Faith writes:
I'm not interested in getting the terms right and finding out exactly what an underground river is. The point is that I see no reason to think of any of what is seismically imaged and called "ancient rivers" or "canyons" was ever on the surface.
I don't care that what I'm doing is not Science as you all so puristically insist it be done. If you want only scientists at EvC PUT UP A SIGN SAYING SO AND THE REST OF US WILL STAY AWAY.
There is a pattern there Faith and it is not just about science, facts or reality.
You don't care that terms actually have meaning or that what is seen is actually what is seen or what Calvin actually says or what is actually written in the Bible stories and that is why you continually post stuff that is just plain wrong.
You claim to see no reason any of what is seismically imaged and called "ancient rivers" or "canyons" was ever on the surface yet never provide a model, method, process or mechanism that could explain what is seen that does not require those artifacts to have once been on the surface.
This has been true so far of every single example of what really exists whether we are talking about the Bible or science or what Calvin actually wrote.
All anyone has ever asked of you is that when you make assertions that you actually try to back up those assertions with evidence and the model, process, method or mechanism that explains the evidence.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!