The point about DNA was that once again you got wrapped up in preachy rhetoric and weren't thinking straight. Your comment on DNA technically committed you to genetic reductionism, as though we should follow a genetically determined life without adding (atheistic or theistic) culture to it.

But the logical relation between your sentences is irrelevant to you. Your comments are exercises in specious rhetorical persuasion, pressure tactics, and the like.

By contrast, I'm interested in philosophy. You call philosophy (and logic and science and modernity) vain, sinful, ungodly, etc. That's the alpha and omega of our dialogue.

I side with the historical-critical approach to the Bible. The historians understand the Bible far better than the fundamentalists and Evangelicals.