The fact that you can't make your mind up about it is not surprising...It is kind of like trying to get agreement among evolutionary scientists on the "evidence" for evolution.
Like the evolutionary debate about one of evolution's "best transitional fossils", Archeoptyrex.
Some of the more open-minded evolutionists, like the late Dr. Colin Patterson, state that there is "no watertight argument" for any of the known "transitional fossils".
Well, there is just so much to choose from....
Like the evolutionary debate about one of evolution's "best transitional fossils", Archeoptyrex.
Scientists find new information and debate among themselves how it fits into existing information. You think this is a bad thing?
The alternative would have us all living in mud huts in fear of any new idea, like Europeans did during the first 1000 years of Christianity.
Some of the more open-minded evolutionists, like the late Dr. Colin Patterson, state that there is "no watertight argument" for any of the known "transitional fossils".
The technique of finding a Bible verse to support your pre-existing conclusion doesn't work in the scientific realm. This is that same technique by quoting someone, almost certianly out of context. It proves nothing, only re-enforcing your prejudices.
The fact that you can't make your mind up about it is not surprising...
I think you missed my point. Let me be more explicit.
Osama would agree with this statement..."History, archeology, Scripture, fulfilled prophecy, documented historical eye-witness account and etc....all side with the claims of Islam".
But he would disagree with this statement..."History, archeology, Scripture, fulfilled prophecy, documented historical eye-witness account and etc....all side with the claims of Christianity".
Which statement is correct? And why? And which should everyone agree with? What experiments can we perform that might produce results that might support or disprove either statement?
Colin Patterson alert!