Here is debate 1. *One_Truth* Have you ever done any personal study on the historicity of the bible? GK I have spent much time in that study. I find many errors and some good history. *One_Truth* Errors compared to what? GK There was no 6 day creation or world flood. Adam is mythical since humans have been around for millions of years. Genesis has trees before sun moon and stars. *One_Truth* 6 day creation is debated even among sincere believers. There is extra biblical evidence of a flood though. GK It has a talking snake and magic trees which give moral knowledge and eternal life. *One_Truth* But not before light. GK There is NO physical evidence for more than local floods. Genesis is not physical events but is Hebrew mythology. *One_Truth* you forgot the IMHO at the end of your statement. GK The earth and universe have a completely different history. This is the findings of the scientific community. No physical evidence exists to show Genesis is history, *One_Truth* What is strange is that science look at Mars and say that the surface shows sighns of a global flood. yet the same evidence is discounted when found here. Strange. GK Mars had water flow but no global flood, billions of years ago. No physical evidence exists for more than local floods on earth.I know my facts on these matters. *One_Truth* The layers of the earths fossil reccord is one evidence. of a global flood. GK Nothing seen on earth supports a world flood. The layers were laid down over billions of years. The fossils are almost totally not of modern species. *One_Truth* That is a statement you keep repeating. I have seen no supporting evidence for it though GK You have been misled by preachers. Read any geology book then. I know the subject very well. *One_Truth* Layers could not be layed down over millions of years as decay would have keep the fossils from existing. They had to be covered in order to be preserved. GK I have done geology for 50 years. *One_Truth* Then you know they had to be covered rapidly. GK You know nothing of earth processes but preacher lies. GK Local conditions can cover things, like river sediments. *One_Truth* Why are you being so personal in your attacks. You still have not offered any evidence. GK The formations date to different ages, by their fossils and atomic dating *One_Truth* But not when species indiginous to Westeren Hemisphere are found in the eastern hemisphere. GK You have no personal experience in these matters. *One_Truth* Nor have you. Not personal experience, so we are equal. GK Give details of your experience in field geology and paleontology. I have 50 years of field experience in geology and paleontology. You have only preacher lies. You can not list the geological periods in the proper order as you have no knowledge of the matter. *One_Truth* I have not seen your credentials, nor have you offered any verifiable evidence on your statements. even though I have requested it several times. With our credentuals it should not be hard to produce. GK I am a physicist with a BA from Rice U. My family was in the oil business. I have traveled extensively. *One_Truth* So it sould not be of any real consiquence for you to produce the evidence to support your claims. GK You are free to read any encyclopedia or geology book. You will find none of your preacher lies there. What evidence do you want? I can not give you 50 years of geology experience in a few lines of chat. You have read no geology books or encyclopedias on these matters. You can not give the geological periods in proper order. *One_Truth* For instance 3 findings in the fossel records that support Trans- species evolution. GK All the fossil record is of transitionals. You do not know them and have no experience in the matter. You have not studied the matter. You know nothing of paleontology. I have many decades of experience. Give the scientific reference for your claims of no transitionals. Seymouria, Archeopteryx and Pikaia *One_Truth* you know you cannot prove a negitive. You cannot prove that something does not exist.Nice try. GK I gave you 3 transitionals *One_Truth* Not trans-species. GK Describe them. Tell what you know about these fossils. *One_Truth* Not from reptile to bird, nor bird to mammal, not from species to species. We both know that. GK No modern species is found in formations earlier than the Tertiary. I gave you three transitionals. *One_Truth* That is my point. The evidence does not exist. Not trans-species. GK You do not know anything about fossils. I gave you three transitionals. *One_Truth* Do you deny that these are not trans-species? GK "The most birdlike dinosaur yet discovered". A 90 mya fossil from Patagonia, called Unenlagia. It is published in May 1997 issue of Nature. *One_Truth* IE: do you claim that these are examples of trans-species evolution. GK I gave you three transitionals. You are ignorant of their nature. Archeopteryx. Archy has feathers (flight feathers actually), a bird trait. Archy has wings, a bird trait, mostly. Archy has a wishbone, a mostly bird trait, but found in some dinosaurs. Archy has an unfused hand. Dinosaur trait. Archy has an unfused tail. Dinosaur trait. Archy hasn't got a keeled breastbone. Birds have these to anchor their flight muscles to. There's a bunch of other traits. Some are found in dinosaurs, some in modern birds. You do not know about fossils. One_Truth* I did not deny that there was not adaptation with in a species. GK _Sinornis santensis_ ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than _Archeopteryx_.