I submit that you only find it to be dogma because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. If it didn't you wouldn't have any problem with it.
I stated quite clearly in
Post #92 why I find it to be dogmatic. Perhaps you didn't read that post? Perhaps you have short term memory issues? Perhaps it is easier to plug your ears, close your eyes, and believe what you want to believe regardless of what was stated? That's mighty dogmatic of you. Are you certain you are not suffering from conflicting issues in defense your own religion? Psychoanalytically, this sounds like "transference" to me.
I stated quite clearly in Post #92 why I find it to be dogmatic. Perhaps you didn't read that post? Perhaps you have short term memory issues? Perhaps it is easier to plug your ears, close your eyes, and believe what you want to believe regardless of what was stated? That's mighty dogmatic of you. Are you certain you are not suffering from conflicting issues in defense your own religion? Psychoanalytically, this sounds like "transference" to me.You say you find them equally dogmatic because there is no "modern day evidence" to support either one so both are equally a matter of faith. We can play the semantic game of what does and doesn't constitute "evidence" all day and never be any closer to agreement. You don't have to accept the the physical evidence exists at all. You don't get to declare it non existent or off limits to scientific inquiry.