M
matahari
Guest
_______________________________________________________________________ Actually, humans are spirit beings that live in a body.
- Status
T
Thing
Guest
Is the earth 6000 years old? Well, this Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) tree is approximately 5,000 years old and nicknamed Prometheus. When did the flood happen…
T
Thing
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis
…Challenged with the idea that Adam’s date is 4004 BC and that the Flood occurred in 2238 BC, Robert Sungenis shows that, according to biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham. Read as Robert shows that the genealogies are actually a biblical calendar that takes us back to about the year 10,000 BC, with the Flood occurring around 5,000 BC.
B
Bradleyc
Guest
Hi Tim,
sorry, i am a newbie to all of this forum discussion… I’m not sure how to “quote” somebody…
Worms do not have immortal souls, that is what makes us special… so in the theory of evolution, when did man acquire a soul? Do Monkeys go to heaven? did Jesus die on the cross for Monkeys too?
I’m not sure what you mean when you refer to “Catholic scientists”. I guess if a scientist (whether Christian, Catholic, Atheist, etc) is trying to push the theory of macro evolution I would be skeptical… Again, I would base my beliefs on God rather than use science to try to disprove Him.
I would suggest that you watch Ben Stein’s movie: “Expelled…”,
Regarding Pluto, I’m not sure of your argument on that one… my point is that science has presented the “fact” that pluto was a planet for years… but until recently that is no longer a “fact”… if it were a fact in the first place how is it not a fact now?
Definition of Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
Another debate to look into: e=mc2 and gamma rays.
Regarding science is scripture… boy, that would take all day… my suggestion would be to start digging in some books that promote creation from a Biblical view… if you truly want to take a scientific approach to this you shouldn’t have any problems looking into opposing view… there are many fascinating scriptures in regards to science.
As far as the fish symbol, that is how early Christians identified on another. People put fish symbols on their car for various reasons, such as: to praise God (which I believe is the primary reason) and this is a big one for me too: to make sure that I am not driving like a mad man… if I have a Christian symbol on my car I must act like a Christian otherwise Christians look bad… it definitely holds me accountable.
Now, if you have a Darwin symbol you are praising Darwin instead of God… wouldn’t you agree that the Darwin symbol is an attack or rebuttal to the Christian symbol?
Evolution is definitely not a fact, I would like to know when evolution became a fact. Which evidence would suggest that evolution is a fact?
Carbon dating is a theory because the information gained from the test is not proven to be entirely factual. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
I do distrust atheists, anybody that tries to prove that there is no God is one that I would be a bit suspicious of… I would hope that most Catholics would agree on that.
I don’t ignore, because information can be a wonderful thing… but with any information you must apply wisdom.
You said that you will look to God for answers (unless I misunderstood that one)… I am very glad in that, scriptures tell us that God gives us wisdom if we ask him for it… I guess I am a bit confused though, how do you not know about the scientific evidence in scripture?
Regards,
Brad.
sorry, i am a newbie to all of this forum discussion… I’m not sure how to “quote” somebody…
Worms do not have immortal souls, that is what makes us special… so in the theory of evolution, when did man acquire a soul? Do Monkeys go to heaven? did Jesus die on the cross for Monkeys too?
I’m not sure what you mean when you refer to “Catholic scientists”. I guess if a scientist (whether Christian, Catholic, Atheist, etc) is trying to push the theory of macro evolution I would be skeptical… Again, I would base my beliefs on God rather than use science to try to disprove Him.
I would suggest that you watch Ben Stein’s movie: “Expelled…”,
Regarding Pluto, I’m not sure of your argument on that one… my point is that science has presented the “fact” that pluto was a planet for years… but until recently that is no longer a “fact”… if it were a fact in the first place how is it not a fact now?
Definition of Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
Another debate to look into: e=mc2 and gamma rays.
Regarding science is scripture… boy, that would take all day… my suggestion would be to start digging in some books that promote creation from a Biblical view… if you truly want to take a scientific approach to this you shouldn’t have any problems looking into opposing view… there are many fascinating scriptures in regards to science.
