[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

[T. E. Smith]

T. E. Smith's having made a derogatory personal remark against me? In fact, he devoted a whole, non-reply post to me, tagging my user name to get my attention, solely so that he could say to me, "You are raving." Just saying.

Which is not a derogatory personal remark. If you think "raving" is derogatory, perhaps you should ask yourself why you use the term "asinine" and do not consider that to be derogatory. Or are you a hypocrite?

God Is My Judge As expected, your case presented no evidence, was stuffed to the top with fundamentalist theology, sounded like a little kid's internet rant, and it did not even use proper grammar.

Before we can establish anything about life, as to what is right and wrong, we must set the mind straight. The fact that there is a God must be in the forefront of the mind, everything will be considered futile otherwise. For right and wrong is measured by God!

I'll need proof of that.

Not even the atheist could say- "There is no God" for the thought of Him would not be.

That's a bizzare version of the ontological argument. I might as well say, "A dicorn (a horse with two horns) must exist, because anyone who says, 'A dicorn is not real' could not say this if the thought of the dicorn did not be." What does that prove? One can thus prove any figment of their imagination - including a being of ultimate evil.

For those who question and do not believe in what they cannot touch and see; it must be scary to breath, for you cannot see the air. It must be mind boggling to see a leaf roll down the way, after all it is moved by an unseen force. And who or what moves the wind? Do you know from with it comes and where it is held? Afterall, everything which moves is moved by something. You only need to know a little bit of the Laws of Physics to know this. The laws of physics tell us, all things which move has a mover. It all started by something or someone from somewhere. All moving things are moved by something, whether seen or unseen.

Ay ay ay, why do believers talk about not seeing the wind? Look, I don't just disbelieve in God because I can't see him physically. I can clearly see the effects of the wind. But I see no effects of God. Furthermore, if all must be started, who moved God? If God is the "unmoved mover", why can the universe not be the unmoved mover?

Page 2.

This is only theology and so I cannot debate it in the context of a scientific debate over evolution.

LIE! The idea that a lesser form can evolve into a greater form is ridiculous. No creature can add DNA to itself spontaneously.

Yes it can. We see it all the time, just with animal husbandry. Prove to me that it can't.

That is why it is a THEORY!

For a refutation by Isaac Asimov of the delusions creationists have about the word theory, see this archived article at the NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/magazine/the-threat-of-creationism.html

For we as Christians know, God made everything perfect.

What caused the fall of man and creation to be stressed? Lucifer, Satan (Betrayer of God). His presents in this world has made for the necessity of tapping into the DNA for adaptation.

That's right, blame it all on Satan. So basically, God could not stop Satan from corrupting his creation. Satan ruined it all, and God wasn't able to do a thing about it. God still can't do anything about it - instead, his creation has to slowly fix it by itself through adaptation. Sounds about right?

Evolution says that because we share 96% of the same DNA as primates, we must have evolved from them?

Sorry, over 99%.

Nothing in God's creation ever changed it species of itself. Yet as I said they have forced this theory down the throats of people since childhood.

Yes it can.

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my friends, will be everlastingly punished. And to me this is a damnable doctrine"

But of course!

" We must , however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities... still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."

Very true.

"By considering the embryological structure of man- the homologies which he presents with lower animals... We thus learnt that man is descended from a hairy quadruped... probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the old world."

True as well.

" I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created
parasitic wasp with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars"

Of course this ups the parasitic wasp's chances of survival by allowing it to selfishly feed on the beings of lesser strength. That is how evolution always is. Here's the problem: evolution is impersonal and does not care at all about morality or kindness. But if God exists, then he would care about that. So the cruelty in the world is best explained not by God but by evolution.

The DNA is composed of 4 elements hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, when put together form Y-H-W-G. Carbon is what makes us physical and earthly beings. When carbon is replaced with nitrogen, we have all colorless, odorless, and invisible gases! They form the letters Y-H-W-H which is the name of God.

