From: Bill Payne (bpayne15@juno.com)
Date: Sun Apr 27 2003 - 12:41:32 EDT
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:17:01 -0000 "Michael Roberts" writes:
> Can anyone give me one creationist argument which doesnt turn out to be
> false or a semantic game when it is scrutinised?
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:12:30 -0500 I wrote:
****************
*/This/* 'one creationist argument' is now limited to one paraconformity
in the Grand Canyon. I am simply asking that we address this one feature
and tell me the best-fit-with-the-data explanation. We have a gap of
*/millions/* of years and erosional features limited to 8 feet or less!
[snip...] Instead of putting the monkey on my back, tell me how you
propose to erode (bevel) the entire Devonian section without lacerating
the Cambrian Muav?
*****************
Based upon the silence since April 17, I am forced to conclude that I
have successfully responded to Michael's challenge. I appreciate those
who engaged this thread, and admit I learned more than probably anyone
else.
So, Michael, would you like to quit while you're behind or shall we
scrutinize more YEC arguments?
Bill
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 27 2003 - 12:42:00 EDT