Quote
There is a lack of evidence for a 6-day creation, a global flood, everyone having descended from one man and one woman who lived 6000 years ago, and all the animals that ever existed on earth being there together at that time too.


Evidence for a 6 day creation... most of which occured before man existed... doubtful you will prove, or disprove, the idea fully. But evolution and all of the various related theories of how earth was formed and life came to be on earth fall apart pretty easily too. I guess you just have to choose a side with that one because no one will ever find an answer. you can wager on that too, that neither side will ever be proven scientifically, and surely win every time, forever, well till you meet your maker anyway.

..a global flood... there is lots and lots of evidence for it, we have discussed it endlessly many times so I wont start over, no need... you would have a very difficult time proving that water did not cover most of if not all of the earth at some time in the past though, have you ever considered trying to do that? No, not yet you haven't...

...everyone having descended from one man and one woman who lived 6000 years ago... there's actually quite a bit of evidence for that scenario according to genetics, only the timeframe is arguable but not impossible... probably slighly more than 6000 years, you might be 2 or 3 thousand years or so off there..

...and all the animals that ever existed on earth being there together at that time too... that one you really must finally take the time to explain more clearly. you have mentioned that idea several times in the past, that every single animal that ever lived, lived (none died I assume you mean?) until the flood.. that is what you are saying right? Please explain how that is possible and where you got the idea. I remain stumped as to exactly what it is you are trying to imply to this day. People died before the flood, but animals did not? is that it? did all the trees and grasses all live up until the flood too? Please, really explain, I am truly confused by this one idea of yours by now.





...


Quote
I don't think you'll like it, but here is a list of Biblical inconsistencies.


You're right, i don't like it. Whoever wrote it has very poor comprehension and twists things to suit his own meaning, even lies to try to make a point. dumb. Just read the verses he points out and you'll see it right off. His claims are erroneous. i didn't read all of them btw, just enough till I yawned. Funny how literally he twists things too, after his claim concerning literal intepretation. stuffed shirt, bag of hot air, no consequences to the bible at all. Perhaps an example of self-delusion though.


Quote
I've asked you a number of times how you would explain the sorting of the fossil record across the world. There's also genetics and nested hierarchies.


well you can keep repeating those ideas if you'd like, i will just continue to repeat, THERE IS NO SORTED FOSSIL RECORD ACROSS THE WORLD. Did you understand that this time?

Gosh if there were a sorted, fully consistent fossil record you should have at least impressed us with a knowledgable web page or a very thick book about it by now, photos included. it's a myth, Linda. urban legend.

umm.... There's also genetics and nested hierarchies... genetics.. as in genes and dna... which point to intelligent design much more strongly than to evolution... nested hierarchies... not sure exactly what you mean with that term, sort of like the phylogenic tree you mean? But as regards a species? Types of a kind you mean? Very biblical.



Quote
If you mean Reverend Baugh, I've explained why his man and dino prints are not valid evidence.


who? never heard of him. You might want to reread some of the many previous threads if you have so quickly forgotten about all the flood evidence and anomolies to the million year etc dates used to determine the age of fossils and stuff,,, and bunches of other things like trilobytes.. and carbon dating... you really do forget quickly. you know, if archeologists go to Hiroshima and start using any type of radioation dating method at some time in the very far off future, you do know what they willl find right? Very young bones. Anything can be dated as such and such an age, depending not on the age of the item at all, but according to how much radiation it has been exposed to, or not exposed to, overtime. and of course there is more radiation in some places than there is others duh. and of course there was a lot less radiation before in the atmosphere before 1945 (just one example, don't get carried away with it) so everything older than that is well, really old and everything after much younger, more radiation,,, according to radiation dating..no brainer. dating methods stink. But we've been over that before too. double duh. but if it works for your worldview, go ahead hang onto it.


you are playing with me just trying to make me waste my precious time I am kind of aware of that you know. you think it's funny for people to have to tell you the same thing over and over and over and over... i know that, i think you are... well you know, someone who just likes to waste people's time.


Quote
CTD started lumping Einstein in with his "lying scientists make stuff up" claims and I wanted to address that. I do know something about it because I studied the bare basics in school and have just read a book called The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature by Heinz Pagels, because I am interested in energy medicine and wanted to understand more about its relationship to quantum physics. It also put me in a position to say that Einstein was not pulling stuff out of his hat. Do I pretend to suddenly be an expert, or to have understood every single thing in the book? Of course not. But I thought the Wikipedia article made it clear why space-time can be seen to function as a fourth dimension when relativity theory is applied. The actual curvature of spacetime, and time dilation effects, have been observed. Space and time are intricately connected.


right. But the article has absolutely nothing to do with quantum physics so you mentioned it as a link to learn about quantum physics for what reason? oh right now I remember to impress the crowd.

psst linda, no crowd... take a look around. you can drop the act einstein umm curly...