As far as the fish symbol, that is how early Christians identified on another. People put fish symbols on their car for various reasons, such as: to praise God (which I believe is the primary reason) and this is a big one for me too: to make sure that I am not driving like a mad man… if I have a Christian symbol on my car I must act like a Christian otherwise Christians look bad… it definitely holds me accountable.
Now, if you have a Darwin symbol you are praising Darwin instead of God… wouldn’t you agree that the Darwin symbol is an attack or rebuttal to the Christian symbol?
Evolution is definitely not a fact, I would like to know when evolution became a fact. Which evidence would suggest that evolution is a fact?
Carbon dating is a theory because the information gained from the test is not proven to be entirely factual. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
I do distrust atheists, anybody that tries to prove that there is no God is one that I would be a bit suspicious of… I would hope that most Catholics would agree on that.
I don’t ignore, because information can be a wonderful thing… but with any information you must apply wisdom.
You said that you will look to God for answers (unless I misunderstood that one)… I am very glad in that, scriptures tell us that God gives us wisdom if we ask him for it… I guess I am a bit confused though, how do you not know about the scientific evidence in scripture?
Regards,
Brad.
O
Orogeny
Guest
No problem, quoting is pretty easy. Just surround the text you want to quote with {quote} at the start and {/quote} at the end. Replace the { } with ] and it will show up as a quote. I try to always preview my post first because I sometimes don’t do the formatting right and that gives me a chance to correct it before posting.
Science doen’t say anything about souls, so the timing of ensoulment is not an answer you will get from science. Monkeys don’t go to heaven and Jesus didn’t die for them. Doesn’t affect the science of evolution one bit.
Why would you expect a Catholic scientist to try to disprove God? I think that you make the same mistake that many do in assuming that the goal of science is to disprove God. It isn’t. Science is the study of nature and how things work in nature. God, while present in nature, is a supernatural being and is therefore outside the realm of scientific explanation. Science can no more disprove the existence of God than it can prove the existence of God.
Expelled is a propaganda film made to make Ben Stein some money. Ever wonder why they specifically excluded scientists who are Christians and who accept the science of evolution?
That it was a planet was never a “fact” but a description. The “fact” part is that Pluto exists and that hasn’t changed with the changed description.
I don’t need it all, just one citation. Shouldn’t take very long.
That is your take on it. My take is that it is no more a sign that the owner/driver of the car is a Christian than is the cross they are wearing around their neck.
Or making fun of the “Christian” fish symbols. I question the fish to begin with, so I don’t see any issue with it. Besides, that has nothing to do with evolution, does it.
Well then you believe in something that is not a fact. You originally claimed that you believe in microevolution. The difference is that you don’t accept macroevolution because it challenges your faith, but microevolution is evolution. Let me ask you, how does microevolution work? The scientific answer to that would be the theory part.
Wrong. Instead of linking to a definition of a theory, why not link to a description of carbon dating. asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Well, you can be suspicious, but I hope you don’t discard their findings just because they are athiests.
Because it isn’t there?
Peace
Tim
B
Bradleyc
Guest
Hi Tim,
I must apologize… after re-reading some of the stuff I wrote it sounds dogmatic… I really don’t want this to come across so negative, but I also don’t want this to be so lengthy either.
Please take no offense, that is not what I am trying to do.
{quote}Science doen’t say anything about souls, so the timing of ensoulment is not an answer you will get from science. Monkeys don’t go to heaven and Jesus didn’t die for them. Doesn’t affect the science of evolution one bit.{/quote}
If we evolved from Monkeys, at which time did we acquire a soul? Did the monkeys pass the soul down to us or did God give us a soul when we became cave men? My point is, God created us in His image and in his likeness… and he gave us a soul… how can you believe in evolution if you cannot explain when/how we got a soul?
{quote} Why would you expect a Catholic scientist to try to disprove God…{/quote}
I am not specifically saying that a Catholic scientist would try to disprove God… but I would say that if you have a scientist that is saying that we came from monkeys then I would say that he is trying to disprove God. God created man in his own image, he didn’t create a worm and change it to look like a man in His image… Also, when using evolution you are contradicting everything that is written in scripture regarding the creation of the heavens and the earth, man, and every living being. You cannot pick and choose scriptures to believe and ones that are false.
{quote} Expelled is a propaganda film … Ever wonder why they specifically excluded scientists who are Christians and who accept the science of evolution? {/quote}
Isn’t it all propaganda from which standpoint you take?? I would say that every teacher, leader, person, will spew propaganda… we just need to find out which propaganda is truth or not… the point of that movie is to expose many college professors, universities, scientists, etc. that are not even giving intelligent design a chance to surface… you can look at our school system today and see startling evidence of that.
{quote} That it was a planet was never a “fact” but a description. The “fact” part is that Pluto exists and that hasn’t changed with the changed description. {/quote}
Hmmm… everything that I learned in school and everything that I have read that Pluto was the last known planet in our solar system, would that suggest it as a fact… at least an implied fact?
{quote}I don’t need it all, just one citation… {/quote}
clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
{quote} That is your take on it. My take is that it is no more a sign that the owner/driver of the car is a Christian than is the cross they are wearing around their neck. {/quote}
Well, if that is your take on it then you must know how I feel about someone bastardizing that symbol and proudly displaying it. It would be the same as someone taking a cross and putting a devil on it, wouldn’t it?
{quote} Or making fun of the “Christian” fish symbols. I question the fish to begin with, so I don’t see any issue with it. Besides, that has nothing to do with evolution, does it. {/quote}
Why would you make fun of a Christian fish symbol? Would you make fun of a person showing his love for the true God? Unless you are not a Christian? The reason I brought this up is that many of the evolutionist are trying to put down our belief in our God, whether you feel that way or not, that is exactly what they are trying to do… those Darwin symbols are a statement against the fish symbol… the fish symbol is a Christian attributing his/her love for God… If they want to believe in Darwinism then why do they attach themselves to a Christian symbol unless they are out to combat Christianity…??
{quote} Well then you believe in something that is not a fact. You originally claimed that you believe in microevolution. The difference is that you don’t accept macroevolution because it challenges your faith, but microevolution is evolution. Let me ask you, how does microevolution work? The scientific answer to that would be the theory part. {quote}
Well, Microevolution holds water, there is clear evidence of that and it happens daily… is there any documented proof that macroevolution happened?, is it still happening today? Where are the half man/half monkeys at today? If species continued to change, wouldn’t those species exist today? Or did macroevolution stop at some point? How do you fill all of the gaps that are present?
{quote} Wrong. Instead of linking to a definition of a theory, why not link to a description of carbon dating. asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html {/quote}
It is still a theory, the article even says; “We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago”hmm… still sounds like a theory to me (I didn’t have a chance to read the whole article yet, I will attempt that when I have more time)
I would say this though… Genesis indicates that the Earth was without form… those rocks could have been around before God formed the earth… I don’t know the answer to that.
Also, the equation may be a little different than our environment of today… there are a lot of factors that are being left out… look up canopy theory for one… the earth could have been quite a bit different back then.
{quote} Well, you can be suspicious, but I hope you don’t discard their findings just because they are athiests. {/quote}
I don’t discard all of it, I am a science channel junky… but when it starts to conflict with scripture I will be suspect.
But, can I challenge you with the same argument? Have you completely explored (with an open mind) the creationist version to this debate? I think that you would find some of the findings interesting.
Regards,
Brad.
I must apologize… after re-reading some of the stuff I wrote it sounds dogmatic… I really don’t want this to come across so negative, but I also don’t want this to be so lengthy either.
Please take no offense, that is not what I am trying to do.
{quote}Science doen’t say anything about souls, so the timing of ensoulment is not an answer you will get from science. Monkeys don’t go to heaven and Jesus didn’t die for them. Doesn’t affect the science of evolution one bit.{/quote}
If we evolved from Monkeys, at which time did we acquire a soul? Did the monkeys pass the soul down to us or did God give us a soul when we became cave men? My point is, God created us in His image and in his likeness… and he gave us a soul… how can you believe in evolution if you cannot explain when/how we got a soul?
