HELP!

TC,Not that I disagree with Nos 482 in general, but ol' TC has shown himself to be a not-so-typical creationist, IMHO. I have seen him adjust his opinion due to the weight of evidence. A trait not usually associated with creationists. I wonder why there, & not here sometimes..... I think, one day, TC will end up accepting there is no evidence for the flood, & that there IS evidence for evolution. TC, I suspect, will give me a verbal thrashing for suggesting such an idea, but I've seen you change TC, & I approve, & it's not such a great projection, after all. There is, IMHO, no intellectual dichotomy of being christian AND accepting evolution. After all, most christians globally manage this. It does mean that the bible can't be taken literally, but there you go...TC, I've locked horns with you so many times in the past, you may think me rude, offensive, etc, & you'd be prolly right. But I've observed you. You accept the requirements of the scientific method, observation, testing, & whatnot. You DO roll your eyes at the snide disinformation that is perpetuated by the major creationist organisations. I think, one day, you'll see your way through it all. It's just a matter of time BTW, how did the geology "paper" come along? Any results?Forgive my projection.Best wishes,Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Nice to see you again Mark . I have and expect to continue enjoying your input in this forum. In taking you literally for your comment that I 'will end up accepting there is no evidence for the flood, & that there IS evidence for evolution', it would be more accurate to say: 'will end up accepting that the evidence does not add up to a global flood, & that the evidence is diagnostic for global common ancestry by Evolutionary development'. This of course is possible, however I am scientifically unable to say that the inverse may not be true.

---

Fair comment,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.