Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[Zen Badger]

(24th February 2012 00:19)chipan Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 18:40)Rhythm Wrote:  You have to argue your evidence in? You argue for your conclusions, you don't bicker about what is or is not evidence. No special considerations will be given. Your evidence must stand up to the same scrutiny that all other evidence stands up to. There will be no "paranoid conspiracy theorist classification" of evidence. Creation rags are not science, they are political organs.

I am not going to play in this double standard game. A geologists can say that cliff took millions of years to form based on nothing but observation but when someone walks around and says that took days to form all the scientist does is ridicule. The only reason those cliffs form Mt St Helens isn't guessed to have formed gradually is because they saw it happen. Otherwise they would say "oh look a cliff, that's a gradual process." I made a prediction that I would present evedince that these long processes can be shortened and all I got was "no." if that's the case nothing I say can change your minds because you are not open to new ideas. This process happened therefore it's plausable.

The Mt St Helens cliffs were formed when water cut through thick layers of soft fresh ash deposited by the eruption. It might as well have been sand.
There is a huge difference between that and something like granite which takes millions of years to erode the same amount.



Next?