musket-the former archbishop was indeed on your side as far as origins were concerned. and maybe other things as well. when I saw him and dawkins in a so called debate on tv ,it was more like an agreefest!
seems fitting for one residing over a declining c of e.

of course all of modern science is not wrong, shimrod. but interpretations about the past can not all be correct. and where scientists interpret diverse conclusions from the same evidence , that is pretty obvious . not only does the researcher not come to the evidence with a totally open mind, but diverse conclusions are possible.
neither do you have any grounds for asserting that creationists ignore counter evidence. on the contrary it is evolutionism that evades the evidence ,as is evident when you don't address what we do know about things like bi-oogenesis and probability. appeals to authority does not answer it.
still asking for proof? I never said I can prove God or 6 day creation, and neither can you prove evolutionism ,but in light of what we do know from science, a creator is more consistent with the evidence IMO. Until such time as you grant that it is perhaps pointless trying to convince you who that creator is.
stu- you are quite right that I only gave part of the quote ,but you only gave part also. I believe the complete quote is rather confirming my point.
I suggest you read the evidence that counters yours.i regard it as self evident that soft tissue perishes long before millions of years. if you can cite otherwise lets have it, preferably in laymans terms.
and I don't recall you offering any evidence that soft tissue can last 70 million yr other that [begging the question] dinos are that old.