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992). "Las Hoyas bird" or "Spanish bird" [not yet named; early Cretaceous, 131 Animals and plants always come from their ancestors. Modern species did not exist before the Tertiary. yes but the Patagonia was found to predate the others. And had all the features of a bird including feathers. Another recently found "little forest flier". It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip. A fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird, indicating homeothermy. (Sanz et al., 1992) _Ambiortus dementjevi_ (early Cretaceous, 125 Ma) The third known "little forest flier", found in 1985. Very fragmentary fossil._Hesperornis_, _Ichthyornis_, and other Cretaceous diving birds. This line of birds became specialized for diving, like modern cormorants. As they lived along saltwater coasts, there are many fossils known. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, a reptilian trait. These are intermediates between birds and reptiles. Here is the whale sequence. Beginning with a mesonychid mammal the intermediates are Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rodocetus, leading to a true whale, Basilosaurus. Even Basilosaurus itself is intermediate. It had modern cetaceans. Whale ancestry. Two orders, Acreodea and Cetacea, would overlap in the suborder Archaeoceti. Acreodea would consist of the two suborders Mesonychi and Archaeoceti, overlapping in the family Protocetidae. _Ambulocetus_ -- _Rodocetus_ -- _Basilosaurus_ are whale ancestors. Science 263, 14 Jan 1994, pg. 180 has a nice sketch of some whale skeletons, both modern and ancient. Sperm whales still sometimes show vestigal legs Mesonychids (terrestrial) Pakicetus Ambulocetus Rodhcetus Indocetus, Protocetus Basilosaurus -- and somewhat later Aetiocetus All these are an evolutionary sequence. Homo sapiens sapiens: 120,000 Years ago Homo sapiens neanderthalensis: 230,000 Years ago Homo sapiens (archaic): 500,000 Years ago Homo antecessor 800,000 Years ago. Homo erectus: 1,800,000 Years ago Homo habilis: 2,400,000 Years ago Australopithecus afarensis 3.3 million years Australopithecus anamensis 3.9 and 4.2 million years A. ramidus 3.9 to 4.4 Million Years ago Morotopithecus bishopi 20 million years ago. ------------------------- See Time Magazine Dec 2, 1996 or the June 1997 Scientific American for details. You can not refute a single one of them. Discuss the formations and geology of any place you choose. Tell me about the Grand Canyon. *One_Truth* I do not refute their existence. Just the subjective intrepretation. GK You can not refute them because you know nothing of the matter, Tell me the distribution of trilobites. *One_Truth* I bet you believe that oil was formed of decaying foilage don't you? GK Tell me the events of the Permian. *One_Truth* Tell me how spontanious cellular evolution happened? How did the first cell form? GK Oil is produced in shallow ocean formations from sediment with plankton. The origin of life is 3.85 billion years ago. The nature of the first genetic system is a partial mystery. *One_Truth* Recent science says it is indiginous to the earth and not formed from pre-existant matter. GK You know nothing of geology. *One_Truth* It is a total mystery. I do know that this was widely reported in the major media. GK That is one model. The oil companies have very good luck drilling in ancient ocean sediment. Do you know the chemistry of petroleum? My family was in the oil business. *One_Truth* But, science. The science you represent does not agree. GK How much petroleum geology have you studied? You know no science but preacher lies. *One_Truth* they have also drilled a LOT of dry holes. GK Tell me the names of the formations. That is how they find oil. They have found far more oil fields than your lying preachers. Tell me about the Permian Basin. *One_Truth* How could evolution occur if spontanious cellular generation cannot happen. GK Evolution occurred once life formed. *One_Truth* But how did the life form? If the life cannot form. I cannot evolve. GK The earth is 4.55 billion years old. It was lifeless. Within a billion years it had prokaryotes. Life formed on the early earth. That is an observed fact. It is presently a partial mystery. *One_Truth* Did it just appear? GK It appeared from earlier chemicals. *One_Truth* like I said. It is a total mystery. This cannot be proven. GK Do you know what a prokaryote is? Life appeared on the early earth. That is a fact. Do you know what a prokaryote is? *One_Truth* Single celled animal. GK What kind of single cell animal? *One_Truth* I do not dispute the instantainous creation of life. GK It was not instantaneous but involved a series of chemical processes. You do not know what a prokaryote is. *One_Truth* Do you accept that by faith? GK It is a fact that life appeared on earth about 3.85 billion years ago. You do not know what a prokaryote is. *One_Truth* Do