teddyv

Welcome to a pluralistic society where the price you pay to freely worship means accepting that there are those who do not share the same convictions but are granted the same rights and freedoms. Please demonstrate that Disney "has become pedophile's paradise".

What is with this sudden conservatives use of "grooming" these days? Is it just implying your "enemies" are pedophiles now? Interestingly, it was pointed out that the current woke/LGBT-outrage is likely an intentional conservative pivot to another moral panic since the overturn of Roe v Wade. Gotta get some new red meat out there to keep the money flowing.

These are supplies and arms that have already been bought and paid for.

Heh. The meddling here was not the US government, but of American Evangelical pastors "advising" the Ugandan government that resulted in these laws. I can't vouch for this source one way or another, but it does touch on the issues, generally comporting to what I recall from back in the day.

These laws in Uganda are a result of American meddling.

It's definitely that, and a lot more. But that's for another thread.

Target does not stock the item in question. This is now become guilt by association. Get a grip, people.

I presume you are Christian, so you do "go by a religion". But anyway... Anyway, the NAR does not have rules or laws as such (it's not a denomination) but rather a 'view' of the church structure, or at least what it's adherents believe it should be. The post I quoted is a fairly common bit of language that comes out of the NAR, hence my curiosity.

Out of curiosity, are you in any way involved in the New Apostolic Reformation?

I understand the issue was mainly around the specific planning and intentions to commit the invasion of the Capitol on Jan 6. As per the quote from Garland in the OP: “The United States proved at trial that the Oath Keepers plotted for months to violently disrupt the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next.”

Great. I have run into some Americans over the years that were woefully uninformed about their northern neighbours. Yeah, your dollar goes a lot further. We went down to California over spring break, and it was pricy.

You're not in Europe, but you'll blend in a bit more. Ah nice. Okanagan Valley. My sister lives in Penticton, south of Kelowna. We live a good 10 hour drive north and west of there. I'm not sure if this was a serious question. If so, Canada is part of the Commonwealth nations but we are sovereign, although the British monarchy are still the official head of state. British Columbia's name goes back to the time of colonization. I'm not even sure why they chose Columbia - probably in reference to the Columbia River which originates in the south/central-eastern part of BC. Britain had the colony on Vancouver Island and quickly moved to organize and officially colonize the main part of BC during the early BC goldrush as many American gold seekers were streaming up from California.

I think it makes you tourists. :⁠-⁠) Whereabouts in BC you heading to?

True for relative dating methods. Yes, for absolute dates. Although absolute dates are usually determined from intrusive bodies, not sediments, then dates can be assigned through stratigraphic principles. No evidence for this other than creationist speculation. That is speculation based on something, but what? Check the math out. So, they predicted wrong. Nothing wrong with an incorrect hypothesis. What points? Appeal the authority. <snicker>

The Scriptures are trustworthy as God's revelation to Himself to humanity and the story of His working to redeem and restore his creation, among other things. I have no problem with one accepting Genesis 1-11 in particular as a literal rendering of Creation and the early history of humanity if you are theologically compelled to, and as I have said elsewhere so many times, there are powerful transcendent truths to Genesis beyond a simplistic narrative of the creation. Perhaps that's what bothers me most - that YEC (i.e. Ken Ham) tend to overlook the important things rather than focussing on their narrow absolutist view. That's reasonable. The question then becomes that why can I, who presumably holds a Biblical worldview, have no issues with geological timescales or evolutionary processes? Does that negate my salvation? So you are a liar too then? Why should I trust your interpretation? Since it is just that - an interpretation rooted in a very modern counter-reaction to scientific discoveries. You see we can go back on forth on this easily enough. This sounds defamatory to claim to any brother or sister who simply has different views on creation. Or are intentionally putting stumbling blocks in front of others. Or are you the final arbiter of what the right truth is? I hope not, because you have not demonstrated any practical knowledge for what you decry. Not sure why you bring Jesus' point about marriage into the mechanics of Creation. Rather specious argument. A rather arrogant presumption.

I sort of agree, although I am sympathetic to those who are crushed under student debt. I would prefer some sort of incentivization of debt relief. I'm not sure it still exists here, but some years ago, the provincial government would forgive up to 25% of a student loan per year if that person would move and work in a small rural community, as those places often have difficulty drawing in people like that, particularly in the healthcare world where most would prefer to work in the bigger cities and towns.

Them's fighting words!

