209
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 231:
Line 231: − + + +
Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real (view source)
Revision as of 04:07, November 13, 2009
, 04:07, November 13, 2009→Is this debate necessary?
::::::Vincent, if you don't want to open your mind, then no one else is going to open it for you. There is no logical flaw in the biblical account of the Flood. Can you accept that? If not, you're wasting your time and ours. And, by the way, evolutionists cannot explain how mammals survived the undeniably massive flooding that did occur.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::::::Vincent, if you don't want to open your mind, then no one else is going to open it for you. There is no logical flaw in the biblical account of the Flood. Can you accept that? If not, you're wasting your time and ours. And, by the way, evolutionists cannot explain how mammals survived the undeniably massive flooding that did occur.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 11 November 2009 (EST)
To be perfectly fair, your statement rests on the assumption that the global, not one of which agrees that a flood on the scale described in the Bible occurred. I think you are misapplying the theory of evolution as well. The theory does not really try and address the question you have posed about surviving flooding, it is an attempt to answer the question of 'the origin of the species'. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 20:43, 12 November 2009 (EST)
To be perfectly fair, your statement rests on the assumption that there was a global flood. I have not yet met a scientist who agrees that a flood on the scale described in the Bible occurred. I think you are misapplying the theory of evolution as well. The theory does not really try and address the question you have posed about surviving flooding, it is an attempt to answer the question of 'the origin of the species'. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 20:43, 12 November 2009 (EST)
:Your first sentence is missing some key words. You next two sentences are missing the point. Mammals didn't take airplanes to dry land a hundred miles away. Massive, undeniable flooding is an unsolved problem for evolutionists' story of descent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 12 November 2009 (EST)
:Your first sentence is missing some key words. You next two sentences are missing the point. Mammals didn't take airplanes to dry land a hundred miles away. Massive, undeniable flooding is an unsolved problem for evolutionists' story of descent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 12 November 2009 (EST)
::Agreed. DWiggins, suggesting that a Global Flood did not occur flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. You can keep your mind closed and believe your "truth" but don't expect to be welcome here when you have to confront the actual truth, and not liberal "truth". [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 21:39, 12 November 2009 (EST)
::Agreed. DWiggins, suggesting that a Global Flood did not occur flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. You can keep your mind closed and believe your "truth" but don't expect to be welcome here when you have to confront the actual truth, and not liberal "truth". [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 21:39, 12 November 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for the heads up on my last post, it seems I cut a sentence too many (fixed now). Indeed, if there were a global flood then it would be difficult to account for the survival and subsequent geographic spread of many species of mammal. But I expect you'll find that those who believe in evolution are unlikely to believe in a global flood, and so as far as they're concerned the problem doesn't exist. The question is down to the evidence for such a flood, and if it were '100%' then I don't think there would be any discussion whatsoever MichaelZ. There are few things in this world which are for certain, and when it comes to science there is no such thing as absolute certainty, science works on 'provisional truths'. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 23:07, 12 November 2009 (EST)