tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3667690327667259988.post6861014547650810365..comments2009-07-28T02:09:31.269-04:00Dan!http://www.blogger.com/profile/17949972520871418816noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3667690327667259988.post-67005988846928083752009-07-28T02:09:31.269-04:002009-07-28T02:09:31.269-04:00I both enjoy the pursuit of science(in particular geology and biology), whilst being moderately religious, so I therefore know the evidence is their to blow holes through various key points in the creationists arguments, specifically the age of the earth among other things, however due to the lack of sufficient fossil evidence the theory of evolution makes assumptions based on what most likely happened, when little or no evidence is known of past environments and if the second most likely evolutionary step occurred then the evolutionary branches following will be greatly altered. Therefore I believe in both micro-evolution and religion, however to consider either creationism or the theory of evolution scientific is a joke. More concerning is that some can make the generalisation that all scientists don't believe is ignorant and makes me furious enough to post a reply, sorry about it's lengthiness. By the way this has nothing to do with molecular fossils (my Google search topic).Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3667690327667259988.post-74676979198858187312009-07-19T16:16:53.007-04:002009-07-19T16:16:53.007-04:00Thank you for reviving the lost art of semantics. "Understand" does work much better when you stop to think about it.Lisa RMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15780410047718841042noreply@blogger.com