Originally posted by MrFatBooty
In scientific circles the age of the Earth is understood to be about 4 billion years. Seems like plenty of time for an ameba to become an antelope if you ask me. The reason the age of the Earth keeps getting extended further back in time is that we don't know exactly how old the Earth is. 4 billion years is the current calculation, when the age was quoted as less that was the current calculation based on available evidence.
"seems like plenty of time" doesnt cut it mike. :dunno: and given the benefit of the doubt of that semantics, i personally think that 4billion is still not enough time for an amoeba to become an antelope or cheetah or a monkey.
So dogs (and other animals) are more basic than us. No, there is no grand canine society that we don't know about. They're still self-aware. What exactly is the difference between existing and living? Is living just a refinement of existence? Oh crap, that's a huge philosophical debate...but I'm leaving it in the post just because it's at least worth mentioning.
a rock exists. it has physical presence. a human has life for it has a soul. again, maybe this is just a matter of semantics, i :dunno: but yeah, i think this particular issue will only turn into a philosophical debate....but then again, when comparing religion to other theories, i dont see how it can be avoided....oh well. *shrug*
What I meant was that you use your faith as a premise in your logic. Faith isn't a universally accepted truth so that premise is automatically brought into doubt. That's all I meant, not that I believe one thing and you believe another. Just that faith is not a good thing to use in a logical argument where you're trying to prove something.
i agree partially. i shouldnt use my "faith" as the sole basis of an argument, for then it can never be defended nor attacked. but it can neither be excluded from this subject of debate.