i cansee why i didn't, it was written as one big paragraph which no coherence or indicators pointing out where your real point is or where the questions lie.Well Arch, I see you didn't bother to respond to my earlier post
given the fact that the sceintific community cannot agree on what is the definition of scientific, that statement is without merit. i have shown under the Hypothetical-deductivism method, the Bible would be considered scientificThe bible is not fact, nor is it scientific
without the evolutionary theory, any 'evidence' scientists find means nothing so that charge is meaningless.You can prove nothing without your precious bible to back you up
just because it isn't 'accepted' doesn't make it false but let's look at who is doing the non-accepting---unbelieving scientists doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the problem there. then yo must look at the standard they are using and determine how honest and level the standard is. so that statement holds no water.It is not accepted as a factual book.
proof please. the only Biblical writer that was a roman citizen, though born a jew, was paul. plus the old testament was written prior to the roman occupation.The byzantine empire compiled the bible. They were romans
what lies? saying you do not believe it doesn't constitute it to be a lie. just means you don't want to beliieve it.No the whole foundation of christianity was built on lies and with political motivations
how is this so? what examples doyou have that these sentences are true?It's all smoke and mirrors. It's all deciept and corruption. You believe in a myth.
making such statements without corroboration doesn't mean it is so.
true, that is why we have the theory of evolution to contend with. a theory that no one can prove true and must rely on declatory statements, as proven in that latest evolutionary topic.The world is full of gullible people
can you prove that position? i don't think so.Nothig else after that. No heaven, no hell.
where did the concept of right and wrong come from if there is no ultimate , moral standard to set the rules? evolution doesn't have the concept nor the ability to create or maintain the standard.They even give themselves loopholes so they can "sin" and then ask some make believe entity for forgiveness and then everything's allright
that is a lie, i have offered much proof, with the latest being the failure to create hybrids outside of their kind, yet you are so closed-minded you never see it.other proof i have shown is the failure of evolution to backup its claims, exampled by the latest fish fossil and the fragment find inethiopia. evolution is a desparate theory for the desparate. they are desparate because they do not want to believe the Bible but that is there only option.You, arch, have offered no proof, no evidence, no facts and yet you say you have proved your point.
i have done so but you refuse to listenor accept my sources, which is another excuse to contiue in your own beliefs. go the maternity ward, the vet hospital or even a plant nusery and you will see even today that all things continue as set out in the book of genesis. you can't manipulate that fact like evolutionists manipulate fossils, the dating proces, geology and so on.Show me facts. Cite precedents
i have prventhrough those quotes that science is not objective at all thus its conclusions can not be trusted nor can the scientists who do the research because of their pre-set beliefs both scientifically and religiously.
