Comments on: Marcus McElhaney: Another Response http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=marcus-mcelhaney-another-response The Evidence for a Common Ancestor Between Tables and Chairs Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:49:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Get a grip on reality. | Godless Business http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-3292 Get a grip on reality. | Godless Business Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:07:34 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-3292 [...] educated in science” at the prestigious Berkeley University. Apparently you “2 degrees in Engineering and 1 degree in information technology.” I am stunned. What are they teaching you [...] [...] educated in science” at the prestigious Berkeley University. Apparently you “2 degrees in Engineering and 1 degree in information technology.” I am stunned. What are they teaching you [...]

]]> By: MarcusMcElhaney http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-477 MarcusMcElhaney Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:08:59 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-477 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good." Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good." Psalm 14:1

]]> By: MarcusMcElhaney http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-476 MarcusMcElhaney Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:03:42 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-476 I know a great deal of computer language because I do a lot programming in various languages for several years. And the only reason you think that I do not understand physics is because you don't know as much about physics. DNA is not just expressive like HTML, because it actually tells cells what to do, not just what to look like. Hypertext Mark up Language (HTML) tells a browser how to present and format information. It used to only be used that way without any actual processing taking place, but the Internet has changed where processing takes place on both the client machine and the server. Because of this, I'd liken DNA more to an interpreted computer language like SCHEME or JavaScript. Such scripting languages tell computers how to process data but it isn't compiled but interpreted line by line as the software or web page is ran. DNA is wonderful and Information Technology can be used in analogy to a point, but the analogy does break down if you press it too far. By the way, in information technology, HTML is still often referred to as "code". I have 2 degrees in Engineering (one of them has an emphasis in physics) and 1 degree in information technology with an emphasis in computer programming. Make no mistake...just because you disagree with me, and immediately willing to reject what I say without really thinking about it, I'm not uneducated or ignorant. I know a great deal of computer language because I do a lot programming in various languages for several years. And the only reason you think that I do not understand physics is because you don't know as much about physics. DNA is not just expressive like HTML, because it actually tells cells what to do, not just what to look like. Hypertext Mark up Language (HTML) tells a browser how to present and format information. It used to only be used that way without any actual processing taking place, but the Internet has changed where processing takes place on both the client machine and the server. Because of this, I'd liken DNA more to an interpreted computer language like SCHEME or JavaScript. Such scripting languages tell computers how to process data but it isn't compiled but interpreted line by line as the software or web page is ran. DNA is wonderful and Information Technology can be used in analogy to a point, but the analogy does break down if you press it too far. By the way, in information technology, HTML is still often referred to as "code". I have 2 degrees in Engineering (one of them has an emphasis in physics) and 1 degree in information technology with an emphasis in computer programming. Make no mistake…just because you disagree with me, and immediately willing to reject what I say without really thinking about it, I'm not uneducated or ignorant.

]]> By: SeandBlogonaut http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-475 SeandBlogonaut Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:34:19 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-475 You made me laugh so hard I farted Marcus. Enjoy your weekend You made me laugh so hard I farted Marcus. Enjoy your weekend

]]> By: Skelliot http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-474 Skelliot Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:19:01 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-474 You are a moron. You are a moron.

]]> By: Skelliot http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-473 Skelliot Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:10:51 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-473 DNA isn't a coding LANGUAGE. It is an expressive language. Something like HTML is. Do not delve into something, again, that you do not know enough about (such as physics when Jack showed you up earlier). Try again. DNA isn't a coding LANGUAGE. It is an expressive language. Something like HTML is. Do not delve into something, again, that you do not know enough about (such as physics when Jack showed you up earlier). Try again.

]]> By: MarcusMcElhaney http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-472 MarcusMcElhaney Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:48:32 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-472 You didn't show any error only that you know how to take the Bible out of context. Genesis 2 does not conflict with Genesis 1 because Genesis 2 just gives more detail about that 6th period of time. The Bible does not say where the light came from in Genesis 1:2. Stop reading into the text what isn't there. Well at-least you are quoting from it. You just don't know what you are quoting. I have supported my claims about what the text says. Where is your support? The Bible is right. You are wrong. You didn't show any error only that you know how to take the Bible out of context. Genesis 2 does not conflict with Genesis 1 because Genesis 2 just gives more detail about that 6th period of time. The Bible does not say where the light came from in Genesis 1:2. Stop reading into the text what isn't there. Well at-least you are quoting from it. You just don't know what you are quoting. I have supported my claims about what the text says. Where is your support? The Bible is right. You are wrong.

