CTD I've just got through showing Ron that there's no such thing as Evogeology. Please don't make me go through it all again.
I'm not making you do anything. There's only one kind of "geology" which says things are millions and billions of years old, and it is false. It employs whatever assumptions it deems convenient, misinterprets evidence, reasons in circles, and flat-out ignores evidence selectively.
Not familiar with "keeping mum" sorry.
Everyone knows better than to fall for that. Rather than trying to put words in my mouth, why not address what I actually say? Or spare your reputation at least, by keeping mum?
I said I could reference several different schools of science to show an old earth. To that you responded.
"You'll have to misdefine 'science', that's what you'll have to do."
I'm not sure how saying archeaology is science is misdefining science. If you feel I've put words in your mouth perhaps you could rephrase this to make more sense.
I never said it was misdefining 'science' to include archaeology.
And you misrepresent the discussion. The words of mine which you quoted were in response to.
"Hang on, I thought we just got over the whole "geology isn't science" misunderstanding. Now you're saying geology, biology, archeology and paleontology doesn't fall under the definition of 'science'?"
I have not said any of that. Everyone knows I haven't. I will not pretend I did, and so long as you persist in playing this silly game, you can expect to be called on it. It's your own credibility will suffer.
Evolutionist perversions of several branches of science exist. It does not mean the branches themselves unscientific.
No offence CTD, but I really don't want to have to read through an entire forum to find your opinion on history. I was hoping for a simple explanation, which you have given. Perhaps now you could explain how one goes about "discovery" in history?
You don't have to read through the entire forum. You can follow the link I provided, and it'll take you straight to the thread.
I prefer to discuss topics in the appropriate thread. That way, when people are interested in reading about something or discussing it, they stand a good chance of finding the thread(s) where the discussions are taking place.
Sorry CTD, that wasn't what I was hoping to get across. My point was that you can't prove God did it, even if He did.
If that was your point, you might have included it, and you wouldn't have needed to contradict yourself.
Your new claim? It's absurd. We have threads discussing what can and cannot be proven. Shall I copy & paste some of the posts here, or can you be troubled to discuss topics in the threads where your assertions have already been debunked?
Scoffers themselves prove they already know God exists by their behaviour. Why so many silly games, insulting everyone's intelligence continually? Why the arguments-from-spam? Why waste so much time with utter nonsense? It is known that actions do not proceed without motive, and motives aren't always difficult to assess.
If you think nothing can be proven, we have threads about that. If you think history can't prove anything, the thread is there. If you think God is exempt from being discovered, why not discuss it in an appropriate thread?
A couple more suggestions:http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2219http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2241