Which carries about the same weight as damp flatulence in a scientific debate.
Tell me, how does grouping by 'kinds' account for carcinisation? Or the known examples of convergent evolution?
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.
I beg your pardon.
That's a dictionary definition.
This may very well be my last post as I come to the illusive obvious conclusion that there is no benefit for either party to discuss beliefs and science as if they have anything in common.I'm working with information and sources put out as little as three years ago...
Which carries about the same weight as damp flatulence in a scientific debate.
A year please.Tell that to the dude who ASKED me for a definition.
If you already have a preferred definition, don't be so intellectually dishonest as to feign ignorance and ask for one.
Im answering your skeptical assertion that water could never cover Mt Everest.
The Mariana Trench is 2,147 metres deeper than Everest is tall.
There is more than enough water on earth to cover all the land above sea level by hundreds of metres.
Yes - a copy paste devoid of attribution. Plagiarism.I beg your pardon.
That's a dictionary definition.
It seems as if you are being very disingenuous. It should be obvious to a master apologist like you that when being asked about the definition of "kind" in a discussion involving the ark tall tale that the first entry for "kind" is irrelevant.You were the one who asked. Now, don't be rude.
Why ask for a definition if you already have one locked and loaded?
Seriously, it's one of the most debated finds. I sure wouldn't put any stock in it.Or that could just be lies you made up. Particularly since you were pontificating that they were "human" until you were called on it.
Do you have any sources for these comments?
We can tell a whole lot from skull shape, in particular how it sits against the spine, giving a clear insight to gait and standing posture.
I've been thinking along the same lines.. I know what I believe and I know who I trust to give me true information, and it sure isn't an internet forum.This may very well be my last post as I come to the illusive obvious conclusion that there is no benefit for either party to discuss beliefs and
Um ... why is it "modern," when it was written long before you ever saw the light of day?The bible claim so yes, but its very modern to think this is a literal claim.
Modern ideas of "truth" is just that, modern.
2348 BCMeanwhile, I am still waiting for a year, or at least a decade.
A "genus".What is a "kind"?
The book is not modern, it was written a long time ago. It's the claim which is modern.Um ... why is it "modern," when it was written long before you ever saw the light of day?
The person who wrote it believed it.
Okay if I believe it too?
Let me get this straight.The book is not modern, it was written a long time ago. It's the claim which is modern.
Would it matter?Can we get Lion to agree?
Its kinda the whole pointWould it matter?
Yes--the claim that a single individual named Methuselah died at the age of 969 years exactly, expressed in base 10 numbers without any numerological significance. That is a modern claim.Let me get this straight.
A long time ago, a man writes that Methuselah died at the age of 969.
I claim that Methuselah died at the age of 969.
And I'm making a modern claim?
What am I missing here?
Um ... why is it "modern," when it was written long before you ever saw the light of day?
The person who wrote it believed it.
Okay if I believe it too?
Let me get this straight.
A long time ago, a man writes that Methuselah died at the age of 969.
I claim that Methuselah died at the age of 969.
And I'm making a modern claim?
What am I missing here?
The Earth had been in existence some 1652 years when it was documented that Methuselah died.Yes--the claim that a single individual named Methuselah died at the age of 969 years exactly, expressed in base 10 numbers without any numerological significance. That is a modern claim.
Why should I? What does that claim have to do with the age of Methuselah?The Earth had been in existence some 1652 years when it was documented that Methuselah died.
Do you still want to claim that is a modern claim?
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?