Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mel221 who wrote (21203)	2/12/2012 4:16:22 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Well, I doubt you can find anyone who has ever considered natural arches to be other than natural. To the creationist, that which is not attributed to fact, is attributed to God. Nope. A creationist who saw images carved on rock (like Egyptian heiroglyphics or Sumerian cuneiform) would assume humans wrote something there even if he didn't know what it said. The theories suggest these arches take millions of years and specialized geologic conditions to be created. (sounds a lot like the difficulties with origin of life studies at the present time). A creationist being consistent would not accept these theories.The only conclusion left is that God created the arches as part of creation. Wrong on all counts. First off, we don't know how long it would take to create natural arches. There are major geological features in Washington state that were formed in a matter of days. Second, reason can tell us that natural processes can produce natural arches. We KNOW the natural processes that could do that. Not so with the origin of software. You're propping up a bogus strawman and knocking it over.