If the universe is <10,000 old....

Papias · May 19, 2012

Cal wrote:

Except in those areas where I think a miracle happened.

But are you not going by evidence (testing natural explanations first) when you decided that this is an area where you "think a miracle happened"? Again, you are starting with naturalistic explanations. Otherwise, as illustrated by my earlier examples (which you ignored) you couldn't live your daily life. Why even get out of bed, if you really think that a miracle could just as likely cause you to float onto the ceiling? Preposterous? Of course it is. That's why we all start with the expectation that God will continue to uphold his natural laws.

No,

So you won't say why you reject Jesus on a tortilla, but you expect people to entertain our discussion of why so many Christians reject your "poofism" interpretation of Genesis?

but this is not an area where I believe other evidences point to a miracle. The Genesis account is explicitly conveying miraculous acts of God. Thus, to start with the presupposition of naturalism would be to reject God's word.

No, it would be to reject Calminian's interpretation of God's Word. Sorry Cal, but you don't get to automatically pretend that your interpretation is the be all and end all. In fact, there are plenty of Christian Biblical Scholars who don't share your literal interpretation. In the same way, why do you reject the literal reading of God's word that gives a flat earth, depicts diseases as caused by evil spirits (never as by germs), and so on?

Originally Posted by chilehed

It's sad to see mark yet again denigrate the importance of the resurrection by saying that something else is the cornerstone of Christianity. And we wonder why Christianity is dying.

Click to expand...

If it is dying it's because we're throwing out the text for the sake of naturalism. You may want to look in the mirror.

Barna data shows that many of the young people leaving Christianity are leaving specifically because of the creationists, and other things they perceive as being anti-science and anti-reality. I can provide the link if you like.

Also, you've misattribute my quote to chilihead instead of me, and notheless responded to it even though it was in response to mark, not you.

Papias

mark kennedy · May 19, 2012

progmonk said:
No, St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles are quite clear that the resurrection is the linchpin of Christianity, Paul is the clearest when he says:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

So tell me if someone accepts what you believe about creation and yet rejects the resurrection, are they Christian?

The Creation, the resurrection, the new birth are all the same miracle. You cannot believe in the God of the Bible and not worship him as Creator as well as Savior and Lord. It's absurd.

"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org)

There is a reason that the New Testament writers often start with the Creation, the same reason that it is the subject of the first chapter of the Bible. Faith starts with a belief in God as Creator:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:1)

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Hebrews 1:1.2)

You cannot worship Christ as Savior and Lord and deny Him as Creator. The original creation, the resurrection, the new birth and the new heavens and the new earth are all life being created by the only one who can, God Himself.

By the way, Paul does not neglect to touch on the Genesis account with regards to the need for Christ to die and be raised in the first place:

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Cor. 15:21,22)

You left something out, something Paul emphasized as being of first importance:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (I Cor 15:3,4)

It's not of first importance just that Christ was raised, that's only part of it. The fact that Christ died, and why, is just as important, as well as how Christ was raised. You pretend that Creation and the resurrection are separate issues but they are not, the same power that brought light from the darkness in the original creation raised Christ from the dead. It's called the 'glory of God'. What is equally important is the fact that there was a need for Christ to die in the first place and Paul, unlike you, addressed that question definitively. 'In Adam all die', that's how the Gospel starts, you are a sinner in need of a Savior. That from the same passage you recognize as Paul describing what is of 'first importance' except you ignored the context of the quote you used.

Have a nice day :wave:

Mark

Smidlee · May 19, 2012

Papias said:
In the same way, why do you reject the literal reading of God's word that gives a flat earth, depicts diseases as caused by evil spirits (never as by germs), and so on?

I have no problem take a map literally and it's flat. I used them many times and found them to be very accurate and helpful even though the planet is round. The Bible never claimed the "planet" was flat nor does it claim all diseases was the result of evil spirits. When Christ was on earth no doubt this drew the evil spirits attention in Israel so yes I believe evil spirit can sometimes inflict diseases (using germs) as mention in Job.

When my wife says she baked me a cake I take her literally even though I know she baked it in the oven. It even sounds stupid for her to say our oven baked me a cake. It's the same when someone tells me they have to run that I have enough common sense to know they will be driving their car.

Papias · May 21, 2012

Smidlee wrote:

The Bible never claimed the "planet" was flat

Sure it does, again and again. The Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.

nor does it claim all diseases was the result of evil spirits.

Whenever the cause of a disease is mentioned, it is a supernatural cause - either evil spirits or God himself. Germs are never, not even once, given as a cause of disease in the Bible.