]]> By: SeandBlogonaut http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-471 SeandBlogonaut Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:03:50 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-471 You asked for the bible to be proved in error. I have shown it to be in error. You supply the argument from misinterpretation yet the text is clear. The light is separate from god it does not say "and the light shone from god does it? " I'll rebut your red herrings when you can actually support your own claims. Nuh-Uh - you're kidding right? As for maligning Berkley - Well you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think. Do they teach you critical reading at Berkley? So as to the bible hanging together and not agreeing with itself Let us just stick with genesis where as I have pointed out above god apparently makes the beasts before man but in Genesis 2 its the other way around. GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. You asked for the bible to be proved in error.

I have shown it to be in error.

You supply the argument from misinterpretation yet the text is clear. The light is separate from god it does not say "and the light shone from god does it? "

I'll rebut your red herrings when you can actually support your own claims.

Nuh-Uh – you're kidding right?

As for maligning Berkley – Well you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.

Do they teach you critical reading at Berkley?

So as to the bible hanging together and not agreeing with itself

Let us just stick with genesis where as I have pointed out above god apparently makes the beasts before man but in Genesis 2 its the other way around.

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

]]> By: MarcusMcElhaney http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-470 MarcusMcElhaney Sun, 25 Jan 2009 04:40:08 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-470 The Bible talks of God as being light. Haven't you ever read it. I'm amazed. You are not like your profile at all. "Pathetic" describes your apologetic not mine. You offer no rebuttal or no well-reasoned argument to the response I offered to you. Did you even read the other viewpoint? You did not interact with it. The Bible is not poorly edited. It hangs together and agrees with itself despite the numerous sources. You haven't shown that it's scientifically incorrect because you have not proven your interpretation is the correct one. Your argument is summed up as "Nuh uh!" And that is not an apologetic. Maligning my education and my knowledge base does not change that either. Unless of course you would like to malign the University of California, at Berkeley. Which is your right, if you choose. But attacking me instead of refuting the answer I gave only serves to show how desperately ignorant you are. Anything not to submit yourself to God. Truly sad. The Bible talks of God as being light. Haven't you ever read it. I'm amazed. You are not like your profile at all. "Pathetic"
describes your apologetic not mine. You offer no rebuttal or no well-reasoned argument to the response I offered to you. Did you even read the other viewpoint? You did not interact with it. The Bible is not poorly edited. It hangs together and agrees with itself despite the numerous sources. You haven't shown that it's scientifically incorrect because you have not proven your interpretation is the correct one.

Your argument is summed up as "Nuh uh!" And that is not an apologetic.

Maligning my education and my knowledge base does not change that either. Unless of course you would like to malign the University of California, at Berkeley. Which is your right, if you choose. But attacking me instead of refuting the answer I gave only serves to show how desperately ignorant you are. Anything not to submit yourself to God. Truly sad.

]]> By: SeandBlogonaut http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-469 SeandBlogonaut Sun, 25 Jan 2009 04:19:51 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-469 Your arguments get pathetically weaker everytime you try and twist your way out of the knot you have tied yourself into. Whence cometh the light? God the lightbulb? And you seem to skim over the scientic fact that stars form before planets, unlike the story suggested in genesis. The age of my arguments and the patheic apologetics you offer in reponse have no bearing on the situation. The bible is not complex - badly edited, compiled from numerous sources, filtered through different languages and cultures yes, but not complicated. The bible is not nonsense, it is scientifically incorrect as shown above. I understand it both as a work of literature and as historical artifact. Do not bother replying to me Marcus you arguments only convince me of your willful ignorance and lack of education. Your arguments get pathetically weaker everytime you try and twist your way out of the knot you have tied yourself into.

Whence cometh the light? God the lightbulb?

And you seem to skim over the scientic fact that stars form before planets, unlike the story suggested in genesis.

The age of my arguments and the patheic apologetics you offer in reponse have no bearing on the situation.

The bible is not complex – badly edited, compiled from numerous sources, filtered through different languages and cultures yes, but not complicated.