you accept the reasoning that I came from a series of chemicals? GK You can not judge these matters from vast ignorance. *One_Truth* that it came even. GK You are made of chamicals. *One_Truth* Do you accept this by faith. Yes or no? GK It is a fact life is made of chemicals. *One_Truth* actually everthing is a composition of elements. GK Chemistry is very complicated to understand. That includes us. Do you know the origin of the elements? What do you know of the origin of the solar system? Have you studied chemistry? *One_Truth* That is true. So you accept the premise of chemical evolution into living matter by faith. GK The early earth produced life from non-living chemicals. *One_Truth* I know of the theries. I know of several of the studies based on various intrepretations of history. Do you accept that by faith? GK If you know anything of science, you would know what I am telling you. It is a fact that the early earth produced life from non-life *One_Truth* Or do you have evidence of its happening or can you reproduce it? GK Not all natural process can be produced by men yet. *One_Truth* It is a commonly accepted theory. Facts are provable. As of yet this cannot be proven. GK Make me some granite, make me a star, make me a 1000000 GV cosmic ray. Proof is for math. Science deals in validity. It is valid science to say life formed on the early earth by chemical, processes. If you know more about these chemical processes, then discuss them. *One_Truth* it is also a statement of faith. Evidence in things not seen. GK The early formations were seen to have no life. Later formations had prokaryotes. That is science. *One_Truth* I know that the life produced in the lab was done by a superiour intellegance, In a controled environment, by intellegant design. GK It is a scientific observation, making it a fact. *One_Truth* according to you. GK Many complex natural chemical processes are hard to study in the lab, as chemistry is very complex. The original process took place billions of years ago and was not directly observed. *One_Truth* this complexity, in and of itself speaks for intellegant design. GK Give evidence for that claim. Science sees no evidence for intelligent design. Intelligent design is not found in any science reference manual in any area of knowledge. *One_Truth* yet you claim complexity happened randomly. How strange. GK That is your words in my mouth. I did not say them. How dishonest of you. Complexity occurs by the operation of natural laws. You know little of natural laws and their operations. *One_Truth* "Many complex natural chemical processes are hard to study in the lab, as chemistry is very complex." GK That is true. If you think nature is simple, you have not studied very much. *One_Truth* Ok, so the statement I made is accurate. You claim comlexity came by randomly. GK I did not say that. *One_Truth* I do believe that laws do not write themselves. GK Complexity came about by operation of natural laws. Have you ever felt the true, real, living presence of Jesus? GK The origin of the laws of nature are presently a mystery of the Big bang. *One_Truth* If laws wrote themselves then again you would have order from disorder. GK You speak nonsense. *One_Truth* Another thing taken by faith. We seem to have more in common that I first believes. GK Laws are observed regularities in nature. You do not understand science and use Sunday School lessons to understand it. *One_Truth* given by a law giver. To order His creation. GK The natural laws, whatever their origin, produce complexity. You do not know the origin of the laws. *One_Truth* And speak of a Giver personally, don't you? GK You are introducing Hebrew mythology into a science discussion. Their operation is fairly well known. I speak from knowledge of the matter. Chemical processes are controlled by the laws of nature. Quantum mechanics is involved. The facts are observed by scientists. *One_Truth* But the origin of these laws. Are taken by faith on your part. GK No deities are included in any science model of the universe. No one knows the origin of these laws, including you. *One_Truth* As is the chemical process which caused life to spring forth. Without explanation. GK There were chemicals on the early earth. Living things are made of chemicals. *One_Truth* To argue against something that does not exist is foolish. That the aguement exists speaks of the reality of the object. GK Chemicals tend to prodiuce complex structures. *One_Truth* But how is taken by faith. But how is accepted by faith. GK Science ignores all deity stories and is very successful with that approach. *One_Truth* this is a fact. GK Science uses facts derived from observation to make predictions. *One_Truth* Yes, ingnorance is always helpful for things unexplained and unexplainable. GK Science started out with total ignorance and it took centuries to get to the great power shown by present science. The rainbow was once unexplainable. The origin of the sun's heat was once a mystery. *One_Truth* If you believe that you do not even know the history of modern science itself. How sad. GK I know much about the history of modern science. *One_Truth* Yes, but modern science has its fondation in eastern culture. And