All or nothing

Originally posted by whodey
Conversely, you believe that:

1. Life came about by accident, something that can't even be duplicated by intelligent beings

2. You think there was no flood when every ancient culture in that region has a flood myth. To even know what a flood is one would have to have a point of reference, so yea, there was a flood.

3. Jesus was crucified. Most h ...[text shortened]... health care and letting us all keep our own doctors and coverage. To you, that was believable?

1. Who has claimed life came about by accident? (Apart from yourself?)

2. Where is your evidence for a 'global flood', as depicted in the bible? (Heads up, there isn't any).

3. Nonsense.

4. Obama,....rhubarb rhubarb.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You don't think it matters whether or not Adam and Eve are to be taken literally?!

You don't see how this will impact on such concepts as original sin?

Who does not take the Adam and Eve account literally? And what compelling reason do you think they have for not doing so?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Me beating about the bush!
LOL
Your thread which you cannot answer the most straight forward questions on.

As I said - you really don't have a clue do you?

You not being satisfied with an answer doesn't mean I haven't answered it. By the way I don't even think you know what answer would satisfy you since you are a skeptic and a skeptic by nature doubts all accepted opinions.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
1. Who has claimed life came about by accident? (Apart from yourself?)

2. Where is your evidence for a 'global flood', as depicted in the bible? (Heads up, there isn't any).

3. Nonsense.

4. Obama,....rhubarb rhubarb.

What would you accept as evidence of a global flood? By the way you don't know there isn't any, you believe there isn't any. There is a difference,

Originally posted by dj2becker
Who does not take the Adam and Eve account literally? And what compelling reason do you think they have for not doing so?

I don't.

Humanity didn't begin with a single pair of humans. As a species, We evolved.

Originally posted by dj2becker
What would you accept as evidence of a global flood? By the way you don't know there isn't any, you believe there isn't any. There is a difference,

No, I know.

The difference is, you're uneducated.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I don't.

Humanity didn't begin with a single pair of humans. As a species, We evolved.

Evolved from what? A blob of goo?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
No, I know.

The difference is, you're uneducated.

No the difference is you think you are educated.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Evolved from what? A blob of goo?

I give you credit sir. You are uneducated in a wide array of subjects.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I give you credit sir. You are uneducated in a wide array of subjects.

So some dude finds a piece of bone in the ground and tells you you were related to it and you believe him without question. Only a skeptic when it suits you huh?

Romans 1:22

Professing to be wise they became fools...

Originally posted by dj2becker
So some dude finds a piece of bone in the ground and tells you you were related to it and you believe him without question. Only a skeptic when it suits you huh?

Romans 1:22

Professing to be wise they became fools...

No, I don't believe him without question. That's where education kicks in.

Anyway, 'global flood' evidence. What you got?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
No, I don't believe him without question. That's where education kicks in.

Anyway, 'global flood' evidence. What you got?

Yes you do.

If you pressuppose uniformatarianism, the Grand Canyon (and every other canyon for that matter) was formed over billions of years but that rules out without question that it could have been caused by a global flood in a matter of days. So yes go with the popular opinion and give yourself a pat on the back for being 'educated'.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yes you do.

If you pressuppose uniformatarianism, the Grand Canyon (and every other canyon for that matter) was formed over billions of years but that rules out without question that it could have been caused by a global flood in a matter of days. So yes go with the popular opinion and give yourself a pat on the back for being 'educated'.

Again, your global flood evidence?


Tumbleweed passes by, as a cowboy spits his chewing tobacco into a tin can.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Again, your global flood evidence?


Tumbleweed passes by, as a cowboy spits his chewing tobacco into a tin can.

You already said you know there is none. Can you even tell me what in your mind would qualify as evidence? And maybe throw in how you know for sure that canyons weren't formed by a global flood.

What about thousands of fossils found in one place due to rapid burial?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You already said you know there is none. Can you even tell me what in your mind would qualify as evidence? And maybe throw in how you know for sure that canyons weren't formed by a global flood.

What about thousands of fossils found in one place due to rapid burial?

Honestly, it's like conversing with a 3 year old. (Who has mastered access to Wikipedia).

Here, have some of this:

"The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis. Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archeology. Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method. In contrast, flood geology does not adhere to the scientific method, and it is, therefore, a pseudoscience."