The bible is not nonsense, it is scientifically incorrect as shown above. I understand it both as a work of literature and as historical artifact.

Do not bother replying to me Marcus you arguments only convince me of your willful ignorance and lack of education.

]]> By: MarcusMcElhaney http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-468 MarcusMcElhaney Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:28:38 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-468 1. Understood. As far as I'm concern it's squashed. I have no need to discuss it further. I accept your apology. 2. You have an extreme bias against the Discovery Institute. Is it because they believe the Bible is true or is it because you think they have bad scientists who don't know what they are doing? If it's the latter, you need to provide proof that they are incompetent scientists. Remember there was a time when the majority of scientists thought that the earth was flat. When the majority thought that flys spontaneously generated from rotten meat. Those were the prevailing mainstream ideas until a small percentage of scientists challenged them.This point has no proof. 3. I will find data on Phylogenetics, but i will post them on my blog. In the meantime, you can't issue a challenge without answering the challenge already put forth. I'm waiting on the rebuttal concerning the fossil record. 4. Saying that the similarity in DNA structure and material was designed and implemented is not a supernatural explanation. Is it supernatural explanation to say that HTML standards were designed to make information viewable on the Internet? 5. How do you know ERVs are NONFUNCTIONAL? Maybe we just don't know what they are for. I'm way into information technology, and DNA is a lot like coding in computer programming. One programmer may look at some code and say that code block being observed is junk - not needed - but only the one wrote the code could say that. 1. Understood. As far as I'm concern it's squashed. I have no need to discuss it further. I accept your apology.
2. You have an extreme bias against the Discovery Institute. Is it because they believe the Bible is true or is it because you think they have bad scientists who don't know what they are doing? If it's the latter, you need to provide proof that they are incompetent scientists. Remember there was a time when the majority of scientists thought that the earth was flat. When the majority thought that flys spontaneously generated from rotten meat. Those were the prevailing mainstream ideas until a small percentage of scientists challenged them.This point has no proof.
3. I will find data on Phylogenetics, but i will post them on my blog. In the meantime, you can't issue a challenge without answering the challenge already put forth. I'm waiting on the rebuttal concerning the fossil record.
4. Saying that the similarity in DNA structure and material was designed and implemented is not a supernatural explanation. Is it supernatural explanation to say that HTML standards were designed to make information viewable on the Internet?
5. How do you know ERVs are NONFUNCTIONAL? Maybe we just don't know what they are for. I'm way into information technology, and DNA is a lot like coding in computer programming. One programmer may look at some code and say that code block being observed is junk – not needed – but only the one wrote the code could say that.

]]> By: MarcusMcElhaney http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-466 MarcusMcElhaney Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:11:14 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-466 1. "nonce"? 2. I think you may need to think your time line. The Light described in verse one is not the same as the sun or moon. 3. I take this portion of Genesis literally, but you can't possibly think that it gives all the details. Or that it's talking about six 24 hour days. Like I have said so many times that the hebrew word translated "day" only means a "period of time". Like wise there are other ways to look at this. I find that if I see something wrong in the Bible then maybe I don't understand what it is saying. You must remember, none of your argument or criticisms are new. They have been used before and will continue to be used. Here is an example of other ways to understand what the Bible is saying instead of your misreading: <a href="http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_order_of_creation" target="_blank">http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/the...</a> The Bible is complex. Too complex for anyone individual to understand every single thing in it. I'm still learning myself. The Bible is not nonsense because you don't understand it. 1. "nonce"?
2. I think you may need to think your time line. The Light described in verse one is not the same as the sun or moon.
3. I take this portion of Genesis literally, but you can't possibly think that it gives all the details. Or that it's talking about six 24 hour days. Like I have said so many times that the hebrew word translated "day" only means a "period of time". Like wise there are other ways to look at this. I find that if I see something wrong in the Bible then maybe I don't understand what it is saying. You must remember, none of your argument or criticisms are new. They have been used before and will continue to be used. Here is an example of other ways to understand what the Bible is saying instead of your misreading:

http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/the...

The Bible is complex. Too complex for anyone individual to understand every single thing in it. I'm still learning myself.

The Bible is not nonsense because you don't understand it.

