Right Divider
Body part
Where does it say that God created photons on day 1?
How do you know, based on the scripture, that there was no light source on day 1?
toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
How do you know, based on the scripture, that there was no light source on day 1?
God created the earth, space, day and night (Gen 1:1-5).
What is the difference between day and night? Are you that ignorant?
Don't you know God is Light and he doesn't need another source for revealed light to be seen from a human's perspective.
According to Genesis 1:1-17, God created physical light, day, and night before he created any physical object that could produce light.
God is light in the spiritual sense (1 John 1:5), but God created physical light on Day 1 (Gen 1:3-5), prior to creating physical light sources on Day 4 (Gen 1:14-19).
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
False. Not only have you answered none of my questions, you lie by saying that you've answered them. You mistake your nonsensical reactions to my questions, and your stonewalling, as being answers to my questions. You've given no answers to my questions.
Asking Darwin cheerleaders questions that they cannot answer without embarrassing themselves, and against which they opt to stonewall, is always called "playing semantic games" by Darwin cheerleaders. To "play semantic games" is simply to highlight the immense irrationality and stupidity of Darwin cheerleaders' ravings.
Translation: "So here you go ahead and leave me no choice, yet again, but to continue to stonewall against your questions, 7djengo7."
In point of fact, you do not refer to anything, whatsoever, as "evolution"; that's the point. The word, "evolution", is a word that, when written or spoken by Darwin cheerleaders such as yourself, is invariably parroted meaninglessly.
That's why Darwin cheerleaders--as you, yourself, and Arthur Brain, and others--invariably demonstrate that you know you cannot answer questions about the word, "evolution". That's why y'all persistently stonewall against such questions, and then lie by saying you're not stonewalling.
You need to step away from the matrix of scientific hypothesis and believe God.
Right Divider
Body part
So, according to you, physical light exists before any physical object that can produce it exists? That makes no sense at all.
In the future, when the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth....
Rev 21:23 KJV And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Why do you think that God could not light the earth until He created the sun?
Oh well.
Seems like you are trolling your own thread.
Is there something about YEC that makes people into nasty fools?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Maybe you should go back to accusations of "elephant hurling"...
lain: Please refrain from using such a silly term to start with.
You're the one who seems to be claiming that atheists are materialists and plenty of atheists/agnostics are humanists.
And the age of the universe is calculated by methods that aren't simply "multiple assumptions" to start with. Here's a link that describes how and which you probably won't read again but it's all there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
The age of the universe hasn't been rebutted else show where and by who. Otherwise, it's commonly accepted to be billions of years old.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's a consensus because the evidence supports it. That's how scientific theories come about.
Learn something about how the age of the earth is calculated. The link is in the above post of mine and if you can rebut such methods then bring it to the table.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
So, Fritz the housecat's evolution--his evolving--is not Fritz's birth, and it is not Fritz's death. Got it. So, then, what is Fritz's evolving, since it is neither his birth, nor his death? And, when does Fritz evolve? When does Fritz's evolution occur? When does he do his evolving? Before his birth? After his birth? After his death? When?
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Unlike you, I don't make false accusations. I only accuse you of what you are actually doing.Maybe you should go back to accusations of "elephant hurling"...
I claimed that atheists are materialists by the nature of their belief system. If you'd like to prove otherwise, go ahead and try.
Atheists are materialists and humanism as NOTHING to do with anything.
Why do you refuse to discuss radiometric dating?
Back to consensus again.... that's such a common fallacy.
Right Divider
Body part
You certainly like to believe that.
Still mum about radiometric dating I see.
Precisely, it makes no sense at all. But that's what Genesis says.
Good question. What sayeth the scriptures? According to Genesis 1:3-5, God created (physical) light and "saw that it was good," and divided it from darkness. This light could not have been a direct emanation from his being because divine light is uncreated and eternal. Also, God would have no need to observe his own illumination and decide that it was "good," as Gen 1:4 states that God did with physical light.
The light referred to in Rev 21:23 is divine light.
Evolve:
develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
It will occur as in believers will be changed or you could say evolved but not before birth.
Right Divider
Body part
What you wrote made no sense. Genesis is fine.
No kidding.... so this "divine light" couldn't be the light for days 1-3?
There is plenty of evidence against the theory of evolution, and many of the claims put forth by the believers in the theory; however, there is no evidence that the theory is based in reality.
The theory of evolution is a theory that causes errors in thinking, and assumptions about observable science which leads to erroneous conclusions about the natural world.
Like everybody being taught that Wolves and Dogs are a different species.
They can be interbred, and produce viable offspring; yet, so many ignorant believers in the evolutionary faith have a deep belief they are a different species.
This mistaken belief has been perpetuated by media, and kept in the biology books as a fact; though, it's been disproven by observable science.
The belief in evolution causes people to come to false conclusions about the living things on this planet. This is why it's a bad idea to believe an obvious lie.
The theory of evolution is a Religion, along with atheism;
The theory of evolution is created or arranged in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic.
Just like sports at a university uses funds that should be invested in their education and art departments; evolution theory, and the funds used on trying to make a dead horse live, could be better spent on real observable science.
=M=
http://evolutionissues.com/dinosaurs-modern-mammals-birds-coexisted.php
The theory of evolution is a theory that causes errors in thinking, and assumptions about observable science which leads to erroneous conclusions about the natural world.
Like everybody being taught that Wolves and Dogs are a different species.
They can be interbred, and produce viable offspring; yet, so many ignorant believers in the evolutionary faith have a deep belief they are a different species.
This mistaken belief has been perpetuated by media, and kept in the biology books as a fact; though, it's been disproven by observable science.
The belief in evolution causes people to come to false conclusions about the living things on this planet. This is why it's a bad idea to believe an obvious lie.
The theory of evolution is a Religion, along with atheism;
The theory of evolution is created or arranged in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic.
Just like sports at a university uses funds that should be invested in their education and art departments; evolution theory, and the funds used on trying to make a dead horse live, could be better spent on real observable science.
=M=
http://evolutionissues.com/dinosaurs-modern-mammals-birds-coexisted.php
What I told you is what Genesis says: Light was created on Day 1, but light-producing objects were not created until Day 4.
According to Genesis 1:3-5, God created (physical) light and "saw that it was good," and divided it from darkness. This light could not have been a direct emanation from his being because divine light is uncreated and eternal. Also, God would have no need to observe his own illumination and decide that it was "good," as Gen 1:4 states that God did with physical light.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
:AMR:
It's not a case of "like to believe", that's simply how science works. Theories don't come about on a whim or unsupported hypothesis but because of the evidence. End of. If you can't understand that then you've no business criticizing scientific methods at all. Just because a theory may not correspond with your personal beliefs is entirely irrelevant. The theory of evolution stands because of the evidence, like it or not.
Still mum with refuting it or the abundance of methods used to determine age.
Right Divider
Body part
Please demonstrate how the theory of radiometric dating came to be "because of the evidence".
Instead of your constant elephant hurling, start with ONE of those "abundant methods used to determine age": radiometric dating.
Once we destroy that one, we can move on to others.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I've never hurled elephants in my life.
In the secondary definition you could argue that but not the primary.
It helps if you clarify just what you mean by materialist. In common usage it means someone who values material possessions above anything else.
I'm waiting for you to show how it's been invalidated.
Not if you understand how scientific theories come about.