Scientific Fact versus Interpretation

YOu do it on the basis of what you KNOW from millions of OTHER situations where you KNOW the circumstances, the donor of the DNA, etc etc etc.

You can't require me to read an entire article, holmes. I've merely been trying to get out of this conversation since it started, simply having to answer a few things here and there as briefly as possible. I'm not involved in it really. And I'm not going to read a whole article on geological technicalities. All I wanted to say has been said, and what people have been doing with it is irrelevant. That's my view of the situation. Sorry.

I see my question was not thorough enough. That much I could already guess myself, no, not the details but the basic idea. What I'm really objecting to is the idea of a whole scenario of a sea that once existed for millions of years. That a rock can be shown to have been once in a marine environment I really don't dispute. It's the whole OE scenario I have a problem with. Sorry about my lack of clarity.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2006 08:49 AM