Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Sea monster's remains found on Arctic island

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 1:28 PM EST 06/10/06

Prehistoric reptile was ‘as long as a bus, with teeth larger than cucumbers ... in a head that could swallow an adult human whole' ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Remember, according to so-called Biblical Fundamentalist Christians [there seem to be few Jewish sources for this view!], this critter cannot (per the chronology of the Bible) be more than 6010 years old, since the Universe was created on October 23, 4004 B.C. Just trying to help here . . . .
  2. David Irving from melbourne, Canada writes: lets hope in the future some crazy scientist can artificially reproduce something like this , similar to jurassic park , but by then there wont be enough fish for these monsters to eat and the big game is already beeing eaten up the japanese hunting whales ... )) --C Melbourne , AU
  3. Reality Check from Ottawa, Canada writes: The photo appears to show a mosasaur, not a plesiosaur. The plesiosaur I believe is the smaller creature in the teeth of the larger one, which somewhat takes away from the sensational headline. See, all that time I spent looking at dinosaur books as a kid wasn't wasted.
  4. C Loaf from Canada writes: Cool! Nothing beats the mental image of a cucumber-toothed dinosaur, swimming towards your dingy with mouth agape to bring on the cold sweats! Can you just imagine those things swimming around? I love this stuff.
  5. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: i didnt read anything more than the heading and i only have one thing to say: sweet
  6. Jim Bradley from Ottawa, Canada writes: ...and when they turned the sternum over they were stunned to read 'Made in China'
  7. Bob McDonald from Canada writes: These are great stories. You'd never find them on the websites of National Post or Toronto Star.
  8. C H from Canada writes: I Knew Nessie was real!
  9. Banquo's ghost from Canada writes: Used to be Stockwell's ancestor's pet back when he was Fred Flintstone's neighbour. Of course, Stockwell believes that was only a few centuries ago. Good thing this was discovered now. In a few more years Stockwell and the evangelical right will have made it illegal on pain of stoning in the public square for anyone to study or publicize anything to do with the age of the planet if it doesn't jibe with fundamentalist Biblical mythology. Isn't Canada's New Government (TM) fun?
  10. Jack Robinson from London, Canada writes: Wow... this is cool newz indeed! I'd thought My Ex was Lost to Me Forever when she was swept off the bow of the Arctic Princess during our stormy, doomed-from-the-start honeymoon erstwhile eons ago! Finders' Keepers...
  11. Jack Ryan from TorontoCalgary, Canada writes: I can't wait for someone to come on here and tell us that these dinosaurs are less than 5000 years old.
  12. Will Koroluk from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'd been wondering whatever happened to my old high school math teacher.
  13. True Blue from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I wonder what creationists have to say about this?
  14. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: YO ! WILL ! (No. 12, above). DUDE ! I beg to differ. That is MY old Math teacher (Mrs. Phillips . . . 9th grade . . . Algebra . . . WAIT! Maybe that's Mrs. Harper . . . 10th grade . . . Geometry . . . ?)
  15. Matthew McCumber from Toronto, Canada writes: As usual I came to the site expecting something serious or depressing but all I've done is laugh since reading the headline and all the hilarious comments
  16. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes: The actual length of the Genesis day is still in question and unresolved. So the 4004 bc is quite silly to begin with. However, Genesis does record the creation of the great sea monsters (or serpents) on the 5th day of Creation. That is quite amazing since those who received the biblical records some 3,500 years ago most probably had never encountered such creatures... other than the occasionally lost whale. And now we arre unearthing the remains of such a massive hulk.
  17. David Bakody from Dartmouth, writes: Science is a wonderful profession; such a fine is more than words it is a link to our long past. My first thoughts are what will they find next, do these finds have anything to do with global warming in any respects? Another deeper thought; has evolution progressed from prehistoric animals to mankind and our days are numbered in much the same as theirs? The Winds of War coupled with greed producing and using fossil fuels has set humans on a destructive path. It was once stated that we are either the smartest race in the universe or we are dumbest. When science continues to layout our past in such detail and continues to warn us of the future if we continue on our destructive route to self importance by greed needs more headlines. If less is done then perhaps one day they will find our remains of a race that had bigger eyes than their bellies and destroyed them.
  18. Ray Ebi from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm a creationist. What do I think? Frankly, I think it's a wonderful find!
  19. Green Mile from Canada writes: Awesome?
  20. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: appears to be a 1-joke crowd here; don't give up the day job, fellows.
