|
Author
|
Topic: Why only one Grand Canyon
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
Message 2 of 85 (148625)
10-09-2004 6:44 AM
|
|
|
Short opening
It's an awfully short opening post but I couldn't think of what else needed to be added. Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-09-2004 05:45 AM
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 42 of 85 (149996)
10-14-2004 8:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by roxrkool
10-14-2004 8:13 PM
|
|
Robert won't be answering here
Sorry Rox, but Robert won't be able to answer in this thread. If you or he or someone wants to start a geology or flood thread in the bootcamp to discuss it that is fine. Be aware that in BC you will be able to carry on the discussion but you need to spend more time helping Robert rather than just debating. K?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by roxrkool, posted 10-14-2004 8:13 PM | | roxrkool has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 45 of 85 (160294)
11-16-2004 11:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by edge
11-16-2004 11:22 PM
|
|
Don't bother if you're not going to work at it.
Edge, if you're not going to bother to flesh out what you object to then don't bother wasting time with a post that doesn't really have any content. It is also necessary to point out to Ly and yourself that the ark isn't on topic here. Thanks.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by edge, posted 11-16-2004 11:22 PM | | edge has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 46 by edge, posted 11-17-2004 3:11 PM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 68 of 85 (163064)
11-24-2004 10:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by d_yankee
11-24-2004 10:35 PM
|
|
Take it to a more general flood topic please
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by d_yankee, posted 11-24-2004 10:35 PM | | d_yankee has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by d_yankee, posted 11-25-2004 12:56 AM | | AdminNosy has replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 70 of 85 (163110)
11-25-2004 1:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by d_yankee
11-25-2004 12:56 AM
|
|
Re: Take it to a more general flood topic please
Almost none of the list of things in your post where in any way closly connected to the canyons. (That is, fossils, pyramid, historic records etc.) Did you find the new thread on evidences for the flood yet?
Evidence for and against Flood theories
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by d_yankee, posted 11-25-2004 12:56 AM | | d_yankee has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 72 of 85 (163252)
11-25-2004 7:29 PM
|
|
|
T o p i c !
Ok ok there are a lot of different aspects to the flood. I suggest that you activate or reactivate a series of different threads to handle them all in an organized fashion. This thread has to do with canyon formation and other erosional features. The other items, including the ark are off topic. Thank you.
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
Re: T o p i c !
Everyone has that problem. We want to comment on all sorts of side issues. I certainly wander often enough. That's why we are supposed to remind everyone now and then.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by Lysimachus, posted 11-26-2004 2:38 PM | | Lysimachus has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 79 of 85 (163707)
11-28-2004 3:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by Spicket
11-28-2004 2:09 PM
|
|
Re: "transitional" forms
Topic please. There is a number of threads on transitional forms. If you wish to make such dogmatic statements (and defend them) it would be nice if you would post to those.)
The Definition and Description of a "Transitional" I might also note that calling a statment "silly" is pretty mild. We do enforce politeness here but if you are going to go home over having a statment called "silly" then you may as well leave now. That is not going to be censured by any of the admins. Going beyond calling it silly (or even doing that) was off topic so he couldn't very well start saying why it is silly. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-28-2004 04:00 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by Spicket, posted 11-28-2004 2:09 PM | | Spicket has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 84 of 85 (196971)
04-05-2005 2:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by JonF
04-05-2005 2:41 PM
|
|
Post Titles
Another reminder to all to think about the titles of individual posts. Thanks
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by JonF, posted 04-05-2005 2:41 PM | | JonF has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2