.... so yes I believe evil spirit can sometimes inflict diseases (using germs) as mention in Job.

Really? OK, then, show me the passage in Job (or anywhere else in your or my Bibles) that mentions "using germs". Saying that germs cause disease is as unbiblical as saying that evolution gives us different animals.

When my wife says she baked me a cake I take her literally even though I know she baked it in the oven. It even sounds stupid for her to say our oven baked me a cake. It's the same when someone tells me they have to run that I have enough common sense to know they will be driving their car.

I completely agree. That's why it's silly to object to evolution, because evolution is just the method or tool that God used to create. Just as your wife used the oven to bake the cake, God used evolution to create animals.

Papias

Smidlee · May 21, 2012

Papias said:
Smidlee wrote:

Sure it does, again and again. The Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.

Noticed I wrote "PLANET" as the words earth and world has many different meaning in scripture. Often the word earth can be simple "dry land" or better yet what we refer to continent. For example the Queen of Sheba came from the uttermost parts of the earth.

Just like a reading a flat map is how often the OT reads. The map has Isreal dead center so anytime the scripture mention north, south, east, west (four corners of the earth /continent) is often relative to the nation Israel. You don't have to be very smart to figure this out in scriptures. This is not the same as claiming the planet is flat.

Daniel himself explains exactly what he meant in Daniel 4:10-11. He plainly states he was referring to a dream in vs 8. It seems evolutionists are often good at cherry picking their evidence without looking at the whole picture.

Matthew 4:8 is referring to Jesus and Satan which shouldn't have any problem seeing the whole world on a high mountain since modern man has learn how to do this. I'm able to watch tennis matches half way around the world in my living room so you think this is a problem for Jesus or Satan?
When Jesus told Nathanael he saw him under the fig tree I believe Jesus literally saw him under the fig tree just like we could on TV. The same way I believe Jesus could see the whole world on that high mountain.

Papias · May 23, 2012

Smidlee wrote:

Just like a reading a flat map is how often the OT reads. ..... You don't have to be very smart to figure this out in scriptures.

The text reads "the world" or "the earth". It does not read "the continent". Are you saying that the words in English Bibles cannot be trusted because the translations are not reliable?

Besides, even if you can't trust our translations, the context itself makes it clear that the whole earth is being discussed. The verses in Job are God talking, and I think it's safe to think that God is aware of the whole planet, right? Plus, even if just the continent is used, the continent itself isn't flat anyway. I've mentioned 6 places that agree with each other, with a literal interpretation describing the earth as flat, and you've shown none otherwise.

For instance, you wrote:

Daniel himself explains exactly what he meant in Daniel 4:10-11. He plainly states he was referring to a dream in vs 8. It seems evolutionists are often good at cherry picking their evidence without looking at the whole picture.

The fact that it's a dream is not relevant, since it is used to explain how tall the tree is. In other words, you wouldn't use it as evidence of how tall the tree was in any case (dream or not) unless you already were working with a flat earth. If a round earth was understood, then saying it was visible to all cities on earth would make no sense, so something like "it was taller than the tallest mountain" would have been used instead.

Matthew 4:8 is referring to Jesus and Satan which shouldn't have any problem seeing the whole world on a high mountain since modern man has learn how to do this. I'm able to watch tennis matches half way around the world in my living room so you think this is a problem for Jesus or Satan?

If Jesus and Satan were using "divine-o-cams" to see the cities, then no mountain would have been needed nor mentioned. The fact that the Gospel uses the "high mountain" to explain how they could see all the cities, it's obviously how they are doing it. The story with Nathaneal supports this because the whole point there is that Jesus' ability to see him under the fig tree shows his powers because no other explaination is given - that's the opposite of the "high mountain" situation, where an explaination is explicitly given.

I didn't see any instance where the given cause of a disease is anything other than supernatural causes (such as germs, or an autoimmune disease), and you haven't given that place in Job where you say germs are mentioned.

Thanks-

Papias

Smidlee · May 23, 2012

Papias said:
Smidlee wrote:

The text reads "the world" or "the earth". It does not read "the continent". Are you saying that the words in English Bibles cannot be trusted because the translations are not reliable?

Besides, even if you can't trust our translations, the context itself makes it clear that the whole earth is being discussed. The verses in Job are God talking, and I think it's safe to think that God is aware of the whole planet, right? Plus, even if just the continent is used, the continent itself isn't flat anyway. I've mentioned 6 places that agree with each other, with a literal interpretation describing the earth as flat, and you've shown none otherwise.