  21. joseph Cheng from Toronto, Canada writes: I won't be the least bit surprised that pretty soon, we will find this item on the sushi menu everywhere. I just wonder what kind of dipping sauce I should use to enhance the flavor!!
  22. remi houle from Canada writes: This monster may well still be alive as described in Loch Ness. So it is not prehistoric at all. There is a monster well described in the Bible. Since the Bible is about 4 000 years old, nothing prehistoric at all. 100 millions of years exist only in the head of some people.
  23. 2Foxy Ladies from the Prairies, Canada writes: I was somewhat disappointed that the article doesn't mention Canada as another one of the best places in the world to find mosasaurs and plesiosaurs...Manitoba, in fact, has great examples on display in the Manitoba Museum. Manitoba is actually the second best place on record in the world to find marine fossils since it was underwater for most of the time earth has existed. And please...stop calling them dinosaurs...Dinosaurs lived on land. These were giant swimming reptiles that lived in the water during the same time as dinosaurs lives on land...Let's get it straight here...This said, Canada's New Government has just cut funding to most museums in Canada. A crying shame that this government does not see the value of learning science in the context of museums where real fossils and artefacts are kept for all to learn from. They only seem interested in pushing a Christian right agenda and keeping the blinders on to the known facts about our Earth's past.
  24. Tim Cares from Canada writes: There be monsters!!
  25. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: sweet
  26. JD Wood from Toronto, Canada writes: Now if only we can somehow revive it and get it to swallow Stephen Harper whole!!
  27. M Jancewicz from Canada writes: Mr. Day should be sent for a fact finding mission there. He taught Sunday School in Alberta or in BC that evolution has never happened. Unless he has evolved himself by now. But does a conservative ever evolve?
  28. Greg R. from Mission BC, Canada writes: We better hurry up and claim it since the yanks think they own the artic now!
  29. Paul Terefenko from Toronto, Canada writes: This creature with no doubt spawn some wonderful Metal songs...or perhaps a full album?
  30. Bruce Batchelor from Canada writes: Calling these lovely highly adapted creatures 'Monsters' is crude, unfeeling and unprofessional. If a meteorite had not obliterated these life forms they would still be kings of the sea, and our mammalian ancestors would still be the size of voles!
  31. Carly MacKay from United States writes: Jack Ryan from TorontoCalgary - these dinosaurs are less than 5000 years old - ha ha ha ha ha, ok I can't say it with a straight face.
  32. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: To # 17 D. Bakody....I think we are the 'dumbest' creatures as we are bent on self destruction by our own greed and self interest which is not sustainable. Must be comforting to be one of those fundies who believes our destruction will be part of God's plan and the second coming. I wonder how our security minister reconciles this with his beliefs...maybe it was the 'pet of his ancestors' as one poster noted.....too funny...
  33. Paul Smith from Canada writes: Yes Ray (#18) but the question on everyones lips is 'how old do you think it is?'
  34. Khalid Rahim from Scarborough, Canada writes: When do we see these wonderful Arctic creatures in the museum of natural history or perhaps in the Smithsonian.The CREATOR gave man the power to think and reason in his quest to discover the universe before him.How long it took him to search and find the wonders that Scientists have been calculating time and time again.
  35. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: No. 16 above writes: 'The actual length of the Genesis day is still in question and unresolved. So the 4004 bc is quite silly to begin with. ' NOPE. It is NOT 'in question'. The Book of Genesis uses the term, 'day'. It does NOT use the term 'a day means whatever we want, it means 'a long period of time, we don't know HOW long' '. NOPE. The Hebrew versions of Genesis say, 'day'. The Greek versions of Genesis say, 'day'. A day is just about 24 hours (and a few seconds) in length. Those who want to pretend that there is some type of 'issue' here are just playing games. Further, the year 4004 BC (as the starting point of the Universe) is not 'silly' but was selected by such Biblical scholars as Bishop Ussher and Dr. John Lightfoot. Sorry . . . if you believe that the Bible is the 'Word of God,' then you believe that the word 'day' means 'day'. Attempts to play games with that word are silly. . . . I am NOT endorsing the Bible as a work of history (because it is NOT), I am just saying to so-called Biblical Fundamentalist Christians: 'Be consistent, if you 'believe the Bible,' then DON'T play games.' . . . I know it's tough for some of these folks to be honest, but they should . . . TRY.
  36. Ray Ebi from Toronto, Canada writes: In response to Paul (#33)'s question: I really don't know the age of this marine reptile or the age of the earth. But I do think of myself as a Creationist because I believe in a Creator. Perhaps you might say that there are different species of Creationists.
