- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you even realise that you're not addressing the problem I raised?
The millions of years bit is part of her evolution training. However, she is accurate about the rest of it. That is why I asked you to imagine the worldwide flood instead of the millions of years, because we know coal was once thought to take millions of years to form too. We now know that is not true.
Maybe the following video will be better to help yo ...[text shortened]... d the forming of limestone.
Sedimentary Rocks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MNvf5LBx4s
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsThe fundamental assumption in science is that the knowable laws of nature was always the same as they are now.
The evolution so-called scientists are ones that assume and guess plenty. I just guess a little, because I know that ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.
😏
The fundamental assumptions in your flavour of creationism is that there is a god, that the bible is the inerrant word of this god, that this god meant genesis in a literal, historical sense, and any observation that doesn't fit with your earlier assumptions, you assume to be a mistaken, misunderstood or faked observation.
To accept evolution is to accept exactly one assumption at face value. To accept creationism is to friggin' drown in assumptions.
Originally posted by C HessSo does ASSUME make an ASS out of U and ME or not?
The fundamental assumption in science is that the knowable laws of nature was always the same as they are now.
The fundamental assumptions in your flavour of creationism is that there is a god, that the bible is the inerrant word of this god, that this god meant genesis in a literal, historical sense, and any observation that doesn't fit with your earlier ...[text shortened]... exactly one assumption at face value. To accept creationism is to friggin' drown in assumptions.