Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[Queller]

every student (in the trip),
every student (in the class),
every fish (created in Day 5),
every fish (created in Day 6),

How about that? Where is the problem?

Every one of your statements above use qualifiers. There are no qualifiers in Genesis. There is also no creation of fish on Day 6. Where do you get that from?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ineffective and awkward argument.
Who are you to tell me to do that?

It would prove you right if you looked up both words in the dictionary, and they had different meanings, because a dictionary is a guideline for what words mean.

 

[juvenissun]

That means you don't understand it either.

Who said I do? I am defending it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Who said I do?

Certainly not me.

 

[Queller]

This argument won't work. Creationism includes science and is beyond science and the idea of falsification does not apply. It can not be falsified.

Which is why creationism cannot be equated with science.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Who said I do? I am defending it.

You are defending something you don't understand. If you don't understand it, then how can you know it is true? It is like speaking in a language you never learned, and translating it without ever considering that your uninformed translation might be incorrect.

 

[juvenissun]

Every one of your statements above use qualifiers. There are no qualifiers in Genesis. There is also no creation of fish on Day 6. Where do you get that from?

From inspiration (where else?).

Just like life after death, you may not believe it is true, but you can not say it is false either. That is what I am arguing about.

IF I am right, then it CAN answer the question in the OP perfectly. Then you can not use fossil record to argue against the Genesis 1.

 

[juvenissun]

You are defending something you don't understand. If you don't understand it, then how can you know it is true? It is like speaking in a language you never learned, and translating it without ever considering that your uninformed translation might be incorrect.

It does not have to be true. And I don't have to understand it. If it is logically correct, then I am successful.

 

[juvenissun]

Which is why creationism cannot be equated with science.

Of course they are not equal. Creationism INCLUDES science.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It does not have to be true. And I don't have to understand it. If it is logically correct, then I am successful.

And if it is logically incorrect, then you are defending ideas that you, nor anyone else, can supposedly understand, nor hold any basis in reality.

 

[bhsmte]

It does not have to be true. And I don't have to understand it. If it is logically correct, then I am successful.

How can something be logically correct, when it is above human wisdom to understand?

What about what can not be understood, is logically correct, exactly?

 

[juvenissun]

Certainly not me.

Not me either.

 

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: Don't be fooled by one of the posts above that purports to be showing evidenced for the Geologic Column. Simply Google "Evidence for Geologic Column" and there you will see things like "theoretical...presumed...." etc. Try to find a picture of one. You never will because the GC and its Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic etc. etc. is all b.s designed to make your believe the pseudo religion of evolution. Don't take my word for it or anyone else's. Just Google.

Bye for good.

 

[HitchSlap]

It does not have to be true. And I don't have to understand it. If it is logically correct, then I am successful.

Here's a logic bomb for ya'.

God is Love
Love is Blind
Ray Charles is Blind

Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

 

[Queller]

Yes. At least provided it as a contrast. It is absolutely worthwhile for an one-hour class. It tells students that science has its limitation.

Great. We should also teach Hindu creationism with their belief that the earth was created by Brahma some several billion years ago.

We'll teach the Native American creation stories as well. We'll have to narrow it down to just a couple to fit it in the time allowed. I'm partial to the Iroquois story. How about you?

We'll also teach the Shinto creation story. It is really interesting.

You surely can't refuse to teach all of the creation stories, after all, they all provide contrast.

 

[bhsmte]

ANYONE: Don't be fooled by one of the posts above that purports to be showing evidenced for the Geologic Column. Simply Google "Evidence for Geologic Column" and there you will see things like "theoretical...presumed...." etc. Try to find a picture of one. You never will because the GC and its Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic etc. etc. is all b.s designed to make your believe the pseudo religion of evolution. Don't take my word for it or anyone else's. Just Google.

Bye for good.

Don't worry. We don't fool easily.

 

[HitchSlap]

ANYONE: Don't be fooled by one of the posts above that purports to be showing evidenced for the Geologic Column. Simply Google "Evidence for Geologic Column" and there you will see things like "theoretical...presumed...." etc. Try to find a picture of one. You never will because the GC and its Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic etc. etc. is all b.s designed to make your believe the pseudo religion of evolution. Don't take my word for it or anyone else's. Just Google.

Bye for good.

Trust me, I would never take your word for it.

 

[juvenissun]

How can something be logically correct, when it is above human wisdom to understand?

What about what can not be understood, is logically correct, exactly?

True or not is on the content.
Correct or not is on the logic.

Wish you understand the difference.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here's a logic bomb for ya'.

God is Love
Love is Blind
Ray Charles is Blind

Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

I am less than half your age, and even I can see at a glance the flaw in that logic. In fact, there is an actual name for that kind of flawed reasoning pattern, hold on, I will look up its name.

 

[Queller]

ANYONE: Don't be fooled by one of the posts above that purports to be showing evidenced for the Geologic Column. Simply Google "Evidence for Geologic Column" and there you will see things like "theoretical...presumed...." etc. Try to find a picture of one. You never will because the GC and its Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic etc. etc. is all b.s designed to make your believe the pseudo religion of evolution. Don't take my word for it or anyone else's. Just Google.

Somehow I don't think you read that entire article (and comprehended it) in 15 minutes.

Bye for good.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.