]]> By: NaonTiotami http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-465 NaonTiotami Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:47:45 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-465 1. I'm the only one who could have deleted the comment, and so I probably (somehow) did it accidentally. 2. Yep, more Discovery Institute. About two of the people on that list had anything to do with evolution in their scientific field. And how many scientists is that? 0.5% of America's total? Less? 3. Those blog posts are all about the fossil record, not phylogenetics. I'd still like to see that data. 4. What other natural explanation could produce similar genetic sequences? (Supernatural explanations, again, don't count, because you can say ANYTHING is supernaturally caused) And why do organisms need to have similar genetic codes to function together in an ecosystem? Even more weird, why do they need similar NONFUNCTIONAL sequences, such as ERVs? Seems like God didn't know what he was doing. 1. I'm the only one who could have deleted the comment, and so I probably (somehow) did it accidentally.

2. Yep, more Discovery Institute. About two of the people on that list had anything to do with evolution in their scientific field. And how many scientists is that? 0.5% of America's total? Less?

3. Those blog posts are all about the fossil record, not phylogenetics. I'd still like to see that data.

4. What other natural explanation could produce similar genetic sequences? (Supernatural explanations, again, don't count, because you can say ANYTHING is supernaturally caused)

And why do organisms need to have similar genetic codes to function together in an ecosystem? Even more weird, why do they need similar NONFUNCTIONAL sequences, such as ERVs? Seems like God didn't know what he was doing.

]]> By: SeandBlogonaut http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-464 SeandBlogonaut Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:28:18 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-464 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. Yes being entirely serious. It is quite clear to me that the planet earth has been created above, fomless and empty (contradictory I know, but perhaps the writer meant without land masses and montains, vegetation) followed by the passage about the spirit floating over the waters (which necessitate the existance of the planet) then hey presto the lights come on. Then genesis 14 talks about God creating the Sun and the moon and the stars after the planet has been formed. Runs contrary to what we know about formation of galaxies and solar systems. Planets form around stars, stars give off light hence light exists before planets. Biblical timeline: Water covered Planet, creation of light, creation of atmosphere creation of land massess and seas creation of vegetation creation of moon sun and stars(whence light comes from) creation of creatures creation of man So yes I have read genesis and you have been shown up to be the complete and utter nonce that you are. Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Yes being entirely serious. It is quite clear to me that the planet earth has been created above, fomless and empty (contradictory I know, but perhaps the writer meant without land masses and montains, vegetation) followed by the passage about the spirit floating over the waters (which necessitate the existance of the planet) then hey presto the lights come on.

Then genesis 14 talks about God creating the Sun and the moon and the stars after the planet has been formed.

Runs contrary to what we know about formation of galaxies and solar systems. Planets form around stars, stars give off light hence light exists before planets.

Biblical timeline:
Water covered Planet,
creation of light,
creation of atmosphere
creation of land massess and seas
creation of vegetation
creation of moon sun and stars(whence light comes from)
creation of creatures
creation of man

So yes I have read genesis and you have been shown up to be the complete and utter nonce that you are.

]]> By: MarcusMcElhaney http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-463 MarcusMcElhaney Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:12:08 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-463 1. I sent that comment reply in the e-mail ('ve got comments being e-mailed back to me.. I saw something in it that said you could reply by replying to that e-mail. Guess I was mistaken. Shame too, I really liked how that one came out. I believe that you haven't deleted any of my comments. but some one did. 2. Of course you can see it: <a href="http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/" target="_blank">http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/</a> <a href="http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100Sci...</a> 3. I did cite my sources in the first blog post i did about tiktaalik. I have trhree links from people who disagree with your conclusions and you nor anyone has responded to the points they raise other than to say they are creationists so they don't matter. 4. Heredity is only one possible explanation. I'm not coming against that. It does not prove it. You are inferring again. How else could it happen? When God made everything he chose to do it that way because all life on earth have to have some similarities to coexist. For example, 1. I sent that comment reply in the e-mail ('ve got comments being e-mailed back to me.. I saw something in it that said you could reply by replying to that e-mail. Guess I was mistaken. Shame too, I really liked how that one came out. I believe that you haven't deleted any of my comments. but some one did.
2. Of course you can see it:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100Sci...
3. I did cite my sources in the first blog post i did about tiktaalik. I have trhree links from people who disagree with your conclusions and you nor anyone has responded to the points they raise other than to say they are creationists so they don't matter.
4. Heredity is only one possible explanation. I'm not coming against that. It does not prove it. You are inferring again. How else could it happen? When God made everything he chose to do it that way because all life on earth have to have some similarities to coexist. For example,

