Creationist model

In another thread, tesla claimed to have a working Creationist model that explains observed evidence and presumably rationalizes it with the Biblical account: Since that would be off-topic for that thread, I'm proposing a topic at tesla's request for any Creationist who can propose a real, working model of Creation that they believe offers a better representation of the processes by which life reached its current point than the Evolution model.Creationists should be expected to back up their model with evidence, and respond to rebuttal.I realize this is a pretty broad topic, but I'm at a loss as to how to narrow down a request for a Creationist model. Accuracy and Inerrancy is probably the best fit.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

i have been hopeing to discuss and debate this evidence thoroughly for a long time, i bid you rahvin, to help me debate the truth of the evidence , and i will be as clear as possible in my relaying the evidence before you.should we begin?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

We're just waiting on you, tesla.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

these questions may seem rhetorical, but for background, i feel they are necessary:are you real? and by saying your real, you mean also that you exist?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Oh my. tesla, this topic was proposed for you to submit your Creationist model, not to give you another outlet for your "everything exists in existence" nonsense - I really hope you're going somewhere with this, or the whole topic is worthless.But to humor you: yes, I am real, and by definition that means I exist.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I think you had better assume you and Rahvin are real otherwise you will never get to the creationist model.It's been a long time coming and I for one am anxious to the heart of this model; no blather, please.

so being real, and saying you exist, that you can also say that you exist in your house physically?and that your house is real, and could not be made of anything but "real" matter and you exist in it?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Cut to the model!

the model is irrelevant without the evidence. please , let me present it?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

(sigh) Yes, I exist in my house physically, as of this exact moment. My house is also real, and is made of physical matter.tesla, get to the model. This stuff is better placed as a preamble of assumptions for the rest of your model, not as a series of wasted messages that make us all feel like we're about to have our eyes glued to a train wreck.Remember, the post count of a thread is limited. Please get to the point.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Go ahead!There is nothing I could possibly do to stop you.Don't respond to me, just present what you want to present but please bypass the "am I real are you real bullshit".

could you also say that you could not exist as matter inside of anything that was not composed of matter, and be "real"?please, i bid you patience with me, because what we are discussing here is of great importance if found true.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

As you could exist within a vacuum your point suggestion is flawed.

Double post, sorry.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.