Originally posted by RJHindsso you make a point about something you may have heard at one of your gathering and i not only have to research to make my counter argument but also have to research yours so i know what the hell i should be researching in the first place
Why is it that i have to give a reference for every thing I say?
What makes a reference more important than my word?
Any reference I gave would only be the word of someone else.
You seem to accept anything another person says without
references as long as they agree with you. Other times when
I have given references, you guys would not accept them
any ...[text shortened]... s and the
Poynting-Robertson Effect and the moon landing if you need
or want more information.
yeh, you an awesome debater
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThis so called authority who claims to know everything that Slusher
There are other effects besides the Poynting-Robertson to consider:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/space_dust.html
edit: incidentally one might also question Harold Slusher's credentials:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
is forgetting does not mention the fact that if our solar system was 4.5
billion years old, there would be no comets to sweep through our inner
solar system every few years since they would have been burned up
and destroyed long before now.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThat's because you don't want to know the truth. You want to believe
so you make a point about something you may have heard at one of your gathering and i not only have to research to make my counter argument but also have to research yours so i know what the hell i should be researching in the first place
yeh, you an awesome debater
a lie that makes you feel comfortable without accountability to God.
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm not sure where you're getting your information from but that's just not true. Are you aware of the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud?
This so called authority who claims to know everything that Slusher
is forgetting does not mention the fact that if our solar system was 4.5
billion years old, there would be no comets to sweep through our inner
solar system every few years since they would have been burned up
and destroyed long before now.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe point is that there would be no comets anywhere in our solar system,
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but that's just not true. Are you aware of the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud?
if everything was as old as the evolutionists claim. In fact, the sun, moon,
and the earth would not be here either.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are so full of crap you must float.
The point is that there would be no comets anywhere in our solar system,
if everything was as old as the evolutionists claim. In fact, the sun, moon,
and the earth would not be here either.
If Earth was only 6000 years old or whatever the young earthers think, think about this:
100 years ago is quite a large percentage of the whole deal. That amounts to a full 1.66 percent of the ENTIRE AGE OF THE EARTH.
So, processes that happened to start things like the Grand Canyon, if it is in reality 50 million years old, 1.6 percent of that would be something like 800,000 years.
The thing is, we have solid proof the Grand Canyon is almost EXACTLY the same 100 years ago as it is today. There are photo's from 100 years ago and even earlier.
So how would you rationalize the Grand Canyon being exactly the same almost, as it is right now?
If we had photo's from 800,000 years ago, we would for sure see big changes in the Grand Canyon.
Why don't we see huge changes there?
This is an example of what is called creative thinking. I did not have to google and cut and paste some predigested answer or line of thought.
This is MY own thought. You will not find this on google.
Why don't you do the same, come up with a non-googled argument for creationism.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt all happened at the time of the great flood told about in Genesis.
You are so full of crap you must float.
If Earth was only 6000 years old or whatever the young earthers think, think about this:
100 years ago is quite a large percentage of the whole deal. That amounts to a full 1.66 percent of the ENTIRE AGE OF THE EARTH.
So, processes that happened to start things like the Grand Canyon, if it is in reality 50 m ...[text shortened]... n google.
Why don't you do the same, come up with a non-googled argument for creationism.
That is what accounts for it.
Dude.
Originally posted by JS357Yes. I am a Christian evolutionist, who believes people are free in their faith to believe either version of this story.
I'd like to ask if there are any theists posting here who believe biological evolution occurred, even if guided by God and with a special role for humans? Or, alternatively, who believe that they are free in their faith to believe either version of this story?
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHe he. I bet the Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs prefere to "believe the truth" as well. Funny that "the truth" for them is different, and often contradictary to "the truth" for you.
God gave us free-will which also means we can believe whatever we
wish. However, I prefer to believe the truth.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinMy only point with the insistence that the definite article fits the phrase is the methodology applied in whichever one is employing. Here is a somewhat interesting link to Wikipedia's "History of Scientific Method" which describes some of the upheavals which--- to this day--- are taking place behind the calm curtain of certainty.
Fair point, but I did not mean that the abandonment of the argument by creationists was a fiasco. I meant that RJHinds putting it forward as an argument, 30 years after it had been recognised as invalid by creationists, and my subsequent search for a source for the argument, leading me to expose him as either misinformed or deliberately deceitful, was a fias ...[text shortened]... ave come across a competing method with support from the scientific community?
--- Penguin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
Originally posted by PenguinIf they really wanted to believe in the Truth, they would believe in Jesus,
He he. I bet the Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs prefere to "believe the truth" as well. Funny that "the truth" for them is different, and often contradictary to "the truth" for you.
--- Penguin.
for he is the Truth, the Way, and the Life. There is only One Truth and
it is the same for all men. They prefer the traditions of men over the Truth
of God.
Originally posted by RJHindsRight, except for the part that your god was totally made up by men too. It is no more valid and true than any other religion on Earth.
If they really wanted to believe in the Truth, they would believe in Jesus,
for he is the Truth, the Way, and the Life. There is only One Truth and
it is the same for all men. They prefer the traditions of men over the Truth
of God.
This is not an argument against some kind of god. This is an argument against the biggest scam of the last 3000 years.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhere is your proof and references?
Right, except for the part that your god was totally made up by men too. It is no more valid and true than any other religion on Earth.
This is not an argument against some kind of god. This is an argument against the biggest scam of the last 3000 years.