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.
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.
How what?
"Evolutionist" is an acceptable term in the vernacular.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?
Been there / done that: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)
"Evolutionist" is an acceptable term in the vernacular.
I'll try to respect your label, but I'm an old man and tend to forget things.Fair enough, I don’t really think of myself as an evolutionist though. It sounds weird.
Of course not. Because your circular argument goes like this:I'm not gonna dignify this with a response.
Circular or not, I'm not going to dignify Post 32 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.......
Circular or not, I'm not going to dignify Post 32 with a response.
You already responded. There was no dignity.Circular or not, I'm not going to dignify Post 32 with a response.
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.
You can't tell by looking at it?We could always do some tests to find out.
You can't tell by looking at it?
Uh-huh.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?
Just don't let me see someone calling God "deceptive" for cleaning up after the Flood.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.
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?