  37. Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: Maybe we could get it to reproduce and save a ton of money on Arctic defence.
  38. sherry smith from nanaimo, Canada writes: Kudo's to the Globe and Mail for this excellent story. My 7 year old Grandson studies the history of these amazing creatures and knows all their names and when they existed. I must admit I wasn't prepared for this type of story on the front lines and it was a refreshing change from Mr. Luft's scathing comments and left bashing. Mankind seems intent on destroying himself and the wonderful animals on this planet due to greed, control and arrogance and it's such a shame as this Earth is such a wonderful diverse planet with an incredible history.
  39. jorly fuster from t.o., Canada writes: I assume Adam and Eve rode these like horses. after all all life started with Adam and Eve didn't it? Isn't that why we ban gay marriage, because we believe that Adam and Eve had a pet dinosaur like the Flintstone's.
  40. david walters from Canada writes: As a life long agnostic, I continue to be saddened by the hateful, mocking comments of the anti-fundamentalist Christian folks posting here. The left purports to be 'tolerant' but such tolerance seems to only pertain to those who think exactly like they do. Others are maligned and mocked. In my opinion, the biggest threat to our society are not Christian fundamentalists, but the secular, politically correct-fundamentalist, intolerant bigots.
  41. D F from Canada writes: The bible may be the word of God, but let us remember those words were recorded by humans, and we all know how fallible they are
  42. Roger Freel from Canada writes: It's the predecessor to the contemporary neo-anderthal, aka the Harpercritter.
  43. k d from Canada writes: Cucumber teeth...interesting adjective. Cucumber farmers will love it. Now are were talking the little cucumbers we use in pickles or the big cucumbers Leslie Neilson uses in his Nun jokes? Just wondering Kevin
  44. Dwight Fulmore from Courtenay, Canada writes: Only 'partially fossilized' eh? and 150 million years old? I don't think so. I think the 5000 year range would seem a whole lot more plausible. Don't be so gullible to swallow the Humanistic religion's lie as to this world's age. It is not that old of a planet. This is yet another proof of dinosaurs and the like not being near as old as the humanist religion wants us to believe. The T-rex bones with red blood cells that smelled like a meat shop when they cut them apart weren't 60 million years old either.
  45. Patricia Knowles from Ottawa, Canada writes: Where are the pictures of the bones? What, no bones? Than YOU SCIENTISTS HAVE NOTHING!
  46. Dave . from Ottawa, Canada writes: As a creationist, I am quite happy that this discovery has been noted. As to the age of the find.. I don't rightly know. That is to say, yes I do accept the biblical genesis account of seven days, but the time of creation account till now could certainly be more than 4k years as other more publicized 'creationists' have stated. As for the majority of posters on the subject here who are firm believers (with great faith in evolution I might add) there are still many issues to be resolved before you can truly claim there isn't another option. One issue would be the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics: which is a LAW not t-h-e-o-r-y as some of you often forget. The Law states that matter breaks down over time.. which is shown wonderfully by this dinosaur find. Whereas to follow evolutionary thought you must go against the law of thermodynamics to improve/build upon and infuse more complex information. Anyways... it's always fun to read the all the hate free-speech mongers against anyone who by issue alone is dumped in with the 'fundamental right'. Canada by nature is made up of various ethnicities, cultures, languages, religions.. yet when one person posts their viewpoint or religious teaching/conviction... you become intolerant. Interesting...
  47. D M from Toronto, Canada writes: Wow... Such Tolerance and understanding... Creationists are often refered to as bigots on this blog - I'm glad to see that the majority of the posters here are not threatened by people having a different view than them. (If you didn't get it, please re-read the previous paragraph with a sarcastic tone). Let's see, Does the anmial prove or disprove creationism - no Does the animal prove or disprove evolution - no Has the animal been carbon dated - no mention in the article Is the tirade of of comments justified - yes, but only if you are afraid of a different viewpoint.
  48. brent vanstaalduinen from Kuwait, Canada writes: I'm a creationist, and I believe that dinosaur fossils can be millions of years old. I also believe that we may have evolved. Remember, all those who laugh at we religious types, that we don't all believe in a young earth: I personally think it glorifies God more to believe that he orchestrated earth's creation across billions of years. Anyone care to dialogue on the creation-as-analogy theory?
