Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 180:
Line 180: + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real (view source)
Revision as of 01:13, November 8, 2009
, 01:13, November 8, 2009Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.
[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)
[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)
: Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.
: You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.
: Most evolutionists run from [[Counterexamples to evolution}facts that disprove their theory]], just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens ''randomly'' return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)