oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
What i dont understand, and please do enlighten me, is why exactly the preponderence of evidence certanly (and you must admit this, fossils etc, at least enougth to convince non-christian scientists around the world with no axe to grind or preconcieved basis on how things are, and thousands of them) points to an ancient earth yet somehow you *know* it's not.
If it's really 6000 years old then why's gawd gone to all the trouble of doing it's best to make it look much older, so much so that even creationists studying rock formations originally *had* to admit they were wrong? Is it to seperate the true belivers from the non-believers or something?
sorry about this to the regulars, i'm sure you are groaning, but i want to know!
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