  49. mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Poster No. 16 is ignoring the Biblical implications of this critter . . . and ignoring what the Bible SAYS. According to Bible-believers, this critter could NOT go back further than 4004 BC, after a creation period of the Universe lasting 6 days. Re 'days' of Creation. The Bible is clear: Creation took six DAYS, not 'six long periods of time whose length we don't know, etc., etc.' DAYS. And the 4004 BC start date for the Universe was computed by 'counting back the begats' and had the blessing of such theologians as Bishop Ussher, Dr. John Lightfoot, and countless others. I'm NOT saying that the Bible is historically accurate -- BECAUSE IT ISN'T -- I'm just saying that IF you think that the Bible is the Word of God, don't play games with His Words.
  50. Lazar Mihailovich from nis, Serbia and Montenegro writes: Mr Motoc, before you address such complex issues and condemn all Christians as ignorant hicks, you need to make sure you are up to par on proper biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. Not all 'bible thumpers' as you most likely refer to us, believe the earth to be only a few mellenia old. There are many christians that intrepret the creation account as a 're-fashioning'. Notice the terms the earth was 'formless' and 'void'. and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. So it is essential to realize that there is room for interpretation here. It is acceptable to believe that the dinsosaurs were wiped out millions of years before the creation of man--through a world destroying event and for the biblical account to be true as well. Nevertheless, here's why this topic is largley irrelevant; the bible is not concerned with scientific phenomena as much as it is with the more important issues such as man's existence and his relationship with God--in other words those issues which have eternal significance for all of us. Genesis was written to a largely illiterate group of hebrews who needed to know that in the beginning that God created the heavens and the earth, and man. Moses, the author of Genesis did not intend his audience of Hebrews to be educated in geology--they needed much more relevant information in their dire predicament. Hope this helps. Blessings to you.
  51. martina white from St. John's, Canada writes: I understand how this is a touchy subject however, can't we just say this is an amazing without bringing religion into it. I too am verra concerned about the direction and intent of the conservative government especially now that Doris, er I mean Stockwell, Day has gotten some degree of power back riding in on Stephen Harper's coat tails. This shouldn't cause us to take it out on people who have a different view or belief system than us. That's what THEY do.
  52. robert burrus from Campbell River, Canada writes: You cannot use the 2nd thermodynamic law for an argument against evolution. This law refers to a closed system in which, over time, entropy increases. This earth is not a closed system. Energy is constantly being replenished from the sun. All life ultimatley obtains and recycles electromagnetic energy from the from this source.
  53. Not the Alliance from The Harper Gov't is Incompetent, Canada writes: David Walters Post 40 - Alway's there with your hyper sensitivity to any wrong from the 'left'. Perhaps you should turn your hyper-sensitivity to some of the 'other' posts. You know, the J. Luft's, the Pragmatic Pundits (i.e. the PP that favours Harper) et al. There are MANY of them (or just a handful posting under multiple handles). Just a suggestion. Or are you only 'saddened' by comments from the so-called 'intolerant left'?? Your obvious and consistent bias makes a mockery of your so called 'sadness'. You are as biased as the people you're criticizing. Get off your high horse.
  54. veruckt veruckt from Canada writes: Sounds like leviathan from Job 40 to me.... :-)
  55. Chet Scoville from Canada writes: 'The Law states that matter breaks down over time' Only in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system because it is constantly receiving new energy from the sun.
  56. Loren King from Hamilton, Canada writes: Dave from Ottawa writes: 'The [2nd law of thermodynamics] states that matter breaks down over time ...' This is not what the second law of thermodynamics states. The law relates, in the first instance, to the direction of heat flows in closed thermodynamic systems.
  57. Bryan Vanderkruk from Canada writes: #35 writes: NOPE. The Hebrew versions of Genesis say, 'day'. The Greek versions of Genesis say, 'day' well first of all, these other languages did not say 'DAY' since it's an english word. in fact the septuagint (some of the oldest scriptures found to date) uses a word for day that is quite ambiguous and which could refer to a 'time period' the english translation usese the word day since it was most like it, however it is possible that the creation days could have been long periods of time over which God developed the earth, plants, animals, etc. I am not denying that God could not simply think or speak the earth into existence with the appearance of age, because he could. However I do not reject the possibility that creation could have been done over a long period of time, say millions of years. This could accurately explain the theories of evolution as God guided animals to adapt and change, theories of pangaea, as God moved the waters to make dry land and set the land in its place. it could also explain the loss of species unfit for co-existence with man before God created him in His likeness. You may argue that this contradicts the lack of death and pain before the fall according to the Bible, but the death that came with sin is eternal death, not necessarily physical death. While I am not convinced either way, I do consider each theory to have merit. I am a Bible-believing Christian of the 'fundamentalist' right, but do not consider the time-period theory to be inplausible or contradictory to God's Word.
