My Sanitary Challenge

[Jimmy D]

I'll admit though, I'm not an evolutionist either, but I will admit microevolution occurs.

I suspect you're going to tell me you deny the [-ist] suffix though.

It sounds like anyone who accepts evolution is an evolutionist then? Does that count for anything I accept as true, (gravitist, Quantumist, heliocentrist etc) or is it just evolution?

Ah well, it's better than being a microevolutionist I suppose.

 

[Sanoy]

What color are the fish?

 

[TLK Valentine]

How what?

How did He become trustworthy?

 

[AV1611VET]

It sounds like anyone who accepts evolution is an evolutionist then? Does that count for anything I accept as true, (gravitist, Quantumist, heliocentrist etc) or is it just evolution?

"Evolutionist" is an acceptable term in the vernacular.

 

[AV1611VET]

My challenge to you, should you choose to accept it. Find a random photo online, and construct a randomly generated challenge from it, with no cognizant relevance to anything in evolution or the Bible. Post it when it's least expected and see what is said.

(This message will self destruct upon acceptance)

Been there / done that:

My Challenge challenge (to AV1611VET)

 

[carp614]

Ew... Clean it up. Use fish to clean it up? That would be cool...

 

[Jimmy D]

"Evolutionist" is an acceptable term in the vernacular.

Fair enough, I don’t really think of myself as an evolutionist though. It sounds weird.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fair enough, I don’t really think of myself as an evolutionist though. It sounds weird.

I'll try to respect your label, but I'm an old man and tend to forget things.

If I call/refer to you as an "evolutionist," just consider the source. :_

 

[Kylie]

The Holy Ghost.

How do you know this?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm not gonna dignify this with a response.

Of course not. Because your circular argument goes like this:
The bible is trustworthy because the author tells us so -> The author is trustworthy because the bible tells us so -> The bible is trustworthy because.......

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course not. Because your circular argument goes like this:
The bible is trustworthy because the author tells us so -> The author is trustworthy because the bible tells us so -> The bible is trustworthy because.......

Circular or not, I'm not going to dignify Post 32 with a response.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Circular or not, I'm not going to dignify Post 32 with a response.

Would such a response add dignity?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Circular or not, I'm not going to dignify Post 32 with a response.

You already responded. There was no dignity.

 

[variant]

Does this pond need to be cleaned up first before eight fish are placed in it to replenish it?

AERIAL VIEW OF A FIVE ACRE POND THAT CONTAINED ACID WATER OIL, ACID CLAY SLUDGE, CARS, DEAD ANIMALS AND DUMPED DEBRIS.

We could always do some tests to find out.

It's amazing what you can accomplish when you approach the world with questions and observation rather than spending ones time on the internet trying to play games to justify one's own pet dogmas.

 

[AV1611VET]

We could always do some tests to find out.

You can't tell by looking at it?

 

[variant]

You can't tell by looking at it?

It would be optimal to know what you are actually dealing with rather than simply "eyeballing" it.

It might be suitable for some hearty variety's of fish, and more importantly, how to go about any cleanup would be better known.

It also looks like it's evaporating, so you would want to know how stable it is before undertaking a "clean up".

Maybe fish isn't the goal here but rather to remove the pool all together.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would be optimal to know what you are actually dealing with rather than simply "eyeballing" it.

It might be suitable for some hearty variety's of fish, and more importantly, how to go about any cleanup would be better known.

It also looks like it's evaporating, so you would want to know how stable it is before undertaking a "clean up".

Maybe fish isn't the goal here but rather to remove the pool all together.

Uh-huh.

Um ...

Do you see why I call these "challenges" now?

 

[variant]

Uh-huh.

Um ...

Do you see why I call these "challenges" now?

It's because you think you're more clever than you are.

In this case you gave an example of something where careful scientific testing would help you either find your answer or point you at a better question.

Environmental reclamation is a field utterly steeped in science, so you'd like to make a point here or something?

Well, what is it? Why not just say what you have to say?

How you would actually go about studying ponds like that one and what you can do with them is done via science not your hokey religious nonsense. And, people who solve problems with science are actually listened to by people that do things for a living and they don't have to speak in "challenges".

 

[AV1611VET]

In this case you gave an example of something where careful scientific testing would help you either find your answer or point you at a better question.

Just don't let me see someone calling God "deceptive" for cleaning up after the Flood.

God cleaned up His mess after the Flood so effectively, eight people and an Ark with animals could replenish the Earth.

And saying He was being deceptive because you don't see any evidence of a world-wide flood can get you QV'd to this thread.

 

[variant]

Just don't let me see someone calling God "deceptive" for cleaning up after the Flood.

God cleaned up His mess after the Flood so effectively, eight people and an Ark with animals could replenish the Earth.

And saying He was being deceptive because you don't see any evidence of a world-wide flood can get you QV'd to this thread.

If your point is that God can magic anything that's fine.

We all know (or we all should know by know) that there is no point in ever dealing in evidence to demonstrate or disprove ideas of God, because ideas of God can always be changed to meet whatever facts we have, it literally has no definition in this sense.

No observation could ever disprove your beliefs, thus they are nonsense.

Try to be consistent though.

If no data or evidence will ever convince you, that you are wrong, stop trying to convince others with "evidence" that you are right, we call that cherry picking.