11 Jul '13 16:15>
Originally posted by humyAlthough, I now use the Instructor title on all my posts. I took that title primarily for the Spirituality Forum because of the need and in remembering that I had finished my military career as an Instructor at Fort Gordon.I am not interested in typing my reasons out when you have no intention of accepting anything I say
I think the really fundamental problem here, and this is why none of us scientists can ever take you seriously, we cannot accepting what you say BECAUSE you often refuse to state your reasons! I leave it to you to figure out what you must d ...[text shortened]... robably higher than my score which I would guess would be somewhere between yours and theirs).
While you call yourself a scientist, I have no way of knowing what you were trained in other than the false teaching of evil-lution. When I present information from Phd biology scientists, like Dean Kenyon, who have a different view than you, it is you that seem very arrogant yourself in refusing to consider the videos of his opinions and reasons against what he calls Macroevolution. The following is a quote of one such opinion:
"Evidence often taken to support a naturalistic chemical origin of life, actually, upon close analysis, points in another direction, namely, toward the conclusion that the first life was created. The data of molecular biology, especially the details of the genetic-coding and protein-synthesizing systems, lend further powerful support to this view. Probability arguments applied to the problem of the origin of genetic information also confirm the creationist view of origins. Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully assessed in toto, the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist view."
Dean Kenyon
The Instructor