- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,103
- 52,639
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
The photograph I posted shows a land form that took millions of years to form. How could a flood have made it?
Yup.It's a miracle?
Like when Jesus turned water into wine?
But you reject that, you say he turned it into grape juice.Yes indeed.
As long as you remember that it was not an actual atom.Then I'll go ahead and call it what he called it: Primordial Atom.
Age... or the lack of it.Why didn't the Mississippi River do the same thing?
Non-Alcoholic WineBut you reject that, you say he turned it into grape juice.
As long as you remember that it was not an actual atom.
Nope.Grand Canyon = allegedly 70,000,000 years old
Mississippi River = allegedly 70,000,000 year old
Age... or the lack of it.
Nope.
Mississippi River= allegedly a few tens of thousands of years old.
given that they are not the same age.Even though they're both the same age?
given that they are not the same age.
And, a wet crow never flies at night.As long as you remember that it was not an actual atom.
It had no nucleus. No electrons or protons. None of the things that make an atom.
Chinese infantrymen from the western highlands call artillery tractors "oxen".
you have made up your mind on this. And no fact will ever be allowed to challenge your decision.Given that they are.
And, a wet crow never flies at night.
Unfermented wine is a historic product.
you have made up your mind on this. And no fact will ever be allowed to challenge your decision.
Unfermented grape juice is a recent invention.He and I have been over this before.
More than once, I think.
SOURCE
I love posting from links that have "edu" in them; then watching them deny their own science.
I don’t get your reasoning at all, even if you don’t believe the bible. When PhDs and scientists look at any situation in mainstream science, and say, wait a minute this doesn’t look right or there could be another answer, they are immediately rejected and labeled liars, quacks, etc. It’s like you’ve been tranced… reject the bible, its not science, don’t even consider it, assault it, you know it doesn’t make sense, it couldn’t happen, don’t listen. When someone even mentions the possibility of the Grand Canyon being caused by a flood, you ignore the power that could have been released on a global scale, yet accepting it regarding plate tectonics, and talk about any suggestion of flooding as if it could have only been on a local scale and in terms of rainwater run-off, and therefore not a possibility. How much clearer could Genesis 7:11 (In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.) be? As I said, even if you don't believe it, it was written in an untripping, short term, earth-altering way which brings PhD's at odds even today.
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?