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)  

What exactly is my opinion?  And what's wrong with my opinion?  Simply dismissing my ''argument'' like that is the resort of someone with no answer.  It is ''not'' opinion that scientists haven't ''observed'' those things—you have yourself now admitted that.  Come on, actually ''refute'' my argument or admit that you can't.

:::::::::::::::: What exactly is my opinion?  And what's wrong with my opinion?  Simply dismissing my ''argument'' like that is the resort of someone with no answer.  It is ''not'' opinion that scientists haven't ''observed'' those things—you have yourself now admitted that.  Come on, actually ''refute'' my argument or admit that you can't.

:::::::::::::::: Your opinion about the Bible is not based on any evidence.  Why should the age of the book have any bearing on it's veracity?  Is this an example of chronological snobbery?

:::::::::::::::: Your opinion about the Bible is not based on any evidence.  Why should the age of the book have any bearing on it's veracity?  Is this an example of chronological snobbery?

:::::::::::::::: Your next opinion is contrary to logic.  Why is it "nonsense" to claim that people who lived thousands of years ago would be eyewitnesses to events that occurred ''at the time''?  Because that is the argument, and whilst you no doubt don't believe the premises, the conclusion based on those premises is entirely logical, so is not "nonsense".

:::::::::::::::: Your next opinion is contrary to logic.  Why is it "nonsense" to claim that people who lived thousands of years ago would be eyewitnesses to events that occurred ''at the time''?  Because that is the argument, and whilst you no doubt don't believe the premises, the conclusion based on those premises is entirely logical, so is not "nonsense".