]]> By: NaonTiotami http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-461 NaonTiotami Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:57:05 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-461 First, off you didn't reply to the comment. I have not deleted any of your comments, and there are no comments waiting to be moderated. I don't know where that comments went, or if you even made that comment. Second of all, that petition: can I see it? Thirdly, what data have you seen? Where did you get this information from? Can you cite and reveal your sources? Fourthly, similar DNA is VERY strong evidence for common descent, and I don't see why it's not. How else could organisms share genetic sequences if not through heredity? First, off you didn't reply to the comment. I have not deleted any of your comments, and there are no comments waiting to be moderated. I don't know where that comments went, or if you even made that comment.

Second of all, that petition: can I see it?

Thirdly, what data have you seen? Where did you get this information from? Can you cite and reveal your sources?

Fourthly, similar DNA is VERY strong evidence for common descent, and I don't see why it's not. How else could organisms share genetic sequences if not through heredity?

]]> By: MarcusMcElhaney http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-459 MarcusMcElhaney Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:54:17 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-459 On the off chance that you are being serious....yes it does...The Bible does not say that light was created after earth. Genesis 1:2 does not say the earth existed. It was void and without form. Light was brought into being before the earth was. Just like the scientific evidence points to. Have you ever bothered to read Genesis? On the off chance that you are being serious….yes it does…The Bible does not say that light was created after earth. Genesis 1:2 does not say the earth existed. It was void and without form. Light was brought into being before the earth was. Just like the scientific evidence points to. Have you ever bothered to read Genesis?

]]> By: MarcusMcElhaney http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-458 MarcusMcElhaney Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:48:39 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-458 I've looked at the data as well as you have. You have been trying to argue that the "transitional fossils" lead to the inference that all forms of life have a common ancestor, yet no ancestor has ever been identified. I'm not conspiracy nut, but I happen to know of a petition by 100 scientists who believe that the Evolution theory is false. I'm not a "lone voice crying in the wilderness". You just refuse to listen to the other side. I did respond to your phylogenetic analysis comment. I don't see it here. Showing that various forms of life have similar DNA sequences does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they have common ancestry. Considering that DNA is made up of the same proteins no matter what form of life you are talking about, it does show that you can rule out chance and coincidence. I would infer a designer....some one did it on purpose. And to avoid the backlash, I'll be clear: The God of the Bible did it. I've looked at the data as well as you have. You have been trying to argue that the "transitional fossils" lead to the inference that all forms of life have a common ancestor, yet no ancestor has ever been identified. I'm not conspiracy nut, but I happen to know of a petition by 100 scientists who believe that the Evolution theory is false. I'm not a "lone voice crying in the wilderness". You just refuse to listen to the other side.

I did respond to your phylogenetic analysis comment. I don't see it here. Showing that various forms of life have similar DNA sequences does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they have common ancestry. Considering that DNA is made up of the same proteins no matter what form of life you are talking about, it does show that you can rule out chance and coincidence. I would infer a designer….some one did it on purpose. And to avoid the backlash, I'll be clear: The God of the Bible did it.

]]> By: MarcusMcElhaney http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-453 MarcusMcElhaney Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:24:48 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-453 It's one thing to admit one's own biases, it's another to accuse another of Bias. Examine your own predjudices before assuming biases in others. And when you make such accusations try to be more specific. I mean what are you accusing scientists who reject macro evolution to be biased against? It's one thing to admit one's own biases, it's another to accuse another of Bias. Examine your own predjudices before assuming biases in others. And when you make such accusations try to be more specific. I mean what are you accusing scientists who reject macro evolution to be biased against?

]]> By: SeandBlogonaut http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350&cpage=1#comment-452 SeandBlogonaut Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:50:35 +0000 http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#comment-452 So that includes the error of the earth being created before light or is this just another misunderstanding from the greek? So that includes the error of the earth being created before light or is this just another misunderstanding from the greek?

]]>