Subject:

Comments:
: : It's true that I cannot answer your question with Creationism. But then we knew that before hand didn't we? : Then why did you you bother with all the irrelevancies that you have posted before? : : : : <I>To be a scientific theory, creationism has to have the possibility of being shown untenable. Evolution does, and I gave an example. Why can't you give an example of the same thing for creationism?</I> : : : : Because creationism is not science. That's simple enough for all of us to see. I've got no problem with it not being science. It's a religion as we all know. I'm not even a creationist -- unless that definition is pushed to extremes. : : <I>Thank you, so the answer is that creationism does not have a scientific theory? Fine. Why was this like pulling teeth?</I> : : Because it feels good[wg]? Creationists don't want to admit that there is no science in there of course. That's why nobody but a fool would touch your question -- something we both knew beforehand. : Wrong. Lot's of creationists do want to defend that idea. None here do, apparently. Except for the fool who wasn't a creationist in the first place, who answered my question with a lot of cryptic and unrelated drivel. : : : : : <I>Two things cannot be true if they are mutually contradictory.</I> : : : : They aren't which is precisely the point you keep missing. Do you not think it's possible to integrate a natural logarithmic function that will nicely convert 6, 24 hour days into 15 billion years? Remember your radioactive decay rates and what happens there? Keep on pushing, and you will be surprised by this one! : : <i> I'm pushing, and pushing very hard. I'm pushing you! Will this get you to produce this "surprising" stuff?</i> : : Yes, it will, but it's a very long story (well, it will take several pages to deal with it adqueately) and you must bear with all of the way. I don't care if you ask me questions, but you will also need to understand just a little something about Genesis in the Bible. I will explain that along the way however. : Again, I'd be surprised if you could come up with something I have not seen before. : : I'm going to have to work this up on a separate program before I can transfer the contents to one of the dialog boxes. Do you know if there is a limit on the number of characters that any single plost can have? : No idea. But I think it would be very high. I don't think you will bust it. : : <I>Oh, and put it on a fresh thread, since it has nothing to do with the question I ask on this one.</I> : : Certainly! We both no that no Creationist can answer your question anyway as it's not a science. : Then why didn't you say so at once and save both of us a bit of time? : : : : <I>Then what is the point? And what does it have to do with stating an observation that would make you abandon creationism?</I> : : : : Creationism is a religion, but it also has some empirical data within it that can indeed be extraoplated into that which I have alluded to above. It that what you needed to hear? : : <I>No. Now read this carefully. Ready? : : : I did not ask for data in support of creationism. : : : I asked for data that would cause creationists to abandon creationism. : : : Got it?</i> : : Yep! Since creationism is a religion, just like atheism, creationists are not going to abandon their faith just as an atheist likely would not. : What does atheism have to do with this? Try to stck to the subject. : : : : : : <B>An act of God?</B> : : : : <I>No place for such an entity in science I am afraid, but then this only underlines my point.</I> : : : : We do not need God right here, if you take me up on the offer above. Just get ready to be surprised as I was. : : <I>I will be more than surprised if you can post anything I have not seen before several times. But don't let that scare you off.</I> : : Alright! : : Indeed, I don't even know if this can be adequately explain in this cyberworld format. But I will attempt it you'd like. Or not. It's completely up to you. : : <I>Go ahead. But since it is irrelevant to the question I asked, put it on a new thread.</I> : : Of course it's irrelvant to your question. Do you think I'm daft? : Daft enough to reply to a simple question in the way that you have. : That's why nobody attempted to answer your question in the first place - something you fully expected before you ever wrote the question. : No, I expected some to reply. The standard of replies has been a disappontment, however. : I simply have what I believe is an interesting correlation bewteen the : : Biblical 6 - 24 hour creation and an approximately 15 billion year old universe. No need to get snippy about it. : Like I said, bring it on!

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: