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.
Looks like a good article. I'll have to save it for when I've finished reading "Dismantling the Big Bang" (Quite technical, so takes some understanding in places) and "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist (easier to read and very thought-provoking). PS. I'd recommend getting your hands on Spike Psarris's excellent DVDs entitled, "What you aren't being told about astronomy" (there are two available at the moment, with a third due out very soon).
If what I present from that site is an attack on evolution instead of positive evidence for creationism, can I say that you misled us?
Let's try this one:No. I'll just let anyone who wants to find what they're looking for look through it for their particular area of interest.
If it shows you evidence to support Creationism, then you'll say that it attacks evolution.
Face it--you already have your mind made up and are not open to being proven wrong.
Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record. None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, . . .
What positive evidence for creationism does that website present?
Psychological projection at its best.
Still haven't look at it, have you?
The fact that you're still posting is evidence that you haven't been reading. So, hop to it!
That would be an attack on evolution, just in case anyone is keeping track.
It isn't my job to present positive evidence for creationism. That's your burden of proof.
Not my job.
Translation: (hands covering ears) "Nah, nah, nah! I can't hear you!"
Yeah, I stuck that bit in at the end in an edit.Not to mention that both are an attack on natural processes instead of positive evidence for creationism, which is what the thread is asking for.
What you just posted is an example of an evolutionist getting defensive when his favorite theory is challenged.
You haven't presented any evidence.
I guess you forgot. Here, I'll post the link again: http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/
I guess you forgot that this is a discussion forum.
I didn't forget. I looked at it. What I looked at was both wrong and an attack on evolution, rather than being evidence for creationism. Could you pick some piece of evidence in that article that is both correct and evidence for creationism? Just one. Then we could discuss that and stop this pointless exchange of "Did too", "Did not".I guess you forgot. Here, I'll post the link again: http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/
So you still have nothing.I guess you forgot. Here, I'll post the link again: http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/
No, you supplied a link that only attacks evolution with lies and distortions. You presented no positive evidence for creation.Yeah, discussion. I guess when you ask for something and then someone gives it to you, the discussion ends. I guess you would rather it be an "argument forum".
Yeah, discussion. I guess when you ask for something and then someone gives it to you, the discussion ends.
No, you supplied a link that only attacks evolution with lies and distortions. You presented no positive evidence for creation.
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?