not by conincidence. GK You know little science so you easily make false statements. Science is derived from ancient origins. *One_Truth* You know what you have been spoon fed. Have not checked out the writings of the people themselves. Just what others have attributed to them. GK The Greeks were the first who used non-theist explanations for nature. How do you propose to judge science when you know so little of it? *One_Truth* I know we both accept our basic premises on faith. GK The faith of science is that the laws of nature are constant and experiments will allow laws to be determined. Another assumption is that invisible persons are not in control. *One_Truth* I also know for advanced as previous civilizations were they have not equaled the system of science that was produced by western civilization coming out of the Dark Ages. I also know why. But the origin of them is accepted by faith. As well as the origin of life. GK The origin of life is a chemical mystery. There are many chemical mysteries. Chemical mysteries tend to be very complicated. *One_Truth* To some extent, yes. But the basic assumptions of eastern science are far different from there predicessors. And for a very basic reason. GK It took ten years for the structure of penicillin to be discovered. *One_Truth* See now if I agee with you about complexity. But if I say you believe in random life from complexity you will deny it again. GK Read Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for discussion of paradign shifts which allow now models of nature to be discovered. If you know anything about the chemistry of living systems, give the source for your knowledge. What are the nitrogen bases of DNA and RNA. Give a complete description of water. What angle is the chemical bond of water? *One_Truth* Even a better. How did a the self reading/writing code of DNA in all its complexity form? GK The initial genetic chemical system was far simpler than that which you describe. It does not take too many atoms to form a very complicated chemical systems. *One_Truth* The laws of statisical probability say that random life cannot happen. But for sake of arguemnent lets say that it beat the odds. If it was an animal cell how did plant life begin? How was the DNA codes clearly distinctly different written? And why? There is a difference between chemical systems and the complexity of DNA found in the simplist cell. GK They do not know the nature of the first genetic system. The first life known is prokaryotes. You do not know about prokaryotes so you can not intelligently discuss this matter. *One_Truth* But even prokaryotes have definate DNA structure.And you cannot answer my question. So you are starting with personal attackes again. Something I have not done this entire conversation. GK They do not know that the first genetic system was a prokaryote. Tell me the DNA structure of prokaryotes. *One_Truth* And you do not know how it was formed. GK It remains a fact you know little of these technical matters. *One_Truth* something you accept by faith. GK The origin of the first genetic system is unknown. Since it is unknown there are no assumptions about it to be accepted on faith. *One_Truth* The reference you asked for in in the book entitled "The Soul of Science" which I do not have in front of me at the moment. If you like I would look up the information and e-mail it to you. GK Is it a professional scientific reference work, peer reviewed? *One_Truth* Faith is trust in things unseen. For that reason, I can make the statement that you accept this by faith. GK Is it rather a unjudged claim of someone who has an opinion? Science believes in many things never seen. Black holes are never seen. The whole orbit of Pluto has never been seen. The core of the sun and the core of the earth are never seen. *One_Truth* Yes, and we theorize on these things. There is nothing to say that in the future another more excellent and accurate answer till not be found. GK Science is expected to produce more and better predictions in the future if the preachers do not stamp it out. Science uses past facts to make future predictions. *One_Truth* The reference you asked for on statistical probabliltiy is found in "Evolution" by Coppedge on page 177. GK If the predictions succeed, then it produces new facts. *One_Truth* but the sucess of these things is yet to be discovered. GK You can not apply statistics to unknown chemical systems. *One_Truth* If you cannot then why do you take a leap more and apply life to the same chemical processes? GK Life uses observed or observable chemical systems. *One_Truth* It is clear that you do not tend to investigate the validity of your own claims. GK I have checked them in details. *One_Truth* Chemical to life has never been observed. You said so yourself. You take it by faith. GK That is true and many things have never yet been observed but only inferred from the evidence. *One_Truth* You do know a great more many theories than I do. That is a fact. GK Blacks holes have never been observed. That is why I am better educated than you are. *One_Truth* Whether they are facts or not remains to be proven You are better schooled. GK That makes a great difference in these