For instance, you wrote:

The fact that it's a dream is not relevant, since it is used to explain how tall the tree is. In other words, you wouldn't use it as evidence of how tall the tree was in any case (dream or not) unless you already were working with a flat earth. If a round earth was understood, then saying it was visible to all cities on earth would make no sense, so something like "it was taller than the tallest mountain" would have been used instead.

The tree is Nebuchadnezzar so why didn't the dream used Nebuchadnezzar reaching into the heaven instead of a tree? That's how dreams are. Here the ends of the earth is referring to Babylonian kingdom again with Israel in dead center. A map of the whole earth is flat doesn't mean the planet itself is flat. Again in the OT the directions are always relative to the nation Israel, thus Israel is the center of the earth not the center of the planet.

If Jesus and Satan were using "divine-o-cams" to see the cities, then no mountain would have been needed nor mentioned. The fact that the Gospel uses the "high mountain" to explain how they could see all the cities, it's obviously how they are doing it. The story with Nathaneal supports this because the whole point there is that Jesus' ability to see him under the fig tree shows his powers because no other explaination is given - that's the opposite of the "high mountain" situation, where an explaination is explicitly given.

No doubt people of that day have been on high mountains before and know there is a limit of how far you can see. So your theory doesn't hold water. Seeing all of Roman Empire from any high mountain would still require a miracle.
From a high mountain satan could point to the direction of each kingdom as Jesus is 100% man as well 100% God. Satan was the one who chose the location.

Papias · May 25, 2012

The tree is Nebuchadnezzar so why didn't the dream used Nebuchadnezzar reaching into the heaven instead of a tree?

Because in the Bible, the flat earth is described as being covered by a hard dome (the firmament), like in the Truman movie. Obviously a tree can't grow through solid stuff - and even if it did, it would be then underwater (there's no point to that).

Here the ends of the earth is referring to Babylonian kingdom again with Israel in dead center.

What? Refresher on ancient geography:

You can see that Israel is on the far left side, not in the dead center of the babylonian empire.

A map of the whole earth is flat doesn't mean the planet itself is flat.

Smidlee, does it ever say "map", or are you adding words to the Bible? Please show me where it says "map".

Again in the OT the directions are always relative to the nation Israel, thus Israel is the center of the earth not the center of the planet.

Or are the directions relative to wherever the speaker or listener is, as normal people talk? Could you give me an example of when the direction from the listener is different from the direction from Israel, and the Israel based direction is used instead?

Papias wrote:

If Jesus and Satan were using "divine-o-cams" to see the cities, then no mountain would have been needed nor mentioned. The fact that the Gospel uses the "high mountain" to explain how they could see all the cities, it's obviously how they are doing it. .

Click to expand...

No doubt people of that day have been on high mountains before and know there is a limit of how far you can see. So your theory doesn't hold water. Seeing all of Roman Empire from any high mountain would still require a miracle.

That's why it emphasizes a "very high" mountain.

Please read Mt 4 again. You will see each temptation has the same structure:

A. Satan takes him to a location to allow the temptation to happen.
B. Satan tempts Jesus using that location.
C. Jesus rejects the temptation.

For instance:

Mt. 4: 1-4
A. Satan takes Jesus to fast in the desert.
B. Satan tempts Jesus with hunger.
C. Jesus rejects the temptation.

Mt. 4: 5-7
A. Satan takes Jesus to the temple.
B. Satan tempts Jesus to show his divinity.
C. Jesus rejects the temptation.

Mt. 4: 8-10
A. Satan takes Jesus to a "very high" mountain.
B. Satan tempts Jesus with cities.
C. Jesus rejects the temptation.

Is this really that hard to grasp? Again, you haven't said why Satan needed a "very high" mountain, if they were using "divine-o-cams".

From a high mountain satan could point to the direction of each kingdom as Jesus is 100% man as well 100% God. Satan was the one who chose the location.

Of course Satan chose the location - to make it high enough to see the cities.

You also haven't answered my other questions. I think that's three times now.

Papias

Assyrian · May 25, 2012

*cough*yggdrasil*cough*

Smidlee · May 25, 2012

Papias said:
Smidlee, does it ever say "map", or are you adding words to the Bible? Please show me where it says "map".

It doesn't say planet earth either. Again when the scripture mentions north, south, east or west it's always in reference of Israel just as someone looking at a map. Israel can be the center of a map but the earth core is the center of a globe. So the scripture "reads" like a map with Israel dead center. Maps are more practical than globes and being practical is often the route scripture takes.
The flat earth myth is just a myth. I believe the people in the past especially those who studied the stars knew a lot more than poeopl today give them credit for. I have no doubt people in Jesus days' knew there a limit of how far you can see on top of a mountain. John understood Jesus could see farther than human possible as he wrote about it.