So utterly foolish that this sounds like satire. Do you not realize that YHWH is just an English transliteration, having been originally a Hebrew word?

It will culminate with this alien garbage, having seeded the earth. It is a fallen angel deception, to make those who are unlearned of man prepared for the accepting DNA corruption about to be birthed in future generations. This is the "RED STEW" spoken of in the story of Jacob.

This is just bizarre and irrelevant.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Which is not a derogatory personal remark. If you think "raving" is derogatory, perhaps you should ask yourself why you use the term "asinine" and do not consider that to be derogatory. Or are you a hypocrite?

God Is My Judge As expected, your case presented no evidence, was stuffed to the top with fundamentalist theology, sounded like a little kid's internet rant, and it did not even use proper grammar.

I'll need proof of that.

That's a bizzare version of the ontological argument. I might as well say, "A dicorn (a horse with two horns) must exist, because anyone who says, 'A dicorn is not real' could not say this if the thought of the dicorn did not be." What does that prove? One can thus prove any figment of their imagination - including a being of ultimate evil.

Ay ay ay, why do believers talk about not seeing the wind? Look, I don't just disbelieve in God because I can't see him physically. I can clearly see the effects of the wind. But I see no effects of God. Furthermore, if all must be started, who moved God? If God is the "unmoved mover", why can the universe not be the unmoved mover?

This is only theology and so I cannot debate it in the context of a scientific debate over evolution.

Yes it can. We see it all the time, just with animal husbandry. Prove to me that it can't.

For a refutation by Isaac Asimov of the delusions creationists have about the word theory, see this archived article at the NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/magazine/the-threat-of-creationism.html

That's right, blame it all on Satan. So basically, God could not stop Satan from corrupting his creation. Satan ruined it all, and God wasn't able to do a thing about it. God still can't do anything about it - instead, his creation has to slowly fix it by itself through adaptation. Sounds about right?

Sorry, over 99%.

Yes it can.

But of course!

Very true.

True as well.

Of course this ups the parasitic wasp's chances of survival by allowing it to selfishly feed on the beings of lesser strength. That is how evolution always is. Here's the problem: evolution is impersonal and does not care at all about morality or kindness. But if God exists, then he would care about that. So the cruelty in the world is best explained not by God but by evolution.

So utterly foolish that this sounds like satire. Do you not realize that YHWH is just an English transliteration, having been originally a Hebrew word?

This is just bizarre and irrelevant.

LOL!

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Which is not a derogatory personal remark.

What an asinine thing for you to say. Give some examples of what you would say are derogatory remarks, then.

If you think "raving" is derogatory,

Did I say the adjective, 'raving,' is derogatory? No, I did not. But "You are raving," is a derogatory personal attack.

perhaps you should ask yourself why you use the term "asinine" and do not consider that to be derogatory.

Perhaps you should try to quote me using the adjective, 'asinine,' in a derogatory personal attack, as I have quoted you using the adjective, 'raving,' in a derogatory personal attack against me. If my memory serves, I've not called anyone "asinine."

Or are you a hypocrite?

No, I'm not a hypocrite in pointing out the plain, documented fact that you've attacked me with a derogatory personal attack.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Perhaps you should try to quote me using the adjective, 'asinine,' in a derogatory personal attack, as I have quoted you using the adjective, 'raving,' in a derogatory personal attack against me. If my memory serves, I've not called anyone "asinine."

[__ Science __ ] - Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

i know my church has recited both the apostles creed and the nicean i cant recall but both are in the wcf. the hymnalls have them. The big issue is the filoque, the "procedes from the Father and the Son" which was added later. It matters a lot to Eastern Orthodox Christians, who don't agree...

christianforums.net

No, I'm not a hypocrite in pointing out the plain, documented fact that you've attacked me with a derogatory personal attack.

LOL, no, saying you are raving is not a derogatory personal attack.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Whether in Hebrew characters or English translation, God can say the same thing in different ways because He invented both letters and languages to man. He who laughs last , laughs best whether in Hebrew or in plain and simple English

 

[God Is My Judge]

What an asinine thing for you to say. Give some examples of what you would say are derogatory remarks, then.

