But you're quoting Jesus Christ from the Bible. You're using the Bible to provide the proof of it's own validity. The logoc escapes me.
To believers, Christ's quoting of the Bible, and specifically his descendancy from the First man -- Adam -- validates "Creationism."
If you need scientific "validation" of evolution, there isn't an iota's worth.
Physicist Sir Fred Hoylecalculated that the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it. That my friend is a mathematical impossibility....
And FWIW: Between 1984 and 1994 about 400 papers concerning molecular evolution were published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences. NOT ONE "proposed [any] detailed routes by which complex biochemical structures might have developed" -- NOR have any been offered in any other biological journal. (perhaps you or someone else can track one down done in the last ten years?)
It's at this basic level of life that Darwinism must be defended, but evolutionists avoid the subject because they know it CAN'T BE DONE.
Why don't you try doin' a little historical research before you comment on the Bible? You make it sound like just because some 21st century publishing house decides to put together some anthology, that any later author's work included in the anthology who cites an earlier author's work included in the anthology is all of the same authoritative cloth just because some publishing house saw fit to include both authors in the same work. Is that what you're saying?
Jesus is not the author of the New Testament, and the authors of the New Testament were not the authors of the Old Testament. The authors of the New Testament were Jewish Christians; and the authors of the Old Testament were Messianic Jews.
Your presentation of the Bible as of One Authoritative Source, though, is heartening. I mean, here you're saying that we have at least 40 different authors who lived up to 2,000 years apart (with distinct cultures represented in that time variance), spoke three different languages and represented every vocation from shepherd to King to tax collector to physician, and yet, and yet, somehow, this 66-book volume is unified on ethics, social values, doctrine, theology (understanding of God), worldviews, purposes, man's dilemma, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe you're right. It does appear there was One Author of these 66 books after all...One Who Inspires...His initials are H.S.
I posted this as part of one of my other responses, but I had to include it here again:
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
- Ronald R. West, Ph.D.
"But you're quoting Jesus Christ from the Bible. You're using the Bible to provide the proof of it's own validity. The logoc escapes me."
Normally you cannot use a source to support itself. It's circular. In the case of the bible you are not dealing with a single source. You are dealing with a collection of 66 documents with 40+ authors. There is nothing wrong with using one source within that collection to support another.