  58. John newman from Anaheim, United States writes: The ignorance concerning the Bible displayed in the comments is disturbing and appalling. The Bible is God Himself, therefore I would begin to find fault somewhere else. The word in Genesis does mention that there was a preadamic age before our Adamic race. Please take a moment to read the commentaries on Genesis 1:1 thank you. It does indicate that the earth was void and waste and the Spirit hovered over the waters. A judgement of water like that of Noah had taken place before it begins with Adam's race. The dynosaur age was finished not by a meteorite but drowning in water!
  59. Chris Burns from writes: #44 - I think that the fact that the find is a partial fossil - most of it is still buried in the mountainside - got rephrased as 'partially fossilized'. I'm fairly sure it's a typo. As for scientific theories - the first thing scientists do when they come up with a theory is assume it is wrong and try to prove it to be wrong. The theory of evolution has not yet been proven wrong. Maybe it will be in the future, but so far all the evidence that scientists have collected has supported it. The requirement that a theory be falsifiable is why scientists don't try to address questions like 'Is there God?'. Nobody has ever been able to come up with a method for proving he/she does not exist. Scientists approach the world from the point of view that they do not know the truth. They seek to improve their understanding of the world. Creationists believe that they already understand the world, and only look for evidence that supports their viewpoint. That's not science. #46 - By your arguments, life itself violates the second law of thermodynamics. How then can the human body develop from a single fertilized egg into millions of cells?
  60. Former Royal from Canada writes: I love how anything relating to dinosaurs always becomes a Creationism vs. Evolution debate. But I see a lot of flawed logic on both sides. For example, Dave. from Ottawa: Matter breaks down over time? True. It is exactly that process, that of Carbon-dating, that allows scientists to guess how old something is. By determining the amount of carbon that has deteriorated in an organic substance, they are able to approximate how old an ancient find is. I'm sure you can agree that things break down at different rates? If you take a twinkie and place it on a plate next to a raw egg yolk, they both will go bad, but at different rates. Hence, carbon dating. I have a lot of respect for the holy books written (Old Testament, New Testament, the Koran, the Torah) but I see them as stories - not literal truths. Just 500 years ago, Europeans believed the earth was flat. Obviously, not the case. So what are the odds that the stories written more than 1000 years ago are accurate? Not good - but the message they contain are lessons we all can carry away and apply. Many people have deep beliefs in religions of all shapes and sizes, and some messages are good, some are bad. People are detonating themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan right now in the name of religion. But people are feeding the starving and helping the helpless in the name of religion too. So there's some good, some bad. But it seems to me that history has shown the kind of evil that can be wrought when religion is taken literally. Look at Charlemagne, the Inquisition and the witch-hunts, and our current troubles in the middle east to show how literal-mindedness can be harmful.
  61. L W from United States writes: The real dinosaurs in Canada are to be found in Ottawa: in the bureaucracy and the Senate.
  62. Shaun Doody from writes: The second law of thermodynamics? It has absolutely nothing to do with matter breaking down over time. To quote from Wikipedia, the law can be stated as follows: 'Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so.' So energy (not matter) naturally spreads from an area of high concentration to one of low concentration; this in no way precludes dinosaur bones fossilizing over millions of years. Again, to quote from Wikipedia: 'A common misunderstanding of evolution arises from the misconception that the second law applies to information entropy and so prevents increasing complexity or order in life without divine intervention. Information entropy does not support this claim which also fails to appreciate that the second law as a physical or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behaviour, and not a 'law' in the meaning of a set of rules which forbid, permit or mandate specified actions.' I would recommend that the previous poster read the Wikipedia article (which, aside from the lengthy mathematical descriptions, is an interesting read) before again misusing the second law to support an argument. The article is titled 'Second law of thermodynamics', and the quote above is taken from the section entitled 'Improper Applications Beyond Thermodynamics'.
  63. ursus r from Canada writes: RE number 45: It clearly says in the article 'It is believed to be the first complete plesiosaur skeleton ever found.' Complete! This means they found ALL the bones. I, for one, am glad they didn't put a picture of the bones on the website...the one they did use is fantastic!