ReformedPharisee · May 26, 2012

philadiddle said:
Since the YECs who responded in the other thread I tried to make are ignoring my followup question, I'll try to be a little more direct.

If you think the universe is less than 10,000 years old because you reject the evidence for the big bang, then how would respond to an atheist who thought the universe was static and eternal?

Your question makes little sense. Most YEC's that I know don't discount the evidence from the Big Bang, only the false and ridiculous assumptions that evolutionists tack onto the facts in order to doctor the time scale.

Papias · May 29, 2012

Smidlee wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Smidlee, does it ever say "map", or are you adding words to the Bible? Please show me where it says "map".

Click to expand...

It doesn't say planet earth either.

It repeatedly says "earth". Are you again going to imply that we can't trust the english Bibles? If so, please be straightforward about it. If not, then please make a clear point.

Again when the scripture mentions north, south, east or west it's always in reference of Israel just as someone looking at a map.

I've asked several times for any basis for this statement, and you seem unwilling or unable to give any support to your bare assertion. I've shown that no reference to Israel at the "dead center" is given, and that directions are simply from the position of the writer, as normal people in daily situations do, so that pointing out that people are giving their directions from where they are doesn't support your point.

The flat earth myth is just a myth. I believe the people in the past especially those who studied the stars knew a lot more than poeopl today give them credit for. I have no doubt people in Jesus days' knew there a limit of how far you can see on top of a mountain. John understood Jesus could see farther than human possible as he wrote about it.

More bare, and often irrelevant, assertions.

Smidlee, did you even read my whole post? Most of it you ignored, including parts that directly addressed you bare assertions. Here it is again, since you apparently didn't take the time to read most of it.

*************************************

The tree is Nebuchadnezzar so why didn't the dream used Nebuchadnezzar reaching into the heaven instead of a tree?

Because in the Bible, the flat earth is described as being covered by a hard dome (the firmament), like in the Truman movie. Obviously a tree can't grow through solid stuff - and even if it did, it would be then underwater (there's no point to that).

Here the ends of the earth is referring to Babylonian kingdom again with Israel in dead center.

What? Refresher on ancient geography:

You can see that Israel is on the far left side, not in the dead center of the babylonian empire.

A map of the whole earth is flat doesn't mean the planet itself is flat.

Smidlee, does it ever say "map", or are you adding words to the Bible? Please show me where it says "map".

Again in the OT the directions are always relative to the nation Israel, thus Israel is the center of the earth not the center of the planet.

Or are the directions relative to wherever the speaker or listener is, as normal people talk? Could you give me an example of when the direction from the listener is different from the direction from Israel, and the Israel based direction is used instead?

Papias wrote:

If Jesus and Satan were using "divine-o-cams" to see the cities, then no mountain would have been needed nor mentioned. The fact that the Gospel uses the "high mountain" to explain how they could see all the cities, it's obviously how they are doing it. .

Click to expand...

No doubt people of that day have been on high mountains before and know there is a limit of how far you can see. So your theory doesn't hold water. Seeing all of Roman Empire from any high mountain would still require a miracle.

That's why it emphasizes a "very high" mountain.

Please read Mt 4 again. You will see each temptation has the same structure:

A. Satan takes him to a location to allow the temptation to happen.
B. Satan tempts Jesus using that location.
C. Jesus rejects the temptation.

For instance:

Mt. 4: 1-4
A. Satan takes Jesus to fast in the desert.
B. Satan tempts Jesus with hunger.
C. Jesus rejects the temptation.

Mt. 4: 5-7
A. Satan takes Jesus to the temple.
B. Satan tempts Jesus to show his divinity.
C. Jesus rejects the temptation.

Mt. 4: 8-10
A. Satan takes Jesus to a "very high" mountain.
B. Satan tempts Jesus with cities.
C. Jesus rejects the temptation.

Is this really that hard to grasp? Again, you haven't said why Satan needed a "very high" mountain, if they were using "divine-o-cams".

From a high mountain satan could point to the direction of each kingdom as Jesus is 100% man as well 100% God. Satan was the one who chose the location.

Of course Satan chose the location - to make it high enough to see the cities.

You also haven't answered my other questions. I think that's three times now.