discusions. *One_Truth* It is interesting to see you dicount anything that does not fit your world view. The same thing you cite in me. GK There are many facts science has discovered and many more will be discovered in the future, if the preachers do not put the scientists into prison. I discount unicorns, a young earth, animals without anncestors, magic trees, a world flood and fire breathing Leviathans. *One_Truth* Do you accept the work of Sir Arthur Keith? GK Which of his claims do you wish to discuss? Each idea must be discussed in detail. Not all ideas proposed by a scientist is valid. *One_Truth* His statemet "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only other alternative is special creation and that is unthingable." GK Ideas not submitted to peer reviewed journals may or may not be valid science. Evolution is widely observed and so is a valid fact. *One_Truth* I just asked if you accept him as an authority on Evolution? He may be mistaken in this matter. Evolution is widely observed in nature and in the lab. What peer reviewed science journal did that statment appear in? What did he say is the origin of modern species? Did he accept Do you disbelieve in descent or genetic variation? *One_Truth* You said you lead me to believe you knew his work and accepted him as knowledgeable on evolution GK Give the origin of modern species if not from earlier species. I did not say I knew his work or opinions. His statment on evolution makes me question his ability in this matter. What is his explanation for the origin of modern species? You did he write this claim in? What did the professional science journals say about his claim? What data did he present to support his claim? I gave a list. Pick one. *One_Truth* No he is, was I should say. A devote evolutionist. GK Then he accepts evolution. There are many questions about the history and processes of evolution the experts disagree on. That is true in every area of science. *One_Truth* Yes, I agree they are taken faith and unproven and to present unprovable. You just avoid the obvious *One_Truth* It has been good talking to you.Boy you are in a rut aren't you. GK You have not shown that evolution is false, only that there are still many mysteries involved. I know the facts of the matter and can not be misled by people who do not understand the subject. ====== Another debate. *Izzy-* Most of the text files you sent are more propaganda than substantive I do not claim all was factual but much was opinion. All gods and godesses are equally likely to exist. The scientific parts can be checked with external references. What science parts do you wish to discuss? *Izzy-* I want to know how the second law of thermodynamics in your view applies only to the parts of a system than of the whole system, in other words you say that the law applies to a system but do you honestly think that the organic soup tunneled through the second law? Quote the second law exactly and then we can discuss it. *Izzy-* Heat cannot be transferred from a colder to a hotter body without net changes occurring in other bodies. That is one valid form. What does that have to do with evolution and the origin of life? The nature of the first genetic system is presently unknown. The first fossils are prokaryote bacteria 3.85 billion years old. The very early earth had no life. Look at the moon for an idea what it looked like. *Izzy-* Well you asked, so I delivered,.but if you want simple. Entropy always increases. That does not prevent life from originating and evolution from occurring. *Izzy-* Glk do you know the bonds between amino acids? I know of that question. I have a BIG book here on the subject. *Izzy-* whats the book...and whats the date? MOLECULAR GENETICS 1978 *Izzy-* have you read PhD John Polkinghorne's book The Quantum World, or heard Stephen Hawking's lecture on determinism? I have not heard of it. Tell me about it. *Izzy-* I dont want to misquote anything cause that's how all of this atheism "knowledge" comes about word of mouth instead of facts, but its very fascinating and I think a PhD at CalTech has a book out ,Hugh Ross and theres a molecular biologist at Princeton as well. I know Ross. He is a good astronomer and when he speaks of theology he no longer speaks as a scientist. *Izzy-* ahhh glk thats a strange comment to make! But I would argue that theism and science aren't as dipole are youd think How come many scientists are now coming back to religion? Ross has no authory in theology. *Izzy-* Authority I'm just curious here.How do biological systems climb the ladder of intricacy and order, while the natural world descends to entropy and disorder The religious opinions of a scientist have no more authority than those of a football coach. A few can become many in a short time. *Izzy-* You are telling me that amino acids reproduced? It may have been RNA or something different. It is still a mystery. The nature of the first genetic system is unknown at present. The most efficient reproducers become the majority pattern in the vessel. Chemical problems can be VERY difficult to solve. Look how long it took to find the structure of penicillin. *Izzy-* We can manipulate things on the genetic level and nanotechnology is ascending in