Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > UnReasonable Kansans thread

Pages: (341) < ... 281 282 283 284 285 [286] 287 288 289 290 291 ... >

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,15:39    Quote (JohnW @ July 11 2008,16:35) Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,13:31) You may not want to point out the google ranking of Browns website, Ftk. Google calculates page rank based on how many people link to it. 99% of people linking to Browns stuff are doing it so they can laugh their asses off. I have no idea whether that's true, but if it's not, it hardly helps FTK.  If the high ranking was entirely due to Brown admirers, all that would show is that there are a lot of clueless people on the Internet.  I know that already. Well, I'm sure its not completely true. I exaggerated a bit. Maybe even enough to overcome the people laughing are the fundies like FTK spamming the link everywhere. That doesn't equal interest, and certainly not among the people who can actually evaluate the theory. FTK certainly isn't educated enough. Hell, I know most of the stuff and it's still difficult. Walt's style is incoherent and rambling, with one paragraph contradicting what he said in the last paragraph. Its very tiring. I'm starting to wonder if he's really all that sane, while trudging through this mess. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Jasper Posts: 76 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,15:46    Try these search terms: origin "asteroid belt" Brown's website doesn't show up in the first 100 pages. I would guess that Brown's website shows up first with FtK's choice of search terms because the word "asteroids" is in the title of the page.

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,15:52    Another thing I noticed - he also says the Kuipter belt and oort clouds were created by this process. The Oort cloud is almost a light year away. 1/4th of the way to the nearest star. It's also spherical, and not in the plane of Earth's orbit. That's going to be some major thrusting out where there isn't enough sunlight to create any thrust. The Oort cloud is also estimated to have a mass several times that of Earth. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,15:53    Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,13:39) Hell, I know most of the stuff and it's still difficult. Walt's style is incoherent and rambling, with one paragraph contradicting what he said in the last paragraph. Its very tiring. I'm starting to wonder if he's really all that sane, while trudging through this mess. It's a long time since I tried to figure out what Brown was on about, but I remember coming to similar conclusions.  I'm not qualified to judge where Brown lies on the "completely sane --> swivel-eyed drooling loony" continuum, but at the very least, he's manufacturing sciency-sounding justifications for an unshakable, impermeable-to-evidence belief, and doesn't mind how much science and logic he tramples on in the process.  I do feel that he's sincere and not a conscious fraud, though; that's why, despite what FTK says, he doesn't make me angry.  More like sad and despondent. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,15:56    I agree with Ftk. Enough of addlepate theory. Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,22:35) My assertion was that science would not have been hindered if the simliarities we observe in nature today had been considered part of the design paradigm rather than due to common descent.  The important discoveries science has made were due to simliarities between organisms, not the conclusion that everything in nature stems from a common blob.   Why are all scientific papers based on common descent?  Because it was deemed "fact" early on, and everyone based their evolutionary scenarios on that ideology.  Like I said, if common design had been the basis for similiarities and differences between organisms, our charts would differ somewhat from what we see today, but there would be no reason for science to have suffered as observations and predictions would still be readily accessible under the design paradigm. Don't just shoot your mouth off. Read the article I posted. It isn't long, it isn't technical and it is directly on point. Then describe how you think the research reported could have arisen from the notion of "common design." Specifically, in the example I cited, the question of a specific ancestor-decendent (or perhaps second or third "cousin") relationship between a particular pair of hominid species is inextricable from the larger notion of the radiation of related hominid species and the resulting distribution of features both geographically and over geological time. These relationships are not postulated and accepted on "faith"; rather the hypothesized relationships, coupled with a detailed understanding of Ethiopian geology, directly guided years of difficult field work, dictating the geological contexts and time horizons explored and the specimens sought and recovered. Moreover, the specimens recovered in turn provide direct empirical tests of those hypothesized relationships, and the results of those tests will guide further arduous fieldwork over the coming years. In short, this isn't matter of scientists arbitrarily and passively "interpreting the evidence" (that's the job of creationists of all stripes). This is hard, expensive fieldwork that consumes years of these investigators' lives, driven by and only comprehensible within the framework of common descent. Now describe how this work would be conducted from an assumption of "common design" or, worse, common design coupled with the assumption of a young earth. Where would the investigators look? Why? How would they organize the specimens upon which they stumble? Why? ETA: Alternatively, take up Dave's questions here, and in his previous posts. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,16:00    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 11 2008,13:56) Now describe how this work would be conducted from an assumption of "common design" or, worse, common design coupled with the assumption of a young earth. Where would the investigators look? Why? How would they organize the specimens upon which they stumble? Why? Well, if we assume common design, a young Earth, and an omnipotent designer who wanted to make things look exactly like common descent and an old Earth... -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,16:01    One other thing I thought of to ask Walt... He says all comets come from Earth. Does this include the occasional comets we get that fall in from the Oort cloud with periods of millions of years? Does he care to explain how they got there? How about hyperbolic comets, with enough energy to fling themselves completely out of the solar system. Where do those come from? I ask because the time it would take for these objects to leave Earth, go out to the oort cloud, and fall back down is longer than Walt's universe has existed. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,16:03    Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,15:52) Another thing I noticed - he also says the Kuipter belt and oort clouds were created by this process. The Oort cloud is almost a light year away. 1/4th of the way to the nearest star. It's also spherical, and not in the plane of Earth's orbit. That's going to be some major thrusting out where there isn't enough sunlight to create any thrust. The Oort cloud is also estimated to have a mass several times that of Earth. lol...no, that's not what he says.  Reread please. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,16:04    Quote (JohnW @ July 11 2008,17:00) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 11 2008,13:56) Now describe how this work would be conducted from an assumption of "common design" or, worse, common design coupled with the assumption of a young earth. Where would the investigators look? Why? How would they organize the specimens upon which they stumble? Why? Well, if we assume common design, a young Earth, and an omnipotent designer who wanted to make things look exactly like common descent and an old Earth... I think you have to take the red pill for that to work. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,16:10    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 11 2008,16:04) I think you have to take the red pill for that to work. And wash it down with plenty of koolaid... -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,16:13    Ftk: Quote The difference between you and I is that I am willing to read and consider the arguments from both sides and remain open minded. Why not, if you are willing to read the material, actually do so? We've already established in earlier exchanges that you often don't know the content of sources even within the antievolution side of things. It is because I read the antievolution literature that I came to the conclusion that it is replete with falsehoods and is a blemish on the Christian faith. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,16:15    Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,17:03) Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,15:52) Another thing I noticed - he also says the Kuipter belt and oort clouds were created by this process. The Oort cloud is almost a light year away. 1/4th of the way to the nearest star. It's also spherical, and not in the plane of Earth's orbit. That's going to be some major thrusting out where there isn't enough sunlight to create any thrust. The Oort cloud is also estimated to have a mass several times that of Earth. lol...no, that's not what he says.  Reread please. Quoth Walt Brown Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Sorry, maybe you should reread. And I'd still like to know why we regularly see comets with periods several times the time Walt's universe has existed. If they were blasted off Earth and are returning, they must have been traveling for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