**********************************
Also for your convenience, here are those other questions you are still ignoring:

Smidlee wrote:

The Bible never claimed the "planet" was flat

Sure it does, again and again. The Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.

nor does it claim all diseases was the result of evil spirits.

Whenever the cause of a disease is mentioned, it is a supernatural cause - either evil spirits or God himself. Germs are never, not even once, given as a cause of disease in the Bible.

.... so yes I believe evil spirit can sometimes inflict diseases (using germs) as mention in Job.

Really? OK, then, show me the passage in Job (or anywhere else in your or my Bibles) that mentions "using germs". Saying that germs cause disease is as unbiblical as saying that evolution gives us different animals.

**************************************

Papias

Calminian · May 29, 2012

Papias said:
...
It repeatedly says "earth". Are you again going to imply that we can't trust the english Bibles? If so, please be straightforward about it. If not, then please make a clear point....

I don't know about him, but I sure will. The english term "earth" is not a perfect translation for the hebrew, "erets" and this is the cause of much confusion for interpreters. The english modern term implies planet earth, which is comprised of the ocean and land and everything under them. The hebrew term erets never implies a land/sea unit. Erets is always the land, and yahm is always the sea. They are always distinct.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them

These are the three components of the world in hebrew nomenclature. Thus the ancient hebrews would have never called the land flat as they believed in mountains and valleys.

The solid dome is also a complete misconception and misunderstanding of ancient biblical nomenclature. Raqiya is the heavens. Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.. It's simply another word for sky, where the clouds dwelt. It couldn't possibly be solid.

Johnnz · May 29, 2012

Calminian said:
The solid dome is also a complete misconception and misunderstanding of ancient biblical nomenclature. Raqiya is the heavens. Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.. It's simply another word for sky, where the clouds dwelt. It couldn't possibly be solid.

The Genesis story presents us with the earth as God's temple. Thus, the concept of a dome or vault is appropriate, as that was not meant to imply as a description of matter.

John
NZ

Papias · May 30, 2012

Cal wrote:

The english modern term implies planet earth, which is comprised of the ocean and land and everything under them.

It sounds like you are saying that the translation, even if it is the best that could be done, is misleading. If that's the case, than how can a straight english reader be confident of anything they read in their chosen Bible? Or even have confidence they chose the right Bible out of the many out there, many of which have different whole books?

Plus, you position here eliminates any suggestion that Genesis describes a worldwide flood, instead showing that the flood was local. Do you, Cal, agree that the flood was only a local event?

The solid dome is also a complete misconception and misunderstanding of ancient biblical nomenclature. Raqiya is the heavens. Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.. It's simply another word for sky, where the clouds dwelt. It couldn't possibly be solid.

That's not what the Biblical scholars, who have studied this their whole lives, say. It's clear for a number of reasons, both the word itself and other verses in the Bible, as well as traditional Christian interpretation, that it is a solid dome. Heck, in Job it even explicitly says it is hard.

The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal flattened by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Papias

Johnnz · May 30, 2012

No, not a solid dome. Just a metaphorical usage within an account of God creating His temple/palace.

John
NZ

jpcedotal · May 30, 2012

miamited said:
hi phil,

I don't really put much effort in trying to explain to an atheist anything other than the way of salvation. Let God's Spirit first convict him/her of their need for salvation and if they believe and are born again, then all the rest will follow.

Arguing over the size of the ocean is of very little value to one who is in the middle of it on a sinking ship.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

exactly...if I convince an atheist that the universe is young, he/she is still lost.

NGC 6712 · May 30, 2012

jpcedotal said:
exactly...if I convince an atheist that the universe is young, he/she is still lost.

Lost and deluded.

Smidlee · May 30, 2012

NGC 6712 said:
Lost and deluded.

Very true if he believed in Darwin's tree of life. Scientist had to crop that tree down here lately because of the overwhelming evidence but this had no effect of the evolution myth. Flip a coin , heads: evolution wins and tail: flip again until heads.

Keachian · May 30, 2012

Smidlee said:
Very true if he believed in Darwin's tree of life. Scientist had to crop that tree down here lately because of the overwhelming evidence but this had no effect of the evolution myth. Flip a coin , heads: evolution wins and tail: flip again until heads.

With such a clear representation of the scientific method you must be a scienctist!

If the universe is <10,000 old....

Listening to TW4

Natura non facit saltum

Veteran

Listening to TW4

Veteran

Listening to TW4

Veteran

Listening to TW4

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Veteran

Messenger of the New Covenant

Listening to TW4

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Listening to TW4

Senior Veteran

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Newbie

Veteran

On Sabbatical

Similar threads