[Coladam] between earthquakes and hurricanes...

Tommy Scott tscott at magiqueproductions.com
Wed Oct 31 04:19:08 CET 2012


Yep, that was a rant alright. All false of course. I'll trust God's word 
over your science any day of the week.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities---his 
eternal power and divine nature---have been clearly seen, being 
understood from what has been made, so that people are*without**excuse*.
Romans 1:20

You have science, I have God. He's never been wrong. Science is always 
finding itself to be wrong. I rest my case.

God bless and have an awesome day.
Tommy

On 10/30/2012 7:29 PM, Rob Bairos wrote:
> "Just ask science how to make a seed, or where the evidence is of any
> civilizations older than several thousands of years, or how a butterfly is
> explained through evolutionary processes, or any number of other things
> that confounds science."
>
> Just to be clear. You're confusing science with faith.
>
> Faith is beginning with conclusions and reinterpreting (or ignoring)
> evidence
> to best suit those conclusions.
>
> Science is looking at the evidence, and formulating models that best
> describe
> the evidence, and modifying those models as new evidence arises.
> Scientists careers are defined by how well they can poke holes in other
> scientists theories and/or keep their own theories from being debunked.
> The fact that scientific models adapt to new evidence is not its weakness,
> but
> its strength.  The fact that you think there's a easily refuted web of lies
> regarding
> basic geology speaks to your ignorance (and arrogance) on the topic of
> scientific
> investigation.
>
> As for your specific questions of things that 'confound science', lack of
> knowledge
> doesn't imply 'science is wrong' anymore than a 14th century peasant could
> dismiss
> the scientific method because atomic theory was not yet understood.
>
> Anyways: There are countless examples of multiply-corroborated man made
> tools
> dating well past the 6 thousand years ago your specific tradition insists
> (actually
> best estimates around 2.6 million years ago).  And what specifically about
> the
> butterfly 'disproves' evolution?
>
> Sorry for the rant, but if you're going to push non-coleco agenda here, at
> least
> try to be factual.
>
> -Rob
> _______________________________________________
> Coladam mailing list
> Coladam at adamcon.org
> http://adamcon.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coladam
>
>



More information about the Coladam mailing list