Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hey creationists...attention please...!
Things were not created at the same time, there is an order to the creation, e.g., day one, two, three, etc...
within the span of the creation week
How long do you believe this is?
I said you'd been told many times that humans with dinosaurs would be a problem. You told me I was incorrect i.e. I was lying.i never said that you are a liar.
You have been told this is not correct many times, also. There have been detailed explanations of why it is incorrect, but you just don't listen. You are trolling. That is disrespectful and tiresome.if we can push tetrapod origin by say 20 my we can also push back human origin in 65 my. so unless you can show a real limit for pushing back fossils evolution will be just fine.
Maybe we examine God's word. When we see it rocks through history, and works in our lives, we can trust it.Per the title.
And if the answer is yes, how do creationists critically examine their own ideas?
It was.I don't believe it at all. However, they are many creationists who believe it is a literal week.
Yes, the moon is reflecting.
Why do you think we would burn?
And the moon is not a light source because the moon is not the SOURCE of the light.
While what you are arguing may be correct from a technical standpoint it is perfectly rational, reasonable and commonplace to think of the moon as a source of light in a colloquial sense. Even in a scientific sense, when we are focused on how we are "using" the light, it would be appropriate to call the moon a source. Example:Yes, the moon is reflecting.
Why do you think we would burn?
And the moon is not a light source because the moon is not the SOURCE of the light.
Are they consistent with God's word? If not, they are wrong.
I don't believe it at all. However, they are many creationists who believe it is a literal week.
How long?
This doesn't alter the underlying peculiarity of Tone's position, but if I correct creationists when I think they are mistaken I have to also correct everyone else when I think they are mistaken.
Huh?
How long was it between the creation of a tree and a man,for instance?
*You would probably substitute "creation" with "appearance".
Did I say that?So everyone agrees on what God's word says?
Incorrect. The sun is the source because the light itself is coming from components of the sun.
As I said, many creationists believe that the "creation week" was a literal week. In other words, all life was created in the span of a few literal days.
For the record, I don't believe any of that.
So how long do you believe it was?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?