It doesn't work the same in every place.
Acting like you have the correct answer, when all you have is evidence to support it is not right. It's shameful.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This really isn't a matter of opinion. It's not really moving it away, it's just how the crust works...
What does that have anything to do with shame?
How sedimentation occurs and rocks form. What you are calling global flood deposits are no where near that?Please explain to me the specific knowledge that I'm missing.
How sedimentation occurs and rocks form. What you are calling global flood deposits are no where near that?
There are others as well--although none, perhaps, quite so notorious. I can sympathize with Dawkins, though. I sometimes find myself in the same frame of mind. But I know more about religion, Christianity in particular, than he does and I know it's Fundies specifically I'm disgusted with, not the whole believing world. If you look at his complaints about religion carefully, you will see that it's the Fundamentalist strain that he is most concerned with. And being an atheist to begin with, he doesn't see enough good in the baby not to throw it out in the bathwater.Errrrm, you need to get out a little more. Have you ever heard of a fellow named Richard Dawkins?
All I am saying is believing in a global flood based on scripture is fine. Misrepresenting the geological sciences (creation science literature) to support that belief is a violation of the 9th commandment.Then please. Point me in what you believe is the right direction.
It doesn't work the same in every place.
Acting like you have the correct answer, when all you have is evidence to support it is not right. It's shameful.
Misrepresenting the geological sciences (creation science literature) to support that belief is a violation of the 9th commandment.
It may move in different directions, but it's the same process around the globe.
Am I reading this right? It sounds like you are saying that it's shameful to act like you have the correct answer when you have evidence to support it. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me, that's how evidence works.
You are not looking at any evidence. The creation science literature does not present any evidence in the form of original data and research.How is it misrepresenting?? Im looking at the evidence and what it's seems to be most likely.
Gladly.Send me a link to show me I'm wrong. Let me learn what you know.
And theres evidence to support the latter, but its thrown under the bus. Is that how evidence works?
LOL! I doubt that. I doubt whether you have ever had so much as a college-level genetics text in your hands.
Obviously you don't have a clue
keep a civil tongue in your head and cut out the slanderous comments.
Funny how all those dogs and cats and every other animal with a true tail gets along just fine without a coccyx.
I have credentials in the earth sciences and have investigated if for myself. Can you explain the fossil record and the way it is distributed throughout the geologic column without evolution?
There are no "kinds" in evolution, nor is there a necessary time limit. So yes, I have failed your challenge to defend an inaccurate version of the theory of evolution.You begin with slander (2x) and then accuse me of it?
Not to mention you fail at the one item I challenged you on.
Name one way evolution can change an animal from one kind
to another in the amount of time necessary for TOE. You can't
because DNA will not be changed in any meaningful positive
way, and if it did, the cell would not know how to interpret the
new programming.
And how do you confirm the bible? Are you aware that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus and especially that of Genesis.
That would be derision; not the same thing as slander at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?