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...

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. 🤷‍♂️

I'm not here to argue, especially with the likes of you. Oh. That's the reason, is it? You know what it is, therefore that is not it. You know, it took me a few goes to parse your opening sentence. This one — I'm not even going to try.

What? What argument? You don't know what "right" means.

See? You think Stacy Abrahams and Hilary Clinton are "far right." You have no idea what simple words mean.

1. You have no idea what the far right is. 2. You can't name a single incident even remotely similar to this nonsense done in the name of what is right and good.