Search results

Mind you, that's not surprising. When people deny their Creator, the only way they can maintain their rebellion is to avoid the truth at all costs.

What would sort this out is a rational discussion over the evidence. Unfortunately, such engagements typically start and end with the evolutionist asserting a logical fallacy.

It's like they live in a science fiction novel

I favor a life sentence under a rock the size of Krishna's butterball.

All this not not wot not is getting me giddy.

So, "not guilty" and "not not guilty." Like, simultaneously. My you are a bundle of contradictions, aren't you?

So "guilty" then.

Yep. "Time" is always cited as a useful part of the discussion by evolutionists. It is almost never relevant. Processes operate according to the supply of their necessary ingredients, not because of how much time passes.

The OP. I think we're just talking past each other a bit. No fault, just the limits of text. :) Mmm. Yes. Yep. The cement problem is vast. Literally every sedimentary rock had to be formed in water containing large concentrations of usually calcium carbonate. Those conditions are rare...

So, "not guilty" then, wot?

Not a failure at all. I was speaking very broadly about the assertion I quoted. You seem to be more focused on the subject in particular. From a broad, philosophical point of view, I do not try to use anything as evidence for God's existence — or, how did you put it? Of creation. Geology is...

So, not not guilty? My, but you're a bundle of contradictions.

So, "not guilty" then? Nope. You could deal with a hypothetical. Of course there is. Consistently noncommittal and unresponsive.

So you think he should be found guilty now? If you can't deal with the one he provided, it's your failure, not his. So, "not guilty" now? Not even close. Oh. "Not guilty" again? Make up your mind.

So, "not guilty," right? Nope. The scenario proposed a trial. Regardless of how unlikely you think that might be, to respond sensibly, you have to address the scenario as presented. Or you could just ignore it. Now, you do get that right? Right? If I'm walking you through this too fast then...

So, "not guilty" then, right?

So... "Not guilty," then?

So... "Not guilty," then?

So... "Not guilty," then?

This isn't a very insightful bit of reasoning. Literally everything that exists is evidence that God is real. Without Him, no physical entity has any explanation for why it exists.