Search results

Yes! Score.

LOL. Yeah. And then: "But HOW did He do it?" "He spoke." :| It's like these people can't read. ;)

We have bubble milk tea and semiconductors.

Yeah, there is definitely a point at which the only rational response is "God did it." However, wee haven't gotten there yet with the starlight problem I don't think. :)

Because your wording makes no sense. There does not have to be a "fixed point" of light to have a shadow. There just has to be a general direction from which the light arrives.

I haven't read a satisfying answer to the distant starlight problem, and the CMB origin is the end point of the discussion. I don't know the answers. All I can do is put forward ideas that might lead somewhere if we get some rational pushback on them. On what is the CMB's source: There are two...

An excellent question! See? There are challenges out there for us! All it takes is a little thinking about the implications of our ideas and suppression of the instinct to simply dismiss them out of hand. However, the answer has already been hinted at. The universe had not been stretched when...

A fundamentalist is justified in not sticking to the literal meaning.

It's a perhaps poetic description of what happened, which is very different from what the Darwinists want, ie, a complete reversal of meaning. The "gathering of water" is simply an example of the literary style that accurately describes what happened. It's not "an allegory" that means something...

I think you've read something you don't quite understand. When evolutionists say that 99 percent of things have died, they are referring to the extinction of species, not the total number of animals that are alive.

Where do you get that idea?

I think this is a "she" we're talking to, no? The "99 percent" idea I thought was a reference to the number of species that are found in the fossil record that are not around today.

The 99 percent idea does not fit the Biblical description of what happened. You're taking an evolutionist's assumptions and insisting that we have to work with them. We have mutually exclusive assumptions. What?

It looks as if you haven't done any thinking about what has been presented.

It explains why they are all gone and why Darwinists are so confused about where they came from. ;)

Not exactly. If there is good reason to believe that a phrase is actually meant allegorically and should not be read literally, the fundamentalist would accept the inferred meaning and reject the wooden one. The problem is that Darwinists never produce good reason and all the good reason in the...

My theory is that they tasted like chicken.

You'll have to vote more next time. :)

No. But likewise it is not fact just because Wiki prints it.