Quote: from yankeefan at 10:42 am on Dec. 5, 2006
Once again, you keep saying I take the Bible literally, thank you for ignoring my post and putting words in my mouth YET AGAIN. 
Do you think anyone doesn't think you don't take the bible literally after your 800+ worthless thread?
nd I DO NOT interpret the Bible literally, I interpret the passages in the Bible according to its context, which can be found via. exegesis.
except that those who do interpret though exegesis think you're full of shit and have no idea what exegesis is.
It would mean that whenever we look at the behavior of a very distant object, what we see happening never happened at all.
Crackpot suggests what we can see and test doesn't exist, more at 9
For instance, say we see an object a million light-years away which appears to be rotating; that is, the light we receive in our telescopes carries this information ‘recording’ this behavior. However, according to this explanation, the light we are now receiving did not come from the star, but was created ‘en route,’ so to speak.
Not only does your site not understand biology, but it doesn't understand astronomy. The light that we see was created though chemical reactions millions of year ago. En route? From what? magic?
If that were all, then it would be no problem at all to say that God could have created a whole chain of photons (light particles/waves) already on their way.
So yes, Magic created the light
And you wonder why we all think you're a idiot?
Setterfield's work did nothing of the sort that your website of lies says it did and it was rejected by ICR.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
Go home.
-------
Welcome to Election 2008: The End of American Solvency.
638 users online 
174687 members 
You have 1 new message.
Ad Free
Patron
