Search results

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...

So you must appeal to authority to make any claims about the creation week. What you're looking for is the fallacy of false appeal to authority (or appeal to false authority). The lexicon might be either, depending how good a lexicon it is. An eyewitness of a murder is appealed to to convict...

Possibly. Appeal to authority is not a fallacy. We all do it when we quote from the Bible, or consult a Hebrew lexicon/dictionary. Both are "authorities" on different levels, but for those of us who don't know Hebrew, or didn't directly experience the creation week, it's the only way we can have...

Ok.

@Right Divider Oh, right...you have me on ignore.

I have a question. Are you also bound by the same rules in your responses?

I'll do their work for them. One allegory I've heard is that "evening and morning" is a reference to a trajectory that's repeated multiple times, meaning from chaos to order. I.e., each "day" was an era where God was working with certain parts of creation until He had achieved the planned level...

No, I meant that they fudge or ignore the numbers to make it support their view, sometimes calling it "contamination", or scrounging for a different source. Agreed--they know how to do it, and yet they still want to retain the excuse when the results don't support their view. In coal? I was...

@Idolater: When they start with "It's pseudoscience," they've already rejected more than our elevator pitch.

Ballot box stuffing?

Notice that they have to start the wiki article by calling the view "pseudoscience." That's a PR move, not a "science" argument. It continues by arguing that there wasn't a global flood; it was a whole bunch of local floods in places all over the world. What exactly do you think we need to argue...

Yes, but since there are only the two elements involved (ratio of the two types of carbon), the difference could mean more time has elapsed or different starting point in time.

Money should never be laundered through a toilet.