Did I say the adjective, 'raving,' is derogatory? No, I did not. But "You are raving," is a derogatory personal attack.

Perhaps you should try to quote me using the adjective, 'asinine,' in a derogatory personal attack, as I have quoted you using the adjective, 'raving,' in a derogatory personal attack against me. If my memory serves, I've not called anyone "asinine."

No, I'm not a hypocrite in pointing out the plain, documented fact that you've attacked me with a derogatory personal attack.

Matthew 7:6
. 6Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
Move on..... not worth your time and effort.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Matthew 7:6
. 6Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
Move on..... not worth your time and effort.

Agreed, I think this discussion is over.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Matthew 7:6
. 6Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
Move on..... not worth your time and effort.

Thanks. I appreciate the encouragement, man.

In case anyone reading this thread missed it, I wanted to create a post concisely detailing what led to and precipitated T. E. Smith's recent lashing out at me (once again) with his derogatory personal attack against me:

@Paul E. Michael You are raving.

You'll first notice that that particular post of his is not addressed, as a reply post, to any of my posts. Instead, he started a new post, called out my name with a tag, so as to get my attention by it, and therein addressed his derogatory personal attack against me. Why he chose to avoid making that particular post of his to be a direct reply post to my previous reply post to him is because he was hoping (in futility) to avoid drawing attention to his failure to answer the question I had asked him.

To understand the context, first go back to what he had said some posts back:

They mean that a population of dinosaurs became birds as their descendents [sic] developed more birdlike features, features that provided some sort of advantage.

I asked him what (if anything) he meant by that:

Which do you mean:

1. "a population of [non-birds] became birds"?
2. "a population of [birds] became birds"?

If you mean anything at all, you mean one or the other of these, two things, since, together, birds and non-birds are exhaustive of all things (and thus, exhaustive of all things to which you can be referring by your word, "dinosaurs"). So, which of these, two things do you mean?

To my surprise, he actually answered that question:

The first.

By that, I took him to be answering the question, telling me that number 1 is his answer to it. IOW, he was telling me that "a population of [non-birds] became birds." So, I followed up my question, and his answer to it, with a second question, building this second question with the info he had just given me in answer to my first question:

All right. And, when you say "a population of dinosaurs became birds", by your word "birds," either 1) you are referring to non-dinosaurs, or 2) you are referring to dinosaurs. Which of these two things do you mean:

1. "a population of [non-birds] became [non-dinosaurs]"?
2. "a population of [non-birds] became [dinosaurs]"?

He has never replied to this last post; he has never answered this second question. Because, as he well knows, he cannot do so without further embarrassing himself in/by his commitment to his Darwinistspeak; he knows he won't be getting anywhere he would like to get by answering 1, nor by answering 2. Both are obviously unpalatable options to him, and yet, they are his only options, were he to wish to answer the question, because either a thing is a dinosaur or it's not (in which, latter case, it is a non-dinosaur). And it's not me that is limiting his options to those two answers; rather, it is logic, the law of the excluded middle, that inexorably defies him in his Darwinist fantasy. Needless to say, his very next post addressed to me is the one in which he has attacked me with his derogatory personal attack, saying to me, "You are raving." By T. E. Smith I'm called "raving" because I ask elementary questions about his Darwinismspeak, which he has, like I said, no hope of answering sans embarrassing his Darwinismspeak; attacking me with his derogatory personal attack, calling me "raving," is his way of reacting to being cornered by the questions I've asked him.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Which is not a derogatory personal remark. If you think "raving" is derogatory, perhaps you should ask yourself why you use the term "asinine" and do not consider that to be derogatory. Or are you a hypocrite?

God Is My Judge As expected, your case presented no evidence, was stuffed to the top with fundamentalist theology, sounded like a little kid's internet rant, and it did not even use proper grammar.

I'll need proof of that.