csadams Posts: 124 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,16:19    Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,10:57) Start studying that of which you have no clue. You're the one who's trying to change the way science is taught in public school classrooms. But you refuse to learn the science.  Unlike those science professors you scorn, you haven't put forth the time and effort and expense to actually take oh, say, 60+ hours in any given science field, do original research and defend a dissertation.   M'kay, then. Letting you make science curriculum decisions would be like allowing Mr. Magoo to drive a schoolbus full of kids. -------------- Stand Up For REAL Science!

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,16:58    Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,06:09) Also, a response to someone else: While complex slingshot trajectories are possible, since we are talking about thousands of asteroids blasted off in mostly random directions all ending up in roughly the same circular orbit in the asteroid belt - I don't really consider that in the scope of the simulation. Another thing to keep in mind is my planets are most defiantly not rendered to scale. If they were they would be far smaller than a pixel. You think its hard to just lob a rock off and get near a planet in my sim - try it in reality. Yes, I understand this. I actually wrote my own 3d, to-scale spaceflight sim some years ago. My point was that orbital mechanics doesn't actually make it impossible, and your sim doesn't give you the precision to show how it could happen.  This is a nitpick for the sake of accuracy, not a real criticism. Your sim does give a good general feel for how orbits work, and makes the point that you can't simply fling an asteroid from earth to the belt. Even with your sim, I was able to boost my asteriods perihelion outside the orbit of mars using multiple Jupiter encounters: of course, it's hard to say how much of this is real, and how much is error due to big time steps. In any case, Brown doesn't claim either multiple encounters or direct injection. What he does say is truly batshit:         Quote Drag forces caused by water vapor and thrust forces produced by the radiometer effect concentrated asteroids in what is now the asteroid belt. He even claims to have a simulation that demonstrates this!