{quote} Why would you expect a Catholic scientist to try to disprove God…{/quote}
I am not specifically saying that a Catholic scientist would try to disprove God… but I would say that if you have a scientist that is saying that we came from monkeys then I would say that he is trying to disprove God. God created man in his own image, he didn’t create a worm and change it to look like a man in His image… Also, when using evolution you are contradicting everything that is written in scripture regarding the creation of the heavens and the earth, man, and every living being. You cannot pick and choose scriptures to believe and ones that are false.
{quote} Expelled is a propaganda film … Ever wonder why they specifically excluded scientists who are Christians and who accept the science of evolution? {/quote}
Isn’t it all propaganda from which standpoint you take?? I would say that every teacher, leader, person, will spew propaganda… we just need to find out which propaganda is truth or not… the point of that movie is to expose many college professors, universities, scientists, etc. that are not even giving intelligent design a chance to surface… you can look at our school system today and see startling evidence of that.
{quote} That it was a planet was never a “fact” but a description. The “fact” part is that Pluto exists and that hasn’t changed with the changed description. {/quote}
Hmmm… everything that I learned in school and everything that I have read that Pluto was the last known planet in our solar system, would that suggest it as a fact… at least an implied fact?
{quote}I don’t need it all, just one citation… {/quote}
clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
{quote} That is your take on it. My take is that it is no more a sign that the owner/driver of the car is a Christian than is the cross they are wearing around their neck. {/quote}
Well, if that is your take on it then you must know how I feel about someone bastardizing that symbol and proudly displaying it. It would be the same as someone taking a cross and putting a devil on it, wouldn’t it?
{quote} Or making fun of the “Christian” fish symbols. I question the fish to begin with, so I don’t see any issue with it. Besides, that has nothing to do with evolution, does it. {/quote}
Why would you make fun of a Christian fish symbol? Would you make fun of a person showing his love for the true God? Unless you are not a Christian? The reason I brought this up is that many of the evolutionist are trying to put down our belief in our God, whether you feel that way or not, that is exactly what they are trying to do… those Darwin symbols are a statement against the fish symbol… the fish symbol is a Christian attributing his/her love for God… If they want to believe in Darwinism then why do they attach themselves to a Christian symbol unless they are out to combat Christianity…??
{quote} Well then you believe in something that is not a fact. You originally claimed that you believe in microevolution. The difference is that you don’t accept macroevolution because it challenges your faith, but microevolution is evolution. Let me ask you, how does microevolution work? The scientific answer to that would be the theory part. {quote}
Well, Microevolution holds water, there is clear evidence of that and it happens daily… is there any documented proof that macroevolution happened?, is it still happening today? Where are the half man/half monkeys at today? If species continued to change, wouldn’t those species exist today? Or did macroevolution stop at some point? How do you fill all of the gaps that are present?
{quote} Wrong. Instead of linking to a definition of a theory, why not link to a description of carbon dating. asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html {/quote}
It is still a theory, the article even says; “We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago”hmm… still sounds like a theory to me (I didn’t have a chance to read the whole article yet, I will attempt that when I have more time)
I would say this though… Genesis indicates that the Earth was without form… those rocks could have been around before God formed the earth… I don’t know the answer to that.
Also, the equation may be a little different than our environment of today… there are a lot of factors that are being left out… look up canopy theory for one… the earth could have been quite a bit different back then.
{quote} Well, you can be suspicious, but I hope you don’t discard their findings just because they are athiests. {/quote}
I don’t discard all of it, I am a science channel junky… but when it starts to conflict with scripture I will be suspect.
But, can I challenge you with the same argument? Have you completely explored (with an open mind) the creationist version to this debate? I think that you would find some of the findings interesting.
Regards,
Brad.
B
Bradleyc
Guest
Please play nice.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Don’t worry, I have been at this a while on these fora and I very seldom take offense. By the way, you misread my directions for quoting. Don’t use { } around the words quote and /quote, use square brackets ]. I used the { } because if I used the square brackets, my text would have shown up as a quote and you wouldn’t be able to see what I wanted you to see. In other words use [qoute] and [/qoute] except spell quote correctly.
