Young Earthers (RJ) Look at this: Grand Canyon:

Originally posted by moon1969
The sicentific community including 99+% scientists reject this as bunk. Does that bother you? Or do you have blind faith.

Blind faith, so tell me...I've hit others up here with this....
Where did everything come from? No blind faith now I want to know your
so called facts! If you have none, well then guess what spanky, you have
blind faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by moon1969
Check out this article and thread. I would have never believed that Pat Robertson would have come around like this. Evangelical Pat Roberston: A Voice of Reason?

[b]Pat Robertson: “If you fight science, you are going to lose your children”

The most recent Gallup poll found that 46 percent of Americans believe Earth is less than 10,000 y ...[text shortened]... tson concluded.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=150008&page=1[/b]

Pat Robertson has been wrong about a lot of things. So don't go thinking he knows the truth on this. He is only trying to get your money and will compromise on anything if he feels it is to his benefit.

Originally posted by moon1969
The sicentific community including 99+% scientists reject this as bunk. Does that bother you? Or do you have blind faith.

Show me the poll where you got 99+% percent that were asked this or are
you pulling these numbers out of your a$$ to match the facts you have to
back up your point of view?
Kelly

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you only have an issue with the facts because you are under the impression god cares if you believe in a fairy tale or not, simply because some priests at some time decided they should be place in the same book as the most important tenants of the Christian faith. you must realize you are not looking at the evidence objectively. the facts are known, ...[text shortened]... ones that support the world view you already formed, when it should be the other way around.

If you want to suggest that something made up is a fairy tale, than you have
as many as I do, actually I'd say even more.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well then, you tell me how the dead sea and others like it would be that salty after a world wide flood.

Well there is this thing called salt, and its in the water, making it salt water.
Kelly

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no, you are wrong. he only had to take "kinds" on the boat. and all the variations will evolve from that (because they accept evolution when it suits them). so noah only needs a pair of horses, and all zebras and anything else remotely looking like a horse comes from horsies.

insects? no insects on the ark, they can magically live outside in water. ...[text shortened]... ng to show how smart we are, comparing ourselves to ignorant fundamentalists. it is not nice.

Living things do not evolve, they adapt.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well then, you tell me how the dead sea and others like it would be that salty after a world wide flood.

I answered this question a while back, so you must have Alzheimer's or some type of Dementia or maybe you have amnesia on purpose, like the JWs. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
Blind faith, so tell me...I've hit others up here with this....
Where did everything come from? No blind faith now I want to know your
so called facts! If you have none, well then guess what spanky, you have
blind faith.
Kelly

That is wrong and I have proved it to you before. Admiting ignorance of the origin of the universe does not imply blind faith about everything else. I showed you before that this is not the case and you got so upset you called me a liar and refused to speak to me ever again. Interestingly you could not point out what you thought I lied about.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you only have an issue with the facts because you are under the impression god cares if you believe in a fairy tale or not, simply because some priests at some time decided they should be place in the same book as the most important tenants of the Christian faith. you must realize you are not looking at the evidence objectively. the facts are known, ...[text shortened]... ones that support the world view you already formed, when it should be the other way around.

The fact is that DNA proves intelligent design in nature. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is wrong and I have proved it to you before. Admiting ignorance of the origin of the universe does not imply blind faith about everything else. I showed you before that this is not the case and you got so upset you called me a liar and refused to speak to me ever again. Interestingly you could not point out what you thought I lied about.

You also have been told many times that everthing came from the living God. Yoy seem to be getting selective amnesia also. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well if they believe it, it must be true?
I bet they deny God too, so He must not be true as well, is that how this
works in your world?
Kelly

Actually moon1969 didn't make his point clearly enough. All those scientists don't believe that life came from non-life, they simply accept it as the most likely explanation. They would, of course, all modify their position should new data be found which did not accord therewith. The fact remains that the vast majority (and we're talking so close to 100% as to be indistinguishable) of data so far recovered supports their current position. For the rational, god is now reduced to either the original creator of the universe, having designed and instigated it to develop over the last 14.5 billion years or so as science has revealed, or a universal trickster, having designed and built the universe to give the impression of vast age in order to fool the rational into rejecting his existence.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Actually moon1969 didn't make his point clearly enough. All those scientists don't believe that life came from non-life, they simply accept it as the most likely explanation. They would, of course, all modify their position should new data be found which did not accord therewith. The fact remains that the vast majority (and we're talking so cl ...[text shortened]... o give the impression of vast age in order to fool the rational into rejecting his existence.

Biogenesis is already a law accepted by all real scientists, numbnuts, and God is the living source of all life.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Biogenesis is already a law accepted by all real scientists, numbnuts, and God is the living source of all life.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Show me the evidence, outside of biblical dogma. Surely have other forms of evidence than that from a man made religious document? You know, thousands of people were duped by Madoff till he pulled one heist too many and his house of cards fell apart. You and several billion other poor folk are just deluded by a religion that makes no bones about not giving actual factual evidence of ANYTHING, just god did it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Biogenesis is already a law accepted by all real scientists, numbnuts, and God is the living source of all life.

*capers and drools*

Wind your idiot neck in, dickhead.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Actually moon1969 didn't make his point clearly enough. All those scientists don't believe that life came from non-life, they simply accept it as the most likely explanation. They would, of course, all modify their position should new data be found which did not accord therewith. The fact remains that the vast majority (and we're talking so cl ...[text shortened]... o give the impression of vast age in order to fool the rational into rejecting his existence.

You are making a bold statement it is the most likely, you really don' t know
what is likely or not! So suggesting one is more likely is very close to you
having blind faith and just running with it. You don't know you assume, you
assume more than a few things with it comes to life from non life, you assume
a lot of things on how everything got here, and than you claim because of your
assumptions that one way of it occuring is more likely over another, where
in fact that is just you assuming your beliefs about the past are true so you can
call them the most likely.
Kelly