Search results

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.

Of course there is. There is no evidence of rape, so the verdict should be "not guilty." Why is this so hard for you?

Yes. It's either "guilty" or it's "not guilty." Did you think you could just make up things to replace the scenario that was presented and pretend to be a useful part of the conversation?

Quiet at the front. Give the slowpokes a chance to answer.

Which should immediately prompt you to say "not guilty." Also, what evidence in his scenario would justify a conviction?

If anyone were to say guilty in Fred's scenario, they would face the death penalty under a real justice system, as would the two women.

You prattled on about your own scenario and ignored his. It was over in one word, but you screwed it up and it took you five pages to show where the answer actually lay. Be specific. What would it take, in your view, for the court to say guilty, given Fred's scenario? We're all happy that...