Your words chosen as usual to give an air of yourself as the science expert and to try and deflect from the fact that you are a faith believer, but it never works, you know, because I for one know, and am sure many others know, that your scientific background has to be considered in relation to your non-scientific freligious belief.
Who's Peder? Never heard of it, or him/her if it is a person.
First I'll counter that by saying that you never cite scientific sources for your 100% faith belief. Second, I wil remind you that I have no reading vision and have not had for over 20 years. Prior to that, I kept a record of the books and information I read. You can believe what you like about what reading I have done throughout my life and what connections I have had with science, but you cannot produce the one fact that will refute it and convince non-believers that your 100% faith belief is better and correct.Quote
You never cite scientific support for the simplified ideas you suggest as evolutionary "truths." From time to time you cite popularists like Richard Dawkins, but not actual studies because
More pomposity. And you think you know everything about my life and connection with science throughout my 83 years?!!!!Quote
You don't have sufficient background in science or math to understand them, let alone apply them in broad generalities.
Ah, so Peder is a he - does he have a web site?Quote
Peder has read and thought about evolution in terms of such studies.
I retain what he quotes:
> > Says Guang Ming to Daily; "In the beginning,
> > Darwinian evolution was a scientific theory.
> > Actually the evolution theory changed to a
> > religion. I agree. [/qute]
Why and how do you think it "changed" to a 'religion' and how ws this done? Religion implies some God/god/etc in association.
Really? Clarify exactly what you mean here.Quote
and, Susan, you're a believer.