How did the ark Kinds give rise to extant taxa?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Ignoring pretty much everything I say? Troll

/conversation

It seems that you haven't said anything different yet - just keep repeating false information apparently.
The answers that are true, you pretty much ignore ...
The Scripture is truth, and won't change.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That makes it a threat.

That is your opinion. God has no need to threaten you, and does not.
We all start out dead in sin and trespasses. The only hope any of us has is through Jesus.
The results of your choices are simply stated. They cannot be changed righteously nor justly.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Side note: Why are creationist analogies always so bad?

The Gospel of Christ Crucified, the Truth preached, is a fragrant aroma to those destined for life;
but the same message, at the same time, is a stench of death to those destined for destruction.
(written somewhere in the Bible, accurately and truly)

 

[SLP]

So don't go by what the 'creationists' say. Everyone, evolutionists and creationists may be found to lie, wittingly and unwittingly.
Instead, go find out for yourself what happened.

OK - I have seen the "little Grand Canyon" and it looks nothing like the actual Grand Canyon, largely because the walls of the LGC all consist of the same basic material, whereas the walls of the GC are clearly made from alternating layers of rock.

 

[loveofourlord]

OK - I have seen the "little Grand Canyon" and it looks nothing like the actual Grand Canyon, largely because the walls of the LGC all consist of the same basic material, whereas the walls of the GC are clearly made from alternating layers of rock.

I pointed this out in the picture they showed, it was ash on top with big rocks on bottom, where as with things like hoodoo we see soft layers sandwiched between hard stuff, and it's mostly all stone not loose pebbles.

 

[SLP]

I pointed this out in the picture they showed, it was ash on top with big rocks on bottom, where as with things like hoodoo we see soft layers sandwiched between hard stuff, and it's mostly all stone not loose pebbles.

Creationists are never ones to let a little reality spoil their rhetoric.

 

[SLP]

Let’s see if we’ve figured it out… everything got off the ark, and went in the direction God directed them because He knew some plants and animals would only survive in certain areas. When they encountered huge bodies of water, animals got on large ‘floating mats or drifts’ (all appropriate plant life was growing on the drifts, after all it was a big flood with a lot of debris no doubt), maybe even crossed land bridges in some instances, and some possibly accompanied people who were dispersing also. We’re not absolutely sure of the interpretation of the time involved, but everything multiplied and diversified relatively quick (that certainly happened on a smaller scale in my hometown, and over the last 20 years). And, most importantly, it doesn’t dispute the Bible. Got it!

So - no actual explanation or evidence or anything... Got it.

Why did you claim to have a science background at one point? If you were telling the truth, you sure like to hide your scientific knowledge.

 

[SLP]

So, all evolutionists are in agreement with every aspect of evolution, and see it exactly the same?

No, but we do not claim that all of our knowledge of evolution comes from a single source called the bible which is 100% true and accurate from cover to cover.

If that were the case - that the bible really is 100% accurate and all that, then all Christians should be in lock-step.

 

[SLP]

No, they go with Darwin's 'error-free' book.

So... Political Science? Social science? Which science is your background in?

Amazing...

Nobody ever said any of Darwin's writings are "error free."
You are projecting.

Unlike those in your belief system, we actually correct errors and make addenda as evidence dictates.

But thanks for showing your colors again.

 

[SLP]

My use of 'error-free' was jest only,

He wrote when he realized his argument was an utter failure...

I know what I'm arguing... and you're scrambling again.

 

[SLP]

So, its fundamental to the foundation of evolutionary belief.

Wallace came up with the same idea. As it is a natural phenomenon, it would have been discovered/described at some point anyway.
I guess that is a difference between science and religion - any stooge can dream up a new religion and get people to follow it. Look at L. Ron Hubbard and Joe Smith...

Don't you know ANY of the history of all this stuff that you are programmed to hate and bound and determined to argue against despite not really knowing much about it?

 

[SLP]

Wow... no creationists even attempted any kind of real examination or provided any real explanation for their beliefs re: post-flood re-population of the earth.

I will conclude that they cannot address the OP.