What proof would you need?

[AV1611VET]

That's a lot of words to say "I can't provide what you have asked for"

Scientists can't prove what time it is, let alone anything else.

I say make a chain of 24 scientists -- 1000 miles apart -- then have them prove what time it is and watch them argue about it for the rest of their lives.

 

[RickG]

And for the record, how would one ascertain that they haven't been submitted?

Their targeted audience is not the scientific community.

 

[Cabal]

Scientists can't prove what time it is, let alone anything else.

I say make a chain of 24 scientists -- 1000 miles apart -- then have them prove what time it is and watch them argue about it for the rest of their lives.

Could say the same about Christians being asked to define Christianity or the Trinity. How many denominations are there? Several thousand or so.

But hey, consistency was never your strong point.

 

[RickG]

Scientists can't prove what time it is, let alone anything else.

Aside from that being totally false, what purpose does such a statement support?

 

[jay1]

Scientists can't prove what time it is, let alone anything else.

I say make a chain of 24 scientists -- 1000 miles apart -- then have them prove what time it is and watch them argue about it for the rest of their lives.

Again, a lot of words to say "I can't provide what you are asking for"

 

[RickG]

Fair enough -- I'll mail them (whoever it is you're talking about) a copy of Genesis 1.

Will that qualify? or will they discard it; and you can keep your integrity intact?

You really seem to have a misunderstanding of what I am trying to say. I am not talking about what the bible says about anything. I am talking about the literature that misrepresents science. The bible does not misrepresent science, it is not a science book.

 

[becon]

I am trying to understand why educated people would want to be creationists, I was wondering, did any of that long list of creationist scientists become creationists after they became scientists?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am talking about the literature that misrepresents science.

You want literature that misrepresents science?

Will a picture worth a thousand words do?

 

[jay1]

You want literature that misrepresents science?
No we want peer reviewed scientific papers that either prove creationism or disprove evolution
Will a picture worth a thousand words do?
No

Remember, anything is only possible through God, so, God killed those Astronauts. In a loving way, of course.

 

[AV1611VET]

Remember, anything is only possible through God, so, God killed those Astronauts. In a loving way, of course.

Imagine that? an atheist saying God did something -- (and capitalizing 'God' as well).

 

[jay1]

Imagine that? an atheist saying God did something -- (and capitalizing 'God' as well).

Imagine that? a theist not providing what was asked of him.

Papers or GTHO

 

[AV1611VET]

Papers or GTHO

When this place becomes a Gestapo, then you can demand papers; until then, please stop trying to sound like a deportation officer.

 

[RickG]

You want literature that misrepresents science?

Will a picture worth a thousand words do?

And just what science does that misrepresent?

 

[jay1]

When this place becomes a Gestapo, then you can demand papers; until then, please stop trying to sound like a deportation officer.

Please stop avoiding what you are being asked and provide the scientific papers or admit that you can't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please stop avoiding what you are being asked and provide the scientific papers or admit that you can't.

I can't provide anything in science, let alone papers.

And for the record, newbie, I've probably admitted that more times here than you have posts.

 

[Mikecpking]

In what way do you feel Gen is not accurate and does not reflect the truth?
What do you have to back up your opinion that OEC and GAP are not true?

The truth behind Gen 1 is that God created, and man is the pinnacle of his creation. Furthermore, the Sabbath is a special day and God made it holy. The structure of creatin environments and filling it shows a well formed piece of literature, but it is not literal.
Science finds out 'how' and the bible reveals 'why'.

No conflict.

 

[jay1]

I can't provide anything in science, let alone papers.

And for the record, newbie, I've probably admitted that more times here than you have posts.

Has it always taken so long to admit it in the past?

If you knew all along that you could not provide the evidence asked for and tried to hide this behind pictures and pointless posts, then that is just dishonest.

 

[jay1]

The truth behind Gen 1 is that God created, and man is the pinnacle of his creation. Furthermore, the Sabbath is a special day and God made it holy. The structure of creatin environments and filling it shows a well formed piece of literature, but it is not literal.
Science finds out 'how' and the bible reveals 'why'.

No conflict.

The Bible reveals why?

Why did God create the Earth? surely that must be in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Has it always taken so long to admit it in the past?

No -- until recently, I had it in my profile; or I would have called you out on it, like I did others.

No, I don't -- qv my profile.

I don't mess with evidence whatsoever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why did God create the Earth?

So we could have something to walk on.