Because you are trying to apply the localized flood story to my literal flood argument. It's apples to oranges. TE doesn't believe in a global, literal flood. hence why I'm starting to believe you think YEC = Theistic evolution. You keep applying theistic arguments to YEC as proof I talked about theistic despite me stating literal.Please point out how my "argument" was awful?
See above. Less fail next post. Thanks.Then you go off on some tangent that has nothing to do with my direct comment.
And 6 minutes later you responded to my first post. Which explicitly discussed Literal Creationism. Which you have gone on record saying contains no references to YEC.I am not pretending anything. I came in late and responded to you saying.
Still waiting for you to admit you screwed that one up.
See the post above that one. Post 100, the one you are now pretending doesn't exist because it blows your entire argument out of the water. Furthermore, I referenced Dr. Snelling who is a literal creationist, posting articles for Answers in Genesis that denies evolution entirely and pushes a YEC only view. Do you damn research next time. Seriously.Ikari's statement was about evolution and abiogenesis, not YEC. Your comment makes no mention of it. I responded going by the ACTUAL definition of the word
Just admit you are wrong and we can move on.
Your inability to figure out despite the blatant explicit discussion of YEC is not my fault.Notice how none of my responses had anything at all to do with YEC directly? You made a fallacy argument and I pointed that out with the correct definition.
Let's see. Outright stating literal creationism doesn't mean literal to you. Discussing a literal creationist by NAME doesn't mean literal to you. If you cannot get the hint with me STATING literal, that's not my fault.
Thus, why I stated you may have a reading comprehension problem. If so, I apologize for being a prick to you.
Okay. I am sorry for picking on someone who has a significant mental disability that reduces his ability to comprehended written English.OK. I am sorry my comments made yours look dumb.
Literal to you apparently means not literal.
How did I lie?Uh why do you lie?
Please feel free to point out where I did this?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1059328591 (In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?)
You quoted me saying this:
to which you replied:But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are. <--- You implyed ignorant And some are truly retarded. This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time.
Too bad I stated this:Nothing about YEC etc. My responce was...
OOPS. To which you are now pretending you never said that.argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true
You can apologize any time now.
See above. You screwed up. Apologize.Well more personal attacks. Have you no argument at all?