Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
Dude - EVERY scientist goes about proving a hypothesis the same way - they presume. They start with a particular point of view, and seek to prove it. Macro-evolution violates a HUGE portion of the scientific method, yet it's somehow MORE plausible than what the guy in quesiton suggest? You're likely well-versed in science; So were popular scientists who shouted from the rooftops 'the world is FLAT!'. It took a man of FAITH to show it was, indeed, NOT-flat, right?



Open your mind and read the guy's claims...chew on 'em...study and see if he's right. IF he's right...it certainly changes things, right?
He starts with the hypothesis that god created the world and the universe in 6 days. And goes from there. First he needs to explain to me how days were measured when there was no time. Time is a measurement developed by man. It is the revolution of the earth and the movement about the sun.

It wasn't scientists that said the world was flat. It was fundimentalists who refused to believe the world was round and not the center of the universe. It took explorers who were not afraid to go out beyond what was known of the world and see what lay beyond the horizon. It had nothing to do with faith as you put it.

Fundimentalism, of any kind, is restrictive and limits your ability to observe what is really going on. Like looking at a room through a tube. You only see what you point the tube at. Too really see the room you have to put aside the tube. And in doing so you discover the room is bigger and filled with many more things than you thought.