Joined: May 2006
Nom, nom nom nom.
Notice that in my post (which floyd challenged) I qualified my point:
|"Reject Physics, if it claims that Genesis isn't LITERALLY "true" in all aspects. Reject Genetics if it says sheep don't change colors because of sticks placed near them, or reject Chemistry if it says that water cannot be *literally* turned into wine by instantaneous miraculous transmutation." |
By "literally" I am referring to Floyd's YEC-literalist views. But Floyd ABANDONS that suddenly?
To make the irrelevant claim that a non-literalist view can be compatible with deep time?
Who cares? the issue was YOUR literalist brand of thinking, Floyd. If you are NOT a YEC, then say so. If you are, then my point is perfectly apropos to YOUR YECist literalism.
But you tried to shift the goalposts?
FOR SHAME !!!111Shift!!1
HOW CAN YOU BE TRUSTED NOW IN ANYTHING YOU SAY?
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism