- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,779
- 52,552
- 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.
Oh, I know, I've played this game before. I just though I'd spell it out to anyone watching, as you know Avet is going to claim that no one could answer his challenge.
Go right ahead --- (get in line, though).
q.v. Post 7
If you would like to address my OP with respect, feel free to do so.
That "credulous oaf", if he believed it, would be right, wouldn't he?
It's the ones that refused to believe the note (and your eyewitness testimony) that would be wrong.
No --- I'm forcing you to admit you can't evidence Creation.
And I disagree --- it's you guys that can't explain anything --- not us.
Granted, but where does it say that it cannot be repeated?
As I said earlier, that means that Creationism explains nothing and has no scientific evidence. Therefore it is completely worthless as anything other than a bedtime story.If one were to create an apple out of nothing, it would have the apparent history of having been grown on an apple tree.
Uh, not really - you've just tricked yourself into admitting you can't evidence creation.
I'm already on record as saying creation cannot be evidenced --- more than once.
(There is a way though --- but it requires a measure of omniscience.)
A measure of omniscience? LOL! My "a little bit pregnant" wife is cracking up, as she usually always does...sometimes.I'm already on record as saying creation cannot be evidenced --- more than once.
(There is a way though --- but it requires a measure of omniscience.)
I'm already on record as saying creation cannot be evidenced --- more than once.
As I said earlier, that means that Creationism explains nothing and has no scientific evidence. Therefore it is completely worthless as anything other than a bedtime story.
That might very well be the most silly and inane question I have ever heard in my life. I'm not even sure what you are asking here.Who said that the question of origins must have a scientific answer?
So what? Why does "rest" imply "cannot be repeated"?On the seventh day, He rested.
If you would like to address my OP with respect, feel free to do so.
Who said that the question of origins must have a scientific answer?
Okay. With respect, your analogy is invalid when compared with reality as I have shown. The earth may have been created ex-nihilo, 6000 years ago, but if it was, it was created with 4.6 billion years of history against the backdrop of a 13.7 billion year universe. Since we have evidence of how the earth was formed, and we never see any new ex-nihilo creations, and assuming creation teaches us nothing useful, why should we accept it as a valid option?
Okay. With respect, your analogy is invalid when compared with reality as I have shown. The earth may have been created ex-nihilo, 6000 years ago, but if it was, it was created with 4.6 billion years of history against the backdrop of a 13.7 billion year universe. Since we have evidence of how the earth was formed, and we never see any new ex-nihilo creations, and assuming creation teaches us nothing useful, why should we accept it as a valid option?
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?