in no way disproves Evolution.

GB

When I talk about true science, I talk about what the scientific theory and the attempt to observe what we see via realistic methods. True science is the discovery of gravity; it is testing electricity; it is studying seismic waves; it is learning about biological cells and DNA; the list goes on. But this is what science is not: science is not "Life began millions of years ago and evolved to what we see today"; science is not "God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago; it does not take already made assumptions (which in the scientist's mind is virtually impossibe, but easier to do than it appears).

An example, I can take a look at the Grand Canyon. It is quite clear from the formations that the forces of water and erosion created the canyon. We can use science to prove that water created it. Evolutionists believe the Colorado River carved it out. Creationists tend to believe that the Flood created it. Science cannot prove one or the other, because we have no means of recreating it. But we can use science to help explain what happened. It is scientific to say the water does not go uphill without some force stronger than gravity and the water pressure behind it. There are a number of places in the Grand Canyon where the walls are higher downriver than they are upriver. But we can scientifically show that a Flood could have created it. We have Mt. St Helens. After the eruption, Spirit Lake filled up due to an ash dam. When it broke several years later, a canyon at 1/20 scale of the Grand Canyon was formed. We can also recreate this effect on a smaller scale. Science can show that Flood waters were capable of creating the Grand Canyon. But science alone cannot 'prove' it.

The problem that many people have is that they state what they believe and call it science. Evolution says the geologic column is part of science. I agree. The idea that the geologic column proves the ages of things is not science. That is interpretation, which is beyond what I am talking about with true science. Evolution says these layers formed after millions of years of the collection of dust and pressure. Creationists look at the geologic column and think of a Flood. But science disproves evolution and supports creation. The fossils alone disprove the hypothesis of it taking millions of years to create the geologic column. How do they explain vertical trees in the column that's suppossed to span 2-3 evolutionary eras? Sciences however, while not proving it, does support the Biblical account of the Flood. Did you know that if you take a bunch of minerals throw them all together in water, shake it around, and let is settle, they will settle in the order of the geologic column? To create fossils, it takes a sudden burial with lots of pressure. How can bones fossilize lying on the ground waiting for millions of years of dust to gather on it? Flood waters can do it though.

As for objective science specifically for a 10,000 year old earth...biology. Biological tissue, even when fossilized cannot survive more than 10,000 years old. This is completely independent of preconcieved ideas and assumptions. Biological tissues decays at that rate in conditions where it can be preserved in its best state. Obviously given certain conditions, it can decay faster, but the limit we have found so far is about 10,000 years. We found a T-Rex thigh bone with intact blood tissue. That alone proves man's proximity to dinosaurs, not to mention all the legends mentioned above. Science has also shown that the genes and DNA are in decay. They have discovered that after about 10,000 years, the genes in man will have degenerated to a point where we won't be able to reproduce. Run the math, and you have to assume that the human gene pool can't be more than 10,000 years old. Also, if you run the human population growth chart and rates backwards, you will reach single digits around 4,400 years ago, matching with incredible precision with the Biblical account of the Flood, in which only 8 people survived.

That is what I am trying to distinguish between evolution and what is true science. The real issue with science is that it cannot be held to the highest standard. Science doesn't prove evolution and it doesn't prove God. Science can disprove evolution, but it can't disprove God. God is the creator and author of science and science can show us how he made the world. Ps 19:1 states the heavens declare the glory of God. Creation itself is a testimony about who God is, much like anything we create is a testimony about who we are. I've written a novel, and that novel is a reflection of who I am. It does not prove me, but it does point to me, tell about who I am, and what I stand for. Creation is like God's novel. Everything in creation points to him, tells us about him, and tells us who he is. True science is the means of delving into the 'novel' and seeing how God made it. I hope that clarifies my approach.

Well said, Fencer. Good examples and explanations. I really like this bit:

God is the creator and author of science and science can show us how he made the world. Ps 19:1 states the heavens declare the glory of God. Creation itself is a testimony about who God is, much like anything we create is a testimony about who we are. I've written a novel, and that novel is a reflection of who I am. It does not prove me, but it does point to me, tell about who I am, and what I stand for. Creation is like God's novel. Everything in creation points to him, tells us about him, and tells us who he is. True science is the means of delving into the 'novel' and seeing how God made it.

And it reminded me of this:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Science cannot prove or disprove God. And it can't recreate or test in a lab a past event. Creation is a once-for-all act. It is God's handiwork, His signature. I'm trying to remember an apt Tagore quote, that I can't find online.

EDIT

As far as I'm concerned, the Big bang Theory sounds an awful lot like "Let There Be Light" . I don't really see any conflict there.

I don't know much about the Big Bang theory but I agree. I mentioned before in this thread about seeing a popular Christian t-shirt that says "I believe in the Big Bang theory. God spoke and BANG! It was."
/EDIT

Christmas: Christ - mass
Holiday: holy day