Summations Only

The Bible does not prescribe how I am to argue against evolution. Any given argument could be wrong. I am convinced of my argument on its own merits, not because of what the Bible says.

Hey, but perhaps, let me run this by you again ... perhaps these Nobel Prize winners who actually do genuine science (which you have never done and are insufficiently educated to do, or indeed apparently even read about) have a better idea of what constitutes genuine science than you do. Just as, for example, people who can see might have a clearer idea of what things look like than people who are blind from birth.

There's plenty of stuff in the Bible against lying, idle gossip, and the bearing of false witness. Also Proverbs 17:28 would be useful advice, if you can take it; if not, then you are doomed to exemplify Proverbs 26:11.

Well, I've differentiated it many times here and I have no doubt about the difference although of course I'm up against a thick wall of opposition that doesn't yield. The sciences that are science are replicable and testable by others, the historical sciences which is what OE Geology is and the ToE is, are based ONLY on conjecture because that's all you have when you are trying to do history without witnesses. Instead of throwing out the first objection that pops into your minds you should THINK ABOUT WHAT I'M SAYING. I know it contradicts everything you think, I know it contradicts what passes for science, but there is a monumental difference between the historical sciences that treat of one-time events, make up stuff that can't be falsified because of that fact, and sciences that aim to establish physical truths that others can repeat themselves. I am NOT arguing from the Bible when I talk about the difference between historical science and hard science. I don't think much of what any scientists are DOING really has to do with evolution or the old earth, they are doing normal science dealing with testable facts. It's the THEORY I'm arguing against. Your objections are just off target, sorry.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I talk to God a lot about all of this. He doesn't accuse me of any of the things you do, because I'm not guilty of them.

Funny but their acceptance of evolution is really more a matter of faith than science, faith that's just sort of stuck to the science they do, without any actual input to that science except a kind of background collection of beliefs.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems to me it's obvious that those "sand dunes" were saturated with water when they took that form. And they were never strata, nothing was ever laid on top of them, which is obvious from the fact that they are lumpy and not flat like the strata. There are places where the Navajo Sandstone IS a layer among layers, but it was deposited very near the end of the Flood, in the upper part of the strata wherever it IS part of the strata, and in some places it became the uppermost deposit without layers above it.

People who "talk to God" usually hear how great they are and how right about everything. He's always "Oh yes, Abdul, do fly a plane into that building"; "Sure, Calvin, I love it when you burn heretics"; "Y'all in the South are quite right to own slaves, that was the exact reason I made them nigras"; "Yes, Mr. Carson, I do want you to run for President"; "Oh Faith, how smart you are and how knowledgeable of subjects you've never studied". In fact, have a little think, you'll amaze yourself --- can you think of one single subject on which you think God probably disagrees with you? No? What a surprise.

I can assure you that God rebukes me for my errors rather more than I enjoy. So I am content that He is not rebuking me for any of the failures you are imputing to me in this debate.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, that's not what they think. So let me try this idea out on you --- maybe not only are they better at science than you, but they're better at knowing what they think and why they think it than you, 'cos you can't read their minds but they can.

OK, I'll bite What does God think you're wrong about? Fill in the blank: "I think ___________ is the case, but God disagrees."

You remember how when you say things are "obvious" they always turn out to be false and contrary to the evidence? What do you think "strata" means?You are wrong.

As usual my perfectly reasonable argument is buried under a mountain of irrelevant detail and false accusations and endless Blaa-blaa-blaa, but it remains the perfectly reasonable argument it is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I suppose the dog thinks its vomit is good eatin'; that's why he returneth to it.

But Faith, it is the details that actually are what is important and it is also where all of your "perfectly reasonable arguments" are simply shown to be wrong.You have never been able to present a model that actually explains any of the details in anything.You have no model that explains the details seen in fossils.You have no model that explains the details seen in the aeolian sand dunes.You have no model that explains the White Cliffs of Dover.There is no science in Creationism or Flood Geology which is why both have been abandoned by all scientists for several hundred years.