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,17:10    Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,16:15) Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,17:03)   Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,15:52) Another thing I noticed - he also says the Kuipter belt and oort clouds were created by this process. The Oort cloud is almost a light year away. 1/4th of the way to the nearest star. It's also spherical, and not in the plane of Earth's orbit. That's going to be some major thrusting out where there isn't enough sunlight to create any thrust. The Oort cloud is also estimated to have a mass several times that of Earth. lol...no, that's not what he says.  Reread please. Quoth Walt Brown   Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Sorry, maybe you should reread. And I'd still like to know why we regularly see comets with periods several times the time Walt's universe has existed. If they were blasted off Earth and are returning, they must have been traveling for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. No, Nerull, you honestly need to keep reading.  Are you sure you read the *entire* chapter, notes and followed all the links to other parts of his book?? Quote And I'd still like to know why we regularly see comets with periods several times the time Walt's universe has existed. If they were blasted off Earth and are returning, they must have been traveling for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. I'm sure he'd be more than willing to answer that for you if you give him a ring-a-ling. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,17:25    Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,18:10) Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,16:15) Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,17:03)   Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,15:52) Another thing I noticed - he also says the Kuipter belt and oort clouds were created by this process. The Oort cloud is almost a light year away. 1/4th of the way to the nearest star. It's also spherical, and not in the plane of Earth's orbit. That's going to be some major thrusting out where there isn't enough sunlight to create any thrust. The Oort cloud is also estimated to have a mass several times that of Earth. lol...no, that's not what he says.  Reread please. Quoth Walt Brown   Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Sorry, maybe you should reread. And I'd still like to know why we regularly see comets with periods several times the time Walt's universe has existed. If they were blasted off Earth and are returning, they must have been traveling for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. No, Nerull, you honestly need to keep reading.  Are you sure you read the *entire* chapter, notes and followed all the links to other parts of his book?? Quote And I'd still like to know why we regularly see comets with periods several times the time Walt's universe has existed. If they were blasted off Earth and are returning, they must have been traveling for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. I'm sure he'd be more than willing to answer that for you if you give him a ring-a-ling. Why do I need to read the entire book to address the point that Walt claims EVERY SINGLE COMET ASTEROID AND METEOR was created from rocks blasted off from the flood? This all adds up to several times the mass of Earth itself and even if you give him all his thrusting and dragging bullshit, it still doesn't work. No amount of endless footnotes will ever change that. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,17:33    Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,17:25) Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,18:10) Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,16:15)   Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,17:03)     Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,15:52) Another thing I noticed - he also says the Kuipter belt and oort clouds were created by this process. The Oort cloud is almost a light year away. 1/4th of the way to the nearest star. It's also spherical, and not in the plane of Earth's orbit. That's going to be some major thrusting out where there isn't enough sunlight to create any thrust. The Oort cloud is also estimated to have a mass several times that of Earth. lol...no, that's not what he says.  Reread please. Quoth Walt Brown     Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Sorry, maybe you should reread. And I'd still like to know why we regularly see comets with periods several times the time Walt's universe has existed. If they were blasted off Earth and are returning, they must have been traveling for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. No, Nerull, you honestly need to keep reading.  Are you sure you read the *entire* chapter, notes and followed all the links to other parts of his book??   Quote And I'd still like to know why we regularly see comets with periods several times the time Walt's universe has existed. If they were blasted off Earth and are returning, they must have been traveling for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. I'm sure he'd be more than willing to answer that for you if you give him a ring-a-ling. Why do I need to read the entire book to address the point that Walt claims EVERY SINGLE COMET ASTEROID AND METEOR was created from rocks blasted off from the flood? This all adds up to several times the mass of Earth itself and even if you give him all his thrusting and dragging bullshit, it still doesn't work. No amount of endless footnotes will ever change that. That's pretty much what I figured.  Selective reading. Sigh... -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,17:36    Can anybody in here guess who this is? HAIIIII   YAA!!!!!! :)   :)   :)   :)    :)    :)

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,17:37    Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Speaking of selective reading, do you know what the word 'all' means, FTK? Would you care to tell me how Walt is not saying that every asteroid, meteoroid, and comet in the solar system was created by the flood? -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,17:38    FTK wrote: Quote That's pretty much what I figured.  Selective reading. Sigh... Well, selective reading is lots better than selective selecting.   :)   My 2c.   :)