That's a bizzare version of the ontological argument. I might as well say, "A dicorn (a horse with two horns) must exist, because anyone who says, 'A dicorn is not real' could not say this if the thought of the dicorn did not be." What does that prove? One can thus prove any figment of their imagination - including a being of ultimate evil.

Ay ay ay, why do believers talk about not seeing the wind? Look, I don't just disbelieve in God because I can't see him physically. I can clearly see the effects of the wind. But I see no effects of God. Furthermore, if all must be started, who moved God? If God is the "unmoved mover", why can the universe not be the unmoved mover?

This is only theology and so I cannot debate it in the context of a scientific debate over evolution.

Yes it can. We see it all the time, just with animal husbandry. Prove to me that it can't.

For a refutation by Isaac Asimov of the delusions creationists have about the word theory, see this archived article at the NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/magazine/the-threat-of-creationism.html

That's right, blame it all on Satan. So basically, God could not stop Satan from corrupting his creation. Satan ruined it all, and God wasn't able to do a thing about it. God still can't do anything about it - instead, his creation has to slowly fix it by itself through adaptation. Sounds about right?

Sorry, over 99%.

Yes it can.

But of course!

Very true.

True as well.

Of course this ups the parasitic wasp's chances of survival by allowing it to selfishly feed on the beings of lesser strength. That is how evolution always is. Here's the problem: evolution is impersonal and does not care at all about morality or kindness. But if God exists, then he would care about that. So the cruelty in the world is best explained not by God but by evolution.

So utterly foolish that this sounds like satire. Do you not realize that YHWH is just an English transliteration, having been originally a Hebrew word?

This is just bizarre and irrelevant.

Pretext.

As for 99% depends on year and when they came to that conclusion. That simply supports my point, unreliable. They aren't tweaking grammatical errors but simply moving their goal post. Originally it was 96%.

Considering how much they lie it doesn't surprise me if they lied about that 99%. Either way you do not prove me wrong concerning the Theory of Evolution being a total farce. If they had said 99% in the past books I have read it still wouldn't prove me wrong and I would have said 99%. That still does not mean we came from primates, as I said .

Similarities do not mean- from. I can make many models of something and with the tools I have, make similar models but I do not take from the previous model to make a new one. If I add to my last and final model, traits the others do not poses, it is not from the other model/models, it came from my tool box . No matter how closely similar the structures appear that does not mean the lesser structure contributed to the greater structure. All creation does have similar carbon based traits and cell structures. All base DNA is the same- DNA of all the living beings is composed of just four bases i.e. Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G), and Cytosine (C). The various juxtapositions of these 4 bases give rise to the genetic codes of all the biota on the planet.

That universal structure is the basic blueprint. Since something never came from nothing, someone made that and was the builder of those models. His basic blueprint is given special components which are building parts that make each species different. But all have the basic:
The living beings are all structures or complex molecular systems that meet essential functions such as food, development, reproduction and interactions with other organisms, including energy exchange with the environment surrounding them. For an organism or living being to be classified as such, it requires at least one cell in its structure.

The blueprint of each has different modifications which separate and make unique . That is simply adding and building off the basic blueprint. Think of it as a foundation of a house. Not only that this still does not address the human soul, which is clearly a different consciousness than primates. Because of it we contemplate our existence and God. Hence this discussion.

The FACT is, no species has ever added to itself DNA that it did not previously have. There is no fossil record to support that- from crawling out of the seas evolving from lower forms to our present form- NOTHING! Why? because God did not need to create from other species He has an infinite supply of tools , He didn't need to extract from a lesser species to make Adam and Eve.

You are allowed to believe what you want. If you believe all the crawling out of the sea , if you want to believe your ancestors evolved into primates and you from them, go ahead, that would explain a lot.

As I said similar does not mean from. It simply means God, when making humans used WHATEVER % of His idea in design to make different. So, no "aha gotcha" moment there. Referencing some other Darwinist won't change the crumbled foundation that every other evolutionist builds upon, that would just be to throw some more smack on the Theory of Evolution mess. The foundational arguments have already been proven as sand. You addressed none of that. You pretext and ignore context. Kinda like your belief in the Theory of Evolution, a bunch of pretext- taking out of context of God's creation, leaving holes and gaps that cannot be explained.

As for the alien thing you touched on and mocked, watch! No matter what, your scientist will obey prophecy and that will be the narrative for all the missing links, holes and gaps- extraterrestrial seeding of the earth. Because they got nothing. I am100% correct on that. You will see I am spot on if here, alive- when it happens and you will remember my words. Fallen angel agenda and it needs this Theory of Evolution for it to fly.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

LOL, no, saying you are raving is not a derogatory personal attack.

False. Obviously your telling me I'm raving is a derogatory personal attack by you. Plus, you are advertising that you do not know what you are talking about by your failure to respond to the request I made to you: I had asked you to give some examples of things you would say are derogatory personal attacks:

Give some examples of what you would say are derogatory [personal] remarks, then.

You: <NO ANSWER>

 

[God Is My Judge]

Rationally-thinking person: "Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?"
Darwinist: "Your question cannot really be answered straightforwardly yes or no."
Rationally-thinking person: "Sure it can be straightforwardly, and correctly, answered NO...but only by rationally-thinking people."

False. Obviously your telling me I'm raving is a derogatory personal attack by you. Plus, you are advertising that you do not know what you are talking about by your failure to respond to the request I made to you: I had asked you to give some examples of things you would say are derogatory personal attacks:

You: <NO ANSWER>

Maybe he is taking the Darwin 5th -Darwinist: "Your question cannot really be answered straightforwardly yes or no." Lol!

I would just move on.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Paul E. Michael I missed that question. A population of non-birds became non-dinosaurs, sure, if that's the bizarre way you want to put it. So what?

 

[God Is My Judge]

Paul E. Michael I missed that question. A population of non-birds became non-dinosaurs, sure, if that's the bizarre way you want to put it. So what?

Lol! So typical. Deflecting.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Paul E. Michael I missed that question. A population of non-birds became non-dinosaurs, sure, if that's the bizarre way you want to put it. So what?

LOL!!! !

So, according to you: "Dinosaurs evolved into birds" = "[Non-birds] evolved into [non-dinosaurs]"
Also, according to you: "Birds are dinosaurs" = "[non-dinosaurs] are dinosaurs".

Darwinistspeak VS Darwinistspeak!
Bravo!
​

By using his word, "birds," to refer to non-dinosaurs, T. E. Smith, "lay" Darwinist (not a professional Darwinist, à la Barbarian), has just admitted the truth that BIRDS ARE NON-DINOSAURS...that is, that BIRDS ARE NOT DINOSAURS.

 

[God Is My Judge]

It will culminate with this alien garbage, having seeded the earth. It is a fallen angel deception, to make those who are unlearned of man prepared for the accepting DNA corruption about to be birthed in future generations. This is the "RED STEW" spoken of in the story of Jacob.

T.E. Smith: This is just bizarre and irrelevant.
Let's go with that. It is bizarre that the Elites believe there are aliens instead of the narrative among all ancient cultures. They, I guess, can better wrap their little minds around extraterrestrial than the supernatural reality of things.

As much as you are "supposedly" opposed to the idea of other living beings in the universe, your scientists are not. You seem to contradict their theories. I mean come on man, either you support them, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. I mean say what you want, they didn't put in the Covid bill the request for UFO disclosure because they are simply looking for rogue ships from other countries. I mean as much as I would love to believe that the word UFO does not invoke that thought. It denotes something otherworldly in the minds of men.

NEW YORK POST
NEWS

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Flipboard
• 
  
• Email
• Copy

COVID-19 bill started a 180-day countdown for UFO disclosures​

By
Steven Greenstreet and

Steven Nelson
December 29, 2020
President Trump’s signature Sunday on the $2.3 trillion COVID-19 relief and government funding bill started a 180-day countdown for the Pentagon and spy agencies to say what they know about UFOs.

The provision received very little attention, in part because it wasn’t included in the text of the 5,593-page legislation, but as a “committee comment” attached to the annual intelligence authorization act, which was rolled into the massive bill.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), said in the comment that it “directs the [director of national intelligence], in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of such other agencies … to submit a report within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act, to the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena.”

The report must address “observed airborne objects that have not been identified” and should include a “detailed analysis of unidentified phenomena data collected by: a. geospatial intelligence; b. signals intelligence; c. human intelligence; and d. measurement and signals intelligence,” the committee said.

The report must also contain “[a] detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted United States airspace … and an assessment of whether this unidentified aerial phenomena activity may be attributed to one or more foreign adversaries.”
Former Pentagon and legislative officials confirmed Tuesday to the publication The Debrief that the package begins the clock on UFO disclosures.

You can continue reading at the New York Post site.The point is, there is more to this than you want to admit. With that said, take a personal survey in your neighbor or work or school, more people believe in Aliens than God. It's time for that deception to come full circle. It's actually in the Book of Daniel,

…37He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers, nor for the one desired by women, nor for any other god, because he will magnify himself above them all. 38And in their place, he will honor a god of fortresses— a god his fathers did not know— with gold, silver, precious stones, and riches. 39He will attack the strongest fortresses with the help of an alien god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him, making them rulers over many and distributing the land for a price.…

Scribes who interpreted from the Greek Septuagint simply thought by "alien" Daniel meant foreign. The Ethiopian bible and early translations kept it as "alien" as do the Qumran scrolls make mention of the alien god. You could see how scribe translations would replace "alien" with "foreign" thinking that was what Daniel was saying. But was he? And given all the glorifying of Aliens in all societies today you can see how my interpretation and Daniel's is relevant.

 

[T. E. Smith]

LOL!!! !

So, according to you: "Dinosaurs evolved into birds" = "[Non-birds] evolved into [non-dinosaurs]"
Also, according to you: "Birds are dinosaurs" = "[non-dinosaurs] are dinosaurs".

Darwinistspeak VS Darwinistspeak!
Bravo!
​

By using his word, "birds," to refer to non-dinosaurs, T. E. Smith, "lay" Darwinist (not a professional Darwinist, à la Barbarian), has just admitted the truth that BIRDS ARE NON-DINOSAURS...that is, that BIRDS ARE NOT DINOSAURS.

I am not just saying that non-birds evolved into non-dinosaurs. Dinosaurs evolved into birds. There are many things that fit the category of "nonbird" and "nondinosaur". Birds are to dinosaurs as humans are to apes.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I am not just saying that non-birds evolved into non-dinosaurs. Dinosaurs evolved into birds. There are many things that fit the category of "nonbird" and "nondinosaur". Birds are to dinosaurs as humans are to apes.

Sorry, but by referring (as you admit you are doing) to NON-dinosaurs by your word, "birds," you are stating that birds are NOT dinosaurs. You're not going to be able to hide that, champ.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Birds are to dinosaurs as humans are to apes.

IOW, "[Non-dinosaurs] are to dinosaurs as [non-apes] are to apes."

 

[T. E. Smith]

IOW, "[Non-dinosaurs] are to dinosaurs as [non-apes] are to apes."

Whatever, man. Are humans apes? Well, humans are in their own genus: homo. However, we're related to apes, since we share a common ancestor. Are birds dinosaurs? They're in their own group, but share a distinct common ancestor and are thus related.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Sorry, but by referring (as you admit you are doing) to NON-dinosaurs by your word, "birds," you are stating that birds are NOT dinosaurs. You're not going to be able to hide that, champ.

You think I want to hide that? Once again, birds are dinosaurs ONLY in the same way that humans are apes. Apes are non-humans, and humans are non-apes, but there is a very distinct relationship, which can be clearly seen in many of the common features, DNA, and in the fossil record.