  64. dwight steadman from Canada writes: I don't see a contradiction between the theory of evolution and the hypothesis that a Creator fashioned the Universe. Ultimately the question we might want to ask ourselves is whether there is a purpose or meaning behind the phenomenon of life. If you think it's just a series of chemical reactions which arose by chance, well then, I guess you're an atheist. If you feel there was some purpose or design behind the world, that it didn't 'just happen', then you're probably in line some kind of faith based intuition. There is no need for the debate to revolve around the literal truth of the biblical account. By the way according to Hindu scriptures the world is about 4 billion years old - which is surprisingly close to the 'scientific' estimates.
  65. Anonymous Freedom from Dartmouth, Canada writes: #40 and #46 you guys have hit the nail on the head. '...the biggest threat to our society are not Christian fundamentalists, but the secular, politically correct-fundamentalist, intolerant bigots...' and '...Anyways... it's always fun to read the all the hate free-speech mongers against anyone who by issue alone is dumped in with the 'fundamental right'. Canada by nature is made up of various ethnicities, cultures, languages, religions.. yet when one person posts their viewpoint or religious teaching/conviction... you become intolerant. Interesting...' If you don't agree with the liberal, anything goes, secular, politically correct-fundamentalist says the you should be force to be quiet. Who is really the intolerant hate mongers? Look in the mirror. Shalom.
  66. J Ross from Calgary, Canada writes: Why is it acceptable in our country to attack Christians, but not Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc? You don't see these boards filled up with the mocking of other religions' beliefs, so why Christians? Perplexed agnostic.
  67. N. Reader from Canada writes: for those that believe that the world and the entire universe began 6,000 years old - learn some math skills....re: birth rates/death etc.....Adam/Eve - Santa Claus or the tooth fairie - same thing
  68. Aumharan Ganeshakumar from Ajax, Canada writes: Interesting!
  69. Dominik B from Canada writes: #46. Dave. Are you sure you are reading the 2nd law correctly. It refers to entropy, which is a tendancy towards low energy 'effort' (if you will). This means that as potential energy is transformed into kinetic, if nothing is done to put energy back into the object or system, it will eventually do nothing. It is not matter break down, but energy loss.
  70. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: Although I'm sure it's a sign of the impending apocalypse, I agree totally with mr motoc in #35......Greek and Hebrew are much more precise languages than English, meaning they have a much more specific vocabulary. There is not nearly as much 'wiggle room' or varied meaning in those languages as in English, and motoc is right: the 'day' in Genesis means 'one rise and set of the sun and moon'. No more, no less, no argument. It IS possible to be faithful and not a creationist; if we were truly created 'in His image', I think it stands to reason that 'His image' doesn't involve stick your head int he sand in the presence of overwhelming science that a person at the time Genesis was written couldn't have comprehended. And 46, you got the second law right, but you just lose information over time; it doesn't mean that it all gets destroyed to the point that you can't come to a logical conclusion. Dinosaurs are real!
  71. L P from Canada writes: The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not say that matter breaks down over time. It says that in a closed system, the entropy count (the amount of energy no longer available for work that maintains the system) rises. What this could possibly have to do with bones in the ground is beyond me, but is a moot point anyway, since the Earth is not a closed system. New energy to maintain it is constantly made available to us by the sun. As far as evolution vs. creation goes, whether there's a God or gods or consciousness behind the existence of the universe is not a question science can answer. But I'm constantly amazed and distressed by supposedly educated people in the modern age who, by an act of the will, discount the evidence of the world all around them — supposedly created by God — such as huge canyons, rock stata on mountaintops laid down eons ago as ocean sediment, impact craters that would have obliterated humanity if they events they commemorate had happened during our tenure on the planet, and the bones of thousands upon thousands of species no longer in existence... all ignored, all written off... and in favour of what? Several hundred pages of translated folklore that purports to better represent the mind, will, and nature of God and the history of the world He created, better than that world itself. Believe in God, yes... but believe also the evidence with which the world abounds. All the rest is hearsay.
  72. Carla Ellis from Peterborough, Canada writes: I understand all the confusion about how old these bones really are. But 5000? Come on! We have human settlements older then that! Are we saying now these things were alive while we were living in our mudhuts? The bible was written as a manual to guide and explain us through a confusing existance when we didn't understand the world around us. Now we have a better way...its called science.