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,17:40    Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,18:33) That's pretty much what I figured.  Selective reading. Yeah but it's natural selective reading. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,17:44    Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,17:37) Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Speaking of selective reading, do you know what the word 'all' means, FTK? Would you care to tell me how Walt is not saying that every asteroid, meteoroid, and comet in the solar system was created by the flood? lol...no, I'll give you a reading assignment instead, because as soon as one question is answered, they'll be another.  You need to read it very, very, very thoroughly.  He covers a LOT of stuff in the chapter, notes and links.  Now get to it!   Love, Miss Crabtree -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

dnmlthr Posts: 565 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,17:50    Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,23:44) Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,17:37) Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Speaking of selective reading, do you know what the word 'all' means, FTK? Would you care to tell me how Walt is not saying that every asteroid, meteoroid, and comet in the solar system was created by the flood? lol...no, I'll give you a reading assignment instead, because as soon as one question is answered, they'll be another.  You need to read it very, very, very thoroughly.  He covers a LOT of stuff in the chapter, notes and links.  Now get to it!   Love, Miss Crabtree So Walt is directly contradicting himself by way of footnotes? What does that say about his credibility? -------------- Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,17:57    Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,17:37)   Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Speaking of selective reading, do you know what the word 'all' means, FTK? Would you care to tell me how Walt is not saying that every asteroid, meteoroid, and comet in the solar system was created by the flood? Perhaps all = not all in the same way that 6000 = 4.5 billion? -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Chayanov Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,18:00    You know, all the ones that were created by the flood, except for those that weren't. -------------- Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,18:01    Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,18:44) Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,17:37) Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Speaking of selective reading, do you know what the word 'all' means, FTK? Would you care to tell me how Walt is not saying that every asteroid, meteoroid, and comet in the solar system was created by the flood? lol...no, I'll give you a reading assignment instead, because as soon as one question is answered, they'll be another.  You need to read it very, very, very thoroughly.  He covers a LOT of stuff in the chapter, notes and links.  Now get to it!   Love, Miss Crabtree That one single point is enough to destroy all of it. The rest is irrelevant. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,18:03    Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,18:01) Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,18:44) Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,17:37)   Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Speaking of selective reading, do you know what the word 'all' means, FTK? Would you care to tell me how Walt is not saying that every asteroid, meteoroid, and comet in the solar system was created by the flood? lol...no, I'll give you a reading assignment instead, because as soon as one question is answered, they'll be another.  You need to read it very, very, very thoroughly.  He covers a LOT of stuff in the chapter, notes and links.  Now get to it!   Love, Miss Crabtree That one single point is enough to destroy all of it. The rest is irrelevant. Okey dokey, then....don't read it.  No skin off my back. Carry on. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,18:32    Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,17:44) Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,17:37) Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Speaking of selective reading, do you know what the word 'all' means, FTK? Would you care to tell me how Walt is not saying that every asteroid, meteoroid, and comet in the solar system was created by the flood? lol...no, I'll give you a reading assignment instead, because as soon as one question is answered, they'll be another.  You need to read it very, very, very thoroughly.  He covers a LOT of stuff in the chapter, notes and links.  Now get to it!   Love, Miss Crabtree Is that an...excuse so you don't have to explain it yourself? Because I can't get my hands on that book, so can you explain it? Apperantly you've read it.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,18:39    Quote (Assassinator @ July 11 2008,18:32) Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,17:44)   Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,17:37)   Quote All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood. Speaking of selective reading, do you know what the word 'all' means, FTK? Would you care to tell me how Walt is not saying that every asteroid, meteoroid, and comet in the solar system was created by the flood? lol...no, I'll give you a reading assignment instead, because as soon as one question is answered, they'll be another.  You need to read it very, very, very thoroughly.  He covers a LOT of stuff in the chapter, notes and links.  Now get to it!   Love, Miss Crabtree Is that an...excuse so you don't have to explain it yourself? Because I can't get my hands on that book, so can you explain it? Apperantly you've read it. Baby doll, you don't need a hard copy of the book.  The entire thing is on line, and the part everyone seems to be interested starts  here. Now, it will take some time to go through all of that as you need to keep paging through the thing, follow the links, read the notes, etc. Yes, it's much easier to keep track of everything with a hard copy, but it can be done on-line as well. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,18:40    Who the hell do I have to sleep with to get an edit button???!!!1111!!! -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Pages: (341) < ... 281 282 283 284 285 [286] 287 288 289 290 291 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard