Quote:

---

Dr. Morris served on the University of Oklahoma faculty before joining the Institute for Creation Research in 1984. He received his Doctorate in Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in 1980. Morris held the position of Professor of Geology before being appointed President in 1996. Morris has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech (1969), an M.S., University of Oklahoma (1977), and a Ph.D., University of Oklahoma (1980) in Geological Engineering.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Morris#cite_note-4][4][/url]

---

A good reason why Cain's offering was rejected. "Life is in the blood."

Quote:

---

Today's secular way of thinking includes the concept that there never have been any episodes in earth history dramatically different from things occurring or possible today.

---

This is true. How did we arrive at this conclusion? I believe it is axiomatic, not scientific.

Quote:

---

Doesn't the author's definition of life as consciousness

---

He doesn't say that.

They lack blood.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

A good reason why Cain's offering was rejected. "Life is in the blood."

Quote:

---

Today's secular way of thinking includes the concept that there never have been any episodes in earth history dramatically different from things occurring or possible today.

---

This is true. How did we arrive at this conclusion? I believe it is axiomatic, not scientific.

---

You can believe that all you would like, but the axiom guiding western thought for centuries was the literal flood and the existence of a real Adam and Eve. Breaking from that required a new way of looking at existing evidence. Very little in science has been taken for granted aside from the existence of physical reality.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

A good reason why Cain's offering was rejected. "Life is in the blood."

Quote:

---

Today's secular way of thinking includes the concept that there never have been any episodes in earth history dramatically different from things occurring or possible today.

---

This is true. How did we arrive at this conclusion? I believe it is axiomatic, not scientific.

---

You can believe that all you would like, but the axiom guiding western thought for centuries was the literal flood and the existence of a real Adam and Eve. Breaking from that required a new way of looking at existing evidence. Very little in science has been taken for granted aside from the existence of physical reality.

---

I agree. It's an axiomatic, not scientific, truth.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

They lack blood.

---

Define blood. Are Horseshoe Crabs living? Their blood operates on a completely different principle than mammalian blood.

Earthworms have blood. Are they living? Or is it just some other worms he claims are not living?

We know plants have extensive and complex communication and nutrient networks in the soil. They react to stimuli and produce energy. They reproduce. It seems the only reason they aren't really alive according to this author is that the Bible doesn't directly say "living" when talking about plants in the English translation. Therefore, in true logically fallacious fashion, he has to prove they actually aren't living by creating a new definition of life.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

A good reason why Cain's offering was rejected. "Life is in the blood."

Quote:

---

Today's secular way of thinking includes the concept that there never have been any episodes in earth history dramatically different from things occurring or possible today.

---

This is true. How did we arrive at this conclusion? I believe it is axiomatic, not scientific.

---

You can believe that all you would like, but the axiom guiding western thought for centuries was the literal flood and the existence of a real Adam and Eve. Breaking from that required a new way of looking at existing evidence. Very little in science has been taken for granted aside from the existence of physical reality.

---

I agree. It's an axiomatic, not scientific, truth.

---

What science has established about our universe is based on scientific evidence. Not randomly selected axioms.

This is where you try to use a poor man's postmodernism to support your position while rejecting everything else considered postmodern, right?

Dr. Watson said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

A good reason why Cain's offering was rejected. "Life is in the blood."

Quote:

---

Today's secular way of thinking includes the concept that there never have been any episodes in earth history dramatically different from things occurring or possible today.

---

This is true. How did we arrive at this conclusion? I believe it is axiomatic, not scientific.

---

You can believe that all you would like, but the axiom guiding western thought for centuries was the literal flood and the existence of a real Adam and Eve. Breaking from that required a new way of looking at existing evidence. Very little in science has been taken for granted aside from the existence of physical reality.

---

I agree. It's an axiomatic, not scientific, truth.

---

What science has established about our universe is based on scientific evidence. Not randomly selected axioms.

---

Ok, so it's a scientific truth, not axiomatic.

I don't think so.

Yes, it's certainly not dead.

Biologically or Biblically? A human zygote is alive in both senses. A mature red oak is only alive in one sense.

Yes, so no sacrifices of goat zygotes. They won't be accepted.

It depends on the creature.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

A good reason why Cain's offering was rejected. "Life is in the blood."

Quote:

---

Today's secular way of thinking includes the concept that there never have been any episodes in earth history dramatically different from things occurring or possible today.

---

This is true. How did we arrive at this conclusion? I believe it is axiomatic, not scientific.

---

How do you explain the existence of carnivores in the fossil record if animals were all originally intended to be herbivores?

Ultra-fast "micro" evolution?

Given a zygotes possesses the somatic DNA information necessary for hematopoiesis upon conception, they're alive.

Dr. Watson said:

---

TampaBayAg said:

---

Given a zygotes possesses the somatic DNA information necessary for hematopoiesis upon conception, they're alive.

---

That's not in Genesis. That's your interpretation. A zygote doesn't have blood. According to a literal understanding of the text, a zygote is not alive until it has blood.

---

Sap, I am not sure where the physiological and spiritual lines blur in determining the author's words shared by the OP. From a literal standpoint, you're absolutely right (unless we consider that by intelligent design the genetic provision for blood has already been made, and thus the zygote is alive).