Splitting hairs about the minutae of evolution doesn't prove something else is correct because there is no other scientific theory to consider at this time.

Putting it all down to some cloud-hopping deity isn't a reasonable alternative.

The source that expouses Creationism as some sort of "science" also suggests that cattle mating in view of striped sticks will produce striped offspring (Genesis 30:37-39).

Reproduce that in a laboratory and you'll convince me!

Boaz, are you still in denial about that charlatan Greenleaf?

>>.PERICLES?.. you quote him ? :) aaaarghh (3 aftershocks) the post you referred to simply contributed to better information about Greenleaf, but he was only partially correct. It also ignored Greenleafs respect by his secular peers.<<

I catch you out in a blatant corruption of historical fact, and you call it "contributing to better information". Classic.

Let me remind you of the context, because it is a behaviour that you persist in today.

At that time, you claimed that

>>Simon Greenleaf, a Harvard Law school co founder subjected the Gospels to the 'rules of evidence' and did not find them wanting.<<

I pointed out that Simon Greenleaf was not a "co-founder" - or any other kind of founder, for that matter, of Harvard Law School.

Strike one.

I further pointed out that - far from "subjecting the Gospel to the rules of evidence", he made two fundamentally inadmissible assumptions.

Permit me to remind you.

He claimed that "The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications... has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner, by others."

What's more, he tells us:

"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

"Rules of evidence", Boaz? Not in this universe.

Strike two.

Nine months later - having failed to respond at the time - you decide to tell me that I am "only partially correct"?

Which exactly is the part that is incorrect?

That taking the existence of God as an already proven fact does not affect the verdict?

Or that assuming all evidence to be genuine unless proven otherwise does not fly in the face of every court procedure known to civilization?

And the sum of your new information? That he was "respected by his secular peers"?

Strike three, I'm afraid.

Dear Poly,

"Dr. Simon Greenleaf further concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history." - The Exponent

Even more so than WWII, The 1975 Dismissal (I've seen the documents in the National Archive) or the Fall of The World Trade Center Towers? Remarkable, indeed.

Poly, I also have some matters from my earlier post.

Regards,

O.

Hello Poly,

"Doctor" Greenleaf was awarded an "Honorary" Doctor of Laws degree for his work in ministry. Just checked. Moreover, in his day, the science of foresenic science would have been primative at best.

I think about a year ago I mentioned a past-cleric, I now quite well, became an athiest, after he started researching a paper on Comparative Religions. He still agrees many of Jesus' humanitian posits. Also, on the other hand, I understand that some Protestant Ministers, switch to RC's, as it is the Mother Christian Church.

Actually, it's Paul's and Constantine's Church developed from neo-Judaism.

Still intersted in knowing where Eve's mitochondrial DNA came from? As I alluded, God the Mother? :-). Please check page a few pages, for more info.

Back to Genises:

1. If the water covered the Earth(highest mount overed by 20 feet) and the Ark was therefore at about 10,000 metres above the old see level, how did the mammals breath?

2. What is runner whom said that Noah's lions were vegetarian lions (and therefore didn't eat the lambs etc.). If they were vegetarian what did they and all the herbivores eat immediately after The Flood?

If the lions became carnivores, would not the lions have many species (only two off each) very extinct, very quickly?

Didn't God realise, as a rule of thumb that, an animal ecology requires a prey to predator raio of about 10:1? Maybe, it was on the Seventh Day, when Yahew was snooziing, zzzz :-), ahat the Council of El, took its basic zoology lessons.

3. The Tyranosaurs vegetarian too?

4. "All animals" (Genises)? Whales?

Think I am off-air of air for 24 hours. Back later!

Cheers and hopes you think through the above,

Oly.

runner,

Poly? runner?

Loose theads above.

Cheers,

Oly

Oly

Don't forget the conundrum that only 2 of each species, is insufficient for genetic diversity to ensure healthy breeding stock. In fact, a species that only has 2 (male and female) left is regarded as 'functionally extinct'.

Poly/Runner, the ball is in your court.