That is your opinion, and it is valid for you, however the weight of evidence to support that knowledge is greater than your statements of personal belief when given as proof of that opinion. Actually science does refute the answer given by religion many times and in many ways. The statement concerning the prevention of question is supported by the expressed views on these very boards when people have stated they want their children to learn of the religion from multiple perspectives. Rational thinking must never embrace blind faith as a premise.
I just did not know what you were meaning when you responded to my comment with sycophant - I knew/know the meaning however, I just explained it differently than you - but that is not me and that is what I was trying to explain earlier (I am not self serving - I am here to try my best to serve God's word although I stumble and make mistakes but that is what forgivness is for)... There are a lot of self serving people with view points opposite than mine (even on this board). and about the name calling thing, I was only talking about before you and her went at it, I just did not think she was necessarily calling YOU an atheist at first.... But the dork part - well yeah that is what she was calling you then...
for lack of argument sake... could it not also explain dinosaurs in the Bible also - especially with the cedar like tail?? (just your opinion that is all LOL)
Your proof is a variable. That's not opinion....its fact. No, it never has except in the irrational mind who would have it to be so. And? What is that supposed to mean? It's only faith in the mind of the irrational who accuse along that line. Archeology is forever proving the Bible with it's findings contrary to your pseudo-science that has yet to make any connection between the past and present.
You give me too much credit for having all the answers. However, I do have strong knowledge. My point is that it wouldn't be sufficient, not even if God Himself came into your findings. You see you aren't looking for truth but to prove sufficient, your pseudeo-science to remain in control..
But that is what I said, correct? You may have your own truth but based upon what? Bet it's no different than the store bought version. ....and I wonder why?
It could be one of the herbivores but not the carnivores and there are so many different herbivores that it is not lilkely. It is not impossible, but not very probable at all ... IMHO.
All measurements are variable, but it is the significance of that variation which is critical. In this case we have a measurement with the inherent variable being compared to a wild guess based on a series of messages of centuries. I see the facts in both cases and they do not support your views well at all. Saying it does not make it the truth. You may try to call anyone who disagrees with your faith irrational but that is far from supporting the statement. Just what it says, you have helped to prove my point on the lack of tolerance. You believe archeology is not pseudo science when you want to use it but refute it when it does not suit your purposes? That is a bit hypocritcal, IMO. The HISTORICAL aspects of some of the books in the Bible do not prove the entire Bible is correct, but that is what a rational mind would deduce using science.
Hey, if God himself appears to me and I am allowed to test that presence I will be a true believer. I might get carted off to the Funny Farm or accused of being a false prophet by those like yourself, but I would stick to my proofs as I have always done.
He is not presenting evidence, and then again neither are you, but He is not presenting any statements concerning science either. Do you suppose to speak for Him in this case? Does He speak to you directly on the subject? How old does He say the Earth is in our years? What evidence? I have not seen any presented to ignore... :roll: No accusation, just a statement based on observations. No, I have not called anything psedo-science nor claimed the tools of archeology to be "guesses" when it suited me you have done. That is called a doulble standard or hypocritical depending on the level of the action. Many which rely on history but none which do not. Archeology is part of science and if we use this line of reasoning it has been proven correct in your mind, thus all science is then correct. If you can claim all parts of the Bible are true because of the historical references all science can be called true for the same reason. I do not agree with it but I am trying to follow your lead here. No, that would be an example of ignorance. All life on the planet shared a common ancestor line, but NO present day species evolved from any other present day species. :roll:
The first single cell organisms were the basis of the thread and as they became more complex multi-celled organisms they retained that basic DNA. All life shares a significant amount of the same DNA. The baker's yeast, when compared to human DNA shows that 75% of its DNA is also present in the human strand. The human strand is far more complex and contains more DNA but what the yeast has is still shared to a significant level with us.
Not to speak of how your simple cells got here, everything left to itself deteriorates. So what helps your concocted elements progress instead of dying off?
No, that is not the case. The evolution is determined by the survival of the fittest and not all have survived which is why we do not have dinosaurs walking around now.
Oh stop with the amino's. They would never in billions of years produce one wit of anything you foolishly assume to be life.
Ahhh, you misused the reference when you implied that organisms would deteriorate. Entropy is stated that in a closed or isolated system the "deterioration" you referenced would occur, but as we are not in a closed or isolated system it is not applicable. The Sun is the energy input that allows for the changes that prevent this deterioration. Actually, it has both as has been explained to you earlier.
That would be an assumption on your part and included is that we have not had sufficient time for just that to have occurred.