@Retrobyter As long as... "Just know this: The RELIGION of secular, humanistic atheism that regulates what passes for "science" these days SUPPRESS the truth of this evidence, because they don't WANT people to know the truth and critically investigate the claims that have been fabricated as "science" to confuse people - students and faculty and lay people alike - and BLIND their eyes to the truth of God's Word. Why? Because they don't want to think about being held accountable to God!" ...remains your general attitude, then I don't think it will be possible for us to dialogue on these matters. The waters are completely poisoned. Suffice it to say, this is not my experience within the field of geology, though I am not in the academic realm. My interactions with academics does not comport to your view, at all. I know Christians, agnostics and atheists in this business. None of them are involved with it because they wish to suppress the truth or wish to lead people from the truth. I suppose these is someone, in someplace, sometime that had such a motivation, but it would be a vanishingly small subset of the geological community. My colleagues and I are in the business to discover and develop mineral deposits utilizing the best scientific methods we have. As a professional, I am bound by a code of ethics as well, which do not make any religious claim or test. I believe you are making a fundamental error in attributing motives that stem from a person's philosophical or religious position that might be influenced by the sciences, rather than addressing the actual scientific evidence itself.

While one can certainly question the morality of it all, a prostitute able to charge 700 euros an hour does not seem desperate.

Addressed previously. Different rocks, some unconsolidated at Mt. St. Helens. If it took 4 years at Mt St Helens, then the Grand Canyon would have to have been even less. Lithified. This is important but a bit tangential to the topic here. If all sediments are post-Flood, that has some rather big implications. If all Grand Canyon sediments were laid down post Flood, then they needed to be lithified. We are dealing with limestones, formed in quiescent ocean basins, mudstones to sandstones, formed in more shallow areas proximal to the continental shelves, and eolian (windblown) sandstones formed in dry above water conditions. Only then can the Flood waters be cutting through these sediments to create the canyon itself. If you cannot see the timeline issue here, then I'm not sure what to say. If we say these sediments are Pre-Flood (essentially created as-is by God in the creation, you get out of one problem and step into another. The Bible is pretty silent on all these things outside of Genesis as well. Earthquakes are mentioned here and there. I'm not aware of any mention of volcanoes anywhere (possibly Mt. Horeb, but it's not specifically mentioned). The heat problem must be addressed here. AiG recently published: Heat Problems Associated with Genesis Flood Models—Part 4: Heat Deposited by Magmatic Activity source From the conclusions: "The main conclusion of this article is that the total amount of geological heat deposited in the formation of the ocean floors and of LIPs [Large Igneous Provinces] is overwhelming: it cannot be removed from the biosphere within a biblically-compatible timescale by known natural processes. Using CPT [Catastrophic Plate Tectonics]-style Flood models as our 228 William J. Worraker theoretical framework, no more than a tiny fraction of the total could have been released into the atmosphere and oceans during and after the Flood. Given that the highest bulk ocean temperature in the early Cenozoic did not exceed 13°C in contrast with the present-day value of ~2°C (Worraker 2018; the lower figure of 2°C may be taken as a representative pre-Flood minimum temperature), the total heat absorbed by the oceans, earth’s main environmental heat sink, would have been of order 6×1025 J at most, assuming a thermal capacity of 5.5×1024 J/K (as estimated above). This is only 0.04% of the total heat deposition: the remaining 99.96% must have been removed or absorbed elsewhere. It seems that this must have been accomplished by some special, hitherto unrecognized mechanism." I underlined the last bit, because it seems they are really running out of options. It's not a bad statement on the face of it, as there are lots areas of discovery that we are still trying to understand mechanisms, but it downplays the magnitude of the problem.

If it was a truly worldwide event that is responsible for much of the geomorphological landscape of the earth, then it is very well hidden. The last 150 years of geological mapping and knowledge has not presented a global coherent example of such an event. If it was a real event, then, as the current evidence stands, you must invoke the miraculous to have it actually occur but leave no obvious trace of it. If that's the case, then so be it, but then why complicate matters by using naturalistic methods? It only opens it up to scientific scrutiny. I don't really see anything wrong with the opening of the Bible in the realm of myth or imagery borrowed from the contemporary cosmology (this is not the same as a fairy tale for those who insist on building strawmen). Ironic, for YEC (e.g. AiG, CMI, ICR) seems caught in the trap of rationalism and modernity by reading the Bible as a modern piece of historical narrative.

Russia Today is the Russian propaganda service.

Ok. I accept the first statement as well. The narrative.of the Flood is certainly catastrophic but any evidence of it it appears to be hidden from us. I don't have any issue with anyone accepting the Flood as a divine miracle since that moves it out of the realm of scientific inquiry.

Spelling error. Should have been lithified. Can't address other parts of the post at the moment.

What, in particular, convinces you?