"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank wrote:
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 14:45:34 +0000 (UTC), in free.christians
>>> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
>>> <bvgf61$p19$3@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> If they all look alike to you, then you've probably been looking at
>>>> Haplochromis
>>>>
>>>> On the species blurring bit, I really don't have a problem. Kinds
>>>> are not crossed. Several genera, including the larger genera,
>>>> could all have been one Kind at the time of the Flood.
>>>
>>> Despite the fact that creationists refuse to give any testable
>>> definition of kind normally, your apparent definition of kind is
>>> impossible and inconsistent with the evidence.
>>>
>>> You also forgot that the evidence shows that there was no global
>>> flood.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Where did all that sand in the Sahara come from then?
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> BWA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Good one, Davey. ROFLMAO!
>
>
> Oh wait . . . you mean you're NOT kidding . . . . ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> And also the evidence of global flood legends from all over the
>> world?
>
>
>
>
>
> (1) why don't any of those legends agree with each other, Davey.
'Cos of the evolution of mouth-to-mouth tales.
> (2) why don't desert people like the Berbers have a flood legend,
> Davey.
'Cos they forgot to write it down, and now can't remember it.
> (3) why was the Gilgamesh flood legend written long before the Bible's
> version, Davey.
Says them...
> (4) why isn't there any geological evidence of any global flood,
> Davey.
'Cos you didn't find any
> (5) why do old-earth creationists think all your flood evidence is a
> crock of shit, Davey.
Why do they call themselves 'creationist' anyway...
> (6) why should we care about your uninformed opinion on the matter
> anyway, Davey.
Well, I'd say that you're obviously a slacker with nothing better to do than
keep bugging people with the same dumb questions over and over again. So
that is what makes you care.
Ariaan
PS Yeah I know that it's a re-re-re-post
|
|