Your previous statement was based on faith in your evolutionary theory and not on science or logic.

The process of science is based on the formation of a theory which can be tested.
The testing of an experiment which takes as long as evolution is proposed to have taken makes the repeat of the experiment impossible.
Logical argument and existing conditions are the only way the theory can be tested.
The theory has postulates which are assumed to be correct.
Conclusions are derived from the postulates

A theory will be self fulfilling if the conclusion is used as a postulate.

Different postulates must be inspected which will of course propose alternate conclusions.

If the conclusions fail or succeed knowledge is advanced.

If ideas are dismissed without logical consideration all that is proven is that the accepted theory is accepted due to biased.


Postulates and conclusions:

The theory of evolution assumes as a postulate that the earth has remained as it is for millions of years.

Carbon 14 dating assumes that gradual consistent changes in the composition of the atmosphere allow the dating of an object and indeed the process works for dates which can be verified in recent history.

Notice however that the proposed history of the earth has formed this conclusion for extend history.

If you assume the earth went through catastrophic changes about 4500 years ago then the data is faulty. In fact if the condition of the earths atmosphere was close to a perfect state before the catastrophic event then the dating would indicate a time bordering on the limits of experimental error in the distant past.

And again.
If you assume the earth went through catastrophic flood about 4500 years ago, then climatic changes must be expected. An atmosphere which progressed from a “green house” atmosphere to an open atmosphere must cool at the poles and some fluctuation must be expected before a stable condition is reached.

Again the proposed history has been confirmed by the results.

Note that the results do not prove the postulate.

Only by comparing the two approaches can the most satisfactory conclusion be obtained.
Of course all proposed theories must be examined.
Some will be dismissed more easily then others

• My opinions are based on science - yanniru - August 20, 2003 - 13:55 UTC
  • You say "put my faith in modern science and the god it reveals." - sillyuniverse - August 21, 2003 - 05:23 UTC
  • God has painted Himself into a corner. - duordi - August 21, 2003 - 17:27 UTC
    • I have red hair and I don't believe the Torah is inerrant - sillyuniverse - August 21, 2003 - 19:57 UTC
      • I checked it out, why do you think it isn't? - duordi - August 21, 2003 - 20:42 UTC
        • Words never are. - kantolfir2 - August 22, 2003 - 02:28 UTC
          • You can not meet your own requirement. - duordi - August 24, 2003 - 22:03 UTC
            • Wrong. Please check the quote in question one more time - sillyuniverse - August 25, 2003 - 05:41 UTC
              • I did not argue his point. - duordi - August 26, 2003 - 00:00 UTC
                • You did not even make your own! You are silly! - sillyuniverse - August 26, 2003 - 02:35 UTC
    • Why not take the new testament literally? - yanniru - August 21, 2003 - 21:58 UTC
      • God chooses the best means to explain an idea. - duordi - August 24, 2003 - 04:36 UTC
        • This implies God's endorsement for each major event - sillyuniverse - August 24, 2003 - 15:30 UTC
          • Do you believe in life after death? - duordi - August 24, 2003 - 22:28 UTC
            • Are you over 18 years old? - sillyuniverse - August 25, 2003 - 05:59 UTC
              • Am I 18? Bless you. I haven't been carded in years. - duordi - August 25, 2003 - 23:18 UTC
                • Congratulations. Your questions are more off-topic than mine! - sillyuniverse - August 26, 2003 - 02:27 UTC
        • Please be as critical of my ideas; that's science - sillyuniverse - August 24, 2003 - 16:14 UTC
          • Exposing something can prove its is true as well as false. - duordi - August 24, 2003 - 22:31 UTC
            • One can make statements about "proof" without any logic at all! - sillyuniverse - August 25, 2003 - 05:44 UTC
              • I accept your complement which attributed logic to my post.. - duordi - August 26, 2003 - 00:07 UTC
        • Please be as critical of my ideas; that's science - sillyuniverse - August 24, 2003 - 16:14 UTC
        • Thy Torah is inspired by god - yanniru - August 25, 2003 - 00:04 UTC
          • more cop-outs from the number one nihilist of the forum: Y - sillyuniverse - August 25, 2003 - 05:50 UTC
          • How do the rabbis define inspired? - duordi - August 26, 2003 - 03:45 UTC
            • As I see it - yanniru - August 26, 2003 - 13:23 UTC