Search results

No evolutionist ever said they did. That's my point. Arguing against evolution by agreeing with evolutionists seems rather futile.

And every evolutionist would agree with you--that for every fossil, those animals that were left as fossils never changed into anything else before they died. If you want to argue against evolution, you should do it with something they DON'T agree with. Absolutely! I'm just saying that your...

Individual fossils don't change, except to crumble, perhaps. But if you were to find a fossil of your husky and above that a fossil of its chinook offspring, you would have exactly what you are saying doesn't exist. The cause of the sequence would not be evolution, but would be breeding. If...

Hi CC. One thing that helps immensely is to use the "Quote" or "Reply" features so we know what you are referring to, and so those that you are replying to can get a notification about your response.

You might want to define what you mean by "creature". If a kind of animal rather than a specific being (like your pet dog), then you might be mistaken about these "changes". Even a specific animal changes over time: grows bigger, gains or loses hair, gains or loses teeth, gets old and wrinkled...

Otherwise known as "blasphemy." At least you admit it--that "science" is a God that requires defending.

That's what @redfern was saying--the tantrums you like to express to everyone are irrelevant.

I've been thinking about this some more. The biblical account of"Let theire be light" aligns with the current secular theory of the photon phase of the Big Bang. Separation of light from darkness requires more than just objects to block the light. It requires the light to only come from some...

Lol. But not the history of scientific history, right? Since current "scientific history" is vastly different from previous centuries' "scientific history". Like the Greek's scientific history, that said the universe has always existed, or the pre-Copernican scientific history that said the sun...

Seems to me that a little shade is exactly what would have been needed. But are you suggesting a symbolic or allegorical alternative?

Why does that "matter" in this discussion?

Now we know the answer

And Cuban PM.

I think someone else gave a reasonable answer--shadows...most likely as the primeval photons converted to other types of matter. This is conjecture, but it fits well enough with both secular and biblical descriptions to not need any symbolism.

that was before the light and darkness were separated.

Well said!

Yes, based on how his explanations fit 1. the text of the bible, and 2. the evidence examined in nature (geology, astronomy, etc.). I'm not sure how one would go about comparing two authorities (or sets thereof), except to compare their explanations. And their explanations can be compared to...

I don't know your position on the hydroplate theory espoused by many here, but those "many" would call Walt Brown an authority, though not an infallible one. Anna has the right to seek out authorities for her position, too. These might be rabbis, or Hebrew experts, or her uncle who told her...

not when you are talking about what meanings the words convey rather than what the words are. But your understanding of its meaning is not necessarily God's Word, nor even inspired. Ever heard of medical science? Then your claim of "nobody" was incorrect. No, I'm rightfully pitting your...

Then you can't use the Bible, as it was written by men. Its claims of inspiration are also written by men. The translations we use were translated by men. And I would wager that your understanding of Gen 1 is not original with you. I'm not trying to say you're wrong about Gen 1--I'm in...