1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOk, I can see that. That wasn't the intended implication though. I don't think I'm an expert, just closer to one than many of the people on here.
No...it's just amusing how his two comments add together to give that impression.
And now I just noticed it sounds like I'm calling myself an idiot. I can't win.
Will give Blind Watchmaker a read.
I've read Refuting Compromise, Refuting Evolution, Revuting Evolution 2,
the Case For Christ, The Case for Creation
and the Bible.
What I keep ending up with is that there is a heck of a lot of scientists.
Some are on creations side some are on evolutions side.
However, all of the evidence, contained in these books, points to:
one God who created everything.
Which makes evolution NULL and VOID.
Be open to other interpretations.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI did read and own the "Blind Watchmaker" I still reject evolution.
Sorry Umbrage, but I reckon you just wasted about 5 minutes of your life on that. This guy is beyond help, he wont read "Blind Watchmaker"
If you want to cover certain passages from that book I'd be willing
to discuss it.
Kelly
Originally posted by NosracSo you accept Earthquakes as real events?
7ate9,
don't you recall the Tsunami that took place not too long ago?
Who makes it rain? God does.
I could go on, but you know the answer.
Plates shift with other occurances around the world...like a Tsunami.
You have heard of earthquakes, haven't you?
Does God make Earthquakes happen?
He makes rain - supposedly - so why not Earthquakes?
If God does not cause Earthquakes, then what does?
And does this explanation presuppose that the Earth is older then 6000 years?
Originally posted by NosracWhat I keep ending up with is that there is a heck of a lot of scientists. Some are on creations side some are on evolutions side.
Will give Blind Watchmaker a read.
I've read Refuting Compromise, Refuting Evolution, Revuting Evolution 2,
the Case For Christ, The Case for Creation
and the Bible.
What I keep ending up with is that there is a heck of a lot of scientists.
Some are on creations side some are on evolutions side.
However, all of the evidence, contained in these books ...[text shortened]... created everything.
Which makes evolution NULL and VOID.
Be open to other interpretations.
More than 99% of scientists in relevant fields are evolutionists. So, while your statement is technically true, it gives the wrong impression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
3 edits
Originally posted by 7ate9WHAT????
do you consider CS happened, and if so do you consider it happened in the WWflood?
it is interesting the tsunami and recent earthquake in the fact it would point towards CS is not slowing down from a cause in the flood. recorded earthquakes should show what is happening to continental shift, as if it is accelerating, decelerating, or standing even. also volcanic occurences?
You need to learn to capitalize, explain your abreviations when not very common (what is CS?), and learn about these things called prepositions and helping verbs. Also some basic understanding of sentance structure would be nice.
People will generally be glad to answer your questions or debate with you, but you need to make it clear what you are saying/asking.
This is one of the most incomprhensible sentances I have seen in a long time.
recorded earthquakes should show what is happening to continental shift, as if it is accelerating, decelerating, or standing even. also volcanic occurences? I don't have any idea what you are trying to say, although I believe the term is "continental drift" not shift. A cleaner and more understandable posting style would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Jon