We got immortal souls when God gave them to us. Souls are not inherited.
Evolution has nothing to do with the soul. I can’t understand the idea of a Triune God, but I believe it.
Well first off, no scientist that understands anything about evolution would say that we came from monkeys. Second, why would you limit God in the ways that He chose to make us?
Does God look like us? God is spirit. Does He look like you or like me?
I don’t believe any of the scriptures are false. Not all are literal, though. The parables are a good example of that.
Well, you tell me.
From boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/: “The movie also uses interviews with avowed atheists like Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” to argue that scientific establishment is vehemently anti-God. Never mind that 40 percent of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science profess belief in a personal God. Stein, avoiding these 50,000 people, tells viewers that “Darwinists” don’t allow scientists to even think of God.
Puzzled, the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film’s co-producer, why he and Stein didn’t interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying “Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily.” In other words, showing a scientist who accepts both God and evolution would have confused their story line.” (emphasis added)
Pluto still exists. It is just not considered a planet.
Bad choice. Dinosaurs are not found in the Bible. Any other citations?
So you admit that evolution is a fact.
Yes.
toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/
toarchive.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
Before we go any further, you need to learn what evolution is. Nothing in the theory calls for half man/half monkey. It does not say that we came from monkeys. It doesn’t predict a dog will give birth to a cat. Here is a very general overview of what scientists call evolution.
toarchive.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
No, it is not a theory. A theory is an explanation of scientific evidence. Evolution is a theory. How gravity works is a theory. That disease is caused by microbes is a theory. Carbon (or any other type of radiometric dating) dating is an analytical method just like gas chromatography is.
Here you use the term theory improperly again. When we are discussing evolution, we are discussing science and theory in science doesn’t mean idea. The “canopy theory” is an idea, not a scientific theory supported by facts.
Yes I have. I don’t have any problem with someone wanting to believe in a literal Genesis creation based on their faith. However, when that person decides to try to make science fit that literal reading, I do have a problem.
Peace
Tim
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Your first source says:
Can you give an example of what the underlined might be, or how/when it came about? The cited explaination for universal common descent could well describe the half man/half monkey animal when viewed at the evolutionary point in the geologic timescale of evolutionary development. To suggest the ‘monkey branch’ of evolution is far enough removed or other evolutionary changes took place by the time the ‘human branch’ of evolution to now be unrelated, though they have the same origin makes no sense. If you are objecting only to the % of half with regard to a monkey/human in defense of evolution you may have an argument, but they either come from the same origin and share traits because of it or they do not. A more accurate description would be part monkey/part human is as valid for an intermediate specie just as part human/part blade of grass is valid since all organic life share carbon, proteins and other genetic variables.
We still share many genetic traits with monekys and apes don’t we? (Same with fruits and sea creatures?) The % may have been 95% monkey/5% human 500,000 YAG and after a ‘branch split’ the small human percentage was more dominate so that we evolved ourselves out of the African bush not too long ago in Earths history to be 5%monkey/95% human. 1%/99%? I suppose saying we are 100% human really has no meaning with respect to evolution in that sense.
Your second source suggests (a few highlights from under Human Evolution):
What do you suggest this proves? It suggests to me Africans are closer to the evolutionary jump from non-human animal to human being than the Chinese, Melanesians, and Europeans are, and the socially unacceptable ‘less than human’ charge against human beings from Africa by racist bigots has some actual validity. Accordingly Europeans can legitimately say such things against every other race since the source you cite suggests evolution and survival of the fittest is the cause of diversity as each successive split on the evolution tree produces a better more evolved creature than the previous one it came from.
I know, you might be thinking only a moron would say some humans are less than human because of the color of their skin, but your evidence says exactly that by following genes such as eye color because of genetic changes due to evolution from “one original species or communal gene pool” for the origin of life. The dog I saw the other day with blue eyes must have more ‘human’ in it than my dog with brown eyes or something like that.
