Yes, I have an advanced degree in Molecular Biology. I am a laboratory scientist who produces results based upon my understanding of biology informed by evolution and common descent of species, as well as my understanding of God and his glory.
Being a scientist is not synonymous with being an atheist,and rejection of your young Earth creationism doesn’t make one an atheist either - but nice red herring, the boogeyman of atheists, as if the mere fact that there are atheists discounts the opinions and work of the many thousands of scientists who are, like me, people of faith in Jesus Christ our Lord.
My knowledge of evolution has, contrary to your assertion otherwise, contributed to my knowledge in laboratory science. As would an understanding of the the actual ages of the Earth for a geologist exploring for resources.
The free marked of ideas did not reject your young Earth creationism because society is ungodly; but because your YE creationism produces no results.
Do I have to repeat again how wrong you are about ‘blood cells in T rex bone’? The scientist herself saying that the claim was unsubstantiated isn’t a “logical, fact filled, rigorous case”? Delusional.
And it is mammals who do NOT have nucleated blood cells, you got it mixed up. Dinosaurs wouldn’t be expected to share that trait, and apparently, from the preserved STRUCTURE (not actual cells) of red blood cells (if that is what it is, and it looks like it is)they may have had nucleated blood cells.
>The free marked (sic) of ideas
Am I talking to a 10 year old or are you typing on a Dvorak Keyboard? The letter “d” is not next to the letter “t” on a QWERTY keyboard.
>The free marked of ideas did not reject your young Earth
>creationism because society is ungodly;
You’re badly uninformed. Go watch “Expelled” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed and get back to me.
>The scientist herself saying that the claim was
>unsubstantiated isn’t a “logical, fact filled, rigorous
>case”? Delusional.
Whether you’re right about what she is saying about what she thinks is right about the blood cells, is completely immaterial to the 3 step case I made for Evolution completely contradicting the historical Genesis narrative.
>The scientist herself saying that the claim was
>unsubstantiated isn’t a “logical, fact filled, rigorous
>case”? Delusional.
1) You’re claiming she’s refuting the notion they are cells.
2) She’s claiming she does not know if they are nucleated. She is answering a different question than you are claiming in your response to me.
>rejection of your young Earth creationism doesn’t make one
>an atheist either - but nice red herring
I know a Christian who is an old earth Genesis creationist who believes that each day was billions of years, which is why the universe looks old, yet that the Genesis narrative holds exactly. You are pushing the Evolution narrative which contradicts Genesis, and gives comfort to the world that Gospel writer Luke in Luke 3:38 is lying when he says Adam was of God. Also makes Paul a liar in Romans 5:14. All mentions of Adam and Noah in the New Testament become preposterous in your “Evolution is true, Genesis is lie” worldview which is just about as “vain and profane” as things get.
“But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.”
2 Timothy 2:16
You give comfort to the world AGAINST the testimony of God.
“know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?”
James 4:4
“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.”
1 John 2:15
Do I impugn your salvation? No. I don’t “know you from Adam.” Your worldview is sin though. Jesus himself said, in John 10:35 that “scripture cannot be broken” which means there ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS IN SCRIPTURE.
You are mistaken, not the Bible. You’re believing your eyes and mind, and not the Bible.
“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
Proverbs 3:5