Changes

::::::::::::: It is absolute nonsense to suggest that biologists have observed the evolutionary family tree from first cell to human, or even any stage of that like dinosaurs turning into birds.  The same applies to the geology.  No geologist has seen the supposed 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history.  Virtually all of these events supposedly occurred before humans appeared on the planet, so that claim is abusing the term "eyewitness".  If a person claimed to a judge that they witnessed a bank robbery because they saw the sign on the door saying that it was closed because of a robbery he would likely be charged with contempt of court.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::::: It is absolute nonsense to suggest that biologists have observed the evolutionary family tree from first cell to human, or even any stage of that like dinosaurs turning into birds.  The same applies to the geology.  No geologist has seen the supposed 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history.  Virtually all of these events supposedly occurred before humans appeared on the planet, so that claim is abusing the term "eyewitness".  If a person claimed to a judge that they witnessed a bank robbery because they saw the sign on the door saying that it was closed because of a robbery he would likely be charged with contempt of court.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::::::That, of course, is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.  It is my opinion that believing a book written thousands of years ago has more knowledge of the earth and the universe than researchers who have the advantage of all modern technology to aid in their research is absolute nonsense.  It is equally nonsense, in my opinion, to claim that people in a book written thousands of years ago are eyewitnesses.  Sure, scientists did not witness all 4.5 billion years of the earth's history, but they have conducted all sorts of experiments to prove the age of the earth.  All you know about your supposed eyewitnesses is what the Bible says about them. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 10:42, 2 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::::::That, of course, is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.  It is my opinion that believing a book written thousands of years ago has more knowledge of the earth and the universe than researchers who have the advantage of all modern technology to aid in their research is absolute nonsense.  It is equally nonsense, in my opinion, to claim that people in a book written thousands of years ago are eyewitnesses.  Sure, scientists did not witness all 4.5 billion years of the earth's history, but they have conducted all sorts of experiments to prove the age of the earth.  All you know about your supposed eyewitnesses is what the Bible says about them. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 10:42, 2 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::: In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have.  Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope).  For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be).  Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.

::::::::::: In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have.  Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope).  For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be).  Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.