the biomedical world, we have an intricate knowledge of all the process of the compounds and their properties, but I think you know the problem of irreducable complexity just stares athiesm in the face There is still much unknown but progress is being made. Watch over the next 50 years and see what is done in this matter. *Izzy-* Sir Fred Hoyle argued that the idea life originated by this evolution is "as ridiculous and improbable as the proposition that a tornado blowing through a junkyard may assemble a Boeing 747", the likelyhood of it being around 10^40000- the chance that 2 thousand enzyme molecules will be formed simultaneously from their 20 component amino acids. I am surprised you do not see the mistaken comparison of large machine parts and atoms with molecules. Machine parts do not attract and self assemble. Atoms and molecules do that. A one time event like a storm does not allow step by step processes to occur. *Izzy-* glk they do not have an affinity for each other in that manner to form disulfide bridges glk do you honestly believe that everything you are came from hydrogen interacting with the four known forces? Atoms form molecules which form larger more complex systems. That appears to be the case. The BB made hydrogen and helium. Heavier elements were produced in stars. Supernovas made elements heavier than iron. *Izzy-* Fascinating glk, absolutely fascinating...most molecular biologists aren't seeing the likelyhood glk, we are infact seeing the opposite Give the scientist who refutes this system I have described and substitutes a magic process. *Izzy-* Where there are mysteries, there are alternate physical processes which may operate. The present models are all incomplete. glk the first rule of science is to go on what you know and debug the system. I'm not saying put in a metaphysical process but the physical isn't working! What aspect of the model I proposed seems improbable? Science is working hard to study this problem. That means that many mysteries remain. If you propose a solution, it must be physically possible. *Izzy-* Where shall I begin or do you want me to recommend some books for you? Chemistry can be VERY complicated. *Izzy-* Stephen Hawking himself said "MAN IS DETERMINED" Give your recommendation. Have you read it? What does that mean? What does Hawking propose on this matter? BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME. I know of no scientific proposal very far from what I have proposed. *Izzy-* glk is your faith in the metaphysical solely a function of what science determines? Hawking has the right to editorialize all he wants. Science changes so I do not want to tie myself to science of this year. I go where the evidence points and will change when the evidence requires it. *Izzy-* if you dont believe that watch the OJ simpson trial again Evidence varies. My dreams do not point to external reality. *Izzy-* you can find an expert who will attest to anything and bring evidence for it Science has ways of weighing evidence. Not all experts are equal. *Izzy-* You personify science saying it weighs evidence.Its not one person, its a group of intellictuals each with their own agenda. That is the case but there is a commonality, involving independent testing of proposed models. *Izzy-* Let me ask you.Is evidence biased or is it merely credible?. What are we supposed to believe? The softer sciences, like psychology have less rigid standards. *Izzy-* I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing hard core here.You have scientists on both sides. Who is right? With the greatest one of our time, Stephen Hawking in the middle All human systems have social and emotional aspects, which many help or hinder scientific thought. The final judge of the matter is the quality of the prediction produced. What two sides are scientists on? There are scientists who differ on politics and what is a good dinner wine. *Izzy-* Well science ever since Galileo has tried to make itself dipole from religion, but now it seems they are coming slowly back on their own agenda I see no return to religious assumptions in the professional community. Individual scientists may have a theology, independent of their professional scientific system. You can not determine the theological opinions of a scientist by reading their professional papers. *Izzy-* Just because something has a stamp or a title makes it professional? Hugh Ross was a great guy until he became Christian and now his opinions aren't valid? If Stephen Hawking became Christian would his opinion be less valuable? When Ross speaks of astronomy , he has authority as those ideas have been tested and verified. When he speaks of Adam and Eve, he is in another realm and outside of the system which has been independently tested and validated. It is totally faith. *Izzy-* Ross speaks on the nature of the universe and argues from a cosmological standpoint.... I worked for a physicist who was a good Mormon. When he spoke of electrons and holes in a semiconductor, he had authority as a scientist. When he spoke of the theology of Joseph Smith, that was in the realm of faith alone. -------- End of debate END****************************************************************************