Religion Forums - Discuss and Debate Religion

Kev, I can be a creationist if you want. Just be warned though, I will be jumping to special pleading instantly.

(06-01-2012 08:51 AM)Visqueen Wrote: [ -> ]Are you trying to summon the ghost of iholdit?

Or Kaleb?

(06-01-2012 08:10 AM)kevlar Wrote: [ -> ]I'm wondering if there are any creationists (ID) left on this forum and if they have found any science to support their claims?

Depends whether you’re talking your science or real science
Real science (physics) would say ‘rolling stones do not turn square, whereas your science suggests they do

(06-02-2012 04:02 AM)Christopher Ball Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-01-2012 08:10 AM)kevlar Wrote: [ -> ]I'm wondering if there are any creationists (ID) left on this forum and if they have found any science to support their claims?

Depends whether you’re talking your science or real science
Real science (physics) would say ‘rolling stones do not turn square, whereas your science suggests they do

Yeah I know and the pebbles grow until they become pyramids.

(06-02-2012 04:02 AM)Christopher Ball Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-01-2012 08:10 AM)kevlar Wrote: [ -> ]I'm wondering if there are any creationists (ID) left on this forum and if they have found any science to support their claims?

Depends whether you’re talking your science or real science
Real science (physics) would say ‘rolling stones do not turn square, whereas your science suggests they do

I know this has been said before, but show where it is said that either of these things are true, or you are making [censored] up.

Chris I thought you were asked to keep your zany theory to the already existing threads that deal with it, and stop trying to insert it into every thread you post in.

Damn it, I fell right into it again on yet another thread didn't I?

(06-02-2012 04:02 AM)Christopher Ball Wrote: [ -> ]Depends whether you’re talking your science or real science

(06-02-2012 10:01 AM)Visqueen Wrote: [ -> ]Chris I thought you were asked to keep your zany theory to the already existing threads that deal with it, and stop trying to insert it into every thread you post in.

Kevlar wanted to know whether there were any creationists left on this forum … My answer was Yes … sorry to offend

The thread also asked whether they had found any science to support their claims … again’ the answer was Yes, again’ sorry to offend

It seems you don’t like real science so let’s talk your science …
Physics, mathematicians, wanted to know … How long it took that pebbled beach to look like that sandy beach.

They put a time-span to this erosion process and the conclusion was … aeons.

Their encyclopedia quoted … ‘Solid rock breaks down by the wind, rain and frost leaving the more resistant rocks in large fragments, where, through the ages, grind against each other along the seashore to become gravel and sand’.
Ages = Aeons

They also quoted that geology is the backbone of science and everything that throws light on the history of mankind falls within the field of geology.

This geological time-span, aeons, was used as a time-span for their theory of evolution.

From geology to evolution, both became suggestive, together they became conclusive.

Based on this scientific conclusion’ RmD was born

Am I right or wrong?

I won’t hold my breath for a sensible answer

Christopher, it was funny six months ago. Now it's annoying.
 
To repeat Vis - you were asked to keep your zany theory to the already existing threads that deal with it, and stop trying to insert it into every thread you post in.