Search results

"It's allegorical"? That's your reason for why "six days" cannot mean "six days"? You do realize how utterly inane that is, right?

The Darwinist asserts that Genesis is "allegory." They say that plants could not have survived Day 3 without sunlight. However, even if this were a sensible objection — it's not because plants can thrive after being afloat for a year and go a day in the dark — but even were it halfway coherent...

I don't know. You do know that plants can survive for a day even without sunlight, right? We know your opinion. We're looking for a reason that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

The cosmic microwave background. What reason do you have to back up your assertion that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

I'm confused. :) Why is it a stretch?

It was? What's not plausible?

It describes the poetic structure of Genesis.

Darwinists love it when they can talk about who it is holding an idea or how many people believe it. As long as they never have to provide reasons for their assertions, they feel safe in a conversation.

Check out the link

It has some poetic elements. Repetition, chiasm. A lot of the Bible has literary elements that are often described as poetic. The point is, use of such things does nothing to diminish the accuracy of the plain meaning.

This is the Darwinist's favorite fallacy. I call it the poetry gambit. They are usually not this explicit, preferring to just say "Genesis is poetry" and hoping the implications holds sway that because it is poetry, it cannot mean what it plainly says. Of course an explicit analysis shows that...

I don't think about stuff like that much. If someone wants to talk about something, I just answer their questions and it I think it might be worthwhile, share my opinions. Sharing the gospel would be a distinct thing from a discussion over science, I think. Maybe. Maybe there wouldn't be much...

Anyone who even uses the word "pseudoscience" clearly as no ability to discuss science sensibly.

It's not fatalistic. I just don't see any need to convince people of an idea when they approach it in the wrong mode.

What would I say to convince someone that flood geology is not "pseudoscience"? Probably nothing. I'd simply chalk their position to a political stance.

Language warning. [Timcast IRL] Sunday Uncensored: Ammon Bundy Members Only Podcast 🅴 #timcastIrl https://podcastaddict.com/episode/147199167 via @PodcastAddict

To be fair, Russhia wasn't explicitly advocating her second option.

I initially read that as Biblical "prophesies" and began rereading Ezekiel. :D

You had me right up until "China takes Taiwan." Over my dead body!

OK. 🤷‍♂️