I think you do not understand molecular homology or you would see that it is evidence for evolution.



I'd rather they did this... it beats the ordinary "god made it because i said so" argument.



The theology, the ad ignorantiam debacle, of irreducible complexity opposes the science of evolution.



Good guess considering that is the only legitimate study of science. If Francis Collins believes in IC, I'll eat my hat right before I send a letter requesting his resignation.




That's not evidence. You propose because no one was actually there and thus there is some doubt as to how evolution occurred that it must not have occured at all. Irreducible complexity, at its core, is not a valid argument; it's a refusal to investigate and a reliance on ignorance. You might as well say that God made the creatures of the earth because anyone who does not believe so is a looney.

"....Different branches of biology have different theoretical interests and goals
and thus employ the homology concept in a different manner...."

"Homology is what I call an investigative kind concept. An investigative kind is a group of things that are assumed to belong together because they share a structural feature or mechanisms that generates the characteristic features of the kind...."

"The homology concept is an investigative kind concepts because its historical origin stems
from the fact that biologists perceived and perceive a unity of form among different groups of organisms (Riedl, ’78; Wagner, ’86; Young, ’93; Müller, 2003)."

http://www.ualberta.ca/~brigandt/radiation.pdf

Apperantly you are trying to make a supposition a fact!
I reiterate: Every "argument" has not been thoroughly rebutted. I will grant you that fact is relative to the individual’s perception of it, and apparently you have obtained a perception based on the religion (theory) of evolution. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that true science does not support evolution nor Creation. However, it does weigh more towards intelligent design. I would be willing to bet your study of science has been through pro-evolution material.

There is a unity of form among all organisms, and I perceive it. Why do you not?

birds of a feather zoo?   

Thats a subjective opinion if ever there was one. Incidentally, I appreciate Zoo's and other's efforts to support their discussions. At least there is a wide range of ideas being traded, not the singular idea that the bible is the be all and end all of any literate discussion.

I wonder why we didn't think of doing this with the United States constitution? People always make the mistake of leaving perfection open to debate. But not with the bible. It says the land produced animals, and it means that.

That's what you are doing. I am a genuine prophet of God, so my opinion counts for more.

I am merely interpreting what Moses really meant. You, not being a prophet of God, might have more trouble doing this, leading you to erroneous beliefs like that evolution could not have occured.

I know I am a prophet of God because when I look into the mirror, I see the evidence for it. How else could I look so much like a prophet of God if I weren't?

Zoo, stop being heretical.

The likelyhood of your bible being exactly as it was meant to be, is slim. You have the fact that there are various interpretations of Hebrew words, etc... A monk that was transcribing the book could easily have wrote what they thought the bible meant, and therein drastically altering what "God's word" is. To believe that there actually are bibles out there that - according to you - are staying true to the original, is all on faith. I honestly would love to see the day where the folly that is blind faith is pointed and laughed at, by God himself. He tells us to use our minds as well, and honestly KFC, all I see from you is resorting to your faith, not your mind. Your faith overcome logic and facts.

Not meant as an insult btw, just an observation. We still good?

Really? You both seem pretty dogmatic. Are you sure? And how much have you two researched this? Have you even read the bible? Have you studied the Gk and Hebrew to be making such claims?



and you're writing this SP shows me you haven't a clue. The bible had nothing to do with monks nor do the over 5,000 original copies out there.

EVEN if the monk did write what he wanted....how many GK scholars came behind this monk to study the original transcripts? They had over 5,000 original copies to study and all of these different copies from all over were very well preserved and written in total agreement. The scribes (Jewish btw) who kept these scriptures were meticulous in transcribing the scriptures over the centuries.

Okay, I'm done. No, wait.