  73. S D from Ottawa, Canada writes: #46, Dave, in terms of creationists versus evolutionists I agree that everyone has the righ to an opinion. However, I would dare say that creationism is also a theory. If you compared evolution to creationism, I think the evidence is more heavily weighed towards what is based on science and imperical evidence, not on faith. The current push for 'intelligent design' is little more than a poorly disguised attempt to promote creationism. Strangely, most of the hardcore creationists and intelligent design supporters spend most of their time and energy trying to poke holes in science without providing any compelling and hard evidence that their theory is actually valid. Except that they 'believe' in it, and I should too. No thanks. If your faith makes you a better person, great. But if you debunk evolution you may as well go after all other science based fields, i.e. medicine, meteorology, physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, etc., etc., - without which we'd still be living on a flat earth in the dark ages. But maybe that is what you'd prefer?
  74. David More from Kingston, Canada writes: Ahh, like the moon landings, it's all made up by the liberal press anyway.
  75. D McAnn from Canada writes: Bravo, #40. While I do not share your theological ideology, the main thoughts of your post are right on. I still believe that it's possible to believe in both the biblical and evolutionary accounts of creation. Keeping in mind that thousands of years ago the earth was the centre of the universe and very little was known about anything relative to today, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the term 'day' could be used to simplify the concept of a longer period of time, contrary to mr motoc's rants. Nothing discovered by modern science contradicts the biblical account of the order of creation. It is a very simple recount, but when it was written, a simple recount was needed so as to be understood by the audience. They still had the order of creation correct, so how could they have known? I believe that the universe is hundreds of millions of years old. I believe the writers of the bible were divinely motivated. And I believe we are in the middle of God's seventh 'day'
  76. ryan durran from Canada writes: I am a Catholic, and therefore believe in God. I am a student of Science, and threefore believe in evolution. To me, creationism is religion, nothing more. Evolution, however, is an attempt to explain the entire history of life by a single process. Either 'theory' requires a large degree of faith. Evolution does not provide a perfect record of natural history by any acccount, and of course, neither does creationism. Before we dismisss Intelligent Design, I think it is prudent to examine the relevant facts and details. THere are certain realities which are not explained by evolution or natural selection. When a theory fails, it is not scientifically acceptable to alter it ad hoc to suit the situation. That is not science, but rather a defense of a religion, whic sadly many evolutioists have decided is an acceptable means of defending their theory. INtelligent design does not try and 'poke holes' in evolution; it examines the existing holes, and creates what it feels to be an acceptable hypothesis to expalin these scientific anomalies. There is nothing unscientific about that. Unfortunately the scientific community has a difficult time accepting that any scientific idea could include a notion of God. Historically, the two fields have been diametrically opposed, and so God and Science are not often considered viable collaborators. I think that kind of idea is unscientific, since good science considers all possible theories and explanations, rather than dismissing the ones that dont fit its worldview. Intelligent Design may be nothing more than a front for creationism, but if so, it is moving creationism in an entirely new direction that acknowledges certain geological, historical, and biological facts. Gone from Intelligent Design is the 'young earth theory' or the denial of DNA and natural selection. If Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism for the academics, then it is a more scientifically palatable one, that can bridge gaps the world over.
  77. D D from Ottawa, Canada writes: Let's revive one of these, viz. Jurassic Park, and use them for the Canadian Navy!
  78. Erkki Pohjolainen from Alberton, PEI, Canada writes: Give Earth her due - please capitalize, as you would Jupiter, Mars and all the other planets, stars and astral bodies. English can be precise if we use it correctly.
  79. ROBERT DE KRIEGER from Saint Remy de Provence, France writes: Let's get real: we are all creationists in a sense, because Man created God, not the other way around. What christians especially seem to have trouble to grasp is large numbers such as a billion years (time), or even more difficult a billion light years (distance). Frankly, almost anyone has difficulty with such numbers, but at least we acknowledge that; and we know there are almost certainly millions if not billions of planets with some sort of life on them. The bible was written just a moment ago on the real time scale and christianity is something the world has lived without for a very, very long time. Many civilisations did quite well without monotheism and some of these may have been superior to ours. And other planets would more than likely have life forms superior to ours. With or without dinosaurs, with or without Harper.
  80. bruce reid from Toronto, Canada writes: I don't believe in creationists. All those people saying that Earth is only a few thousand years old - they're just goofing around, that's all!
  81. Jack Ryan from TorontoCalgary, Canada writes: #66: It's "okay" because it is usually Christians attacking other Christians. The Vatican rejects creationism in its literal sense. The Vatican supports evolution as a plausible theory and asks fundamental Christians to stop applying non-scientific teachings and writings to the fields of science. The Vatican says that evolution is completely compatible with the Bible, if it is read correctly.
