Search results

What? You had a contentious relationship with someone here?

Uh...I think it was to the people who didn't need it.

If the earth existed before the Son, then it wasn't made by Him, yet John tells us everything that was made was made by Him. How do you reconcile that? Yet that's not the kind of light described in Gen 1. It was light that could be blocked, so it can't be Jesus. So you're saying you are so...

And He was in the beginning with God, and He was God. [Jhn 1:1-3 KJV] 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Was water made...

Take it literally that the Son wasn't with the Father before the world began? Take it literally that there were waters before the one who created the waters was created? Genesis 1:2-3 (KJV) 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit...

So you would advocate for the symbolical view of Gen 1, right?

Genesis 1:4 (KJV) And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Which leads to an allegorical understanding of Gen 1, since the omnipresent light is then separated from darkness.

This was a good episode. I remember other Christians, before most states changed the definition of marriage, arguing the same "functional" reasoning as Walsh was doing, or the traditional reasoning, to little avail--because the functional reason fails with senior citizens who want to marry, and...

Because a single creature can't evolve into another creature. Evolution, as a theory, requires creatures to have offspring that are different from the original, even if only slightly, which then also have offspring that are slightly different than the 2nd creature, etc., etc. Each of those...

But we don't fix that problem by making new problems.

Yes, but if we didn't have examples of Lepidoptera and frogs living today, one would be hard pressed to determine from the fossil record that they were the same kind of creature (caterpillar/moth or tadpole/frog). But even still, finding a tadpole and a frog in fossilized forms would not mean...

This has to be the weakest argument you've ever proposed (and you definitely have proposed some weak ones before).

That's a different meaning for "rational".

Agreed. That's why I think it's important to be as precise as possible in our challenges.

Which is the exact criterion @justatruthseeker was requesting. "Any creature changing into another creature". Most evolutionists would deny that such would fit their definition of evolution, so it's of little use, but that's what he asked for.

Sure. Haven't you ever seen a frog with a tail?

Butterflies and moths both change from one creature into another over time. Tadpoles change into frogs. The fossil record probably has examples of these changes, but I haven't looked, since we can observe the changes directly.

Apparently you're not really "just a truth seeker".

I agree wholeheartedly with your post here, but no evolutionist would say that an ape evolved into a man. Words are important, and we should use them accurately, because evolutionists don't always.