Maybe the application of or imbued human soul by God is the great equalizer that makes the geneticly less human African (when compared to the European) equal to the Europeans in spirit as our faith teaches that all men are equal before God? When Genesis says God made Man, maybe it means only when God gave a certain animal(s) a soul.
The US constitution says the same kind of thing about ‘equal before the law’, but its clear all humans are not equal though the defining factor is money as well as race. God certainly makes a distinction between animals and humans. It seems to me we humans do not…at least not according to the sources you cite as evidence for evolution.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Where did you learn that Africans are genetically less human than Europeans? I haven’t heard that argument, although I know that prior to the discovery of genetics the presumed inferiority of Africans was used as a justification for their enslavement.
StAnastasia
L
look3467
Guest
When is the first signs of human intelligence noted in human history?
Was it with the caveman?
At what point in human history did God decide to begin His story of creation?
To justify a literal 6,000 year creation, should we skip the caveman?
I mean, they all died to, just as we will.
So they to must of come under the same death sentence, right? Why?
The point of the creation story is not the age, but the creative power of God and how He gave us existence in His image, to experience it in an environment not conducive to good.
Blessings, AJ
Was it with the caveman?
At what point in human history did God decide to begin His story of creation?
To justify a literal 6,000 year creation, should we skip the caveman?
I mean, they all died to, just as we will.
So they to must of come under the same death sentence, right? Why?
The point of the creation story is not the age, but the creative power of God and how He gave us existence in His image, to experience it in an environment not conducive to good.
Blessings, AJ
O
Orogeny
Guest
Most likely a single-celled organism. I don’t know how or when, although it was probably at least 3 billion years ago.
Nope. the universal common descent referred to is for all life, not just humans.
Monkeys evolved along a different line than did humans and apes. Humans and apes have a more recent common ancestor than do humans and monkeys.
Much more with apes than monkeys.
That part of you post makes no sense. We are 100% human, not 95% human and 5% anything else. Every creature is 100% what it is.
Proves? Nothing. It is an explanation for the evidence that is available.
Really?
Please go back and read the sources I gave you again. You are the only person I know of that has reached that conclusion from those articles.
Just to be as clear as possible, every single human being on this planet is 100% human and NO ONE is less human than anyone else. That is not what evolution says.
I take back what I wrote above. Don’t go back and read the sources I gave you. You don’t understand what is in those sources and you are drawing some very strange and disturbing conclusions from them.
No such thing. That is your conclusion, not one of science nor found in the links I gave you.
Peace
Tim
E
East_Anglican
Guest
This is an Athiests mockery of some of the things that have been posted on this thread.
youtube.com/watch?v=inN_MfgnPWc
I don’t like Athiests mocking the brethren but it sure strike a chord.
youtube.com/watch?v=inN_MfgnPWc
I don’t like Athiests mocking the brethren but it sure strike a chord.
T
Thing
Guest
Paleontologists have just this month found a new dinosaur which proves conclusively that the atheists view is totally wrong. But they are keeping it secret. This new dinosaur, Pleisdonsteponus, proves atheistic evolution is false.
B
buffalo
Guest
There are two “cambrian explosions” not accounted for - the jump from single to multicellular organisms and the CE itself.
I found this an interesting read:
The Deniable Darwin
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well natural selection was clearly at work for those for whom the name of the dinosaur was developed!
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Not accounted for does not mean didn’t happen. Of course, the jump from single to multicellular organisms happened long, long before the Cambrian.
How can the “Cambrian Explosion” account for itself?
You should read some science websites rather than just apologetics sites.
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
I do not limit my reading at all. I search for truth wherever it is. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
As you should be aware of by now, the new EES is wrestling with this and currently is postulating self-assembly.
O
Orogeny
Guest
I read every link that you provide. I read apologetic literature. I read the Catechism. I read the Bible.
I also read scientific sites. And not just the ones who I agree with.
Now, which scientific site said that the first multicellular life originated in the Cambrian?
Once it is published and debated, if it is found to have any validity, it will become the norm. Until then, it isn’t. By the way, it will still contradict a 10,000 year old earth that Sungenis proposes.
Peace
Tim
- Status