  82. Anonymous Freedom from Dartmouth, Canada writes: To #66. Because in Canada the radical, liberal, want to hear their own voices, anything goes(except Christianity) minority, know that if they attack Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. the way they attack Christians, they would be labelled racist hate mongers like they call all Christians. They are so blinded by their own hate and warped views that the do not see that they are actually the "true" purveyors of hate and intolerance in Canada. They want equality for everyone, EXCEPT Christians. Don’t worry though, once they feel comfortable in their attack on Christians they will turn to other groups to hate and persecute. No opposing view is safe. Dare I say the radical liberal mindset is the next fascist movement in disguise? Shalom.
  83. At Large from Toronto, Canada writes: A question to the various creationist or intelligent design posters: what makes you think that your Christian or Biblical version of God or creation is any more accurate than the thousands of creation myths forwarded by traditional systems of belief around the world? I find it a little chauvinistic really. You're welcome to believe whatever you want but let's remember that these are simply stories made up by people who in their time did not have access to the scientific knowledge available today. It is high time we moved beyond this childish debate. It is no different than saying that lightning bolts are caused by Zeus / Thor / God becoming enraged. People once believed that myth fully as well.
  84. grover station from Hamilton, Canada writes: Talking about how we got here is so boring, its much more interesting to talk about where we're going.
  85. n i from LA, United States writes: BIBLE SUPPORTS EVOLUTION: Check on the genesis. First of all God creates non-living things (universe etc), then coming the living things, starting from sea then going to the land, and finally human. Does it explain the step by step evolution? Of course one day does not mean 24 hours, but more like a time stage separation. After human is created, god takes a rest. That is true, until now, human (at least on earth, dont care what they are, or were for the extinct ones) is the most sophisticated and final evolution product.
  86. Dan Russell from Markham, Canada writes: #47, DM...just a clarification, carbon dating is an absolute dating techinque which is viable back to about 50-60,000 years BP, due to the half-life of 14C (~5730 years). Without having read the actual literature on it, I would guess this find was likely dated using a stratigraphic method, i.e. the age of the rock formation in which it was found. That would make it a semi-quantitative measurement of the age. They know the general age of the formation (from previous mapping and studies), and that formation's position relative to the rock types stratigraphically above and below it. If the age is ~150M years (Jurassic Period), that would make it one of the earliest ones found - most of them lived in the Cretaceous.
  87. Brandan Matchett from halifax, Canada writes: Somebody somewhere has gotta be trying to blame this monster's death on global warming. Can't wait to hear the big BS on this one.
  88. Barry L. Jones from Canada writes: I had always wondered where my cousin Arnie had gotten to after he left the house to walk over to the local Becker Milk Store. Thanks for the info, Globe!!
  89. B Flynn from Canada writes: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
  90. Rob Backhouse from Canada writes: Anyone who truly believes that the earyth and all its billions of life forms was created by some cosmic playdough meister as a classroom project are, in all probability, proof positive that there is a missing link between apes and humans. How ironic.
  91. The Philosopher King from Hail to the King Baby!, Canada writes: #35, 70 Simply put, the Hebrew word "YOM" used in genesis means "age" not day. You know, like stone age, bronze age...etc.? This is and always was intended to mean, "an undefined period of time." There is nothing more misleading or damaging to real knowledge than those who use literal interpretations of documents originally intended to be analogous. Unless of course you think, "you shall know them by their fruit" means that the type of fruit people eat tells you who they are! I mean really people, let's not be silly...
  92. Sonja Lloyd from Afghanistan writes: Intelligent design does not provide an "acceptable hypothesis" to cover the "holes" in evolution. The reason is that these hypotheses are not testable! Evolution is a theory, not a "theory", there is sufficient evidence to show this is a good explanation for the development of life. And why is it so difficult to believe that a single process lead to the diversity of life we see on the planet today? We are, after all, made up of combinations of 4 nucleotide bases that encode a mere 20 amino acids. Yes, it is amazing, but no god had anything to do with it.
  93. Beatriz Perez-Sanchez from Toronto, Canada writes: Re: Post 66. Although I am an atheist, I agree with your observation. I think that all religions are equally contemptible.
  94. amy davidson from toronto, Canada writes: Bravo Robert burrus from Campbell River! Scientists everywhere were shaking their heads at the earlier, entirely false comment.
  95. John L. Murlowe from Isla de Vancouver y Quadra, Canada writes: Expect to see these monsters again when the full effects of global warming are in place.